Now it’s a “twindemic.”
It’s the latest indication that there will be no end to the unprecedented government restrictions on freedom and commerce that have been forced on Californians since Gov. Gavin Newsom’s March 4 declaration of a state of emergency.
At the time, the emergency was the possibility that medical facilities in the state would be overwhelmed. The new coronavirus was projected to kill 2.2 million Americans if nothing was done to stop it, and 1.1 million Americans even if preventive measures were taken.
Those numbers were scary enough to clear the streets and keep nearly everyone at home, worldwide.
However, the terrifying numbers were the result of inaccurate assumptions pumped into a sketchy computer model by researchers at Imperial College in London. By the time the researchers sheepishly corrected their work, the mass fear of mass death had infected decision-making at every level of government.
Today we have much more information about the virus and the illness that it causes. We know that more than 99 percent of people who are infected will recover, many without experiencing symptoms at all. We know who is at risk of serious illness, and how to protect them.
This is the point at which government policy could begin to unwind the unprecedented restrictions on freedom and commerce.
“This will not be the policy of the state of CA,” Newsom tweeted.
The governor was responding to the Aug. 24 announcement by the feeral government’s Centers for Disease Control that “if you have been in close contact (within 6 feet) of a person with a COVID-19 infection for at least 15 minutes but do not have symptoms, you do not necessarily need a test unless you are a vulnerable individual or your health care provider or State or local public health officials recommend you take one.”
The CDC also says, “If you do not have COVID-19 symptoms and have not been in close contact with someone known to have a COVID-19 infection: You do not need a test.”
However, the state of California has already made a deal with a private-sector company to open a new state laboratory for testing. This “you do not need a test” business is bad for business.
PerkinElmer is the company that has partnered with the state in this new venture. PerkinElmer trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol, PKI.
Newsom said his goal is 150,000 tests per day. And he raised his new “twindemic” point as part of the justification for the new public-private laboratory venture. Soon it will be flu season, the governor said at his press conference on Wednesday, and people will be demanding more flu tests.
One thing that’s really valuable to a private company is a government mandate that requires the purchase of the company’s products or services. For example, the waning pandemic might mean fewer and fewer people seeking COVID tests. But if the state of California issues “guidelines” for reopening businesses that include a requirement for all employees to be tested, and another guideline for all school employees to be tested, and another guideline ordering frequently repeated tests for the same people, the waning market for tests is suddenly a booming bull market.
PerkinElmer sent out a news release this week announcing the launch of a new test with the trademarked name, DirectDetect. “Though person-to-person transmission is understood as the primary way of spreading the virus, COVID-19 has also been shown to remain stable on environmental surfaces for up to several days,” the company said.
The company’s bottom line would certainly be helped by a mandate in the state of California for all food processors to regularly test all “environmental surfaces” for the presence of the virus. Will that be one of the governor’s new “guidelines” for businesses in the food and hospitality industries?
This is not to denigrate the company, its products or its motives, only to point out that California remains under a state of emergency and the governor is unilaterally making decisions that will determine which businesses are permitted to operate, and under what terms. That’s not the deal we signed.
Under state law, the governor must end the state of emergency on “the earliest possible date that conditions warrant.” State law limits local emergencies to no more than 60 days unless renewed by the governing authority. However, Newsom’s March 4 declaration waived the expiration of local emergencies. Is that even legal under the state constitution?
That’s just one of many questions that may be resolved in the courts. On Thursday, the state Supreme Court ordered Newsom to respond to two legal petitions challenging the constitutionality of his July 17 order mandating distance learning at the start of the 2020-21 school year in counties on the state’s coronavirus “watchlist.”
One of the legal challenges comes from the Orange County Board of Education, a public charter school in Anaheim and public school parents. The other petition was filed on behalf of private schools.
Newsom recently announced that Orange County has been removed from the watchlist, but at the same time he said the county must wait two weeks before allowing any new business sectors to open. Then he promised more “guidelines,” which are actually government-imposed restrictions.We’re at a crossroads. The state of California is in the process of entrenching permanent justifications for previously unimaginable government control over freedom and free enterprise. Other states are taking a different path. They’re not less concerned about the health of their residents. They’re more concerned about the ability of residents to earn a living and live in freedom.
In California, freedom isn’t on the list of things to protect. The governor seems more interested in finding new reasons to continue his emergency powers. A routine flu season is now a “twindemic.” And your freedom is on life support.
Susan Shelley is an editorial writer and columnist for the Southern California News Group. Susan@SusanShelley.com. Twitter: @Susan_Shelley
"much" - Google News
August 30, 2020 at 09:18AM
https://ift.tt/2EGTrkd
Should the governor have so much unchecked power? - OCRegister
"much" - Google News
https://ift.tt/37eLLij
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Should the governor have so much unchecked power? - OCRegister"
Post a Comment