Coronavirus pandemic

[SEWIGuy]

In addition, one state legislator is pre-filing a bill that would require legislative approval of any state of emergency or related executive orders that last longer than two weeks.

This really is the way it should be.  Executives issue emergency orders in emergency times, but when there's a long-term problem, the legislative body should convene and start gathering information and debating how to proceed.  Emergency orders shouldn't be used until the problem is gone.  Restoring normal government doesn't mean that the problem is over, it just means that the slower part of government has had time to catch up.  We can't treat this like a tornado or a flood, a situation that will be over before the legislature can respond.  This is the world now, and government has to adjust.  In states where the legislature isn't in session and can't convene themselves, the governors should be calling special sessions instead of assuming that rule by decree is good enough until the next session.

A special session won't happen here. The governor is the only Democrat elected on a statewide basis. Both chambers of the legislature have Republican supermajorities. The governor isn't even really talking to legislative leaders about what he's doing, even to the chairs of the interim committees. Here, only the governor can call a special session, and the governor alone sets the agenda. He's hesitant to call a special session to deal with anything regarding this because he knows there would probably be some wiggle room for the legislators to rein him in.

We have a lot of people wondering where the legislature is in dealing with some of his overreaching orders. They don't realize that outside of the session, or outside the scope of interim committees, the legislature is powerless to do anything.

We have a similar situation here in Pennsylvania. The governor is still issuing executive orders like he's the only game in town. There has been virtually 100% opacity in decision-making (including ignoring official FOIA-type requests) and zero consultation with the legislative branch. It's been executive fiat with no representational input.

This is the kind of power our founding fathers were so much against.

Really?  Look up the Alien and Sedition Acts and tell me about how much the founders were against limiting freedoms.

Honestly people who say stuff like this need to understand their history better. 

[GaryV]

Washington's mask order now has some teeth: businesses are now required to kick out anyone who isn't wearing a mask without an appropriate medical reason to not wear one.

Are some people going to present a bogus "appropriate medical reason" to not wear a mask? Are stores going to require a doctor's note? I know you said "some teeth" (my emphasis), perhaps with these issues in mind.

And under HIPAA, are you even allowed to ask what that appropriate medical reason is?

[kalvado]

Washington's mask order now has some teeth: businesses are now required to kick out anyone who isn't wearing a mask without an appropriate medical reason to not wear one.

Are some people going to present a bogus "appropriate medical reason" to not wear a mask? Are stores going to require a doctor's note? I know you said "some teeth" (my emphasis), perhaps with these issues in mind.

And under HIPAA, are you even allowed to ask what that appropriate medical reason is?

Probably nothing beyond simple "i cannot" statement. However, at thaT point one needs to explicitly lie while facing an actual person - a much higher threshold compared to just ignoring messages. And maybe face an offer of free curbside delivery....

[oscar]

Washington's mask order now has some teeth: businesses are now required to kick out anyone who isn't wearing a mask without an appropriate medical reason to not wear one.

Are some people going to present a bogus "appropriate medical reason" to not wear a mask? Are stores going to require a doctor's note? I know you said "some teeth" (my emphasis), perhaps with these issues in mind.

And under HIPAA, are you even allowed to ask what that appropriate medical reason is?

You are allowed to ask for documentation that there is an appropriate medical reason, thus my reference to a doctor's note (which need not specify what exactly is the reason).

[ftballfan]

It's going to be very interesting to see what happens on the Fourth, as many places have had to either cancel or scale back their plans.

Many areas of Michigan cancelled fireworks back in April or May. Also, many areas have a fiscal year that begins on July 1, and removing the fireworks was an easy budget cut.

[Duke87]

That long process is the reason executives have emergency powers, but this situation has been going on for months, and will continue for months more. There's been enough time for legislatures to study and debate. The problem I have with the situation is that they're not even trying (in some states).

They're not even trying because there's no functional purpose to passing legislation that matches what existing executive orders already say. It'd achieve nothing but putting on a show for the sake of procedure. It would also in some cases be politically risky for legislators to go on the record explicitly supporting or opposing specific provisions which may be wise but unpopular with their constituents. Sitting back and letting the executive handle it is a "safe" course of (in)action because the legislator won't suffer any negative consequences at the ballot box for the rules when they didn't make them.

