Coronavirus pandemic

[SEWIGuy]

Of course there can be.  First of all, the CARES Act was a national response to the economic circumstances of the pandemic.

But anyway, yes, the federal government cannot mandate business closings, etc.  But it can certainly issue guidance, funding and moral thought leadership to how we approach this.  All of that is lacking right now. 

I never claimed the CDC wasn't issuing guidance.

Yes you did.

I absolutely did not.  If you go back and look at the thread, Brandon says there "will never actually be a national response."  I was pointing out that the CARES Act, funding, and CDC guidance is part of the "national response."

Nope. The unemployment is being caused by the pandemic.  Not your governor.

If a business that would otherwise have stayed open is forced to close by governor's order, and then the owner lays the employees off, then how can you claim their unemployment wasn't caused by the governor?

Because the pandemic is forcing the governor to act.   

[Duke87]

But anyway, yes, the federal government cannot mandate business closings, etc.  But it can certainly issue guidance, funding and moral thought leadership to how we approach this.  All of that is lacking right now. 

What is the CDC, if not an entity of the federal government?  The CDC has issued guidance, no?

Guidance yes, but they cannot issue mandates.  That's either for Congress or for the individual states.

So, the federal government has the authority to take a much more active role in this than they have been. A lot of that authority comes on account of interstate commerce - they could, for example, demand passengers be tested before they're allowed to board airplanes (and I'd say this would be an entirely prudent thing to do). But they haven't, and states don't have the authority to do this, which hampers their ability to fight case importation or forces them to take more draconian measures such as mandatory quarantines instead.

The feds also decided to pull funding for testing, which makes absolutely no sense under the circumstances.
This also ties into something else the feds could and should be doing but aren't: providing cash infusions to the general funds of state and local governments in order to make up for tax revenue shortfalls. State and local governments can't run deficits, so they're under fiscal pressure to get businesses to reopen regardless of whether it is advisable to do so (see for example the debacle with Disney World). This pressure could be relieved if the feds (who can run deficits) chipped in to help out, but they won't, because the current administration likes that there is that pressure to reopen and wants to maintain it.

[kphoger]

Of course there can be.  First of all, the CARES Act was a national response to the economic circumstances of the pandemic.

But anyway, yes, the federal government cannot mandate business closings, etc.  But it can certainly issue guidance, funding and moral thought leadership to how we approach this.  All of that is lacking right now. 

I never claimed the CDC wasn't issuing guidance.

Yes you did.

I absolutely did not.  If you go back and look at the thread, Brandon says there "will never actually be a national response."  I was pointing out that the CARES Act, funding, and CDC guidance is part of the "national response."

I read the plain text on the screen, as highlighted in bold.  You said guidance from the federal government is lacking.

Nope. The unemployment is being caused by the pandemic.  Not your governor.

If a business that would otherwise have stayed open is forced to close by governor's order, and then the owner lays the employees off, then how can you claim their unemployment wasn't caused by the governor?

Because the pandemic is forcing the governor to act.   

That claim cannot be made if another state's governor did not order the same type of business to be shut down.

[kphoger]

So, the federal government has the authority to take a much more active role in this than they have been. A lot of that authority comes on account of interstate commerce - they could, for example, demand passengers be tested before they're allowed to board airplanes (and I'd say this would be an entirely prudent thing to do). But they haven't, and states don't have the authority to do this, which hampers their ability to fight case importation or forces them to take more draconian measures such as mandatory quarantines instead.

How would that work, absent kits that return instant results?

[SEWIGuy]

Of course there can be.  First of all, the CARES Act was a national response to the economic circumstances of the pandemic.

But anyway, yes, the federal government cannot mandate business closings, etc.  But it can certainly issue guidance, funding and moral thought leadership to how we approach this.  All of that is lacking right now. 

I never claimed the CDC wasn't issuing guidance.

Yes you did.

I absolutely did not.  If you go back and look at the thread, Brandon says there "will never actually be a national response."  I was pointing out that the CARES Act, funding, and CDC guidance is part of the "national response."

I read the plain text on the screen, as highlighted in bold.  You said guidance from the federal government is lacking.

One of the definitions of "lacking" is "deficient" or not having enough of something.  For instance, "I find your posts lacking in substance."

Nope. The unemployment is being caused by the pandemic.  Not your governor.

If a business that would otherwise have stayed open is forced to close by governor's order, and then the owner lays the employees off, then how can you claim their unemployment wasn't caused by the governor?

Because the pandemic is forcing the governor to act.   

That claim cannot be made if another state's governor did not order the same type of business to be shut down.

