6 ms·

That _should_ be their role, but unfortunately they overstepped. The CDC implemented an eviction moratorium for around a year (September 4, 2020 through August

by niij 4y ago

That _should_ be their role, but unfortunately they overstepped. The CDC implemented an eviction moratorium for around a year (September 4, 2020 through August 26, 2021). That had very real, negative impact on landlords during that time. I doubt those effected would call it toothless. 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...

standardUser 4y ago
There were not zero policies enacted by the CDC.
- niij 4y ago
  I don't understand this response. Could you elaborate?
  - standardUser 4y ago
    What I mean is that one example doesn't contradict the fact that the CDC had limited direct power during the pandemic, and that various other federal agencies and, even more so, state and local governments were the ones implementing and enforcing most of the restrictions we experienced during the pandemic. I may have exaggerated how minimal the role of the CDC was in my initial comment, but only because I keep seeing this narrative that the CDC was somehow controlling the country. That is spectacularly far from the reality.
    - niij 4y ago
      Yes, I agree with you. State and local governments had a much larger impact. My point was the CDC was also forcing people to do things against their will in addition to state and local governments, it just affected fewer people. That force negatively affected many people (mostly landlords and non-US National travelers). The flip-flop guidance throughout the pandemic was annoying, but completely ignorable.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  And on top of this: there were ample opportunities for every single state to exercise judicial review of the CDC’s order. The CDC was a politically efficient vessel for an overwhelmingly popular policy that probably kept millions of people from homelessness.
drekk 4y ago
Those landlords should get a real job in that case. They chose to treat housing like a speculative asset and it didn't go their way. Makes zero sense to me that our pandemic response was about "keeping small businesses afloat" rather than keeping transmission low for a few weeks. I guess besides sacrificing grandma to the economy for $2 margaritas at Applebee's we should have evicted millions during winter so that landlords wouldn't be aversely affected by a pandemic. Weird how the eviction moratorium included aid for them as well, but I guess they were the real victims here and should have gotten more. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/01/25/nearly-20percent-of-renters-in-america-are-behind-on-their-payments.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/01/25/nearly-20percent-of-rent...
- briantakita 4y ago
  Sounds like a great argument against the lockdowns, considering that the root of the problem was the lockdowns.
  - sofixa 4y ago
    No, the root of the problem was the pandemic.
    - Soapysmith 4y ago
      No, the root of the problem was death.
      - briantakita 4y ago
        The root of the problem is the technocrats in charge. This sh*tshow happened under their direction. People used to get fired (or worse) for doing a lousy job & spoiling the commons. Now they are given even more power, riches, & a ubiquitous voice in all matters.
- niij 4y ago
  Stealing/nationalizing property, even for a year, results in higher costs to do business in the future due to the assumed risk. So I agree with you that this may have helped the single metric in the short term; there are long term consequences. That means as an individual you will either pay higher rent or be forced to buy. Many people would rather have the flexibility and no maintenance that renting provides.
franga2000 4y ago
The CDC's role should 100% _not_ be just about informing people. They and equivalent agencies around the world should have the power to take drastic measures in cases like a pandemic. That's their whole point. It's like saying traffic cops should only give warnings. But also, semi-related: they implemented a policy to prevent people from becoming homeless during a global pandemic and it had a negative impact on the people who have been padding their bank accounts for decades by steadily increasing margins on a basic life necessity. Sorry if I don't feel bad.
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  Not from the US but I disagree. Even an agency like that needs control. We saw what terrorism could do and the real measurable threat to lives through terrorism doesn't even match going for a walk in a lively city. It still justified overbearing surveillance to this day and there was no correction. These mechanisms stay in place and their original justification is forgotten with time and the surveillance will redirect randomly, for example towards people posting comments on Twitter. At some point someone while sneeze and everyone will be restricted to their homes. Not every bad decision has a bad intend at the start, but they will happen without any form of opposition.
  - franga2000 4y ago
    Power doesn't mean unchecked power - like with any powerful organisation, measures should be taken to prevent abuse, but taking the power away in order to prevent abuse won't end well. > At some point someone while sneeze and everyone will be restricted to their homes What would their motivation be? Why wouldn't there be any opposition? This isn't like spying where you can do it without people knowing. Even if entirely justified (like we saw during covid), people will oppose such measures - what makes you think they wouldn't of they weren't justified?
    - raxxorraxor 4y ago
      If someone is responsible to ensure the health of the population they tend to focus on that task. If a source tells them that imposing a stay at home mandate throughout the year would save 10,000 lives, they might tend to chose it just to not be responsible for these deaths. Only a strong opposition allows them to come to a balanced choice. Ever noticed that most interior ministers are surveillance freaks? Comes with the job as well. An opposition is actually beneficial for them as the consequences of decisions wouldn't rest on their shoulders alone. So a solution to this dilemma is to limit powers in the first place. Such decisions should ideally go through parliament in democracies. Sure, sometimes acting fast is beneficial, but just as often quick decisions come with costs as well.
Aerroon 4y ago
Why focus on the landlords? The CDC decided to do away with the rule of law and took powers they didn't have a mandate for.