They can, of course, at any time pass legislation overruling any executive orders they don't like - the fact that they are not means they are implicitly approving of what the executive is doing.



In other noteworthy news, both effective July 1st:
- Connecticut has resumed charging 10 cents for disposable grocery bags. So it's back to lugging the grody reusable bags around.
- Residents of MA, RI, CT, NY, and NJ are now exempted from needing to quarantine or get a negative test in order to travel to Maine (VT and NH were already exempted since June 8 and remain so).

[vdeane]

Plus, if the legislature made laws for things like a mask mandate, wouldn't that mean that we'd be more likely to be stuck with them once the pandemic is over?  The governor would just need to issue an executive order repealing the earlier order... the legislature would need to go through the whole process all over again, and you'd definitely have people pontificating about how masks should remain a requirement because they'd also hinder the spread of the flu and the common cold.  For another example, you'd have people arguing that malls should never reopen because Urbanism good, suburbs bad.

Legislatures strike me as a better way to handle permanent things than temporary ones.  Guess what other piece of legislation was sold as temporary?  The Patriot Act.  Theoretically temporary emergency legislation, still here, probably never going away.  So, people who want the legislative branch to be handling these things, be careful what you wish for... you just might get it.

[wxfree]

That long process is the reason executives have emergency powers, but this situation has been going on for months, and will continue for months more. There's been enough time for legislatures to study and debate. The problem I have with the situation is that they're not even trying (in some states).

They're not even trying because there's no functional purpose to passing legislation that matches what existing executive orders already say. It'd achieve nothing but putting on a show for the sake of procedure. It would also in some cases be politically risky for legislators to go on the record explicitly supporting or opposing specific provisions which may be wise but unpopular with their constituents. Sitting back and letting the executive handle it is a "safe" course of (in)action because the legislator won't suffer any negative consequences at the ballot box for the rules when they didn't make them.

They can, of course, at any time pass legislation overruling any executive orders they don't like - the fact that they are not means they are implicitly approving of what the executive is doing.



In other noteworthy news, both effective July 1st:
- Connecticut has resumed charging 10 cents for disposable grocery bags. So it's back to lugging the grody reusable bags around.
- Residents of MA, RI, CT, NY, and NJ are now exempted from needing to quarantine or get a negative test in order to travel to Maine (VT and NH were already exempted since June 8 and remain so).

My objection doesn't apply to every state.  In Texas, the legislature cannot convene outside of a regular session unless the governor calls a special session.  Regular sessions happen only 140 days every other year (and the first 30 of those days they can't pass any bills except on topics declared to be an emergency by the governor).  They have no independent legislative power until February.  I don't believe we should have long-term government by executive order, without the legislature at least having the ability to meet and decide if they approve.  Where the legislature is free to legislate whenever they want, that isn't a problem.

[oscar]

The Maverik gas station/C-store chain in some southwestern states (like the one I shopped at today in southern Utah) have an odd sign at store entrances, telling you not to enter if in the last 24 hours your body temperature has risen above 99F, or fallen below 94F. The first leaves little margin above the normal 98.6F body temperature. But the second seemed pretty weird, since I had not heard of Covid-19 (or any other contagious disease) symptoms including subnormal temperatures, not just fever.

[tidecat]

The Maverik gas station/C-store chain in some southwestern states (like the one I shopped at today in southern Utah) have an odd sign at store entrances, telling you not to enter if in the last 24 hours your body temperature has risen above 99F, or fallen below 94F. The first leaves little margin above the normal 98.6F body temperature. But the second seemed pretty weird, since I had not heard of Covid-19 (or any other contagious disease) symptoms including subnormal temperatures, not just fever.

I have a friend whose husband got it. Her husband was wrapped up in electric blankets and was still struggling to feel warm for well over a day.

