This Business Is Suing the Government Over a Coronavirus Closure Order

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the government to pay just compensation when it takes private property for a public use. Does that apply when the government orders a business to close its doors indefinitely in order to help prevent the spread of COVID-19? Is the shuttered business entitled to compensation for its troubles?

These are not hypothetical questions. Schulmerich Bells, a small outfit that makes handcrafted handbells and chimes in Hatfield, Pennsylvania, has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Gov. Thomas Wolf’s order indefinitely closing all “non-life-sustaining” businesses during the COVID-19 outbreak. “The Governor has placed the cost of these Orders—issued for the benefit of the public—squarely upon the shoulders of private individuals and their families, and has failed to justly compensate affected parties for these takings undertaken for their benefit to the public,” the suit states. “These uncompensated seizures violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.” The suit seeks the payment of just compensation by the state.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long said that the states may regulate—and even prohibit—certain property uses in the name of public health and safety without triggering the Takings Clause. In Mugler v. Kansas (1887), the Court ruled against a liquor manufacturer whose livelihood was destroyed when the state banned the sale and manufacture of “intoxicating beverages.” According to the Court, “a prohibition simply upon the use of property for purposes that are declared, by valid legislation, to be injurious to the health, morals, or safety of the community, cannot, in any just sense, be deemed a taking or an appropriation of property for the public benefit.” Such government action “does not disturb the owner in the control or use of his property for lawful purposes, nor restrict his right to dispose of it, but is only a declaration by the State that its use by any one, for certain forbidden purposes, is prejudicial to the public interests.”

Similarly, in Miller v. Schoene (1928), the Supreme Court upheld a Virginia law requiring the destruction of red cedar trees infected with cedar rust if those trees stood within two miles of an apple orchard (cedar rust is highly detrimental to apple trees). “The state does not exceed its constitutional powers by deciding upon the destruction of one class of property in order to save another which, in the judgment of the legislature, is of greater value to the public,” the Court said. “It will not do to say that the case is merely one of a conflict of two private interests and that the misfortune of apple growers may not be shifted to cedar owners by ordering the destruction of their property; for it is obvious that there may be, and that here there is, a preponderant public concern in the preservation of the one interest over the other.”

In short, if this particular lawsuit is going to succeed, it will have to clear some steep precedential hurdles.

Related:Police Powers During a Pandemic, Constitutional, but Not Unlimited.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Jqva0G
via IFTTT

2008 Playbook: Unknown Unknowns

2008 Playbook: Unknown Unknowns

Submitted by Nick Colas of DataTrek Research

While Donald Rumsfeld may not be one’s go-to guy for decision making paradigms, his 2002 mention of “unknown unknowns” is worth considering just now as an investment framework. The idea here is that we all make judgments based on a tripartite spectrum of available information. Specifically:

Known knowns (entirely baked into asset prices):

  • COVID-19 both spreads easily and is sufficiently harmful to require countries to limit economic activity dramatically in order to contain the virus before it overwhelms their health care systems.

  • Policymakers have responded by providing large scale fiscal and monetary stimulus in the hopes of tiding over economies during the worst of the outbreak.

  • Medical researchers are working on improved therapeutic treatments as well as vaccines. Testing is becoming faster and more widespread.

Known unknowns (partially baked into asset prices):

  • The exact duration of national lockdowns around the world and their impact on labor markets.

  • The pace of economic recovery once the immediate danger has passed/possibility of reinfection during a restart.

  • The size and timing of further fiscal/monetary stimulus (NY Governor Cuomo highlighted this in his press briefing today with respect to state budgets, an important source of US fiscal spending).

Unknown unknowns (not in asset prices and near-impossible to assess today):

  • Inflation rates over the next 1-3 years, a push-pull of fiscal/monetary stimulus and uncertain consumer/business confidence.

  • Any change of personal/corporate tax rates to stabilize government deficits (both at national and state levels).

  • The political implications of COVID-19 on the November US general election. Worth noting: President Trump’s latest Gallup approval rating out on March 24th were the highest of his presidency and may have helped boost stock prices last week.

  • The effect of exploding deficit spending around the world on the cost of capital.

  • How emerging market economies with large dollar-denominated debts will handle a slow global economic recovery or how the European banking system will deal with a sharp recession in its most vulnerable countries.

