U.S. to close..

[Jason Flare]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Maybe it's just me, but I believe that the biggest threats to US democracy aren't so much pandemic response, but the broader issue of who is not only paying the piper, but who's pretty much bought and owns the piper, as you allude to:

And there's also the small issue of who's been actively, unashamedly working to deny the vote or to discourage it by make voting more difficult, and of course challenging the result of a fair election by any means possible. These seem like bigger threats to American democracy than being asked to limit gatherings and wear a mask to help stop pandemic spread.

The whole, pesky "one [person], one vote" thing seems to be bugging some people.

The US is not a democracy.

Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution is the word “democracy” used.

Democracy is mob rule. It’s the two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Singularity

By 'rule book' I meant to refer to the phenomenon where there is a public discourse of expectations of what should/shouldn't be done for XYZ medical situations....what people say in public...and what they say/do/expect/threaten behind closed doors is very different. Agreed/understand that stress largely causes this, but this isn't ever part of the discussion...as it should be.

I don't mean to speak to the massive fraud problems in healthcare (it's own issue that, frankly, to put it one way, is a works program for people who have no other place in the economy). But specifically regarding decision-making to provide more/less care in which circumstances a largess of these John Galt/self-made man/rugged individualist type are whiny crybabies behind the scenes. Like Blanche DuBois they fundamentally always rely on the kindness of strangers.

Thinking about this a little more, I think you are referring to the effect of buying insurance vs paying out of pocket.

Go back to say the 1920's, if grandma was in bad shape and not going to recover, you had a discussion with the doctor and if you wanted over the top efforts, you came up with cash...so most (not all) people were incentivized to make reasonable choices.

With modern insurance, once grandma hits maximum out of pocket limits, there is no incentive to use medical services wisely as it costs nothing more. So if there is another test or procedure it's easy to push for it even if it has no real chance of doing anything.

As with most things, there's always two sides (or more). In the 1920's what was over the top effort was a function of family wealth...but because people always knew and understood the costs, it kept things in check to a much greater degree.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GordMay

. . . In a 1905 Supreme Court case (Jacobson v. Massachusetts*), upholding mandatory smallpox vaccinations, against a claim that it violated the constitutional liberty to control one’s own body and health, the court observed that:
“... The possession and enjoyment of all rights are subject to such reasonable conditions as may be deemed by the governing authority of the country essential to the safety, health, peace, good order, and morals of the community. Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act according to one’s own will...
... upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members ...”

At the moment, (most) governments (correctly, IMO) believe they have a temporary compelling interest, in restricting gatherings, assemblies and movement in public, in order to minimize the spread of this virus.
While we may tolerate these restrictions on our liberties, in the shorter term, we should never fail to be on guard, lest these prudent constraints become a slippery slope to tyrany, or “democide”.

* I’d welcome Dockhead’s thoughts on how, and if, "Jacobson" applies to our current situation (legally).
Is not the "strict scrutiny" just one (prevalent), of several, test philosophies (intermediate & rational basis) ?

We already discussed Jacobson v. State of Massachusetts upthread. I used to teach this case, which is a standard first year law school Con Law case used to illustrate how individual rights are balanced against public interests in Constitutional jurisprudence. Note that Jacobson is considered the high water mark of the state's power to infringe personal liberty and is somewhat controversial. There have been some rumblings about overturning it, but at the moment it is valid law.

There are three tests (discussed upthread) for the constitutionality of a law which infringes on personal liberty; the "strict scrutiny" test is the toughest.

And yes, pandemic measures can be justified under these tests, depending on how grave the infringement of personal liberty, how narrowly drawn the law, how compelling the public interest. It's a balancing act.

As we discussed upthread, masking is a pretty easy case, PROVIDED it is mandated by state governments (federal government is unlikely to have the power to mandate masks which would withstand constitutional scrutiny, because of the principle of enumerated powers). Even the most libertarian constitutional scholars agree about this.