[Scott5114]

Plus, if the legislature made laws for things like a mask mandate, wouldn't that mean that we'd be more likely to be stuck with them once the pandemic is over?  The governor would just need to issue an executive order repealing the earlier order... the legislature would need to go through the whole process all over again, and you'd definitely have people pontificating about how masks should remain a requirement because they'd also hinder the spread of the flu and the common cold.  For another example, you'd have people arguing that malls should never reopen because Urbanism good, suburbs bad.

Legislatures strike me as a better way to handle permanent things than temporary ones.  Guess what other piece of legislation was sold as temporary?  The Patriot Act.  Theoretically temporary emergency legislation, still here, probably never going away.  So, people who want the legislative branch to be handling these things, be careful what you wish for... you just might get it.

You could pass a law explicitly granting powers to declare a public health emergency and to require mask-wearing to the Department of Health and/or the Governor. That still gives the power to the executive branch, but it makes it harder to challenge in court.

[kalvado]

The Maverik gas station/C-store chain in some southwestern states (like the one I shopped at today in southern Utah) have an odd sign at store entrances, telling you not to enter if in the last 24 hours your body temperature has risen above 99F, or fallen below 94F. The first leaves little margin above the normal 98.6F body temperature. But the second seemed pretty weird, since I had not heard of Covid-19 (or any other contagious disease) symptoms including subnormal temperatures, not just fever.

They probably feel that zombie apocalypse is coming and try to protect themselves against walking deads?

[J N Winkler]

You could pass a law explicitly granting powers to declare a public health emergency and to require mask-wearing to the Department of Health and/or the Governor. That still gives the power to the executive branch, but it makes it harder to challenge in court.

That is exactly how emergency-management statutes in many states work.  The governor declares an emergency and then gains the ability to make enforceable orders while the emergency is in effect, subject to certain safeguards such as orders sunsetting with the end of the emergency, review by a legislative body (in Kansas, the State Finance Council) required to extend the term of the emergency, and a ban on chaining separate emergency declarations to hang onto enhanced rulemaking powers indefinitely.

It is not a perfect system--when one of Governor Kelly's orders was challenged in Kansas, the state supreme court eventually rendered a decision where one of the concurring opinions noted that it was constitutionally murky for the legislature to devolve lawmaking power onto the executive branch, even temporarily.  But it does allow the executive to respond agilely to an emergency, relying on up-to-the-minute advice in technically complex situations, while providing for a measure of democratic oversight to prevent a Machtergreifung.

There are, to my mind, two main weaknesses.  First, emergency management laws have evolved over time to address situations that are limited in duration (such as tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc.) because those are the most frequently encountered.  Provisions for pandemics are "bolted on" and, as we are finding, they don't square very well with the uncertainties associated with a new and poorly understood disease that has been allowed to escape containment and will be around indefinitely, probably until a vaccine is developed.  And second, any form of emergency response requires cooperation.  If a member of one party is in charge of the response and the other party then slides into a state of reflexive opposition, then it becomes a huge struggle to secure measures that subsequent analysis may well prove to be necessary but not sufficient to contain the pandemic.

Right now, Kansas is under a statewide mandatory mask order issued by the governor.  Under the emergency management statute as it stood at the time the first covid-19 case was confirmed in Kansas, that would be the end of the story.  However, maintaining the pandemic response required the Democratic governor to compromise with the Republican legislature in such a way that counties now have the ability to opt out of statewide orders.  As a result, in Sedgwick County we have just had two huge fights (one in the county commission, the other in the Wichita city council) to secure a mandatory mask order that covers only the part of the county population that lives in Wichita.

[hotdogPi]

Massachusetts is opening Phase 3 (of 4) on Monday. They absolutely should not be doing this. Cases have stopped going down. They're constant or increasing the slightest bit, being nothing like Florida or Arizona, but I expect them to go up pretty soon.

NJ, CT, and NYC appear to have done the same thing; they are now staying steady instead of decreasing like they were before.

[bandit957]

Massachusetts is opening Phase 3 (of 4) on Monday. They absolutely should not be doing this. Cases have stopped going down. They're constant or increasing the slightest bit, being nothing like Florida or Arizona, but I expect them to go up pretty soon.

