[OutsiderFan]

lex will be pleased, but I believe most of us think this is stupid and puts us all at risk, because I think we know not stopping pandemics in one area makes them a certainty in another.

If there was anything for states to sue each other over in SCOTUS, it is this. I believe there is precedent for one state being held liable to another when it came to acid rain litigation, but not sure. Anyway, this is my gripe:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/LaurenWeberHP/status/1338849219277426691[/tweet]

---

What qualified person in their right mind is going to take on one of these jobs, when they are hamstrung to do it? We have seatbelt laws for a reason. We have warnings on cigarettes for a reason. Why the hell would we not want to empower and celebrate public health experts, and know that if we follow their advice, we will avoid the most public health damage?

As for the shutdowns, it would have been a lot easier to take if the federal government stepped up and compensated people while businesses were shuttered, like every other developed country. But let's misdiagnose the problem and blame public health officials. Oh, the irony.

[OutsiderFan]

lex will be pleased, but I believe most of us think this is stupid and puts us all at risk, because I think we know not stopping pandemics in one area makes them a certainty in another.

If there was anything for states to sue each other over in SCOTUS, it is this. I believe there is precedent for one state being held liable to another when it came to acid rain litigation, but not sure. Anyway, this is my gripe:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/LaurenWeberHP/status/1338849219277426691[/tweet]

---

What qualified person in their right mind is going to take on one of these jobs, when they are hamstrung to do it? We have seatbelt laws for a reason. We have warnings on cigarettes for a reason. Why the hell would we not want to empower and celebrate public health experts, and know that if we follow their advice, we will avoid the most public health damage?

As for the shutdowns, it would have been a lot easier to take if the federal government stepped up and compensated people while businesses were shuttered, like every other developed country. But let's misdiagnose the problem and blame public health officials. Oh, the irony.

[teejers1]

lex will be pleased, but I believe most of us think this is stupid and puts us all at risk, because I think we know not stopping pandemics in one area makes them a certainty in another.

If there was anything for states to sue each other over in SCOTUS, it is this. I believe there is precedent for one state being held liable to another when it came to acid rain litigation, but not sure. Anyway, this is my gripe:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/LaurenWeberHP/status/1338849219277426691[/tweet]

---

What qualified person in their right mind is going to take on one of these jobs, when they are hamstrung to do it? We have seatbelt laws for a reason. We have warnings on cigarettes for a reason. Why the hell would we not want to empower and celebrate public health experts, and know that if we follow their advice, we will avoid the most public health damage?

Why limit it to public health directors?  Why not just empower and celebrate a dictator - who needs such trifles as elections?  Just pick someone qualified and let him or her run things without interference from such distractions such as, you know, public opinion, etc.  

You may say the scenarios are completely different.  And yes, there's a difference.  But the principle animating against both is the same.  

But I'm sure you knew that already . . . is it that principle only matters when it fits with your outlook on a particular issue?  
But that's the tough thing about principles . . . they're not always convenient and easy.    

[teejers1]

lex will be pleased, but I believe most of us think this is stupid and puts us all at risk, because I think we know not stopping pandemics in one area makes them a certainty in another.

If there was anything for states to sue each other over in SCOTUS, it is this. I believe there is precedent for one state being held liable to another when it came to acid rain litigation, but not sure. Anyway, this is my gripe:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/LaurenWeberHP/status/1338849219277426691[/tweet]

---

What qualified person in their right mind is going to take on one of these jobs, when they are hamstrung to do it? We have seatbelt laws for a reason. We have warnings on cigarettes for a reason. Why the hell would we not want to empower and celebrate public health experts, and know that if we follow their advice, we will avoid the most public health damage?

Why limit it to public health directors?  Why not just empower and celebrate a dictator - who needs such trifles as elections?  Just pick someone qualified and let him or her run things without interference from such distractions such as, you know, public opinion, etc.  

You may say the scenarios are completely different.  And yes, there's a difference.  But the principle animating against both is the same.  

But I'm sure you knew that already . . . is it that principle only matters when it fits with your outlook on a particular issue?  
But that's the tough thing about principles . . . they're not always convenient and easy.    

[BostonCard]

I mean, the vast majority of people who work at all stages of government are unelected.  I mean, imagine if we were voting on who should be general or who should head the OMB.

BC

[BostonCard]

I mean, the vast majority of people who work at all stages of government are unelected.  I mean, imagine if we were voting on who should be general or who should head the OMB.

BC

[Goose]

I mean, the vast majority of people who work at all stages of government are unelected.  I mean, imagine if we were voting on who should be general or who should head the OMB.

BC

Or more directly on the CHP officer who actually gives you the ticket. They make the decision, they don't have to ticket you. There is a chain of authority all the way up to Newsom, but that isn't going to do you much good on 280.

