
California, Oregon and Washington announce western states pact - khartig
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/04/13/california-oregon-washington-announce-western-states-pact/
======
jcranmer
Also relevant is that the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Delaware made a similar pact today.

Edit: Massachusetts has also joined this pact as well (I thought it was
surprising that it hadn't when I first read the news).

~~~
sandworm101
If only there was some sort of multi-state organization through which
individual states could pull together on issues spanning multiple states. Such
a "federal" approach would be very useful. If only someone had thought of this
years ago. Of course it would have to be staffed by people selected and
respected by all, but surely there is some way of doing that too.

~~~
baggy_trough
It would be especially good if that kind of organization had limited and
agreed-to powers that were written down in some sort of document, and then
those constraints were respected and not repeatedly gamed around.

~~~
pas
Surely any document is just as smart and wise as the people interpreting it.
(Are we back to square one or do we have to go through Internet fueled
partisan hyper-polarization and "big data" aided gerrymandering? Oh, yes, we
need to vacant a seat on the Council of the Interpreters and mysteriously
leave it empty and let the winner of the aforementioned social-media campaign
pick the next interpreter!)

------
DoreenMichele
As someone who lives in one of these states, I'm nonplussed at the
announcement. It doesn't really seem to say anything concrete that I can tell.

"We've agreed that we will use metrics...we are still deciding what these
metrics will be."

I thought the Stay Home, Stay Healthy order (in Washington state) wasn't
unreasonable and wasn't just political babble, but I don't really know what to
make of this piece. Anyone want to try to explain it like I'm five?

~~~
JPKab
My brother lives in Oregon.

He was complaining to me the other day that Oregon's requirement that you are
not allowed to pump your own gas is an obvious COVID transmission vector.

To get gas in Oregon, he follows these steps:

1.) pull up to gas station 2.) Roll down window to hand attendant (who isn't
wearing a mask, nor is required to) his debit card. 3.) Get card back from
attendant. 4.) Sanitize the debit card 5.) Sanitize his hands 6.) Hope that
the attendant is washing his hands, and that he didn't breathe COVID onto him
through the open window.

Not saying this isn't a great, noble effort.

Just saying that, in some aspects, these states aren't doing a good job on
obvious things within their own borders.

Why the hell is Oregon still doing this, and not requiring masks from gas
attendants anyway? Maybe it is required, but my brother told me he has yet to
have an attendant wearing a mask, so possibly not enforced???

~~~
JoshTriplett
Oregon has already lifted the restriction on pumping your own gas, for exactly
this reason.

~~~
kelnos
Add "not allowed to pump your own gas" to the list of "things that are
completely unnecessary and stupid that have been removed because of COVID-19
and never need to come back".

~~~
xref
It’s a job creation/protection play, like grocery stores where the union won’t
allow self-checkout. No idea if the law is achieving its goals or if it just
exists because of historical inertia now, but that’s why it exists.

~~~
blaser-waffle
Where are there checkout clerk unions blocking self-check out? Not saying it's
impossible, but I've lived in WA, CA, VA, DC, TX, and NY, plus 1.5 years in
Australia, and going on 6 years in Canada and have consistently seen self
check-out everywhere.

~~~
arh68
Oregon, yet again?

[https://katu.com/news/local/initiative-looks-to-limit-
number...](https://katu.com/news/local/initiative-looks-to-limit-number-of-
self-checkout-machines-in-oregon)

------
aazaa
Possibly relevant:

> President Trump tweeted Monday that the "decision to open up the states"
> following shutdown measures taken to stop the spread of the coronavirus lies
> with him, not governors.

[https://www.axios.com/trump-coronavirus-reopening-
governors-...](https://www.axios.com/trump-coronavirus-reopening-governors-
states-3ce510ff-cd94-4b4a-89b8-58d8bca5d69f.html)

~~~
r00fus
Is this me or does this someone who wants control but not responsibility?

~~~
jlj
It's really someone who wants to own the success of others and blame others
for failures. Zero accountability yet still wanting to call the shots.

------
dahdum
Stay at home is doing enormous economic damage, which indirectly will cause
more deaths through decimated budgets of social and health programs.
Especially in CA where high progressive taxation amplifies the impact of
recessions.

So there's a lot of pressure to reopen but no political cover to do so. I
think the entire point of this pact is to provide that cover.

~~~
triceratops
> which indirectly will cause more deaths through decimated budgets of social
> and health programs.

Do you have any actual data for this?

~~~
dahdum
Unless you're arguing the budgets won't be cut or frozen, the data is the
success metrics of those programs.

