5 ms·

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

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.

davidw 7y ago
"Like having a pool with a 'peeing section'" is how I've read this piecemeal approach described.
- imustbeevil 7y ago
  I imagine it more like 3 people standing in the furthest corner from the person peeing because the lifeguard isn't enforcing any rules except "no one can leave the pool".
- jschwartzi 7y ago
  Well when our federal government basically screws the pooch it's up to individual states to work together to limit the spread. And since most of the state governments seem to not really care about the health of their citizens, it makes sense that there would be small groups of states that do. Honestly I assumed that if the outbreak got really bad the PNW would eventually secede from the union because the federal government wasn't providing much aid. But this is a lot better than that.
- techopoly 7y ago
  Or a restaurant with a smoking section. Right next to the non-smoking section.
- cactus2093 7y ago
  Yours is obviously just an analogy and I'm not making claims as far as the underlying argument, but we did used to have smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants, airplanes, etc. Clearly that was reasonable enough to people to be the way things were done for a few decades. Sometimes an 80% solution that seems almost comically flawed ends up being useful.
  - davidw 7y ago
    You could easily smell the smoke coming out of the 'smoking section'. This is kind of like that, but you could die.
dpflan 7y ago
Your fears are very valid because we have already seen (prior to this formal coalition) the varying responses of states. Regarding your last sentence: I think there was a united group of all of the states waiting for central command and assistance which never truly materialized and now we have the states working together in the void.
paulstovell 7y ago
Perhaps it allows them to begin to open borders between each other, but keep borders to other states closed? If those three states' economies are very interlinked it might let them get closer to normality. Legally, is this possible in the US? In Australia for example each state has closed or is controlling their borders with each other, and this seems to largely be a decision for each state (I don't think there's a federal law either way). I could imagine some states choosing to open up while others remain closed. Or if two states made big sacrifices but got the issue under control, while the others lagged behind, those two could open borders between themselves while remaining closed outside.
- jimhefferon 7y ago
  > Legally, is this possible in the US? What in the US is legal has changed radically in the last three years.
  - artificial 7y ago
    Any particular areas? The churn of law in the US is vast, ex: taxes.
- btilly 7y ago
  Legally, is this possible in the US? Great question. The Constitution is very clear that ultimate authority about Interstate Commerce belongs to Congress. States cannot bar travel from other states. HOWEVER there is legislation enabling states to impose quarantines on people coming from other states. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/travel/coronavirus-us-travel-driving-restrictions.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/travel/coronavirus-us-tra... has information about such quarantine rules currently in place. So stop travel, no. Make it difficult, we're going to see a lot of that.
djrogers 7y ago
> 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, however by design that body does not have authoritarian control over things like 'shelter at home' regulations.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantineisolation.html https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantin... > Under section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S. Code § 264), the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to take measures to prevent the entry and spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States and between states. Nothing stops them from encouraging states, either. (We did this with speed limits, as an example. Want Federal highway funds? Play ball with the Feds.) Florida's Governor justified not issuing a stay-at-home order based on the White House not having asked him to. https://www.tampabay.com/news/health/2020/03/31/ron-desantis-continues-to-resist-a-florida-shutdown/ https://www.tampabay.com/news/health/2020/03/31/ron-desantis...
  - brewdad 7y ago
    Ok, but what do you do when said authority is hellbent on forcing people back to work and reopening the economy when your local metrics show that would be a really bad idea? While the Federal Government may have the ability to restrict the states, I don't see any avenue where they can legally prohibit local/statewide restrictions that are stronger than Federal rules. Perhaps through "encouragement" but that still leaves a lot of unanswered questions.
  - phnofive 7y ago
    Shelter at home is very different from controlling interstate travel. I agree on the latter point.
BurningFrog 7y ago
Then again, that one group of states would become a Single Point of Failure. If that centralized and coordinated leadership is incompetent and/or corrupt, there is no Plan B.
- mulmen 7y ago
  Sure there is. The Western States Pact is the plan B.
  - BurningFrog 7y ago
    That's my point :) I'm arguing letting the central federal government handle everything.
    - mulmen 7y ago
