Below is my column in The Hill on the legal foundation for an economic recovery in reopening businesses in the United States. While some often seem to assume a zero tolerance approach for any risk of spread, we have no choice but to try to get this economy out of the current disastrous conditions. Unless we want to reintroduce a barter economy, we need to stop the exponential growth of debt coupled with the perilous decline of employment. The key may be individual choice and an ancient legal doctrine.
As pressure builds on states to open, many governors are starting to ease lockdown orders. That decision is not purely a public health matter but a public policy matter with interlaced issues of law, finance, and medicine. Congress and states must decide how legally to restart an economy in a world saturated by the coronavirus. With expensive recovery measures and a federal deficit projected at more than $30 trillion by the summer, we face a real possibility of a lost generation due to crippling debt and chronic unemployment. So this means businesses and institutions will need to operate in a way that is sustainable instead of just symbolic.
The legal challenge here is to open up the country fully when we cannot reasonably expect any vaccination program until next year, according to most experts. Thus, in the interim, our best hope may be an ancient legal doctrine that extends back to Roman law in the sixth century. “Volenti non fit injuria” means “no wrong is done to one who consents,” and it became the solid foundation for what we know today as “assumption of risk.” The doctrine encapsulates the concept of personal responsibility and choice. Thus, any economic opening precisely requires not liability but choice.
But assumption of risk, which began as a doctrine in employment liability cases in the United States, has already been on the decline in this country. Assumption was an absolute defense, but most states have now adopted an alternative “comparative negligence” approach in which jurors assign the portion of responsibility of each party in their verdict. If the plaintiff or the injured party is found to be 20 percent at fault, the award is reduced by that amount. Some states apply an additional rule that if plaintiffs are more than 50 percent at fault, then they are barred from any recovery.
The problem for businesses in this pandemic is that every case presents different arguable facts as to who is more at fault from the spread of the coronavirus. Is it the individual or the establishment? Strong defenses do exist, including factual causation where a plaintiff needs to establish that a particular location was the source. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how someone could prevail against a business on the speculation that he or she contracted the disease from any single contact inside the business.
Yet states are adding different conditions and responsibilities that could fuel claims. There could also be a tsunami of litigation of strike lawsuits, cases brought with the intention of forcing a quick settlement, and even stronger liability lawsuits. If there will be a reliance on individual choice without the exposure to prohibitive litigation costs, then there is a need for uniform legislation on the state level and possibly the federal level.
Negligence can be wildly difficult to define in a world after a pandemic, where businesses are not being careless but must operate in a high risk environment. Any economic recovery needs to occur at a time when the majority of customers will be neither immune nor vaccinated against the disease. Businesses cannot question every group to determine if they are all family members or what each of their personal medical conditions are.
Take my neighborhood pool in McLean in Virginia. The board has debated whether it can afford to open it this year, given the uncertainty of what the state mandates. The state cannot expect lifeguards to constantly separate people or teenage workers to constantly check temperatures. It can clean surfaces regularly and can separate tables. While there is no evidence that the coronavirus can spread through chlorinated water, children will gather in groups and people might not be honest about their symptoms. There is no method to protect against transmission and remain a functioning pool.
In deciding whether to open, businesses now must balance the possibility of coronavirus infection against the near certainty of legal exposure. One can understand if they feel like they are being set up by those politicians who often speak as if they have a zero tolerance for any transmission risk. States are creating a host of duties for businesses to manage, even those directed at customers like the requirements that they wear masks inside.
In Kansas City, there is a rule limiting many businesses to 10 customers or 10 percent of occupancy. If customers linger for over 10 minutes, stores are asked to take down their identities and contact information to allow for possible reporting to state officials. In New Mexico, hotels and other places of lodging are allowed to operate at no more than 25 percent of maximum occupancy, reduced from the previously arduous 50 percent occupancy order. Each order can be the basis for a negligence lawsuit.
Many industries are already arguing for sweeping immunity protections from lawsuits alleging the contraction of the coronavirus. However, such sweeping immunity laws can remove the incentive for businesses to take precautions. The most logical path to reopening is to keep up pressure, including liability, on those businesses like nursing homes with high risk occupants or customers. Though nursing homes are seeking immunity, incentives or disincentives for high risk businesses must be preserved.
Alternatively, states can pass laws allowing for conditional assumption defenses. Businesses could be given immunity if they post prominent warnings that customers must assume the risk of entering or engaging. Congress has passed such an immunity law, for drug companies, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, vaccine manufacturers cannot be held liable for an injury or death related to a vaccine “if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though a vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.”
