4 ms·

> doesn't like giving up control after whatever "emergency" situation happens I genuinely don't understand this fear re: COVID. Why would governors want keep

> doesn't like giving up control after whatever "emergency" situation happens I genuinely don't understand this fear re: COVID. Why would governors want keep gyms and restaurants closed post-COVID? What do mayors gain by forcing people to wear masks post-COVID? It's in the government's interest, as an institution, to open things up ASAP. They're hemorrhaging money. The things I'd actually worry about -- using COVID to justify suppressing protests and speech, for example -- aren't happening even now. The only way this theory makes even the remotest bit of sense is if elected officials are malevolent villains hell-bent on literally any arbitrary form of control even in cases where it undermines their own self-interest and happiness. Believe it or not, governors and mayors enjoy eating out, some go to the gym, and no one enjoys wearing masks. I do believe there's a very real danger of emergency powers being extended indefinitely in general. But not in the case of health orders related to COVID. Because the powers being exercised aren't the sort of things even the most power-hungry person would want to enforce indefinitely. There's just no motivation to do so. And, for anyone not experiencing a literal and extreme psychotic break, lots of even completely self-interested incentives to get things back to normal.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
The problem is, what's post-COVID? The virus won't be eradicated any time soon, even after a vaccine arrives; most experts predict a timeline of decades to never. I doubt many mayors are supervillains who want to keep people miserable just for the sake of it - but I worry that quite a few might feel like they have to as long as cases are being detected. (Why do we still have strict TSA restrictions, even though everyone agrees they make flying miserable and everyone knows they're unreliable at actually detecting dangerous objects in luggage?)
- eanzenberg 6y ago
  Yeah sorry, you can’t equate taking your shoes off twice a year when you fly to being stuck in your f’ing house for 7 months on end because our overlords deem it so.
- throwawaygh 6y ago
  > I doubt many mayors are supervillains who want to keep people miserable just for the sake of it - but I worry that quite a few might feel like they have to as long as cases are being detected. Why would they have to? It certainly wouldn't be in their electoral self-interest.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    The concern is that we might end up in a state where COVID restrictions are considered so obvious that they're not even a matter of electoral self-interest; where abolishing COVID restrictions sounds as extreme as abolishing taxes or abolishing the military. Many people say they don't want the restrictions gone until COVID is eradicated, and I believe they're telling the truth.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  Long-term, what you might expect to see are structuraal changes rather than prohibitions. Disease transmission is a communications and network problem -- there are the unobserved opportunities for infection, the known observed cases, the transmission rates, incubation and course-of-illness periods, acquired immunity, mortality, morbidity. In periods of outbreak you need hightened disease surveillance, increased blocking of transmission, and reduced opportunities for infection. Barriers, reduced crowds, improved sterilisation and surface cleaning, fewer shared-touch interfaces (from touchscreens to bannisters), and the like. These will likely be instituted through building and health codes, not so much activity restrictions. Some high-contact activities (bars, nightclubs, theatres, amusement parks) may well be subject to temporary closures. But expect these to be contingent on infection levels. Do expect to see massive changes in office/work, retail, and transport designs, hoever. Possibly travel and quarantine restrictions.
- drran 6y ago
  Solutions are found already. They must be scaled out to whole world: vaccine, contact tracing, masks in public buildings and public transport in case of outbreak, air and surface disinfection at constant rate, vitamin supplements, etc.
showdeadtest 6y ago
The way I see it, the issue is that the “as soon as possible” is being interpreted to mean “the time at which there is no risk to my political career,” not merely when it is prudent to reopen.
- throwawaygh 6y ago
  > the time at which there is no risk to my political career Do you live in the US? The situation is exactly the opposite here. Downplaying the significance of COVID is practically part of the GOP platform at this point. It's gotten to the point in the last 2 months where even extremely mild and all-volunteer public health measures are political suicide in the majority of US states. But also, even in the small number of very left-leaning areas like mid-sized/large cities, mayors and governors are under intense pressure to get things back to normal. Hell. Even universities, which take tons of heat for being hotbeds of leftism even relative to left-leaning cities, are pushing forward with campus openings despite contrary advice from public health experts. As far as I can tell, being too prudent for too long would be an enormous political liability in literally every US jurisdiction. In fact, being prudent at all is a political liability in >25 states even with new cases hitting highs. Here in rural PA I get harassed for wearing a mask into the grocery store. The "permanent COVID emergency" concern is ridiculously disconnected from political reality in the USA. So much so that it's more of an unhinged conspiracy theory than a legitimate concern.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > But also, even in very left-leaning areas like mid-sized/large cities, mayors and governors are under intense pressure to get things back to normal. The refusal of the GOP (Senate, mostly, though the White House seems to be on the same page and perhaps the main motivator) to provide state/local aid, given that there are legal, practical, and other restrictions limiting state borrowing for emergency costs, especially non-capital costs, and structurally they have since not long after the founding relies on the federal government to backstop them for that is a big part of this.
    - 6y ago
0-O-0 6y ago
> Why would governors want keep gyms and restaurants closed post-COVID? A completely corrupt mayor could use this newfound power to solicit some political donations. There are plenty other possibilities, like the need to be seen responding to the crisis or "tough on the virus".
- throwawaygh 6y ago
  > A completely corrupt mayor could use this newfound power to solicit some political donations. ...dear god, from who? The Big Mask Cabal? Sorry, this makes no god damn sense.
  - 0-O-0 6y ago
    Anyone who wants to reopen sooner than later, really.
    - throwawaygh 6y ago
      I think you might have lost track of the thread or something? The possibility of bribes to reopen sooner make me even less worried about dx87's concerns.
Digory 6y ago
> It's in the government's interest, as an institution, to open things up ASAP. Theories by which it is in a government's interest to delay reopening longer than optimal: 1. The Governor's political interests lie in "doing something," to contrast with "do nothing" political approaches. Ceasing to "do something" erases this advantage. 2. Masks and closure become a political symbol to certain classes -- almost a political advertisement -- and those classes tend to see the burdens as insignificant and a "community responsibility." Efforts to reopen, then, are seen as opposed to the good of the community. 3. Industries and activities that support the Governor will increase COVID cases, so the Governor decides other industries and activities are "nonessential," shifting costs from supporters to non-supporters. 4. The Governor is politically or legally risk averse, and defers to the most conservative health authorities to avoid responsibility for outcomes. 5. The Governor underweights economic impacts, because it believes the Federal Government should use tax policy or welfare to socialize the economic costs of the "required" costs. Granted, these aren't fears the government will remain irrational forever, just that it will stay irrational longer than people can stay liquid. I do think some people will swap roles after the US election, and they will rediscover a patriotic duty to muddle through, as our elected officials do the best they can.
kodablah 6y ago
> I genuinely don't understand this fear re: COVID. > Why would governors want keep gyms and restaurants closed post-COVID? I think your lack of understanding is because you frame the question as nuanced to keeping two types of establishments closed. Instead ask questions like: Why would governors want to keep overriding city-level authority? Why would governors want to maintain control over federal funds and subsidies related to health crises? Why would governors want to be able to selectively close certain types of businesses (e.g. close bars, allow restaurants, differentiate between the two based on arbitrary number, disallow one to become the other)? Why would governors want to disallow certain medical procedures (e.g. abortion)? I can go on and on. The general question is whether executive power at any government level begets more executive power, and the answer is almost always "yes".
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

