• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Constitutional Rights Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against Andrew Cuomo for Abuse of Power

infinitys_7th

Gold Member
Oct 1, 2006
7,872
11,572
1,665

A Buffalo-area attorney has filed a legal challenge to Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s use of executive powers to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, terming his actions a “disturbing and gross abuse” of authority.

Corey Hogan contends Cuomo has exceeded the powers granted a governor under state law to issue executive orders. His federal lawsuit, filed Wednesday in the Western District Court in Buffalo, further contends that Cuomo’s actions run afoul of both the state and federal constitutions.

The lawsuit takes aim at the powers used by governors across the nation to employ core strategies to address COVID-19, including orders to shelter in place and close non-essential businesses.

“This singular, authoritarian-type governance is occurring, in one form or another, throughout the United States, as governors across the country have issued similar Executive Orders limiting the operations of small businesses or shutting such businesses down completely, beyond the scope of their rightful authority,” Hogan said in a cover letter to the lawsuit.
It was filed almost a week ago, and I'm sure is just the first in what will be a tidal wave of suits across the country as people fight back against executive overreach.

Get paid, Corey!
 
  • Like
Reactions: onewingedhoneybee
May 22, 2018
6,644
7,175
670
Jokes aside I hope this and every other case like it is thrown out. The government should have every right to shut down cities and towns during a deadly pandemic such as this. If things hadn't been shut down there is no telling how much worse things would be right now.


You can't just let the public wander around freely during a major outbreak of disease. It would only lead to more sickness and death.
 
Last edited:

BouncyFrag

Member
Feb 10, 2014
6,784
515
560
Cuomo literally poured gasoline on the pandemic crisis with his executive order mandating covid patients be sent into nursing homes. This is arguably one of the most stupid, moronic, incompetent, etc decisions off all fucking time. These clowns must be held accountable.
 
Last edited:

infinitys_7th

Gold Member
Oct 1, 2006
7,872
11,572
1,665
Well let's hope that they do otherwise the next time we have a serious outbreak the US is gonna be fucked.
Sweden didn't do it and they seem to be doing just fine.

Cuomo literally poured gasoline on the pandemic crisis with his executive order mandating covid patients be sent into nursing homes. This is arguably one of the most stupid, moronic, incompetent, etc decisions off all fucking time. These clowns must be held accountable.
I'll repeat it as much as possible - Cuomo and the other idiot wannabe tyrants in these blue states increased our nation's death toll by 40% by playing "hard on big hospitals". Their actions directly killed tens of thousands who could have been protected otherwise.
 
Last edited:

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
34,909
54,190
1,170
Sweden didn't do it and they seem to be doing just fine.
Careful now, this statement will be dismissed for "population density and the like". Sweden and Scandinavian countries can only be brought up when it comes to taking rights away, like the 2A, not keep civil liberties intact.

What's the population density of Sweden? Because that obviously plays a huge part in a pandemic.
Probably pretty damned equal to a ton of rural parts of Michigan and the like.
 
Last edited:

infinitys_7th

Gold Member
Oct 1, 2006
7,872
11,572
1,665
What's the population density of Sweden?
About 63 people per square mile, versus 94 people per square mile in the US. All that does is control how fast the infection spreads, and as this lockdown proved our medical system easily handled it. We could probably lock down big cities like NYC, but most of the country would be fine to leave open.
 
  • Like
Reactions: onewingedhoneybee
May 22, 2018
6,644
7,175
670
About 63 people per square mile, versus 94 people per square mile in the US. All that does is control how fast the infection spreads, and as this lockdown proved our medical system easily handled it. We could probably lock down big cities like NYC, but most of the country would be fine to leave open.
Countless medical experts around the world seem to disagree though so I think I am gonna side with them on this one. And hopefully the courts do too.
 

infinitys_7th

Gold Member
Oct 1, 2006
7,872
11,572
1,665
Countless medical experts around the world seem to disagree though so I think I am gonna side with them on this one. And hopefully the courts do too.
Countless medical experts said the lockdowns were just about preventing hospitals from getting overrun, not saving people from the virus itself. It's got to run through the population.
 
May 22, 2018
6,644
7,175
670
They are only necessary if it looks like hospitals will be overwhelmed. We never got close to that point in the US.
Well yeah......because we locked everything down to prevent that from happening.


