The price of defunding police and other commentary

From the right: The Price of Defunding Police

Democrats who rushed to join the #DefundThePolice drive now realize “that their spineless pandering to the woke mob might for once come at a steep political cost, not to mention a societal cost as well,” note the editors of the Washington Examiner. To backtrack, “Democrats tried to redefine” defunding as just reallocating of funds, but “you cannot redefine away a cliff — you can only fall off of it.” As cities like Seattle and Denver slash police budgets, “crime problems are developing for jurisdictions that took the strongest and most anti-police positions.” These cities are “cutting their own throats, taking enormous risks by sending low-paid rookies with inferior training out into the streets.” For their own party and for the common good, “it would be worth Democrats’ while to disown this terrible idea.”

Business watch: Thank the System for Vaccine

The COVID-19 vaccine rollout “represents one of the most groundbreaking logistical feats in human history,” cheers American Investment Council head Drew Maloney at RealClear Markets. The world launched “the biggest mass-immunization campaign since the eradication of ­polio” less than a year after the pandemic began — the fruit of “constant investments” in the supply chain and public health. Businesses, governments and individuals have sunk enormous “time and resources” into developing “a health-care delivery system capable of responding to a pandemic of this scope.” It’s fresh reason for Americans to support policies that “create an environment that encourages investment and innovation.” After all, “The system is not always perfect, but it is built to do hard things.”

Doc’s view: Horrors of a COVID Ward

At Unherd, Jane Smith, a junior physician in England, gives a tour of the COVID-19 hospital ward where she serves. “The most distressing part” is patients’ “air hunger. You can spot these patients easily, as they grasp the masks to their faces with both hands and gasp visibly for air.” One patient refuses to put his breathing mask on, as it makes him miserable, and he’s tired of the whole struggle to survive the novel virus. “He wants to be left alone,” and “it isn’t illogical for him to want to die peacefully.” Between rounds, “I have to update relatives over the phone, since they are unable to visit. I always put this part off; I almost never have good news to deliver.” After a long shift and a fewer hours’ sleep, she returns to the ward for another day — and another.

Foreign desk: WHO Must Expose China

More than a year after the first reports of COVID-19, “it is time to put an end to China’s ongoing cover-up and to demand increased transparency from both Beijing and WHO,” declares Craig Singleton at The Hill. As the virus spread, World Health Organization leaders praised Xi Jinping’s response, while “privately expressing ­serious reservations among themselves about Beijing’s veracity.” Now China is undermining efforts to send a team of scientists to Wuhan, “deploying its ‘wolf-warrior’ diplomats to denigrate those calling for an independent investigation.” To “ensure that WHO’s final report ­reflects reality . . . government representatives should debrief each scientist immediately after the trip” and “widely share any insights gleaned.” If Beijing gets its way, “we may never learn the truth,” jeopardizing our ability to “move forward.” So “confronting China’s COVID con is a good place to start.”

Health beat: Who’s Helped by Not Testing?

“We will probably be learning a lot less about” newborns suffering from opioid withdrawal, Naomi Schaeffer Riley warns at City Journal. In a new policy, New York City public hospitals won’t “test new or ­expectant mothers for drug use without explicit permission,” because activists claim it worsens “racial disparities in the child-welfare system.” The new rule runs counter to the usual emphasis on prevention: If a drug problem remains unknown, Riley notes, “then no one can help.” The answer may be universal testing: For COVID, “we’ve been told ­repeatedly that cutting back on testing won’t make the problem go away. That logic applies equally to prenatal drug exposure.”

— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board

Share this article:

Source: Read Full Article