Recognizing that their states have one integrated regional economy, New York Governor Cuomo, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf, Delaware Governor John Carney and Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo announced Massachusetts Governor
This is a great idea! So great in fact I hope this coalition eventually grows so that there is one union that represents all of the states. In order to make sure all of the states interests are properly represented at this union meetings they could each elect delegates that ensure no state is left out. However each state has a different population so they could make it like a two pronged thing where in one prong each state gets the same number of delegates and the other prong the number of delegates based on population, we could even name this union something catchy, I personally vote for calling it a federal government!
No! Not until there is a vaccine or treatment! Do we want the plague? Stay home! Don’t open up until we can safely do so! Oh the numbers are down! You know why?! Because we are staying home. I get we need the country to move, but if we all die, there’s no country. Be smart. I want to go back to normal as much as the next person but if we do that before treatment or vaccine, we are basically as bad as folks opening the wet market again. Stay. The. Fuck. Home.
They’re not talking about immediate opening. They’re talking about developing a set of standards that indicate opening. And really, this is about filling a power vacuum that’s been left by the federal government. It’s a fuck you to Trump. They’re taking control of their respective regions and providing actual leadership.
In my town the local shops and restaurants have a ton of business. Almost too much to handle - many have taken a vacation week due to the outpouring of support. They’ve gotten really creative about how to continue providing their products and services.
This is disconcerting. So far the statements we've received have been focused on regional groups setting their own schedules regarding economic recovery, basically preemptively telling Trump's rumored task force to shove it. But we've also witnessed the federal government force states to battle each other for medical supplies on the open market, then swoop in to seize those supplies and distribute them as the feds see fit, often with little or no transparency. How long until these multi-state councils decide that they need to wield their combined economic power as trade blocs in the interest of securing at least some medical supplies for themselves? Because I'm almost certain Trump would retaliate by continuing to seize as many shipments as he can and directing them to his supporters.
Just, holy shit. Our country needs some genuine leadership right now on the federal level.
Fed: Weed is still illegal because it is super dangerous so much worse then both alcohol and smoking mkayy.
Also fed: We should leave this pandemic up to the States they can decide how to handle it.
Takeaway: Either marijuana is really dangerous, or COVID-19 is not as bad as people are making it out to be.
the answer is actually that the Federal government is being inconsistent and irresponsible.
Trump’s idiocy notwithstanding, he has said he would listen to the experts regarding the federal recommendations to lift restrictions. What he will actually do remains to be seen.
I think both groups, the Governors and feds, are targeting May 1 or thereabouts as date to rollback restrictions. Not necessarily eliminate, but crack things open a bit to allow for some commerce and re-employment. There just going about through different messages. One looks measured and well-thought, the other looks like the madman ramblings.
Trump said Easter. He didn't say Easter if it's prudent from a public health perspective. Tell me - who is the public health expert on his reopening task force? He sees this entirely from an economic perspective only.
Because leading with fear causes panic. Like we saw with toilet paper etc.
What do you think the public response would be if the word from the president was “this is really bad. There is no end in sight. There is no hope right now. Stay home and good luck”
That is the message you prefer? Not one of we will get through this? Really?
Stop straw manning that other poster. It’s incredibly rude and disingenuous. You have, I’m pretty sure purposefully, misrepresented his argument on several occasions.
Can’t you make your point without doing that? He never said anything about not providing hope. You have presented a false choice between 2 extreme messages of “were fucked” and “everything is great!!!”.
No. Generally speaking, there is freedom of travel between the states that is recognized as an individual right. A state cannot bar the resident of one state from traveling to or through the state, even in a pandemic. Stories of police stopping only vehicles with out-of-state license plates is likely untrue or reported in an incomplete manner. That would be a clear constitutional violation.
That’s different than what Florida is doing with its checkpoints at the border. Every passenger vehicle including Florida vehicles must stop at the checkpoint. They are asked ‘where are you traveling from?’ If the answer is one of the COVID hotspots, they are required to sign a firm acknowledging the mandatory quarantine. The people are still allowed to travel.
The federal government has used the “commerce clause” of the Constitution to regulate interstate matters. If the federal government wanted to exert force over the states to implement a nationwide shutdown, restrict travel, or to “open the economy” it would have to stretch the commerce clause into a shape it has never taken (an wasn’t intended to take, imo)
You should check out what Delaware has done. They’ve essentially closed the state to nonresidents and have police officers at all of the big nonresident hotspots (Delaware is a no sales tax state, so all of the liquor stores and grocery stores just over the border are oftentimes swamped by nonresidents).