Of course it can.  I just made it.  And really you can't prove my assertion wrong because you have no idea what the situation would be like without those orders.

[paulthemapguy]

We should have had a national response, not every state for themselves.

Yeah, 'cause that would have been effective.   

It would have been effective if we had an effective federal government, like say, New Zealand or Australia, which have no new cases and very few new cases to report, respectively.  More new cases have popped up in the U.S. in July, than Australia has EVER HAD.

We should have had a national response, not every state for themselves.

Name the federal law or relevant clause in the constitution and amendments that allows for it.

Do you or the president need to consult the Constitution every time you take a dump, to see if there's a provision in there that will allow you to do it?  The act of deferring to an archaic document in a frantic search for a moral code to compensate for your lack of one, isn't going to help when the creators of that document had no way of even conceiving of the problem you're trying to solve.  You aren't going to be able to rely on precedent to grapple with the unprecedented.  We needed leadership, and leadership on the federal level is much too interested in undermining the law and subverting our governmental system for the personal gain of plutocrats, to even try and help the American people in a national and global crisis.  This is what happens when you vote based on your hatred of the other, instead of voting based on consideration for the life or death of yourself and others. 

In strange times, we need leadership that's able to think on their feet.  The Constitution wasn't going to help us.  We needed new legislation and new mandates, and the people in charge of those mandates needed to consult with scientific experts and state and federal officials concerning disease control and prevention.

Nope. The unemployment is being caused by the pandemic.  Not your governor.

If a business that would otherwise have stayed open is forced to close by governor's order, and then the owner lays the employees off, then how can you claim their unemployment wasn't caused by the governor?

The way I'd express the situation is that "the unemployment was a result of a response to the pandemic imposed by the governor." That's how I looked at it in the early stages, anyway.  At this point, the unemployment could have been eradicated if we had an effective enough response to containing the virus, and we had a population that wasn't brainwashed into downplaying the reality and urgency of the situation.  Europe, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand are much closer to all going back to work, if they're not there already.  The failure to address coronavirus on the state or federal level (I live in a state that DID address it and impose rigorous enough restrictions) is now what we can look at as the reason we can't get back to normal.  Furthermore, mass unemployment caused by a governor is a small blemish on such a governor's résumé, compared to mass death caused by a governor.  The act of simply saying "governor causes job loss" ignores context and is intellectually dishonest.

[kphoger]

One of the definitions of "lacking" is "deficient" or not having enough of something.  For instance, "I find your posts lacking in substance."

Ah.  Gotcha.  Misunderstanding.

Of course it can.  I just made it.  And really you can't prove my assertion wrong.

I find your post lacking in logical soundness.

Premises

1.  COVID-19 exists in the state.
2.  The governor closed golf courses during COVID-19 in the state.
3.  Only closed golf courses lay off employees.

4.  COVID-19 exists in Illinois.
5.  The Illinois governor closed golf courses during COVID-19.

6.  COVID-19 exists in Iowa.
7.  The Iowa governor did not close golf courses during COVID-19.

8.  Golf course employees are laid off.

1 & 2 & 3 → 8
1 & ¬2 & 3 → ¬8

Illinois
4 → 1
5 → 2
3
8

Iowa
6 → 1
7 → ¬2
3
¬8

[RobbieL2415]

Nice try.  The fact is our national response has been a disaster.  Explaining away these number is ridiculous.

When one considers that each state is responsible for the response, it will never actually be a "national" response.

We should have had a national response, not every state for themselves.

Name the federal law or relevant clause in the constitution and amendments that allows for it.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare,

The Preamble is a statement of purpose, not an actual law.
The Constitution only instructs the Federal government to ensure the States are given a Republic form of government and defended by enemies in times of war.

[RobbieL2415]

We should have had a national response, not every state for themselves.

Yeah, 'cause that would have been effective.   

It would have been effective if we had an effective federal government, like say, New Zealand or Australia, which have no new cases and very few new cases to report, respectively.  More new cases have popped up in the U.S. in July, than Australia has EVER HAD.

We should have had a national response, not every state for themselves.

Name the federal law or relevant clause in the constitution and amendments that allows for it.

Do you or the president need to consult the Constitution every time you take a dump, to see if there's a provision in there that will allow you to do it?  The act of deferring to an archaic document in a frantic search for a moral code to compensate for your lack of one, isn't going to help when the creators of that document had no way of even conceiving of the problem you're trying to solve.  You aren't going to be able to rely on precedent to grapple with the unprecedented.  We needed leadership, and leadership on the federal level is much too interested in undermining the law and subverting our governmental system for the personal gain of plutocrats, to even try and help the American people in a national and global crisis.  This is what happens when you vote based on your hatred of the other, instead of voting based on consideration for the life or death of yourself and others. 