Indeed, Congress can pass the same type of law to protect any business from lawsuits over the contraction of the coronavirus if the business was properly maintained and displayed proper directions and warnings. Many states allow hotel pools to be protected from lawsuits over drownings, for instance, if the posted warnings indicated that no lifeguards are present.
Congress can arguably not only pass such immunity for federal enclaves but condition relief on such legal measures that allow for the opening of the economy. Under such a law, businesses and institutions can resume full operations with protection, so long as they meet conditions like the cleaning of equipment, the testing of employees, and posted warnings. Regulated industries such as the airlines today are subject to new rules, like proposed use of ultraviolet lighting to kill the coronavirus on board.
Otherwise, the choice would be left to individuals on the level of risk they are willing to take. For younger people, that risk might be sufficiently low enough to venture out to bars, restaurants, or sporting events. There has been more information now readily available to the public to make such critical decisions and to take personal responsibility for their decisions.
Torts scholar Francis Bohlen once described “volenti non fit injuria” as a “terse expression of the individualistic tendency of the common law” that “naturally regards the freedom of individual action as the keystone of the whole structure.” In either common law or legislative form, our future in this country may depend on that “freedom of individual action.”
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley.
Personal responsibility has no role in Progressive doctrine.
Trump is a progressive?
This isn’t about President Trump. Progressives consistently oppose any policy proposal that hinges on individual responsibility. It is an anathema to Progressive doctrine and the victimhood culture.
But if President Trump is against an assumption of risk defense, you can be pretty sure the Dems and the media will be in favor of it.
“I don’t take responsibility at all”…..DJT
The NYPD’s Violent COVID-19 Arrests Show It Hasn’t Learned Much in the 6 Years Since Eric Garner’s Death
https://reason.com/2020/05/07/the-nypds-violent-covid-19-arrests-show-it-hasnt-learned-much-in-the-6-years-since-eric-garners-death/
There was nothing to learn. Garner was subject to an ordinary police tackle. He had an idiosyncratic reaction to that.
Is that why Pantaleo was finally fired? The only thing good to come out of it was this:
New York Cops Protest Pantaleo’s Firing by Hassling Fewer People. Crime Is Still Going Down.
https://reason.com/2019/09/04/new-york-cops-protest-pantaleos-firing-by-hassling-fewer-people-crime-is-still-going-down/
And Ramsey Orta has paid a high price for filming the ‘encounter’/death of Eric Garner.
http://amsterdamnews.com/news/2020/jan/02/ramsey-orta-and-out-solitary-confinement-abused-of/
Don’t change dicy in the middle of a screw. Vote for Nixon in 72!
That is “dicks”.
Trump Denies Pandemic Relief To Undocumented Immigrants
But Food Supply Is Largely Dependent On You Know Who
Donald Trump promised that the $2 trillion economic stimulus bill he signed in March, providing direct payments to tens of millions of Americans, would “deliver urgently needed relief to our nation’s families, workers and businesses.” But more out of spite than in the furtherance of any rational policy goal, several million Americans were specifically excluded from the relief plan: U.S. citizens who are children or spouses of undocumented immigrants.
In the midst of a pandemic ravaging the nation, lawmakers and the administration saw fit to insert and enact that provision of the law, for no apparent reason beyond its punitive effect. The vast majority of the nation’s babies, toddlers, middle-schoolers and teenagers younger than 17 are eligible for $500 payments — generally rendered to their parents — but not if either their mother or father is an unauthorized immigrant.
Nor can U.S. citizen parents receive the $1,200 payment to which they would otherwise be entitled if they file taxes jointly with an undocumented spouse. A household consisting of a married couple with two U.S. citizen children, which would otherwise qualify for $3,400 in benefits, would receive nothing if the undocumented mother filed a joint return with her citizen husband.
What’s particularly senseless is that the administration’s policy of impoverishing households that include undocumented immigrants coincides with a moment in which the nation’s food supply — heavily dependent on those very immigrants — is in peril. By the government’s own estimate, half of all field hands in the country, more than 1 million workers, are illegal immigrants whose labor has been deemed “essential” to keeping grocery shelves stocked with meat and produce. Other such immigrants may have lost jobs this spring in restaurants or as custodians and child-care workers, and are already struggling to care for their children.
Edited From: “Trump Is Withholding Relief From These U.S. Children – Just To Spite Their Parents”
Today’s Washington Post
Simply being married to an illegal alien does not disqualify an US Citizen from receiving the stimulus. It’s the fact that taxes were filed with this illegal alien spouse in order to get the deduction and actually turn a profit in these tax returns. In a time where tens of millions of US citizens have lost their jobs and are facing an uncertain present and future ZERO taxpayer dollars should be subsidizing illegal aliens.