[Goose]

I mean, the vast majority of people who work at all stages of government are unelected.  I mean, imagine if we were voting on who should be general or who should head the OMB.

BC

Or more directly on the CHP officer who actually gives you the ticket. They make the decision, they don't have to ticket you. There is a chain of authority all the way up to Newsom, but that isn't going to do you much good on 280.

[lex24]

My point has been a simple one - the ORDERS should come from either the Gov or elected county officials.  Certainly the health officials should be a major (the major) part of the process.  As for these bills, I’d be interested in seeing them. Details obviously matter.  Hard to put those in a tweet.

---

I mean, the vast majority of people who work at all stages of government are unelected.  I mean, imagine if we were voting on who should be general or who should head the OMB.

BC

A General follows the directive of the CIC.   Ask McArthur.

---

I mean, the vast majority of people who work at all stages of government are unelected.  I mean, imagine if we were voting on who should be general or who should head the OMB.

BC

Or more directly on the CHP officer who actually gives you the ticket. They make the decision, they don't have to ticket you. There is a chain of authority all the way up to Newsom, but that isn't going to do you much good on 280.

Based on laws established by the legislature- with an incumbent due process right to challenge the ticket in Court.

What is so objectionable about having these orders flow from the board of supervisors instead of the health director? I don’t care if it’s the same freaking order. Which one would you anticipate it would be because they rubberstamp it. I just want it coming from an elected official. Particularly when they are as broad in scope as these county orders are

---

lex will be pleased, but I believe most of us think this is stupid and puts us all at risk, because I think we know not stopping pandemics in one area makes them a certainty in another.

If there was anything for states to sue each other over in SCOTUS, it is this. I believe there is precedent for one state being held liable to another when it came to acid rain litigation, but not sure. Anyway, this is my gripe:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/LaurenWeberHP/status/1338849219277426691[/tweet]

---

What qualified person in their right mind is going to take on one of these jobs, when they are hamstrung to do it? We have seatbelt laws for a reason. We have warnings on cigarettes for a reason. Why the hell would we not want to empower and celebrate public health experts, and know that if we follow their advice, we will avoid the most public health damage?

As for the shutdowns, it would have been a lot easier to take if the federal government stepped up and compensated people while businesses were shuttered, like every other developed country. But let's misdiagnose the problem and blame public health officials. Oh, the irony.

You see, you missed my point. You’re right the public health officials should not be blamed if people have problems with the orders. The people that should bear the brunt are the elected officials of the county. They should be the one signing these orders. They are answerable to the electorate. These aren’t warning packages on labels or seatbelt laws. These are very very broad orders that essentially determine what we can do and can’t do in our lives. Unprecedented. So I will continue to contend that this needs to be looked at in the future. I personally believe that had the Orders simply been signed by the board of supes as opposed to emanating from the health director that they would have been better received. At least in that circumstance the people would feel they have some voice in responding to the board.

[lex24]

My point has been a simple one - the ORDERS should come from either the Gov or elected county officials.  Certainly the health officials should be a major (the major) part of the process.  As for these bills, I’d be interested in seeing them. Details obviously matter.  Hard to put those in a tweet.

---

I mean, the vast majority of people who work at all stages of government are unelected.  I mean, imagine if we were voting on who should be general or who should head the OMB.

BC

A General follows the directive of the CIC.   Ask McArthur.

---

I mean, the vast majority of people who work at all stages of government are unelected.  I mean, imagine if we were voting on who should be general or who should head the OMB.

BC

Or more directly on the CHP officer who actually gives you the ticket. They make the decision, they don't have to ticket you. There is a chain of authority all the way up to Newsom, but that isn't going to do you much good on 280.

Based on laws established by the legislature- with an incumbent due process right to challenge the ticket in Court.

What is so objectionable about having these orders flow from the board of supervisors instead of the health director? I don’t care if it’s the same freaking order. Which one would you anticipate it would be because they rubberstamp it. I just want it coming from an elected official. Particularly when they are as broad in scope as these county orders are

---

lex will be pleased, but I believe most of us think this is stupid and puts us all at risk, because I think we know not stopping pandemics in one area makes them a certainty in another.

If there was anything for states to sue each other over in SCOTUS, it is this. I believe there is precedent for one state being held liable to another when it came to acid rain litigation, but not sure. Anyway, this is my gripe:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/LaurenWeberHP/status/1338849219277426691[/tweet]

---

What qualified person in their right mind is going to take on one of these jobs, when they are hamstrung to do it? We have seatbelt laws for a reason. We have warnings on cigarettes for a reason. Why the hell would we not want to empower and celebrate public health experts, and know that if we follow their advice, we will avoid the most public health damage?

