The authority for this order is somewhat dubious; the statute can be read that way, but it requires almost the maximal possible reading of the law.
And that's without considering the Constitutional parameters of the issue, though Commerce Clause jurisprudence may be broad enough to make this nonproblematic as far as federal authority, but there are also nondelegation concerns with unbounded delegation to the executive.
> does federal also have authority over state lockdowns, reopening and choice of essential business?
Probably, and a lot more (and not just during a global pandemic, either), again, if the eviction rule is valud. There's probably some limits even so (you have to be able to at least spin a tenable protection against communicable disease angle.)
Existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence gives the feds authority to act to control things which indirectly touch on interstate commerce, which pretty expressly includes the interstate movement of humans and the impacts therefrom.
Its not a big stretch to get acting to control communicable disease from that. It is well-established that if it is acting to manage something it is authorized to manage, the feds don't separately need independent positive authority for the mechanism (in this case, the eviction moratorium), just the absence of a negative regulation. So, I don't think (other than the risk of current courts seeing the Commerce Clause more narrowly than existing precedent, a real risk given the rightward movement of the courts) the Commerce Clause is insufficient for federal authority.
I do think that the nondelegation doctrine may be a problem for the broad interpretation of the statute necessary to read it as putting this federal legislative authority in the hands of the CDC through the existing statute (whether that would mean the statute itself is read more narrowly or facially invalid is another question.)
The idea that you seem to entertain, that these powers would extend to forcing states to _not_ take anti-disease measures, seems like it would fail in court.
I’d rather live in a society where we can’t be forced to submit to any health mandates. But I’m definitely in the minority.
But when you live in a society then there are certain rules on how to interact with said society. Individualism doesn't work when the pandemic is communal. Your freedom ends when your threat to my life begins.
The response to COVID-19 has been entirely divorced from reality. Unfortunately only a minority actually read the research and understand that.
Considering one death in 5000 to be the definition of a bad flu season, again according to the CDC website for the 17-18 US flu season, you can partition the 50 States into five categories:
1. OMG, IT’S the PLAGUE! (1 in 400 to 1 in 1000): New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts and Connecticut.
2. That was WAY worse than a flu. (1 in 1000 to 1 in 2500): Louisiana, Rhode Island, Mississippi, Arizona, Michigan (mostly Detroit), Illinois, Maryland, Pennsylvania (mostly NJ-adjacent counties and Philadelphia), Indiana.
3. That was the worst flu in a long time. (1 in 2500 to 1 in 5000): Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Nevada, Iowa, New Mexico (mostly Navajo-adjacent counties), California (Southern more than Northern), Ohio, Virginia, Minnesota (mostly Twin Cities), Colorado, New Hampshire.
4. That definitely was a flu. (1 in 5000 to 1 in 10000): Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri (mostly St Louis), North Carolina, Washington State, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Nebraska, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Kansas, North Dakota.
5. What’s everybody bothered about? (less than 1 in 10000): Idaho, West Virginia, Montana, Utah, Oregon, Maine, Vermont, Wyoming, Alaska, Hawaii.
When I say “mostly in a region”, the fatality per capita rates are > 3 times the rate in the rest of the State, sometimes 10 times higher as in Michigan and New Mexico.
Over the last couple months, Louisiana and Rhode Island has joined the plague category and the Southern tier has moved up a notch, but it also has been over four months.
Check the numbers for yourself. There was and is a peculiar avoidance in the media of reporting per capita deaths rates. Government sites are much better about providing usefully formatted data.
“Fun” fact: as late as early May, over 50% of the US fatalities were just in the Boston to DC corridor.
1. The places that are the least hit are the least urbanized. I would guess that the regular flu also hits them less.
2. These number are including a massive shutdown, and preventative measures, that don't usually occur during the flu season.