NJ, CT, and NYC appear to have done the same thing; they are now staying steady instead of decreasing like they were before.

Number of tests have been going way up. Yesterday had by far the most tests of any day so far.

[kphoger]

Right now, Kansas is under a statewide mandatory mask order issued by the governor.  Under the emergency management statute as it stood at the time the first covid-19 case was confirmed in Kansas, that would be the end of the story.  However, maintaining the pandemic response required the Democratic governor to compromise with the Republican legislature in such a way that counties now have the ability to opt out of statewide orders.  As a result, in Sedgwick County we have just had two huge fights (one in the county commission, the other in the Wichita city council) to secure a mandatory mask order that covers only the part of the county population that lives in Wichita.

At this time, I'm only aware of four counties in Kansas that either accepted the governor's mask order or had already written their own mask order.  All of those counties I'm aware of are in the Manhattan—KC area.

My wife and I went grocery shopping yesterday during a strange legal time in which (a) the Kansas governor had issued a statewide mask order, (b) Sedgwick County had opted out of that order, and (c) the Wichita city council was in session deciding whether or not to issue a local city mask order.  Whereas a week ago I estimate that 50% of shoppers were wearing masks, I estimate that 7 out of 8 were wearing them during that time yesterday.  My wife and I wore our masks, not just because of the evolving legal situation but also because we knew grocery shopping on a Friday afternoon the day before July 4 is not a good way to avoid crowded spaces.  We planned on a crowded store in which maintaining proper distancing wouldn't be likely.

What I see in the data right now is that case levels in Kansas began rising sharply immediately upon the implementation of Phase 3.  Because of the exact correspondence of those two things, I suspect people were already letting their guard down during Phase 2.  Here in Sedgwick County, cases began rising sharply about a week or two after the implementation of Phase 3.  My belief is that–at least where you and I live–this is now a more critical time of the outbreak than we've seen so far.  The slope of the line on Aatish Bhatia's tracker is steeper for Kansas now than it had been previously, and so is that on Sedgwick County's dashboard.

We're not alone, either.  Oklahoma and Missouri, just like Kansas, had already flattened the curve and were already on a NY-like downward trend.  Now they, like Kansas, are on a steep upward trend.  Arkansas started that upward trend a month before we did, and it's too soon to tell Nebraska's trajectory.



In Mexican news, 15 states are currently on "Red" level and 17 are on "Orange" level.  While four states recently graduated from red to orange, five others went back from orange to red again–including the state our good friends live in.  They had just decided to head north to Wichita, and then Mexico announced that the Ciudad Acuña and Piedras Negras border crossings would halt anyone coming in from Texas who isn't either a citizen or carrying an official notice from an employer stating they perform essential work in Mexico.  We suspect that order–currently only set to last for two weeks and only applicable to two crossings–may expand.  Now they're not sure that, if they come north, they'll be allowed back south again at the end of the summer.

Plus, if the legislature made laws for things like a mask mandate, wouldn't that mean that we'd be more likely to be stuck with them once the pandemic is over?  The governor would just need to issue an executive order repealing the earlier order... the legislature would need to go through the whole process all over again, and you'd definitely have people pontificating about how masks should remain a requirement because they'd also hinder the spread of the flu and the common cold.  For another example, you'd have people arguing that malls should never reopen because Urbanism good, suburbs bad.

Legislatures strike me as a better way to handle permanent things than temporary ones.  Guess what other piece of legislation was sold as temporary?  The Patriot Act.  Theoretically temporary emergency legislation, still here, probably never going away.  So, people who want the legislative branch to be handling these things, be careful what you wish for... you just might get it.

Before the Kansas governor issued the executive order, various local officials stated the following:

"Our belief now on the surface is we are not seeing anything that we can enforce by law."

"There is no law in the State of Kansas that states that you will/shall wear a mask, therefore there will be absolutely no lawful enforcement within Comanche County."

"It's my understanding that our Sheriff's office has no authority to enforce the order as it stands."

"As with the Governor's previous orders, they are not laws, and they are not enforceable."

