No way, Jose!
Wisconsin’s State’s Supreme Court’s decision found the second “Stay at Home” order issued by Governor Tony Evers, to be unconstitutional because it didn’t have the approval of Wisconsin’s Legislature. So, to use a football phrase is this repeal signaling a half-time break, or is it the beginning of the end of the Coronavirus.
In either case, it is a welcome break for so many of those sheltered in place, and also for the hopes of many in some sort of rapid economic recovery from the economic shutdown. Opening the economy also follows the underlying belief, held by many in this country, that people, given the accurate facts, will make the best choice for themselves and for the country. If they don’t, then they suffer the consequences which might be fair, but who wants to see that? The whole argument about opening up or staying closed may come down to what freedom, and the responsibility of freedom, is about.
Those who make the decisions are responsible for those decisions. Whether it is an individual, a football coach, a governor or the president, we are all responsible for the decisions that we make and for the impact that those decisions, and the effect they have on themselves and on others, even if what happens is unintended. The summer brings warm weather, higher levels of UV radiation, and an increased separation (versus confinement) that may go to reducing the spread of the virus. Shelter in place reduces the spread from one group to another but increases the spread within the group if it gets in that group. That’s why nursing homes, hospitals, and prisons have the highest infection rates. Sometimes what appears to be a good idea can make a situation worse. As happened during the ages of the black plague, burning down a house of someone who had gotten the bubonic plague did not stop the spread of the disease, but increased it, as the rats with the disease fled from the burning house to many nearby neighbors’ houses.
Let’s be extremely careful with all this.
Cartoon Of The Week