Connect with us

Spread & Containment

The Future of Stadium Capacity Post-Pandemic

The Future of Stadium Capacity Post-Pandemic

Published

on

When SoFi Stadium opened on Sept. 8, the more than $5 billion stadium project was thrust into a sports landscape that no one could have forecasted when ground was broken on the development nearly four years ago.

As the most expensive stadium project to-date, the home of the Los Angeles Chargers and Rams fits that bill. Led by construction firm AECOM, the complex has installed a 5G network and high-speed WiFi throughout. Inside, it holds the “Oculus,” a double-sided videoboard that — at 70,000 square feet of digital LED and 2.2 million pounds — has a 4K HDR display, 80 million pixels and a 260-speaker sound system.

It also boasts an indoor-outdoor design with plazas and an abundance of retail space surrounding it. The stadium’s maximum capacity for NFL games is 70,240, but can seat as many as 100,000 people for bigger events like concerts.

However, for that inaugural game, no fans were allowed in attendance due to the coronavirus pandemic. Both the Chargers and Rams have issued statements saying that no fans will be allowed at SoFi Stadium until further notice because of coronavirus concerns.

For decades, stadium developments have often taken a “bigger is better” approach, adding more and more seats as owners and teams looked to draw in bigger events and concerts, maximizing revenue in the process.

But as the pandemic has wreaked havoc on the sporting industry and raised questions around not only how many fans may look to attend games in the future, but will they at all, the size of future venues is now coming under the microscope.

Jon Niemuth, director of AECOM Sports – Americas, said that he expects grandiose arenas in major markets like SoFi Stadium that are capable of hosting events like the Super Bowl will bounce back to some level of normality. However for others, questions around capacity will likely become an even larger point of discussion.

Niemuth has already noticed that both recently opened and future MLB venues are smaller than their predecessors. The Atlanta Braves’ Truist Park opened in March 2017 with a capacity of 41,149, but has since shrunk to 41,084 — a 17.1% drop from the team’s former stadium’s capacity. The Texas Rangers’ Globe Life Field debuted in May with a capacity of roughly 40,300, a 16.2% decline from its previous field.

The Oakland Athletics have also proposed a new stadium site on the Oakland waterfront at Howard Terminal. They hope to begin construction in 2021 and open the stadium in 2023 to a capacity of 35,000 — a 37.4% decrease from Oakland Coliseum’s maximum capacity of 55,945 fans at baseball games.

Golf Course Architects Think Small With Sport’s Big Costs

As a sign of the times, golf course architects have turned to renovations to be more economically and environmentally friendly.

By /

If not a reduced capacity, Niemuth also sees the possibility of stadium architects and developers buying the same physical real estate — with the hopes of utilizing it for more than just games.

“It’s less about a fixed seat and more about the diversity of experiences that you can create for your fans when they come into a building,” Niemuth said. “It’s either flexible ticketing or more about creating spaces that people can navigate and occupy during a stadium-sports-bar environment, a ticketed event or experience — all kinds of things that promote congregating. I think the reaction to what we’ve seen and what we know caused by the pandemic is those kinds of environments are going to be the hardest ones to recover. You may be able to recover a sports bar atmosphere, but you’re going to do it at a fraction of the capacity.”

Like AECOM, Mortenson has had to handle the loss of live entertainment events caused by the pandemic. The construction firm was readying for the debut of Allegiant Stadium, the new, nearly $2-billion home of the Las Vegas Raiders. It was also in the process of developing Climate Pledge Arena, the future site of the NHL’s Seattle Kraken. 

Logan Gerken, vice president and general manager at Mortenson, has watched the pandemic cancel all of Allegiant Stadium’s inaugural concerts and live events. Instead of holding as many as 72,000 visitors — a 28.7% increase from the Raiders’ previous residence, Oakland Coliseum — the state-of-the-art venue is likely to play out the 2020 NFL season sans fans.

