Great Lakes Compact? It's been around for a long time. Here the link to your state's description of it.

https://www.in.gov/dnr/water/5216.htm
 

Oops, I stand corrected (by myself after taking a look). Drafted by the states but apparently approved by Congress and signed into law by George W. Bush.
 

Jeff, a better example would be the National Popular Vote compact.
 

It would be also useful to look at current precedent involving the contours of interstate compacts to remind this is not just an abstract question. So, e.g., some law professors are arguing the whole dispute in not justiciable. There has been various Supreme Court rulings on the clause. This question is not purely academic.

For instance, U.S. STEEL CORP. v. MULTISTATE TAX COMM'N(1978) held the language should not be taken to be absolute & the concern basically are compacts that violate federal supremacy. The lines there seem hazy and political & yes the lagging of time would factor in here. Later on, Congress can expressly block the agreements in some fashion, but that is somewhat unlikely for political reasons.

The "imminent danger" language seems to modify the "war" part, not the compact part of that clause. Invasion or imminent danger. Too many conjunctions and commas does lead to confusion. The concern for formal rules that bind also does seem like an important wrinkle. An "agreement" or "compact" does suggest something binding, not just flexible guidelines.


"There could be circumstances where an individual or a state would be harmed by an interstate agreement reached without congressional consent, but I'm hard-pressed to see who would be in this instance."

It is somewhat hard to judge this without having details. The agreement would likely have certain details that will affect certain individual parties such as the line item veto litigation or the Bond case involving a federal rule as to chemical weapons (there an individual criminal case). So, e.g., if some business is harmed by the agreement, the business might have standing and ultimately might be able to get some sort of relief even if it might not be directly monetary.
 

This is off topic but GM had a series of posts on the ratification of the ERA.

A lawsuit was referenced involving three conservative leaning states to stop formal ratification from being announced. I recently heard that there is a reverse lawsuit now trying to get just the opposite -- a declaration the ERA has been ratified.

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/era-suit.pdf

But, for another day.
 

Important one. But, the more accurate issue so far, is the wish of Trump, to reopen the economy ( soon) while states disagree ( or some states disagree). Surly, emergency state, is relevant here. It's like Trump using emergency legislation, for fighting illegal immigration ( building the southern wall ). So, the clause, doesn't deal specifically with immigration but mentions only "war" or, "imminent danger". So, imminent danger, is an open or vast terminology, must be adjusted, and re- adjusted, to current or modern situations or occurrences. Yet:

It is stating " imminent ", now, Trump may claim, that since, it is a future issue (when exactly to reopen the economy) then, it is not imminent! The nation, the federal government, has the time yet, or, had the time, to calculate the danger, to form or strike the right balance, and decide properly.

So, if it is not imminent danger, the states must obey the federal government one may argue.

But, if it is unreasonable ( since, the situation of states vary) then, that is why there are courts simply.

Thanks
 

Here:

"Trump: It’s my decision, not governors’, to reopen country"

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/13/trump-governors-decision-reopen-183405
 

It's not clear to me that ad hoc, temporary arrangements among several governors and their respective advisers to coordinate decision-making constitutes what the Constitution calls a "compact". There might not need to be any legislative acts, but doesn't there need to be some degree of (1) formality and (2) durability? If I'm right, how much formality and durability is required for there to be a "compact"?

 

Bob Richard, read hereby, you would get some answers:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-10/clause-3
 

Bob, reach directly the title:

"INTERSTATE COMPACTS
Background of Clause"
 

A major distinction is whether the compact purports to be binding, or is merely a mutual, but unenforceable, agreement to act in a certain way. I would say only the former could require Congressional approval.
 

Just one minor correction. Not all the states have Dem governors. MA’s governor is still officially a Republican, even though he generally acts like a Dem. Mostly because he has no choice.
 

By the way, in " Excess of Democracy " titled:

"Can states enter into interstate compacts to coordinate reopening society as the coronavirus outbreak wanes? "

Here:

https://excessofdemocracy.com/blog/2020/4/can-states-enter-into-interstate-compacts-to-coordinate-reopening-society-as-the-coronavirus-outbreak-wanes
 

"Presumably they are doing this because they do not trust the Federal Government (in other words, the Trump Administration) to give them coherent advice."

Another reason one might imagine is simply that the states are adjacent states in the hardest or longest hit regions, and when dealing with something like this that 'spreads' it's reasonably important to consider what the fellow next to you is doing.
 

On standing, I can easily see standing if the states agree to reopen businesses later than what the federal government prefers, and a business owner wants to challenge the state ban. The interstate component would be important because a ban in, say, New York on dine-in restaurants wouldn't be very effective in suppressing covid-19 if dine-in restaurants are open in New Jersey.
 

لوله بدون درز  که اکثراً آن ها را با نام قیمت روز لوله مانسیمان می شناسیم، لوله مانیسمان در رده 40 ، رده 80 ، رده 120 و … تولید می شود، از جنس های مختلف استنلس استیل، گالوانیزه، فولادی و … در بازار یافت می شوند . این لوله به دلیل نداشتن درز جوش و یکنواخت بودن دارای مقاومت بالایی در برابر فشار های جانبی نسبت به لوله های درزدار هستند، از این رو قیمت بالاتری نسبت به لوله های درزدار دارند. از لوله های مانسیمان برای انتقال سیالات پر فشار مانند نفت، گاز و آب در نیروگاه ها، پتروشیمی، معادن و مخازن استفاده می شوند.
 

I see some suits have been filed challenging some state checkpoints, aimed at combating COVID, targeting out of state residents on constitutional grounds.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/covid-19-checkpoints-targeting-out-of-state-residents-draw-complaints-and-legal-scrutiny/2020/04/14/3fc0ed42-774e-11ea-b6ff-597f170df8f8_story.html
 

One good analysis from last month on such questions:

https://blog.harvardlawreview.org/contagion-and-the-right-to-travel/

Current constitutional law (from Edwards v. California, involving an Okie law, on) guards against targeting out of state residents for economic reasons.

