2,147 karma · joined March 11, 2015
https://www.cato.org/regulation/fall-2018/peter-navarros-con... Lemieux, Pierre. 2018. Peter Navarro's Conversion. Regulation, Volume 41, Issue 3, pp. 36 - 43
https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/childhood-vaccination-rates...
I think the overall nationwide rate is still above 90%, but 95% vaccination rates are the goal with measles given the extremely high R_0.
But to your last comment, post-Brexit the UK is pretty significantly under-performing the rest of the G7 in terms of goods trades (prior to Brexit the UK seemed to mirror the G7 average).
https://obr.uk/box/how-are-our-brexit-trade-forecast-assumpt...
Interestingly, in terms of Services trade the UK seems to be slightly over-performing.
● Total cases: 607
● Deaths: 2 (both children); maybe a 3rd death in NM but still under investigation as to cause of death
More info from the CDC here: https://www.cdc.gov/measles/data-research/index.html
It would be interesting to know how the growth in cases this year compares to the outbreak in 2019 that previously prompted Trump to insist that children be vaccinated:
“They have to get the shots. The vaccinations are so important. This is really going around now. They have to get their shots,” Trump told CNN’s Joe Johns on Friday when asked what his message is for parents. -- https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/26/politics/donald-trump-measles...
Since you were so kind as to "do the work" for me, I'll also "do the work" for you (LOL!):
● From the text and tables in 3.1 (text from the report included below) I take it we both come to the same conclusion that post-Brexit the EU has lost ~£40 billion in export trade?
● To be clear how I'm getting that number -- NET LOSS in Exports for 2023 vs values cited for period 2017-2019: ~£20 billion to EU + ~£20 billion non EU
Is £40 billion a little or a lot? From the text below that seems to be about a 10% hit on exports.
How much is attributable to Brexit vs other factors (e.g. impact of COVID) really is the domain of forecasting and analysis, which you seem uncomfortable with. So perhaps we'll leave it there. EDIT: For readers who are interested in the performance of forecasting models, the OBR includes an analysis of the performance of their models here: https://obr.uk/box/how-are-our-brexit-trade-forecast-assumpt...
--
From the Parliamentary report "Statistics on UK trade with the EU":
> UK goods exports to the EU have not recovered to pre-Brexit levels. Goods exports to the EU exceeded £170 billion in 2017, 2018 and 2019 but have not done so in any calendar year since and were £153 billion in 2023 (see table below).
> It is worth noting that UK exports of goods to the EU were growing quite slowly before Brexit and the pandemic, being only 9% higher in 2019 than 2010 in real terms
> Goods exports to non-EU countries also remain below pre-Brexit levels. These exceeded £180 billion in 2017, 2018 and 2019 but have been below £170 billion in every calendar year since then. They were £162 billion in 2023.
--
EDITS: added some clarification re: source of export values; wording of text.
● The analysis you link to is exactly the same sort of analysis the OBR provides -- i.e. a synthesis of current and past data and updated projections of what that means looking ahead
● The OBR report links to detailed "Economic and fiscal outlook" (EFO) data that includes the actual data the conclusions are based on. I haven't tried to look at the linked data for many of the analyses in the OBR report, but for those I have I find data in the cited EFO documents that seems to backup the statements made. For example, Box 2.6 of the March 2022 EFO report: https://obr.uk/box/the-latest-evidence-on-the-impact-of-brex...
● I gather that the "Institute of Economic Affairs" (IEA) is a long running right wing think-tank/advocacy group -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Economic_Affairs
● The director of the IEA was apparently recorded by an undercover reporter telling funders that his organization was in "the Brexit influencing game" [1]. Why should I thus trust that the IEA isn't trying to spin Brexit outcomes to their funders advantage? This applies to the government too of course, but many of those OBR/EFO reports seem to have been prepared when the Conservatives were in power.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/29/rightwing-t...
As a non-EU / non-UK reader I went searching for more detailed analysis after reading your post. The first detailed analysis I found was the UK Office for Budget Responsibility's Brexit Analysis. [1]
The OBR's analysis suggests outcomes like the following (all quoted from that assessment) that seem to suggest some degree of negative economic impact:
* The post-Brexit trading relationship between the UK and EU, as set out in the ‘Trade and Cooperation Agreement’ (TCA) that came into effect on 1 January 2021, will reduce long-run productivity by 4 per cent relative to remaining in the EU.
* Both exports and imports will be around 15 per cent lower in the long run than if the UK had remained in the EU.