3. I'm not sure your numbers are accurate. For example, I just spot checked texas, which has 15,421 deaths: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/texas-coronaviru... That is a rate of 1 in 1880, which would put them in the "WAY worse than the flue" category, not "That was definitely a flu".
They also report that influenza/pneumonia is the fifth leading cause of death in Hawaii. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/states/hawaii/hi.htm
Historically, influenza/pneumonia is a little under 10% of all deaths in Hawaii.
The CDC and the Hawaii state department of health combine the causes. "Studies have suggested that P&I [pneumonia and influenza] is a good indicator of influenza-related deaths and therefore P&I is one method for influenza surveillance." This combination makes it difficult to determine how many deaths were due to the "flu" specifically.
Not mandatory everywhere, but it is in many places, especially for school-aged kids.
And if health-centred rules are too much to comprehend, then I suppose it's also your right to choose to drink and drive and you should be allowed to?
I mean, it's the same right to individualism that you are exercising. It's your right to not protect yourself and take risks in the process, but it's not your right to become a danger to others. We're not talking about opinions here, we're talking about the fact that viral infections do spread and kill and that without some measures, they will kill more, not less.
We can argue about what measures are effective for what population and up to what point we should enforce them, but there is -to me- no argument that there are some basic health measures that should be enforced, especially because some will make a point of not doing it and will endanger everyone else in the process.
Also, you can see that the current measures do have a pretty pronounced effect on lowering the flu. So, protecting yourself lowers the transmission rate of viruses in general. Two birds with one stone!
So probably at this cost.
If it really is "do pretty much anything", its probably also an unconstitutional delegation of Congressional lawmaking power, since one of the three required pieces of a Constitutional delegation ïs that the law must clearly specify "the boundaries of this delegated authority." Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989), and the rightward turn of the courst since Mistretta may work against the Administration here, because it is the conservative wing of the court that has historically had the most negative view of delegations (In Mistretta itself, which found the challenged act a valid delegation, Scalia was the lone dissenter and would have found it an unconstitutional delegation.)
How about mandating masks bloody idiots.
This part seems like an odd choice, if we're already amending the rental contract in terms of timeliness, it seems odd to double-down on late-payment fees.
As is, this order only delays the pain, it doesn’t alleviate it.
Surprisingly, the PDF contains no date, beyond OMB expiration date.
They are the center of disease control. Part of control means this.
So if the director of the CDC decided that, in order to protect the public health from an epidemic, everyone of, say, Chinese descent in the US needed to be herded into incinerators and burned, that would be okay?
What if this were a world government decision? Is that still OK?
Would this pass the bar? Certainly. We have historical evidence that homelessness during a pandemic significantly increases death and spread of disease.
Wait, is that the argument that the CDC should be given full authority to decide what needs to be done to protect against the disease, or that the courts should supervise not just on whether the action is authorized, but also effective at the stated goal?
A court has to care at least a little bit about effectiveness of the measure... doesn't it?
Your confidence in the court system to properly constrain the reach of what is supposed to be a limited government is not well-founded.
> We have historical evidence that homelessness during a pandemic significantly increases death and spread of disease.
Again: The remedy isn't what's primarily in dispute here. It's the systemic repercussions of allowing such reckless overreach. These repercussions will almost certainly fall more on the poor and poorly-connected.
Our system of civil justice and liberty isn't meant to withstand such centralized decision-making.
What a ridiculous sentiment. This is literally one of the worst pandemics in a century with nearly a million dead officially and we're arguing in semantics.
If you think the court system can't stop authoritarianism then what's the point of our system? We literally have the president being able to do EO, how is this any different?
So you assume that states wouldn't follow CDC recommendations? It seems to be for you it is not an issue of laws. It is just there is your tribe that you support and CDC is a part of it, and a tribe you don't support (those evil red states). And of course you would like CDC to take power away from them no matter how much people support their own state government.
It is not that different. The federal encroachment and the power creep of the executive branch are real issues.
