Discussion about this post

User's avatar
DSB's avatar

I believe analysis, as was done by NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research), into the success of Covid-19 response is instructive. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w29928/w29928.pdf

7 states did not impose stay-at-home rules. Those states and their NBER rank out of 51 are: Arkansas (#9/R), Iowa (#11/R), Nebraska (#2/R), North Dakota (#14/R), South Dakota (#5/R), Utah (#1/R), and Wyoming (#21/R). The bottom 6 jurisdictions, all given a grade of F or F-, are: Illinois (#46/D), California (#47/D), New Mexico (#48/D), New York (#49/D), District of Columbia (#50/D) and New Jersey (#51/D). I hate the idea of a standardized response, either through UCL or WHO.

Choose wisely.

Expand full comment
Ray Prisament's avatar

I fail to see how the ULC finds this in their bailiwick. Unlike technical matters of commercial codes there is no obvious benefit to "uniformity" here. There might be some ostensible interstate-efficiency benefit if it resulted in more uniform emergency declarations and more consistent actions taken with respect to those emergencies. But it won't; it is merely proposing a meta framework for how such decisions are made. Different governors will still make wildly different decisions under this framework. To achieve any real predictability and rationality to emergency measures, what is needed is exactly what you say it doesn't do: dive into the merits of what really constitutes a emergency, and what constitutes a proportionate response to such. Very little of what we have been subject to for the last 3 years could ever pass such a test.

Expand full comment
7 more comments...

No posts