~~~
triceratops
You're saying that cutting (meaning reducing, not zeroing) budgets of social
and health programs can kill up to 0.5% of the entire population of a state?
Because that's the CFR of the virus.

You're aware that even programs on reduced budgets can offer a reduced set of
services, and prioritize the ones with most impact? (i.e. most lifesaving
potential). And that their work will be far easier if there are fewer total
sick people in the system? Have you balanced the effects of that versus
letting the virus run amok so that the tax receipts aren't impacted?

That's why I'm asking for numbers. Otherwise "a bad economy will kill more
people" is a fuzzy assertion that sounds "cool" and "contrarian" but has no
actual substance.

Here are my numbers btw:

"Our finding that all-cause mortality decreased during the Great Recession is
consistent with previous studies. Some categories of cause-specific mortality,
notably cardiovascular disease, also follow this pattern, and are more
pronounced for certain gender and age groups. Our study also suggests that the
recent recession contributed to the growth in deaths from overdoses of
prescription drugs in working-age adults in metropolitan areas. Additional
research investigating the mechanisms underlying the health consequences of
macroeconomic conditions is warranted."[1]

In the last big recession, deaths due to certain causes went up but _overall
mortality decreased_. So what you're saying definitively _did not happen_ in
the only other comparable situation.

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28772108](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28772108)

~~~
dahdum
> You're saying that cutting (meaning reducing, not zeroing) budgets of social
> and health programs can kill up to 0.5% of the entire population of a state?
> Because that's the CFR of the virus.

I'm not saying that, but I could have been more clear.

The Great Recession is not a great comparison to a continued lockdown
scenario, unemployment peaked at 10% while current reports are putting us
already at ~14% and rising. The recession reduced demand but didn't wipe out
sectors, nor did it cascade nearly as fast. Heart attacks and traffic
fatalities will go down as the studies show.

I don't think I'm being contrarian, these pacts were setup to provide the
political cover necessary for those qualified to make the call. My prediction
is CA/OR/WA reopen on roughly the same schedule as everyone else, with just
slight stricter restrictions. Such as quarantining the sick, isolating the
high-risk, and other measures to bring the CFR down.

------
new_time
I love the United States' flexible decentralized model. Different states have
sufficient autonomy to tinker and try different approaches, allowing the best
ideas to emerge from the collective. It's one reason why the US is such a
dynamic place, similar to Europe but with the additional benefit of unified
language, culture (broadly), economy, and high level regulations.

It's truly a great system.

~~~
wahern
It's not necessarily as flexible as to encompass such sub-federal cooperation:
"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage,
keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or
Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless
actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_Stat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_3:_Compact_Clause)

I'm curious if these recently announced state pacts will be challenged in
court. But legal or illegal, it doesn't excuse the poor job of federal
management.

~~~
JoshTriplett
That would prevent any such pact from being _legally binding_ on the states.
It doesn't necessarily prevent states from coordinating at all.

~~~
new_time
Exactly, this seems like an friendly handshake agreement to cooperate with an
official name and press release.

OTOH, pacts like the popular vote compact signed by some states in the past
few years is almost certainly unconstitutional.

~~~
JoshTriplett
Is it? They're each deciding, independently, to handle their electors in a
certain fashion. They each have the right to independently change that
decision, without any penalty for doing so. It's not a binding agreement with
another state in any fashion.

------
Nuzzerino
From article 1, section 10 of the U.S. Constitution:

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage,
keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or
Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless
actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

This scares me a bit. This agreement seems innocuous at first, but the
constitution expressly forbids these (and all) kinds of agreements between
states for a reason. A small pact like this today could tomorrow become
leverage for secessionism or otherwise a power struggle with the federal
government.

~~~
kevingadd
"State" in that context clearly refers to foreign nations (states) not states
as in The United States Of America. Foreign power is distinct because it would
refer to things like governments-in-exile or perhaps resistance groups.

~~~
rlt
Why would they use two different meanings of "State" (capitalized, no less) in
the same sentence?

------
sandworm101
In my area (Vancouver Island, just north of this "pact") we are seeing
something very odd. People are going out. Families are having BBQs in local
parks. Restaurants aren't letting people dine in, but the grocery stores are
operating essentially normally. I'm near the water and am seeing kayaks and
boats out like any normal weekend. Vacation properties are in use. RV parks
have customers. I see groups of old people chatting on the street like normal.

I think we are on a tipping point. Government directive or no, people are
coming out of isolation. I don't think the local authorities have much choice
at this point. Either they make some clear changes and/or issue timetables, or
they risk loosing any control. These are Canadians, a people with national
healthcare and a general respect for government authority. When this attitude
hits America, a country that prides itself on individualism, things may move
from lockdown to "what lockdown?" in a matter of days.