The CDC is OUR Center for Disease control, what does that mean to you? Shouldn't we listen to the guys specialising in disease control while trying to control the disease from spreading?
or that leaders of the CDC make unilateral decisions without consulting anyone else?
Why do you think CDC is a single entity?
I'm just saying if this is what defines communism then sure I'm all for it.
What an irony!
The underlying reg: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/09/04/2020-19...
The authority seems to be claimed mostly from 42 U.S.C. §264: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2018-title42/html...
What if the government shouldn’t have this power?
What I find interesting about Sweden is that Tegnell (correctly imo) thought lockdown would make things worse, but that wasn’t how he justified not locking down. He said that Sweden, being a free society, did not have the authority to perform a China-style lockdown.
The rest of the “free” world ignored that point. They gave NO thought to whether they had the power to impose these measures. They just succumbed to their fear.
I don't think this is particularly likely to hold up (except by court cases becoming moot before the judicial process concludes); I think it's unlikely to have enough of an effect to make a meaningful measure; I think there should have been another relief bill quite a while ago.
> The rest of the “free” world ignored that point. They gave NO thought to whether they had the power to impose these measures. They just succumbed to their fear.
There was a lot of adjusting the strictness over time in a lot of places. Including repealing measures that were though to have gone to far outside of a very short time period.
The places that haven't locked down aren't looking good.
Really? Sweden looks great. South Dakota looks great. Not sure what data you're looking at.
> Yes, I am desperate trying to prove Trump wrong by not putting a temporary ~3 month Trump administration regulation on the same level as all the post 9/11 measures. Absolutely.
We've been locked down for half a year. Maybe you don't live in California but it's still full draconian lockdown here, and our state guidelines are crafted such that it is literally impossible for us to re-open.
My point about the Trump thing, not to de-rail, is that the Democrats want to "prove him wrong" for "minimizing" the virus, and they seem to think that locking down indefinitely and torching the economy / public health will make it look like Trump's fault and help them win. That's just my theory. But note that the problem here psychologically is far worse than just partisan politics, it's a defect in the way humans evaluate risk and particularly it's a problem with a globally connected world. Social media allows mind viruses to spread like crazy, and COVID-19 is the deadliest mind virus we've ever encountered. As far as the physical SARS-2 virus, it's pretty wimpy for people under the age of 70.
They have higher death rates than their neighboring countries. While the economic outcome doesn't appear to be better than the surrounding countries.
> South Dakota looks great.
Look at the hospitalizations. No, they're not doing good. They actually have one of the highest infection rates. And as you can see the deaths are increasing too.
> We've been locked down for half a year. Maybe you don't live in California but it's still full draconian lockdown here, and our state guidelines are crafted such that it is literally impossible for us to re-open.
I do live in CA. The last time the state started to reopen, with looser guidelines, the infection rates grew substantially. Deaths/day stayed pretty high for a long time, and is only slowly shrinking.
Also, how does that apply to my comment upthread?
There are only 12 states doing better on a death rate perspective than South Dakota. And they've been 5 times more effective at preventing deaths than New York.
I would say if they get a spike almost 6 months after literally never shutting down anything, they've done extremely well either way.
No state should care about infection rates among healthy populations. That's normal and expected and necessary to reach herd immunity. Hospitalizations would be alarming but hospitalizations have plummeted nationwide even as case counts have risen.
We are already well within range of an ordinary flu season as far as excess deaths goes: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
Also, draconian? What? In SF restaurants with outside seating are open and populated. State and national parks are largely open (unless closed due to fire / smoke hazard). A lot of stores are open for indoor shopping.
> Why doesn't the government have more power to shut things down so we can save my 99 year old grandma on life support from being taken from us in her prime?
Seriously. I know too many people that simultaneously denounce any sign of dictatorial government, but then can't praise loud enough any governor that shuts down their entire state.
> This should be unconstitutional if it's not already.