  • Just as the Great Recession did lasting damage to younger job seekers, will the current global downturn affect those finishing/just out of college right now?

You probably have many other “unknown unknowns” you could add to this list, but that’s exactly the point when considering how well US equities have held up; the S&P 500 at 2541 implies:

  • No structural damage to US large cap earnings power. We’re trading at 20x the trailing 10-year average S&P earnings of $122/share, not the 10x we saw in 2009.

  • Confidence that visibility into that $122/share earnings run rate will be there in November 2020 (near term equity prices tend to lever off 6-month forward economic/profit conditions).

  • That the CBOE VIX Index over 60, even on large up days, is only a sign of near-term potential volatility rather than a sign equity prices are fundamentally wrong.

  • That markets will continue to ignore bad economic news or disappointing corporate profit reports because either they are temporary or they will spur further monetary/fiscal stimulus.

As for how this is playing out in our 2008 Playbook construct, once again using September 29th 2008 and March 9th 2020 as starting points (the first +5% “crash day” move in each sequence):

#1: Because policymakers now both “own” the COVID-19 Crisis (unlike Q4 2008 when there was a US election pending) and learned from 2008 to go big/early (both in fiscal and monetary policy), the damage to the S&P 500 has not been as bad in 2020 as it was in 2008:

  • The index is down 7.5% from September 29th, 2020.

  • In 2008, the S&P was 15.0% lower on October 17th from September 29th, the same number of trading days as we’re including in the prior point.

#2: From this point in 2008, for the next 19 trading sessions the S&P 500 was in a very broad band but went essentially nowhere.

  • The index closed at 940 on Friday, October 17th 2008.

  • 19 trading days later, the S&P closed at 911, down 3.1% from that 940 level. In between October 17th and November 13th the index had an +11% day (October 28th) and four +5% decline days (October 22, post-election November 5/6, and November 12).

#3: The real crack for US stocks in 2008 came right after this waiting period, happened very suddenly, but bounced back relatively quickly:

  • After holding the 900 level, the S&P went to 752 in just 5 trading sessions (November 14th to November 20th), a 17.5% decline. The headlines at the time centered on which financial institutions/auto makers would receive TARP funding, and how much.

  • The S&P then came roaring back over the last 27 trading days of 2008 and closed at 903 with just one +5% crash day (-8.9% on December 1st).

This experience is emblematic of how markets behave when “unknown unknowns” shove their way into asset prices, and it continues to serve as our template for what to expect now. Specifically:

  • Markets think they have a solid handle on the known knowns and the known unknowns. That should make for a period of notionally stability, even if the day-to-day price action feels otherwise.

  • When economic events outrun policymaker’s responses, however, there is a sharp (18% in 2008) decline that doesn’t last long but creates an investable crisis low.

  • Yes, the S&P did not really bottom until March 9th 2009 but you would not have wanted to sell at that 752 low on November 20th given the sharp bounce back through year end.

Bottom line: the 2008 playbook says we should see volatile but generally sideways US equity price action this week and next. Should there be a sudden shock from an unknown unknown that creates a +15% decline (2100 on the S&P, in round numbers), that would also fit with the 2008 playbook. Buying that new low would feel awful, but it would also be a signal to policymakers that they will need to take further steps. In the end, that’s why we lean on the 2008 playbook so much: in periods of crisis capital markets drive policy response.


Tyler Durden

Mon, 03/30/2020 – 13:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2WSpLYc Tyler Durden

North Korea Confirms New Test Of ‘Super-Large Multiple Rocket Launcher’ 

North Korea Confirms New Test Of ‘Super-Large Multiple Rocket Launcher’ 

Perhaps the only major non-coronavirus story to briefly grab international headlines over the weekend was North Korea’s firing off of two short-range ballistic missiles into the Sea of Japan. “The missiles were fired from the port city of Wonsan, flying about 140 miles to the northeast before landing in waters between North Korea and Japan,” The New York Times reported of the Saturday launch.

It came a mere week after Kim Jong-Un received a letter from President Trump offering to assist in the fight against the coronavirus pandemic.

Pyongyang officials confirmed the launches Monday, described as a test of a new “super-large multiple rocket launcher” which state media reported as going off without a hitch.



North Korean released this photo set of missile testing over the weekend, KCNA via Reuters.

