Live data from Hacker News

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

jsonline.com

531–540 of 604 posts

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

#531
post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 positi…

> This same debate is happening in every country in the world, including ones that don't have an election in six months. They get CNN in more than 200 countries. > It's a very clear consequence of what the two parties value. So it's normal for the Democrats to be the conservative party banging the "save American lives at all costs" drum and the Republicans to be the ones worried about blue collar workers and people l…

The democrats have always banged that drum on domestic issues, and the republicans have always prioritized businesses over public and worker safety, so, yes?

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

#532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Court did not rewrite or invalidate 252.02. The Court held that the order in this case was a "rule" which means that "the rulemaking procedures of 227.24 were required to be followed". There's nothing about that statement that precludes an order like Emergency Order 28 from coming into force provided that its promulgation follows those rulemaking procedures. There is no rewrite. 252.02 does not exist in a vacuum…

> The Court held that the order in this case was a "rule" 252.02 plainly says that DHS can issue orders or rules "The department may promulgate and enforce rules or issue orders". The court said they can only use rules. They made that up.

Are you saying I incorrectly quoted the decision? Did you read the decision?? It says the order is a rule, not that they can only use rules. It described the rationale for why it has to be considered a rule and not an order given the context. It's all quite reasonable.

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

#533
post #506

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-...

Exactly what kind of death due to covid do you think shouldn't be classified as a covid death, and what are your medical credentials or evidentiary basis to justify such a stance? Even the Fox news comment doctor said it's a reasonable stance, because the examples given about kidney and heart problems which are supposed to seem obviously unrelated to general public are clearly not to someone with medical background.

Follow standard CDC procedure [1] and research cause of death for every death.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/hb_me.pdf

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

#534

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. This is a rather extremist take on the issue. You can be against unlawful orders while still obeying the scientific advisories. Take MA for example, where we have a stay-at-home advi…

They're all "advisories" in practice, though. No state in the US is even remotely taking enforcement seriously, and people are out horsing around everywhere. It's kind of silly to call them "orders" at this point. We're lucky that (for now) the vast majority of Americans are wisely choosing to stay home voluntarily. It's a very small number of jerks out there running around potentially becoming super-spreaders just so they can put on a show of flexing their freedom to go to eat waffles in a handful of open restaurants.

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

#535

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. This is a rather extremist take on the issue. You can be against unlawful orders while still obeying the scientific advisories. Take MA for example, where we have a stay-at-home advi…

They're all "advisories" in practice, though. No state in the US is even remotely taking enforcement seriously, and people are out horsing around everywhere. It's kind of silly to call them "orders" at this point. We're lucky that (for now) the vast majority of Americans are wisely choosing to stay home voluntarily. It's a very small number of jerks out there running around potentially becoming super-spreaders just s…

Yeah the deniers framing this in terms of power dynamics are making the situation vastly worse in every metric.

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

#536
post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A free person does not take orders from the state, nor from anyone. A free person has a right to weigh advice and conscience on his own terms, and negotiate his externalities with society. How do you balance that with another person's right to live? If you as a free person decide "F it, I don't want to stay cooped up despite my positive diagnosis." Is that fair to someone you then infect out in public?

> Is that fair to someone you then infect out in public? Why is it that for all of history this hasn't been an issue for infectious diseases until now?

It's funny you have no clue that the state used to run Tuberculosis sanitariums. Hint the imates didn't have a choice. New York had a sanitarium where they sent people with infectious diseases unless they had a physician to vouch for their care. Public health authorities would quarantine families for scarlet fever. They'd put as a red notice on your door.

All perfectly legal.

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

#537
post #393
post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a really weird conclusion to draw looking at what’s happened globally and in local pockets. Look at Singapore and South Korea — full lockdown and great control, and then outbreaks in places where the lockdown put people in close quarters (immigrant labor in Singapore) orwhen restrictions were lifted (bars in South Korea). Look at Wuhan itself, where it took time to establish a lockdown and contact tracing, the…

The data is here [1], that's [2] Europe's correlation between death rate and restriction and that's [3] worldwide (I didn't collect the data nor did the analysis) [1] https://github.com/ronigold/Covid19-Analysis [2] https://rotter.net/User_files/forum/5ebd03177682d9061.jpg [3] https://rotter.net/User_files/forum/5ebd019c5e89dca42.jpg

Sorry, but there is so much confounding an analysis of this sort that I can take a 30s look at it and blow holes a mile wide through it. For instance, there is no correction in there for density. There is also the fundamental problem of attributing cause and effect -- if the lockdowns reduce transmission, then no correlation in the outcomes could be exactly your goal. Put another way, I'd like NYC to have the same case load per capita as rural Utah. If lockdowns achieve that, you would evidentially tell me that rural Utah, with no lockdown, is the same as NYC and therefore the lockdown was useless. That is not a sound analysis.