Sounds good. I suggest contact your elected representatives to express your support for such an amendment.
The legal passage cited is this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42/70.2
> § 70.2 Measures in the event of inadequate local control.
> Whenever the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention determines that the measures taken by health authorities of any State or possession (including political subdivisions thereof) are insufficient to prevent the spread of any of the communicable diseases from such State or possession to any other State or possession, he/she may take such measures to prevent such spread of the diseases as he/she deems reasonably necessary, including inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, and destruction of animals or articles believed to be sources of infection.
I'm sure this will be challenged in court, but the text as written seems extraordinarily broad. The CDC can do anything they "deem reasonably necessary"!
I feel for the poor owners. They are all trying to get out, but I’m sorry to say, I feel they’re doomed.
Your property doesn't disappear.
Would've it been better for CDC to stop mortgage foreclosures too? Probably. Would people here still complain of overreach? Probably.
Rental stock doesn’t spring into existence; it comes from private investment, predicated on reliable returns made possible by the laws surrounding rental. Suspending those laws in turn destroys this investment/return equation. No more rental stock.
Similar calculus for wage controls; no more profits - no more jobs/wages.
You can demand whatever you want; you just get to live with the results of your demands, long-term.
Rental housing owners are not.
Elites (such as those who run the CDC) look at rental housing owners as a group, but the impacts are disproportionately borne by those who have the fewest properties - families who are doomed to lose their life-savings.
Real-estate investment trusts, etc., can both outlast family owners, and are usually owned as a fractional portion of people’s portfolio; their failure is not a catastrophic event.
Families losing their inheritance is catastrophic.
Elites extra-legally terminating historical conventions on rental liability are dooming families to poverty, not just “helping” a renter.
Does it matter to me if my landlord is a big real-estate trust or a poor put-upon "family" owner with only two or three spare houses to their name?
Sidenote: you could even argue that big corporate landlords are better for society. In my experience, they tend to be more professional, and more committed to obeying the letter of the law w/r/t to tenants' rights.
People in this thread REALLY should go read about the Irish famine crisis and the 1918 pandemic and see how preventable homelessness made the deaths so much worse.
The precedent of doing that would be too bad.
Human lives > property.
It's whether a government with such broad, sweeping powers (which aren't among those clearly enumerated) is good for human life.
Think of it like an executive order, are they always legal? No. Do the courts have a say in them? Yes.
If the "necessary and proper" clause subsumes the entire limitation on power in Washington DC, it is the most disadvantaged in society who will suffer for it.
No matter how good a decision Congress or POTUS might want to make, I prefer that they be strictly restrained.
The idea of "the united States of America" as the default political unit (rather than more localized decision-making) is a relic of an age without the kind of communication technology we have today. I am especially cautious at agencies like CDC, which have blundered their way through some important decision-making, being given expanded powers at a time when more local agencies are capable of consuming precisely the same wealth of information.
Which is why CDC waited to see where the talks are going and realized that they can't wait too long.
At some point lives become more important than political process.
My lawyer advised me to negotiate rent to an amount my tenant can pay stating, "the only way you'll be able to collect is by a future collection action, and many times those types of judgments are worth about as much as the paper they're printed on."
I say this all to try and drive the point home, a moratorium on evictions is akin to an implicit rent reduction or rent elimination.
While there are always edge cases, I really doubt any significant number of people who can afford to pay would even consider taking advantage of this.
I finally decided to look them up on LinkedIn—turns out they used to be a property manager, something I'd overlooked during my background check. I think they just know how long the rope is right now, and how my hands are tied, so they're using the system to their advantage ¯\_(ツ)_/
It is tough to feel bad that landlords might have to temporarily sacrifice their profitability so their tenants don't literally starve to death. Comments like this are just telling on themselves that they care more about the financial health of the home owner class than the literal health of the renter class. Once again, this doesn't change how much a tenant owes. It just removes the ability to kick a tenant out. Courts will work to resolve these financial disputes once we are over the pandemic.
