"White now, its berry berry scary out dare." Elmer Fudd
We are at a crossroads in Wisconsin. The Wisconsin State Supreme Court is taking up the legality of the State's stay-at-home rules, via a lawsuit filed by Republican legislators.
The State of Wisconsin has been under this mandate since March 24th. It was issued by the Secretary-designate of The State Department of Health Services, Andrea Palm.
https://evers.wi.gov/Documents/COVID19/EMO12-SaferAtHome.pdf
Under the law, Palm has the responsibility to regulate when the State is threatened by a disease outbreak such as COVID 19. the mandate recently was extended until May 26th and will be enforced unless it's overturned by a decision by the State Supreme Court.
The claim by the legislature is that the consequence of Palm's action causes unnecessary harm and that the legislature working with the state government should decide on the terms of this reaction.
The State claims that the roles as they are written are necessary because of the threat being immediate and need to act quickly is compelling.
The policy has a long tradition; however, it's fair to say the COVID 19 attack is unprecedented in its threat and proven ability to spread, disable, and kill its victims.
The political intent is clear. The Republican legislature has, from the day Tony Evers upset Scott Walker to become governor, has worked diligently to limit his power to govern.
So what does this mean to you and me? If the Safer at Home is nullified, could it mean we could go back to the kind of life we had before COVID 19? Yes, but probably in staggered stages and not without risk?
If the court rule in favor of the legislature, then they would control the form and enforcement of public behavior for the future of this pandemic. It's doubtful that there would be no limitations on our public conduct, but it's predictable that it could be more dangerous.
If the legislature listened to the experts, we would have to seriously ramp-up testing the population for the virus and create a team of contact tracing people to target treatment and quarantine procedures. There does not seem to be much support for the expenditure of money and resources for this kind of endeavor.
While loosening up on the rules may restart the economy, the second wave of infections is going to be a disaster that has already been predicted.
Politically, there is concern that Republicans who forced Wisconsin voters to go the polls in person to vote created the latest spike in diagnosed cases. Currently, there is no data to support that theory, but the timing is certainly suspicious.
Report by Madison TV station NBC affiliate, WMTV.
We are at a crossroads in Wisconsin. The Wisconsin State Supreme Court is taking up the legality of the State's stay-at-home rules, via a lawsuit filed by Republican legislators.
The State of Wisconsin has been under this mandate since March 24th. It was issued by the Secretary-designate of The State Department of Health Services, Andrea Palm.
https://evers.wi.gov/Documents/COVID19/EMO12-SaferAtHome.pdf
Under the law, Palm has the responsibility to regulate when the State is threatened by a disease outbreak such as COVID 19. the mandate recently was extended until May 26th and will be enforced unless it's overturned by a decision by the State Supreme Court.
The claim by the legislature is that the consequence of Palm's action causes unnecessary harm and that the legislature working with the state government should decide on the terms of this reaction.
The State claims that the roles as they are written are necessary because of the threat being immediate and need to act quickly is compelling.
The policy has a long tradition; however, it's fair to say the COVID 19 attack is unprecedented in its threat and proven ability to spread, disable, and kill its victims.
The political intent is clear. The Republican legislature has, from the day Tony Evers upset Scott Walker to become governor, has worked diligently to limit his power to govern.
So what does this mean to you and me? If the Safer at Home is nullified, could it mean we could go back to the kind of life we had before COVID 19? Yes, but probably in staggered stages and not without risk?
If the court rule in favor of the legislature, then they would control the form and enforcement of public behavior for the future of this pandemic. It's doubtful that there would be no limitations on our public conduct, but it's predictable that it could be more dangerous.
If the legislature listened to the experts, we would have to seriously ramp-up testing the population for the virus and create a team of contact tracing people to target treatment and quarantine procedures. There does not seem to be much support for the expenditure of money and resources for this kind of endeavor.
While loosening up on the rules may restart the economy, the second wave of infections is going to be a disaster that has already been predicted.
Politically, there is concern that Republicans who forced Wisconsin voters to go the polls in person to vote created the latest spike in diagnosed cases. Currently, there is no data to support that theory, but the timing is certainly suspicious.
Report by Madison TV station NBC affiliate, WMTV.
New numbers from the Department of Health Services show 460 more cases were reported Friday, more than 100 more than the 334 recorded Monday.
That brings the total number of cases in the State to 7,314, according to DHS's daily tracker. With 3,172 tests coming back negative, the percent-positive rate came in at 12.7 percent, the highest percentage in at least two weeks.
Given this information, one would think all of the factions involved would err on the side of caution. As we have witnessed recently, despite warnings of experts, the Republican leadership drove their efforts through the courts to hold the election on schedule. It gave Wisconsin voters a choice don't vote or take your chances with contracting COVID 19 I the process. That resulted in sending thousands to the polls.
Some of us still would have choices to make. People my age are more often die of complications of COVI 19. Those of us that are retired don't have to mix and mingle. We can voluntarily stay at home. It significantly reduces the chances of becoming infected.
Those that are still in the workforce and can't work from home are going to be the lab rats in this experiment. They will be on the battlefield. Out in the scary place where they may become infected but from whom and where they will know not.
They might skate by with a mild case and infect others unintentionally. They may be hospitalized or quarantined. Or, they might die.
Let's be clear no one wants the doomsday scenario. But those of us who believe the experts in this field are more convinced of the possibilities of these decisions and those outcomes are dire.
Compliments of one of my best sources for relevant information, Dave Nitz. Outside of misplaced loyalty to the Minnesota Vikings, my former classmate curates information about the St Louis Park, Class of 59, and spreads amongst us. This tidbit was more than worth sharing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Compliments of one of my best sources for relevant information, Dave Nitz. Outside of misplaced loyalty to the Minnesota Vikings, my former classmate curates information about the St Louis Park, Class of 59, and spreads amongst us. This tidbit was more than worth sharing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Thanks, Jeff. You're always worth reading, this piece exceptionally so. And thanks for the link from your '59 classmate. "We're from Park High, Mighty, Mighty Park High..."
ReplyDelete