Official state news agency KCNA said the test was overseen by governing party vice chairman Ri Pyong Chol, suggesting that Kim did not personally attend the launch.

“The operational deployment of the weapon system of super-large multiple rocket launchers is a crucial work of very great significance in realising the party’s new strategic intention for national defence,” Ri was quoted as saying during the test. “The test-fire was conducted successfully,” KCNA said.

It’s the sixth such short- and mid-range missile test within the past month, after a three-month respite from testing which went from late November to early March.

The resumption of testing has provoked anger from South Korea, which slammed the drills as “deeply inappropriate” given the world is currently battling coronavirus pandemic. Leaders in Seoul said they had “urged the North to stop such acts immediately.”

South Korea’s government-funded Yonhap News Agency notes military officials are analyzing photographs of the launch:

The military is scrutinizing photos North Korean state media released earlier in the day of the super-large multiple rocket launcher tested Sunday as the system looks different from the North’s existing weapon of the same name, a JCS official said.

It looks more like the large-caliber multiple launch guided rocket system unveiled in August, he said.

One of the photos showed a projectile being fired from a system with six tubes, different from the four-tube system North has disclosed in its previous super-large multiple rocket launcher system test-firings.

“According to the photos released by North Korea this morning, (the rocket system tested Sunday) has similar characteristics with the one unveiled on Aug. 3 last year,” Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Republic of Korea spokesman Kim Joon-rak told a press briefing.

Pyongyang ramped up missile launches and testing this year after stalled de-nuclearization talks with Washington at the end of last year, after Washington insisted Kim must dismantle his nuclear capabilities before sanctions relief is on the table.


Tyler Durden

Mon, 03/30/2020 – 13:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/39pb1CI Tyler Durden

“Wuhan COVID-19 Death Toll May Be in the Tens of Thousands”

So reports Newsweek (Christina Zhao); there was an earlier article from Radio Free Asia (a U.S.-government-funded nonprofit) that gave similar estimates. (Bloomberg likewise writes, “Report of Urns Stacked at Wuhan Funeral Homes Raises Questions About the Real Coronavirus Death Toll in China.”)

These are just estimates, and may well be incorrect, but I thought they were worth noting given that the government-released data may be incorrect as well.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3bENfUC
via IFTTT

As Trump Imagines ‘2.2 Million Deaths’ From COVID-19 in the U.S., a Top Federal Disease Expert Cautions Against Believing Worst-Case Scenarios

During his COVID-19 briefing yesterday, President Donald Trump suggested that the control measures implemented so far should keep the number of deaths from climbing above 100,000 in the United States. Although that is “a horrible number,” he said, the death toll otherwise could be “up to 2.2 million deaths and maybe even beyond that.”

Trump has pivoted from minimizing the severity of the epidemic to exaggerating the likely outcome in the absence of extreme measures such as mass business closures and stay-at-home orders. Appearing on CNN yesterday, Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, offered some words of caution about worst-case scenarios that assume nothing is done to contain, suppress, or mitigate the spread of COVID-19.

Jake Tapper asked Fauci how many COVID-19 cases the United States can expect to see. “To be honest with you, we don’t really have any firm idea,” Fauci said. “There are things called models. And when someone creates a model, they put in various assumptions. And the model is only as good and as accurate as your assumptions. And whenever the modelers come in, they give a worst-case scenario and a best-case scenario. Generally, the reality is somewhere in the middle. I have never seen a model of the diseases that I have dealt where the worst-case scenario actually came out. They always overshoot. So when you use numbers like a million, a million-and-a-half, 2 million [deaths], that almost certainly is off the chart. Now, it’s not impossible, but very, very unlikely.”

Those caveats are important because focusing on implausible worst-case projections creates a bias in favor of sweeping and prolonged interventions, which impose enormous costs that might not be justified based on more realistic expectations. In the world we live in, as opposed to the one imagined by modelers when they talk about millions of COVID-19 deaths in the United States, many steps already have been taken to curtail the spread of the virus. These include not just government policies, such as isolation and quarantine, air travel restrictions, and bans on large gatherings, but also voluntary precautions, such as limiting social interactions, working at home, and paying extra attention to hygiene.