Anonymous, yeah, let’s see how many unemployed Trumpers sign-up for farm work.
Went in dumb. Come out dumb too. Hustling round Albany in our alligator shoes.
We’re Yorkie! Yorkies!
We don’t know our arse from a hole in the ground..
Etc.
So the debt is projected to the end of the century at some multi trillions. That is including moneys planned to pay various needs and employees to the that. It’s an automatic debt that kicks in every year with some 70% of the budget. BUT it’s not set in stone. Cut government 30% by using retirement and lowering the number of bodies working and their salaries. by 30% that’s budget and employees. Most of that projected debt will disappear. In truth how much of government was laid off this time.
For that matter any time they want to through a skeer to the citizens. Like they do when they lie about shutting down the government. It’s never shut down and that’s a fact the layoffs are paid later and at the most 30% were temp laid off. Mostly using the false hood of cutting the budget which always turns out to be cutting the budget. And that always turns out to be cutting the amount of increase in the budget. It’s a Big Lie.
Trump is using that against the far left to push them into a corner with never dry paint and they fell for it again. Just ask one of the socialist who is going to pay their idiotic $2,000 a month citizens salary? The answer? It never comes because their is no answer to a nothing.
So how many of you suckers are going fall to your knees for yet another hoax from the socialist left knowing they are not real citizens ?
The stupid party is now the stupid sucker party.
“As countries around the world scramble to stem the economic fallout from the coronavirus crisis, the United Kingdom appears to be setting the pace with one of the most impressive relief packages yet, with the government, in a quest to limit layoffs and firings, pledging on Friday to cover 80 percent of employers’ wage bills up for up to £2,500 for each worker monthly. … It’s a colossal, unprecedented plan of government intervention—and it’s no small thing that this is coming from Boris Johnson, the leader of Britain’s Conservative party.”
https://www.motherjones.com/coronavirus-updates/2020/03/uk-coronavirus-wage-relief/
Boris Johnson is a Socialist!
The Road Back To Normal Is Pocked With Gaping Craters.
As massive as the $2 trillion rescue package initially seemed just weeks ago, it’s already clear how paltry it is. New estimates by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office show the U.S. economy contracting by 40 percent on an annualized basis. Given that pre-coronavirus gross domestic product was in the range of $21 trillion, truly stabilizing the economy might take something in the range of $5 trillion to $7 trillion to cover just the next four to five months; because a vaccine is still only theoretical and could take 18 months to arrive en masse, analysts like Harvard’s Juliette Kayyem say we might be in for “2 years of really funky living.”
At every turn, the scale of the disaster is almost unfathomable. Forget the Great Recession or the Crash of ’87. It’s easy to imagine a scenario in which, if we escape a crisis “only” on the scale of the Great Depression, we might be lucky.
And yet the imagination of our country’s leaders hardly seems up to the task. The president himself appears incapable of empathy, is skipping as many as nine out of 10 of his task force’s briefings and remains wedded to magical thinking — recommending cures ranging from the simply unproven to the outright deadly. His executive branch, after a three-year assault on institutional norms, is hobbled by vacancies, revolving doors and a plague of temporary acting officials that’s only going to get worse as the president’s term winds down. Congress, after years of ignoring warnings to prepare for remote work, finds itself deeply hobbled in even its most basic tasks — from passing bills to holding hearings and receiving briefings. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, in particular, seems content with fiddling as the country burns; he’s suggested that states declare bankruptcy rather than using his time to address the mounting problems.
Having failed to prepare for the epidemic as it loomed overseas, the United States now finds itself in the position of mounting the worst response in the developed world. Months into the crisis, we’re not even getting the basics right; other countries are running circles around us when it comes to testing and contact tracing, which all public health experts agree are key to addressing the short-term challenges. We’re still testing 700,000 people per week, not the 30 million a week that the Rockefeller Foundation says might be necessary to fully reopen the economy. We’re even, apparently, drastically undercounting the death toll.
Edited From: “The Storm We Can’t See”
Always a difficult problem, the response from the president has been a disaster and with no end in site. He is intellectually, emotionally, and ethically incapable of leading the nation or else we might hope for a belated snap-to and and after Pearl Harbor like marshaling of forces.
In the 2019-2020 flu season so far, 782 influenza- and pneumonia-related deaths have been reported in Virginia, including three pediatric deaths. The Wuhan virus has killed 812 Virginians with 2 pediatric deaths. We obsess over one and ignore the other destroying our economy in the process. Any ideas why in this Presidential election year?