“We definitely prescribe to the philosophy that the in-venue experience is the ‘holy grail’ of fandom, and without that, everything else doesn’t work as efficiently,” Gerken said.

In the marketplace, Gerken still sees significant interest from people looking to return to sporting events. Instead of venues scaling back on capacity, he believes that stadium operators are eyeing other ways to improve the stadium experience for the eventual return of crowds. 

Gerken says that there’s been significant investments made in health, hygiene and cleanliness within Mortenson-built projects. There’s also been increased efforts at focusing on cashless and touchless payments to help ease the ingress and egress process. 

Those advancements, he believes, will prevent any future trend of smaller stadiums. 

“We’re really accelerating a lot of the technology trends and operational trends that have existed for some time,” Gerken said. “Some of the leading organizations are implementing them already, but this is going to cause a more rapid adoption of a lot of those operational approaches and technologies within the venue. I wouldn’t foresee a dramatic shift to the business model, such that it would require smaller buildings. I think it’s going to be an acceleration of a lot of the best practices and latest trends that we’ve been seeing.”

Pete Giorgio, U.S. sports leader at Deloitte, agrees that stadiums shouldn’t start thinking about lowering capacity. At some point, it will again be commonplace to have tens of thousands of people onsite at a sporting event that he thinks will be more enjoyable than in years past.

“There were already a bunch of changes that were happening with stadiums and arenas, and I think those will continue,” Giorgio said. “It’ll be a continuation of a plethora of different options for engaging with the game, whether that be courtside, bars, fantasy areas or other ways to use the facility outside of games. That will continue as well, but I think that will just only continue to — and add to — the need for these types of facilities and arenas moving forward.”

Unlike some MLB teams’ new ballparks, Austin FC might actually be looking to add more seating to their upcoming Austin FC Stadium. Currently at a capacity of 20,500, team president Andy Loughnane has explored the possibility of adding an additional 1,500 seats to Austin FC’s soccer-specific venue. 

Inside NFL’s Bid To Create ‘Safe’ Stadiums During Pandemic

Despite the risk of COVID-19, at least eight NFL teams will admit fans in the coming weeks. But how will teams protect spectators inside their stadiums?

By /

This announcement comes after Austin FC sold out its season-ticket memberships. There are roughly 15,500 season-ticket members for the 2021 season, with more than 44,000 deposits placed. Loughnane also stated that 75% of the stadium will be accounted for by season tickets.

Expected to debut on-schedule ahead of the 2021 MLS season, Loughnane says that the pandemic has not stunted Austin FC Stadium’s construction, which is currently at more than 60% completion. When next spring rolls around, he anticipates nothing out of the ordinary when it comes to welcome fans to Austin FC’s new home. 

“We’re planning on the 100% [fan] model, because that’s the one model we have to plan for it,” Loughnane said. “We can’t underestimate the crowd size and underestimate capacity, especially in a marketplace that has so much demand for major league sports. We’re focused on having 100% capacity in our stadiums next year, and that’s the plan.”

Six months since the NBA became the first U.S. sports league to suspend play due to the COVID-19 outbreak, the outlook now isn’t any less bleak than back in March. As of Sept. 15, more than 6.2 million people in the U.S. have been infected with the coronavirus and at least 200,000 have died, according to a New York Times database.

Leagues have looked to slowly introduce fans back into stadiums. NASCAR and PBR became some of the first U.S. sports properties to do so, a move subsequently followed by MLS, USL and other one-off events like the DraftKings All-American Team Cup in early July.

College football and the NFL are also looking to bring more fans into stadiums. The Dallas Cowboys opened their stadium to more than 21,000 fans during the team’s Week 2 game, the most across the NFL thus far.

Angie Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University, thinks that that’s still too many people to bring together during these challenging times. 

“That’s a lot of people and it’s very, very difficult to maximize risk-reduction behaviors that should prevent transmission,” Rasmussen said. “The best way to prevent transmission in that scenario is to not have a crowd that large at all.”