When modelers at Imperial College projected 2.2 million COVID-19 deaths in the United States, they were assuming “the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour.” Although that horrifying number got a lot of attention and has now been embraced by Trump, it was never plausible, even leaving aside the question of whether the case fatality rate (CFR) assumed by the model (0.9 percent) will prove to be correct.

The choice confronting policy makers right now is not between doing “nothing,” as that projection assumed, and maintaining lockdowns “for 5 months or more” (or perhaps for “18 months or more”), as the Imperial College report suggested. Rather, the choice involves what kinds of restrictions make sense, where, and for how long.

“Looking at what we’re seeing now,” Fauci said, “we’re going to have millions of cases” in the United States, and it is reasonable to expect “between 100,000 and 200,000” deaths. But he cautioned that “I just don’t think that we really need to make a projection, when it’s such a moving target, that you can so easily be wrong and mislead people.” Deborah Birx, coordinator of the White House’s COVID-19 task force, yesterday cited similar but somewhat less alarming estimates, saying “between 80,000 and 160,000, maybe even potentially 200,000 people,” could be killed by COVID-19 in the United States.

One unknown variable in these projections is how many Americans will ultimately be infected. Some projections “predicted half of the United States would get infected,” Birx said. Another crucial variable is the CFR, which federal public health officials say could be anywhere from 0.1 percent (about the same as the CFR for the seasonal flu) to 1 percent. If half the population were infected and 2.2 million people died, that would imply a CFR of about 1.3 percent, substantially higher than the upper limit of that range—another reason to be skeptical of the worst-case scenario.

Such a high CFR also suggests that the actual number of infections is only about two-fifths bigger than the current number of documented cases, which is highly implausible when testing is so sparse and cases typically involve mild to nonexistent symptoms. “Probably for every case,” Assistant Secretary for Health Brett Giroir estimated earlier this month, “there are at least two or three cases that are not even in the denominator.”

Based on the available data, which are very limited in the absence of wide testing, it surely is not safe to assume that COVID-19 is only slightly more deadly than the seasonal flu. But neither is it reasonable to assume that the disease is 13 times as deadly. The truth, as Fauci says, is likely to be “somewhere in the middle.” In the face of such uncertainty, decisions with profound economic consequences should not be based on one extreme or the other. “Although people like to model it,” Fauci told Tapper, “let’s just look at the data of what we have, and not worry about these worst-case and best-case scenarios.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3dFFgc4
via IFTTT

“Wuhan COVID-19 Death Toll May Be in the Tens of Thousands”

So reports Newsweek (Christina Zhao); there was an earlier article from Radio Free Asia (a U.S.-government-funded nonprofit) that gave similar estimates. (Bloomberg likewise writes, “Report of Urns Stacked at Wuhan Funeral Homes Raises Questions About the Real Coronavirus Death Toll in China.”)

These are just estimates, and may well be incorrect, but I thought they were worth noting given that the government-released data may be incorrect as well.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3bENfUC
via IFTTT

As Trump Imagines ‘2.2 Million Deaths’ From COVID-19 in the U.S., a Top Federal Disease Expert Cautions Against Believing Worst-Case Scenarios

During his COVID-19 briefing yesterday, President Donald Trump suggested that the control measures implemented so far should keep the number of deaths from climbing above 100,000 in the United States. Although that is “a horrible number,” he said, the death toll otherwise could be “up to 2.2 million deaths and maybe even beyond that.”

Trump has pivoted from minimizing the severity of the epidemic to exaggerating the likely outcome in the absence of extreme measures such as mass business closures and stay-at-home orders. Appearing on CNN yesterday, Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, offered some words of caution about worst-case scenarios that assume nothing is done to contain, suppress, or mitigate the spread of COVID-19.

Jake Tapper asked Fauci how many COVID-19 cases the United States can expect to see. “To be honest with you, we don’t really have any firm idea,” Fauci said. “There are things called models. And when someone creates a model, they put in various assumptions. And the model is only as good and as accurate as your assumptions. And whenever the modelers come in, they give a worst-case scenario and a best-case scenario. Generally, the reality is somewhere in the middle. I have never seen a model of the diseases that I have dealt where the worst-case scenario actually came out. They always overshoot. So when you use numbers like a million, a million-and-a-half, 2 million [deaths], that almost certainly is off the chart. Now, it’s not impossible, but very, very unlikely.”