The problem is, what's post-COVID? The virus won't be eradicated any time soon, even after a vaccine arrives; most experts predict a timeline of decades to never. I doubt many mayors are supervillains who want to keep people miserable just for the sake of it - but I worry that quite a few might feel like they have to as long as cases are being detected. (Why do we still have strict TSA restrictions, even though everyone agrees they make flying miserable and everyone knows they're unreliable at actually detecting dangerous objects in luggage?)

eanzenberg 6y ago
Yeah sorry, you can’t equate taking your shoes off twice a year when you fly to being stuck in your f’ing house for 7 months on end because our overlords deem it so.
throwawaygh 6y ago
> I doubt many mayors are supervillains who want to keep people miserable just for the sake of it - but I worry that quite a few might feel like they have to as long as cases are being detected. Why would they have to? It certainly wouldn't be in their electoral self-interest.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  The concern is that we might end up in a state where COVID restrictions are considered so obvious that they're not even a matter of electoral self-interest; where abolishing COVID restrictions sounds as extreme as abolishing taxes or abolishing the military. Many people say they don't want the restrictions gone until COVID is eradicated, and I believe they're telling the truth.
dredmorbius 6y ago
Long-term, what you might expect to see are structuraal changes rather than prohibitions. Disease transmission is a communications and network problem -- there are the unobserved opportunities for infection, the known observed cases, the transmission rates, incubation and course-of-illness periods, acquired immunity, mortality, morbidity. In periods of outbreak you need hightened disease surveillance, increased blocking of transmission, and reduced opportunities for infection. Barriers, reduced crowds, improved sterilisation and surface cleaning, fewer shared-touch interfaces (from touchscreens to bannisters), and the like. These will likely be instituted through building and health codes, not so much activity restrictions. Some high-contact activities (bars, nightclubs, theatres, amusement parks) may well be subject to temporary closures. But expect these to be contingent on infection levels. Do expect to see massive changes in office/work, retail, and transport designs, hoever. Possibly travel and quarantine restrictions.
drran 6y ago
Solutions are found already. They must be scaled out to whole world: vaccine, contact tracing, masks in public buildings and public transport in case of outbreak, air and surface disinfection at constant rate, vitamin supplements, etc.