It’s most probably in violation of the commerce clause, but it’s being enforced.
Here’s an article about it https://delawarebusinessnow.com/2020/04/state-police-checkpoint-near-total-wine-home-depot-aims-to-end-influx-of-out-out-state-shoppers/
I was referring to forcing states to open all Jon essential business. Really, noting that the governors are mini presidents of their states. POTUS has no powers, to my understanding, to force a state governor to do what he wants. The governors will decide, by state, if they want to reopen. It can not be forced by the president. I may have misunderstood what OP was looking for.
Edit: I don’t know what Jon essential business is but I certainly meant NON essential:)
Yes, you're correct, he wouldn't be able to force them to open non essential business. He could try to fight it but I doubt he would get very far and ultimately there's no way he could forcibly make them.
A regional group of leaders, representing people in their own local areas, getting together to decide what's better for all their combined areas, instead of letting a far-flung, self-serving politician decide is somehow right?!?!?
We need to have a second wave, and a third and a fourth. But the whole point is to try and keep them small, but as our increased number of ventilators, increased knowledge, maybe a treatment, more testing to contain outbreaks can reduce the mortality.
There was an article called the hammer and the dance in Medium that goes into some details of what it will involve.
We also can't wait 18months for a vaccine though...
Keep the masks and social distancing, maybe skip large social events.
Restaurants are the real sticking point, lot of people in food service industry.
> We also can't wait 18months for a vaccine though...
You say this as though there's a good alternative. There isn't. Last I read, Covid has a 60% infection rate. That means that, if the cashier at your local grocery rings up 50 customers during their shift, he is handling cards and cash from 30 people who either already have it or *will* have it **every shift he works**. If we open everything up without being ready, we end up right back where we started. If a million people die because we opened up too soon, our economy takes a beating anyway because that's a million people who aren't buying groceries, cell phones, cars, and houses. It's lose/lose for the economy, so let's choose the one where our loved ones don't die unnecessarily.
Hopefully, our Universal Basic Income -- the stimulus -- will keep things going.
then you mandate touchless payment, well within our capabilities and already in place at most retailers.
some people will die. sorry, thats the cold truth. we've only committed to flattening the curve to not overwhelm our medical system. To that end, we've succeeded so far, and with every recovery, we improve our immunity and reduce the potential carriers.
Good chance that our actual immune population is orders of magnitude greater than our confirmed cases. I dont think its unreasonable to say that 10+% of our population has probably had covid, especially in densely populated cities. by the time we think about easing the restrictions in another 2-4 weeks, that number might very well be more like 20%+. That should help to temper the spread.
> some people will die.
They already are. You're placing an argument on me that I'm not making. Herd immunity has already been debunked as a reasonable response, so you need to catch up with the science.
The question isn't whether people are going to die or not -- again, they already are. The question is whether people are going to die *needlessly* because we make poor decisions.
source on herd immunity being debunked?
needlessly means different things to different people. we all have levels of acceptable losses. Most people dont have the knowledge and understanding of what the lockdown is costing us either. Its easy to say to extend it indefinitely to minimize loss of life when you have no comprehension of the costs. Which leads to fundamental disconnects in our views on the subject.
Sure, there are plenty.
[Here's one from an epidemiologist](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/15/epidemiologist-britain-herd-immunity-coronavirus-covid-19). Should be all you need to read, but I'll add more.
"Needlessly" in this context means "die because we made stupid decisions." A number of deaths are unavoidable. A number *are* avoidable. We should avoid those.
your link does not dispute herd immunity, only calls out the risks associated with it.
thats obvious, I certainly didnt suggest we all go have a chicken pox party in the mall and rip it off like a bandaid.
But many have gotten infected despite our precautions, and many more will be infected. We cant avoid that, and we cant afford to stay in our houses for the next 18 months while we *hopefully* make a vaccine.
And hence, flatten the curve. the broadly accepted strategy by the bulk of the scientific community, which still states that most of us will suffer through this, some will die, but hopefully everyone is at least able to get the best treatment possible to maximize their chances of survival.
To that end, the more people who become immune, the slower the spread will be even as restrictions are lifted.
I cant model the specifics, but its possible that we are approaching a threshold where we can resume some normalcy without spiking the active infections above what the medical system can handle.