~~~
alkonaut
Because people realize that kayaking isn’t a risk so why would they avoid it?
This is why no restrictions should be imposed that don’t have a very clear and
obvious effect. If that means they must rely on people’s ability to do the
right thing (e.g not take the bus to go kayaking, not go places where it’s
crowded) then so be it. It’s better to have a sustainable and accepted
lockdown that is 95% water tight, than an unsustainable and less accepted
lockdown. Otherwise, as you say, once people stop accepting the lockdowns
anyway.

~~~
sandworm101
We are told not to travel unless necessary. Kayaking is never necessary. The
Canadian military, the people responsible for search and rescue over HUGE
areas, are themselves locked into extraordinary isolation measures. Many are
living far from loved ones specifically to maintain operational readiness for
real national emergencies. They aren't going to be very happy if they have to
break isolation to rescue a kayak party too bored to stay home when asked so
to do by their government.

~~~
alkonaut
So you kayak in a lake within swimming distance of shore. This is the thing:
people need to be trusted to do the right thing. What we want to avoid wasn’t
people kayaking but people requiring rescue. That should just _work_ by asking
it of people.

~~~
sandworm101
Talk to any first responder. Playing around near shore results in plenty of
calls. It isn't just the big helicopter that pulls people off icebergs. A
needless ambulance callout, followed by a kid sitting in hospital with a badly
broken bone, is exactly the sort of thing we need to avoid. Doing anything
recreational on the water is to be avoided.

There is a horse farm near my house. They are curtailing riding as much as
possible specifically because they know that riding horses can be dangerous,
especially for kids. They don't want any trips to hospital right now.

------
zw123456
[http://nationofpacifica.com/](http://nationofpacifica.com/)

------
bjt2n3904
> Health outcomes and science – not politics – will guide these decisions.

And I definitely promise you that my news organization will have no bias or
slant, and will only report facts.

------
themodelplumber
Yes. I love this from an executive-action standpoint. They are _doing_
something about something, in the face of a lot of fearful messaging. And that
gives the rest of us an even better "emotional/energy vector" which is based
on a promise of government support and action in support of business.

We are participants in the most creative and powerful world economy of all
time. Regardless of geographical location, cultures are generally more unified
and geared toward working together than ever. Markets have shown an impressive
amount of resilience in the face of unprecedented fear messaging. People are
ready to work hard; in fact they're wearing themselves out by working harder
than they have before in many cases.

This is exactly the kind of action we need right now.

------
jeffdavis
I'm a little disturbed that I feel like the country has been tearing apart for
a while. There is a major political bifurcation, and now pacts between states.
Right now the pacts are for the pandemic, but what else might these coalitions
be used for in the future? I'm not saying that they'll be used for some
nafarious purpose, but the fact that they are like-minded politically makes it
more likely to deepen the divides.

~~~
atomi
Because, Conservatives have completely lost their minds. If they want to
commit to a suicide run to try and sustain the market then competent states
have the imperative to not follow them into the abyss. You have to remember,
each state is tasked with the welfare of their citizenry, not the furtherance
of the political ambitions of a federal administrator.

~~~
jeffdavis
I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying "good riddance, let's just
split the country in a few pieces and get it over with"? Or do you see some
path toward unifying the two factions again?

I guess you could reasonably say that groups with different political
allegiances should just split up. But what's weird about that to me is it's
basically like the states' rights platform, sans Constitution.

------
maerF0x0
I have yet to see a cogent validation of the total lives saved by lockdown
when considering all other health impacts such as suicide rates from
isolation, heart disease/stroke/diabetes from extra sedentary lifestyle etc.

not to mention the suicide by fentanyl in a subsequent economic
recession/depression.

Any aware of such an analysis?

~~~
kelnos
I'm generally worried about this sort of thing as well, and wish people were
looking into this.

However, we have pretty good estimates on how many people _will_ die if we
don't shelter and isolate, and I think that trumps what would inevitably be
some very vague guesses as to how many people _might_ die as side effects of
sheltering and isolation.