Stay at home orders, restrictions on gatherings, and especially, restrictions on religious worship, are much tougher, and would likely need strict scrutiny, but might well pass constitutional muster if it can be shown that the measures are (a) narrowly drawn; and (b) are the least restrictive available which will do the job. But make no mistake -- stay at home orders raise serious Constitutional questions.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Jason Flare

The US is not a democracy.

Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution is the word “democracy” used.

Democracy is mob rule. It’s the two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

I've heard that before. The US is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. But there's this, which kind of establishes the "one man, one vote" thing...

Now I'm curious - if not democracy, then what? Genuine mob rule. Or an autocrat.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Did someone call my name?

It wasn't you I had in mind

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Professionals (hopefully) don't put their thumb on the scale, or ignore options or resources because they challenge the status quo.

Politics is a messy business, and thumbs are ever being put onto scales. In polarized, tribalized societies like ours, the political effect, and appearance, of policies, alas, is much more important than the substance -- than how much good is done to society. The biggest moral hazard of all is the conflict of interest between politicians and the people -- politicians always benefit from simple explanations of problems, even if the problems are complex, and from action which appears to be "bold", even if it's not the optimal action from the point of view of the people. This is how most wars are started, by the way. Nuanced, restrained, and intelligent policy is extremely difficult to sell, so by the time policy gets through the politicians these aspects of it are usually lost, at least in a system like ours. You can clearly see that today in our pandemic response, which is pretty pathetic.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

. . . The whole point of organizing as a society or a country is to do together what we cannot do individually. Such as respond to crises like pandemics. What do you think the governments of Finland or Sweden would be doing if they were not blessed with a national attitude of cooperation that made 'light touch' voluntary measures possible and effective? . . .

I agree entirely. That "national attitude of cooperation" is exactly what we are missing, and it may even be our downfall. The Nordic Model is really showing its strength at this difficult moment in history.


Drifting a bit from this: I am just back from a meeting in the Helsinki city administration, discussing some matters which are affected by the City's pandemic response. Although the daily infection rate continues at stably less than 40 per million, by far the lowest in Europe, nearly 3x less than Norway and 10x less than Sweden, the City government is preparing a crackdown, with broader masking recommendations (there are no binding mandates except in airports), social distancing in restaurants like in Sweden, and a number of other tightened measures, because of the anticipated effects of the cooling weather. Good to see they are not sitting on their laurels.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Wotname

AFAIK, USA courts will deport non-citizens but won't deport citizens. Of course I could be wrong.

I'm not suggesting this wrong, it is just an example that 'rights' as expressed by some posters only exist by the consent of others.

There is no right in the constitution to be in the USA illegally...At least in principal, I think the USA would support all those rights for people in their home countries. So unless you just start making up rights out of thin air, your comment makes no sense.

Likewise the 2nd Amendment specifically calls out to that it's in order to maintain a militia. Since visitors on tourist visas aren't likely to be in the local militia, it doesn't make sense that the right would extend to them while in the USA. Again, nothing suggests the USA would disagree with them having that same right in their home country...but that doesn't mean the USA is going to impose the 2nd Amendment on other countries.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I've heard that before. The US is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. But there's this, which kind of establishes the "one man, one vote" thing...

Now I'm curious - if not democracy, then what? Genuine mob rule. Or an autocrat.

Look up the definition of democracy. The US and I don't think any other country in the world has anything remotely like democracy. I think ancient Athens tried it for a while but they didn't last too long. You might be able to find a stray tiny town (under 100 population) that operates as a true democracy.

In a true democracy, every action is based on what the mob demands. All actions are placed before the mob and the mob votes on what to do.

The US is a constitutional republic that is run in large part by democratically elected representatives and appointed officials. There are many limitations placed on that word "democratically" to limit mob rule. With a few exceptions, the mob doesn't get to directly enact laws (state propositions are an exception and often turn into fiascos). Certain positions are not elected (Supreme Court or the Presidents Cabinet officials for example). Others are in direct conflict with the "one man one vote" theory. The senate for example...A vote in Alaska is worth several times as much as a vote in California.