“I understand that there’s a huge economic impact on not having fans, but at the same time, is that a risk worth taking? Because really, what the liability is, is that you’re going to have a mass transmission or super-spreader event at one of these games,” she said. “Then you’re going to potentially have a lot of fans that become sick by a situation that the team created by inviting all of them into the stadium and encouraging them to basically enjoy football despite the fact that there’s a pandemic of a respiratory virus going on right now.”

Niemuth, like many nationwide, has started viewing the pandemic from a venue perspective in some ways like 9/11. When 9/11 struck New York City, he recalls an immediate reaction by stadiums and venues. There was a spike in security, who were more forceful when dealing with spectators. Many attending sporting events were looking over their shoulders, anxious and uncertain following the attack.

Over time, however, Niemuth witnessed firsthand the pendulum swing back to a side where people were more comfortable and accepting about the changes at sporting events. Past criticisms over the processes and protocols to get into venues — like walking through metal detectors and removing items from one’s pocket — simply became a way of life.

At future games and matches, Niemuth wouldn’t be surprised if visitors are subjected to rapid COVID-19 testing. While temperature screenings are still being fine-tuned, he foresees that being an added part of the fan experience entering an event. 

Venues Face Hurdles To Get Fans Into Seats When Sports Return

Sports will come back – on television first. But when stadiums are given approval to have fans back in the stands, operators will face obstacles to make sure that everyone […]

By and /

However different the future of sports in the U.S. will look, Niemuth believes that the pandemic offers architects and developers an unprecedented opportunity to change their approaches for the betterment of both the industry and its fans.

“A year or two from now, the ability for the sports and entertainment industries to tolerate future outbreaks or health environments is probably going to be greater than it was nine months ago, six months ago,” Niemuth said. “I think there’s going to be more technologies that just are not ready yet, but they will be ready a year from now. There’ll be new things that come along as we understand this better and better every day. That’s where we’ll be, and a couple of years from now, there’ll be something else, and we’ll talk about how we learned from the pandemic to evolve the way we do things.”

The post The Future of Stadium Capacity Post-Pandemic appeared first on Front Office Sports.

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Chronic stress and inflammation linked to societal and environmental impacts in new study

From anxiety about the state of the world to ongoing waves of Covid-19, the stresses we face can seem relentless and even overwhelming. Worse, these stressors…

Published

on

From anxiety about the state of the world to ongoing waves of Covid-19, the stresses we face can seem relentless and even overwhelming. Worse, these stressors can cause chronic inflammation in our bodies. Chronic inflammation is linked to serious conditions such as cardiovascular disease and cancer – and may also affect our thinking and behavior.   

Credit: Image: Vodovotz et al/Frontiers

From anxiety about the state of the world to ongoing waves of Covid-19, the stresses we face can seem relentless and even overwhelming. Worse, these stressors can cause chronic inflammation in our bodies. Chronic inflammation is linked to serious conditions such as cardiovascular disease and cancer – and may also affect our thinking and behavior.   

A new hypothesis published in Frontiers in Science suggests the negative impacts may extend far further.   

“We propose that stress, inflammation, and consequently impaired cognition in individuals can scale up to communities and populations,” explained lead author Prof Yoram Vodovotz of the University of Pittsburgh, USA.

“This could affect the decision-making and behavior of entire societies, impair our cognitive ability to address complex issues like climate change, social unrest, and infectious disease – and ultimately lead to a self-sustaining cycle of societal dysfunction and environmental degradation,” he added.

Bodily inflammation ‘mapped’ in the brain  

One central premise to the hypothesis is an association between chronic inflammation and cognitive dysfunction.  

“The cause of this well-known phenomenon is not currently known,” said Vodovotz. “We propose a mechanism, which we call the ‘central inflammation map’.”    

The authors’ novel idea is that the brain creates its own copy of bodily inflammation. Normally, this inflammation map allows the brain to manage the inflammatory response and promote healing.   