And regardless, many of those potential deaths could be preventable with the
right focus on mental health and financial support during and after the
lockdown. (Not saying we do have the right focus; I expect we definitely
don't. But that's not a reason to give up on isolation.)

~~~
maerF0x0
> we have pretty good estimates on how many people will die if we don't
> shelter and isolate

This is a fantastic point/rebuttal and has helped shift my perspective
somewhat. We can do things about tomorrow's suicides, heart attacks and
diabetes later, though not too too much later.

~~~
kelnos
Right, I think it's a "one thing at a time" sort of situation. Like: we have a
clear problem with a potential solution that will mitigate the problem
immediately. That solution may create _other_ problems, but we do have some
time (though, as you suggest, not a _lot_ ) to try to fix that up after
dealing with the first problem.

------
nostromo
> We need to see a decline in the rate of spread of the virus before large-
> scale reopening, and we will be working in coordination to identify the best
> metrics to guide this.

What's the end game here?

If you slow the spread, and then reopen, it'll spread again. Nothing will have
changed, you'll just have delayed it a bit.

~~~
kevingadd
If you read the announcement:

> Ensuring an ability to care for those who may become sick with COVID-19 and
> other conditions. This will require adequate hospital surge capacity and
> supplies of personal protective equipment.

Delaying it is the point, it ensures we have enough hospital capacity and PPE
to handle the inevitable burst of cases when reopening. This is what people
mean when they say "flatten the curve". If we simply open whenever and aren't
prepared we'll have a massive spike in cases that exceeds hospital capacity,
vs the current situation where the case growth is slower and hospitals are
less burdened.

~~~
nostromo
At the current rate of infection that plan will require many years of
quarantine. We need more people exposed, not fewer.

~~~
kelnos
That assumes no investment in upgrading our hospital capacity and testing &
PPE production.

At one end of the spectrum you have (mythically) infinite hospital capacity
and staffing, testing capacity, and contact tracing ability. In that world,
you reopen everything, and let people go about their lives.

At _current_ capacity, we need to slow things down. If we can increase
capacity enough in the coming weeks and months, we'll need to slow things down
much less.

~~~
acid__
Things were quite bad but they've improved rapidly over the past weeks and
months.

Hospitals have actually, counter-intuitively, seen a reduction in usage. The
number of hospitalizations has been far lower than expected (~20% of IHME's
modeled values) and when combined with the fact that non-COVID patients have
been avoiding hospitals (even for serious emergencies like heart attacks and
strokes!), many are reporting entire wards being completely unused according
to reports from medical professionals on Twitter, Facebook, and r/medicine.

Also, 150,000 test results are coming in every day. That's 5x the per-capita
testing rate of South Korea (~5,000 tests per day) and while we certainly can
and should increase testing dramatically, the US is actually doing pretty well
on testing relative to global numbers.

~~~
robocat
South Korea has excess testing capacity:
[https://thediplomat.com/2020/04/south-korea-ramps-up-
exports...](https://thediplomat.com/2020/04/south-korea-ramps-up-exports-of-
covid-19-testing-kits/)

So far they have done 500000 tests, but they got started early, and controlled
their outbreak much better. In recent news the US just bought 600000 tests
from South Korea.

“The South Korean companies behind the kits are now churning out enough to
test at least 135,000 people per day. The stabilizing situation at home has
enabled these firms to export more of this extra capacity.”

------
supernova87a
Regardless of how sad a situation this reflects, I regard it at least as a
positive sign of some resilience of our federal structure.

Criticize the state/federal model though you might for how it sometimes
dilutes the ability to get things done in a unified way, at least in times of
national or federal-level dysfunction, the people who can step in locally to
provide some guidance and coordination are able to do so, and not actually be
stymied or prevented from doing so by some authoritarian framework.

Imagine instead if we lived in a country with more organized / powerful
central control, but was both authoritative _and_ incompetent. We would be
really fucked.

------
jMyles
I'm in Oregon.

My first read: CTRL-F for "test" to see if there's any new statement on
serological testing. Nothing.

This is all we want right now. This is the first priority, and whatever is
second is somewhat distant.

Not having widespread serological testing to understand the prevalence in our
communities really gives a feeling of being in a third-world country.

It's awesome that Drs. Bhattacharya and Bendavid have pushed the Stanford
study forward (hopefully we have results this week). But seriously, there's no
excuse for not having already done a round of random testing in every city,
several times.

