Hacker News Reader

> It's in the government's interest, as an institution, to open things up ASAP.

Theories by which it is in a government's interest to delay reopening longer than optimal:

1. The Governor's political interests lie in "doing something," to contrast with "do nothing" political approaches. Ceasing to "do something" erases this advantage.

2. Masks and closure become a political symbol to certain classes -- almost a political advertisement -- and those classes tend to see the burdens as insignificant and a "community responsibility." Efforts to reopen, then, are seen as opposed to the good of the community.

3. Industries and activities that support the Governor will increase COVID cases, so the Governor decides other industries and activities are "nonessential," shifting costs from supporters to non-supporters.

4. The Governor is politically or legally risk averse, and defers to the most conservative health authorities to avoid responsibility for outcomes.

5. The Governor underweights economic impacts, because it believes the Federal Government should use tax policy or welfare to socialize the economic costs of the "required" costs.

Granted, these aren't fears the government will remain irrational forever, just that it will stay irrational longer than people can stay liquid.

I do think some people will swap roles after the US election, and they will rediscover a patriotic duty to muddle through, as our elected officials do the best they can.

> I genuinely don't understand this fear re: COVID. > Why would governors want keep gyms and restaurants closed post-COVID?

I think your lack of understanding is because you frame the question as nuanced to keeping two types of establishments closed. Instead ask questions like: Why would governors want to keep overriding city-level authority? Why would governors want to maintain control over federal funds and subsidies related to health crises? Why would governors want to be able to selectively close certain types of businesses (e.g. close bars, allow restaurants, differentiate between the two based on arbitrary number, disallow one to become the other)? Why would governors want to disallow certain medical procedures (e.g. abortion)?

I can go on and on. The general question is whether executive power at any government level begets more executive power, and the answer is almost always "yes".

The way I see it, the issue is that the “as soon as possible” is being interpreted to mean “the time at which there is no risk to my political career,” not merely when it is prudent to reopen.

> the time at which there is no risk to my political career

Do you live in the US? The situation is exactly the opposite here.

Downplaying the significance of COVID is practically part of the GOP platform at this point. It's gotten to the point in the last 2 months where even extremely mild and all-volunteer public health measures are political suicide in the majority of US states.

But also, even in the small number of very left-leaning areas like mid-sized/large cities, mayors and governors are under intense pressure to get things back to normal.

Hell. Even universities, which take tons of heat for being hotbeds of leftism even relative to left-leaning cities, are pushing forward with campus openings despite contrary advice from public health experts.

As far as I can tell, being too prudent for too long would be an enormous political liability in literally every US jurisdiction. In fact, being prudent at all is a political liability in >25 states even with new cases hitting highs. Here in rural PA I get harassed for wearing a mask into the grocery store.

The "permanent COVID emergency" concern is ridiculously disconnected from political reality in the USA. So much so that it's more of an unhinged conspiracy theory than a legitimate concern.

> But also, even in very left-leaning areas like mid-sized/large cities, mayors and governors are under intense pressure to get things back to normal.

The refusal of the GOP (Senate, mostly, though the White House seems to be on the same page and perhaps the main motivator) to provide state/local aid, given that there are legal, practical, and other restrictions limiting state borrowing for emergency costs, especially non-capital costs, and structurally they have since not long after the founding relies on the federal government to backstop them for that is a big part of this.

Certainly. But even with temporary federal backstops cities and states would be under intense financial pressure.

> Do you live in the US? The situation is exactly the opposite here.

I do. I live in the Bay Area. Your local situation may be different.

I stand by what I said. I’m surprised to hear some think there will be a permanent COVID emergency. I’m not really doing the whole partisan thing, so I don’t know the state of that debate.

We are in a pandemic; of course there will be pressure on our leaders. My conjecture is that career concerns may be leading some to ignore principles of good governance to minimize the risk that things will turn out poorly for them. I think it is not uncommon for political leaders who call all the shots to back themselves into such a situation. We need a way out.