It is unclear how many recent precedents address traditional quarantine type policies, broad language possibly found in them, but current law would guard against targeting out of state persons under the Privileges and Immunities Clause. [The court of appeals weighing the abortion restrictions cited a case from the turn of the 20th Century.]

So, the checkpoints should at least treat all travelers the same, based on reasonable criteria [if the right to travel is limited], including their own residents coming back from points outside the state.
 

joe, thanks, I'll take a look. At first glance I think the state should be able to meet a compelling interest in treating out of state persons differently given the nature of quarantine is to *stop spread from other places*, but I'll have to think on and read a bit first.
 

Gerard: Article One, Section Ten, Clause Three of the Constitution states, in part: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." Two groups of states (all with Democratic Governors) have reached agreements amongst themselves to coordinate their plans to reopen their economies when appropriate...But can these states make these plans without the consent of Congress?

This whole exercise violates multiple provisions of the Constitution.

(1) Absent a law of Congress, neither the POTUS or individual states have the power to shutter businesses and place the People on house arrest in response to a communicable disease. Even with statutory authorization, such a statute can run afoul of the 9A and the DPC.

Article II does not grant the POTUS the power to shutter businesses and place the People on house arrest by decree. Neither does any state constitution I have read grant governors this power.

Furthermore, pursuant to the Dormant CC theory, states cannot shut down interstate commerce, which the Supremes have defined broadly to cover nearly any economic activity.

Finally, even with a congressional statute, we all have rights to liberty and property, which the government is normally forbidden from taking without due process and arguably reasonable compensation.

Of course, Congress has a substantial interest in promoting public safety. However, the government never possessed any substantive evidence COVID 19 was any more of a threat than the annual cold and flu season and all of the relied upon "models" (wild ass guesses) have proven to be wildly wrong.

(2) As Gerard noted, Article One, Section Ten, Clause Three of the Constitution expressly forbids states from entering into agreements absent an act of Congress or an emergency on par with military invasion. I would think this prohibition is even stronger when the compacts are coordinating how long to violate other provisions of the Constitution.

What are the Blue State governors going to argue in response? The most likely reason for such agreements is to ensure that all states are experiencing the same measure of suffering and no single state decides to free its citizens before the others. For those of a more conspiratorial bent, these Democrats are seeking to extend the pain on voters with the hope the voters will turn against a GOP POTUS the governors all loathe. Neither argument makes these agreements any less unconstitutional.

(3) Assuming the executive decrees violate the Constitution for the reasons noted above, Trump as POTUS is arguably empowered to enjoin the state governors from continuing their violations, which will hypocritically settle the argument over which wannabe dictator -POTUS or governor - gets the final word.
 

I quite agree with every sentiment of the writer. Let hypocrisy and pretence be kept aside so that the American dream could be upheld! Meanwhile, if you are looking for a Job, check out this site-Recruitmentplanet is a Recruitment Website That Focuses on The Latest Jobs In Nigeria, Shortlisted Candidates, Recruitment Past Questions or Job Interview Past Questions and Answers. Many of the articles on Our site includes:

 

Of course, Congress has a substantial interest in promoting public safety. However, the government never possessed any substantive evidence COVID 19 was any more of a threat than the annual cold and flu season and all of the relied upon "models" (wild ass guesses) have proven to be wildly wrong.

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 3:19 PM

This is an odd hill to choose to die on, considering the overwhelming evidence that you’re wrong. Of course, it’s not like you have a reputation that you have to worry about...
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

CNN Tweet: Lev Parnas, Rudy Giuliani's associate, said their efforts were "all about 2020." "That was the way everyone viewed it," Parnas added, disputing Trump's claim that the push for investigating the Bidens stemmed from concerns about corruption in Ukraine. https://cnn.it/2teAZdj

“That was the way everyone viewed it”

Here we go again. Michael Cohen 2.0. Dem prosecutor indicts Trump associate for fraud and lies, then the defendant tours the usual suspect Democrat media outlets offering hearsay, speculation and opinion concerning alleged Trump acts he did not personally observe, and we are all supposed to believe them.
"Even with statutory authorization, such a statute can run afoul of the 9A and the DPC."

Bircher Bart has shown us time and time again that he's prone to over confidently opine on areas he's not fit to comment on areas like climate science, economics, political science, epidemiology, but he also regularly shows laughable ideas about the field he's supposedly actually trained and experienced in: the law. This appeal is notably laughable for several reasons which immediately come to mind: 1. the same Bircher who regularly rants about 'the text as written' pulls possibly the two most vague texts from the Constitution here, and neither apply literally to this 2. the 9th doesn't even apply to the states and 3. there's a long common law history of the quarantine power being upheld under the police power of states/localities to regulate the health, morals and welfare of those in its jurisdiction.

" For those of a more conspiratorial bent"

Lol. Here's the kind of absurdity Bircher Bart's conspiratorial bent (and fold, and bend and fold again) leads him to, when he laughably and just as confidently pushed the notion that the Trump appointee, donor and campaign volunteer US Attorney in NY was prosecuting Michael Cohen and Lev Parnas in order to politically harm Trump:

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 1:57 PM

"Here we go again."

It has become a predictable tactic: Find somebody associated with the target, prove to them you can nail them on something serious, anything really. Then offer a plea deal where you go easy on them for that, even drop it, so long as they plead guilty to doing something bad with your actual target, and start badmouthing them.

Doesn't even require that the "something bad" be illegal, or that you be able to prove it, since it's a plea deal. And your actual target never gets the opportunity to clear their name, because you don't indict them.
# posted by Blogger Brett : 2:58 PM

Joe:

Political partisans abusing their government power to prosecute associates of a political opponent for the purpose of defaming and destroying the opponent is as corrupt as it gets.

Do you honestly believe these prosecutors would have ever investigated and charged these targets absent their relationship to Donald Trump?