~~~
alkonaut
Serological testing is really bleeding edge still. It’s only done as part of
research projects as far as I heard, and you can’t really buy the capacity to
do it on an industrial scale yet. Perhaps this varies between countries (where
manufacturers exist and so on) but many countries in Europe still have few or
no serological tests done, and we are weeks ahead of the US in terms of the
epidemic progress.

~~~
jMyles
Yeah, that's the point right there. Why the heck is this so bleeding edge? A
small team at Stanford made it happen rather quickly. With a small budget.

And yet our leaders aren't even _talking_ about it. Where's the will to do
this obvious first priority?

------
ambivalents
Naive question: how is this better than each of these states doing its own
thing (even if those things end up looking similar)? What does California gain
by teaming up with WA and OR, for example?

~~~
alkonaut
Look at the Netherlands and Belgium screaming at each other and threatening to
close borders because one felt the other had too little restrictions.

Let’s just say it’s very much bad for your neighborhood of states to have that
kind of situation. Closing borders or having diplomatic disasters isn’t worth
it. It’s better to reach a common decision.

~~~
rlt
I'd rather everyone close their borders for now (except for cargo and
essential travel, with testing/quarantine) and countries/states/regions
respond however they see fit for their own populations. The regions with the
best responses can be examples for the others to follow.

------
Doctor_Fegg
Floreat Cascadia!

~~~
klodolph
Not to be pedantic or anything but Cascadia definitely doesn’t include
California. Nuh-uh, no way José, no siree.

~~~
domingobingo
It’s the economic core of Cascadia. It’s a necessary thing.

~~~
klodolph
Kind of like saying that the US is the “economic core” of Canada.

~~~
domingobingo
How do you figure?

------
whatsmyusername
They should do a shared healthcare system as well. The future is states
working together on their own thing, while letting chudland sink further into
poverty.

------
jedberg
I’m surprised they didn’t include Nevada given how much of California’s
population travels to Nevada.

------
nerfhammer
Meanwhile, 7 northeastern states are forming a "multi-state council"

------
seemslegit
Some historians go as early as 2020 and see the "Western States Pact" as the
first establishing document for the Pacific Union and the beginning of the
unraveling of the USA.

Nt Rly though.

------
mullingitover
This is great, and it's a big chunk of population, but I keep feeling like we
could do better. For example, these three States could do a great job, but
there's nothing stopping a bunch of the other States from bungling it (like,
say, ignoring health experts and exempting certain groups from mass gathering
restrictions). Then those States end up exporting infectious individuals into
the States which are doing things right, and creating more clusters.

If only we had some sort of united group of all the States, where the response
could be coordinated and centralized for maximum effectiveness.

~~~
bjt2n3904
> If only we had some sort of united group of all the States, where the
> response could be coordinated and centralized for maximum effectiveness.

We do! It's called the United States government. I'll be letting the president
know you're interested in him taking over and using his own ideas, instead of
this one you seem to be particularly fond of.

Or, if that idea is slightly terrifying for you, perhaps it's a better idea
that the states are handling this themselves. Your state conglomeration thing
can always decide to use the National Guard to prevent outside travelers.

~~~
anoncareer0212
You have no idea how crazy you sound as a European lol, the most
straightforward way to put it is you're using an anonymous account on a
website to dunk on someone in the comments section for implying they may care
about avoiding infection during a pandemic

~~~
nostromo
> You have no idea how crazy you sound as a European

Europe, a group of many independent states, trying different approaches to a
common problem, with an over-arching bureaucracy to coordinate between them...
and the US approach sounds crazy to you?

~~~
samsonradu
You're comparing apples to oranges. Europe is comprised of sovereign states
which can and actually have closed their borders. From my understanding, but
correct me if I'm wrong, this would be a legal and political nightmare in the
US right?

Edit: not endorsing parent comment

------
brewdad
So we're going to need a new name for this future sovereignty. Sierra
Cascadia? New Pacifica?

~~~
ummwhat
California and Cascadia Republic. Put a tree on the bear flag and call it a
day.

~~~
runarberg
Something like this?
[https://imgur.com/a/tEkyAXt](https://imgur.com/a/tEkyAXt)

------
yingw787
Well, that was quick.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22828354](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22828354)

Today it is pandemic resolution. I fear that tomorrow, it might be economic
ties, lockstep voting at the federal level, and National Guard drills,
deployments, and contingency planning, where the West Coast slowly splits away
from the rest of the country, with other states teaming up and following suit.

This isn't the end, and it's the only appropriate response to a federal
government that cannot or will not execute on behalf of all states. It is,
however, a reflection of the true state of our Union, and a sign of things to
come if we don't reconcile our national identity.

I'm saddened, but not surprised, that a step like this was necessary given the
circumstances.