In strange times, we need leadership that's able to think on their feet.  The Constitution wasn't going to help us.  We needed new legislation and new mandates, and the people in charge of those mandates needed to consult with scientific experts and state and federal officials concerning disease control and prevention.

Nope. The unemployment is being caused by the pandemic.  Not your governor.

If a business that would otherwise have stayed open is forced to close by governor's order, and then the owner lays the employees off, then how can you claim their unemployment wasn't caused by the governor?

The way I'd express the situation is that "the unemployment was a result of a response to the pandemic imposed by the governor." That's how I looked at it in the early stages, anyway.  At this point, the unemployment could have been eradicated if we had an effective enough response to containing the virus, and we had a population that wasn't brainwashed into downplaying the reality and urgency of the situation.  Europe, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand are much closer to all going back to work, if they're not there already.  The failure to address coronavirus on the state or federal level (I live in a state that DID address it and impose rigorous enough restrictions) is now what we can look at as the reason we can't get back to normal.  Furthermore, mass unemployment caused by a governor is a small blemish on such a governor's résumé, compared to mass death caused by a governor.  The act of simply saying "governor causes job loss" ignores context and is intellectually dishonest.

Don't go lumping in the whole of the US's response with that of Australia or New Zealand. For the enth time, LOOK AT THE INDIVIDUAL STATES. No other country gives such broad autonomy to geographical regions than does the US.

[J N Winkler]

Nice try.  The fact is our national response has been a disaster.  Explaining away these number is ridiculous.

When one considers that each state is responsible for the response, it will never actually be a "national" response.

We should have had a national response, not every state for themselves.

Name the federal law or relevant clause in the constitution and amendments that allows for it.

Spending Clause.

[formulanone]

Are you willing to take the entire financial risk, to absolve insurance companies for paying any of your bills?  And to absolve the rest of us taxpayers from paying SS, SSI or Medicaid for your kids should you be disabled or killed?

Do you only want to know those answers as they relate to seat belts?  What about riding a bicycle without a helmet?  Smoking cigarettes?  Should people be disallowed to engage in those behaviors unless they're willing to take the entire financial risk of all that jazz?  I don't believe so.

But this was only a side response to formulanone's example of seat belt use or mandates being analogous to...  actually, I'm not entirely clear on that point.  I'm unsure how it's supposed to relate to something.

To explain again a bit more succinctly: lots of things can kill people, we have ways to stop/cure/defend most of them. Add another that has no cure...that was my analogy.

[ixnay]

Has there been any pushback outside the U.S. against the lockdown all these months?  I haven't heard or read of such.

ixnay

[Takumi]

^ I've seen some anti-lockdown protests reported in a few European countries, but they were nowhere nearly as widespread.

[NE2]

Has there been any pushback outside the U.S. against the lockdown all these months?  I haven't heard or read of such.

ixnay

The Brazilian Trump joined a such a protest back in April.

[Eth]

One of the definitions of "lacking" is "deficient" or not having enough of something.  For instance, "I find your posts lacking in substance."

Ah.  Gotcha.  Misunderstanding.

Of course it can.  I just made it.  And really you can't prove my assertion wrong.

I find your post lacking in logical soundness.

Premises

1.  COVID-19 exists in the state.
2.  The governor closed golf courses during COVID-19 in the state.
3.  Only closed golf courses lay off employees.

4.  COVID-19 exists in Illinois.
5.  The Illinois governor closed golf courses during COVID-19.

6.  COVID-19 exists in Iowa.
7.  The Iowa governor did not close golf courses during COVID-19.

8.  Golf course employees are laid off.

1 & 2 & 3 → 8
1 & ¬2 & 3 → ¬8

Illinois
4 → 1
5 → 2
3
8

Iowa
6 → 1
7 → ¬2
3
¬8

I would dispute premise #3 here. While I admit little experience with golf courses specifically, I'm fully aware that in general companies lay off workers all the time without necessarily closing outright.

I also dispute the bolded assertion, unless you're asking me to assume that golf courses can be closed only by gubernatorial edict and not for any other reason (such as, say, a demand crash on account of a pandemic making people scared to leave their homes).

[Duke87]

So, the federal government has the authority to take a much more active role in this than they have been. A lot of that authority comes on account of interstate commerce - they could, for example, demand passengers be tested before they're allowed to board airplanes (and I'd say this would be an entirely prudent thing to do). But they haven't, and states don't have the authority to do this, which hampers their ability to fight case importation or forces them to take more draconian measures such as mandatory quarantines instead.