Doesn't that cause you any unease at all?
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 6:58 PM

https://balkin.blogspot.com/2020/01/on-eve-of-trial.html
 

Bircher Bart's comments are, as usual, laughable propaganda inbred with krazy kooky konspiracy. I don't know what's more funny, 1. that the kook who rants regularly on the 'text as written' relies here on not only maybe the two vaguest texts of the Constitution, but ones that do not 'as written' address what he's talking about 2. that he cites the 9th, which doesn't apply to the states or that he 3. doesn't know about the long history in the common law recognizing the quarantine power under the general police power of states to regulate for the health, welfare and morals of the public. We know this kook likes to spew confidently about topics he knows little about, from logic to climatology, to epidemiology to political science to economics, but it seems he knows as little about what he professes he actually is trained and experienced in: law.

As for a 'conspiratorial bent,' this krazy konspiracy kooks bent (and fold, and bend and fold again) leads him to such absurd statements as that supra where he confidently asserts a krazy kooky konspiracy theory that the Trump appointed, donor and volunteer NY US attorney is prosecuting Trump associates to harm Trump! This is not a serious man in seemingly any way.



 

bb: This is an odd hill to choose to die on, considering the overwhelming evidence that you’re wrong.

You are free to offer a single COVID 19 "model" relied upon any government which did not wildly over-project the mortality and hospital requirements at the outset and/or did not later exponentially collapse its projections to match FAR lower facts on the ground. Ex. 1 - The IHME model relied upon by our federal government.
 

"we have frequently decided that the police power of the States was not surrendered when the Constitution conferred upon Congress the general power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and between the several States. Hence the States may, by police regulations, protect their people against the introduction within their respective limits of infected merchandise. 'A bale of goods upon which the duties have or have not been paid, laden with infection, may be seized under health laws, and if it cannot be purged of its poison, may be committed to the flames.' Gilman v. Philadelphia, supra. " Patterson v. Kentucky. 97 U.S. 501(1878)

"The object of inspection laws is to improve the quality of articles produced by the labour of a country, to fit them for exportation, or, it may be, for domestic use. They act upon the subject before it becomes an article of foreign commerce or of commerce among the States, and prepare it for that purpose. They form a portion of that immense mass of legislation which embraces everything within the territory of a State not surrendered to the General Government; all which can be most advantageously exercised by the States themselves. Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description, as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass." Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824)
 

Mr. W:

I applied the 9A to a hypothetical congressional statute authorizing the POTUS to shutter businesses and place the people on house arrest. I know, I know, it's too much to expect you to read for content when you have descended into rant mode in a previous text..

State legislatures enact laws pursuant to a general police power, governors do not decree them. Our governor is mis-citing a legislative delegation to the Department of Health (not the governor) to enact rules governing the control of communicable diseases, presumably according to normal rule making procedures. The police enforcing the governor's unconstitutional diktat are citing and even arresting people for obstructing police enforcing the diktat. Wonderful circular logic, that.

You do suggest a pertinent comparison between COVID 19 models and AGW models. They are both wildly overstate the problem.
 

You are free to offer a single COVID 19 "model" relied upon any government which did not wildly over-project the mortality and hospital requirements at the outset and/or did not later exponentially collapse its projections to match FAR lower facts on the ground. Ex. 1 - The IHME model relied upon by our federal government.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 5:21 PM

Sniffles, the model I posted a link to in here said that about 80,000 would die in the US if we shut down schools, businesses, etc...etc... Which is pretty much what we did, and it looks like that’s going to be pretty close to the final death toll.

But that really has nothing to do with your idiotic claim that this is nothing but the flu. Here is a link to a NY Times article which compares actual deaths to expected deaths.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/10/upshot/coronavirus-deaths-new-york-city.html

In NYC for the month ending on Apr 10 there were 5,330 more deaths than expected. That makes 9/11 look like a tiny bump in the road. In short, you’re a moron.
 

"Indeed, as was said in Stone v. Mississippi, 101 U. S. 814, the supervision of the public health and the public morals is a governmental power, 'continuing in its nature,' and 'to be dealt with as the special exigencies of the moment may require;' and that, 'for this purpose, the largest legislative discretion is allowed, and the discretion cannot be parted with any more than the power itself.'"

"It cannot be supposed that the states intended, by adopting [the 14th], to impose restraints upon the exercise of their powers for the protection of the safety, health, or morals of the community."

"The principal that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, was embodied, in substance, in the constitutions of nearly all, if not all, of the states at the time of the adoption of the fourteenth amendment; and it has never been regarded as incompatible with the principle, equally vital, because essential to the peace and safety of society, that all property in this country is held under the implied obligation that the owner's use of it shall not be injurious to the community." Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887)

"If the public safety or the public morals require the discontinuance of any manufacture or traffic, the hand of the legislature cannot be stayed from providing for its discontinuance by any incidental inconvenience which individuals or corporations may suffer." Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U. S. 32 (1877)
 

"They are both wildly overstate the problem."

Remember when Bircher Bart tripped up over a basic principle of logic when invoking logic as to why he need not defer to experts in relevant fields? His mangling of English in stating this while doing the same is almost as funny.
 

"Our governor is mis-citing a legislative delegation to the Department of Health (not the governor) to enact rules governing the control of communicable diseases, presumably according to normal rule making procedures. "

If Bircher Bart's governor is so obviously acting outside the law, why doesn't he file suit and win himself some fame and actual accomplishment?
 

BD: Absent a law of Congress, neither the POTUS or individual states have the power to shutter businesses and place the People on house arrest in response to a communicable disease.

Mr. W: [T]he States may, by police regulations, protect their people against the introduction within their respective limits of infected merchandise. Patterson v. Kentucky. 97 U.S. 501(1878)

"The object of inspection laws is to improve the quality of articles produced by the labour of a country, to fit them for exportation, or, it may be, for domestic use." Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824)

Two basic points of hornbook law.

(1) Legislatures enact laws, governors do not decree them.

(2) No governor claims his or her decrees shuttering businesses are meant to enforce laws authorizing the inspection of goods for infection and to seize those goods found to be infected.

Once again, analogy is not your strong suit.

Now run along, my teaching tool, and demand in another dozen posts that no one (apart from presumably you) correspond with me.
 

For what sane reason does Trump reopen country?
 

BD: "Our governor is mis-citing a legislative delegation to the Department of Health (not the governor) to enact rules governing the control of communicable diseases, presumably according to normal rule making procedures. "

Mr. W: If Bircher Bart's governor is so obviously acting outside the law, why doesn't he file suit and win himself some fame and actual accomplishment?