The economy is like a big giant circle of life, some parts are terrible, some parts can withstand a lot of business, but if momentum starts to die then we're all in trouble. I'm also not advocating for a full re-open I think that's more damaging in the long run, I'd support diverting money from some of the big government sinks (i.e. defense spending) to help social issues in the short term, Boeing and folks have enough of a war chest to withstand some short term losses.
I think the moratorium is a good idea but I think a better idea is subsidizing rent needs with continued stimulus checks.
Hiding behind the DoD being "politically untouchable" is cowardice when 200k folks are dead.
The answer to the political feasibility question is a straight no. There is not going to be political support to redirect DoD funds to direct stimulus payments to the population. We can't even agree to print new money to pay for more stimulus checks. This basically kills this conversation until at least November.
Whether it is practical is a more difficult question to answer. You were the one who brought up the whole economy is a circle of life idea. That DoD money doesn't just disappear. It goes to buy good and services and it goes to pay people. Abruptly stopping those payments would cause economic problems just like stopping people from paying mortgages. I would even bet that the multiplier is higher for DoD spending than mortgage spending based on the recipients of the money. Would this mean that DoD spending is better for the economy than mortgage spending? I honestly have no idea. Although I do agree that this country should reduce DoD spending and increase spending on social problems long term, it isn't as easy as making an immediate transition in the middle of a pandemic.
Good. Do you know how many more people died in the 1918 flu pandemic and the Irish famine due to not having housing?
All that death could've been avoided.
An often overlooked, but important, aspect of the Irish famine is how landlords and the ever increasing subdivisions of their property brought about the conditions for the famine, and how evictions afterward hastened the deaths of already starving people.
People arguing this is authoritarianism clearly don't have to worry about going homeless during all of this.
There is a reason Vietnam is doing so much better than the US while being far more dense...
I see you have never tried to collect on a debt. The expected repayment rate for these rent debts is probably going to be single-digit cents on the dollar.
The moratorium also notably doesn’t apply to people who can pay, but just choose not to.
> Federal Mortgage Relief Programs
>Federally Backed Mortgages
>Under the provisions of the CARES Act, individuals with federally backed mortgage loans who are experiencing financial hardship due to COVID-19 can request a forbearance period by contacting their mortgage servicer. Federally backed mortgages include FHA, VA, USDA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
>The CARES Act provides for affected borrowers to defer their mortgage payments for up to 180 days. Borrowers also have the right to apply for an extension of another 180 days of forbearance. There will be no penalties or fees added to the account, although regular interest will still accrue.
The above is from this Forbes article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor/2020/04/20/mortgage-pay...
In the article, they link to this resources page: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/coronavirus/mortgage-and-hou...
Not all mortgages are backed by the federal government, but if you’re serious about not being able to afford your mortgage you should look into yours, and check to see if your state has any resources too.
What is a democratic government but a representative of society (ok in the US it's mostly a representation of corporate money, but I'll return to that...), if you take society to its origins of a village of farmers, when one farmer gets sick, the others don't say "well, too bad, if he can't work, he's not going to eat.", instead they would share their food with him until he can work again (even if he doesn't, or if he can't work because of age instead of sickness, they wouldn't let him starve).
Nowadays everyone's just hungry for money that they're thinking "Fuck society, all I care about is getting paid.". It's amazing how the Republicans said for years they can't do handouts, if you don't work to live you're lazy, etc, but when millions lost their jobs, the GOP rulers suddenly agreed to give everyone money to survive. Oh, suddenly socialism is possible? It only took a global pandemic for the GOP to care about the citizenry they're supposed to serve.
I guess it gives you time to find another job and get a new place lined up, though.
We're being really polite about it but we're building a wall, also you guys are going to pay for it.
