Read The New Yorker’s complete news coverage and analysis of the coronavirus pandemic.įauci is not alone in thinking that a national order would be preferable. The dangers of non-uniformity urge the question: If our fates are bound together in this emergency, why has there been no national stay-at-home order? Asked earlier this month whether there should be a federal order locking down the nation, Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said, “I just don’t understand why we’re not doing that-we really should be,” but he also acknowledged a tension with “states’ rights to do what they want.” As a result, states with fewer infections and deaths may merely await their turn to become hot spots, particularly as some states with lockdowns could begin to lift them prematurely while others keep their lockdowns in place. The coronavirus pandemic is that rare crisis that is truly national, where the response of a state may ultimately be only as effective as the response of other states.īy now the vast majority of the country is under stay-at-home orders, issued state by state, but a handful of holdout states threaten to undercut the efficacy of others’ costly and painful social-distancing efforts.
They do not spread to every state and threaten every corner of all of our lives.
Even the disasters of earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, and floods are relatively confined in space and time. Most crises in American life have been local.
0 kommentar(er)
