4 ms·

Good. Aggressive steps like this are the only way we'll get a handle on what's happening. The alternative is exponential runaway and complete disaster. Full di

Good. Aggressive steps like this are the only way we'll get a handle on what's happening. The alternative is exponential runaway and complete disaster. Full disclosure: I live in Seattle.

Analemma_ 7y ago
Another Seattle resident here... I wonder if we're only a few days away from a Hubei/Italy-style lockdown where you can't go outside except for groceries and pharmaceuticals. Is there precedent for that in American history?
- Animats 7y ago
  California is already there for people over 65.
  - wuunderbar 7y ago
    No. It is definitely not. It's a strong recommendation without enforcement. This however could change in the coming days and weeks. Source: https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/03/15/california-calls-for-all-seniors-to-stay-home-closure-of-bars-and-wineries-9421938 https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/03/15/...
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- cavisne 7y ago
  I think that is the next step in the official escalation plan https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/seattle-area-official-outlines-potential-next-steps-in-coronavirus-response-including-cancellation-of-events/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/seattle-are... There is very little precedent I could find, however baltimore did impose a curfew in 2015 for a short period of time.
- jandrewrogers 7y ago
  No precedent for it, and a lot of Supreme Court precedent against it. Nonetheless, as an also Seattle resident, it has dramatically changed the city through voluntary behavior of the population. This has been an incredibly destructive blow to everyone in the formerly thriving restaurant and bar industry in the city.
  - philwelch 7y ago
    Citation? My understanding is that quarantine powers are well established in law. This isn’t the first epidemic. Furthermore, the lockdown of the Boston area after the marathon bombings is a very clear and recent precedent relating to a different public safety emergency. Worse comes to worst, I suspect we’ll see MRAPs on the streets first and any legal fallout, later.
    - PopePompus 7y ago
      The Boston "lockdown" was voluntary.
  - ncallaway 7y ago
    > No precedent for it, and a lot of Supreme Court precedent against it Could you cite some of that precedent? When I did my research around quarantines, the things I found said that precedent was very thin. What precedent there was typically was extremely deferential to government responses during emergencies and pandemic outbreaks. I didn't find any SCOTUS cases myself, so I would be very curious to read the SCOTUS precedent against it.
    - jandrewrogers 7y ago
      The precedent you are looking for is about the legal principles that limit the extent to which the government can prevent free travel, not quarantine per se. Quarantine must conform to that precedent, being one of many examples where the government may restrict travel. The No Fly List is a modern example of a government policy that violates free travel and has consistently suffered under judicial scrutiny -- it is insufficient for the government to deem someone a threat to public safety to deprive them of fundamental rights. You can no more violate rights because someone "might be a terrorist" than you can violate their rights because someone "might have COVID-19" absent strong and specific evidence. There is much more latitude to limit what people do than where they go or what they say. Americans have a strong Constitutional right to free movement within the country. As with free speech, suspending that right for an individual requires either due process or specific imminent threat to public safety to withstand judicial scrutiny. That is the calculus. A good test would be "can the government suspend free speech" in this scenario, as similar legal constraints will apply to free travel. That the specific case involves disease quarantine doesn't matter that much, as the Constitution makes no such exception. I don't follow freedom of travel case law closely, I am only aware that loads of it exists and that it is extremely biased in favor of the individual right. As a related point, in the US most quarantine authority resides with the States, not the Federal government. If the States don't enforce it, there is little the Federal government can do.
- Balgair 7y ago
  Not at all. But, if the US is ~11 days behind Italy in terms of infection rate, then we can expect a lockdown by ... Friday, March 20. Good Lord.
turtlebits 7y ago
Agreed. Wish people were more responsible and this wouldn't have to happen. Drove by the mall today and would have expected it to be a ghost town, but the parking lots were full and people were still walking and queueing close together.

Good. Aggressive steps like this are the only way we'll get a handle on what's happening. The alternative is exponential runaway and complete disaster. Full disclosure: I live in Seattle.

Analemma_ 7y ago

Another Seattle resident here... I wonder if we're only a few days away from a Hubei/Italy-style lockdown where you can't go outside except for groceries and pharmaceuticals. Is there precedent for that in American history?

Animats 7y ago
California is already there for people over 65.
- wuunderbar 7y ago
  No. It is definitely not. It's a strong recommendation without enforcement. This however could change in the coming days and weeks. Source: https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/03/15/california-calls-for-all-seniors-to-stay-home-closure-of-bars-and-wineries-9421938 https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/03/15/...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
cavisne 7y ago
I think that is the next step in the official escalation plan https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/seattle-area-official-outlines-potential-next-steps-in-coronavirus-response-including-cancellation-of-events/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/seattle-are... There is very little precedent I could find, however baltimore did impose a curfew in 2015 for a short period of time.
jandrewrogers 7y ago
No precedent for it, and a lot of Supreme Court precedent against it. Nonetheless, as an also Seattle resident, it has dramatically changed the city through voluntary behavior of the population. This has been an incredibly destructive blow to everyone in the formerly thriving restaurant and bar industry in the city.
- philwelch 7y ago
  Citation? My understanding is that quarantine powers are well established in law. This isn’t the first epidemic. Furthermore, the lockdown of the Boston area after the marathon bombings is a very clear and recent precedent relating to a different public safety emergency. Worse comes to worst, I suspect we’ll see MRAPs on the streets first and any legal fallout, later.
  - PopePompus 7y ago
    The Boston "lockdown" was voluntary.
- ncallaway 7y ago
  > No precedent for it, and a lot of Supreme Court precedent against it Could you cite some of that precedent? When I did my research around quarantines, the things I found said that precedent was very thin. What precedent there was typically was extremely deferential to government responses during emergencies and pandemic outbreaks. I didn't find any SCOTUS cases myself, so I would be very curious to read the SCOTUS precedent against it.
  - jandrewrogers 7y ago
    The precedent you are looking for is about the legal principles that limit the extent to which the government can prevent free travel, not quarantine per se. Quarantine must conform to that precedent, being one of many examples where the government may restrict travel. The No Fly List is a modern example of a government policy that violates free travel and has consistently suffered under judicial scrutiny -- it is insufficient for the government to deem someone a threat to public safety to deprive them of fundamental rights. You can no more violate rights because someone "might be a terrorist" than you can violate their rights because someone "might have COVID-19" absent strong and specific evidence. There is much more latitude to limit what people do than where they go or what they say. Americans have a strong Constitutional right to free movement within the country. As with free speech, suspending that right for an individual requires either due process or specific imminent threat to public safety to withstand judicial scrutiny. That is the calculus. A good test would be "can the government suspend free speech" in this scenario, as similar legal constraints will apply to free travel. That the specific case involves disease quarantine doesn't matter that much, as the Constitution makes no such exception. I don't follow freedom of travel case law closely, I am only aware that loads of it exists and that it is extremely biased in favor of the individual right. As a related point, in the US most quarantine authority resides with the States, not the Federal government. If the States don't enforce it, there is little the Federal government can do.
Balgair 7y ago
Not at all. But, if the US is ~11 days behind Italy in terms of infection rate, then we can expect a lockdown by ... Friday, March 20. Good Lord.

turtlebits 7y ago

Agreed. Wish people were more responsible and this wouldn't have to happen. Drove by the mall today and would have expected it to be a ghost town, but the parking lots were full and people were still walking and queueing close together.