Maricopa County cuts some polling places, won’t mail extra ballots for Tuesday’s election
Jessica Boehm and Andrew Oxford, Arizona RepublicPublished 1:04 p.m. MT March 13, 2020 | Updated 5:40 p.m.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2020/03/13/maricopa-county-mailing-ballots-democratic-presidential-preference-tuesday-election-coronavirus/5044933002/

Maricopa County’s election leaders announced conflicting plans to address coronavirus concerns surrounding Tuesday’s Presidential Preference Election — but a judge quashed one of them.

The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office split authority over elections. The board controls Election Day voting and emergency voting, and the recorder controls voter registration and early voting.

The Board of Supervisors announced that it will cut about 80 polling locations on Election Day due to polling locations and poll workers canceling, and a lack of needed cleaning supplies to stock all locations.

The remaining 151 polling locations will be converted to vote centers, meaning a voter can vote at any location — not just the one nearest to them.

“Folks should come on Election Day if they want to vote,” Supervisor Bill Gates said. “It’s going to be safe and there will be many places to do that.”

Hours earlier, Recorder Adrian Fontes announced that his office would mail ballots to registered Democrats who have not yet cast ballots in Tuesday’s Democratic Presidential Preference Election.

“We are in unchartered territory with the COVID-19. My first concern is to protect the health of the voters and staff who work in the polling places while maintaining the integrity of the election. Anything we can do to minimize human interaction in the polling place is what we must do,” Fontes said in a statement.

As a public service, The Arizona Republic is offering all coverage of the pandemic free of charge. Support The Republic by subscribing to azcentral.com.

Fontes’ plan was for ballots to arrive in mailboxes Monday and Tuesday, and encourage people to fill them out at home and drop them off at bins stationed at the entrance of polling places.

That would have limited contact with poll workers or other individuals. Health experts have recommended this kind of “social distancing.”

The Board of Supervisors said that while it can’t control what Fontes does, it did not agree with his plan and feared it would cause confusion for voters.

Legal authority unclear

It’s not clear whether Fontes, a Democrat, actually had the legal authority to do what he wanted to do — he admitted that “there is no authority to mail ballots to all voters under the law, but there is no prohibition either.”

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican, disagreed with Fontes, saying the recorder “cannot unilaterally rewrite state election laws.” Brnovich filed a lawsuit against Fontes and sought a temporary restraining order to prevent him from sending out the ballots.

Mark Brnovich@GeneralBrnovich
We are on our way to court now to file a motion for TRO and a Preliminary Injunction against Adrian Fontes and Runbeck Election Services to stop them from violating Arizona law.

The Maricopa County Recorder cannot unilaterally rewrite state election laws. In times of crisis, the public looks to our elected officials to follow the law and to not make reactionary decisions for political gain.

“Fontes is creating chaos in our elections during an already difficult time. In times of crisis, the public looks to our elected officials to follow the law — not make reactionary decisions for political gain,” Brnovich said.

Friday night, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge agreed with Brnovich and granted the restraining order, stopping Fontes from sending out ballots.

The state’s top elections official, Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, also told Fontes that he did not have the authority to mail a ballot to voters who have not requested one.

“As you know, I fully agree with you that authority for counties to conduct all-mail elections is good policy, and certainly an appropriate contingency plan in the event of a public health emergency like this. Unfortunately, it is not currently authorized by the law,” she wrote in an email to Fontes provided to The Republic.

Hobbs, a Democrat like Fontes, said she is working with others on legislation that would allow election officials to authorize all-mail elections in emergencies and move certain election-related deadlines.

.

Typical kind of argument you find out there

.

Sam Monson@PFF_Sam
They’ve shut down the St Paddy’s parades IN IRELAND.

If the Irish themselves think it’s time to knock the Paddy’s day celebrations on the head for the moment, maybe hold fire.

Tom Schuba@TomSchuba
“I’m not about to put my life on hold because this is going around,” said Kyle Thomas, a nurse from Colorado who flew in to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day with his Chicago friends.

