Washington Post blasts Sotomayor for 'false' COVID claim that 'over 100K' children are in 'serious condition'

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  2 weeks ago  •  17 comments

By:   Talia Kaplan (Fox News)

Washington Post blasts Sotomayor for 'false' COVID claim that 'over 100K' children are in 'serious condition'
The Washington Post slammed Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor over her "false" claim that more than 100,000 children are "in serious condition," many of them on ventilators, because of COVID-19.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T




CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky joined 'Fox News Sunday' to discuss the latest on pediatric hospitalizations, arguing the number of children's cases of COVID-19 is fewer than 3,500.

The Washington Post called out Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Saturday over her "false" claim that more than 100,000 children are "in serious condition," many of them on ventilators, because of COVID-19.

The Washington Post performed what they call "The Pinocchio Test" and gave Sotomayor "four Pinocchios" for her "absurdly high" figure, arguing that "it's important for Supreme Court justices to make rulings based on correct data."

A spokesperson with the Supreme Court did not immediately respond to Fox News' request for comment.

Sotomayor came under withering criticism Friday after she falsely suggested that upwards of 100,000 children in the United States are hospitalized from COVID-19.

U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor arrives for the 59th Presidential Inauguration at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 20, 2021. (Photo by Win McNamee/Pool Photo via AP) (Photo by Win McNamee/Pool Photo via AP)

Sotomayor drastically overstated the number of young people who have fallen severely ill from coronavirus during oral arguments on the Biden administration's mandate on private businesses for employees to be either vaccinated or frequently tested.

"We have hospitals that are almost at full capacity with people severely ill on ventilators. We have over 100,000 children, which we've never had before, in serious condition, many on ventilators," she said.

The Washington Post slammed Sotomayor's claim as "wildly incorrect, assuming she is referring to hospitalizations, given the reference to ventilators."

The newspaper pointed to data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services which showed that as of Jan. 8 there were about 5,000 children hospitalized in a pediatric bed, either with suspected COVID or a confirmed laboratory test and noted that the figure includes patients in observation beds.

"So Sotomayor's number is at least 20 times higher than reality, even before you determine how many are in 'serious condition,'" The Washington Post said. Referencing data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the newspaper also noted that there have been about 83,000 hospital admissions of children confirmed with COVID since Aug. 1, 2020, while pointing out that there are more children hospitalized now than at any point during the pandemic.

Speaking with "Fox News Sunday," CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky noted that currently the number of pediatric hospitalizations due to COVID-19 is less than 3,500.

"While pediatric hospitalizations are rising, they are still about 15-fold less that hospitalizations of our older age demographics," Walensky said on Sunday.

As with prior strains of the virus, younger people are at far less risk than the elderly of severe outcomes from the coronavirus.

The Supreme Court heard arguments Friday in a high-stakes public session to decide whether the U.S. government can begin enforcing sweeping COVID-19vaccine requirements affecting nearly 100 million workers.

A man is tested for COVID-19, at a walk-up testing site run by Nomi Health, Tuesday, Dec. 28, 2021, in downtown Miami. Officials in Miami-Dade County have opened two new coronavirus testing sites and extended hours at Zoo Miami in response to an increased demand. (AP Photo/Rebecca Blackwell)

For nearly four hours, the justices heard oral arguments over federal vaccine and testing rules or businesses with 100 employees or more and on vaccine mandates for health care workers at facilities receiving Medicaid and Medicare funding.

Enforcement of the policies, which were announced in November, has been put on hold pending resolution in the high court.

Sotomayor was nominated by President Obama and has been on the Supreme Court since 2009.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

So is Sotomayor really stupid or does she think we are?

BTW, Bret Baier had to ask Walensky for the actual number numerous times yesterday, The CDC Director was trying to cover for Sotomayer a bit, but in the end she had to give it up!

 
 
 
JaneDoe
Sophomore Silent
1.1  JaneDoe  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 weeks ago
So is Sotomayor really stupid or does she think we are?