If this goes on for too much longer we are going to need to start having conversations about what the number of "acceptable" deaths is, because this is not sustainable. People gave Trump a lot of shit for saying this, but he's right. The treatment should not be worse than the disease, and we are rapidly heading towards that. Shutting things down for a year and a half would *undoubtedly* be worse than starting to ease up on restrictions.
We are getting towards a breaking point, I feel. My girlfriend's little sister was caught by her parents sneaking out of their house a few days ago because her high school's senior year was cancelled and she misses her friends. My roommate's birthday is at the end of the month and he's started asking me if I would be okay if we had a few friends over to our apartment for some beers and stuff. And honestly, I *am* fine with it. This cannot go on for much longer. We're going to get to a point where people just stop caring about the lockdowns and try to return to "normal" on their own, and that would be well before a vaccine is developed. It sounds horrible but we are going to need to have this conversation sooner or later. If we had lockdowns like this every winter, we would drastically decrease the amount of flu deaths. If we stopped people from driving except for essential reasons, we would drastically decrease the amount of deaths in car accidents. But we do not do these things, because we know that keeping society running is more important. Sure, we could lock things down for 18 months...but at what cost? If we save a million lives, but *ruin* the lives of well over twenty million people, is that "better"? People need to go back to work. Businesses need to function. We are already starting to see businesses fail, and it will only get worse.
What you're suggesting is ridiculous, even on its face. Who decides which deaths are acceptable? I decide you and your family don't get hospital beds, and my family gets ventilators reserved for them. Or let the racists decide that brown people don't get hospital beds. Or, ooh, even better, only people who have enough money get medical care. How's that sound?
It's nice that you're fine with it, but the vast majority of Americans are NOT fine with it. You're the person who isn't taking it seriously enough, and will cause us to be locked down even longer. People interests > business interests. I don't care if Jeff Bezos makes an extra few million dollars. I don't want my parents to die for it.
You're missing my point. It's not just "profit". This *is* about people. Millions upon millions of people are hurting *now*. Locking everyone down for 18 months *is* worse than people dying. Sure, we'll save lives doing it. But what if for every life we save from coronavirus ten people lose their homes because they were laid off, or develop a drug addiction due to the isolation they're experiencing, or commit suicide because of the stress of all of this? If we only cared about saving lives we could lock everyone in a padded room and be done with it. But we don't.
18 months of this is not feasible. People will not stand for it. We are already seeing people start to ignore the current measures and it has only been a month.
\> This cannot go on for much longer
It totally can.
\> start having conversations about what the number of "acceptable" deaths is
The second wave of Spanish Flu was worse than the first but higher than the third. Stand on a country with a mass grave of 10 million people and rethink the word 'acceptable'
Risk catching a fatal illness and pass it to everyone I love for $10/hr? Sign me up!
Unemployment is paying way above and beyond any of these front-line jobs. You can even quit and self-certify that you quit because of Covid and still get unemployment.
> The real question is if people actually want to do that.
No. This is false. Many of these facilities use temps, and the temps get no sick leave and no time off. So if you are sick, you still have to go to work. Even if they do hire their own employees, they're still being forced to come to work because they are essential. Cargill closed its plant in Hazleton, PA, because 130 of its 900 employees tested positive for Covid. My neighbor works for a trucking company that is contracted for a well known grocery store, and he said people are walking off the job because their coworkers are getting sick and are being told to still come to work because they're essential. The healthy employees are just walking off.
So, no, you are wrong about what the real question is. The *real* question is this: Do poor people need to die so that wealthy people can keep enough money? Being forced to get a job that exposes you to a very real consequence of death because you need to feed your family is a disaster. We're right back to the situation with [coal mines in the 19th century](http://slaverybyanothername.lunchbox.pbs.org/tpt/slavery-by-another-name/themes/life-coal-mine/).
Since you bring up the Institute.. MIT has already spent 50 million in the last 4 weeks on rolling out tech to support remote work, financial aid and fee reimbursement for displaced students, and financial assistance to local business and the homeless. The president and Vice President have both taken 20% paycuts and a lot of faculty/admin staff have donated part of their salary to a relief fund.
No vaults as of yet, but I'm sure it's in the pipeline.
The left or liberals?
Most leftists and some liberals I know strongly support gun rights. You can also support gun rights and sensible legislation too as I see it.
Clearly the issue has evolved beyond gun ownership into involuntary internal bullet ownership. I think there's probably a lot of different factors we can
address within the issue of gun violence.