Mespo, it sounds like the quarantine has worked to hold down the curve in Virginia.
Don’t you see, Zeus is a victim. If tRump isn’t re-elected who will speak for the deplorables.
Right. It’s hard to imagine how desperately doctrinaire one has to be to miss that obvious point.
It may not be quarantines that have done the most good rather it might be common sense. Governments like Democrat NY State acted stupidly and made other states look better by comparison.
“Dr. Deborah Birx, coordinator of the White House coronavirus task force, on March 29 revealed models projecting the deaths of 100,00-240,000 Americans, assuming social distancing efforts were ongoing. At the same time, said epidemiology models initially had predicted a worst-case scenario of 1.5 million to 2.2 million U.S. deaths without mitigation efforts such as social distancing, hand washing and staying home as much as possible.”
https://time.com/5830052/us-coronavirus-death-toll-trump-estimates/
Fake Science!
July:
“Mespo, it sounds like the quarantine has worked to hold down the curve in Virginia.”
***********************
Glad you asked, the house arrest had no effect on influenza deaths, so no the quarantine has only worked to deny our freedoms and make the Dims feel we’re more docile than we are.
Democrats, facing an historic landslide victory by Trump in November, dialed up their Chinese commander and spoke the code words “Broken Arrow” invoking the last resort, “danger close” air and artillery support imperative for a position which is in the process of being overrun. China complied with its American allies request and released COVID-19, understanding that the collateral damage constituted acceptable losses, a little “pruning,” in an intractable nation of 1.4 billion. The hypothesis is that Trump will not overcome the deleterious effects of the biological weapon in time to win the election and that democrats will prevail with facility.
I’m betting on Trump.
this is implausible george bioweapons are notoriously hard to control, blowback problem, and the Chicoms consider the Democrats their lackeys and are not necessarily going to leap to their aid, just because
the hypothesis lacks proof that there was a weaponization scheme for this. you can’t just say “dual use research” as a possibility– possibilities are not proofs
what is more plausible is that the Chinese scientists in league with various american scientists have been doing dangerous gain of function research on coronaviruses, in various places including the wuhan bsl 4 lab, and it leaked out
the incompetent and habitually dishonest Chicom bureaucrats failed to warn the national leadership and all of them together failed to warn the world, and here we are
that is a much more plausible hypothesis and it has the virtue of being supported by scientific opinion from Luc Montaigner the virologist who got the Nobel prize for his work on the HIV virus– who says the genome sequence of sars-cov-2 indicates laboratory genetic manipulation
Redundancy is fail safe.
Place a sign at all entrances for employees and customers saying “Although reasonable and wholesome safety measures are practiced here, enter at your own risk, but, please, not at the risk of others in the establishment”, until such time congress can return to normal session. Write a comprehensive policy on the infection control practices in place and follow them,preferably with signatures once tasks are completed. For the time being something similar to that may be the best bet for small businesses who are already far behind and can’t afford an attorney to review and sign off on such measures to protect the owner.
I’m glad to see JT addressing the crisis, though I’m not sure the liability of businesses is either the most pressing or important of the issues, except maybe to the plaintiff’s attorneys who may frequent the site. I’m a business owner and I haven’t considered it. Other more compelling legal issues might be:
– Presidential powers and responsibilities during emergencies, including the DPA, and precedents.
– Governors’ powers and responsibilities during emergencies and precedents.
– The limits of governmental aid to businesses and individuals.
– International mechanisms during an international crisis.
Etc. Plenty to write about.
Is there any financial incentive for reporting deaths as caused by Covid-19? If so, then what checks are in place to confirm the validity of the reporting?
Yes, there is a financial incentive to the hospital to name a ChiCom virus patient and a future incentive for each death. This is the reason that deaths by flu are down by 20.000 this year.
Hello Paul. Thanks for this stat on the reduced flu deaths. Have you got the source of the info handy?
He’s sitting on it.
madison1782 – I got my information from on of the panelists on The Blaze w/Sara Gonzoles. The are very careful with their info so I am comfortable passing it on. They did not say where they got it, however the CDC usually keeps those stats.
Fed Govt pays $19k per covid19 patient, $29-35k per cv19 patient on oxygen. So more covid19 patients more $, a regular flu death hosp has to argue with patient’s ins co IF he*she has one.
Test
Still dumb.
+1000
Assumption of risk has been continuously attacked by the legal profession which dominate our Congress and the rest of society. No doubt lawyers are a necessary good, but we have to use common sense and stop expanding unnecessary laws (even work on retracting them) and legal claims of injury when the most responsible person is the one that didn’t use common sense or knowing the risk took it.
