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

Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down stay-at-home order that closed businesses

jsonline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 604 posts

Re: Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down stay-at-home order that closed businesses

#221

Post by joshuahughes »

Strilanc wrote: post #86
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is, if deaths going down isn't the end condition, what is? Surely there has to be some point soon where the legislature gets to determine the laws of the state again.

Well, for example, deaths being down instead of going down. Get the active cases down to a manageable number, then switch to test and trace while gradually opening up as advocated for in The Hammer and the Dance [1]. 1: https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-th...

> Get the active cases down to a manageable number

Isn't this the problem, the world over? That no government has actually baked into their stay-at-home orders what the specific metric is that unlocks the lockdown. People with mouths to feed are justifiably terrified as they see lockdown stretching out in front of them with no clearly defined endpoint, knowing that the keys to that lockdown are held by politicians who are very much detached from the hardship on the ground.

Re: Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down stay-at-home order that closed businesses

#222

Post by masonic »

light_hue_1 wrote: post #181
cryptonector wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonsense. You say that as if the 50 States' legislatures have been wiped out by covid-19 and can't convene (or be convened, as the case may be) and pass laws. In the U.S. executive orders simply don't and can't have the force of law without the support of statutory law, not relative to civilians[0]. If you want a law, it needs to be passed as a statute by the appropriate legislature and must become law via all the us…

Everything about the comment above is totally incorrect when it comes to the law in the US. Just to give you a taste of how wrong this is: the case isn't even about an executive order by a governor! It's about the rulemaking of the Secretary of the Department of Health Services. Not only is the parent wrong, the opinion actually goes out of it's way in the first paragraph to say this! "This case is not about Governor…

  Republicans put their judges in power
Four of the five "conservatives" were elected by Wisconsin voters at large.

Re: Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down stay-at-home order that closed businesses

#223

Post by techsupporter »

roenxi wrote: post #206
sandworm101 wrote: post #128

This is where culture really matters. Almost every jurisdiction in the western world has faced this issue. Governments are issuing orders that, when push comes to shove, might not be 100% legitimate in the eyes of a court. In most countries that hasn't mattered. People acknowledge the covid problem and are obeying the "orders" despite them, perhaps, not having legal teeth. This requires trust. Like the current politi…

> The people don't obey the "orders" nor follow advice. Then they wrap themselves in the flag and actively work against the measures in the name of freedom. That cultural chicken has now come home to roost. That cultural chicken is still a massive net win; I'd still much rather live in America and get coronavirus rather than live in China and get black-bagged someday because of my refusal to take authorities seriousl…

> I'd still much rather live in America and get coronavirus rather than live in China and get black-bagged someday because of my refusal to take authorities seriously.

At the risk of potentially misunderstanding what you meant, there's a yawning chasm between "freedom to die from COVID-19 because public health orders are affronts to liberty" and "extra-judicially kidnapped by one's own government."

I'd much rather live in Sweden or Germany, where people have sufficient trust in their government and a massive social safety net to catch employees who have to be out of work for health reasons--ANY health reasons, but COVID specifically in this instance--and we're able to trust that our fellow residents will act reasonably without forcing others back to work, than in America where the least-powerful and least-well-off of us have the cover of unemployment payments ripped away because some flag-wrapped know-betters demand Golden Corral reopen for buffet service after getting a haircut.

Re: Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down stay-at-home order that closed businesses

#224

Post by djannzjkzxn »

rayiner wrote: post #134
djannzjkzxn wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1 in 400 New Yorkers have died from this in the past 2 months. The flu doesn’t do that.

But we’re talking about Wisconsin, not New York. The death rate in Wisconsin is 1 in 14,000. Flu is about 1 in 4,000-5,000 in a typical year. New York is such an outlier in terms of death rates that it should be a totally separate conversation.

It spread much faster in New York so we got to see the devastation it can cause. Same will eventually happen everywhere else if the measures to slow the spread are lifted. I don’t get why you’d want to exclude the data from New York when it’s our best example of what a full-scale outbreak looks like in the US.

Re: Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down stay-at-home order that closed businesses

#225

Post by AnthonyMouse »

Gene_Parmesan wrote: post #217
AbrahamParangi wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lockdowns-are-destroying-America echo chamber and a republicans-are-killing-people echo chamber. These are probably both mostly wrong, but on the plus side things must be getting better because we're back to tribalism.

Here is what I don't understand. (I seriously don't, and would honestly appreciate some explanations or ideas. And keep in mind I am 100% on board with following any and all recommendations of the CDC.) When we were all sent to sit at home back in March, the word was "flatten the curve." The idea was that containment was no longer an option, as declared by the CDC/WHO. Epidemiologists were predicting that somewhere b…

There is a Presidential election in six months. That means there is a major element of politics in everything that happens between now and then.

The incumbent candidate wants to reopen. Because the election is near, it's especially important for the other side to portray whatever he does as wrong and incompetent and life-threatening. So you then have a major political apparatus pushing the argument that reopening is dangerous and publicizing any instance of any authority saying anything negative about it. They don't benefit from a nuanced or moderate position.