When inflammation is high or chronic, however, the response goes awry and can damage healthy tissues and organs. The authors suggest the inflammation map could similarly harm the brain and impair cognition, emotion, and behavior.   

Accelerated spread of stress and inflammation online   

A second premise is the spread of chronic inflammation from individuals to populations.  

“While inflammation is not contagious per se, it could still spread via the transmission of stress among people,” explained Vodovotz.   

The authors further suggest that stress is being transmitted faster than ever before, through social media and other digital communications.  

“People are constantly bombarded with high levels of distressing information, be it the news, negative online comments, or a feeling of inadequacy when viewing social media feeds,” said Vodovotz. “We hypothesize that this new dimension of human experience, from which it is difficult to escape, is driving stress, chronic inflammation, and cognitive impairment across global societies.”   

Inflammation as a driver of social and planetary disruption  

These ideas shift our view of inflammation as a biological process restricted to an individual. Instead, the authors see it as a multiscale process linking molecular, cellular, and physiological interactions in each of us to altered decision-making and behavior in populations – and ultimately to large-scale societal and environmental impacts.  

“Stress-impaired judgment could explain the chaotic and counter-intuitive responses of large parts of the global population to stressful events such as climate change and the Covid-19 pandemic,” explained Vodovotz.  

“An inability to address these and other stressors may propagate a self-fulfilling sense of pervasive danger, causing further stress, inflammation, and impaired cognition in a runaway, positive feedback loop,” he added.  

The fact that current levels of global stress have not led to widespread societal disorder could indicate an equally strong stabilizing effect from “controllers” such as trust in laws, science, and multinational organizations like the United Nations.   

“However, societal norms and institutions are increasingly being questioned, at times rightly so as relics of a foregone era,” said Prof Paul Verschure of Radboud University, the Netherlands, and a co-author of the article. “The challenge today is how we can ward off a new adversarial era of instability due to global stress caused by a multi-scale combination of geopolitical fragmentation, conflicts, and ecological collapse amplified by existential angst, cognitive overload, and runaway disinformation.”    

Reducing social media exposure as part of the solution  

The authors developed a mathematical model to test their ideas and explore ways to reduce stress and build resilience.  

“Preliminary results highlight the need for interventions at multiple levels and scales,” commented co-author Prof Julia Arciero of Indiana University, USA.  

“While anti-inflammatory drugs are sometimes used to treat medical conditions associated with inflammation, we do not believe these are the whole answer for individuals,” said Dr David Katz, co-author and a specialist in preventive and lifestyle medicine based in the US. “Lifestyle changes such as healthy nutrition, exercise, and reducing exposure to stressful online content could also be important.”  

“The dawning new era of precision and personalized therapeutics could also offer enormous potential,” he added.  

At the societal level, the authors suggest creating calm public spaces and providing education on the norms and institutions that keep our societies stable and functioning.  

“While our ‘inflammation map’ hypothesis and corresponding mathematical model are a start, a coordinated and interdisciplinary research effort is needed to define interventions that would improve the lives of individuals and the resilience of communities to stress. We hope our article stimulates scientists around the world to take up this challenge,” Vodovotz concluded.  

The article is part of the Frontiers in Science multimedia article hub ‘A multiscale map of inflammatory stress’. The hub features a video, an explainer, a version of the article written for kids, and an editorial, viewpoints, and policy outlook from other eminent experts: Prof David Almeida (Penn State University, USA), Prof Pietro Ghezzi (University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Italy), and Dr Ioannis P Androulakis (Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, USA). 


Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Four Years Ago This Week, Freedom Was Torched

Four Years Ago This Week, Freedom Was Torched

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Brownstone Institute,

"Beware the Ides of March,” Shakespeare…

Published

on

Four Years Ago This Week, Freedom Was Torched

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Brownstone Institute,

"Beware the Ides of March,” Shakespeare quotes the soothsayer’s warning Julius Caesar about what turned out to be an impending assassination on March 15. The death of American liberty happened around the same time four years ago, when the orders went out from all levels of government to close all indoor and outdoor venues where people gather. 