How would that work, absent kits that return instant results?

Well that's exactly how it would work. Quick tests already exist that can produce results in 15 minutes. Not instant, but fast enough to make it part of the process of clearing security at the airport.

[oscar]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare,

The Preamble is a statement of purpose, not an actual law.

More precisely, the Preamble states what the Founders hoped adoption of the Constitution would do. It does not grant any power or responsibility, over and above what is done in the specific provisions of Articles I-VII and later constitutional amendments.

[kalvado]

So, the federal government has the authority to take a much more active role in this than they have been. A lot of that authority comes on account of interstate commerce - they could, for example, demand passengers be tested before they're allowed to board airplanes (and I'd say this would be an entirely prudent thing to do). But they haven't, and states don't have the authority to do this, which hampers their ability to fight case importation or forces them to take more draconian measures such as mandatory quarantines instead.

How would that work, absent kits that return instant results?

Well that's exactly how it would work. Quick tests already exist that can produce results in 15 minutes. Not instant, but fast enough to make it part of the process of clearing security at the airport.

15 min is a lot - and is there enough of such 15 min kits? And who's paying, btw?

[oscar]

We should have had a national response, not every state for themselves.

Yeah, 'cause that would have been effective.   

That also assumes that the national government is more functional and competent than the states (this is not a partisan comment, the U.S. plainly has had a string of bad Presidents lately, though people might differ on which ones they were). WRT the current crisis, the CDC's initial botch of test kits was not a good start, and highlighted the need for states to try to do better than the Feds. This issue has come up WRT other kinds of disasters, such as with some Gulf Coast states preferring to depend primarily on their own resources for hurricane response, rather than on FEMA (whose "performance" in Hurricane Katrina should also give pause to those who want national responses).

Having states take the lead also is a safeguard against "least common denominator" solutions. As much as Gov. Cuomo was initially harping on the need for a uniform pandemic response, he was fantasizing if he really thought a national response would've even come close to meeting New York's specific needs, rather than accommodating the states that ultimately never even adopted statewide stay-at-home orders. I'm sure he's now glad he was not stuck with uniform mediocrity.

[ozarkman417]

My city council is currently voting on a mandatory mask order. Some nearby cities such as Joplin and Fayetteville have passed similar resolutions.

[Brandon]

For the record, here's Florida's Covid-19 dashboard: https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/96dd742462124fa0b38ddedb9b25e429
https://open-fdoh.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/florida-covid19-case-line-data

[Roadgeekteen]

So, the federal government has the authority to take a much more active role in this than they have been. A lot of that authority comes on account of interstate commerce - they could, for example, demand passengers be tested before they're allowed to board airplanes (and I'd say this would be an entirely prudent thing to do). But they haven't, and states don't have the authority to do this, which hampers their ability to fight case importation or forces them to take more draconian measures such as mandatory quarantines instead.

How would that work, absent kits that return instant results?

Well that's exactly how it would work. Quick tests already exist that can produce results in 15 minutes. Not instant, but fast enough to make it part of the process of clearing security at the airport.

15 min is a lot - and is there enough of such 15 min kits? And who's paying, btw?

I mean airport security lines are already so long, so what is 15 more minutes?

[Max Rockatansky]

So, the federal government has the authority to take a much more active role in this than they have been. A lot of that authority comes on account of interstate commerce - they could, for example, demand passengers be tested before they're allowed to board airplanes (and I'd say this would be an entirely prudent thing to do). But they haven't, and states don't have the authority to do this, which hampers their ability to fight case importation or forces them to take more draconian measures such as mandatory quarantines instead.

How would that work, absent kits that return instant results?

Well that's exactly how it would work. Quick tests already exist that can produce results in 15 minutes. Not instant, but fast enough to make it part of the process of clearing security at the airport.

15 min is a lot - and is there enough of such 15 min kits? And who's paying, btw?

I mean airport security lines are already so long, so what is 15 more minutes?

A lot of people already show up to the airport with barely enough time to make it through standard TSA checkpoints as is. 

[NJRoadfan]

15 min is a lot - and is there enough of such 15 min kits? And who's paying, btw?

Pool testing. You don't have to test 100+ people individually. Divide the entire plane into groups of people and combine their tests. If a batch comes up negative, that group is cleared. The batch that came up positive can be further divided and tested to find who is actually positive.

[Tonytone]

Wear a mask, stop the spread.

Can we all just get this shit over with. We were doing good & we all got too comfortable & ahead of ourselves.


iPhone