“No doubt lawyers are a necessary good”
Allan, I appreciate your deference to Professor Turley about lawyers being a necessary good. But let us be blunt. A small number of lawyers are a necessary evil. I believe a 90% reduction is in order.
It is only a lawyer who can parse assumption of risk for a virus. The whole idea that I am assaulting someone because I go shopping after not observing social distancing rules strikes me as something more unique to America than elsewhere.
“Allan, I appreciate your deference to Professor Turley”
Steve it is not deference to say, lawyers are a necessary good just because Turley is a lawyer. They are a necessary good and have been throughout the ages. Believe it or not, I can’t think of any group of people (who supply their own needs) that think differently.
I don’t know the proper number of lawyers required. The marketplace is one of the determining factors. People are risk averse in general and mostly wish someone else to pay for a risk gone wrong. Lawyers go for the money and when they don’t practice law some go into politics while others practice law as a judge. They see things in the way that benefits or benefitted themselves. As professionals they can be sued even if they incorporate. My understanding is that some processes of law are so difficult that laws have been passed to protect lawyers from suit. One can compare the difficulty factor to another profession, medicine, but such difficulties to my knowledge don’t stop liability. Think brain surgery. There aren’t that many lawmakers that are doctors.
“It is only a lawyer who can parse assumption of risk for a virus.”
I think that is totally false unless this was stated sarcastically..
If A Town Has One Lawyer, He Starves; If It Has Two Lawyers, They Both Get Rich.
Oh no! Please don’t sue my client!
Ha ha. But that’s kinda silly. What urban geographers call the ‘range of good’ for legal services is somewhat wider than it is for convenience stores and gas stations. That aside, you’ve still got real estate closings, minor offenses, contracts to sign, child custody cases, probate, and divorces in villages where only one lawyer has an office. The lawyer I correspond with in these fora has since 1983 maintained a solo practice in a town with about 4,000 people living in it (to which he has now added his son as a junior partner). He’s actually moderately specialized. He does bankruptcy, criminal defense, and some odds-and-ends.
I’m not quite sure what’s going on here. I was pretty much in agreement with Allan’s comment as well as yours below.
Steve, I don’t think that is true.
I think we’re talking at cross purposes. As absurd says, one reason people dislike the legal system is that it seems to exist to employ lawyers. As you say, assumption of risk has been continuously attacked by the legal profession. I am in agreement with this.
“I think we’re talking at cross purposes. ”
I think that is likely true but when I said: “Steve, I don’t think that is true.” I was referring to your comment: ”
If A Town Has One Lawyer, He Starves; If It Has Two Lawyers, They Both Get Rich.”
Well if you think I’m really being too hard on these poor fellows, so be it. It’s appalling that you were already in an environment where you were even discussing the assumption of risk with regard to unintentional spread of a virus. As it was appalling that Lysol was actually behaving reasonably when they felt the need to put our a presser due to Trump’s disinfectant comments. Perhaps I can improve myself and be more deferential to them.
Steve, I’m not sure what you are talking about above. I read it more than once and still am not sure where your focus is. I also don’t know who you you should be more deferential to.
What does your comment have to do with:
>>“It is only a lawyer who can parse assumption of risk for a virus.”
>”I think that is totally false unless this was stated sarcastically.”
See George McGovern’s comments on his sojourn in the hotel-and-conference-center business. He said that two years after he and his partners had shut down their business, they were still trying to settle lawsuits brought by people who fell in or near their hotel. He indicated he wasn’t impressed with a lot of the plaintiffs in these suits, who seemed in his view to be responding to the vicissitudes of life by recriminations against the nearest business.
One reason people dislike the legal system is that it seems to exist to employ lawyers, its stated function being an occasional byproduct of its wheel-spinning, and this seems to be true in criminal and civil matters. Courts meddle a great deal. They don’t protect us very much.
Allan, as I’m sure you know, many other states’ legislatures (including Texas) did away with assumption of risk because it was deemed too harsh to bar recovery altogether if the plaintiff was somewhat at fault. Instead, a comparative responsibility scheme was put in place under which both the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s comparative fault are weighed by the fact finder so that the defendant only pays for the damages caused by his or her wrongdoing. To me, this seems fair. Overall, though, our legal system is not fair.