The government imposed this mortality-inducing and economically destructive lockdown, if they want to prevent evictions they need to pay the landlords what they’re owed. Reparations.
While I’m at it, a reminder that with COVID-19 we abandoned the critical pathological vs physiological distinction and define COVID-19 as “rt-PCR-positive for SARS-2” in the absence of any symptoms, which is just wrong. “Asymptomatic COVID-19” is an oxymoron, no symptoms means no disease. “Pre-symptomatic COVID-19” makes sense, but not asymptomatic.
You can have HIV without AIDS. Your skin can be colonized with C. Acnes without acne. But if you are PCR-positive for SARS-CoV-2 they call that COVID-19.
The above absurd definition of COVID-19 is how the death count is being inflated. Died of a motorcycle accident in Orange County? COVID death. 2 month old infant born with intestines outside of body? COVID death. George Floyd? COVID death (he was PCR-positive). All 3 of those examples are real examples, not ones I made up.
We’re going to look back at this as the first example of worldwide collective delusion (except Sweden). Dutch tulip bulb mania across the entire globe.
Also your argument that they imposed lockdowns that were economically destructive and caused death is exactly the opposite of what we know to be true as evidenced by the countries that successfully implemented lockdowns initially and slowed the spread. It's these types of mental gymnastics that represent our failure as a nation to combat this.
Like, imagine I have a bug in my Production hospital billing system, and instead of looking inwards, I decided to say “there is now a moratorium on car sales — they sell cars which cause accidents which land people in the hospital, to hell with the dealerships — those dealerships are investments and deserve to lose!
That's a odd choice of words to describe policy that is preventing people from dying from exposure during the worst pandemic in a century.
We do that all the time. Major industries are bailed out all the time by the government with negligible interest loans. We've literally done that in COVID times already.
We should have deferrals up the chain if the government is preventing people from working.
Unless you can change the reality that rental properties are investments, making them artificially riskier will reduce new housing construction and lead to less affordable housing overall.
Once your investment has renters and a legal document it's a contract and a business. And the person that signed the lease made an agreement and the gamble is almost over, now the issues you have afterward are quite risky ( maintenance, evictions, and etc ). I am glad the CDC is stepping up to stop people from being kicked out during issues of business being closed. But a contract is in place which ends the fact its an investment and turns into a structured business.
Well, I think if you are changing the rules of the game, then you ought to compensate my losses.
The government essentially expropriating your investment is not a part of traditional risk profile.
I wouldn't call it "admirably", but not a "choked up" either. Just in the middle of the pack.
Leaving my comment up cause the points themselves are still valid
(1) Middle of the pack while having never locked down is incredible. Most pro-lockdown people still trot out Ferguson’s model which predicts about .8% of the entire population dying.
(2) You didn’t really look at the number I said to. Look at excess mortality over time. Sweden at this point had no excess mortality. They are done with COVID mortality.
Unfortunately there is a vested interest in ignoring Sweden’s success. They fucked up the nursing homes, Tegnell has said as much, but they got the important part right: they NEVER locked down and COVID-19 mortality is no longer a thing.
BTW, you never answered my question about how Sweden’s mortality is back at or below baseline in the absence of lockdowns nor universal masking. All you did was screech angrily about politics, not realizing that it is the lockdown-loving camp that made this whole thing about about politics over public health policy.
(https://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-decline-coronavirus-d... discusses some of the things that Sweden is doing, which are indeed largely voluntary)
R, or as I prefer to call it, R(t), is the number that factors in how many have immunity. So you mean herd immunity is when R(t) < 1.
Anyway, I was having trouble understanding exactly what you were saying about Sweden, but to be clear, Sweden has hit herd immunity, unless you think that the utter absence of COVID mortality at this point is due to seasonality.
What you need to understand is that simplistic models view the population as homogenous, both in terms of mixing (social connections) AND susceptibility/transmissibility. Neither are true. Essentially, the people who tend to get infected sooner in the pandemic are the ones who tend to spread more, so the first, say, 10% of antibody prevalence is worth a lot more than the next 10%.