The way to do an analysis of this sort is to find very tightly constrained natural experiments. Sweden and Norway (or Sweden and Finland) is an interesting example. Germany and Austria (picking them randomly, I don't know how well-coordinated their lockdown policies are). Or you can pick city twins, like NYC and Mexico City and compare the results each got from their approach.

IOW, in order to say something meaningful about effect of lockdowns, you have to go narrow, not broad.

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

#538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Court held that the order in this case was a "rule" 252.02 plainly says that DHS can issue orders or rules "The department may promulgate and enforce rules or issue orders". The court said they can only use rules. They made that up.

Are you saying I incorrectly quoted the decision? Did you read the decision?? It says the order is a rule, not that they can only use rules. It described the rationale for why it has to be considered a rule and not an order given the context. It's all quite reasonable.

The decision invents a new law that says that DHS cannot issue an order that applies to the whole state, if it applies to the whole state it has to be a rule. Even though 252.02(04) says "Any rule or order may be made applicable to the whole or any specified part of the state, or to any vessel or other conveyance."

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

#539
post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also just anecdotally, here in Ontario people seem to want to avoid catching and spreading the disease, more than to avoid clashing with the law (who can't really tell if you have a legitimate reason to be somewhere anyway); and the people who don't care about one don't care about the other either. For the handful of people I see clearly flaunting the restrictions here, I feel like more often than not they have decen…

> A free person does not take orders from the state, nor from anyone. A free person has a right to weigh advice and conscience on his own terms, and negotiate his externalities with society. How do you balance that with another person's right to live? If you as a free person decide "F it, I don't want to stay cooped up despite my positive diagnosis." Is that fair to someone you then infect out in public?

The idea of living together in a society/city is believing that your neighbour does not wish you ill intent. The question your should ask yourself is if you got it, do you trust yourself to self-quarantine.

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

#540
post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Risk dying. Is the quantity of risk identical to all populations? The answer is no. But people like you never mention this. I'm curious: What is, in your opinion, the trigger for reopening? What metric? Is that metric at a city, county, or state level? I'd like to hear specifics, because I have yet to hear them from the cowardly ass covering politicians who say there is no cost that can be put on a human life. The sa…

> But people like you never mention this. Well ask me something about it and I'll answer it (or tell you if I don't know). There are a million things I haven't mentioned. Just like you. We're not writing dissertations on COVID-19 here. I can only address so many things that I find relevant to the discussion. What are you even expecting me to say about this? Of course the elderly and the vulnerable are worse off. How…

Apologies for my verbiage. I should not have done the "people like you" crap. Wrong and uncalled for.

You are correct. I don't know all of your opinions on this virus response, and shouldn't have characterized it so.

In that note, I certainly don't HOPE to hear anything from experts. I just want to make sure the experts are being consulted on all sides, to better weigh the costs vs. the benefits.

Regarding the NPR article you sent, a rather grim detail that I didn't see addressed in that conversation (but maybe I missed it!!) is how that valuation changes for people when they are near the end of their life.

Is a person's life more "valuable" (putting it in the harsh aspects of policy decision making, that frankly cause me great discomfort) if they are younger, and in prime earning years, than a person in a nursing home who has a rich social life with their grandkids and other patients in their assisted care facility?

It's a horrible thing to try to quantify things that, to me, are objectively valuable, and even sacred. However, our decisions are doing just that, but on the side of people at highest risk vs. others.

I've just come back from my barber after her shop reopened. She's not the owner, just an employee. The visit was very interesting.

I had to wait outside, and a woman (87 years old, but looked MUCH younger) came out of the shop. My son and I both were wearing masks and keeping distant, but we spoke to her and asked how she was. It was her first time leaving her facility since the lockdown, and she told us a good friend of hers had died of the virus. She was a wonderful person to talk to, and had visited my same stylist for years.

My stylist/barber (she is licensed for both in my state) then told me she is leaving the state and moving back to the east coast. Her husband is a mechanic, and they have been financially ruined by this. She applied for benefits right away, but only received them 3 days before the shop was allowed to reopen. She has 3 children, 1 of them special needs. They are good working class people, but they didn't have the savings to weather this shut down, and now have to move in with family on the east coast. Today was my last time seeing her. She'll be gone in 2 weeks.

She expressed frustration at not being able to have the shop opened weeks ago in a controlled manner, with her and the owners radically changing how they operate the business to protect the high-risk populations. She stated that the high cost of housing here also exacerbated the issue, so it's not 100% covid, but the shutdown, she said, was the tipping point. She and her family are all alive, and I'm hoping they do ok on the east coast, but I thought this little visit to the barber shop captured an interesting moment. BTW, when she applied for her unemployment benefits in Colorado, an apalling thing with the legislation: Her tip income, which is 40% of her total, was legally not included with her unemployment payout. So she got a reduced amount of what she normally earns, AND she got it late. Other states probably did a far superior job, but I don't have any ideas if that's the case.

This whole thing is a tragedy, one way or another.

Post reply on HN