27 ms·

The claim is that it derives from public health emergency powers. Arguing that evicting people increases the infection risk, therefore falling within CDCs power

The claim is that it derives from public health emergency powers. Arguing that evicting people increases the infection risk, therefore falling within CDCs powers. But that indeed seems to be stretching things to somewhere around the breaking point. The underlying reg: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/09/04/2020-19654/temporary-halt-in-residential-evictions-to-prevent-the-further-spread-of-covid-19 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/09/04/2020-19... The authority seems to be claimed mostly from 42 U.S.C. §264: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2018-title42/html/USCODE-2018-title42-chap6A-subchapII-partG-sec264.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2018-title42/html...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Thorentis 6y ago
If this is allowed to happen, I think we're seeing the new face of government overreach. Last time it was terrorism, ans that saw a whole wave of government powers used in the name of fighting terror. And back then, very few batted an eye. Now, it's fighting disease (corona) being used to justify these things. And, like last time, suggesting this might be too far gets you shouted down for not caring about other people or not taking corona seriously. I wish history would stop repeating itself but I don't think it ever will stop.
- anarazel 6y ago
  I think this is pretty over the top.
  - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
    With all due respect, perhaps you haven’t been paying attention. We are heading down a very scary path. And here in America everyone is so desperate to “prove Trump wrong” or whatever their motivation is that they’re ignoring giving any thought to: What if the government shouldn’t have this power? What I find interesting about Sweden is that Tegnell (correctly imo) thought lockdown would make things worse, but that wasn’t how he justified not locking down. He said that Sweden, being a free society, did not have the authority to perform a China-style lockdown. The rest of the “free” world ignored that point. They gave NO thought to whether they had the power to impose these measures. They just succumbed to their fear.
    - Thorentis 6y ago
      I can barely read your comment because of how faint it is, so I can only assume the "orange man bad"/"don't you care about grandma?" crew have downvoted you to oblivion for sharing the sentiment that maybe authoritarian government isn't a path we want to go down. Oh the irony.
    - anarazel 6y ago
      Yes, I am desperate trying to prove Trump wrong by not putting a temporary ~3 month Trump administration regulation on the same level as all the post 9/11 measures. Absolutely. I don't think this is particularly likely to hold up (except by court cases becoming moot before the judicial process concludes); I think it's unlikely to have enough of an effect to make a meaningful measure; I think there should have been another relief bill quite a while ago. > The rest of the “free” world ignored that point. They gave NO thought to whether they had the power to impose these measures. They just succumbed to their fear. There was a lot of adjusting the strictness over time in a lot of places. Including repealing measures that were though to have gone to far outside of a very short time period. The places that haven't locked down aren't looking good.
      - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
        > The places that haven't locked down aren't looking good. Really? Sweden looks great. South Dakota looks great. Not sure what data you're looking at. > Yes, I am desperate trying to prove Trump wrong by not putting a temporary ~3 month Trump administration regulation on the same level as all the post 9/11 measures. Absolutely. We've been locked down for half a year. Maybe you don't live in California but it's still full draconian lockdown here, and our state guidelines are crafted such that it is literally impossible for us to re-open. My point about the Trump thing, not to de-rail, is that the Democrats want to "prove him wrong" for "minimizing" the virus, and they seem to think that locking down indefinitely and torching the economy / public health will make it look like Trump's fault and help them win. That's just my theory. But note that the problem here psychologically is far worse than just partisan politics, it's a defect in the way humans evaluate risk and particularly it's a problem with a globally connected world. Social media allows mind viruses to spread like crazy, and COVID-19 is the deadliest mind virus we've ever encountered. As far as the physical SARS-2 virus, it's pretty wimpy for people under the age of 70.
- as_keyof_typeof 6y ago
  I've had this exact sentiment since the beginning but like you say, I've been shouted at (digitally here on HN and in person) that I don't care about grandmas dying.
  - Thorentis 6y ago
    > Trump is a dictator that needs to be removed > Why doesn't the government have more power to shut things down so we can save my 99 year old grandma on life support from being taken from us in her prime? Seriously. I know too many people that simultaneously denounce any sign of dictatorial government, but then can't praise loud enough any governor that shuts down their entire state.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Thorentis 6y ago