Those caveats are important because focusing on implausible worst-case projections creates a bias in favor of sweeping and prolonged interventions, which impose enormous costs that might not be justified based on more realistic expectations. In the world we live in, as opposed to the one imagined by modelers when they talk about millions of COVID-19 deaths in the United States, many steps already have been taken to curtail the spread of the virus. These include not just government policies, such as isolation and quarantine, air travel restrictions, and bans on large gatherings, but also voluntary precautions, such as limiting social interactions, working at home, and paying extra attention to hygiene.

When modelers at Imperial College projected 2.2 million COVID-19 deaths in the United States, they were assuming “the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour.” Although that horrifying number got a lot of attention and has now been embraced by Trump, it was never plausible, even leaving aside the question of whether the case fatality rate (CFR) assumed by the model (0.9 percent) will prove to be correct.

The choice confronting policy makers right now is not between doing “nothing,” as that projection assumed, and maintaining lockdowns “for 5 months or more” (or perhaps for “18 months or more”), as the Imperial College report suggested. Rather, the choice involves what kinds of restrictions make sense, where, and for how long.

“Looking at what we’re seeing now,” Fauci said, “we’re going to have millions of cases” in the United States, and it is reasonable to expect “between 100,000 and 200,000” deaths. But he cautioned that “I just don’t think that we really need to make a projection, when it’s such a moving target, that you can so easily be wrong and mislead people.” Deborah Birx, coordinator of the White House’s COVID-19 task force, yesterday cited similar but somewhat less alarming estimates, saying “between 80,000 and 160,000, maybe even potentially 200,000 people,” could be killed by COVID-19 in the United States.

One unknown variable in these projections is how many Americans will ultimately be infected. Some projections “predicted half of the United States would get infected,” Birx said. Another crucial variable is the CFR, which federal public health officials say could be anywhere from 0.1 percent (about the same as the CFR for the seasonal flu) to 1 percent. If half the population were infected and 2.2 million people died, that would imply a CFR of about 1.3 percent, substantially higher than the upper limit of that range—another reason to be skeptical of the worst-case scenario.

Such a high CFR also suggests that the actual number of infections is only about two-fifths bigger than the current number of documented cases, which is highly implausible when testing is so sparse and cases typically involve mild to nonexistent symptoms. “Probably for every case,” Assistant Secretary for Health Brett Giroir estimated earlier this month, “there are at least two or three cases that are not even in the denominator.”

Based on the available data, which are very limited in the absence of wide testing, it surely is not safe to assume that COVID-19 is only slightly more deadly than the seasonal flu. But neither is it reasonable to assume that the disease is 13 times as deadly. The truth, as Fauci says, is likely to be “somewhere in the middle.” In the face of such uncertainty, decisions with profound economic consequences should not be based on one extreme or the other. “Although people like to model it,” Fauci told Tapper, “let’s just look at the data of what we have, and not worry about these worst-case and best-case scenarios.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3dFFgc4
via IFTTT

In Late February, Nancy Pelosi Encouraged Large Groups To Congregate In Chinatown

In Late February, Nancy Pelosi Encouraged Large Groups To Congregate In Chinatown

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

A video clip from late February shows Nancy Pelosi encouraging large groups of people to congregate in San Francisco’s Chinatown before she would later go on to blame President Trump’s early “denial” for the spread of coronavirus.

The footage, which was taken on February 24th, is introduced by a reporter noting how Pelosi wanted residents to understand how it’s “perfectly safe to be here” in Chinatown.

“We do want to say to people, come to Chinatown, here we are…come join us,” said Pelosi.

The reporter then explains how the stunt was a response to San Francisco’s Chinatown experiencing a drop in business since the outbreak of coronavirus in Wuhan, China.

San Francisco has since recorded 340 confirmed cases of coronavirus and 5 people have died.

The video is particularly eye opening since yesterday on CNN, Pelosi blamed President Trump’s “denial at the beginning” for the spread of coronavirus throughout the United States.

The video underscores how many officials flouted the very social distancing measures they now amplify because at the time stopping bigotry towards Chinese people was seen as being of greater importance than preventing the spread of coronavirus.

As we previously highlighted, health officials in New York gave identical advice, urging residents to gather in crowds to celebrate the Chinese Lunar New Year.