The one man one vote theory really only applies within a local election. If you are voting on the exact same position, your vote counts equally (note: many people don't understand, you don't vote directly for president but for an electoral college member pledged to vote for a candidate).

So no, the USA is not a democracy, though we use certain democratic principal with significant limitations placed on them to limit mob rule.

[DockDoc]

Seatbelts
Condoms
Masks

Proven to save lives if worn. Do we need mask police writing tickets?

Americans understand, now, that wearing a seatbelt is a personal and public safety measure. It lowers the burden on health services by lowering the morbidity of crash victims. Who else here, I already know it's most of you, is old enough to remember when this became law and all the swearing, posturing, and "my rights are being violated" BS our grandparents (parents?) tossed around.
Now cars are basically undrivable if you don't wear one, and if you can actually tolerate the idiot alarms, a cop can pull you over and ticket you for not wearing one.
Condoms were my generation, HIV and AIDS was at that time a death sentence. Prior to HIV, condoms were seen as filthy objects even unopened, only carried by truckers, sailors and whores. They came out of the closet during this medical crisis and were prominently displayed, often in punch bowls at parties. They became a staple of college life and I handed them out in medical school like they were mints to patients. Fortunately, treatment for HIV came around and condoms have stepped out of the limelight but no longer carry a social stigma. I gave my daughter a box for her 16th birthday, she was not in the least mortified and did politely tell me she 'didn't need them' but took them anyway. I want her to have them, just like I want her to wear her seatbelt.

Masks fall somewhere between. They protect us and our close contacts like condoms, but they also help lower the medical burden on society, and like seatbelts easy to spot if you're in compliance, whereas condoms...not so much. Easy to put on, and now have become a social norm. I'd love for it to stop there. I don't want the government to once again step in and legislate my behavior. I as a reasonable adult, presented with a reasonable solution to a problem would like to think I will choose to modify my behavior, without government coercion, and 'do the right thing'. We don't need the patriot act revamped because of a virus.

I love to say I told you so, and I did. This pattern of spikes and closures follows what I had posted months ago, my shock is how long this is lasting. Let's hope and pray the Moderna or another vaccine is soon produced enmass. Untill then, click it, wrap it, mask it!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by DockDoc

Seatbelts
Condoms
Masks

Proven to save lives if worn. Do we need mask police writing tickets?

Americans understand, now, that wearing a seatbelt is a personal and public safety measure. It lowers the burden on health services by lowering the morbidity of crash victims. Who else here, I already know it's most of you, is old enough to remember when this became law and all the swearing, posturing, and "my rights are being violated" BS our grandparents (parents?) tossed around.
Now cars are basically undrivable if you don't wear one, and if you can actually tolerate the idiot alarms, a cop can pull you over and ticket you for not wearing one.
Condoms were my generation, HIV and AIDS was at that time a death sentence. Prior to HIV, condoms were seen as filthy objects even unopened, only carried by truckers, sailors and whores. They came out of the closet during this medical crisis and were prominently displayed, often in punch bowls at parties. They became a staple of college life and I handed them out in medical school like they were mints to patients. Fortunately, treatment for HIV came around and condoms have stepped out of the limelight but no longer carry a social stigma. I gave my daughter a box for her 16th birthday, she was not in the least mortified and did politely tell me she 'didn't need them' but took them anyway. I want her to have them, just like I want her to wear her seatbelt.

Masks fall somewhere between. They protect us and our close contacts like condoms, but they also help lower the medical burden on society, and like seatbelts easy to spot if you're in compliance, whereas condoms...not so much. Easy to put on, and now have become a social norm. I'd love for it to stop there. I don't want the government to once again step in and legislate my behavior. I as a reasonable adult, presented with a reasonable solution to a problem would like to think I will choose to modify my behavior, without government coercion, and 'do the right thing'. We don't need the patriot act revamped because of a virus.

I love to say I told you so, and I did. This pattern of spikes and closures follows what I had posted months ago, my shock is how long this is lasting. Let's hope and pray the Moderna or another vaccine is soon produced enmass. Untill then, click it, wrap it, mask it!