It was not quite a law and it was never voted on by anyone. Seemingly out of nowhere, people who the public had largely ignored, the public health bureaucrats, all united to tell the executives in charge – mayors, governors, and the president – that the only way to deal with a respiratory virus was to scrap freedom and the Bill of Rights. 

And they did, not only in the US but all over the world. 

The forced closures in the US began on March 6 when the mayor of Austin, Texas, announced the shutdown of the technology and arts festival South by Southwest. Hundreds of thousands of contracts, of attendees and vendors, were instantly scrapped. The mayor said he was acting on the advice of his health experts and they in turn pointed to the CDC, which in turn pointed to the World Health Organization, which in turn pointed to member states and so on. 

There was no record of Covid in Austin, Texas, that day but they were sure they were doing their part to stop the spread. It was the first deployment of the “Zero Covid” strategy that became, for a time, official US policy, just as in China. 

It was never clear precisely who to blame or who would take responsibility, legal or otherwise. 

This Friday evening press conference in Austin was just the beginning. By the next Thursday evening, the lockdown mania reached a full crescendo. Donald Trump went on nationwide television to announce that everything was under control but that he was stopping all travel in and out of US borders, from Europe, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. American citizens would need to return by Monday or be stuck. 

Americans abroad panicked while spending on tickets home and crowded into international airports with waits up to 8 hours standing shoulder to shoulder. It was the first clear sign: there would be no consistency in the deployment of these edicts. 

There is no historical record of any American president ever issuing global travel restrictions like this without a declaration of war. Until then, and since the age of travel began, every American had taken it for granted that he could buy a ticket and board a plane. That was no longer possible. Very quickly it became even difficult to travel state to state, as most states eventually implemented a two-week quarantine rule. 

The next day, Friday March 13, Broadway closed and New York City began to empty out as any residents who could went to summer homes or out of state. 

On that day, the Trump administration declared the national emergency by invoking the Stafford Act which triggers new powers and resources to the Federal Emergency Management Administration. 

In addition, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a classified document, only to be released to the public months later. The document initiated the lockdowns. It still does not exist on any government website.

The White House Coronavirus Response Task Force, led by the Vice President, will coordinate a whole-of-government approach, including governors, state and local officials, and members of Congress, to develop the best options for the safety, well-being, and health of the American people. HHS is the LFA [Lead Federal Agency] for coordinating the federal response to COVID-19.

Closures were guaranteed:

Recommend significantly limiting public gatherings and cancellation of almost all sporting events, performances, and public and private meetings that cannot be convened by phone. Consider school closures. Issue widespread ‘stay at home’ directives for public and private organizations, with nearly 100% telework for some, although critical public services and infrastructure may need to retain skeleton crews. Law enforcement could shift to focus more on crime prevention, as routine monitoring of storefronts could be important.

In this vision of turnkey totalitarian control of society, the vaccine was pre-approved: “Partner with pharmaceutical industry to produce anti-virals and vaccine.”

The National Security Council was put in charge of policy making. The CDC was just the marketing operation. That’s why it felt like martial law. Without using those words, that’s what was being declared. It even urged information management, with censorship strongly implied.

The timing here is fascinating. This document came out on a Friday. But according to every autobiographical account – from Mike Pence and Scott Gottlieb to Deborah Birx and Jared Kushner – the gathered team did not meet with Trump himself until the weekend of the 14th and 15th, Saturday and Sunday. 

According to their account, this was his first real encounter with the urge that he lock down the whole country. He reluctantly agreed to 15 days to flatten the curve. He announced this on Monday the 16th with the famous line: “All public and private venues where people gather should be closed.”

This makes no sense. The decision had already been made and all enabling documents were already in circulation. 

There are only two possibilities. 

