9 ms·

It's actually the state governments that's at fault here. Not the specifically the people. Let me tell you I was in back-country Oregon recently, some of the MO

It's actually the state governments that's at fault here. Not the specifically the people. Let me tell you I was in back-country Oregon recently, some of the MOST republican places within Oregon, not going to name drop the county. Anyway, the Oregon state government is very much democratic (cause you know Portland). But because of that, even the republican counties are under a mask order. And the extremely red counties, people are actually wearing masks all over the place. Grocery stores even are employing someone to just stand there and either hand a cheapy surg. mask or tell them to put one on. So what I'm saying is that regardless of what people WANT to do, the state has the power and push to get people to do it. And this is why we need Biden in office yesterday.

Impashin 6y ago
> the state has the power and push to get people to do it > this is why we need Biden in office You know Biden is running for national office, right? Not state government?
- coding123 6y ago
  Well, start with this: https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/01/politics/mask-mandate-fact-check/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/01/politics/mask-mandate-fact-ch...
  - Impashin 6y ago
    This article demonstrates that the federal government does not (and should not) have the power to act in this manner. CNN found a single law professor who stated this: > "I don't think that the statute can be read broadly enough to apply to all people merely moving on an interstate highway," Blackman said. "Once you go beyond people in federal facilities, you're really intruding on what the state's responsible for." At best, they can cover Federal buildings with a policy. That is it.
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      Your comment proves the article's point. In the entire country, they could only find a single professor to say that the federal government doesn't have the power to issue a mask-mandate for occupants of vehicles on interstate highways. Given that these roadways in question are interstate the federal government's power to regulate activity thereon is assumed as the power to regulate interstate commerce is one of the constitutionally enumerated powers of the federal government.
- CerealFounder 6y ago
  Im not sure why this is downvoted, especially on a site like HN. If you had a CEO that was anti tracking CAC and just said, doing marketing is enough. The corporate culture of employees would drift toward not tracking CAC (cost of acquisition), even though none of the employees are obligated to buy into that. The thing that is lost on the national vs state debate is that the presidents role in a our state powered republic is mostly a sales job. Selling culture, building confidence, recruiting domestic and abroad. Having a new culture changes things whether you agree with the change or not. It's not a political statement, it's how the country works.
  - Impashin 6y ago
    In America, any power not explicitly granted to the federal government is left to the states. If Biden wins, this fact does not change, and he cannot enforce any policy regarding masks. "Marketing" from the President is irrelevant here as demonstrated by coding123's comment: > even the republican counties are under a mask order > Grocery stores even are employing someone to just stand there and either hand a cheapy surg. mask or tell them to put one on. If a state or company wants to enforce mask wearing, they can, and they do.
    - evgen 6y ago
      > In America, any power not explicitly granted to the federal government is left to the states. I am amused that anyone other than a small child still believes this. The 9th and 10th have been phantoms for longer than you have been alive and are of absolutely no consequence whatsoever. Oh yeah, there is no 'if' there buddy. Biden won and will be able to enforce any public health measures available to him via executive order starting January 20th.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > In America, any power not explicitly granted to the federal government is left to the states. If Biden wins, this fact does not change, and he cannot enforce any policy regarding masks. Sure he can. The exact parameters of any such mandate and its manner of enforcement is circumscribed, but that doesn't mean there is no legally-enforceable federal mask mandate. A direct federal individual mask mandate, with direct personal liability for violations, is least likely to be Constitutional. A federal mandate that states adopt, enforce, and demonstrate adequate compliance with such a mandate, with failure resulting in additional restrictions on interstate travel and trade, is certainly not only within the power of the federal government under the Commerce Clause, but also the executive branch under the Public Health Services Act and other laws relating to federal commerce-related responses relating to public safety.
