3 ms·

Not relaxing restrictions will also kill people from increased domestic violence, from depression and suicide due to business failure, unemployment, homelessnes

Not relaxing restrictions will also kill people from increased domestic violence, from depression and suicide due to business failure, unemployment, homelessness, etc, and from poor health due to inactivity. It's always a tradeoff. And now we're seeing data showing that the virus is more widespread and less dangerous than previously believed, so it's time to reevaluate that trade.

tptacek 7y ago
Decisions are being made in light of the data. We'll know more in May than we did in March. As they say: in the best case, if we execute perfectly, it'll look like we never should have done anything. Your lips to God's ears! Meanwhile, the discussion here is about the Constitutionality of lockdown orders. From what I can tell, there's no serious argument about the lawfulness of orders that have actually occurred; the "debate", such as it is, is about hypothetical future orders that don't appear to be on the table anywhere.
- leereeves 7y ago
  > if we execute perfectly, it'll look like we never should have done anything And ironically, if it turns out the virus is less dangerous than previously believed, and we actually overreacted, it will also look like we overreacted. But I agree; I don't dispute the Constitutionality of the orders given in March, when nothing was known and it was wise to be prudent. Now, more is known and orders can be much more carefully tailored and less restrictive, as required by strict scrutiny.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    The subtext of your comment, that "strict scrutiny" requires fine-grained analysis of every application of state police power, doesn't match up with my understanding of how any of this works. The reality is that almost any reasonable thing that governments do to combat C19, perhaps excepting things that are demonstrably and deliberately not viewpoint neutral, are going to be allowed.
    - leereeves 7y ago
      > strict scrutiny requires fine-grained analysis of every application of state police power That's what strict scrutiny means, but it's a very high standard that certainly doesn't apply to every case. As I understand it, it's more likely to be applied when fundamental rights are infringed, but I would never try to predict how the Court might rule on any particular case.

tptacek 7y ago

Decisions are being made in light of the data. We'll know more in May than we did in March. As they say: in the best case, if we execute perfectly, it'll look like we never should have done anything. Your lips to God's ears! Meanwhile, the discussion here is about the Constitutionality of lockdown orders. From what I can tell, there's no serious argument about the lawfulness of orders that have actually occurred; the "debate", such as it is, is about hypothetical future orders that don't appear to be on the table anywhere.

leereeves 7y ago
> if we execute perfectly, it'll look like we never should have done anything And ironically, if it turns out the virus is less dangerous than previously believed, and we actually overreacted, it will also look like we overreacted. But I agree; I don't dispute the Constitutionality of the orders given in March, when nothing was known and it was wise to be prudent. Now, more is known and orders can be much more carefully tailored and less restrictive, as required by strict scrutiny.
- tptacek 7y ago
  The subtext of your comment, that "strict scrutiny" requires fine-grained analysis of every application of state police power, doesn't match up with my understanding of how any of this works. The reality is that almost any reasonable thing that governments do to combat C19, perhaps excepting things that are demonstrably and deliberately not viewpoint neutral, are going to be allowed.
  - leereeves 7y ago
    > strict scrutiny requires fine-grained analysis of every application of state police power That's what strict scrutiny means, but it's a very high standard that certainly doesn't apply to every case. As I understand it, it's more likely to be applied when fundamental rights are infringed, but I would never try to predict how the Court might rule on any particular case.