In Texas, if any generalization is to be made about our legal system, I think it would be fair to say that our system heavily favors those who commit torts over those who are damaged because of them. Nearly forty years ago, a radical change in Texas law was brought about by something called “tort reform.” Touted as the means to protect businesses from “outrageous” jury verdicts, the net effect has been to make it very difficult for an ordinary person with a legitimate claim to gain access to the courts. Today, if you visit a courthouse in liberal Travis County (Austin) you will find court dockets clogged with family law cases and criminal cases but only a sprinkling of tort cases. To illustrate, before tort reform, I and many other attorneys handled nursing home abuse and neglect cases– those cases where a nursing home resident’s flesh rots away because of preventable bed sores are not treated, or a resident chokes to death because swallowing deficiencies are ignored. Nearly always, the cause is short staffing to increase profits. Today, I know of only a small handful of lawyers who handle such cases. Severe limitations on damages leave little room for compensation and an attorney’s fee after deductions are made for the out-of-pocket costs of the investigation, expert witness fees, depositions, and other essential things that must be done. Typically, all of the costs are advanced by the attorney and repaid only if the plaintiff wins the case. The economic analysis also must include the fact that regardless of merit, some cases will be lost. The result is that these cases simply are not economically feasible and for the most part no longer are filed.
I think comparative fault strikes the proper balance. A return to assumption of risk once again would close the courthouse doors to people who need and deserve a legal remedy, something that the tort reform movement already has accomplished in many areas. I keep thinking that if this keeps up, there will be a tendency to turn to self-help remedies– an eye for an eye. I don’t think any of us want to see a return to that brand of justice.
” To me, this seems fair. Overall, though, our legal system is not fair.”
Honest, that sounds pretty much the way things are. We have to remember that juries are in charge. That means the system isn’t fair because different juries and even different judges will provide different decisions.
Let’s go back in history prior to the massive litigation we see today that slows the economy down, prices things out of reach and makes us less safe. As I said lawyers are necessary but the consumer has to be aware and ‘buyer beware’ has to be at the front of everyone’s mind. Look back at the pharmaceutical industry prior to suits being a dime a dozen. Certain companies developed brands and because of the company’s reputation people would purchase a specific brand. A suit generally collects a limited amount of money but a loss of faith in a brand could cause the company to lose its livelihood. We need balance. Today that balance does not exist. We are too dependent on the legal system and not dependent enough on reputations and ourselves.
I’ve heard two strategies for what we’re doing.
Stretching out the time frame, but not reducing, the number of people infected so that we do not overwhelm hospitals while achieving heard immunity. Or,
Using lockdowns to reduce the growth until we get to zero.
Does anyone know which of the two we’re doing?
Fear. That is the current strategy.
Vaccine Tracking System data indicate a notable decrease in orders for VFC-funded, ACIP-recommended noninfluenza childhood vaccines and for measles-containing vaccines during period 2 compared with period 1 (Figure). The decline began the week after the national emergency declaration; similar declines in orders for other vaccines were also observed. VSD data show a corresponding decline in measles-containing vaccine administrations beginning the week of March 16, 2020
As social distancing requirements are relaxed, children who are not protected by vaccines will be more vulnerable to diseases such as measles. In response, continued coordinated efforts between health care providers and public health officials at the local, state, and federal levels will be necessary to achieve rapid catch-up vaccination.
DeSilva MB, et al. Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Routine Pediatric Vaccine Ordering and Administration — United States, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. ePub: 8 May 2020. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6919e2
external icon
“Stretching out the time frame, but not reducing, the number of people infected so that we do not overwhelm hospitals while achieving heard immunity. Or,”
The basic reason for stretching the time frame out was to prevent overloading of the hospitals.
Think of 2 main reasons for potential lack of beds and or equipment in our hospital system.
1) Federal laws such as Obamacare that have pushed for consolidation.
2) CON laws (created originally by NY, spread to states and adopted federally but repealed when they were found not to work, but like every other law leading to more government control CON continued)
Obama are did no such thing, idiot.
YNOT, you prove once again you are unaware. There isn’t much disagreement that consolidation is occurring and part of the reason is Obamacare.
Good question, I don’t know, but as of yet there is no national policy or strategy.
Stretching out the time frame with an expectation of eventually getting to herd immunity (60-70% infected) or a vaccine seems most reasonable. As every expert has said, testing is a necessary component of doing this intelligently and we are nowhere close to where we need to be on that.
“expectation of eventually getting to herd immunity (60-70% infected) or a vaccine”
In other words Anon wishes to wait until the economy is totally dead and then we can still have Covid infections even assuming the vaccine works and herd immunity can be obtained.
The non Covid deaths from Anon’s solution if enacted would be much greater than the deaths from the disease. That would be highlighted even more if we looked at life years. Anon should stick to his hammer and nails.