One: the Department of Homeland Security issued this March 13 HHS document without Trump’s knowledge or authority. That seems unlikely. 

Two: Kushner, Birx, Pence, and Gottlieb are lying. They decided on a story and they are sticking to it. 

Trump himself has never explained the timeline or precisely when he decided to greenlight the lockdowns. To this day, he avoids the issue beyond his constant claim that he doesn’t get enough credit for his handling of the pandemic.

With Nixon, the famous question was always what did he know and when did he know it? When it comes to Trump and insofar as concerns Covid lockdowns – unlike the fake allegations of collusion with Russia – we have no investigations. To this day, no one in the corporate media seems even slightly interested in why, how, or when human rights got abolished by bureaucratic edict. 

As part of the lockdowns, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which was and is part of the Department of Homeland Security, as set up in 2018, broke the entire American labor force into essential and nonessential.

They also set up and enforced censorship protocols, which is why it seemed like so few objected. In addition, CISA was tasked with overseeing mail-in ballots. 

Only 8 days into the 15, Trump announced that he wanted to open the country by Easter, which was on April 12. His announcement on March 24 was treated as outrageous and irresponsible by the national press but keep in mind: Easter would already take us beyond the initial two-week lockdown. What seemed to be an opening was an extension of closing. 

This announcement by Trump encouraged Birx and Fauci to ask for an additional 30 days of lockdown, which Trump granted. Even on April 23, Trump told Georgia and Florida, which had made noises about reopening, that “It’s too soon.” He publicly fought with the governor of Georgia, who was first to open his state. 

Before the 15 days was over, Congress passed and the president signed the 880-page CARES Act, which authorized the distribution of $2 trillion to states, businesses, and individuals, thus guaranteeing that lockdowns would continue for the duration. 

There was never a stated exit plan beyond Birx’s public statements that she wanted zero cases of Covid in the country. That was never going to happen. It is very likely that the virus had already been circulating in the US and Canada from October 2019. A famous seroprevalence study by Jay Bhattacharya came out in May 2020 discerning that infections and immunity were already widespread in the California county they examined. 

What that implied was two crucial points: there was zero hope for the Zero Covid mission and this pandemic would end as they all did, through endemicity via exposure, not from a vaccine as such. That was certainly not the message that was being broadcast from Washington. The growing sense at the time was that we all had to sit tight and just wait for the inoculation on which pharmaceutical companies were working. 

By summer 2020, you recall what happened. A restless generation of kids fed up with this stay-at-home nonsense seized on the opportunity to protest racial injustice in the killing of George Floyd. Public health officials approved of these gatherings – unlike protests against lockdowns – on grounds that racism was a virus even more serious than Covid. Some of these protests got out of hand and became violent and destructive. 

Meanwhile, substance abuse rage – the liquor and weed stores never closed – and immune systems were being degraded by lack of normal exposure, exactly as the Bakersfield doctors had predicted. Millions of small businesses had closed. The learning losses from school closures were mounting, as it turned out that Zoom school was near worthless. 

It was about this time that Trump seemed to figure out – thanks to the wise council of Dr. Scott Atlas – that he had been played and started urging states to reopen. But it was strange: he seemed to be less in the position of being a president in charge and more of a public pundit, Tweeting out his wishes until his account was banned. He was unable to put the worms back in the can that he had approved opening. 

By that time, and by all accounts, Trump was convinced that the whole effort was a mistake, that he had been trolled into wrecking the country he promised to make great. It was too late. Mail-in ballots had been widely approved, the country was in shambles, the media and public health bureaucrats were ruling the airwaves, and his final months of the campaign failed even to come to grips with the reality on the ground. 

At the time, many people had predicted that once Biden took office and the vaccine was released, Covid would be declared to have been beaten. But that didn’t happen and mainly for one reason: resistance to the vaccine was more intense than anyone had predicted. The Biden administration attempted to impose mandates on the entire US workforce. Thanks to a Supreme Court ruling, that effort was thwarted but not before HR departments around the country had already implemented them. 

