We’ve had what feels like a remarkably mild, unblizzardy spring. But don’t count on warmer weather to spare us from coronavirus. In a rapid expert consultation requested by the U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine says that although we don’t have a lot of solid research (because, holy cow, it’s only been a hundred days since covid-19 popped up and barely a month since we went on total global freakout), empirical data so far suggest coronavirus will stick around through spring and summer:
Studies published so far have conflicting results regarding potential seasonal effects, and are hampered by poor data quality, confounding factors, and insufficient time since the beginning of the pandemic from which to draw conclusions. There is some evidence to suggest that SARS- CoV-2 may transmit less efficiently in environments with higher ambient temperature and humidity; however, given the lack of host immunity globally, this reduction in transmission efficiency may not lead to a significant reduction in disease spread without the concomitant adoption of major public health interventions. Furthermore, the other coronaviruses causing potentially serious human illness, including both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV have not demonstrated any evidence of seasonality following their emergence [National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, “Rapid Expert Consultation on SARS-CoV-2 Survival in Relation to Temperature and Humidity and Potential for Seasonality for the COVID-19 Pandemic,” Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2020.04.07. https://doi.org/10.17226/25771].
Past pandemics and their peak second waves didn’t wait for any particular season:
There have been 10 influenza pandemics in the past 250-plus years – two started in the northern hemisphere winter, three in the spring, two in the summer and three in the fall. All had a peak second wave approximately six months after emergence of the virus in the human population, regardless of when the initial introduction occurred [NASEM, 2020.04.07].
Better start looking for summer floral prints for those coronavirus masks… and, if pandemics regularly resurge six months out, better plan on starting the next school year the same way we’re finishing this school year: online.
Gunnison County Colorado bars non-residents. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gunnison-county-texas-attorney-general_n_5e908f1bc5b6cac1e812b97e
The county granted 199 exemptions to non-residents who were present before the virus outbreak. Virtually all who applied since the outbreak were denied.
The penalty clause is up to $5,000 fine and or 18 months in jail.
The county hospital has but 25 beds and no ICU to serve a population of 17,000.
South Dakota, and counties, and towns, need to find the gumption to pull up the welcome mat for the snowbirds and RVers to shelter in place.
I’m told that in Wuhan, when the coronavirus was at its peak, the temperature was 75 degrees.
Viruses don’t care.
On the good side, warmer weather means we can open the windows, air out the house and the office, and better disperse our indoor sneeze clouds.
John’s post and link regarding the Gunnison County Colorado attempt to bar non-residents is worth looking at. The Huffpost article linked also links a letter by Special Counsel, David J. Hacker, on Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s letterhead. Hacker correctly informs Gunnison County that its order is blatantly unconstitutional under existing Supreme Court precedent. Hacker’s reading of this SCOTUS precedent is correct, the Constitution’s Privileges and Immunities Clause bars one State from interfering with any citizen’s travel to or in that State.
If the State of SD or any subdivision attempted such an action, it would find itself subject to a federal lawsuit and not only enjoined and ordered to pay any actual damages to those harmed by the unconstitutional action, but also required to pay the attorneys fees of each Plaintiff challenging the action.
Here is some general background for those interested:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/section-1/the-right-to-travel
While it is always possible that the current SCOTUS will reverse longstanding precedent and decide to grant a State or local government the power to discriminate against non-residents, it seem relatively naive to go willy nilly down that path instead of providing non-residents the same medical care, treatment and support provided to residents.
Gunnison, Colorado has quite a historical reason for the shutdown, it worked in 1918 during the Spanish Flu.
“In late 1918 the world’s greatest killer – Spanish flu – roared towards Gunnison, a mountain town in Colorado.
The pandemic was infecting hundreds of millions of people in Europe, Africa, Asia and across the United States, overwhelming hospitals and morgues in Boston and Philadelphia before sweeping west, devastating cities, villages and hamlets from Alaska to Texas.
Gunnison, a farming and mining town of about 1,300 people, had special reason to fear. Two railroads connected it to Denver and other population centers, many badly hit. “The flu is after us” the Gunnison News-Champion warned on 10 October. “It is circulating in almost every village and community around us.”https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/01/gunnison-colorado-the-town-that-dodged-the-1918-spanish-flu-pandemic
As Cory points out, historical accounts of past epidemics say to isolate. The governor of Texas can go pound sand and stand in line to sue. California already declared itself a nation state, so Colorado may as well do the same.
BCB: let the Texas AG hold his breathe, stomp his feet, and sue. He’ll have to sue as a private citizen since Texas has no standing in the AG’s vacation cabin.
The 1905 US Supreme Court decision, Jacobson v. Massachusetts,
is the foundation that state (and local) governments can take temporary extraordinary means, including deferring rights, for the sake of public health. (And the Texas AG used / cited this case this month in another petition!) https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/10/politics/pandemic-coronavirus-jacobson-supreme-court-abortion-rights/index.html
BCB, you should be old enough to know about martial law being enacted in the US — selectively during the 1960s, early 1970s — to restore civil order. This was not unique. It occurred during the Bonus Riots after WWI, selectively during the Civil War, and in other episodes in US history. San Francisco burned a block of private property to save a neighborhood during the great fire for which the courts found it justified – in the greater public interest.
Yes, BCB. under the US Constitution, you have rights. Those rights are not absolute. We the people, the sovereign people, hold the higher right to protect the over-arching public interest.
The Balkanization of the USA?
Only temporary, I hope.
John, you could have a point about the Jacobson decision supporting the limitation of a constitutional right. One problem jumps immediately out, however, and that is the discrimination aspect of excluding non-residents. I don’t think Jacobson would support the idea that the state may single out a discrete group based on residence and deny that group a constitutional right that everyone else outside the group may still exercise.
Perhaps it might be permissible to single out a specific group non-residents because they presented a greater danger than residents, like Texans. Indeed, the Jacobson court gave just such an example:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/197/11
But here it appears that the County simply seeks to close its door to all non-residents, regardless of whether they were exposed to COVID 19 and without offering a quarantine period after which free travel could be resumed.
Likewise, Jacobson itself deals with a law that required all citizens, regardless or origin to be vaccinated, yet provided exceptions for unusual or compelling individual circumstances. The county rule here apparently permits free travel among residents, but restricts travel for non-residents without exception.
The point that a State and its subdivisions may take reasonable action to protect the health and safety of the community is well taken and long settled law. As Jacobson explains:
Jacobson also points out the limits on this power:
Thus, I doubt that Jacobson would suffice to allow SD to exclude RVer’s and non-residents from coming here.
I side completely with Bearcreekbat’s read of the constitutional right to travel. We cannot make movement across boundaries of a local jurisdiction available to one class of citizens and not to another class.
However, if we want to keep a lot of RVers out, we can enact two simple and entirely constitutional policies: enact a state income tax and raise license fees on all large vehicles. Both policies are completely justified to address the budget shortfall that will arise from the coronavirus recession. Both policies will also result in 80% of the RVers who have registered their vehicles and their voting here to never come back.