Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New York City Weighs Turning Hotels into Hospitals

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 111 posts

Re: New York City Weighs Turning Hotels into Hospitals

#91

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

Teever wrote: post #87
empath75 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're probably not going to be in any position to make demands like that.

The risk of malicious compliance is a tremendous motivator in ensuring that the government upholds their end of a fair and equitable deal in times of crisis. And I know this sounds toxic in times of crisis but it's important that the government maintain some semblance of fair dealing in these times otherwise their proclivity to do otherwise may increase.

How is the hotel owner going to maliciously comply in this scenario?

Re: New York City Weighs Turning Hotels into Hospitals

#92

Post by jedberg »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #91
Teever wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The risk of malicious compliance is a tremendous motivator in ensuring that the government upholds their end of a fair and equitable deal in times of crisis. And I know this sounds toxic in times of crisis but it's important that the government maintain some semblance of fair dealing in these times otherwise their proclivity to do otherwise may increase.

How is the hotel owner going to maliciously comply in this scenario?

"Sorry I need to do critical maintenance we're gonna shut off the power for three days and stop renting rooms".

Re: New York City Weighs Turning Hotels into Hospitals

#93

Post by thephyber »

tlrobinson wrote: post #84
robotnikman wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's one thing I think the Navy will start to do. We will probably begin deploying our ships to coastal cities to provide much needed relief, and I think it was already mentioned that one will be deployed to New York to help out.

On the other hand, do we really want to be exposing the military to the virus in these uncertain times?

I read that the president ordered US hospital ships to be ready near the east and west coasts.

I would argue that getting the military exposed to the virus early during peacetime in a staggered way is exactly what we should do. There can’t be many elderly or immunocompromised stationed on those ships and if the entire ship is exposed once, the ship is more resilient in the future. In a few months, the sailors are then much less likely to suffer from infection in a time of active crisis.

Now the uncertainty is around whether there is the possibility for re-infection or if there are multiple strains which can infect a person who was recently infected with another strain.

Re: New York City Weighs Turning Hotels into Hospitals

#94

Post by thephyber »

jedberg wrote: post #82
empath75 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're probably not going to be in any position to make demands like that.

I don't think they can just take over a hotel without any input from the owner. This is still the US. We do still have some rule of law.

Even “rule of law” in peacetime allows for commandeering of property with Due Process and in times of national security allows for extraordinary measures that are not legal during peacetime.

You may be right if it were peacetime, but the president just announced a War on the Virus and is using the law as if we are at war.

Re: New York City Weighs Turning Hotels into Hospitals

#95

Post by Teever »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #91
Teever wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The risk of malicious compliance is a tremendous motivator in ensuring that the government upholds their end of a fair and equitable deal in times of crisis. And I know this sounds toxic in times of crisis but it's important that the government maintain some semblance of fair dealing in these times otherwise their proclivity to do otherwise may increase.

How is the hotel owner going to maliciously comply in this scenario?

"Yeah with all the stress of this situation I must have forgotten to tell my employees who are working without pay to perform that costly work that you ordered me to with no discussion of renumeration."

Re: New York City Weighs Turning Hotels into Hospitals

#96

Post by matt_the_bass »

joshstrange wrote: post #85
jedberg wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think they can just take over a hotel without any input from the owner. This is still the US. We do still have some rule of law.

IANAL but I'm pretty sure the Defense Production Act [0] (which he invoked today) allows him to do just that. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Production_Act

I usually avoid snark here but: isn’t there someone higher government that owns a bunch of hotels that are not in disrepair in major cities that likely have few if any clients currently?

Re: New York City Weighs Turning Hotels into Hospitals

#97

Post by thephyber »

Teever wrote: post #87
empath75 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're probably not going to be in any position to make demands like that.

The risk of malicious compliance is a tremendous motivator in ensuring that the government upholds their end of a fair and equitable deal in times of crisis. And I know this sounds toxic in times of crisis but it's important that the government maintain some semblance of fair dealing in these times otherwise their proclivity to do otherwise may increase.

Perhaps, but financial analysts predict that the hotel industry will go bankrupt by May without extraordinary intervention. The hotelier can choose not to comply, but that is likely to risk the government at all levels denying support he will imminently need.

Re: New York City Weighs Turning Hotels into Hospitals

#98

Post by thephyber »

PeterisP wrote: post #39
daenz wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the spirit of the idea (keeping them away from others), but other than that, it's not a wise idea: >Keeping all the passengers on board instead of letting them disembark on land is a strategy that can backfire, however, according to experts, because the ventilation systems and close quarters of cruise ships make them ideal places for illness to jump from one person to the next. >“They’re not designed as quaran…

There's no concern for the spread of infection if you designate a facility (no matter if it's a sports hall or a cruise ship) for holding and treating only known patients of a single disease. Yes, they're not suitable for quarantine of possibly infected people - but it seems that we're past that stage, with massive community spread, we're not going to quarantine anyone, we're just going to ask possibly infected peopl…

That’s what I thought initially, but I remember reading that once pneumonia sets in, those infected with COVID-19 are likely to suffer from secondary infections. Not having an inventory of colds and flus to compound on COVID-19 would be a plus.

Re: New York City Weighs Turning Hotels into Hospitals

#99

Post by robotnikman »

thephyber wrote: post #93
tlrobinson wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, do we really want to be exposing the military to the virus in these uncertain times?

I read that the president ordered US hospital ships to be ready near the east and west coasts. I would argue that getting the military exposed to the virus early during peacetime in a staggered way is exactly what we should do. There can’t be many elderly or immunocompromised stationed on those ships and if the entire ship is exposed once, the ship is more resilient in the future. In a few months, the sailors are the…

There's also the fact that Naval ships are built with countermeasures against Nuclear/Biological/Chemical threats in mind, they probably are designed better against a viral threat than a civilian ship, including better air filtration capabilities

Re: New York City Weighs Turning Hotels into Hospitals

#100

Post by spease »

jedberg wrote: post #64

There was a guy on here a few days ago who owns some hotels. He said he would be fine with this as long as they: paid to move his current customers to his other hotels, cleaned the rooms and returned them to their original condition when they were done, provided safety gear to his employees that would need to keep working, and provide paychecks for his employees that are furloughed. I think. I can't find the comment…

Those seem like reasonable expectations. The first one seems a bit iffy depending on what exactly is meant by “paying to move”.

But if he didn’t list them paying for use of the rooms themselves as a condition, that actually seems like a pretty fair attitude.

Post reply on HN