As the months rolled on – and four major cities closed all public accommodations to the unvaccinated, who were being demonized for prolonging the pandemic – it became clear that the vaccine could not and would not stop infection or transmission, which means that this shot could not be classified as a public health benefit. Even as a private benefit, the evidence was mixed. Any protection it provided was short-lived and reports of vaccine injury began to mount. Even now, we cannot gain full clarity on the scale of the problem because essential data and documentation remains classified. 

After four years, we find ourselves in a strange position. We still do not know precisely what unfolded in mid-March 2020: who made what decisions, when, and why. There has been no serious attempt at any high level to provide a clear accounting much less assign blame. 

Not even Tucker Carlson, who reportedly played a crucial role in getting Trump to panic over the virus, will tell us the source of his own information or what his source told him. There have been a series of valuable hearings in the House and Senate but they have received little to no press attention, and none have focus on the lockdown orders themselves. 

The prevailing attitude in public life is just to forget the whole thing. And yet we live now in a country very different from the one we inhabited five years ago. Our media is captured. Social media is widely censored in violation of the First Amendment, a problem being taken up by the Supreme Court this month with no certainty of the outcome. The administrative state that seized control has not given up power. Crime has been normalized. Art and music institutions are on the rocks. Public trust in all official institutions is at rock bottom. We don’t even know if we can trust the elections anymore. 

In the early days of lockdown, Henry Kissinger warned that if the mitigation plan does not go well, the world will find itself set “on fire.” He died in 2023. Meanwhile, the world is indeed on fire. The essential struggle in every country on earth today concerns the battle between the authority and power of permanent administration apparatus of the state – the very one that took total control in lockdowns – and the enlightenment ideal of a government that is responsible to the will of the people and the moral demand for freedom and rights. 

How this struggle turns out is the essential story of our times. 

CODA: I’m embedding a copy of PanCAP Adapted, as annotated by Debbie Lerman. You might need to download the whole thing to see the annotations. If you can help with research, please do.

*  *  *

Jeffrey Tucker is the author of the excellent new book 'Life After Lock-Down'

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/11/2024 - 23:40

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Fauci Deputy Warned Him Against Vaccine Mandates: Email

Fauci Deputy Warned Him Against Vaccine Mandates: Email

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Mandating COVID-19…

Published

on

Fauci Deputy Warned Him Against Vaccine Mandates: Email

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Mandating COVID-19 vaccination was a mistake due to ethical and other concerns, a top government doctor warned Dr. Anthony Fauci after Dr. Fauci promoted mass vaccination.

Coercing or forcing people to take a vaccine can have negative consequences from a biological, sociological, psychological, economical, and ethical standpoint and is not worth the cost even if the vaccine is 100% safe,” Dr. Matthew Memoli, director of the Laboratory of Infectious Diseases clinical studies unit at the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), told Dr. Fauci in an email.

“A more prudent approach that considers these issues would be to focus our efforts on those at high risk of severe disease and death, such as the elderly and obese, and do not push vaccination on the young and healthy any further.”

Dr. Anthony Fauci, ex-director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID. in Washington on Jan. 8, 2024. (Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times)

Employing that strategy would help prevent loss of public trust and political capital, Dr. Memoli said.

The email was sent on July 30, 2021, after Dr. Fauci, director of the NIAID, claimed that communities would be safer if more people received one of the COVID-19 vaccines and that mass vaccination would lead to the end of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“We’re on a really good track now to really crush this outbreak, and the more people we get vaccinated, the more assuredness that we’re going to have that we’re going to be able to do that,” Dr. Fauci said on CNN the month prior.

Dr. Memoli, who has studied influenza vaccination for years, disagreed, telling Dr. Fauci that research in the field has indicated yearly shots sometimes drive the evolution of influenza.

Vaccinating people who have not been infected with COVID-19, he said, could potentially impact the evolution of the virus that causes COVID-19 in unexpected ways.