She should be ashamed of herself for being so terribly misinformed and putting it on display the way she did. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JaneDoe @1.1    2 weeks ago

Evidently she watches CNN.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.2  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 weeks ago
So is Sotomayor really stupid

i don’t know but her minions that research for her sure are.    Well, probably not stupid but hyper-partisan for sure.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @1.2    2 weeks ago

And she is going to be making a major policy decision!

 
 
 
jw
Freshman Silent
2  jw    2 weeks ago

Since when is it a judges role to offer testimony at a trial, and factually false testimony at that.  A judges role is to listen to the facts as presented, and apply the law and past precedence to those facts, to determine if the law is constitutional.  

She has just offered false testimony  to the body of the Supreme Court of the United states, and should at the minimum be forced to recuse herself for this hearing, as she seems to not have a clue as to what she is talking about.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  jw @2    2 weeks ago

Not a bad idea.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3  Sean Treacy    2 weeks ago

She’s dangerously ignorant and a perfect example of why unelected justices should not act as policy makers.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
4  Greg Jones    2 weeks ago

Not to be outdone, Breyer comes up with an even more stupid whopper.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
4.1  Nowhere Man  replied to  Greg Jones @4    2 weeks ago
Justice Steven Breyer, for one, pointed to “750 million new COVID cases yesterday” — when the entire US population is only half that figure. He also said, “Hospitals are full almost to the point of the maximum,” another wild error: The overall inpatient population isn’t growing.

A sitting justice on the supreme court doesn't know the number of people in the country?... And the common knowledge that positive cases are climbing but hospitalizations have been level and are remaining that way... (although the medical talking heads are hoping they start increasing)

That is unbelievable...

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
4.2  squiggy  replied to  Greg Jones @4    2 weeks ago

AOC later clarified Breyer's comment saying, " He didn't mean all of USA, he was talking only of New York City."

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5  Sean Treacy    2 weeks ago

She also appeared not to understand the concept of the government’s  police powers, which is troubling on a whole other level.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
5.1  Nowhere Man  replied to  Sean Treacy @5    2 weeks ago

yeah, like there is no limit to them...

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Quiet
6  Right Down the Center    2 weeks ago

The fact that she was misinformed of the number is not as concerning as the thought she is using that to determine if there is government overreach in mandating vaccinations.  I would think the number of kids in the hospital would be irrelevant when determining the the legality of such a mandate.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6.1  Tacos!  replied to  Right Down the Center @6    2 weeks ago

The reason I can see it being an issue is the standard of review. If the Court finds it is obligated to employ strict scrutiny, then the government will have to prove there exists a “compelling government interest.” Big case numbers would tend to support that. If 10 kids are in the hospital, the government need to respond is not that great, but 100K sounds very much sweeping and urgent.

Similarly, I know there were some questions about the effectiveness of vaccines. That matters for the other half of Strict Scrutiny, which is that the government action must be narrowly focused to achieve the compelling government interest, using the least restrictive means. There is a strong argument to be made that vaccines satisfy that requirement.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
6.1.1  Nowhere Man  replied to  Tacos! @6.1    2 weeks ago
That matters for the other half of Strict Scrutiny, which is that the government action must be narrowly focused to achieve the compelling government interest, using the least restrictive means. There is a strong argument to be made that vaccines satisfy that requirement.

Yes it does as long as there is no mandate... Mandating it makes it a VERY restrictive means... Mandating vaccines is a VERY BROAD focus and an expansive use of police power...

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6.1.2  Tacos!  replied to  Nowhere Man @6.1.1    2 weeks ago

If there were no mandate, there would be no government action to consider.

Sometimes the least restrictive thing is still very restrictive. Usually, if it weren’t, there wouldn’t be a lawsuit.

 
 

Who is online

Gsquared
Nowhere Man
XXJefferson51


45 visitors