Hacker News Reader

Comment by maerF0x0 | Hacker News Reader

IMO the burden of proof should lie on the health officials to demonstrate TSLA's precautions and measures are insufficient. Then fine them if true.

This order is like saying anyone who is drives (at any speed) is automatically exceeding the speed limit. In our laws we have an officer make an observance and provide some data to back it up (radar reading). TSLA should have the right to operate in a safe manner. There's nothing special about walking outside or getting groceries that make's it more/less safe than building a car, when sufficient protections are in place.

Why should one group receive the right to continue operations while the other does not?

View on HN

> IMO the burden of proof should lie on the health officials to demonstrate TSLA's precautions and measures are insufficient. Then fine them if true.

They would have to do that for every business in CA (or the county), and are clearly not staffed or prepared for that yet.

I understand the immediate pragmatism, but if a gov't wants to make laws / rules it's on them to staff it functionally. We dont tell a restaurant they have to close because there are no health inspectors available. (I am assuming here, correct me if that's wrong)

A better example would be if the government hired health inspectors who say "I saw a rat, you need to shut down" without also saying "Here is my peer-reviewed article about why rats are bad" - which they absolutely do.

But within your own example you're missing the point that there is no one going to TSLA (afaik) to inspect the property to say "The way you're operating is insufficient" Instead they're deeming all possible operations as automatically insufficient.

For example lets say, just for argument's sake, that every worker had some kind of full body hazmat suit and filtered positive pressured air supply. Would it still be not ok to build a car in such a condition? What makes it ok to operate a checkout stand (groceries) in not even close to such protections?

The problem is the assumption of guilt w/o any means to continue operations--a perfectly legal thing otherwise-- even with appropriate measures in place.

This is crazy high standard to invoke during a public health emergency--the gov't would have to suddenly increase staff by orders of magnitude on short notice, causing huge amounts of inspections at a time when preventing non-essential contact is the most basic action than can be collectively taken.

The amount of rulemaking differs substantially in normal times, and in a crisis like this. So does the amount of time available for review. For them to be able to do what you want, we'd need the government to be big enough to vet everything properly in a crisis. A government that big is going to find ways to occupy itself in normal time, to make use of all that extra capacity.

Please don't downvote parent. We don't want drown out a voice of reason, even though, it is not necessarily correct here.

No. That is inappropriate to the need that a national emergency causes and would get people killed.

there are two models perhaps.. one is that the govt has to be there to observe and approve at every step; the second is, the owners and operators of a private business make it their own work to comply.

a factory area cannot be operated in a hygenic manner ? doesnt seem sensible offhand. Constant govt approval to operate? seems like a bad plan in the long run..

Except that walking outside and getting groceries are a choice and calculated risk, with VERY limited exposure given most shopping trips are brief...by contrast, Tesla opening their factories means workers are forced to choose between losing their jobs (and presumably healthcare) or going to work in a potentially risky workplace for hours at a time, and trusting that their employer (who doesn't believe covid is that bad) is implementing safe measures to protect them, while blatantly flouting the law?

> going to work in a potentially risky workplace for hours at a time

This part has yet to be proven though. If they're asked to do something unsafe then I think they should have the full weight of the government (OSHA) protecting their rights to a safe workplace and full strength of the legal community to do justice if TSLA fails to uphold their end of the bargain (kinda like asbestos lawsuits)

I don't think the US government is functioning properly right now, but what about the global lockdown, affecting almost every industry and endorsed by most scientists, leads you to believe that nothing has been proven?

> This order is like saying anyone who is drives (at any speed) is automatically exceeding the speed limit.

Not at all. This order is like saying “unless you have a driver’s license, you’re not allowed to drive.”

> There's nothing special about walking outside or getting groceries that make's it more/less safe than building a car, when sufficient protections are in place.

“As long as I have headlights, a seatbelt, and a backup camera, I’m safe! No need for the government to get in the way demanding a road test and a license!”

Ah yes, comparing starving to death because you can't buy food, to buying a luxury car.

What do you think people will do if they lose their source of income and healthcare? TSLA isnt going to buy them groceries or medical insurance if bankrupt.

In many places food banks are already strained.

You're trivializing what happens when an economy en masse is unable to produce goods.

It's not immediately about whether Tesla's precautions are sufficient, it's about government asserting its control during a public health emergency, which seems pretty reasonable. It's a public health emergency. 80k are already dead. The fact that Elon Musk doesn't believe it's serious (although his precautions indicate that he does), says that he just doesn't believe the law applies to him, which is grandstanding at best. Other places that have lifted restrictions too soon are seeing immediate resurgences.

The first wave of the Spanish Flu killed less than 5 million; the second wave killed more than 20 million.

Running a business isn't a right

It is a human right.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com