There's also the presence of pre-existing T-cell cross-reactivity; exposure to other hCoVs is protective against SARS-2. It seems that it does not protect infection, but it does make the disease course a non-issue: this probably explains the high degree of asymptomatic infection (with part of it just being explained as an artifact of the PCR cycle threshold fuckery). Technically these findings are already implicitly factored into the estimates we have for R_0, etc. (BTW, initial studies were claiming R_0 of 5.2, 5.5, etc, but now with more data it seems it's around 2, give or take)
Many, and I am in this category, believe that the true herd immunity threshold is somewhere around 20% of the population. That explains what we've seen in places like New York, Sweden, etc. This is lower than what the classic herd immunity formula would predict, because that formula does not account for a non-homogenously-mixed population (as I mentioned earlier), nor does it account for certain individuals having an innate genetic resistance that makes it less likely that they get infected.
BTW, this is what Sweden looks like now:
There is cognizable legal argument that this order might qualify as a 'taking' within the terms of the 5th amendment, which might require the government to compensate landlords, but I don't think that argument will be successful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_...
As an aside, I wish Jacobson v Massachusetts was never a thing. It opened such a big can of worms. Public health pseudocrises now allow our government to take on full emergency powers in perpetuity.
I believe that lockdown policies worsen COVID-19 mortality. Severe COVID-19 is an immunoregulatory disorder, and lack of vit d / nitric oxide, lack of exercise/sleep, unwarranted fear/anxiety, lack of socialization all make the immune system incapable of regulating itself properly.
So I believe we would have less COVID death amortized over a year without lockdown. Look at New York’s absurd mortality rate, it’s worse than having done nothing. (NY was iatrogenic harm from early invasive ventilation which in retrospect was a horrible idea, plus lockdown depriving people of sunlight and exercise, plus Cuomo’s famous nursing home gambit)
+1 to __blockcipher__ 's points. Maybe in the beginning draconian measures might have been justified, but current panic over cases (casedemic) and continuing moral panic and lockdowns are not.
I live in California, and every year our misguided leaders let wood and dry brush stack up like crazy. Every year wildfires erupt and every year we artificially suppress them. The result is there's a huge pile of fuel just waiting to go up.
Similarly, when you have a minor flu season for a couple years, you get a large population of elderly people that build up and are capable of being taken out by a pathogen like SARS-2.
SARS-2 already, even with the inflated death toll, is weak enough overall that we'd have barely noticed it (in our day-to-day lives) if we'd never knew it existed. But go back a few centuries to when it was rare to have people live past 60, and it would literally be an unnoticeable virus.
Anyway, that's enough rambling for now.
You can look at excess mortality all around the world, and there are large, otherwise-unexplained spikes in mortality everywhere. Sweden has the same large spike in deaths from all causes.
The problem is that if you die and are PCR-positive for COVID, that's a COVID death. We don't use that standard for any other disease because it's the wrong standard.
Once you get infected and recover, you still test PCR-positive for months afterwards even when you have NO viable SARS-CoV-2 inside your body. This is because the rt-PCR cycle threshold is set at 40-something when it should be 30 maximum. This means we're magnifying DNA by several orders of magnitude beyond where we should, and thus hitting on the presence of viral debris.
This is why, for example, George Floyd was PCR-positive despite having recovered from SARS-2 infection weeks or months earlier.
BTW, I also believe that lockdown increases COVID-19 mortality. Meaning if you do get infected you are more likely to die, since you've been stuck inside out of the sun, riddled with fear and anxiety, with almost all avenues for exercise closed down, etc. But like you said, in places that never locked down, like Sweden, there was still excess mortality.