      Sorry I got hung up on "there is no plan B". I prefer we have a coordinated response here as well (plan A). That's not happening so the "plan B" is states working together.
- jschwartzi 7y ago
  Except that in a federal system like the United States each individual state government can mount a real response like we've done in Washington where the epidemiological curve has flattened significantly in the past 3 or 4 weeks versus where it was heading before we began social distancing.
bhupy 7y ago
Not too dissimilar from the EU approach. There doesn't appear to be an EU-level coordination. The member states have open borders between them, I.e. the proverbial "peeing sections", and Italy's disastrous outbreak hasn't seemed to spread into Germany, Austria, Denmark, etc. Centralization requires buy-in, and after at some point it becomes clear that sitting around waiting for other states to play ball can be equally disastrous.
catchingsun 7y ago
If other states don't do a good enough job at controlling their outbreaks, it is maybe, potentially legal to close our borders to residents from those states in order to control spread. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Coronavirus-FAQ-Can-a-U-S-state-close-its-15151440.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Coronavirus-FAQ-...
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  "California's got another Flu blockade up this week."
- standardUser 7y ago
  With sufficient testing capabilities, closing the borders might not be necessary. Instead, test at the borders (and airports) and impose a mandatory quarantine on any infected individuals.
- ummwhat 7y ago
  I'm fairly certain that Constitutional speaking "interstate commerce" can only be regulated by the federal government. The free movement of people may not be commerce per se, but it is inextricably linked. In realpolitik terms, I doubt the federal government can stop this. What are they going to do? Send the army to force states to accept potentially infected people? That's basically an order to go kill your countrymen. I'd hope, given such an order, much of the military would defect.
  - the_pwner224 7y ago
    The states also have their own well-equipped militias (National Guard). The U.S. Army can't just roll in and occupy a state if the state does not want it to - they will have to wage a war. Not at all politically acceptable.
mrb 7y ago
Well, this Western States Pact is a result of lack of leadership at the White House and federal level. They feel the US government is not doing enough, so they took the matter into their own hands.
- vondur 7y ago
  So what are the issues with the Federal Government response? I often hear people criticize it, without any concrete examples
  - standardUser 7y ago
    Have you been following the coverage? There are a lot of mixed messages (opening the economy by Easter, no I mean May, no I mean ASAP), lots of misinformation that contradicts the medical consensus (Trump pushing hydroxychloroquine as if he's the drug's spokesperson), a lot of half actions (Trump invokes Defense Production Act, but then refuses to use it), and blatant lies ("anyone who wants a test can get one"), multiple task forces being set up with vague responsibilities (first Pence, then Kushner). The unwillingness to call for a nationwide lockdown is also a big one that has angered a lot of governors. And just today Trump tweeted that he has the authority to end lockdowns, which is a blatant lie. So yeah, the response hasn't been great.
    - jschwartzi 7y ago
      Trump actually did use the DPA to order GM to produce medical ventilators. Because a car company will have no problem retooling all of their factories to pump out medical devices. I believe that just taught all the CEOs of companies like GM that they shouldn't offer to do a damn thing publicly before they've already got a program in place. This is as opposed to ordering one of the several companies in the US who already make medical ventilators to simply make more ventilators.
  - mullen 7y ago
    You are joking, right?
  - 7y ago
bjt2n3904 7y ago
> 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 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    > 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 7y ago
      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
  - umanwizard 7y ago
    I have no idea how that's the conclusion you drew from GP, can you elaborate?
  - philwelch 7y ago
    As a European I’d think you’d appreciate the point he’s making. This is analogous to Spain and Portugal deciding on a joint Iberian policy between the two of them instead of trying to go to the EU and haggle it out with Hungary and Sweden.
el_benhameen 7y ago
I am surprised that most commenters so far have completely missed the hilarious sarcasm in “some sort of united group of all the states”.
jeffdavis 7y ago
It seems like you've essentially given up on the idea of freedom and separation of powers. Perhaps that would yield a better pandemic response (though that depends on the competency of the federal government), but I'm not sure it's worth the cost. We're talking about forcibly keeping everyone in the country out of church. It's pretty disturbing to give that power to government, even temporarily. How long before it gets applied to other situations after the pandemic dies down? What's to stop the president in 2030 from saying: "We're facing an epidemic of terrorism by [whoever] so we're keeping them from gathering in public." Or: "There's an epidemic of [some crime] that uses the internet. We need to control it."