The way I read BTB, he is for using hospital metrics to base the way we move forward. As opposed to indefinite lockdowns.
My understanding is, short of surprising new technology, we will not be able to forget the viru sas a deadly threat until we either have a vaccine or achieve her immunity. How we get there should be smartly, not political, and with the least damage to the economy. Testing is a necessary requirement of the “smart” part.
I think a problem arises if you start expanding the time frame beyond what hospitals require. Or do you think a testing system enables us to pursue lockdowns until the virus is gone without having to reach heard immunity?
Testing with contact tracing is a tool to reopen the economy with knowledge and controls so you don’t suffer a boomerang. Individuals and families will better know if and how to quarantine and/or expect a need for medical attention. Authorities will know more precisely who and where the virus is most active and can plan more accurately. It is not an excuse to do nothing but a tool to do more.
There is no excuse for us not doing everything reasonably possible to increase testing ASAP. Every billion spent will be more than saved and exponentially by a more confident and safe reopening of the economy.
That is the basics of the Trump Plan something Anon fought against before. Instead of being able contact trace every case the testing will be to see what is happening with regards to the virus and act accordingly. If there is a significant outbreak then for that area the phases of opening might be moved back. This provides a period of time where more information is obtained so that details of the plan can be changed.
There is no national plan for testing and contact tracing and Trump has failed to use maximum federal leverage to acquire tests and testing support. That is beyond stupid as it is counter to his own announced plan to reopen the economy ASAP, and while costly, is peanuts next to lost income.
Testing is done as needed either randomly or when an outbreak occurs or something unexpected happens. The states have doctors and epidemiologists. No one person in Washington can watch every locale in the US. There will be breakthroughs as this is a virus. The alternative is to close the nation and kill lots more people. That is what is beyond stupid.
The sick and the elderly are going to have to watch out during these times. Government didn’t do that in Democratic NY. Instead Covid was sent into the nursing homes rather than to a ship that was refurbished to hold Covid patients. That seems to be your answer to the problem at hand.
If a governor is stupid the state won’t do as well as a state with a smarter governor. Governor DeSantis Republican so far has done pretty well. Florida is home to a huge portion of our elderly and they haven’t faced the death rate anywhere near NY, Democrat, either in their own homes or in the nursing homes.
One of Florida’s biggest concerns was people escaping NY that were carrying the virus.
If that is the case then Anon would be trying to open up almost the entire country.
Flattening the curve protects from overloaded hospitals. Where in the country aside from the hotspots are the hospitals even at capacity?
He wants to wait for a vaccine or herd immunity neither of which are guaranteed to protect the population. We need to isolate the sick and elderly while we open the nation testing to make sure hotspots aren’t developing. That is what he said in the past and that is what he seems to say above. Anon will gradually change his position as he sees he is wrong as usual.
“Where in the country aside from the hotspots are the hospitals even at capacity?”
It does look like he is unwilling to pin himself down to that doesn’t it?
How much has this question come up in the public discourse? I’m not aware of it. Has that line of questioning come up at any press conference? For that matter has Trump or any of the Governors asked that question?
“It does look like he is unwilling to pin himself down to that doesn’t it?”
Anon is nothing more than a mouthpiece for talking points on the left. It’s virtually 100% anti-Trump so if Trump says yes Anon will invariably say no or say something else that is stupid.
I’m not sure exactly what you are asking about but the discussion of a decrease in elective medical procedures and hospitals losing money have come up all over.
I haven’t heard of an instance where any reporter has asked the question, “Since the hospital system is in good shape, why are you taking these measures?” And so I haven’t heard any Governor answer that question either. Do you know of any reporter that has even bothered to ask any Governor that question, or of any Governor answering it?
We’re into May now, at it’s time to get some clarity on the mission.
I think you already know that MSM reporters of today don’t do their job. However what do you think happens when the public is told not to go out and hospitals become even more scary places because of the Covid virus? I think there was a recent posting by Estovir from the NEJM recently talking about the decrease in elective cardiac procedures and investigations. Others elsewhere have talked about workups for cancer, breast biopsies, colonoscopies, etc. There has even been talk of layoffs of medical personal from the medical sector. Almost everything is geared to Covid.
I think Trump has provided clarity. Phased opening, testing and reducing the fear. He has also clearly stated that federalism exists for a reason and therefore governors will take local responsibility for their own states though the federal government will be backing up the states in need and will push to open up the economy.
Allan – tomorrow restaurants in Arizona will start a slow opening. Starting with about 25% capacity.