As for the shutdowns, it would have been a lot easier to take if the federal government stepped up and compensated people while businesses were shuttered, like every other developed country. But let's misdiagnose the problem and blame public health officials. Oh, the irony.

You see, you missed my point. You’re right the public health officials should not be blamed if people have problems with the orders. The people that should bear the brunt are the elected officials of the county. They should be the one signing these orders. They are answerable to the electorate. These aren’t warning packages on labels or seatbelt laws. These are very very broad orders that essentially determine what we can do and can’t do in our lives. Unprecedented. So I will continue to contend that this needs to be looked at in the future. I personally believe that had the Orders simply been signed by the board of supes as opposed to emanating from the health director that they would have been better received. At least in that circumstance the people would feel they have some voice in responding to the board.

[OutsiderFan]

I understand and in a perfect world, agree with your position, lex.  The problem, of course, is we don't live in a perfect world. The only reason the public health officials are given the latitude to make decisions is because giving them that power inoculates the elected people from making them.  They can just raise their hands and say "we had no choice, because Dr. Cody made the call," and not have to fall on their swords on tough decisions.  

It would be nice if we lived in a world where elected officials weren't profiles in cowardice, and could make tough choices, but this isn't our world in the U.S. in 2020.

[OutsiderFan]

I understand and in a perfect world, agree with your position, lex.  The problem, of course, is we don't live in a perfect world. The only reason the public health officials are given the latitude to make decisions is because giving them that power inoculates the elected people from making them.  They can just raise their hands and say "we had no choice, because Dr. Cody made the call," and not have to fall on their swords on tough decisions.  

It would be nice if we lived in a world where elected officials weren't profiles in cowardice, and could make tough choices, but this isn't our world in the U.S. in 2020.

[Genuine Realist]

I understand and in a perfect world, agree with your position, lex.  The problem, of course, is we don't live in a perfect world. The only reason the public health officials are given the latitude to make decisions is because giving them that power inoculates the elected people from making them.  They can just raise their hands and say "we had no choice, because Dr. Cody made the call," and not have to fall on their swords on tough decisions.  

It would be nice if we lived in a world where elected officials weren't profiles in cowardice, and could make tough choices, but this isn't our world in the U.S. in 2020.

I mentioned off-hand that one of the hottest political seats around is police chief in a small town. They are fired constantly.

So, in these days, is health officer. Assuming that decisions made by either chiefs or health officers reflect detached, neutral science is rather naive. They are hopefully science based, but reflect the value judgments of the individual. They are naturally going to be controversial, and sharply disputed by one faction or another of the public.

Just like a football coach, you accept firing as part of the deal.

[Genuine Realist]

I understand and in a perfect world, agree with your position, lex.  The problem, of course, is we don't live in a perfect world. The only reason the public health officials are given the latitude to make decisions is because giving them that power inoculates the elected people from making them.  They can just raise their hands and say "we had no choice, because Dr. Cody made the call," and not have to fall on their swords on tough decisions.  

It would be nice if we lived in a world where elected officials weren't profiles in cowardice, and could make tough choices, but this isn't our world in the U.S. in 2020.

I mentioned off-hand that one of the hottest political seats around is police chief in a small town. They are fired constantly.

So, in these days, is health officer. Assuming that decisions made by either chiefs or health officers reflect detached, neutral science is rather naive. They are hopefully science based, but reflect the value judgments of the individual. They are naturally going to be controversial, and sharply disputed by one faction or another of the public.

Just like a football coach, you accept firing as part of the deal.

[BostonCard]

I didn't see the breakdown between "resigned", "retired", and "fired".

Some turnover is to be expected in normal years.  The added stress of operating in a pandemic also probably leads to greater turnover than usual.  While I might not agree with it, a duly elected representative, accountable to voters, asking a health commisioner to resign or firing them for policy differences is also reasonable; those representatives are accountable to voters.

There are two things I disagree with. One is when public health representatives are being hounded by public harrassment and/or death threats and resign because they are afraid.  I don't know how often this happens, but it should be unacceptable.  The second is when public health representatives are fired not for policy differences but for reporting bad news or scientific conclusions.  It's one thing if a governor and state public health commissioner clash over whether to lock down or not; it's another to clash over whether to report an outbreak of COVID-19.  Again, I have no idea how often it happens, but I believe that public health agencies need to know that they should report honestly no matter which "side" the facts support.

BC

[BostonCard]

I didn't see the breakdown between "resigned", "retired", and "fired".

Some turnover is to be expected in normal years.  The added stress of operating in a pandemic also probably leads to greater turnover than usual.  While I might not agree with it, a duly elected representative, accountable to voters, asking a health commisioner to resign or firing them for policy differences is also reasonable; those representatives are accountable to voters.