If this is allowed to happen, I think we're seeing the new face of government overreach. Last time it was terrorism, ans that saw a whole wave of government powers used in the name of fighting terror. And back then, very few batted an eye. Now, it's fighting disease (corona) being used to justify these things. And, like last time, suggesting this might be too far gets you shouted down for not caring about other people or not taking corona seriously. I wish history would stop repeating itself but I don't think it ever will stop.

anarazel 6y ago
I think this is pretty over the top.
- __blockcipher__ 6y ago
  With all due respect, perhaps you haven’t been paying attention. We are heading down a very scary path. And here in America everyone is so desperate to “prove Trump wrong” or whatever their motivation is that they’re ignoring giving any thought to: What if the government shouldn’t have this power? What I find interesting about Sweden is that Tegnell (correctly imo) thought lockdown would make things worse, but that wasn’t how he justified not locking down. He said that Sweden, being a free society, did not have the authority to perform a China-style lockdown. The rest of the “free” world ignored that point. They gave NO thought to whether they had the power to impose these measures. They just succumbed to their fear.
  - Thorentis 6y ago
    I can barely read your comment because of how faint it is, so I can only assume the "orange man bad"/"don't you care about grandma?" crew have downvoted you to oblivion for sharing the sentiment that maybe authoritarian government isn't a path we want to go down. Oh the irony.
  - anarazel 6y ago
    Yes, I am desperate trying to prove Trump wrong by not putting a temporary ~3 month Trump administration regulation on the same level as all the post 9/11 measures. Absolutely. I don't think this is particularly likely to hold up (except by court cases becoming moot before the judicial process concludes); I think it's unlikely to have enough of an effect to make a meaningful measure; I think there should have been another relief bill quite a while ago. > The rest of the “free” world ignored that point. They gave NO thought to whether they had the power to impose these measures. They just succumbed to their fear. There was a lot of adjusting the strictness over time in a lot of places. Including repealing measures that were though to have gone to far outside of a very short time period. The places that haven't locked down aren't looking good.
    - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
      > The places that haven't locked down aren't looking good. Really? Sweden looks great. South Dakota looks great. Not sure what data you're looking at. > Yes, I am desperate trying to prove Trump wrong by not putting a temporary ~3 month Trump administration regulation on the same level as all the post 9/11 measures. Absolutely. We've been locked down for half a year. Maybe you don't live in California but it's still full draconian lockdown here, and our state guidelines are crafted such that it is literally impossible for us to re-open. My point about the Trump thing, not to de-rail, is that the Democrats want to "prove him wrong" for "minimizing" the virus, and they seem to think that locking down indefinitely and torching the economy / public health will make it look like Trump's fault and help them win. That's just my theory. But note that the problem here psychologically is far worse than just partisan politics, it's a defect in the way humans evaluate risk and particularly it's a problem with a globally connected world. Social media allows mind viruses to spread like crazy, and COVID-19 is the deadliest mind virus we've ever encountered. As far as the physical SARS-2 virus, it's pretty wimpy for people under the age of 70.
as_keyof_typeof 6y ago
I've had this exact sentiment since the beginning but like you say, I've been shouted at (digitally here on HN and in person) that I don't care about grandmas dying.
- Thorentis 6y ago
  > Trump is a dictator that needs to be removed > Why doesn't the government have more power to shut things down so we can save my 99 year old grandma on life support from being taken from us in her prime? Seriously. I know too many people that simultaneously denounce any sign of dictatorial government, but then can't praise loud enough any governor that shuts down their entire state.