It's a pity they aren't simple or comfortable topics. Its much easier to invoke the idea of right wing militias and gang violence than it is to discuss mental health care and media coverage
It was about which rights the states have. One is the right to protect citizens using a science based method to determine reopening of the state economic centers in the middle of a pandemic.
The other was the (incorrect) "right" to use slaves and subjugate a group of what should have been fully recognized American citizens.
Don't try to pull a bullshit "both sides" here.
If you think the contemporary debate about states rights involves slavery or it was only restricted to 19th century emancipation issues, you are truly misinformed.
It has to do with gun laws, the scope and power of the Dept. of Education, environmental laws, immigration issues (e.g. Sanctuary cities) and so forth.
And both sides have always been extremely opportunistic about it, basing their position on what is convenient at the time, not on principle.
Is this the start of urban coastal states beginning to keep their own council within the union? It’s an interesting development to see them forming these coalitions almost explicitly in defiance of federal declarations.
Pretty much every Trump message that sticks out to me is way too casual, contradictory, blame shifting, abandonment and/or denying things he said days earlier. I don't fully understand how American governance works (Canadian) but it looks like governors are stepping into a role that their President really should be doing because he can't go two sentences without rational listeners going "what?".
Just...say something straight. He could have stopped at "CDC recommends voluntary mask wearing", but no, "I'm personally not going to do it". Why.
I think the governors have to give some kind of hope. Realistically I see people locked in all summer to give hospitals a chance, but economically and psychologically it's not doable, not unless some kind of martial law and extensive support services are included.
There's a difference between "we're going to get the ball rolling on what's best by asking local leaders and different professionals" vs. "Easter sounds good!" Big yikes right there, waiting to see if Trump ever furiously denies this.
Their version of states rights here that you're getting at is basically filling in a power vacuum due to the federal government more or less doing nothing here/collapsing.
It's not some triumph of Republican ideology, rather it's indicative of an impending failure of the entire country.
That is a morbidly twisting of what I was saying.... I wasn't applauding the government of Republicans and Democrats failing to act, I was applauding the governors for acting on a state level in an appropriate manner. Your comment is an indictment on what people will do to see the world the way they want to see it...
> I wasn't applauding the government of Republicans and Democrats
The branch of government in charge of emergency response is the executive, which currently consists solely of extremist Republicans.
>I was applauding the governors for acting on a state level
As noted by myself and others above, they're banding together to act on a regional level instead of acting on a state level. They're basically doing the federal government's job for it since it has failed so spectacularly.
Your desperate narrative pushing couldn't be more obvious.
>almost explicitly in defiance of federal declarations.
Not federal declarations, just outbursts from the president. And the fact that governors are forced to form ad-hoc unions that are considered comparable in some way to outbursts by the president is extremely worrying.
The federal government has completely abdicated its role here. Republicans like this, but this is not even remotely how it's supposed to be.
All credit to the governors, but this isn't really their job and it's not supposed to be.
The governors' role should be to encourage their citizens to follow CDC / Federal guidelines and help coordinate a federal response with their own state's resources.
Not... scramble to figure out how to fix the whole thing without federal help.
If you find that a neglected 8-year-old can cook their own dinner and put themselves to bed, the first reaction isn't "Way to go, little guy!" it's... "where the fuck are your parents??"
And this is basically the situation we're in.
You may be right - or it may be more akin to adult children coming in and taking care of their parents because the parents are no longer capable.
Or - going back to your eight-year-old situation - the neglectful parents should have their parental rights taken away since they're not doing their job.
Have you noticed how OLD these politicians are? Don't most publicly traded corporations have mandatory retirement ages? Why is the fate of our country in the hands of grandparents??? Are WE the adult children?
In the US, a company having a mandatory retirement age would, with some exceptions, be illegal under Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. An amendment in 1986.
Source (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_Discrimination_in_Employment_Act_of_1967), (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_retirement)
This isn’t about politics, this is about responding to the science and data and saving lives. These states are all connected economically and via major transit routes, it’s smart for them to coordinate. If you’re looking for someone politicizing this crisis look no further than Trump.
It can be made to be political but in this case these states are coordinating because they have shared workforces and transit routes, if they don’t coordinate the reopening of businesses and schools they risk undoing all the good work they have done by flattening the curve. If people like you or CNN or Trump want to then say this is a political act then that’s on you.
As long as it is well understood that we need to get below a certain threshold rate of infections with the population in circulation, we shouldn't have a problem. I hope that they pick the right health expert and not some hospital executive for this decision.