The point is to prevent it from ever getting to that point. Not to sit and watch it get worse and worse and then say "Oh shit!" at the last minute when it looks like things are about to be out of control and then lock it down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: haxan7

infinitys_7th

Gold Member
Oct 1, 2006
7,872
11,572
1,665
Well yeah......because we locked everything down to prevent that from happening.


The point is to prevent it from ever getting to that point. Not to sit and watch it get worse and worse and then say "Oh shit!" at the last minute when it looks like things are about to be out of control and then lock it down.
If we stay below that threshold, we can obviously reduce the severity of the lockdown. Next time, promoting masks and selectively locking down areas with higher hospital usages would probably be enough.
 

Whataborman

Member
Apr 19, 2018
201
221
275
A similar lawsuit is being filed in West Virginia challenging Governor Justice's powers, as well as forcing him to call a special session of their legislature, which is something I believe he is required to do via their emergency powers statute.

I'm OK with these lawsuits. The pandemic has been used to strip too many of our constitutional rights away from us already.
 

All Hail C-Webb

Hailing from the Chill-Web
Jun 6, 2004
2,183
604
1,645
New York
Sweden didn't do it and they seem to be doing just fine.



I'll repeat it as much as possible - Cuomo and the other idiot wannabe tyrants in these blue states increased our nation's death toll by 40% by playing "hard on big hospitals". Their actions directly killed tens of thousands who could have been protected otherwise.
How many times do simple concepts need to be explained to you before you grasp them? Do you need the explanations in separate posts, or is it fine if it's repeated over and over in one post?
I'm here for you, and I will explain it as often as you need.

Sweden is not doing fine by any metric.
 

infinitys_7th

Gold Member
Oct 1, 2006
7,872
11,572
1,665
How many times do simple concepts need to be explained to you before you grasp them? Do you need the explanations in separate posts, or is it fine if it's repeated over and over in one post?
I'm here for you, and I will explain it as often as you need.

Sweden is not doing fine by any metric.
You posted one study that said 8% of Swedes had antibodies, and someone else posted a study that said 20% did. It's hardly settled if the variance is so large.
 
  • Like
Reactions: onewingedhoneybee
May 22, 2018
6,644
7,175
670
You posted one study that said 8% of Swedes had antibodies, and someone else posted a study that said 20% did. It's hardly settled if the variance is so large.
If that's the case then don't you think you should stop using it as a measuring stick? I mean if the data is inconsistent and incomplete then it's hardly a good example to use.
 

All Hail C-Webb

Hailing from the Chill-Web
Jun 6, 2004
2,183
604
1,645
New York
You posted one study that said 8% of Swedes had antibodies, and someone else posted a study that said 20% did. It's hardly settled if the variance is so large.
You should know better than to take Crypto's summary of what he posts.
That's not what he posted. What he posted backs up just how terrible Sweden is doing.
The idiot in charge suspected they were at 20% (he in an earlier interview said they were around 25% at the end of April).
The study blew his shit out the water.
 

diffusionx

Member
Feb 25, 2006
9,626
2,599
1,515
This country was never founded on any concept like we are free citizens. It was founded on the idea that the government is our collective parents, and they have the right to control our lives in any way they see fit whenever they declare it to be necessary. The Governors are our mommys and daddys and like all mommys and daddys they tell us when we are and aren't allowed to go outside and play. It is for for our own good.
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
12,756
19,151
1,030
You should know better than to take Crypto's summary of what he posts.
That's not what he posted. What he posted backs up just how terrible Sweden is doing.
The idiot in charge suspected they were at 20% (he in an earlier interview said they were around 25% at the end of April).
The study blew his shit out the water.
Hey I didn't post that LOL. Don't bismirch me C-Webb LOL.

All I did was post part of the article that showed 20-60 had the most antibodies at 6%, while old people was 2.5%. So even though more "younger" people were infected, less of them died which means lower death rate. While fewer old people were infected but more of them died, thus higher death rate.

The study was from earlier data, and him saying 20% is what he things the numbers are today nearly 2 months later. If from late Jan to end of March they had 8%, you don't think another 8 weeks they would of doubled that number?

Now of course since they were wrong once its possible they were wrong again. But as of now they are still predicting 20%.