Some of the people you hear pushing this are the partisans themselves, but most of them are just the people who only listen to the media from one side and then repeat what they're told. Meanwhile if you listen to the President the economy is doing great and everything is fine and we'll all be back to normal in a month or two.

The truth is, as always, complicated, and somewhere in the middle.

Re: Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down stay-at-home order that closed businesses

#226

Post by LatteLazy »

Given that the stay at home order is unlawful and democracy has now been restored, I am sure the court will be open today, all judges present and hearing arguments in front of a packed public gallery. I also look forwards to the republicans who brought the case attending the senate building and sitting for extended hours to sort out this issue.

Re: Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down stay-at-home order that closed businesses

#227

Post by aplummer »

dgzl wrote: post #190
sandworm101 wrote: post #128

This is where culture really matters. Almost every jurisdiction in the western world has faced this issue. Governments are issuing orders that, when push comes to shove, might not be 100% legitimate in the eyes of a court. In most countries that hasn't mattered. People acknowledge the covid problem and are obeying the "orders" despite them, perhaps, not having legal teeth. This requires trust. Like the current politi…

>But what about the US? If all government is corrupt, if all taxes are sin, if all leaders on the other side are traitors to the cause, the people will never respect those in charge. >The people don't obey the "orders" nor follow advice. Then they wrap themselves in the flag and actively work against the measures in the name of freedom. I'm strongly against big government, disagree with most R's and D's, will gladly…

This is not true at all. You know people in other western countries are actually significantly more free than in the USA right?

New Zealand is widely regarded as the most free country, and they also don’t have coronavirus.

Re: Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down stay-at-home order that closed businesses

#228

Post by threeseed »

roenxi wrote: post #206
sandworm101 wrote: post #128

This is where culture really matters. Almost every jurisdiction in the western world has faced this issue. Governments are issuing orders that, when push comes to shove, might not be 100% legitimate in the eyes of a court. In most countries that hasn't mattered. People acknowledge the covid problem and are obeying the "orders" despite them, perhaps, not having legal teeth. This requires trust. Like the current politi…

> The people don't obey the "orders" nor follow advice. Then they wrap themselves in the flag and actively work against the measures in the name of freedom. That cultural chicken has now come home to roost. That cultural chicken is still a massive net win; I'd still much rather live in America and get coronavirus rather than live in China and get black-bagged someday because of my refusal to take authorities seriousl…

How about one of the most similar countries to the US ?

Australian deaths per million = 3.92

US deaths per million = 228.5

And the US number is likely to go to 500 in the next two months whilst in some Australia states it looks like COVID-19 is fully eradicated.

Re: Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down stay-at-home order that closed businesses

#229

Post by 9nGQluzmnq3M »

sandworm101 wrote: post #128

This is where culture really matters. Almost every jurisdiction in the western world has faced this issue. Governments are issuing orders that, when push comes to shove, might not be 100% legitimate in the eyes of a court. In most countries that hasn't mattered. People acknowledge the covid problem and are obeying the "orders" despite them, perhaps, not having legal teeth. This requires trust. Like the current politi…

I've heard this broadly expressed as America being focused on (abstract) rights, when most of the rest of the Western world focuses on justice (of outcomes).

A pointed example of this is the criminal justice system, where people in the US have the right to stay silent, talk to a lawyer, etc, but still get screwed sideways with profoundly unjust outcomes due to plea bargaining, mandatory minimums, etc.

Re: Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down stay-at-home order that closed businesses

#230

Post by dgzl »

simonh wrote: post #209
dgzl wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But what about the US? If all government is corrupt, if all taxes are sin, if all leaders on the other side are traitors to the cause, the people will never respect those in charge. >The people don't obey the "orders" nor follow advice. Then they wrap themselves in the flag and actively work against the measures in the name of freedom. I'm strongly against big government, disagree with most R's and D's, will gladly…

Brit here. By and large we have the rights we want. Some rights we have voluntarily abrogated in order to meet what we believe to be more important responsibilities. These are legitimate decisions for a democratic nation to make.

That's a unanimous opinion? You're speaking for all 66M of your citizens?

>Some rights we have voluntarily abrogated in order to meet what we believe to be more important responsibilities

This would be handled by our 10th amendment rights.

So I'm looking for a source of what rights Brits have and it's sort of difficult to understand... This [0] outlines several dates of ratification but I'm not really sure which currently apply. I figure at least these [1] apply but maybe you can give me better information. After looking at some of these articles of rights, I'm not overly impressed, most of these "rights" have asterisks on them. Not to mention how often these say "necessary in a democratic society" when talking about the restrictions, as if they know you're not going to be convinced when reading it.

> Article 10: 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

> 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Notice how the conditions are vague, ambiguous and longer than the right itself? That's going to be a big fat no from me, bob.

An interesting difference with the American Bill of Rights is that it's largely full of implied rights, as it doesn't expressly grant rights to people, rather it's written in the form of "government cannot do xyz".

> Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The end. No asterisks, no vague conditions, no ambiguity.

[0] https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/what-are-human-rights... [1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents

Post reply on HN