What good would it do? By the time such a suit moved through the courts, which have largely shut down in response to the decree, either the decree would be ended and the case moot or decree would have already reduced the economy to ruins.

The better option, and one which I am considering lobbying for if the governor extends his decree past the current expiration of April 26, is to get county and local law enforcement to agree not to enforce the decree any longer. Mindful of his voters, our Sheriff already refuses to enforce Denver's universal background check and red flag laws as unconstitutional.
 

Maria Pescaru said... For what sane reason does Trump reopen country?

Thousands of businesses shuttered, 8% drop in real sales, millions unemployed, mobs outside of food banks to avoid the 3 or 4 more COVID deaths per 100,000 in Sweden without a shutdown than in the US with a shutdown, which is equal to the difference between a severe and mild flu season.

Stop the madness NOW.
 

which is equal to the difference between a severe and mild flu season.

Stop the madness NOW.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 6:03 PM

Sniffles, are you really completely unaware of what happened in Italy and New York?
 

"For what sane reason does Trump reopen country?"

Trump is not sane, but don't worry -- he has no authority to "reopen" the country, and if he did nobody would listen to him.
 

Stephen Breyer [then a law clerk] helped write the Justice Goldberg concurrence to Griswold v. Connecticut that dealt with the Ninth Amendment. It has been cited a few times over the years basically as a principle that among the "liberties" or perhaps [to the extent it has some content] the "privileges and immunities" protected by the 14th Amendment are those not expressly found in the Constitution. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Conservatives have at times deemed this problematic. See, e.g., Scalia's dissent:

But when it is in the mind of a Court that believes the Constitution *has an evolving meaning, see ante, at 848; that the Ninth Amendment's reference to "othe[r]" rights is not a disclaimer, but a charter for action, ibid.; and that the function of this Court is to "speak before all others for [the people's] constitutional ideals" unrestrained by meaningful text or tradition then the notion that the Court must adhere to a decision for as long as the decision faces "great opposition" and the Court is "under fire" acquires a character of almost czarist arrogance.

But, they tend to be inconsistent.
 

Bart DePalma
There is a "small" difference in a social education between Sweden and the USA.
 

I would think Trump, per Art. II, has some relevant power that would affect the national economy operating but only so much especially per the powers of the states and also Congress to set policy regarding interstate commerce & going back to the topic, putting limits on any interstate compacts.

Might be nice if Congress was in session.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

bb:

When Trump issued his decree, the POTUS cited to the IHME model's claim of a million dead absent the decree and 200,000 dead with the decree. There was some citation to the absolutely loony tune Brit model claiming 2.2 million American dead without the decree. The projections also claimed hospitals would be overrun even with the decree.

The reality on the ground in Sweden without a similar decree was magnitudes lower than the scare models projections.

The reality on the ground in the US with the decree was also massively lower than the models. Fauci publicly distanced himself from the models and the IHME model since dropped its mortality projection to 68K to better match reality.

The difference between Sweden and the US is only about 3 to 4 deceased per 100,000. This is the natural random variation between a sever and mild flu season.

The official COVID 19 deaths figures are also certainly inflated. The federal and state governments have changed the rules to count any death "presumed" to be "related" to COVID 19 as a COVID 19 death. In Minnesota, a doctor told the local news the state ordered him to attribute a death to COVID 19 if a relative or friend had the virus because the deceased might have come into contact with the infected. NYC just added nearly 4,000 "presumed" COVID deaths, where the deceased frequently had one or more underlying convictions.

It's almost as if the government is artificially inflating the mortality figures to justify their false projections and unconstitutional house arrest decrees. Nah, our government would never lie to use to cover their asses...

 

"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." [Art. IV]

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" [14th Amendment]

To be clear. The right to travel would be a major P/I.
 

bb:

blah...blah...blah...

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 6:26 PM

Sniffles, are you aware of what happened in NYC and Italy?
 

Bart believes everything he sees on Fox. The doctor in question, who is also a Republican state legislator, was being deliberately hyperbolic. The truth is that deaths due to COVID-19 (or the flu) are always under-reported, which is why the CDC always has to "estimate" the true number of deaths due to the disease, after the fact, by looking at the total mortality figures and comparing them with the expected number.

When this is over, it will be found that the true cost of COVID-19 will be several times the number officially reported, if history is any guide. It is the most ridiculous wishful thinking to imagine that the numbers are inflated.

Egregious stupidity, or egregious dishonesty?

But then, Bart also doesn't understand that Sweden is not the USA, that the worst-case estimates before there was any social-distancing, or other actions to flatten the curve, were just that: worst-case estimates.

One would think that a person who had, according to him, studied economics, would understand that economic models which do not take into account the fact that people, when informed of data, change their behavior, are not going to be accurate.


 

bb: are you really completely unaware of what happened in Italy and New York?

Are you aware how small the mortality rates are even in your worse case scenarios?

Italy: 35 per 100,000.

NYC: 77 per 100,000. (This is almost certainly high because nearly 3000 of the 10,899 official NYC deaths are only "presumed")

US: 8.6 per 100,000

In my county, 0 per 100,000.

In the nearest urban county, 1.8 per 100,000


 

True idiocy: Bart says the "worst-case death rate" in Italy would be 35/100,000. Sorry, but according to current figures, the death rate is already 358/1,000,000, or more than 35/100,000. And the pandemic in Italy is not over.

The typical death rate is on the order of 830/100,000 from all causes. If the death rate due to COVID-19 turns out to be somewhere around 100/100,000, which seems likely in the end, it will mean that this is a major bump in the death rate. (Deaths typically follow a Poisson distribution, and a deviation from the average of such significance would be a rare event. Bart's affliction with innumeracy means he is incapable of understanding this.)

 

Are you aware how small the mortality rates are even in your worse case scenarios?

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 6:40 PM

Sniffles, you completely shit yourself over 4 people dying in Benghazi, so you're probably not the best person to be talking about low mortality rates.

