5 ms·

It's real world political game theory. The unspoken side benefit (whether intentional or not) here is to limit the government liability in case of health relat

It's real world political game theory. The unspoken side benefit (whether intentional or not) here is to limit the government liability in case of health related lawsuits in the future related to opening too soon, which is great as a state taxpayer. Hesitate to bring it up since its so contentious but this is actually probably a huge side benefit of the Alameda County go slow approach. For the interim county health advisor, there's no benefit for going out on a limb and providing the rubber stamp to allow a plant to open as they'd ultimately individually be scape-goated if things went wrong. All politicians above would be free to claim - "I wasn't consulted on such details". Now since the plant is open without full approvals, all legal liability is on the private company for any health issues that arise. In fact the state hasn't really officially said the plant could open and so is free from liability and now that the president has chimed in, the interim county health advisor is completely free from liability. It's a great get out of jail free card, release from liability stance as the individual or company is against government orders.

pdonis 6y ago
> The unspoken side benefit (whether intentional or not) here is to limit the government liability If the government wants to limit its liability it should stop telling people what to do and let them decide for themselves. > For the interim county health advisor, there's no benefit for going out on a limb and providing the rubber stamp to allow a plant to open as they'd ultimately individually be scape-goated if things went wrong. So the only alternative is for the government, after imposing the costs of the lockdown on everybody, to simply refuse to accept the costs of reopening?
- somethoughts 6y ago
  There's still some liability on the state in leaving it interpretable. They will also be called out for lack of leadership if they don't provide guidance. The best political safe alternative for all players involved is to do what's happening now; the government provides a hard line on guidance and then is lax on enforcement and lets the plant re-open and begin production. If it goes well (and hopefully it goes well), it goes well. If it doesn't go well, then people who were advocating taking the risk and with the most to gain if had it gone well, are ultimately responsible for the downside liability. Which seems fair?
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > They will also be called out for lack of leadership if they don't provide guidance. Called out by whom? I won't. I don't expect the government to provide me guidance. I'm an adult human being and I don't need a parent. > The best political safe alternative I have no interest in a "political safe alternative". Politicians worrying more about their political safety than the good of the people is what got us into this mess. Without a culture of "political safe alternative" the FDA would not have had the power to keep state and local health authorities from coming up with their own testing protocols when it was clear the FDA and the CDC weren't up to the job. And without a culture of too many people waiting for "guidance" from the government, people would not have waited to take obvious common sense precautions against a possible pandemic until the government and the media told them to, way too late. > Which seems fair? I have no problem with people who decide for themselves what to do with their own lives having to live with the consequences. What I have a problem with is someone else claiming the power to decide for me what I am allowed to do, and the only consequences to them if they screw up being "political".
    - somethoughts 6y ago
      The scenario as a taxpayer that's concerning is as follows: 1.) Individual (or Company) A does some potentially unsafe activity and the Government says hastily - "Great, sure; continue!" or doesn't provide any guidance (edited). 2.) Individual (or Company) B is affected negatively - so negatively in fact that they decide to sue not only Individual (or Company) A but the Government as well since the Government said everything was on the up and up either through explicit approval or inaction (i.e. Individual B thinks the Government should have acted) - (edited). The Government then loses the lawsuit and uses taxpayer money to pay the settlement. Then Taxpayer A, B and C proceed to also sue the government due to gross mismanagement of tax payer dollars and the government loses that as well. And now the rest of us Taxpayers D thru Z have to pay for all these settlements.
      - pdonis 6y ago
        > Individual (or Company) A does some potentially unsafe activity and the Government says hastily - "Great, sure; continue!" Who gave the government the power to make that decision unilaterally? > Individual (or Company) B is affected negatively - so negatively in fact that they decide to sue not only Individual (or Company) A but the Government as well since the Government said everything was on the up and up. So if the government were out of the picture, B would simply be suing A. There would be nobody else to sue. And the taxpayers would not have to pay anything. So what value, exactly, is the government adding here?
nradov 6y ago
Governments enjoy legal immunity for policy decisions. There is zero legal basis to establish liability.

pdonis 6y ago

> The unspoken side benefit (whether intentional or not) here is to limit the government liability If the government wants to limit its liability it should stop telling people what to do and let them decide for themselves. > For the interim county health advisor, there's no benefit for going out on a limb and providing the rubber stamp to allow a plant to open as they'd ultimately individually be scape-goated if things went wrong. So the only alternative is for the government, after imposing the costs of the lockdown on everybody, to simply refuse to accept the costs of reopening?

somethoughts 6y ago
There's still some liability on the state in leaving it interpretable. They will also be called out for lack of leadership if they don't provide guidance. The best political safe alternative for all players involved is to do what's happening now; the government provides a hard line on guidance and then is lax on enforcement and lets the plant re-open and begin production. If it goes well (and hopefully it goes well), it goes well. If it doesn't go well, then people who were advocating taking the risk and with the most to gain if had it gone well, are ultimately responsible for the downside liability. Which seems fair?
- pdonis 6y ago
  > They will also be called out for lack of leadership if they don't provide guidance. Called out by whom? I won't. I don't expect the government to provide me guidance. I'm an adult human being and I don't need a parent. > The best political safe alternative I have no interest in a "political safe alternative". Politicians worrying more about their political safety than the good of the people is what got us into this mess. Without a culture of "political safe alternative" the FDA would not have had the power to keep state and local health authorities from coming up with their own testing protocols when it was clear the FDA and the CDC weren't up to the job. And without a culture of too many people waiting for "guidance" from the government, people would not have waited to take obvious common sense precautions against a possible pandemic until the government and the media told them to, way too late. > Which seems fair? I have no problem with people who decide for themselves what to do with their own lives having to live with the consequences. What I have a problem with is someone else claiming the power to decide for me what I am allowed to do, and the only consequences to them if they screw up being "political".
  - somethoughts 6y ago
    The scenario as a taxpayer that's concerning is as follows: 1.) Individual (or Company) A does some potentially unsafe activity and the Government says hastily - "Great, sure; continue!" or doesn't provide any guidance (edited). 2.) Individual (or Company) B is affected negatively - so negatively in fact that they decide to sue not only Individual (or Company) A but the Government as well since the Government said everything was on the up and up either through explicit approval or inaction (i.e. Individual B thinks the Government should have acted) - (edited). The Government then loses the lawsuit and uses taxpayer money to pay the settlement. Then Taxpayer A, B and C proceed to also sue the government due to gross mismanagement of tax payer dollars and the government loses that as well. And now the rest of us Taxpayers D thru Z have to pay for all these settlements.
    - pdonis 6y ago
      > Individual (or Company) A does some potentially unsafe activity and the Government says hastily - "Great, sure; continue!" Who gave the government the power to make that decision unilaterally? > Individual (or Company) B is affected negatively - so negatively in fact that they decide to sue not only Individual (or Company) A but the Government as well since the Government said everything was on the up and up. So if the government were out of the picture, B would simply be suing A. There would be nobody else to sue. And the taxpayers would not have to pay anything. So what value, exactly, is the government adding here?

nradov 6y ago

Governments enjoy legal immunity for policy decisions. There is zero legal basis to establish liability.