Here, at least, infraction is punishable by fine–basically like a lawsuit.  If someone violates the order and the police are called, then they can file a report and send it to the prosecutor.

[Duke87]

NJ, CT, and NYC appear to have done the same thing; they are now staying steady instead of decreasing like they were before.

I mean, there is a floor to how low they physically can go. The closer to zero you get the slower the case counts will drop, even with all else being equal - an Rt<1 will mathematically result in a curve that asymptotically approaches zero.

Connecticut is now finding under 100 new cases/day after having peaked around 1200 in April:

(the gray shaded period at the end represents days from which not all test results have yet been reported)

But has the number actually leveled out or is this just asymptotic behavior? Too early to be quite sure.

Even if it has leveled out though... under 100 new cases/day is totally sustainable as far as healthcare system capacity is concerned, so we can ride this out like this until there's a vaccine.

[MikeTheActuary]

Massachusetts is opening Phase 3 (of 4) on Monday. They absolutely should not be doing this. Cases have stopped going down. They're constant or increasing the slightest bit, being nothing like Florida or Arizona, but I expect them to go up pretty soon.

NJ, CT, and NYC appear to have done the same thing; they are now staying steady instead of decreasing like they were before.

Number of tests have been going way up. Yesterday had by far the most tests of any day so far.

While in many jurisdictions the "cases are up because there's more testing" isn't true (I've been following stats in Tennessee because my next trip to Memphis is dependent on local COVID stats; testing is up, but the new case count is growing faster than the number of tests given; you can see it also in the increase in positivity rates.)...CT seems to be an exception.   

In CT in the most recent week the positivity was 0.8%, while the prior week the positivity rate was 1.4%.  (By comparison, a 10% positivity rate is one of the criteria for qualifying for the CT/NY/NJ quarantine.)

When I went out today (the 4th), I saw a lot of people ignoring social distancing in general, and ignoring masks at yard parties, so I wouldn't be surprised if CT loses ground soon.

[RobbieL2415]

Massachusetts is opening Phase 3 (of 4) on Monday. They absolutely should not be doing this. Cases have stopped going down. They're constant or increasing the slightest bit, being nothing like Florida or Arizona, but I expect them to go up pretty soon.

NJ, CT, and NYC appear to have done the same thing; they are now staying steady instead of decreasing like they were before.

Number of tests have been going way up. Yesterday had by far the most tests of any day so far.

While in many jurisdictions the "cases are up because there's more testing" isn't true (I've been following stats in Tennessee because my next trip to Memphis is dependent on local COVID stats; testing is up, but the new case count is growing faster than the number of tests given; you can see it also in the increase in positivity rates.)...CT seems to be an exception.   

In CT in the most recent week the positivity was 0.8%, while the prior week the positivity rate was 1.4%.  (By comparison, a 10% positivity rate is one of the criteria for qualifying for the CT/NY/NJ quarantine.)

When I went out today (the 4th), I saw a lot of people ignoring social distancing in general, and ignoring masks at yard parties, so I wouldn't be surprised if CT loses ground soon.

I don't believe that outdoor events are the main issue. It's indoors.

[SEWIGuy]

Yes. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/07/it-okay-go-beach/613849/

Keep the beaches open.  Closing them may promote more dangerous behavior.

[kalvado]

Yes. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/07/it-okay-go-beach/613849/

Keep the beaches open.  Closing them may promote more dangerous behavior.

I have a better idea. Distribute some free cocaine. Not doing so  may promote more dangerous behavior.

[Duke87]

Yes. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/07/it-okay-go-beach/613849/

Keep the beaches open.  Closing them may promote more dangerous behavior.

I have a better idea. Distribute some free cocaine. Not doing so  may promote more dangerous behavior.

Using cocaine is far more dangerous than going to the beach.

And ironically enough, closing beaches may promote it if house parties (where drug use can be a thing) are a substitute leisure activity.

When I went out today (the 4th), I saw a lot of people ignoring social distancing in general, and ignoring masks at yard parties, so I wouldn't be surprised if CT loses ground soon.