NYC hospitals have been overwhelmed. They're putting the corpses in trucks because there is no room in the mortuaries. There were probably around 5000 dead just in March. April will probably be even worse. People were fleeing the city. That isn't just the flu, you moron.

Also, they're not over counting. They under counting. By a lot.


 

C2H5OH said: The truth is that deaths due to COVID-19 (or the flu) are always under-reported, which is why the CDC always has to "estimate" the true number of deaths due to the disease, after the fact, by looking at the total mortality figures and comparing them with the expected number.

CDC guesses the number of flu deaths to provide a range of possibilities. What you usually see published is merely the midrange of a guess. There is not reason to believe CDC is undercounting (or over counting) flu deaths because they are GUESSING.

Bart also doesn't understand that Sweden is not the USA

OK, use Oklahoma: 0.36 deaths per 100,000. I use Sweden because it has a more realistic mixture of urban, suburban and rural.

that the worst-case estimates before there was any social-distancing, or other actions to flatten the curve, were just that: worst-case estimates.

These models ALL assumed "social distancing" / house arrest would massively reduce mortality when there was no evidence for this assumption.

The other assumptions underlying these models were nothing more than wild ass guesses because the modelers had ZERO actual evidence of how COVID 19 operated.

Their massive error was NOT random. The projections did not fall above and below reality on the ground. They all massively overstated the problem by assuming without evidence COVID 19 was something akin to the 1918 flu.

To shout fire when you see a birthday candle on a cupcake, knowing this is likely to cause a panic, is at best reckless and at worst intentional panic mongering.
 

C2H5OH said...True idiocy: Bart says the "worst-case death rate" in Italy would be 35/100,000. Sorry, but according to current figures, the death rate is already 358/1,000,000, or more than 35/100,000.

Do you realize these are both the same fractions without rounding?

The typical death rate is on the order of 830/100,000 from all causes...If the death rate due to COVID-19 turns out to be somewhere around 100/100,000, which seems likely

COVID 19 is currently at 8.6/100,000 and the consensus is we are at peak levels. Looks a lot like the 2017-2018 flu and is nowhere in the same galaxy as your "likely" mortality rate.
 

As to "counting," hope everyone filled out their census online.
 

Beyond the misery, we should also consider the lives lost to government inflicted mass unemployment.

I guarantee if we took the life savings like those invested by owners into their businesses and income like those who are unemployed from those issuing and supporting these mass house arrest decrees, they would end tomorrow.
 

Bart, you apparently trying to lay a case for "stupidity" as opposed to "dishonesty" -- "peak levels" does NOT mean that those who have already died will come back to life so that the numbers remain constant relative to the 100,000 figure. The death rate will, of course, continue to rise. It's the slope of that rise that will now (hopefully) start to decrease and go negative.

and 35.8 is, to those of us who use numbers, greater than 35. Do you round off your tax calculations the same way? You probably should try to learn how to round...

 

"When this is over, it will be found that the true cost of COVID-19 will be several times the number officially reported, if history is any guide."

Hard to be sure, in as much as Covid-19 showed up during flu season, and all the measures used to fight it will probably have reduced influenza deaths.

The US is currently estimated at about 28K deaths. Influenza annually kills from 12-60K per year. And the CDC is saying of this winter's influenza season, "The number of hospitalizations estimated so far this season is lower than end-of-season total hospitalization estimates for any season since CDC began making these estimates."

I'm not saying that Covid-19 will save lives, net, in the US. but the precautions used to suppress it may well have saved enough lives to be on the same order of magnitude as Covid-19 deaths.
 

Brett, yes, that's a good point. Contrary to what an intellectually challenged person said here earlier, there's no question that the social distancing and closures of businesses has dramatically reduced the spread of this and other viruses. There will also be a dramatic decrease in colds this season (the average, as I recall, is 5 colds per person per year: expect to miss at least 2 this year.)

But let's be careful: the 28K is the estimate as of now. The final number, after several more months, will be "only" 60K if we are lucky. And that assumes that the reporting is accurately counting the deaths, which is hopelessly naive.
 

So, going by that number, the deaths for COVID-19 is already 2x the lower range number of influenza w/o going ... though it will help reduce the influenza numbers, yes, I would be cautious about saying much there.

I looked at the CDC website & it currently estimates between October 2019-April 2020, there has been 24,000 – 62,000 flu deaths.

Of course, there is a lot of other stuff going on here (hospitalizations, delaying various procedures, various other effects) that I'll leave experts to flesh out.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-in-season-estimates.htm
 

I think at this point Covid-19 deaths are both over AND under counted, in the sense that there have likely been a fair number of excess deaths due to the virus which haven't been identified, but also a fair number of deaths from other causes that are being reported as Covid-19 deaths due to the patient having tested positive. If you die of a heart attack or stroke while having a mild case of Covid-19, (Estimates are upwards of 80% of cases are mild enough to pass undetected or be mistaken for a simple cold.) you get put down as a Covid-19 victim.

Ideally only "but for" deaths should be listed as Covid-19 fatalities, but that's not the case.

"Fog of war", IOW. I'm not sure we'll have a good accounting even after the fact. But I sure hope this shakes up the medical profession, and especially the regulators. A lot of things need to change before the next pandemic comes along, and there WILL be a next pandemic.
 

"I looked at the CDC website & it currently estimates between October 2019-April 2020, there has been 24,000 – 62,000 flu deaths."

Which is their way of saying, "Haven't a clue at this point, so we're just going to post the range we've seen in previous years."
 

"analogy is not your strong suit. "

Lol.

Me: You're talking apples and oranges.
Bircher Bart: This discussion isn't about infected fruit!

Of course no analogy is about *the exact same thing,* it wouldn't be an *analogy* then. This is black hole density.

The same police power that can regulate merchandise because they're suspected of spreading infection without, as the Court notes, running afoul of the due process protection of property can, of course, regulate movement of persons suspected of spreading infection.

But what's worse for our Bircher is one of the precedents I cited goes further and *explicitly names* the quarantine as falling under state police power.

This is not a serious man.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

"Mr. W: If Bircher Bart's governor is so obviously acting outside the law, why doesn't he file suit and win himself some fame and actual accomplishment?