You also have London that said 17% and NYC that said 25%. Are those numbers valid? I guess we will have to wait more time.
 

prag16

Member
Jul 12, 2012
11,235
2,688
755
This country was never founded on any concept like we are free citizens. It was founded on the idea that the government is our collective parents, and they have the right to control our lives in any way they see fit whenever they declare it to be necessary. The Governors are our mommys and daddys and like all mommys and daddys they tell us when we are and aren't allowed to go outside and play. It is for for our own good.
Not just our OWN good. Also the GREATER good.
 

diffusionx

Member
Feb 25, 2006
9,626
2,599
1,515
Not just our OWN good. Also the GREATER good.
Yes, it is important to respect and obey your mommy, the governor. We should not be allowed to make our own decisions like who we talk to and what businesses we are allowed to go to. It’s important to have a strong governor to tell you no.

The only authority we have to run our own lives comes from the government telling us we can. They can rescind this at any time.
 
Last edited:

infinitys_7th

Gold Member
Oct 1, 2006
7,872
11,572
1,665
You should know better than to take Crypto's summary of what he posts.
That's not what he posted. What he posted backs up just how terrible Sweden is doing.
The idiot in charge suspected they were at 20% (he in an earlier interview said they were around 25% at the end of April).
The study blew his shit out the water.
You are right - the other article said that they suspected 20% of Swedes had had the virus based off of 8% having antibodies.

However, that means that roughly half of who get infected develop antibodies for it, and it also means the death rate (based on the study being done in early May) is 0.143%:

20% infected * 10,230,000 total population of Sweden = 2,046,000 infected
2,941 deaths / 2,046,000 infected = 0.143% death rate

So it's a somewhat rougher flu that roughly half of people get immunity to after having it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: onewingedhoneybee

All Hail C-Webb

Hailing from the Chill-Web
Jun 6, 2004
2,183
604
1,645
New York
You are right - the other article said that they suspected 20% of Swedes had had the virus based off of 8% having antibodies.

However, that means that roughly half of who get infected develop antibodies for it, and it also means the death rate (based on the study being done in early May) is 0.143%:

20% infected * 10,230,000 total population of Sweden = 2,046,000 infected
2,941 deaths / 2,046,000 infected = 0.143% death rate

So it's a somewhat rougher flu that roughly half of people get immunity to after having it.
If 8% had antibodies, how could 20% have had the virus?
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
12,756
19,151
1,030
because you guys need to read the article again


Early april it was 7.3%, end of may they think its 20%.

Is he correct, we won't know until more antibody tests come back. But the 8% number is from a study on 1100 people that was finished in early April.

An ongoing study by the country's Public Health Agency showed that 7.3 percent of a sample of randomly selected people in Stockholm—Sweden's worst-hit region—had antibodies when they were tested in the last week of April.

"The figures reflect the situation in the epidemic earlier in April, since it takes a few weeks before the body's immune system develops antibodies," the health agency said in a statement.

Asked about the study during a press conference, state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell said he believed that to date "a little more than 20 percent" had probably contracted the virus in Stockholm—where over a third of Sweden's confirmed cases have been recorded.

A total of 1,104 tests were analysed.


You have made it clear you don't trust Tegnell's word so I guess you can take it with a grain of salt. But its not hard to believe that 6 or so weeks later they could do a little bit more than double the number. Maybe its closer to 15% than 20%? London says they are at 17% and they did a lock down. NYC says 25%, lockdown. So unless somehow it magically stopped spreading in stockholm in April its a lot higher than 8%.

And the death calculations for this 8% should be for only stockholm region (since outside of stockholm % is much lower) and for be based on their deaths in the first week or so of April, not the deaths today.
 
Last edited:

infinitys_7th

Gold Member
Oct 1, 2006
7,872
11,572
1,665
If 8% had antibodies, how could 20% have had the virus?
Only half of those who get infected developed antibodies? Seems pretty simple. Antibodies are not a sure thing, especially if the infection was minor.

But, as crypto pointed out, I skimmed and missed the date context, so 20% infected seems plausible. And the death rate is still within a small factor of the flu.
 
Last edited:

All Hail C-Webb

Hailing from the Chill-Web
Jun 6, 2004
2,183
604
1,645
New York
Only half of those who get infected developed antibodies? Seems pretty simple. Antibodies are not a sure thing, especially if the infection was minor.