Paul, restaurants are opening in your area but not for you. Stay safe.
Allan – I am still doing take out and wearing a mask then. Thanks for the support. 🙂
I just saw this:
Medical Practices Use GoFundMe to Survive
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/930269?nlid=135479_5653&src=wnl_newsalrt_daily_200510_MSCPEDIT&uac=285805EX&impID=2376552&faf=1
“Stretching out the time frame with an expectation of eventually getting to herd immunity … seems most reasonable.”
Even NYC is nowhere near the 60-70% mentioned by Anon. That could take years and it might never occur.
“Stretching out the time frame with an expectation of eventually getting a vaccine seems most reasonable.”
That may or may not occur and the earliest time mentioned, January, is stretching it. There isn’t even a guarantee the vaccine will work.
Both would mean a dead economy so Anon doesn’t know what he is talking about. He is putting comments together to make himself feel smart. He isn’t.
We did not consent. Also, consent under threat of death or physical harm is not true consent but fear.
In view of the uncertainty surrounding how/when covid-19 is contracted, meeting the burden of proof in targeting a particular business seems daunting to say the least. How would a plaintiff contending s/he became infected in, say, a bar or sporting event, overcome the real possibility that s/he was asymptomatically infected prior to being there? Or, having contracted it in one of several places visited the same day, or on the street coming and going? Not many cases will be successful if traditional “preponderance of the evidence” standards prevail.
But every case brought will be encumbered with costs for the business.
Quite good
OFF SUBJECT.
Make 2020 Tax Free for all
Front Line Workers.
Forget about Fly Overs.
No one wants to attack the scandal. News media and politicians continue to count an extraneous variable in whether to open the economy and how far. Deaths in nursing homes are figured in total covid 19 deaths nation wide. As of this date 25,000 of the 70,000 total are deaths in nursing homes. Citizens who are not actively participating in the work force or society. And up until mid April many states did not keep separate statistics. Ohio’s Dewine, whos is highly praised in the media for his early mitigation efforts, did not know how many long term care deaths there were as late as April 15. Gov Cuomo of New York “found” 1700 more deaths last week. In late March his edict to house covid 19 patients in long term care facilities was a death sentence to many. 5300 deaths in New York.
Separate deaths in nursing homes from society totals and open the economy.
Agreed. Getting pretty tired of the misinformation and fear mongering. The kids will be fine, as will most everyone else. We may like to draw equivalencies to past pandemics, but in this case they are false ones. This was never going to be danged Chernobyl, and it won’t ever be. The virus will also never be eradicated fully. So long as there are new tests, there will be new cases. Waiting for zero is scientific naiveté, plain and simple.
Every business is premised on assumption of risk. The best thing for government to do is fix the roads, deliver the mail, jail the crooks and get the Hell out of the way! Which is precisely all it should have done when the Wuhan Hype-demic came to our shores.
No. Mail delivery, except to odd remote locations, is a fee-for-service activity which can be provided by private companies. Contracts for subsidized delivery to remote locations can be let out in sealed-bid auctions. The postal inspectors can be incorporated into one or another federal law enforcement apparat. The production of postage stamps could be incorporated into the Bureau of Engraving and Printing’s activities. We’d need a small postal agency to let out the contracts, certify postage meters, and vend stamps to distributors.
And, no, we have a public safety problem here, just as we do in the case of riot or natural disaster. That means police powers and state-directed collective action. The problem we’ve had has been in the supply chain for protective equipment such is used to good effect in Japan.
“And, no, we have a public safety problem here, just as we do in the case of riot or natural disaster.”
*****************
Virginia’s “public safety problem” has killed or contributed to the deaths of 800 people give or take. That’s 0.00009411764 or .0094% of the state’s 8.5 million member population. In comparison, last year we had 1200 overdoses and 787 influenza deaths this year and yet we didn’t call out the national guard for either. We may have a “public safety problem” somewhere but that’s a local or state issue not a national one.
The stay-at-home orders are coming from Richmond, not from Washington.
“The stay-at-home orders are coming from Richmond, not from Washington.”
******************
Well, we also have a twit for Governor so we’ve got that going for us making our stupidity multi-factorial with some political cowardice thrown in .
US Constitution (powers of the Congress):
“Article I
Section 8
Clause 7
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;”
So what? That is merely permissive. Also, there have been changes in technology and process know-how which have changed the optimal mode of providing postal services. We don’t need a public postal service. The reason we have one is (1) sheer inertia, (2) public sector unions are the echt Democratic Party client, (3) getting their retirement benefits on an actuarially sound basis to get the service ready for sale offends various constituencies.