[1] https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/the-economy-forecast/brexi...
This has been jointly funded by NSF and the investigators home institution (Duke).
Scientific databases, like this, but also many model organism genome databases have already been at risk because maintaining and curating high quality data is often seen as "not sexy enough". Many such resources are being forced to consider subscription models (e.g. [1]) to "keep the lights on". Ironically such resources are in fact critical for modern, high impact science.
This is only going to get worse as the Trumpists and DOGE-ies continue to kneecap NIH, NSF, and other critical parts of our infrastructure.
[1] https://veupathdb.org/veupathdb/app/static-content/subscript...
I see posters on HN trot this out, but I'm yet to see any evidence of this. Can you point to a couple of reliable news sources reporting on this so I can read more for myself?
/s
FDA staff struggle to meet product review deadlines after DOGE layoffs
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...
1. The federal government has already invested hundred of millions of dollars and millions of person years of scientific effort to collect all the valuable data that NOAA, CDC, NIH, the National Weather Service, etc. have collected, curated, and analyzed
2. The DOGE-ies and their ilk are flushing that all down the toilet -- all your investment will now be lost, or at least inaccessible to you or anyone else who might do something useful with it.
The references below focus on Aspergillus, but there are many such example in other fungal pathogens.
[1] Impact of the use of azole fungicides, other than as human medicines, on the development of azole‐resistant Aspergillus spp. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/9200
[2] Celia-Sanchez BN, Mangum B, Gómez Londoño LF, Wang C, Shuman B, Brewer MT, Momany M. Pan-azole- and multi-fungicide-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus is widespread in the United States. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2024 Apr 17;90(4):e0178223. doi: 10.1128/aem.01782-23. Epub 2024 Apr 1. PMID: 38557086; PMCID: PMC11022549.
NOAA, USAID, USDA, CDC, NASA, NIH, etc. all represents hundred of millions of dollars and millions of person years of scientific effort.
The DOGE-ies and their ilk are flushing that all down the toilet. The notion that they're saving the US any money would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.
These all seem like established facts:
* "...bringing the total HHS workforce from 82,000 to 62,000."
* FDA — "..will lose 3,500 employees, about 19 percent of staff"
* NIH — "...is set to lose 1,200 employees, about 6 percent..."
* CDC — "...will lose 2,400 employees, about 18 percent..."
When the article quoted opinions or op-eds it was quite clear and gave citations as to who offered those opinions:
* " In an op-ed Tuesday, Tom Frieden, former CDC director under Obama, called the cuts to the CDC a threat to "America’s health, safety, and economy." "
* " "In a matter of just a couple days, we are losing our nation’s ability to prevent HIV," Carl Schmid, executive director of the HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute, said in a statement. "
We are a country of laws, and there is a separation of powers. We are not ruled by a king.
Title IX is a civil rights law passed by Congress in 1972:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX
If the Trump administration (or the prior Biden administration) wants to contest federal rulings on Title IX regarding trans-gender students they need to contest this via the courts.
Not via juvenile attempts to carry out personal vendettas against state officials who disagree with Trump, and thus also punish the citizenry of such states...
In case it's not clear, this should also apply to universities and law firms and businesses that don't "fall in line" with the ideological propaganda of the current administration.
EDIT: Shortly after this post, I ran across the following article which is also relevant here:
https://newrepublic.com/post/193483/donald-trump-maine-gover...
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00861-2
And the popular press version take:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/apr/02/study-finds-...
I've been eyeing the new Disting NT since it was released. A move towards greater openness is another point in it's favor, though the idea of writing C++ in my "music time" is admittedly not the first thing that comes to mind when I want to do something creative.
I can't help but wonder how the quality of forecasting will be affected by the >1000 jobs cut at the National Weather service (https://www.nprillinois.org/illinois/2025-04-01/weather-expe...) and the reduction in weather balloon launches due to DOGE cuts (https://blog.ucs.org/marc-alessi/with-fewer-weather-balloons...).
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.577...
From pgs. 66-67 of the decision I quote:
" The hurried manner in which the Treasury DOGE Team was granted access to Treasury systems mirrors the rushed manner in which at least some members of the SSA DOGE Team were granted access to SSA systems. See ECF 22-10 (Flick Decl.), ¶¶ 15, 16, 23, 24, 27, 29, 40, 48 (repeatedly referencing the “rushed nature” of the onboarding and training of Bobba and Russo). For example, several members of the SSA DOGE Team were granted access to SSA systems before their background checks were completed or their inter-agency detail agreements were finalized. "