What good would it do? By the time such a suit moved through the courts, which have largely shut down in response to the decree, either the decree would be ended and the case moot or decree would have already reduced the economy to ruins."

In other words, he knows he'll be laughed out of even his local rural court.

At some level I suspect Bircher Bart might have a scintilla of self awareness after all. That's why lately I think propagandist fits him best.
 

"The right to travel would be a major P/I. "

I recognize that, I contend that there would be a compelling interest in stopping people from out of state, especially if they are coming from high COVID states, to override it in this case.
 

"Because influenza surveillance does not capture all cases of flu that occur in the U.S., CDC provides these estimated ranges to better reflect the larger burden of influenza. These estimates are calculated based on CDC’s weekly influenza surveillance data and are preliminary."

I checked the website because a comment cited the CDC. If they "haven't got a clue," I would especially be wary about "saying" much there especially given such specialized medical science is not my area of even educated civilian knowledge.

Not that I think they have no clue. It just underlines the previous comment should be taken with a grain of salt.
 

I recognize that, I contend that there would be a compelling interest in stopping people from out of state, especially if they are coming from high COVID states, to override it in this case.

Yes, it was just cited to provide a relevant example of a P/I though the right to travel also has been treated as a "liberty" under the Due Process Clause.

Rights tend not to be absolute.
 

"Sniffles, you completely shit yourself over 4 people dying in Benghazi"

This is really the point. You fellows are silly to argue the science of COVID with Bircher Bart. Of course he doesn't know what he's talking about, as with so many things he opines on. It's probably true no one here does though, which is why it's the logical thing to do to defer to what most experts who do know are talking about.

BB's point is the main one: Bircher Bart is a propagandist, an advocate for a side. He's not interesting one bit in an honest discussion here. Propagandists like Bircher Bart are all about "If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.”

If he wanted to be alarmist about this (because his side wanted to be alarmist), then as BB notes four deaths would be enough to have him jumping up and down hysterically advocating that the wrong be righted though the heavens fall. But he thinks its in his propagandists interest right now to argue the number of deaths right now doesn't warrant the (relative to what he has supported over far fewer deaths) efforts and costs. So he's arguing that. If his side flipped tomorrow, he'd turn around and argue the other way.

Remember, this is the guy who during the Bush years picked up his pom poms, hiked his skirt and cheer-led the 'unitary executive' team, then during Obama decryed his executive aggrandizement and reverted back to the conservative state's rights cheer from atop the pyramid, and now is switching back to backing the President over the states. He's not a serious person, he's a propagandist cheerleader.

There's no attempt of honest discussion from him. Not going to happen. You can see that in the example I keep bringing up from a few months ago. He confidently and in writing here pushed this theory that the US attorney was prosecuting Cohen and Parnas as a political hit on Trump. Then I called out that this was ludicrous as the man was a Trump appointee, donor and campaign volunteer. An honest person trying to have an honest discussion would have admitted they fell into some silly thinking there and tried to make an attempt to be less silly. But Bircher Bart just totally ignored his silly statement and continues to this day to run from it like a small girl frightened by a spider. That's not what a serious person trying to have an honest discussion would do. It's exactly what a propagandist would though.

And what he's doing now? It's the same.
 

"If you die of a heart attack or stroke while having a mild case of Covid-19, (Estimates are upwards of 80% of cases are mild enough to pass undetected or be mistaken for a simple cold.) you get put down as a Covid-19 victim."

Of course, I'd bet dollars to donuts this is Bircher Brett's strong feelings at work, not something he could back up in any way. When you don't know for sure, jump to a hot take conclusion is the Bircher Brett way (remember, Bircher Brett signed on to Bircher Bart's nutty Cohen and Parnas theory immediately, and with the same total lack of contrition).
 

joe, yes, I think the analysis would be very similar to the religion cases we've talked about, the restriction of church services and such. No right is absolute, and the compelling interest of stopping inter-state movement, especially from high infection areas to lower, strikes me as compelling as preventing people from gathering for religious exercise.
 

"Because influenza surveillance does not capture all cases of flu that occur in the U.S., CDC provides these estimated ranges to better reflect the larger burden of influenza. These estimates are calculated based on CDC’s weekly influenza surveillance data and are preliminary."

You need to read between the lines when dealing with bureaucrats, medical as much as any other sort. They reported an enormously wide range which just happens to be about the same as the historical range of influenza deaths, good years to bad years. You could have reported that number ANY year in the last decade, without significant risk of being proven wrong, even if you had no particular knowledge of the current numbers!

It was just a CYA number to use until they actually have some idea what this year was like.
 

"If you die of a heart attack or stroke while having a mild case of Covid-19, (Estimates are upwards of 80% of cases are mild enough to pass undetected or be mistaken for a simple cold.) you get put down as a Covid-19 victim."

"Results:
Among those with COVID-19, there is a higher prevalence of cardiovascular disease and >7% of patients suffer myocardial injury from the infection (22% of the critically ill). Myocardial injury is present in more than a quarter of critical cases and presents in two patterns: acute myocardial injury and dysfunction on presentation and myocardial injury that develops as illness severity intensifies.
Conclusions:
The authors concluded that cardiovascular comorbidities are common in patients with COVID-19 and such patients are at higher risk of morbidity and mortality."

https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/journal-scans/2020/03/26/10/59/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-and-cvd
 

As for Sweden's strategy, see https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.11.20062133v1

The authors estimate 96,000 deaths for Sweden. Relative to population, that would be 3.17 million deaths in the US.
 

"You need to read between the lines when dealing with bureaucrats, medical as much as any other sort."

Sorry. Like Bircher Bart, Bircher Brett would like us all to forget his palpably embarrassing Cohen/Parnas blunder. Why is that? Why does he run from it like Usain Bolt at an Olympic qualifier?

I think it's because he DOES THIS ALL THE TIME. And it's just particularly, and so demonstrably, foolish in that instance. And, either incapable or unwilling of change or introspection, he wants to run to the next thing.

But that's not how men act. Or serious persons. They face up to the silly things they say or do.