But, as crypto pointed out, I skimmed and missed the date context, so 20% infected seems plausible. And the death rate is still within a small factor of the flu.
That would be the worst news we have received in months.
Thankfully, you have no clue what you're talking about in this instance. We believe and pray that everyone who gets the virus develops antibodies.

The idiot from Sweden thought that they were at 25% on April 28th, and were weeks away from herd immunity.
The grim reaper of Sweden

He's pulling this new 20% number from his stupid ass again. Look at how many have tested positive in Sweden since May 1st. There's no surge, they're unlikely to even be at 10%.

The previous epidemiologist has now come out and said that they were wrong, and should have locked down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: onewingedhoneybee

infinitys_7th

Gold Member
Oct 1, 2006
7,872
11,572
1,665
That would be the worst news we have received in months.
We have indications that a lot of people get it and never get symptoms, which means they don't have much immune response to it. It's not far-fetched to think a large proportion get it and don't develop antibodies.

The idiot from Sweden thought that they were at 25% on April 28th, and were weeks away from herd immunity.
The grim reaper of Sweden
Isn't this hyperbolic considering that if 10% were infected the death rate is 0.286%? No one calls the flu the grim reaper.
 

Batiman

Danger: male feminist
Feb 11, 2020
618
713
510
We have indications that a lot of people get it and never get symptoms, which means they don't have much immune response to it. It's not far-fetched to think a large proportion get it and don't develop antibodies.



Isn't this hyperbolic considering that if 10% were infected the death rate is 0.286%? No one calls the flu the grim reaper.
Just because you don’t show symptoms doesn’t mean you’re body isn’t developing antibodies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: onewingedhoneybee

infinitys_7th

Gold Member
Oct 1, 2006
7,872
11,572
1,665
Just because you don’t show symptoms doesn’t mean you’re body isn’t developing antibodies.
It would depend how long they are infected before the virus is cleared - immune response takes time. If they get over it quick (say from some genetic quirk, as there seems to be a genetic component) they might not get them, but if they become a super spreader and shed virus for 1-2 weeks they will.
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
12,756
19,151
1,030
Whatever death rate numbers you have, keep in mind that for the under 70 crowd that number is going to be a fraction. 85-90% of deaths are above 70, some places the median age for death is higher than the life expectancy.



Under 70 in Sweden 269 deaths. Over 70 2541.
 

infinitys_7th

Gold Member
Oct 1, 2006
7,872
11,572
1,665
Whatever death rate numbers you have, keep in mind that for the under 70 crowd that number is going to be a fraction. 85-90% of deaths are above 70, some places the median age for death is higher than the life expectancy.



Under 70 in Sweden 269 deaths. Over 70 2541.
It looks like 20% of the population was >65 YO in 2019, with 5.2% >80 YO. So somewhere around 16% seems like a safe bet for the percent of the population >70 YO.

Assuming infection is independent of age, with different assumptions of the percent infected:

% Infected
8%​
10%​
15%​
20%​
COVID-19 Death Rate <70 YO
0.039%​
0.031%​
0.021%​
0.016%​
COVID-19 Death Rate >70 YO
1.941%​
1.552%​
1.035%​
0.776%​

I need to find some flu death data by age, but I have a feeling that COVID-19 is roughly the same as the flu for <70 YO people and 2-3x more deadly for the elderly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cryptoadam

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
12,756
19,151
1,030
It looks like 20% of the population was >65 YO in 2019, with 5.2% >80 YO. So somewhere around 16% seems like a safe bet for the percent of the population >70 YO.

Assuming infection is independent of age, with different assumptions of the percent infected:

% Infected
8%​
10%​
15%​
20%​
COVID-19 Death Rate <70 YO
0.039%​
0.031%​
0.021%​
0.016%​
COVID-19 Death Rate >70 YO
1.941%​
1.552%​
1.035%​
0.776%​

I need to find some flu death data by age, but I have a feeling that COVID-19 is roughly the same as the flu for <70 YO people and 2-3x more deadly for the elderly.
I think we can take places like Spain, NYC, London that have given out antibody numbers and come up with >70 .05 or even less death rate.

Once you get to 80 or 90 I think the death rate shoots up and could be even higher than 5%.