“At best what we are doing with mandated mass vaccination does nothing and the variants emerge evading immunity anyway as they would have without the vaccine,” Dr. Memoli wrote. “At worst it drives evolution of the virus in a way that is different from nature and possibly detrimental, prolonging the pandemic or causing more morbidity and mortality than it should.”

The vaccination strategy was flawed because it relied on a single antigen, introducing immunity that only lasted for a certain period of time, Dr. Memoli said. When the immunity weakened, the virus was given an opportunity to evolve.

Some other experts, including virologist Geert Vanden Bossche, have offered similar views. Others in the scientific community, such as U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention scientists, say vaccination prevents virus evolution, though the agency has acknowledged it doesn’t have records supporting its position.

Other Messages

Dr. Memoli sent the email to Dr. Fauci and two other top NIAID officials, Drs. Hugh Auchincloss and Clifford Lane. The message was first reported by the Wall Street Journal, though the publication did not publish the message. The Epoch Times obtained the email and 199 other pages of Dr. Memoli’s emails through a Freedom of Information Act request. There were no indications that Dr. Fauci ever responded to Dr. Memoli.

Later in 2021, the NIAID’s parent agency, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), and all other federal government agencies began requiring COVID-19 vaccination, under direction from President Joe Biden.

In other messages, Dr. Memoli said the mandates were unethical and that he was hopeful legal cases brought against the mandates would ultimately let people “make their own healthcare decisions.”

“I am certainly doing everything in my power to influence that,” he wrote on Nov. 2, 2021, to an unknown recipient. Dr. Memoli also disclosed that both he and his wife had applied for exemptions from the mandates imposed by the NIH and his wife’s employer. While her request had been granted, his had not as of yet, Dr. Memoli said. It’s not clear if it ever was.

According to Dr. Memoli, officials had not gone over the bioethics of the mandates. He wrote to the NIH’s Department of Bioethics, pointing out that the protection from the vaccines waned over time, that the shots can cause serious health issues such as myocarditis, or heart inflammation, and that vaccinated people were just as likely to spread COVID-19 as unvaccinated people.

He cited multiple studies in his emails, including one that found a resurgence of COVID-19 cases in a California health care system despite a high rate of vaccination and another that showed transmission rates were similar among the vaccinated and unvaccinated.

Dr. Memoli said he was “particularly interested in the bioethics of a mandate when the vaccine doesn’t have the ability to stop spread of the disease, which is the purpose of the mandate.”

The message led to Dr. Memoli speaking during an NIH event in December 2021, several weeks after he went public with his concerns about mandating vaccines.

“Vaccine mandates should be rare and considered only with a strong justification,” Dr. Memoli said in the debate. He suggested that the justification was not there for COVID-19 vaccines, given their fleeting effectiveness.

Julie Ledgerwood, another NIAID official who also spoke at the event, said that the vaccines were highly effective and that the side effects that had been detected were not significant. She did acknowledge that vaccinated people needed boosters after a period of time.

The NIH, and many other government agencies, removed their mandates in 2023 with the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency.

A request for comment from Dr. Fauci was not returned. Dr. Memoli told The Epoch Times in an email he was “happy to answer any questions you have” but that he needed clearance from the NIAID’s media office. That office then refused to give clearance.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of health policy at Stanford University, said that Dr. Memoli showed bravery when he warned Dr. Fauci against mandates.

“Those mandates have done more to demolish public trust in public health than any single action by public health officials in my professional career, including diminishing public trust in all vaccines.” Dr. Bhattacharya, a frequent critic of the U.S. response to COVID-19, told The Epoch Times via email. “It was risky for Dr. Memoli to speak publicly since he works at the NIH, and the culture of the NIH punishes those who cross powerful scientific bureaucrats like Dr. Fauci or his former boss, Dr. Francis Collins.”

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/11/2024 - 17:40

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending