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

511–520 of 604 posts

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

#511

Post by bagacrap »

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…

yes, many people agree that there is a covid problem. But they do not agree on what to do about it. This ruling reminds us that we live in a democracy and not an autocracy where decisions are made unilaterally by a single individual.

Postponing this ruling until years down the line would render it meaningless. It's a distinctly unamerican stance you're espousing, as our system of checks and balances is central to our governance and our way of life.

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

#512

Post by ikiris »

asabjorn wrote: post #509
asabjorn wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dr Birx on the coronavirus task force says government is classifying all deaths of patients with coronavirus as 'COVID-19' deaths, regardless of cause. See video-proof in [1]. This is due to the highly unusual CDC guidelines on how to classify coronavirus deaths. This is what parent refers to, and is not a knowledge-free comment. [1] https://nypost.com/2020/04/07/feds-classify-all-coronavirus-...

Can't reply directly to Ikiris: It seems unfair to ask me another question without addressing my reference to Dr Birx statement. She is the one who's credentials this claim rest upon. Edit: reply to Ikiris child comment. Innuendo is not a valid argument against evidence and does not change what Dr Birx said. You have the video of her saying it, so your claim this is some lone voice saying something is not a valid arg…

It's pointless to respond to the statements of anyone supporting Trump in his employ as a primary criteria for his employ is on its face the willingness to say anything he wishes.

More generally, it is not the burden to disprove a lone voice, it is the burden to state that expert consensus is wrong and why, with data. You've done neither and instead relied on single confirming source instead of trying to falsify your position and failing.

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

#513

Post by bagacrap »

djannzjkzxn wrote: post #224
rayiner wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No other city in this country is anywhere close to NYC in terms of density. The R0 for NY is going to be naturally much, much higher. It's absolute lunacy to apply the same measures in Wisconsin as NY.

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

#514

Post by aw1621107 »

cryptonector wrote: post #471
aw1621107 wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Dude. This is literally in Article IV: > "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, ..." Perhaps it’s my imperfect understanding of English here, but to me this reads more like a guarantee to the states that the federal government itself will take the form of a republican government, not that the states themselves must be republics. It’s like a shopkeeper saying…

The Constitution clearly sets up a Republican Form of Government for the Federal Government. Clearly, the Republican Guarantee clause's only meaning would be to limit future Amendments' scope if it were only to apply to the Federal Government. But look at more of the Article: | The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasi…

Perhaps I just don't understand something, but I'm still not seeing anything that would imply any restrictions on the type of government a state chooses to implement. To me, the additional clause you showed just says that the federal government shall protect the states against invasions.

> The Republican Guarantee is a commitment of the Federal Government to the States about the States.

I'm not quite sure where the "about the states" part came from. To me, Article IV just reads like a set of promises the federal government must make to the states.

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

#515

Post by ikiris »

tfehring wrote: post #305
jb775 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The glaring omission here is that this 80 year old with coronavirus could have had stage IV cancer, and pneumonia, and the Bubonic plague, but the official cause of death is being considered "Covid". And considering the 80 year old is probably broke at this point of their medical journey, the hospitals have the option to either get paid nothing, or can claim yet another Covid death so they get the $13k-$39k per-patie…

Pre-existing conditions are not omitted from the 0.5%/month mortality rate. They just aren’t as impactful because most 80 year olds don’t have immediately life threatening medical conditions. For every 80 year old who will die this month from cancer (or Bubonic plague, sure, why not) there are 199 others who won’t. But if those 200 people all have COVID-19, it will kill another 30 of them. Attributing 30 vs. 31 death…

You probably don't want to rely on that last statement. Having worked in the hospital sector, they in fact do and are proud of the fact (I've literally sat in presentations about the software and automation employed to do so as well as all hands meetings touting this as competitive advantage) that they upcode as much as possible without risking jail time to maximize revenue. The existence of all those specialty centers around hospital networks are specifically to support this model as well.

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

#516

Post by bagacrap »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #158
rayiner wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I get that the geography, density, etc. are different, but isn't the point to avoid anything approaching the New York scenario?

No. New York did not run out of hospital capacity. The goal is to approach but not exceed hospital capacity.

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

#517

Post by flyingfences »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #507
nonford150 wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's in the nature of the US as such Rights are part of the first governing document (Constitution). The beginning says it all: "We hold these rights to be self-evident". The US was founded on opportunity, not outcomes (we can talk about all the people who were left out of that but it's a discussion for another time).

We hold these truths (not rights) to be self evident." And it's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

"these truths" being that we are endowed with unalienable rights.

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

#518

Post by bagacrap »

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...

are the active cases at an unmanageable number though? The hospitals are overstaffed and furloughing workers.

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

#519

Post by flyingfences »

vkou wrote: post #473
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> an undemocratically appointed partisan official nullifies legislature passed by democratically elected officials To my knowledge, there was no such legislation. The order was issued by the executive.

The legislature passed a bill that granted this power to the executive in past decades. Partisan judges felt the need to overturn that bill - despite the legislature retaining the power to override the executive, and to repeal that bill - if they could get 66% of the assembly behind it. This is the opposite of a democratic process. The democratic process has checks and balances for dealing with a rogue executive - bu…

> The legislature passed a bill that granted this power to the executive in past decades.

No, the explicit holding in this case is that the executive has not been granted this power by the legislature.

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

#520

Post by pdonis »

ajmurmann wrote: post #157
pdonis wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how does your "if those choices do harm others, we take the consequences" get enforced in practice and doesn't turn into a situation where a few people who don't take care to not infect others will kill millions? By looking at everyone's choices, not just the one person you want to pick on. Suppose Person A is an asymptomatic COVID-19 carrier and doesn't know it. They go to the grocery store without a mask. Person…

That's not how masks work though. Masks mostly protect others, not the wearer. I of course wear a mask on the very rare occasion that I leave the house and rubber gloves and disinfect my hands and everything I touched asap. However, that doesn't give me full protection from the a-hole who almost ran me over at the UPS store the other day who wasn't wearing a mask and was keeping no distance whatsoever. If we all coul…

> Masks mostly protect others, not the wearer.

I disagree. They do both.

> that doesn't give me full protection from the a-hole who almost ran me over at the UPS store the other day who wasn't wearing a mask and was keeping no distance whatsoever

Nothing will give you "full protection" in the sense of guaranteeing that nothing bad will happen to you. But you were a lot better off wearing a mask in the situation you describe than if you hadn't been.

Also, you were wearing a mask, and the other person wasn't. That puts more of the responsibility on him if something bad happens.

Indeed, in what you describe, the issue isn't just that the person wasn't wearing a mask. It is that he took no precautions whatsoever to keep distance, and showed no sign of even being aware that he ought to be taking such precautions. That puts even more of the responsibility on him, since there are other prudent precautions besides wearing a mask that a person is expected to take in a situation like this, and keeping distance is one of them.

Post reply on HN