Alex from Chicago@SKOL_doctor
Some people made plans to see friends that they may only be able to see once per year. I’m not gonna criticize people for not following your agenda. To each their own.

Sam Monson@PFF_Sam
It’s not my agenda, jackass. It’s the agenda of medical experts that value the lives of the vulnerable over some guy’s trip to see friends

Eric Eager@PFF_Eric
“To each their own” is literally someone demonstrating that they don’t have a clue about what’s going on

They’ve Contained the Coronavirus. Here’s How.
Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong have brought outbreaks under control — and without resorting to China’s draconian measures.

March 13, 2020

link https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/opinion/coronavirus-best-response.html

HONG KONG — While the spread of Covid-19 is picking up speed in Europe and the United States, among other regions, the outbreaks in some countries in Asia seem to be under control.

The epidemic in China appears to be slowing down after an explosion in cases followed by weeks of draconian control measures. And other locations have managed to avert any major outbreak by adopting far less drastic measures: for instance, Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan.

All have made some degree of progress, and yet each has adopted different sets of measures. So what, precisely, works to contain the spread of this coronavirus, and can that be implemented elsewhere now?

In late January, after a sluggish — and problematic — initial response, the government of mainland China put in place unprecedented containment and social distancing measures. It locked down major cities, notably Wuhan, the epicenter of the outbreak, and imposed various travel restrictions throughout the country.

The testing capacity of laboratories was rapidly expanded. To relieve pressure on hospitals, patients with milder symptoms were placed in temporary isolation facilities set up in gymnasiums and event halls. New hospitals were constructed.

People who had come into contact with anyone infected were sent to designated facilities, typically converted hotels or hostels, for prophylactic quarantine. Home quarantine was advised only for those only at slight risk of infection.

Initially, almost all residents of Wuhan and other affected cities were required to stay at home; schools and workplaces remained closed well after the end of the Lunar New Year festival, around Jan. 27.

The scale of these measures has been extraordinary: Almost 60 million people were placed under lockdown in Hubei Province alone, and most factories in the province are expected to remain shut until March 20. The economic costs are enormous. Already in early February, about one-third of approximately 1,000 small and medium-size businesses interviewed for one survey said they had only enough cash to survive for a month.

But the restrictions seemed to have worked to contain the spread of Covid-19 in China: The number of new cases reported every day is now consistently much lower than it was a few weeks ago.

But lockdowns and forced quarantines on this scale or the nature of some methods — like the collection of mobile phone location data and facial recognition technology to track people’s movements — cannot readily be replicated in other countries, especially democratic ones with institutional protections for individual rights.

And so Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong might be more instructive examples. All three places were especially vulnerable to the spread of the infection because of close links with mainland China — especially in early January, as they were prime destinations for Chinese travelers during the upcoming Lunar New Year holiday. And yet, after all three experienced outbreaks of their own, the situation seems to have stabilized.

As of midday Friday, Singapore had 187 cases confirmed and no deaths (for a total population of about 5.7 million), Taiwan had 50 confirmed cases including 1 death (for a total population of about 23.6 million) and Hong Kong had 131 confirmed cases including 4 deaths (for a total population of about 7.5 million).

Since identifying the first infections (all imported) on their territories — on Jan. 21 in Taiwan and on Jan. 23 in both Hong Kong and Singapore — all three governments have implemented some combination of measures to (1) reduce the arrival of new cases into the community (travel restrictions), (2) specifically prevent possible transmission between known cases and the local population (quarantines) and (3) generally suppress silent transmission in the community by reducing contact between individuals (self-isolation, social distancing, heightened hygiene). But each has had a different approach.

Singapore, an island, could readily take aggressive measures to block the arrival of the infection from China — and it did. Three days after the Chinese authorities alerted the world about the outbreak in Wuhan, Singapore started referring inbound travelers from Wuhan with a fever and respiratory symptoms for further assessment and isolation. It was also one of the first countries to cancel all inbound flights from Wuhan after identifying its first imported case.