- uoaei 6y ago
  "The state" refers to the governing apparatus, not a particular state within the union. I understand there may be some confusion if you are not familiar with the US government and typical ways of talking about it.
  - Impashin 6y ago
    https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-10/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-10/ Please cite me where the power to enact a requirement to wear masks is explicitly granted to the federal government. I'll wait.
    - Forbo 6y ago
      According to the Bar Association, the Commerce Clause and Public Health Service Act is what you're looking for. https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/youraba/2020/youraba-april-2020/law-guides-legal-approach-to-pandemic/ https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/yourab...
      - Impashin 6y ago
        This article makes no claims on the constitutionality of such an act.
        gamblor956 6y ago
        The PHSA is over 6 decades old, so you need to prove that is unconstitutional.
    - NoSorryCannot 6y ago
      You are being unpleasant. But even short an ability of the federal government to unilaterally require masks, it can exert a lot of soft power on the states by having a unified and full-throated position. The CDC, OSHA, federal funding incentives, and just having persuasive leadership that doesn't politicize compassionate mask wearing.
Animats 6y ago
Grocery stores even are employing someone to just stand there and either hand a cheapy surg. mask or tell them to put one on. In the more advanced countries, such as Thailand, this is automated.[1] The store entrance gate won't open until the automated face scan has seen a mask. Hikvision has a mask and temperature detection system integrated with their face recognition systems.[2] If you already have a face recognition system, adding mask detection is a software update. And yes, face recognition now works on people with masks. [1] https://twitter.com/i/status/1312668730791403520 https://twitter.com/i/status/1312668730791403520 [2] https://www.hikvision.com/uk/solutions/solutions-by-application/mask-detection-solution/ https://www.hikvision.com/uk/solutions/solutions-by-applicat...
- Rooster61 6y ago
  > In the more advanced countries, such as Thailand, this is automated. Having facial recognition everywhere isn't necessarily considered "advanced" in all circles. Technically, perhaps. Ethically? Not so much. Facial recognition could be put everywhere in the US. Its primarily the political, legal, and social culture that prevents it, not the access to sufficient technology.
  - rzz3 6y ago
    Facial recognition everywhere is a horrifying thought.
    - bb88 6y ago
      Some might see a million dead people as a worse thought. I don't really like the idea of facial recognition, but the political class lives in a public facing world where every move they make is scrutinized. So they see the world maybe differently than when they're private citizens.
      - rzz3 6y ago
        I guess it depends where each person falls on the “freedom vs safety” spectrum. I’m strongly on the “freedom” side. But I feel it’s a perspective based in some objectivity, as it’s generally a lot easier for one to protect themselves than to free themselves.
penagwin 6y ago
> Let me tell you I was in back-country Oregon recently, some of the MOST republican places within Oregon, not going to name drop the county. Not sure the name drop matters given the other information you shared ;) I won't name drop it either but for future curious readers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Oregon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Oregon
- TurkishPoptart 6y ago
  Are we talking about Malheur county?
irq11 6y ago
Oregon’s cases are skyrocketing: https://covid-19.direct/state/OR https://covid-19.direct/state/OR Much of this is in Portland: https://covid-19.direct/county/OR/Multnomah https://covid-19.direct/county/OR/Multnomah
- svrb 6y ago
  I think we can pretty safely conclude that any data saying blue cities have it worse than bumfuck nowhere towns must be misleading or manipulated. It just doesn't line up with what we know about education levels and compliance levels.
  - davidw 6y ago
    There are more total cases in Portland because of the population numbers. From what I recall, the per capita numbers bounce around, with rural counties going through outbreaks occasionally taking the lead. There was a church in La Grande that had a big one in late spring. Sure put the lie to the notion that it was "density" and a "city problem".
  - irq11 6y ago
    The graphs I linked use the Covid Tracking Project API. The data is not manipulated in any way.
  - sagarm 6y ago
    Blue cities are denser than outlying red areas. Density means more opportunities for transmission. All else being equal, they would see higher transmission and per-capita infection rates. The fact that we see the opposite is unfortunate and unnecessary.