davidw 7y ago

"Like having a pool with a 'peeing section'" is how I've read this piecemeal approach described.

imustbeevil 7y ago
I imagine it more like 3 people standing in the furthest corner from the person peeing because the lifeguard isn't enforcing any rules except "no one can leave the pool".
jschwartzi 7y ago
Well when our federal government basically screws the pooch it's up to individual states to work together to limit the spread. And since most of the state governments seem to not really care about the health of their citizens, it makes sense that there would be small groups of states that do. Honestly I assumed that if the outbreak got really bad the PNW would eventually secede from the union because the federal government wasn't providing much aid. But this is a lot better than that.
techopoly 7y ago
Or a restaurant with a smoking section. Right next to the non-smoking section.
cactus2093 7y ago
Yours is obviously just an analogy and I'm not making claims as far as the underlying argument, but we did used to have smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants, airplanes, etc. Clearly that was reasonable enough to people to be the way things were done for a few decades. Sometimes an 80% solution that seems almost comically flawed ends up being useful.
- davidw 7y ago
  You could easily smell the smoke coming out of the 'smoking section'. This is kind of like that, but you could die.

dpflan 7y ago

Your fears are very valid because we have already seen (prior to this formal coalition) the varying responses of states. Regarding your last sentence: I think there was a united group of all of the states waiting for central command and assistance which never truly materialized and now we have the states working together in the void.

paulstovell 7y ago

Perhaps it allows them to begin to open borders between each other, but keep borders to other states closed? If those three states' economies are very interlinked it might let them get closer to normality. Legally, is this possible in the US? In Australia for example each state has closed or is controlling their borders with each other, and this seems to largely be a decision for each state (I don't think there's a federal law either way). I could imagine some states choosing to open up while others remain closed. Or if two states made big sacrifices but got the issue under control, while the others lagged behind, those two could open borders between themselves while remaining closed outside.

jimhefferon 7y ago
> Legally, is this possible in the US? What in the US is legal has changed radically in the last three years.
- artificial 7y ago
  Any particular areas? The churn of law in the US is vast, ex: taxes.
btilly 7y ago
Legally, is this possible in the US? Great question. The Constitution is very clear that ultimate authority about Interstate Commerce belongs to Congress. States cannot bar travel from other states. HOWEVER there is legislation enabling states to impose quarantines on people coming from other states. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/travel/coronavirus-us-travel-driving-restrictions.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/travel/coronavirus-us-tra... has information about such quarantine rules currently in place. So stop travel, no. Make it difficult, we're going to see a lot of that.

djrogers 7y ago

> 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, however by design that body does not have authoritarian control over things like 'shelter at home' regulations.

ceejayoz 7y ago
https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantineisolation.html https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantin... > Under section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S. Code § 264), the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to take measures to prevent the entry and spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States and between states. Nothing stops them from encouraging states, either. (We did this with speed limits, as an example. Want Federal highway funds? Play ball with the Feds.) Florida's Governor justified not issuing a stay-at-home order based on the White House not having asked him to. https://www.tampabay.com/news/health/2020/03/31/ron-desantis-continues-to-resist-a-florida-shutdown/ https://www.tampabay.com/news/health/2020/03/31/ron-desantis...
- brewdad 7y ago
  Ok, but what do you do when said authority is hellbent on forcing people back to work and reopening the economy when your local metrics show that would be a really bad idea? While the Federal Government may have the ability to restrict the states, I don't see any avenue where they can legally prohibit local/statewide restrictions that are stronger than Federal rules. Perhaps through "encouragement" but that still leaves a lot of unanswered questions.
- phnofive 7y ago
  Shelter at home is very different from controlling interstate travel. I agree on the latter point.