showdeadtest 6y ago

The way I see it, the issue is that the “as soon as possible” is being interpreted to mean “the time at which there is no risk to my political career,” not merely when it is prudent to reopen.

throwawaygh 6y ago
> the time at which there is no risk to my political career Do you live in the US? The situation is exactly the opposite here. Downplaying the significance of COVID is practically part of the GOP platform at this point. It's gotten to the point in the last 2 months where even extremely mild and all-volunteer public health measures are political suicide in the majority of US states. But also, even in the small number of very left-leaning areas like mid-sized/large cities, mayors and governors are under intense pressure to get things back to normal. Hell. Even universities, which take tons of heat for being hotbeds of leftism even relative to left-leaning cities, are pushing forward with campus openings despite contrary advice from public health experts. As far as I can tell, being too prudent for too long would be an enormous political liability in literally every US jurisdiction. In fact, being prudent at all is a political liability in >25 states even with new cases hitting highs. Here in rural PA I get harassed for wearing a mask into the grocery store. The "permanent COVID emergency" concern is ridiculously disconnected from political reality in the USA. So much so that it's more of an unhinged conspiracy theory than a legitimate concern.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > But also, even in very left-leaning areas like mid-sized/large cities, mayors and governors are under intense pressure to get things back to normal. The refusal of the GOP (Senate, mostly, though the White House seems to be on the same page and perhaps the main motivator) to provide state/local aid, given that there are legal, practical, and other restrictions limiting state borrowing for emergency costs, especially non-capital costs, and structurally they have since not long after the founding relies on the federal government to backstop them for that is a big part of this.
  - 6y ago

0-O-0 6y ago

> Why would governors want keep gyms and restaurants closed post-COVID? A completely corrupt mayor could use this newfound power to solicit some political donations. There are plenty other possibilities, like the need to be seen responding to the crisis or "tough on the virus".

throwawaygh 6y ago
> A completely corrupt mayor could use this newfound power to solicit some political donations. ...dear god, from who? The Big Mask Cabal? Sorry, this makes no god damn sense.
- 0-O-0 6y ago
  Anyone who wants to reopen sooner than later, really.
  - throwawaygh 6y ago
    I think you might have lost track of the thread or something? The possibility of bribes to reopen sooner make me even less worried about dx87's concerns.

Digory 6y ago

> It's in the government's interest, as an institution, to open things up ASAP. Theories by which it is in a government's interest to delay reopening longer than optimal: 1. The Governor's political interests lie in "doing something," to contrast with "do nothing" political approaches. Ceasing to "do something" erases this advantage. 2. Masks and closure become a political symbol to certain classes -- almost a political advertisement -- and those classes tend to see the burdens as insignificant and a "community responsibility." Efforts to reopen, then, are seen as opposed to the good of the community. 3. Industries and activities that support the Governor will increase COVID cases, so the Governor decides other industries and activities are "nonessential," shifting costs from supporters to non-supporters. 4. The Governor is politically or legally risk averse, and defers to the most conservative health authorities to avoid responsibility for outcomes. 5. The Governor underweights economic impacts, because it believes the Federal Government should use tax policy or welfare to socialize the economic costs of the "required" costs. Granted, these aren't fears the government will remain irrational forever, just that it will stay irrational longer than people can stay liquid. I do think some people will swap roles after the US election, and they will rediscover a patriotic duty to muddle through, as our elected officials do the best they can.

kodablah 6y ago

> I genuinely don't understand this fear re: COVID. > Why would governors want keep gyms and restaurants closed post-COVID? I think your lack of understanding is because you frame the question as nuanced to keeping two types of establishments closed. Instead ask questions like: Why would governors want to keep overriding city-level authority? Why would governors want to maintain control over federal funds and subsidies related to health crises? Why would governors want to be able to selectively close certain types of businesses (e.g. close bars, allow restaurants, differentiate between the two based on arbitrary number, disallow one to become the other)? Why would governors want to disallow certain medical procedures (e.g. abortion)? I can go on and on. The general question is whether executive power at any government level begets more executive power, and the answer is almost always "yes".

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]