  - dmode 6y ago
    San Francisco is the second densest city in America. San Francisco has the lowest COVID transmission rates of any city, with recently a positive test rate under 1%. Masks matter.
    - 6y ago
Bombthecat 6y ago
Yeah, but uhhh shouldn't you change your view while dying?? I mean... That's just plain insane. I'm reminded of monthy python: those lost arms?!? Just a scratch!
chillwaves 6y ago
You know who else has the power to lead people and states? The federal government. Almost like they were empowered specifically for this kind of scenario.
- nefitty 6y ago
  I started thinking about this when thinking of the United Nations. If the UN had become what it could have, we would have some sort of federal world system that could tackle things like climate change, etc. This same thing occurs at different levels. The US federal government is in the best position to enforce regulations that require collective state action, like pandemic response. If they’re not solving the problems they’re uniquely in a position to solve, then what’s the point of federal taxes?
- clairity 6y ago
  no, the federal government exists to defend the interests of the states, and resolve disputes between them. it's not meant to be a higher level of authority.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > no, the federal government exists to defend the interests of the states, and resolve disputes between them. Clearly, yes. > it's not meant to be a higher level of authority. The Supremacy Clause fairly explicitly disagrees.
    - clairity 6y ago
      yes, but the supremacy clause applies only to laws written within its (federal) jurisdiction, as enumerated in the constitution (and amendments). the battle there, of course, is how much jurisdiction can be finagled under the interstate commerce clause and the like.
      - nwallin 6y ago
        In your opinion, has COVID-19 had any effect on interstate commerce? Or is interstate commerce the same as it was this time last year?
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
The states aren't run by stupid people. They're not gonna send in some state cops start shooting people over masks or to escalate in that direction. They don't have the manpower to enforce mask mandates without the consent of the governed. Their options for projecting power into areas where people have relatively homogeneously chosen to not comply are limited.
- ryandrake 6y ago
  There are plenty of examples of unpopular rules successfully enforced, from school integration to the War On Drugs. The lack of mask/distancing enforcement is purely government cowardice and indifference. They could do it if they wanted to. Publicly fire a few county bumpkin Sheriffs who refuse to enforce the mandates and you'd see an attitude change.
  - zests 6y ago
    So when people protest, are you going to break up the protests?
    - coding123 6y ago
      That's the thing, in rural Oregon they protested the election, but they're definitely walking into grocery stores wearing the masks.
  - whammywon 6y ago
    AFAIK most (all?) sheriffs can't be fired. They're elected county officials, so maybe they could be impeached but I really don't think they can be just outright fired like that. Also, I would imagine many of the sheriffs that refuse to enforce mandates probably have considerable support from their constituents. Surely that would make their impeachment a significantly more difficult ordeal for whatever agency is responsible for the impeachment proceedings.
- tehwebguy 6y ago
  Do you think mask mandates are working in the other states due to enforcement? They aren't. People are just wearing them because they accept the seriousness and have a sense of the risk and their responsibility. Some do it out of shame, others necessity (e.g. shop not letting you in without a mask) but nobody is afraid of being arrested for failing to wear a mask.
opportune 6y ago
It's both. You can still wear masks in areas where they aren't explicitly necessary. In liberal cities in many "red" states, most people wear masks. It's 100% a "culture war" thing at this point. When I was moving from CA back East a few months ago, I saw practically nobody wearing masks even in rural CA. That's not even mentioning that it's the people who are electing governments which don't require these basic public health requirements.
pmiller2 6y ago
With mask noncompliance so widespread, what exactly is Biden going to do? Throw all the anti-maskers in jail? Post law enforcement outside their houses to force them to quarantine? In fact, while the state technically has legal authority to get people to comply with mask mandates, they don't literally have the ability to do so. So, I would argue that the state doesn't have the "power" to do anything here at all, or, at least that it hasn't been demonstrated to date.
lolwut123 6y ago
You understand that state governments are made up of people from the state right?