“Today our city is celebrating the #LunarNewYear parade in Chinatown, a beautiful cultural tradition with a rich history in our city,” wrote New York City Health Commissioner Oxiris Barbot. “I want to remind everyone to enjoy the parade and not change any plans due to misinformation spreading about #coronavirus.”

Her message was echoed by Mark D. Levine, Chair of New York City Council health committee, who lauded how “huge crowds gathering in NYC’s Chinatown” was a “powerful show of defiance of #coronavirus scare,” tweeting four images of large groups of people gathered to celebrate the occasion.

Mayor Bill de Blasio also urged New Yorkers to “get out on the town despite coronavirus” and visit the cinema as late as March 2nd.

As we highlight in the video below, back in February, leftist officials in Italy were also urging citizens to go outside and hug Chinese people in order to fight racism.

*  *  *

My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me. Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.


Tyler Durden

Mon, 03/30/2020 – 12:50

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2xyhHkH Tyler Durden

Gov. Abbot Orders Texas State Troopers To Enforce Quarantine At Louisiana Border

Gov. Abbot Orders Texas State Troopers To Enforce Quarantine At Louisiana Border

Texans are used to hearing talk of securing the southern border with Mexico, but the idea of checkpoints at the border with Louisiana is something no one ever imagined

After late last week Louisiana and specifically New Orleans have emerged as the southern epicenter for the coronavirus outbreak in the US, with the Bayou State on Sunday reporting more than 3,500 positive cases – a number expected to grow rapidly following a busy Mardi Gras season, Texas Governor Greg Abbott on Sunday ordered all travelers entering Texas from Louisiana to enter a 14-day quarantine, now enforceable by state troopers.



File image of a border patrol checkpoint along US Route 70 in New Mexico, via NPR.

Crucially, for the first time police have been told to enforce the quarantine order at checkpoints along the state border.

Few details have been given, but it’s expected that law enforcement will for the first time in living memory establish and beef up checkpoints along all major roadways that cross into Louisiana.

According to some of the few known details in The Houston Chronicle

Those in quarantine will be asked to provide an address for where they plan to hole up in Texas, either for two weeks or until their return to Louisiana, whichever comes first.

A provision in the order allows DPS special agents to check on those under quarantine to ensure they’re complying. Violators could be subject to either a $1,000 fine or 180 days in jail, according to the four-page document. Another provision states that if a driver is showing symptoms associated with COVID-19, such as fever, coughing or shortness of breath, a trooper will follow them to their destination.

It’s similar to current inter-state travel advisories and restrictions in place in Flordia, New York and New Jersey.

The order takes effect Monday at noon and will involve unprecedented border control checks along the busy Texas-Louisiana border. 

Health officials have recently warned that the skyrocketing Covid-19 cases in Louisiana could threaten the entire southern region of the United States, which thus far has generally seen lower numbers than either the Northwest or East coast cities.


Tyler Durden

Mon, 03/30/2020 – 12:35

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/39Ag1ok Tyler Durden

You Say “Epidemic”; He Says “Great Time to Go Surfing!”; …

Or so says an article in Stab Magazine (apparently a publication about surfing). An excerpt with some policy analysis (the article also has more on the facts):

Kelly makes some great points about how arresting officers grabbing surfers could exacerbate the spread of covid-19 (certainly more so than the physical act of surfing). And, also to his point, it makes no sense for the ocean to be closed before retail spaces. But on the point that people should be allowed to surf throughout this crisis (especially if they keep their distance), Kelly is wrong….

If people are allowed to surf (even at a safe distance from one another), it will lead to a mass migration of surfers from all surrounding areas to the beach. This is especially true since everyone is out of work and wants something to keep their minds and bodies occupied. Also, we’re coming into a holiday week/end around the world, which will only add to the chaos.

Now, even if we were to assume that not a single person around the world could or would contract covid-19 while in the water (which is a very weak assumption), what about all the hotels, gas stations, coffee shops, public bathrooms, and other disease-incubating amenities that will inevitably be flooded by these migratory surfers?

If you could somehow enforce a law that only people who lived within walking distance of the beach were allowed to surf, it would probably be fine for them to do so. But of course that’s not logistically feasible, so closing all beaches (and their adjacent waves) is the only logical step our government can take if they’re serious about stopping the spread.

Thanks to Jenny Wilson for the pointer.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3dDBD6h
via IFTTT