Travelers coming from affected areas were placed under mandatory quarantine; three university hostels were promptly converted into facilities to host them. The government compensated individuals and employers for any workdays lost.

The Singapore authorities undertook especially intensive efforts to trace the contacts of people known to be infected. Hospital staff went to great lengths to interview patients about their recent whereabouts; when information was unclear or unavailable, the Ministry of Health retrieved additional data from transport companies and hotels, including by consulting CCTV footage.

Large gatherings have been suspended. But to minimize social and economic costs, schools and workplaces have remained open. The Singaporean Ministry of Education — on an extensive FAQs web page — calls the closing of schools “a major, major decision” that would “disrupt many lives.” Instead, students and staff are subjected to daily health checks, including temperature screenings.

Public-health campaigns were also reinforced to further improve Singapore’s already exemplary standards of cleanliness and public hygiene. A special government task force recently recommended five personal hygiene habits:using a tissue when coughing or sneezing; using designated serving spoons during group meals; using trays when eating or drinking to limit contamination in case of spills; keeping public toilets clean and dry; and regular hand washing. From the outset, the government has recommended the use of masks only for people who already are unwell.

Taiwan, also an island, took a slightly different tack. Instead of promptly banning travel from China, it undertook a comprehensive effort to screen newcomers from suspect areas. As soon as early January — just days after the news of the outbreak in Wuhan — Taiwanese medical authorities would board incoming flights from Wuhan and inspect and screen travelers on the planes.

It was only after the first imported case was identified on Jan. 21 that four major airlines suspended flights between Taiwan and Wuhan. A ban on all but flights from Beijing, Shanghai, Xiamen and Chengdu was implemented three weeks later.

Taiwan has also taken a rather mixed approach in its efforts to reduce transmission within the community.

Some state-run facilities have been used for quarantines, but home quarantine has been the predominant method of isolation even when state facilities were available. To ensure compliance, the government has enforced strict penalties against anyone who breaks an isolation order, including fines up to about $33,200.

Organizers of mass events were encouraged to defer or cancel events; some religious institutions suspended services. It was announced that elementary schools and high schools would remain closed after the end of the Lunar New Year holidays, but only for two weeks. In fact, classes resumed on Feb. 25.

The Taiwanese authorities also oversaw the controlled distribution of surgical masks from existing stockpiles through community stores, having also fixed their price. Taiwan’s main health messages — “Wear a surgical mask when coughing or sneezing,” “Wash hands thoroughly with soap” and “Avoid crowded places, including hospitals” — were displayed prominently on the Centers for Disease Control’s website.

As of Friday, about 58 percent of all confirmed cases in Taiwan were believed to have resulted from local transmission. This is an important marker of success for Taiwan’s containment strategy: In many other places, local cases outnumbered imported infections by a far greater margin.

Hong Kong adopted yet another approach, presumably in part because, unlike Taiwan and Singapore, the city shares a border with mainland China and is formally part of China, as a Special Administrative Region. (An average of 300,000 people crossed the border every day last year.) The authorities here focused less on completely blocking the entry of possibly infected people into the territory than on preventing transmission within the community.

On Jan. 3 — again, very soon after the first declared case in Wuhan — existing temperature-screening stations at ports of entry were expanded, and local clinicians were asked to report to the city’s health authorities any patient with a fever or acute respiratory symptoms and a history of recent travel to Wuhan.

But it took five days after the first imported case for travel restrictions to be placed on visitors from Wuhan and other affected areas and for six of the territory’s 14 border crossings with the mainland to be closed. (Another five crossings were closed later.) The number of visitors to Hong Kong from mainland China fell to a daily average of 750 in February.

Starting on Feb. 5, anyone coming across the border — or arriving from elsewhere who had been in mainland China in the preceding 14 days — was required to undergo a mandatory 14-day period of self-quarantine.

Extensive efforts have also been made to track down and quarantine the close contacts of confirmed cases. And in the event transmission might occur before an infected person displayed any symptoms, tracing included all contacts starting two days before the onset of the patient’s illness.

