Over the past few weeks, the coronavirus pandemic has been playing a crucial role in our lives as we take on this new “normal.” The majority of the United States is in a stay-at-home order. A stay-at-home order is an order given by the governors of states telling their people that staying at home should be a priority, and if going out is needed (to get groceries or other essential goods) a six-feet distance must be upheld from all other people. Essential businesses, such as banks, grocery stores, pharmacies, and gas stations will be closed. All non-essential businesses will be closed until further notice. In order to combat this virus, some states are enforcing a curfew to limit social interaction. Some of the states, such as Delaware, chose to implement a shelter-in-place order to help limit the spread of COVID-19. The main difference between stay-at-home and shelter-in-place orders is that shelter-in-place orders were typically used for natural disasters and/or chemical incidents.Now, states are finding it useful for COVID-19. Life for everyone seems to have been completely flipped upside. There’s been no more going to school, no more hanging out with friends, no more doing daily life the way we know it. Everyone has spent the majority of the past few weeks in their homes. Or, maybe that’s just what it seems like to those of us who live in a state with strict restrictions put in place because of this deadly virus.
Some states are choosing to not implement any type of statewide order to stop the spread of this virus. Among these states are Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma (except for elders), South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. Why are the governors choosing not to put restrictions into place?
Source: Times research, local governments and news reports. (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-stay-at-home-order.html?auth=login-email&login=email)
There has been much talk about why the governors of these states have not ordered restrictions on the daily life of their states. Health experts are warning about the rapid spread of this virus. Citizens from these parts of the country are becoming increasingly worried, pleading with the officials to call an order into place. The statistics from this virus are already alarming. As of April 14 2020, 120,568 lives and counting have been taken from COVID-19. (Elfein) With an extremely high number of deaths and multiple precautions taken from the rest of the country, it may seem confusing why these governors have not yet taken harsher measures to try to stop the spread of COVID-19.
From readings, it seems as if the governors of these states feel as though their citizens can practice reliable social distancing without the need for any special order or restriction. For example, in South Dakota, Governor Kristi Noem states that the citizens of her state should still “practice social distancing, limit group interaction, maintain good hygiene, and self-isolate when [they’re] sick,” (Noem) without putting an official “stay-at-home” or “shelter-in-place” order into place. In recent interviews with governors of these states, they “defended their decision, saying that they had already taken strong steps — closing schools, and shutting down or limiting many aspects of public life, including restaurants, bars, gyms, bowling alleys and movie theaters” (Mervosh and Healy). These people truly believe they are doing the right thing for their states, just like the rest of the states in the country. All of these governors are Republicans that value small government, and do not like the idea of having to create restrictions on the people. These people believe that their citizens have to make the choice themselves to self-quarantine and stay healthy, the state cannot force them. The governors of the states without social distancing orders, are still promoting staying healthy and safe during this struggle. They just do not feel as if it is right to put forced restrictions on their people.
Though these state governors are holding out on putting in place harsher restrictions, they are being extremely pressured by the rest of the nation. According to the New York Times, “The pressure on the holdouts in the Midwest and the South has mounted in recent days as fellow governors, public-health experts and even their own citizens urge them to adopt tougher measures” (Mervosh and Healy). Though a large population of the nation does not agree with how these governors are choosing to go about containing the virus, they continue to stand firm with their opinion.
All we can do right now is see what happens with these particular states and their restrictions. Will more, if not all, of these states succumb to the pressure and put harsher restrictions into place? Will these states have more coronavirus cases/deaths compared to the states that chose to put emphasis on stay-at-home or shelter-in-place orders?
SOURCES:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/06/coronavirus-stay-at-home-by-state/
https://doh.sd.gov/news/coronavirus.aspx
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/03/us/coronavirus-states-without-stay-home.html
Here’s what’s happened in SD:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/south-dakotas-governor-resisted-ordering-people-to-stay-home-now-it-has-one-of-the-nations-largest-coronavirus-hot-spots/2020/04/13/5cff90fe-7daf-11ea-a3ee-13e1ae0a3571_story.html
Hi Ariana!
I really enjoyed reading your last civic issue blog! I really liked your informative take on the current COVID-19 situation, especially your take on how federalism has played out in different states handling the issue.
It’s really interesting to watch how different states approach such a large issue as this. I think this is one of the most clear and evident examples of federalism. As established in the 10th Amendment in the Constitution, all powers not given to the federal government are powers reserved for the states, and the COVID-19 pandemic allows the states to expand their power. I think the states that you have listed that have taken a more relaxed approach to the quarantine further demonstrates how states can choose how to utilize their power.
Although the states you found could be doing more to help others and ensure safety of their citizens, different states do have varying cases of confirmed patients. Live Science reports that “New York may have reached its peak in COVID-19 cases and possibly related deaths, as Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Monday night (April 13) during a press briefing: “I believe the worst is over if we continue to be smart … I believe we can start on the path to normalcy, The New York Times reported. After setting records for single-day coronavirus-related deaths, the state was starting to show a decline in new cases and new related deaths. In addition, the number of newly hospitalized COVID-19 patients in New York may be leveling off; the number had been growing by about 20% per day, but between Wednesday and Thursday (April 9), it grew by just 1%”.
Ultimately, some states that are less populated or the people do not live as close together as states like New York are able to impose different laws and regulations. This is why the basic principles of federalism still exist.
Overall, I really liked your take on the current situation we are living through. Nice job and stay healthy!
-Lauren
https://www.livescience.com/topics/live/coronavirus-live-updates
Hi Ariana,
I really like you presentation of this topic. I like how you focus on the different things that each state is doing. As I live in Pennsylvania, I am under the ruling of stay-at-home order. I find it difficult, as I do not live with my parents, so I have not been able to see them or my younger siblings as much as I would like. However, I do think these methods are necessary. I, personally, disagree with the governors who are not putting in stay-at-home orders.
The states that are not participating in stay-at-home orders are putting their citizens at greater risk. Coronavirus symptoms make not show up for two weeks after a person is infected, so someone could be spreading it around without knowing it. Also, if someone is sick, without a stay-at-home order, they may feel obliged to go to work, as they are not able to work from home and will miss out on the pay if they do not go.
These are unprecedented times and everyone is trying to do their best to ensure that we get back to a somewhat normal life soon. With efforts from people all around the country and even around the world, the number of cases of coronavirus will decrease. Yet, many are still unsure of how to get rid of the coronavirus so we can return to society without a second wave.
There is one thought that maybe immunity could help us. This means that if the coronavirus infects enough people, they will have antibodies to the virus and not be susceptible to getting it again. However, it is unclear of how much immunity a person can have and how long that immunity will last. On the other hand, people talk about just waiting till someone creates a vaccine for the virus. This approach will take many months to develop and disperse to the public once created.
It seems like our best option at this point is to sit and wait. I think it is extremely important to remember that no one has experienced this before. No one really knows what they’re doing, as we haven’t had a pandemic since 1918. By adhering to stay-at-home guidelines, we can hopefully flatten the curve and give medical professionals some slack of patients that need treated until we can become immune or develop a vaccine.
Great post, and stay healthy!
-Oliviah
https://elemental.medium.com/we-need-a-reality-check-on-the-coronavirus-vaccine-436dd71f5b83