There are two things I disagree with. One is when public health representatives are being hounded by public harrassment and/or death threats and resign because they are afraid.  I don't know how often this happens, but it should be unacceptable.  The second is when public health representatives are fired not for policy differences but for reporting bad news or scientific conclusions.  It's one thing if a governor and state public health commissioner clash over whether to lock down or not; it's another to clash over whether to report an outbreak of COVID-19.  Again, I have no idea how often it happens, but I believe that public health agencies need to know that they should report honestly no matter which "side" the facts support.

BC

[akiddoc]

If we have a pandemic that starts killing at a 10% or 20% rate, I'm not sure you want to wait for elected officials to make decisions. Public health officers can be fired, so I'm not sure why people are so scared of the decisions they make.

[akiddoc]

If we have a pandemic that starts killing at a 10% or 20% rate, I'm not sure you want to wait for elected officials to make decisions. Public health officers can be fired, so I'm not sure why people are so scared of the decisions they make.

[Goose]

If we have a pandemic that starts killing at a 10% or 20% rate, I'm not sure you want to wait for elected officials to make decisions. Public health officers can be fired, so I'm not sure why people are so scared of the decisions they make.

Exactly. The structure we have didn't come about by chance. It has evolved out of previous public health challenges that used to be much more common than they are today. We should benefit from that experience that we hopefully will not ourselves repeat.

[Goose]

If we have a pandemic that starts killing at a 10% or 20% rate, I'm not sure you want to wait for elected officials to make decisions. Public health officers can be fired, so I'm not sure why people are so scared of the decisions they make.

Exactly. The structure we have didn't come about by chance. It has evolved out of previous public health challenges that used to be much more common than they are today. We should benefit from that experience that we hopefully will not ourselves repeat.

[Mick]

I mean, the vast majority of people who work at all stages of government are unelected.  I mean, imagine if we were voting on who should be general or who should head the OMB.

BC

Or more directly on the CHP officer who actually gives you the ticket. They make the decision, they don't have to ticket you. There is a chain of authority all the way up to Newsom, but that isn't going to do you much good on 280.

I had a Poli Sci prof back in the 1980s who wanted to do away with the Electoral College.  He didn't particularly trust elected representatives, and he advocated that we institute a national initiative system similar to California's initiatives.  Long live the tyranny of the majority...

---

I mentioned off-hand that one of the hottest political seats around is police chief in a small town. They are fired constantly.

So, in these days, is health officer. Assuming that decisions made by either chiefs or health officers reflect detached, neutral science is rather naive. They are hopefully science based, but reflect the value judgments of the individual. They are naturally going to be controversial, and sharply disputed by one faction or another of the public.

Just like a football coach, you accept firing as part of the deal.

The father of my father-in-law (Stanford, '53) was a deputy sheriff in Palo Alto in the 1920s through the 1950s.  He worked Whiskey Gulch, with all that implies.  He was hired by my grandfather's (Stanford, '42) best friend, who was the sheriff of Santa Clara County back in the day.  Near the end of his life, my grandfather and father in law were reminiscing about being a small town sheriff.  Granddad, who was brought up in Potlatch, ID mused that the qualifications for being a sheriff in 1920s small town America was that, if you could take on four guys at once, you were the sheriff.  But you always had to have the voters in the back of your mind.

[Mick]

I mean, the vast majority of people who work at all stages of government are unelected.  I mean, imagine if we were voting on who should be general or who should head the OMB.

BC

Or more directly on the CHP officer who actually gives you the ticket. They make the decision, they don't have to ticket you. There is a chain of authority all the way up to Newsom, but that isn't going to do you much good on 280.

I had a Poli Sci prof back in the 1980s who wanted to do away with the Electoral College.  He didn't particularly trust elected representatives, and he advocated that we institute a national initiative system similar to California's initiatives.  Long live the tyranny of the majority...

---

I mentioned off-hand that one of the hottest political seats around is police chief in a small town. They are fired constantly.

So, in these days, is health officer. Assuming that decisions made by either chiefs or health officers reflect detached, neutral science is rather naive. They are hopefully science based, but reflect the value judgments of the individual. They are naturally going to be controversial, and sharply disputed by one faction or another of the public.

Just like a football coach, you accept firing as part of the deal.

The father of my father-in-law (Stanford, '53) was a deputy sheriff in Palo Alto in the 1920s through the 1950s.  He worked Whiskey Gulch, with all that implies.  He was hired by my grandfather's (Stanford, '42) best friend, who was the sheriff of Santa Clara County back in the day.  Near the end of his life, my grandfather and father in law were reminiscing about being a small town sheriff.  Granddad, who was brought up in Potlatch, ID mused that the qualifications for being a sheriff in 1920s small town America was that, if you could take on four guys at once, you were the sheriff.  But you always had to have the voters in the back of your mind.