BurningFrog 7y ago

Then again, that one group of states would become a Single Point of Failure. If that centralized and coordinated leadership is incompetent and/or corrupt, there is no Plan B.

mulmen 7y ago
Sure there is. The Western States Pact is the plan B.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  That's my point :) I'm arguing letting the central federal government handle everything.
  - mulmen 7y ago
    Sorry I got hung up on "there is no plan B". I prefer we have a coordinated response here as well (plan A). That's not happening so the "plan B" is states working together.
jschwartzi 7y ago
Except that in a federal system like the United States each individual state government can mount a real response like we've done in Washington where the epidemiological curve has flattened significantly in the past 3 or 4 weeks versus where it was heading before we began social distancing.

bhupy 7y ago

Not too dissimilar from the EU approach. There doesn't appear to be an EU-level coordination. The member states have open borders between them, I.e. the proverbial "peeing sections", and Italy's disastrous outbreak hasn't seemed to spread into Germany, Austria, Denmark, etc. Centralization requires buy-in, and after at some point it becomes clear that sitting around waiting for other states to play ball can be equally disastrous.

catchingsun 7y ago

If other states don't do a good enough job at controlling their outbreaks, it is maybe, potentially legal to close our borders to residents from those states in order to control spread. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Coronavirus-FAQ-Can-a-U-S-state-close-its-15151440.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Coronavirus-FAQ-...

Fjolsvith 7y ago
"California's got another Flu blockade up this week."
standardUser 7y ago
With sufficient testing capabilities, closing the borders might not be necessary. Instead, test at the borders (and airports) and impose a mandatory quarantine on any infected individuals.
ummwhat 7y ago
I'm fairly certain that Constitutional speaking "interstate commerce" can only be regulated by the federal government. The free movement of people may not be commerce per se, but it is inextricably linked. In realpolitik terms, I doubt the federal government can stop this. What are they going to do? Send the army to force states to accept potentially infected people? That's basically an order to go kill your countrymen. I'd hope, given such an order, much of the military would defect.
- the_pwner224 7y ago
  The states also have their own well-equipped militias (National Guard). The U.S. Army can't just roll in and occupy a state if the state does not want it to - they will have to wage a war. Not at all politically acceptable.

mrb 7y ago

Well, this Western States Pact is a result of lack of leadership at the White House and federal level. They feel the US government is not doing enough, so they took the matter into their own hands.

vondur 7y ago
So what are the issues with the Federal Government response? I often hear people criticize it, without any concrete examples
- standardUser 7y ago
  Have you been following the coverage? There are a lot of mixed messages (opening the economy by Easter, no I mean May, no I mean ASAP), lots of misinformation that contradicts the medical consensus (Trump pushing hydroxychloroquine as if he's the drug's spokesperson), a lot of half actions (Trump invokes Defense Production Act, but then refuses to use it), and blatant lies ("anyone who wants a test can get one"), multiple task forces being set up with vague responsibilities (first Pence, then Kushner). The unwillingness to call for a nationwide lockdown is also a big one that has angered a lot of governors. And just today Trump tweeted that he has the authority to end lockdowns, which is a blatant lie. So yeah, the response hasn't been great.
  - jschwartzi 7y ago
    Trump actually did use the DPA to order GM to produce medical ventilators. Because a car company will have no problem retooling all of their factories to pump out medical devices. I believe that just taught all the CEOs of companies like GM that they shouldn't offer to do a damn thing publicly before they've already got a program in place. This is as opposed to ordering one of the several companies in the US who already make medical ventilators to simply make more ventilators.
- mullen 7y ago
  You are joking, right?
- 7y ago

bjt2n3904 7y ago

> 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 7y ago
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 7y ago
  > 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 7y ago
    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
- umanwizard 7y ago
  I have no idea how that's the conclusion you drew from GP, can you elaborate?
- philwelch 7y ago
  As a European I’d think you’d appreciate the point he’s making. This is analogous to Spain and Portugal deciding on a joint Iberian policy between the two of them instead of trying to go to the EU and haggle it out with Hungary and Sweden.

el_benhameen 7y ago

I am surprised that most commenters so far have completely missed the hilarious sarcasm in “some sort of united group of all the states”.

jeffdavis 7y ago

It seems like you've essentially given up on the idea of freedom and separation of powers. Perhaps that would yield a better pandemic response (though that depends on the competency of the federal government), but I'm not sure it's worth the cost. We're talking about forcibly keeping everyone in the country out of church. It's pretty disturbing to give that power to government, even temporarily. How long before it gets applied to other situations after the pandemic dies down? What's to stop the president in 2030 from saying: "We're facing an epidemic of terrorism by [whoever] so we're keeping them from gathering in public." Or: "There's an epidemic of [some crime] that uses the internet. We need to control it."