Impashin 6y ago

> the state has the power and push to get people to do it > this is why we need Biden in office You know Biden is running for national office, right? Not state government?

coding123 6y ago
Well, start with this: https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/01/politics/mask-mandate-fact-check/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/01/politics/mask-mandate-fact-ch...
- Impashin 6y ago
  This article demonstrates that the federal government does not (and should not) have the power to act in this manner. CNN found a single law professor who stated this: > "I don't think that the statute can be read broadly enough to apply to all people merely moving on an interstate highway," Blackman said. "Once you go beyond people in federal facilities, you're really intruding on what the state's responsible for." At best, they can cover Federal buildings with a policy. That is it.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    Your comment proves the article's point. In the entire country, they could only find a single professor to say that the federal government doesn't have the power to issue a mask-mandate for occupants of vehicles on interstate highways. Given that these roadways in question are interstate the federal government's power to regulate activity thereon is assumed as the power to regulate interstate commerce is one of the constitutionally enumerated powers of the federal government.
CerealFounder 6y ago
Im not sure why this is downvoted, especially on a site like HN. If you had a CEO that was anti tracking CAC and just said, doing marketing is enough. The corporate culture of employees would drift toward not tracking CAC (cost of acquisition), even though none of the employees are obligated to buy into that. The thing that is lost on the national vs state debate is that the presidents role in a our state powered republic is mostly a sales job. Selling culture, building confidence, recruiting domestic and abroad. Having a new culture changes things whether you agree with the change or not. It's not a political statement, it's how the country works.
- Impashin 6y ago
  In America, any power not explicitly granted to the federal government is left to the states. If Biden wins, this fact does not change, and he cannot enforce any policy regarding masks. "Marketing" from the President is irrelevant here as demonstrated by coding123's comment: > even the republican counties are under a mask order > Grocery stores even are employing someone to just stand there and either hand a cheapy surg. mask or tell them to put one on. If a state or company wants to enforce mask wearing, they can, and they do.
  - evgen 6y ago
    > In America, any power not explicitly granted to the federal government is left to the states. I am amused that anyone other than a small child still believes this. The 9th and 10th have been phantoms for longer than you have been alive and are of absolutely no consequence whatsoever. Oh yeah, there is no 'if' there buddy. Biden won and will be able to enforce any public health measures available to him via executive order starting January 20th.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > In America, any power not explicitly granted to the federal government is left to the states. If Biden wins, this fact does not change, and he cannot enforce any policy regarding masks. Sure he can. The exact parameters of any such mandate and its manner of enforcement is circumscribed, but that doesn't mean there is no legally-enforceable federal mask mandate. A direct federal individual mask mandate, with direct personal liability for violations, is least likely to be Constitutional. A federal mandate that states adopt, enforce, and demonstrate adequate compliance with such a mandate, with failure resulting in additional restrictions on interstate travel and trade, is certainly not only within the power of the federal government under the Commerce Clause, but also the executive branch under the Public Health Services Act and other laws relating to federal commerce-related responses relating to public safety.
uoaei 6y ago
"The state" refers to the governing apparatus, not a particular state within the union. I understand there may be some confusion if you are not familiar with the US government and typical ways of talking about it.
- Impashin 6y ago
  https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-10/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-10/ Please cite me where the power to enact a requirement to wear masks is explicitly granted to the federal government. I'll wait.
  - Forbo 6y ago
    According to the Bar Association, the Commerce Clause and Public Health Service Act is what you're looking for. https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/youraba/2020/youraba-april-2020/law-guides-legal-approach-to-pandemic/ https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/yourab...
    - Impashin 6y ago
      This article makes no claims on the constitutionality of such an act.
      - gamblor956 6y ago
        The PHSA is over 6 decades old, so you need to prove that is unconstitutional.
  - NoSorryCannot 6y ago
    You are being unpleasant. But even short an ability of the federal government to unilaterally require masks, it can exert a lot of soft power on the states by having a unified and full-throated position. The CDC, OSHA, federal funding incentives, and just having persuasive leadership that doesn't politicize compassionate mask wearing.

Animats 6y ago

Grocery stores even are employing someone to just stand there and either hand a cheapy surg. mask or tell them to put one on. In the more advanced countries, such as Thailand, this is automated.[1] The store entrance gate won't open until the automated face scan has seen a mask. Hikvision has a mask and temperature detection system integrated with their face recognition systems.[2] If you already have a face recognition system, adding mask detection is a software update. And yes, face recognition now works on people with masks. [1] https://twitter.com/i/status/1312668730791403520 https://twitter.com/i/status/1312668730791403520 [2] https://www.hikvision.com/uk/solutions/solutions-by-application/mask-detection-solution/ https://www.hikvision.com/uk/solutions/solutions-by-applicat...

Rooster61 6y ago
> In the more advanced countries, such as Thailand, this is automated. Having facial recognition everywhere isn't necessarily considered "advanced" in all circles. Technically, perhaps. Ethically? Not so much. Facial recognition could be put everywhere in the US. Its primarily the political, legal, and social culture that prevents it, not the access to sufficient technology.
- rzz3 6y ago
  Facial recognition everywhere is a horrifying thought.
  - bb88 6y ago
    Some might see a million dead people as a worse thought. I don't really like the idea of facial recognition, but the political class lives in a public facing world where every move they make is scrutinized. So they see the world maybe differently than when they're private citizens.
    - rzz3 6y ago
      I guess it depends where each person falls on the “freedom vs safety” spectrum. I’m strongly on the “freedom” side. But I feel it’s a perspective based in some objectivity, as it’s generally a lot easier for one to protect themselves than to free themselves.

penagwin 6y ago

> Let me tell you I was in back-country Oregon recently, some of the MOST republican places within Oregon, not going to name drop the county. Not sure the name drop matters given the other information you shared ;) I won't name drop it either but for future curious readers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Oregon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Oregon

TurkishPoptart 6y ago
Are we talking about Malheur county?

