4 ms·
Ultimately: risk. Scientists can model infection and suggest whether it makes sense to continue restrictions or not. In fact, they do just that and executives
by wyldfire 6y ago
Ultimately: risk. Scientists can model infection and suggest whether it makes sense to continue restrictions or not. In fact, they do just that and executives like Governors consult experts for matters like this one.
Risk can go down if: (1) much of the population becomes immune [after vaccination or recovery from infection e.g.], (2) treatments arrive that mitigate the impact of sickness, (3) some novel isolation equipment/methods arrive that reduce the spread of disease.
- closeparen 6y agoThe presence of risk doesn't short-circuit checks and balances. Governments manage risk all the time. Emergency powers are for emergencies. It is no longer hour four in the incident command tent with a map and radio. It has been, and it may be again. But the steady state "waiting for a vaccine" stage is not that. The normal mechanisms of government are logistically feasible on the time scale you're talking about, which is years. I hope they will listen to the experts. It worries me deeply that they seem not to be headed that way. But "I disagree with the legislature" is tautologically not a justification for emergency powers in a democracy. Testing and contact tracing are not novel.