Worldometers also has some data from the NYC study:

But we can calculate it for the entire population under 65 years old (both healthy and unhealthy): with 6,188 deaths (26% of the total deaths in all age groups) occurring in this age group, of which 5,498 deaths (89%) in patients with a known underlying condition, the crude mortality rate to date will correspond to 6,188 / 7,214,525 = 0.09% CMR, or 86 deaths per 100,000 population (compared to 0.28% and 279 deaths per 100,000 for the general population).

So far there has been 1 death every 1,166 people under 65 years old (compared to 1 death every 358 people in the general population)
. And 89% of the times, the person who died had one or more underlying medical conditions.

90% of people under 65 had an underlying condition, but that does include obesity (start losing weight fatties). So if you are healthy and under 25 and if I understand this correctly you have a 1 in 11660 chance of dying from CV.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: infinitys_7th

daveonezero

Member
Nov 19, 2018
1,008
763
375
Is this what they said when some people moved into some ghettos?
Yes. Eminent domain is always because of the "greater good". fuck the people who got thrown out of houses.

Its will be for your protection to have checkpoints, internet camps, increased search and seizure, no freedom to travel and no opportunity to work.
 

Zefah

Gold Member
Jan 7, 2007
37,508
7,284
1,540
Jokes aside I hope this and every other case like it is thrown out. The government should have every right to shut down cities and towns during a deadly pandemic such as this. If things hadn't been shut down there is no telling how much worse things would be right now.


You can't just let the public wander around freely during a major outbreak of disease. It would only lead to more sickness and death.
No, fuck that, man. What is the threshold that makes something an "outbreak" or "deadly disease?" If we value having our freedoms restricted as little as possible, then what exactly was different about this disease than any other that allowed authoritarian lockdowns? This all needs to be clearly defined in law and not just left up to the arbitrary judgment of scared politicians.
 

infinitys_7th

Gold Member
Oct 1, 2006
7,872
11,572
1,665
Shouldn't they be suing him for the 30,000+ deaths? 🤯
There is usually immunity involved in any death resulting from a legal decision.

Of course, if it turns out his power grab was illegal and the orders for nursing homes to take the COVID patients was illegal, then he could be facing a lot of lawsuits from families of those who died.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
12,864
23,464
905
Jokes aside I hope this and every other case like it is thrown out. The government should have every right to shut down cities and towns during a deadly pandemic such as this. If things hadn't been shut down there is no telling how much worse things would be right now.


You can't just let the public wander around freely during a major outbreak of disease. It would only lead to more sickness and death.
Pandemics get you hard, don't they?
 

JayK47

Member
Nov 2, 2019
121
101
220
The way I see it they will all get sued either way. For both doing too much and not enough. The ultimate "can't please them all" situation.

May as well treat this like smoking back in the day. Some businesses have social distancing, others do not, and some have areas for both. You choose where you want to work/spend your money. Let the free market decide. And hospitals? Let the free market decide. Overwhlemed? No problem. The youngest get the beds. Don't like it, go to another hospital.
 

Sacred

Member
Aug 22, 2018
703
887
320
Cuomo literally poured gasoline on the pandemic crisis with his executive order mandating covid patients be sent into nursing homes. This is arguably one of the most stupid, moronic, incompetent, etc decisions off all fucking time. These clowns must be held accountable.
This right here, /thread!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Whataborman

dionysus

Yaldog
May 12, 2007
6,895
1,086
1,445
Texaa
It looks like 20% of the population was >65 YO in 2019, with 5.2% >80 YO. So somewhere around 16% seems like a safe bet for the percent of the population >70 YO.

Assuming infection is independent of age, with different assumptions of the percent infected:

% Infected
8%​
10%​
15%​
20%​
COVID-19 Death Rate <70 YO
0.039%​
0.031%​
0.021%​
0.016%​
COVID-19 Death Rate >70 YO
1.941%​
1.552%​
1.035%​
0.776%​

I need to find some flu death data by age, but I have a feeling that COVID-19 is roughly the same as the flu for <70 YO people and 2-3x more deadly for the elderly.
It may be on par with the flu or cold even in the elderly. On the extreme elderly, they often dont identify the base infection that causes the pneumonia because it doesnt change the treatment. They will get antibiotics even if it is a viral infection because they dont want a secondary infection.

What I am saying is we undercount deaths to cold and flu viruses in the elderly during normal times.