irq11 6y ago

Oregon’s cases are skyrocketing: https://covid-19.direct/state/OR https://covid-19.direct/state/OR Much of this is in Portland: https://covid-19.direct/county/OR/Multnomah https://covid-19.direct/county/OR/Multnomah

svrb 6y ago
I think we can pretty safely conclude that any data saying blue cities have it worse than bumfuck nowhere towns must be misleading or manipulated. It just doesn't line up with what we know about education levels and compliance levels.
- davidw 6y ago
  There are more total cases in Portland because of the population numbers. From what I recall, the per capita numbers bounce around, with rural counties going through outbreaks occasionally taking the lead. There was a church in La Grande that had a big one in late spring. Sure put the lie to the notion that it was "density" and a "city problem".
- irq11 6y ago
  The graphs I linked use the Covid Tracking Project API. The data is not manipulated in any way.
- sagarm 6y ago
  Blue cities are denser than outlying red areas. Density means more opportunities for transmission. All else being equal, they would see higher transmission and per-capita infection rates. The fact that we see the opposite is unfortunate and unnecessary.
- dmode 6y ago
  San Francisco is the second densest city in America. San Francisco has the lowest COVID transmission rates of any city, with recently a positive test rate under 1%. Masks matter.
  - 6y ago

Bombthecat 6y ago

Yeah, but uhhh shouldn't you change your view while dying?? I mean... That's just plain insane. I'm reminded of monthy python: those lost arms?!? Just a scratch!

chillwaves 6y ago

You know who else has the power to lead people and states? The federal government. Almost like they were empowered specifically for this kind of scenario.

nefitty 6y ago
I started thinking about this when thinking of the United Nations. If the UN had become what it could have, we would have some sort of federal world system that could tackle things like climate change, etc. This same thing occurs at different levels. The US federal government is in the best position to enforce regulations that require collective state action, like pandemic response. If they’re not solving the problems they’re uniquely in a position to solve, then what’s the point of federal taxes?
clairity 6y ago
no, the federal government exists to defend the interests of the states, and resolve disputes between them. it's not meant to be a higher level of authority.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > no, the federal government exists to defend the interests of the states, and resolve disputes between them. Clearly, yes. > it's not meant to be a higher level of authority. The Supremacy Clause fairly explicitly disagrees.
  - clairity 6y ago
    yes, but the supremacy clause applies only to laws written within its (federal) jurisdiction, as enumerated in the constitution (and amendments). the battle there, of course, is how much jurisdiction can be finagled under the interstate commerce clause and the like.
    - nwallin 6y ago
      In your opinion, has COVID-19 had any effect on interstate commerce? Or is interstate commerce the same as it was this time last year?

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

The states aren't run by stupid people. They're not gonna send in some state cops start shooting people over masks or to escalate in that direction. They don't have the manpower to enforce mask mandates without the consent of the governed. Their options for projecting power into areas where people have relatively homogeneously chosen to not comply are limited.

ryandrake 6y ago
There are plenty of examples of unpopular rules successfully enforced, from school integration to the War On Drugs. The lack of mask/distancing enforcement is purely government cowardice and indifference. They could do it if they wanted to. Publicly fire a few county bumpkin Sheriffs who refuse to enforce the mandates and you'd see an attitude change.
- zests 6y ago
  So when people protest, are you going to break up the protests?
  - coding123 6y ago
    That's the thing, in rural Oregon they protested the election, but they're definitely walking into grocery stores wearing the masks.
- whammywon 6y ago
  AFAIK most (all?) sheriffs can't be fired. They're elected county officials, so maybe they could be impeached but I really don't think they can be just outright fired like that. Also, I would imagine many of the sheriffs that refuse to enforce mandates probably have considerable support from their constituents. Surely that would make their impeachment a significantly more difficult ordeal for whatever agency is responsible for the impeachment proceedings.
tehwebguy 6y ago
Do you think mask mandates are working in the other states due to enforcement? They aren't. People are just wearing them because they accept the seriousness and have a sense of the risk and their responsibility. Some do it out of shame, others necessity (e.g. shop not letting you in without a mask) but nobody is afraid of being arrested for failing to wear a mask.

opportune 6y ago

It's both. You can still wear masks in areas where they aren't explicitly necessary. In liberal cities in many "red" states, most people wear masks. It's 100% a "culture war" thing at this point. When I was moving from CA back East a few months ago, I saw practically nobody wearing masks even in rural CA. That's not even mentioning that it's the people who are electing governments which don't require these basic public health requirements.

pmiller2 6y ago

With mask noncompliance so widespread, what exactly is Biden going to do? Throw all the anti-maskers in jail? Post law enforcement outside their houses to force them to quarantine? In fact, while the state technically has legal authority to get people to comply with mask mandates, they don't literally have the ability to do so. So, I would argue that the state doesn't have the "power" to do anything here at all, or, at least that it hasn't been demonstrated to date.

lolwut123 6y ago

You understand that state governments are made up of people from the state right?