~~~
spankalee
> I fear that tomorrow

Why fear? This is my dream!

The Senate is irreparably broken. There is no conceivable way that it can
become more fairly representative of the people without a breakup of the
United States. The smaller less populous states aren't going to just give up
their outsized power voluntarily.

California is suffering the most due to the Senate's structural unfairness,
and it has the most to gain from succession. I hope it happens in my lifetime.

~~~
yingw787
Dude...if we're talking about secession, we're talking about civil war. In a
country with the second most nuclear weapons in the world. With a federal
government already looking to adversaries for cooperation.

You're talking nuclear missiles or chemical weapons fired against San
Francisco, Los Angeles, or Seattle from land-based silos in the Dakotas, or
mutinies aboard our SSBNs, or Russian troops landing en masse in South
Carolina to offer foreign assistance. It will mean the Balkanization of the
country, where California has to station permanent garrisons in the Sierra
Nevada mountains to ward off invasions from Texas or Mexico. You're not
talking about a 40% drop in GDP this quarter, you're talking about famine and
starvation, and complete international irrelevance after the dust settles. If
only tens of millions of Americans die, that probably counts as a win.

"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may
have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of
memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better
angels of our nature."

~~~
nostrademons
> You're talking nuclear missiles or chemical weapons fired against San
> Francisco, Los Angeles, or Seattle from land-based silos in the Dakotas.

This is pretty unlikely, if only because the fallout from nuclear weapons
launched at the West Coast will blow back over the rest of the country,
including over the regions that launch the missiles themselves. There's a
reason short-range and battlefield nukes were never used in anger and it has
nothing to do with morals.

The rest of your point stands. From a global perspective, a break-up of the
U.S. is a very bad thing. Aside from the potential civil war here, it also
means open-season on any countries that are basically U.S. protectorates
(Taiwan, Japan, Israel, and much of Europe are toast); it hands global
leadership over to China; it means financial chaos; and it could result in
famines and food instability throughout the world (the U.S. is a major food
exporter).

~~~
yingw787
I'm not quite sure. We only have nukes in hundreds of kilotons, which might
not be enough to crack steel and concrete and burn all combustibles at once.
If there's no firestorm, the nuclear fallout might not make it to the
stratosphere and the jet stream because it gets dammed in by the mountains and
precipitates out.

Not to mention, hatred is irrational anyways. At this stage, we're talking
about an organization that will reduce its own negotiating lever on the world
stage in order to subjugate innocent civilians, which we've already seen take
place at various points in Syria and the Soviet Union. I would expect
political commissars taking over the nuclear command authority to turn the
keys, not USAF or USN personnel.

------
wahern
If wonder if Barr will sue, arguing that the pact violates the Interstate
Compact Clause, especially considering that Trump has recently tweeted that
only _he_ gets to decide when to lift restrictions.

~~~
jameslevy
I hope he does, and in the process both increases his ownership of this fiasco
and dispels any notions that his party still has any real support for "States'
rights".

------
iloveyouocean
Waiting for the announcement of the formation of the 'Confederacy of Southern
States' (I don't believe for a moment that Trump and the Republicans would
hesitate to seize the opportunity and claim that it's simply 'parity'). In
these times of hyper-partisanship, in the midst of a global pandemic, on the
tip of a great recession or depression with untold economic hardship; I
shudder at the potential for what politically aligned states banding together
could lead to.

I hope I am overreacting, but my parameters for what I used to consider normal
and possible have been shifted significantly and there seems to have formed a
great open space of terrible possibility to be filled.

~~~
sketchyj
What about this inspired you to compare it to the civil war? Seems hyperbolic
given states cooperate in similar ways all the time. It makes sense for
bordering states to be on the same page here, _especially_ given the erratic
behavior exhibited by federal officials who will remain nameless.

------
redis_mlc
> Protecting the general public by ensuring any successful lifting of
> interventions includes the development of a system for testing, tracking and
> isolating. The states will work together to share best practices.

If there is a reasonable expectation of that happening in the next couple of
weeks, then ok. If this is just "hope", then we should end the lockdown and
let the flu run its course, like every year.

The overall mortality rate is about 2%, which may be unavoidable in the US
even with social distancing, since I don't see any way for the US to emulate
S. Korea's testing and tracing success.

Does anybody have any logical reason for thinking that the US can copy S.
Korea?

Does the US have any way to do up to 600 million tests per week and see the
result in an hour?

~~~
mulmen
Why would we need to test everyone twice a week?