BTW, I wish more people talked about life-years over lifes. Flu is a bimodal distribution; it kills the very young and very old. COVID kills the very old but not the very young. Look at the average age of death. I haven't ran the numbers but each COVID death probably only represents an average of 2, 3, 5 years of life lost. As opposed to a baby dying of the Flu, which would be 70+ years (picking the most extreme example of course).
I'll see you with reparations when we do it for the Tulsa massacre survivors and generally survivors of slavery.
Also survivors of Japanese concentration camps.
I seriously think those have a FAR higher precedent than landlords.
Universal lockdown, ignoring constitutional rights for a second, increases the proportion of at-risk individuals who must get sick before herd immunity is reached.
If you have a population of 100 people, the HIT is 20% (assume homogenous mixing), of which half your population is high-risk and half is low-risk, you can enforce universal lockdown and end up with 10 high-risk and 10 low-risk infections, or you can encourage just the at-risk to isolate and end up with like 18 low-risk and 2 high-risk. It should be self evident which course is better.
Unfortunately the world has been tricked into viewing “herd immunity” as a dirty word as opposed to an emergent phenomenom.
My point is COVID-19 stands for coronavirus infectious disease 2019. If you have no symptoms you have no disease. You don’t have COVID-19 without symptoms, you have a SARS-2 infection. The distinction is incredibly important.
also landlords: we need a bailout from our risky investments
I disagree. When a company goes under for a bad investment, they need to not be bailed out. But when the government comes in and says it’s illegal to work your job period, the government needs to pay all the lost income from that forced closure. That’s all I’m saying.
Why should the government back up somebody's risky investment?
My point is the government should not make it illegal to generate income and then turn around and say that renters need to pay rent, but neither should they say that landlords must be stuck holding the bag.
Do people understand that landlords aren’t this mysterious class of evil overlords? They’re just people. I’ve taken evil landlords to small claims court before, but that doesn’t mean I think I should be entitled to live in someone’s house for free.
I am absolutely flabbergasted by how “billionaire” and “landlord” are now bad words.
The only exceptions are those who made fortunes via government monopolies, which is yet another example of why the State needs to have its power checked. Unrestrained capitalism is not the problem, crony capitalism is, and crony capitalism is a function of Statism.
Although you can argue that the gov did punish banks for not loaning to low-income individuals. I’m rusty on those details. But you get the point.
Government: Absolutely! We too would also like to become a larger socialist entity that puts everyone on the dole. We will fix it all for you! Just give us complete control!
How can you make it illegal to work and then demand someone pay rent? Neither is it fair to make landlords be stuck holding the bag.
Here in California, my rock climbing gym, which has to pay sky-high rent, was closed down when we locked down 6+ months ago. When gyms were allowed to reopen they weren’t classified as a gym and somehow were never allowed to reopen. Now gyms are closed again anyway (thanks Newsom). It’s been like 7 months of them being completely closed while paying sky-high rent. They weren’t swimming in money before all this; rock climbing is a niche market. What was done to them is WRONG.
My landlord told me to get a second job after I got laid off. Maybe the landlords should get second jobs.
This is the lesson every corrupt nation learns the hard way. We agree to the laws of the nation to secure peace, but when that peace becomes oppressive, when that peace means slavery to the oligarchy, that peace is no longer peace but silent war.
The people will not tolerate this extreme inequality anymore.
Edit: to those claiming what I've said is "hateful" or incendiary...this is simply the truth -- as proven by history. Don't shoot the messenger.
IMO the underlying don't-fight-your-fellow-citizen analysis here is that the debt treadmill has to bind up some time. Housing rent is at the first level, followed by mortgages, then muni bonds, wall st paper games, etc. All these levels of recurring payments that have been created to channel real wealth upwards and force everybody to keep working in spite of technological abundance. If it does not bind up now, that's just delaying the inevitable to some time in the future when the phony asset valuations have gotten higher and even less serviceable.
Suffice to say I disagree. Call me old-school, but I believe in the rights to life, liberty, and property.