Now, what Bircher Brett is saying now seems pretty silly, doesn't it? Do you think he's doing the *same thing that he's demonstrably done here before?* That he's *never owned up to?* You could be forgiven for thinking that!

I'm afraid until Bircher Brett is willing to show an ounce of intellectual integrity and honesty we should be laughing out of the house his 'gut suspicions' of 'bureaucrats' and such.
 

Also, current US deaths/million: 86. Sweden: 119.
 

Mark, these numbers are meaningless to Bircher Bart. For a far less number he encouraged our government to engage in the full scale, multi-trillion dollar invasion of a vaguely related nation; our conducting of rendition, torture and indefinite detention; our conducting mass surveillance; etc. (all this is in the archives and I can produce).

His dance about numbers is just his being dishonest yet again.

The fact that he won't address his embarrassing Cohen/Parnas kooky krazy konspiracy is the epitome of what he's about. Since the number *can never truly be known,* even to actual experts, he's going to *bang on that table.*

It's what he is.
 

Remember! Bircher Bart and Brett have the equivalent track record of a neighbor who told you 'there's a leprechaun in your back yard!' When you looked, and found that properly ridiculous, you brought it up with him, but he ignored the instance and changed the subject repeatedly...Then he comes to your house screaming 'look out for the Griffon!!!'

What would you think?
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

C2H5OH said..."peak levels" does NOT mean that those who have already died will come back to life so that the numbers remain constant relative to the 100,000 figure. The death rate will, of course, continue to rise.

Never said otherwise. My point is, if COVID 19 is peaking at approximately 8.6 deaths per 100,000, it should end up with a mortality rate at about double that number, comparable to a severe flu and a small fraction of the 100 per 100,000 you claimed was likely.
 

It's pretty clear under the caselaw that states can set up checkpoints. California and Hawaii have had them for decades to protect our agriculture. Nobody seriously thinks they violate either the dormant CC or the P/I clause.

Courts will defer massively to the political branches of state governments checkpoints, unless Congress prohibits them
 

And Bart still knows nothing about epidemiology. Some things never change.
 

Bart, is it really necessary to lie? I never said 1000 per million was likely. That was the estimate of an expert, if corrective actions were not taken, and it was made before any palliative measures were made.

Any estimates made before all the lock-downs are now moot, and using them to deride the accuracy of modeling is the epitome of dishonesty.

Having said that, I would estimate that 200 deaths per million is a lower bound on the number we'll see. And, although 200 is much smaller than 1000, it's not something to sneeze at.
 

C2H5OH said...Bart, is it really necessary to lie? I never said 1000 per million was likely. That was the estimate of an expert, if corrective actions were not taken, and it was made before any palliative measures were made.

Your statement:

The typical death rate is on the order of 830/100,000 from all causes. If the death rate due to COVID-19 turns out to be somewhere around 100/100,000, which seems likely in the end, it will mean that this is a major bump in the death rate. (Deaths typically follow a Poisson distribution, and a deviation from the average of such significance would be a rare event. Bart's affliction with innumeracy means he is incapable of understanding this.)

6:51 PM

Your opinion. No citation to an expert, no qualifications of the opinion.

Before you accuse someone of misrepresenting what you posted, try rereading the post first.

Any estimates made before all the lock-downs are now moot, and using them to deride the accuracy of modeling is the epitome of dishonesty.

Hardly. Taking the "model" relied upon the government as an example, IHME projected 200K, then 80K and now 68K deaths by August 2020, assuming mass house arrest every time.. At minimum, these revisions are admissions that the 200k and the 80k "projections" were wrong.

Having said that, I would estimate that 200 deaths per million is a lower bound on the number we'll see.

Based on what? Contagious disease progressions tend to resemble bell curves and if we are peaking at 86 deaths per million, then 172 would appear to be likely with 200 being an upper extreme. Of course, this depends on how many deaths the government "presumes" to be "related" to COVID 19 as a COVID 19 death.
 

Bart,

You should understand that, "in the end" means, "years from now, when COVID-19 is a memory" -- that's what I meant there.

One of the reasons it's so difficult to have a rational discussion with you is that you seem to slip from time to time, as if you don't have any concept of temporal location. You quote today's figures as if they were the final tally, and deride estimates made two months ago as if they were made today.

Here's a prediction I'll stand behind: when this is over, you are going to look ridiculous, and your statements here are going to be held up as examples of ideological stupidity. Just like always...
 

"And Bart still knows nothing about epidemiology. "

Well, of course not. That's the point. He's in a similar position to that he takes with the WMD in Iraq, he's pounding the table about something that every even semi-serious person on his side has long ago conceded. But, he's gotta pound something, it's his nature. This is not a serious man.
 

Brett,

Ideally only "but for" deaths should be listed as Covid-19 fatalities, but that's not the case.

Depends on what you're after. The term "Deaths due to Covid-19" has at least two meanings, both if which are useful, but fro different purposes.

First , there are deaths actually caused, medically, by the virus. Dealing with joint causes is a bit tricky, since, for example, both heart disease and Covid-19 may be "but for" causes. Also, everyone dies, so the issue is how much life is shortened. An individual with cancer may have a fairly short life expectancy without Covid-19, but if the virus hastens the end, something is going on, that needs to be accounted for. Regardless of that, this count is useful, I presume, for medical purposes - estimating the seriousness of the disease, transmission rates, and so on.

Second there are incremental deaths caused by the great demands the virus puts on the medical system. This is useful for policy purposes, planning, public health, measuring the economic impact, and so on.

What is clear, contra the innumerate Mr. DePalma, is that we are only starting to have a handle on the latter and are probably undercounting the former, simply because we are not testing anywhere near all decedents, while the evidence is strong that there are a lot of excess deaths.

 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

C2H5OH said...You should understand that, "in the end" means, "years from now, when COVID-19 is a memory" -- that's what I meant there.

OK, I believe you. However, viral strains like COVID 19 generally do not have a long term effect because humans develop a herd immunity to them. If coronavirus becomes an annual thing like the flu, it will be because the strains change every year - COVID 20, 21, etc.

