Boulder Health Kommissar Rodriguez’ recent mask mandates are political and not necessary to protect public health. The Kommissar recently issued two orders, one to inflict permanent brain damage on small children, the other to coerce vaccination through social division and oppression (the focus of this note). Absurdly, they’ve approved vaxxine super spreader facilities, as well.
Boulder mask mandates are not necessary to public health. How do we know? We know this because the orders flunk strict scrutiny analysis. We’ll demonstrate how using the following provisions of BCPHE PHO 2021-08.
- Purpose. The purpose of this order is to reduce transmission (not deaths, not hospitalizations, not even symptomatic cases). (PHO 2021-08, at 9.)
- Order. This order mandates face coverings in public indoor spaces and on public transportation. (Id., at 9-10.)
- Individuals seated in a food service establishment. (Id.)
- Individuals inside an “Approved Fully Vaccinated Facility” (a county-approved vaxxer-only establishment). (Id. at 11)
Strict scrutiny is a legal analysis that provides a handy tool for analyzing these orders:
- Laws subject to strict scrutiny must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling
- A law is not narrowly tailored if a less restrictive alternative is available.
- A law is not narrowly tailored if it is overinclusive and regulates more than is necessary.
- A law is not narrowly tailored if it is underinclusive and regulates less than is necessary.
(See, Walter, Milliman v. Polis, at 11.)
“Transmission” is not a compelling state interest
Boulder’s orders focus on “transmission” – a metric/measure that is disconnected from illness, hospitalization, and death.
- COVID-19 is no more deadly than a bad flu.
- It kills mainly the elderly and sick (like all epidemics, including the flu).
- The survival rate, even for the elderly, is greater than 99 percent.
No wonder they focus on transmission – no need for more absurd hysterical models. However, focusing on transmission implies a model (a model named “superstition”):
Face coverings reduce “transmission” (based on undocumented hunches).
Worse, Boulder’s order turns on the axle of a transmission metric managed by the same CDC who falsely reported Florida case numbers.
Boulder’s orders are underinclusive
Boulder’s orders are underinclusive and do not advance a compelling government interest.
- Laws that are underinclusive and regulate less than is necessary are not narrowly
- Underinclusiveness can reveal that a law does not actually advance a compelling interest.
- Underinclusiveness raises doubts about whether the government is in fact pursuing the interest it invokes.
Here’s how we know that these orders are underinclusive:
- The orders claim that face coverings are necessary for vaccinated and unvaccinated, alike.
- Yet, the orders make exceptions for persons seated at dining establishments. If individuals pose a risk requiring masks while going to or from their table, they pose a greater risk while seated because exposure duration is greater – but they are exempted.
- Likewise, the orders make exceptions for vaxxed inside an “Approved Fully Vaccinated Facility”. If vaxxed individuals pose a risk requring masks, they pose a greater risk unmasked while congregrated inside what logically becomes an “Approved Super Spreader Facility“.
The exceptions swallow the rule. Underinclusiveness analysis reveals that the government is not pursuing the interest it claims (flattening “transmission”). The goal is clear: coercing vaccination using social division and oppression. (Never mind that global data shows vaccination drives transmission, ever higher).
Boulder’s orders are overinclusive
- These orders are overinclusive because they sweep in more than required: by including both healthy and symptomatic individuals, without regard for risk and effectiveness.
- The vast majority of people (nearly everyone) are healthy, whether vaccinated or asymptomatic. They pose a negligible risk to other people. Face coverings are ineffective in that case (as in substantially all cases).
- These orders are overinclusive because forcing healthy individuals to wear ineffective masks is not required for the interest claimed.
Bottom line, these orders sweep in both too much (overinclusive) and too little (underinclusive). They are not necessary. They are not safe. They are not effective.
Course of action
The courts will surely exercise their proper role protecting our lives and property against the mob (mass psychosis) that gives the authoritarians power.
- When? That depends on you. Irreversible harm is piling up. Maybe act sooner, rather than later.
- Why? The courts are political – just the slowest moving branch. They must see that the time is right for them to act. You must show them.
- How? Take action against the authoritarians. Protest. Boycott. Strike. Harrass. Annoy. (Lawfully.)
The Boulder mob thinks you’re an insect. Be a swarm of insects. What are you waiting for?