by niij 4y ago

standardUser 4y ago

There were not zero policies enacted by the CDC.

niij 4y ago
I don't understand this response. Could you elaborate?
- standardUser 4y ago
  What I mean is that one example doesn't contradict the fact that the CDC had limited direct power during the pandemic, and that various other federal agencies and, even more so, state and local governments were the ones implementing and enforcing most of the restrictions we experienced during the pandemic. I may have exaggerated how minimal the role of the CDC was in my initial comment, but only because I keep seeing this narrative that the CDC was somehow controlling the country. That is spectacularly far from the reality.
  - niij 4y ago
    Yes, I agree with you. State and local governments had a much larger impact. My point was the CDC was also forcing people to do things against their will in addition to state and local governments, it just affected fewer people. That force negatively affected many people (mostly landlords and non-US National travelers). The flip-flop guidance throughout the pandemic was annoying, but completely ignorable.
woodruffw 4y ago
And on top of this: there were ample opportunities for every single state to exercise judicial review of the CDC’s order. The CDC was a politically efficient vessel for an overwhelmingly popular policy that probably kept millions of people from homelessness.

drekk 4y ago

Those landlords should get a real job in that case. They chose to treat housing like a speculative asset and it didn't go their way. Makes zero sense to me that our pandemic response was about "keeping small businesses afloat" rather than keeping transmission low for a few weeks. I guess besides sacrificing grandma to the economy for $2 margaritas at Applebee's we should have evicted millions during winter so that landlords wouldn't be aversely affected by a pandemic. Weird how the eviction moratorium included aid for them as well, but I guess they were the real victims here and should have gotten more. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/01/25/nearly-20percent-of-renters-in-america-are-behind-on-their-payments.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/01/25/nearly-20percent-of-rent...

briantakita 4y ago
Sounds like a great argument against the lockdowns, considering that the root of the problem was the lockdowns.
- sofixa 4y ago
  No, the root of the problem was the pandemic.
  - Soapysmith 4y ago
    No, the root of the problem was death.
    - briantakita 4y ago
      The root of the problem is the technocrats in charge. This sh*tshow happened under their direction. People used to get fired (or worse) for doing a lousy job & spoiling the commons. Now they are given even more power, riches, & a ubiquitous voice in all matters.
niij 4y ago
Stealing/nationalizing property, even for a year, results in higher costs to do business in the future due to the assumed risk. So I agree with you that this may have helped the single metric in the short term; there are long term consequences. That means as an individual you will either pay higher rent or be forced to buy. Many people would rather have the flexibility and no maintenance that renting provides.

franga2000 4y ago

The CDC's role should 100% _not_ be just about informing people. They and equivalent agencies around the world should have the power to take drastic measures in cases like a pandemic. That's their whole point. It's like saying traffic cops should only give warnings. But also, semi-related: they implemented a policy to prevent people from becoming homeless during a global pandemic and it had a negative impact on the people who have been padding their bank accounts for decades by steadily increasing margins on a basic life necessity. Sorry if I don't feel bad.

raxxorraxor 4y ago
Not from the US but I disagree. Even an agency like that needs control. We saw what terrorism could do and the real measurable threat to lives through terrorism doesn't even match going for a walk in a lively city. It still justified overbearing surveillance to this day and there was no correction. These mechanisms stay in place and their original justification is forgotten with time and the surveillance will redirect randomly, for example towards people posting comments on Twitter. At some point someone while sneeze and everyone will be restricted to their homes. Not every bad decision has a bad intend at the start, but they will happen without any form of opposition.
- franga2000 4y ago
  Power doesn't mean unchecked power - like with any powerful organisation, measures should be taken to prevent abuse, but taking the power away in order to prevent abuse won't end well. > At some point someone while sneeze and everyone will be restricted to their homes What would their motivation be? Why wouldn't there be any opposition? This isn't like spying where you can do it without people knowing. Even if entirely justified (like we saw during covid), people will oppose such measures - what makes you think they wouldn't of they weren't justified?
  - raxxorraxor 4y ago
    If someone is responsible to ensure the health of the population they tend to focus on that task. If a source tells them that imposing a stay at home mandate throughout the year would save 10,000 lives, they might tend to chose it just to not be responsible for these deaths. Only a strong opposition allows them to come to a balanced choice. Ever noticed that most interior ministers are surveillance freaks? Comes with the job as well. An opposition is actually beneficial for them as the consequences of decisions wouldn't rest on their shoulders alone. So a solution to this dilemma is to limit powers in the first place. Such decisions should ideally go through parliament in democracies. Sure, sometimes acting fast is beneficial, but just as often quick decisions come with costs as well.

Aerroon 4y ago

Why focus on the landlords? The CDC decided to do away with the rule of law and took powers they didn't have a mandate for.