One of the reasons it's so difficult to have a rational discussion with you is that you seem to slip from time to time, as if you don't have any concept of temporal location. You quote today's figures as if they were the final tally, and deride estimates made two months ago as if they were made today.

You placed no temporal qualifications on your statement. I cannot be expected to guess that you meant some time in the distant future when viral strains do not act that way.

I never stated or even implied today's COVID deaths were the last ones. That was you misunderstanding or affirmatively misrepresenting what I posted.

I am very concerned about the original evidence-free models over-projecting COVID effects because governments used these as a pretext to shutter businesses and place entire people's under house arrest. Governments are attempting to use similar evidence-free scare models to further take over the economy in the name of stopping "climate change." We need to shine a very bright spotlight on and discredit this faux science.
 

"Ideally only "but for" deaths should be listed as Covid-19 fatalities, but that's not the case."

Anybody who's ever lost an elderly relative knows that it's usually impossible to state with any certainty a single cause of death. Most of them have multiple health issues; often it's the conjunction of them which proves fatal.

That's why excess deaths is so useful for something like Covid-19. We know for certain that nobody died of this a year ago or the year before that or the year before that. If more people are dying this year than died on average in previous years, it's pretty safe to conclude that Covid-19 was a cause even if not necessarily the cause.
 

Bart, it's hypocritical of you to say others don't carefully put their numbers in a time frame.

The nature of predicting future behavior of systems with delay and positive feedback -- and with relatively unknown parameters -- is that it is prone to errors. If you had any scientific background, you would understand this. Calling the experts' efforts to sound the alarm as "faux science" would be meaningful if you did. As is, those words are mere flatulence.
 

C2H5OH said...The nature of predicting future behavior of systems with delay and positive feedback -- and with relatively unknown parameters -- is that it is prone to errors.

True. I would note two items, though:

(1) Like the "climate change" models, the COVID 19 models are based entirely or primarily on assumptions without supporting evidence, but are offered as scientific fact; and

(2) The COVID 19 models did not demonstrate random error on both sides of reality. Like the "climate change" models, the COVID 19 models all erred massively to project an apocalyptic result. This suggests bias to advance an agenda.

Consequently, no government or individual should accept these models to set policy until tested against reality.
 

Bart, your statement that the models are based entirely or primarily on assumptions without supporting evidence is egregiously wrong. The fact that you don't understand the validity of the underlying assumptions is the problem with your understanding.

"presented as scientific fact"...they are presented as the best guess of the scientific community, based on peer review and extensive discussions over many years. Your hyperbole is simply dishonest.

Your paranoia is showing again. "agenda", indeed. The international conspiracy to make conservatism look stupid, perhaps?
 

Like the "climate change" models, the COVID 19 models are based entirely or primarily on assumptions without supporting evidence, but are offered as scientific fact

This is pathetic. Models are not are not presented as "fact." They are presented as models. Anyway, tell us what assumptions you disagree with, which equations don't accurately describe the processes, what parameters you would change, and why.

Feel free to consult with Richard Epstein on the matter.


This suggests bias to advance an agenda.

Laughable.

What "agenda" is supposedly being promoted? "Let's shut down the economy and provoke a depression." "Great idea."

Wait. Let me guess. It's all a plot to keep Trump from being re-elected. Pathetic.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

C2H5OH: Bart, your statement that the models are based entirely or primarily on assumptions without supporting evidence is egregiously wrong. The fact that you don't understand the validity of the underlying assumptions is the problem with your understanding.

You just admitted: "The nature of predicting future behavior of systems with delay and positive feedback -- and with relatively unknown parameters -- is that it is prone to errors."

If the modeler does not know the parameters of a new disease like COVID 19 or the climate, than her model assumptions concerning those parameters are at best wild ass guesses or at worst fictions meant to arrive at a preferred outcome.

"presented as scientific fact"...they are presented as the best guess of the scientific community, based on peer review and extensive discussions over many years. Your hyperbole is simply dishonest.

Really? You are free to offer a single COVID 19 or climate model offered as "the best guess of the scientific community" or words to that effect admitting the models are little more than untested hypotheses.

Rather, these models are archetypical examples of the citation to authority logical fallacy. Modeler is a scientist, therefore we should assume the model is a scientific fact. How dare you insist on testing the model against reality. You obviously are a science denier.

Your paranoia is showing again. "agenda", indeed.

Random error is almost always a one off event. One apocalyptic model is an outlier. Several apocalyptic models is proof of bias. We can debate whether that bias is conscious or unconscious, but it is bias.

 

Oh, this keeps getting worse and worse...

Under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act Act, hospitals get paid 15% more by Medicare if they classify their patients as having “a principal or secondary diagnosis of COVID-19.” Get ready for hospitals classifying off any illness with a cough as suspected COVID-19.
 

Random error is almost always a one off event. One apocalyptic model is an outlier. Several apocalyptic models is proof of bias.

No. Random error is not "almost always a one off event." You don't even know what "random error" means.

If by "bias" you mean a desire to obtain certain results then no, several apocalyptic models are not proof of bias. Further an "apocalyptic" model is not necessarily inaccurate if, as the most publicized apocalyptic does, it assumes no policy response to the threat, an assumption explicitly stated.

You really don't know anything at all about this stuff, do you?
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

byomtov said...No. Random error is not "almost always a one off event." You don't even know what "random error" means.

Extreme random error like an apocalyptic model is rare, "almost always a one off event" and is commonly known as an outlier.

If by "bias" you mean a desire to obtain certain results then no, several apocalyptic models are not proof of bias.

One extreme random error is rare. The chance of several extreme random errors, all on one side of reality, making up the entire population of models is so vanishingly small that the only reasonable explanation is bias.
 

Bart, one slight correction before I leave this thread. You seem to assume that the a priori estimates were, unequivocally, erroneous. This has not been established, and to assert it as if it were is a pathetic attempt to "beg the question."

The models assumed conditions which, thanks to actions by governments, organizations, and individuals, have changed along the way. That the models are, in retrospect, not accurate today, does not disprove their accuracy under the conditions they were made.

If you think you can do better, feel free to tell us, precisely, how many people per million the USA count due to COVID-19 will be in 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and in August.