Great post (nice to hear from an actual doc), but I beg your pardon?!!

"Prior to HIV, condoms were seen as filthy objects even unopened, only carried by truckers, sailors and whores."

[DockDoc]

That and my subtle "came out of the closet" was my respectful nod to the gay community who embraced condoms in a big way.
At least sailors were doing the right thing, even before it was the right thing!

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Jason Flare

The US is not a democracy.

Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution is the word “democracy” used.

Democracy is mob rule. It’s the two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

very few countries are true democracies. Most have checks and balances that control the wolves and protect the lamb etc

[Exile]

Originally Posted by DockDoc

At least sailors were doing the right thing, even before it was the right thing!

As a sailor I wasn't offended in the least. I was merely looking out for my many shipmates around here who it might very well apply to.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by SeanPatrick

Ahem ...

I don't know how things are wherever you come from, but here it is a fundamental principle that our rights are god-given and that no man can take them away. Our courts have continuously upheld that ideal right up to the present day. And [an attempt at] taking those rights away is not "easy". One must amend the Constitution to do that.

Your constitution, just like every other Earthly tome, was written by people. Unless you can show me a sworn affidavit from Mr. G that he was there, I'm going to go with reality .

And as has been amply pointed out already, your rights can be abridged by the State under many circumstances. They are not "inalienable" or unassailable. This is what makes the current pandemic situation precarious for those of us who value individual rights and freedoms.

Power seeks power, and there's nothing better for an expansion of that power than when faced with the need to do good. And make no mistake, the actions being taken ARE being done with the best of intentions. They ARE (or most are) needed. But we need to recognize the danger this poses.

Slippery slopes are not inevitable. But they are very real, as history shows all too often.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHOhPvWlSQc

Galadriel was obviously from the Nordic countries . She was wise enough to see the danger of power. Too bad this is a fictional story.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The whole point of organizing as a society or a country is to do together what we cannot do individually. Such as respond to crises like pandemics. What do you think the governments of Finland or Sweden would be doing if they were not blessed with a national attitude of cooperation that made 'light touch' voluntary measures possible and effective?

This sums up the point I've been making about societal trust and social capital. Countries which have high levels of this amorphous, but very real capacity, can utilize a less authoritarian response. People trust each other to do the right thing, and to be working for the collective best interest of everyone. There is no need for mask police. People understand that rights come with responsibilities. And they act accordingly.

Those who live in more individualistic societies don't have that luxury. They know everyone is just out for themselves, so they act accordingly. To get a collective response requires overt coercion, i.e. "mask police."

I happened on a short (18 minute) interview with one of my favourite behaviour economics researchers: Dan Ariely. It is worth listening to in that he cites actual research to illustrate the above point. He also addresses the foolish comments some make about this only being a 1% risk.

https://youtu.be/aLheBtBpZQw

[Exile]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

very few countries are true democracies. Most have checks and balances that control the wolves and protect the lamb etc

An important one of which is the parliamentary system which generally forces more mainstream parties to find consensus and compromise with more ideological and extreme factions. As has been discussed elsewhere, the US system seems more vulnerable in recent times since, unlike parliamentary systems, it's basic structure allows for "winner-take-all" scenarios after basic civility and compromise break down. Hence the polarization and divisiveness that has become more and more pronounced in modern times, with elections (and policies) often being decided as a reaction to what was in place immediately before and not necessarily on their own merit. This plays to otherwise low-quality politicians and the mass marketing of dumbed-down policies, but doesn't serve the vast majority of Americans who are somewhere closer to the middle of the political spectrum. The best policies usually come out of hard work and a meeting of diverse minds who share similar goals but have differing ideas on how to reach them. By contrast, the ideologues are usually relegated to occupying both extremes for good reason, with ideas that sound appealing but are far too simple and naive to actually work. The problem is that their simplicity can also make them seductively popular, especially when the system that normally works to facilitate infinitely harder compromises has faltered. Or enough of the people believe that it has faltered.