You don't need masks at a yard party so long as you don't hang out closer than 6 feet from others.

[hotdogPi]

The coast of Georgia and the northern half of Florida's Atlantic coast are getting more cases per capita than inland. I believe it was true for South Carolina a week ago, but I can only see current numbers.

[tradephoric]

According to testing data compiled by Johns Hopkins, there has been a 2.4X increase in positive tests from May 10th to July 4th (21,602 vs. 52,391).  But this 2.4X increase in positive tests can be attributed to a 2.4X increase in daily testing during the same time period (267,961 vs 644,415).  Both May 10th and July 4th data had the same percentage positivity rate of 8.1%.  More testing leads to more positive tests (shocking results!). 


https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/individual-states/usa

Daily tests were averaging around 150k when positive tests in April peaked at 34k.  Today we are testing nearly 650k.  If the same 150k daily tests were being performed today, there would only be around 12k positive tests as opposed to the 52k reported now.  Average daily cases and percentage positive tests have been increasing nationally since June 9th but daily deaths are still on the decline.  It's been nearly a month since this rise in cases started yet we haven't seen so much as a bump in deaths?   The longer we go without seeing a rise in deaths and you begin to question whether the virus is as deadly as it was early on during this pandemic.

[MikeTheActuary]

According to testing data compiled by Johns Hopkins, there has been a 2.4X increase in positive tests from May 10th to July 4th (21,602 vs. 52,391).  But this 2.4X increase in positive tests can be attributed to a 2.4X increase in daily testing during the same time period (267,961 vs 644,415).  Both May 10th and July 4th data had the same percentage positivity rate of 8.1%.  More testing leads to more positive tests (shocking results!).

However, you are looking at data at a national level, when outbreaks are occurring on a local/regional basis.

When you look at national data, you blend what's happening in states like Florida and Connecticut.

In Florida, 7-day running average of tests administered increased by 18.2% for the week ended 4 July.  There was a 48.4% increase in the 7-day running average of new cases over the same timeframe.  The number of new cases grew MUCH faster than the number of new tests, so it is inaccurate in Florida to blame and increase in testing for the increase of cases.  The infection rate is simply getting worse there.

In Connecticut, on the other hand, the 7 day running average of tests administered increased by 124.0% for the week ended 2 July.  There was a 31.1% increase in the 7-day running average of new cases.  So, for Connecticut, it is appropriate to attribute the rate of growth of the case count to the increase of testing AND to observe that since the testing rate grew much faster than the new case rate, the (more tests=more cases) phenomenon masks that the infection rate declined over the period.

It could very well be possible that if you repeat this exercise in the other 54 states/district/territories of the US, you would observe a similar national growth in cases and testing.  However, that statistic would very likely be meaningless due to the loss of information of what's happening in specific parts of the country. 

I would also be careful about picking dates for comparing testing vs new cases.  It looks like "things started changing" in late May/early June, presumably due to fatigue and warm weather causing reduced compliance with pandemic protocols, lag from changes set in motion by states that opened up too quickly, etc. 

Regarding the lack of a change in death rates....that's an interesting one.   I believe the current thinking is that it's a combination of factors:

• We've learned more about the virus and how to treat it, leading to better results
  
• Even though lockdowns have been eased, those susceptible have been less likely to reduce the precautions they take.  (E.g., my father's assisted living facility is tightly locked down for the forseeable future.  My wife and I are maintaining isolation despite improved conditions in CT and reduced restrictions.)
  
• Younger individuals for whom COVID-19 is less fatal are more likely to have reverted to something closer to pre-pandemic behavior due to nature of their work, lifestyle preferences, etc.
  

The emergence of a less-lethal strain of the coronavirus is a possibility (such a kinder, gentler version of the virus has been observed in the Mediterranean region and Middle East), but I haven't seen much literature supporting the idea of that being an explanation for current stats in the US.  Some of the literature I've read on recent mutation has suggested that the primary change occurring in the US is that the virus may be becoming easlier to transmit, if anything....with nothing being said about lethality or the potential for the nastier, longer-lasting non-lethal effects.