You don't know the state of the debate on one of the most important issues of our time, but you felt the need to weigh in with your conjecture anyway? I'm not sure what exactly you think you are bringing to this conversation. Aristotle was a really smart guy, but he would have saved the world almost two thousand years of being completely wrong about physics if he had bothered to check how things actually worked instead of reasoning about it from first principles and assuming that his best guess was good enough.

Talking about hypothetical pressures that a theoretical government might face is a lot less interesting when we can look outside and see that the exact opposite of your hypothetical is actually taking place. Empirically, the pressure to not bankrupt the government and have to lay off police, firefighters, and teachers, to let people go back to their lives, and to not be seen as job-hating nanny-state bureaucrats is the dominant force in state and local decision-making, only barely being held in check by a sense of civic duty and concern for long-term consequences. And in places where civic duty and long-term planning aren't in vogue, we see that the former has won out entirely. Mayor Breed and Governor Newsom are doing what they do despite the political consequences of shelter-in-place, not because of them.

I was referring to the partisan mudslinging, the conspiracy theories, and so on. I do not keep up with that.

I am active in our local community and contributing my own interpretation.

Edit: and if you are implying that Newsom and Breed and others are holding the line because they know in their hearts to do the right thing, well, this pandemic proves nearly every politician on the planet must have a really big heart.

I apologize for my tone in my last comment. I realize now that it was unnecessarily harsh.

I don't agree though that it's out of a sense of charity or morality. I think it's a matter of self preservation, just acting on a longer timescale than others. Politicians don't want to live in a blasted hellscape any more than the rest of us. And I think a fair number have realized that taking unpopular actions now is the only way to avoid that.

The problem is, what's post-COVID? The virus won't be eradicated any time soon, even after a vaccine arrives; most experts predict a timeline of decades to never. I doubt many mayors are supervillains who want to keep people miserable just for the sake of it - but I worry that quite a few might feel like they have to as long as cases are being detected. (Why do we still have strict TSA restrictions, even though everyone agrees they make flying miserable and everyone knows they're unreliable at actually detecting dangerous objects in luggage?)

> I doubt many mayors are supervillains who want to keep people miserable just for the sake of it - but I worry that quite a few might feel like they have to as long as cases are being detected.

Why would they have to? It certainly wouldn't be in their electoral self-interest.

The concern is that we might end up in a state where COVID restrictions are considered so obvious that they're not even a matter of electoral self-interest; where abolishing COVID restrictions sounds as extreme as abolishing taxes or abolishing the military. Many people say they don't want the restrictions gone until COVID is eradicated, and I believe they're telling the truth.

Long-term, what you might expect to see are structuraal changes rather than prohibitions.

Disease transmission is a communications and network problem -- there are the unobserved opportunities for infection, the known observed cases, the transmission rates, incubation and course-of-illness periods, acquired immunity, mortality, morbidity.

In periods of outbreak you need hightened disease surveillance, increased blocking of transmission, and reduced opportunities for infection. Barriers, reduced crowds, improved sterilisation and surface cleaning, fewer shared-touch interfaces (from touchscreens to bannisters), and the like.

These will likely be instituted through building and health codes, not so much activity restrictions. Some high-contact activities (bars, nightclubs, theatres, amusement parks) may well be subject to temporary closures. But expect these to be contingent on infection levels.

Do expect to see massive changes in office/work, retail, and transport designs, hoever. Possibly travel and quarantine restrictions.

Solutions are found already. They must be scaled out to whole world: vaccine, contact tracing, masks in public buildings and public transport in case of outbreak, air and surface disinfection at constant rate, vitamin supplements, etc.

> Why would governors want keep gyms and restaurants closed post-COVID?

A completely corrupt mayor could use this newfound power to solicit some political donations. There are plenty other possibilities, like the need to be seen responding to the crisis or "tough on the virus".

> A completely corrupt mayor could use this newfound power to solicit some political donations.

...dear god, from who? The Big Mask Cabal? Sorry, this makes no god damn sense.

Anyone who wants to reopen sooner than later, really.

I think you might have lost track of the thread or something?

The possibility of bribes to reopen sooner make me even less worried about dx87's concerns.