Judge rules NYSDOH exceeded authority with COVID-19 regulation

Capt Gregory Prickett Due process is a Very Big Deal for me, as well. But I also recognize that with something like a pandemic, we can't provide individual court appearances for every quarantine. Which is why the policy needs to itself be fully vetted and provide the least intrusive option. This policy failed.

I think by now you know how far to the right I lean. I'm borderline anarchist (but not quite there). But even I recognize that sometimes the government MUST take actions which infringe on some in order to protect the whole. Those times should be EXCEPTIONALLY rare, and they should be fully reviewed, vetted, and subjected to intense legal scrutiny prior to being implemented.

Of course that is very generalized. Looking at specifics, I feel, personally, that just about every public health order throughout the pandemic failed that metric. In their rush to do SOMETHING, ANYTHING, executives (Presidents, Governors, and Mayors) of BOTH parties failed to scrutinize exactly what they were ordering. And public health authorities, finally having a chance to wield true power - which they are neither trained nor designed for - went a little power-mad.

But that's just me. I've rarely met a government action I fully approved of.

It's a sad story, but she refused to follow the directives of public health & refused to stop being a cook (transmission route) while being an asymptomatic carrier. Also "hand hygiene" was not a thing back then. What tools do we want public (community level) health to have when asymptomatic carriers of any infectious disease are a transmission source? While this matters in all our communities (global travel) it's also very much a READINESS issue for our military personnel and of heightened importance in the field, whether a training exercise or real world conflict. If our civilian command structure doesn't "get it" how can we expect our troops, not otherwise trained in infectious disease, to "get it"?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3959940/

SFC Casey O'Mally - wondering if you read the actual published policy, because my reading of it informs me that it is very explicit to infectious diseases and due process is included. The article suggests the Judge didn't think it specific enough to infectious diseases so I will go back and read the decision he handed down. In the meantime, I am extremely curious how someone who swore an Oath to the Constitution, ends up an "almost anarchist"?

SFC Terry Stinnett ALMOST an anarchist. Quite simply, I believe that less government is better government. And anytime you can function with NO government intrusion, you should. I believe this is largely in line with the Constitution which, for the most part, was written so as to specifically limit government's power.

I understand the need for SOME government - but most government is unnecessary and oppressive. That doesn't mean I won't follow the rules. Just that they chafe.

There are multiple problems with the policy, IMHO. First, while it states due process, those receiving the order are only REALLY given due process after being given the order. AFTER ordered into quarantine or isolation (and such order to be enforced through the full might of law enforcement and full weight of civilian and criminal penalties) then a person can request legal review and an attorney. But only after complying with a potentially unlawful order.

Additionally, it is arbitrary. CDC admitted that 6 feet is an arbitrary number, that they chose because that is what they believed people would tolerate. There is no evidence that six feet provides any more or less protection than 5 feet - or seven feet. The optimal distance, IIRC was 15 feet. But they didn't use that number because they did not think they would be able to get people to comply.

Finally, it gives the authority to CONTROL infectious diseases. But there is no requirement to actually HAVE the disease. If you have symptoms, even if you actually have a cold, that is enough. And the symptoms were VERY broad. Running a fever? Isolation. Did you just cough? Quarantine for you. Technically, under the authority of this policy, they could order someone into quarantine or isolation if everyone ELSE was infected, to prevent the isolated person from getting it.