Lockdown responsibility
After nearly two months of lockdowns, quarantines, and other societal restrictions which have decimated the national, state, and local economies I have come to some determinations.
First, this may have been a good experiment to try once. But not again with the uncontrolled, unlawful, unconstitutional levels we have seen and where so many of those in positions of power and influence have abused their power and the public trust.
Second, laws need to be put into place at all levels to keep those in power from exerting such total control as we have seen in many places throughout the country. Lockdowns, quarantines, stay-at-home and shelter-in-place orders, and other restrictions, regulations, and mandates have a place in extreme emergency situations and only for designated, very short-term duration. No single person at any level of a free society should have the power to issue any of the those or similar orders without the overwhelming majority approval of a voting representative group, and any of those orders should not be able to go into effect for at least 48 hours. The only exception would be absolute clear and present danger (like a nuclear missile enroute).
Third, at whatever level the lockdown, quarantine, etc. mandate, order, restriction, etc. is put into place that level of government becomes completely responsible for the economic losses of those under their jurisdiction as a result of the order, etc. So a city issuing lockdown orders would become responsible for all economic loss of all their businesses and citizens within the boundaries of the city. A state issuing shelter-in-place orders becomes economically responsible for all the business and personal losses incurred by those businesses and citizens in the state who are under the mandate. The only exception for taking on the economic responsibility would be in the case of absolute clear and present (immediate) danger.
Fourth, the elected or public official issuing the mandate, order, etc. should also be held liable at some level. The person at least should become illegible for further public office after completion of the current term. This isn't a punishment, it's so they recognize the gravity of their decision and to help prevent desire for further control and power that may come from issuing the order. Combined with needing approval from a representative body of citizens and the 48-hour waiting period before going into effect, these restrictions on elected and public officials should make them think long and hard before making any orders that severely affect the livelihood of their citizens.
Taking on this economic loss responsibility should curb any enthusiasm for jumping into another lockdown or similar situation.
This does not mean public health officials and politicians can't highly recommend certain actions like social distancing or staying at home whenever possible. It just means any weight of law is restricted.
Fifth, public health should not have the power to close anything except one single business location at a time for specific documented reasons or a single school for specific documented reasons. Blanket orders closing multiple businesses or schools should be prohibited except in the case of immediate clear and present danger (based on data, not models).
Sixth, data modeling should never be used to make absolute lockdown, etc. decisions. Only absolute data should be used. Data modeling is made based on data at the time of the model and uses extrapolation, inference, and best guesses. Even with various forms of statistical analysis, data modeling is only as good as the data it has and its programming. Bad or incomplete data means bad or incomplete results. The problem with COVID-19 modelling is there has been too many unknowns and assumptions that were included into the modelling, which is why the models haven't been very accurate.
First, this may have been a good experiment to try once. But not again with the uncontrolled, unlawful, unconstitutional levels we have seen and where so many of those in positions of power and influence have abused their power and the public trust.
Second, laws need to be put into place at all levels to keep those in power from exerting such total control as we have seen in many places throughout the country. Lockdowns, quarantines, stay-at-home and shelter-in-place orders, and other restrictions, regulations, and mandates have a place in extreme emergency situations and only for designated, very short-term duration. No single person at any level of a free society should have the power to issue any of the those or similar orders without the overwhelming majority approval of a voting representative group, and any of those orders should not be able to go into effect for at least 48 hours. The only exception would be absolute clear and present danger (like a nuclear missile enroute).
Third, at whatever level the lockdown, quarantine, etc. mandate, order, restriction, etc. is put into place that level of government becomes completely responsible for the economic losses of those under their jurisdiction as a result of the order, etc. So a city issuing lockdown orders would become responsible for all economic loss of all their businesses and citizens within the boundaries of the city. A state issuing shelter-in-place orders becomes economically responsible for all the business and personal losses incurred by those businesses and citizens in the state who are under the mandate. The only exception for taking on the economic responsibility would be in the case of absolute clear and present (immediate) danger.
Fourth, the elected or public official issuing the mandate, order, etc. should also be held liable at some level. The person at least should become illegible for further public office after completion of the current term. This isn't a punishment, it's so they recognize the gravity of their decision and to help prevent desire for further control and power that may come from issuing the order. Combined with needing approval from a representative body of citizens and the 48-hour waiting period before going into effect, these restrictions on elected and public officials should make them think long and hard before making any orders that severely affect the livelihood of their citizens.
Taking on this economic loss responsibility should curb any enthusiasm for jumping into another lockdown or similar situation.
This does not mean public health officials and politicians can't highly recommend certain actions like social distancing or staying at home whenever possible. It just means any weight of law is restricted.
Fifth, public health should not have the power to close anything except one single business location at a time for specific documented reasons or a single school for specific documented reasons. Blanket orders closing multiple businesses or schools should be prohibited except in the case of immediate clear and present danger (based on data, not models).
Sixth, data modeling should never be used to make absolute lockdown, etc. decisions. Only absolute data should be used. Data modeling is made based on data at the time of the model and uses extrapolation, inference, and best guesses. Even with various forms of statistical analysis, data modeling is only as good as the data it has and its programming. Bad or incomplete data means bad or incomplete results. The problem with COVID-19 modelling is there has been too many unknowns and assumptions that were included into the modelling, which is why the models haven't been very accurate.
Comments
Post a Comment