Of Hong Kong’s 40,000 hospital beds, some 1,000 are negative-pressure beds, allowing confirmed cases to be properly isolated. Holiday camps and newly constructed public-housing units that were still vacant were rapidly repurposed into quarantine facilities.

As of March 12, 62 of the city’s 131 confirmed cases were thought to have resulted from close contact with other confirmed cases. More than 24,700 people were still under quarantine this week.

Hong Kong has also deployed very extensive measures to encourage social distancing. As early as Jan. 28, many civil servants were asked to work from home for the following month. Most large-scale events have been canceled or postponed. On Jan. 27, all kindergartens and schools were closed until Feb. 16; the decision was extended several times, most recently to at least April 20. Many classes have been conducted online.

Although it’s still not clear whether or how much children contract and spread Covid-19, they are known major contributors to the transmission of influenza, and Hong Kong has been effective in stemming outbreaks of the flu by suspending classes four times over the past 12 years (in 2008, 2009, 2018 and 2019). Closing schools is a very invasive measure, but Hong Kong has a social structure that helps cushion some of the burden: Many families with two working parents already rely on domestic helpers or grandparents for child care.

The government has mounted a public-education campaign to promote hand hygiene and environmental hygiene. Nearly everyone in Hong Kong wears a face mask in public.

And now, the caveats. Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong, as well as China, all had to contend with the SARS outbreak of 2002-3 and they internalized the lessons of that experience. Institutionally, this has meant, among other things, that they developed testing capacity for new viruses as well as hospitals’ ability to handle patients with novel respiratory pathogens. At the individual level, the experience of SARS has prepared people to voluntarily display a tremendous amount of self-discipline in, say, avoiding crowds and heightening their personal hygiene. These places were better equipped to face an outbreak of the new coronavirus than many others.

At the same time, if the inroads Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong — China, too — have made against Covid-19 are promising, these gains also are fragile. These governments will need to keep at their containment measures for many more months or else risk a surge in infections. Taiwan seems especially vulnerable because it appears not to be testing people enough.

The Chinese government has taken something of a victory lap recently, prematurely. But even it seems to know that, despite its bluster: Judging from bans China is now imposing on travelers from certain European countries, it is well aware that cases of infection could be reintroduced from abroad.

Containment, however valiant an aim, also comes with very high costs, social and economic, and it might be an impossible goal for some countries, especially by now. In some places, Covid-19 could already be too widespread to be stopped. The vast majority of infections still appear to be mild, though; many might not even require medical attention. In such cases, it would be better to forgo trying to contain the disease and instead focus on mitigating its worst effects, for example, by concentrating resources on preventing an overwhelming surge in demand for hospital care, particularly intensive care.

Still, the central point is this: Each in its own way, Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong — three places with markedly different socioeconomic and political features — have been able to interrupt the chain of the disease’s transmission. And they have done so without embracing the highly disruptive, drastic measures adopted by China. Their success suggests that other governments can make headway, too.

It only took a global pandemic for Newt Gingrich to realize, reluctantly, that a functioning, competent government is a good thing. https://t.co/DZPPThAlHZ

— Jason Karsh (@jkarsh) March 14, 2020

NFL continues to say it’s business as usual and new league will start this week.

Multiple team officials express widespread skepticism that the NFL can start its league year this week, when our country is in crisis and so much – travel, visits, physicals – would have to happen.

— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) March 14, 2020

XFL statementhttps://t.co/MbuHgUmzmZ pic.twitter.com/PIZLOl1fld

— XFL (@xfl2020) March 12, 2020

Zooey wrote:

I don’t know what to make of this. Sounds so Conspiracy Theory.

And yet…before 2016, exit polls were really accurate.

I dunno.

But I am pretty darn full of suspicion. Spidey sense goin off.

…

Billy_T wrote:

ZN,

Thanks for rescuing my post from Purgatory.

;>)

Hope everyone is healthy and safe.

Wash your hands, people!!

Sry sometimes I can’t get to the board as soon as I would like.

Keep postin tho, I’ll keep things moving from my end.