TexasCHLforum.com

Rafe wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 5:49 pmAt least I don't think I'm reading it wrong. I'm looking at https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs ... GV.418.htm and https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs ... LG.352.htm. Is this an error in GC 418 or just another one of those legal-language oddities? I know it doesn't mean anything in the topic context, but why would a 60-hour extension of local fireworks regulations be put expressly in 418.108 and require approval by the governor to go beyond 60 hours? I mean, LGC 352.051 already includes "the commissioners court of the county by order may prohibit or restrict the sale or use of restricted fireworks in the unincorporated area of the county" so it's a bit baffling why the sale or use of "skyrockets with sticks" and "missiles with fins" would be something to be called out in statutes related to the declaration of local disasters. Just another bit of the code that keeps me

I gave up trying to understand some of these cross references years ago. They make no sense to me. The explanation I was given once was to remember that almost every law since the Ten Commandments was made because someone did something stupid. Either they did something stupid that people wanted to stop, so they passed a law about it, or they got in trouble over something stupid so they passe an exception to the law for it. This came up in a class where the instructor was pointing out that there is a law making it illegal to give a cash gift to any state employee, and it then has a specific exemption for giving a tip to a waiter in a restaurant in a state park.

Vol Texan wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 5:51 pmSteve, I ALWAYS appreciate reading your analysis of things, particularly legal issues. I've read chapter 418, and I do see where she has the authority to declare disaster, control ingress and egress, mandate evacuation, and even control the movement of people. But I don't see where she has the authority to tell me to wear a mask, any more than I see she has the authority that I wear Reebok instead of Nike tennis shoes. I don't claim to be a legal scholar, so I welcome your perspective on this - do you think that such an order is within her power?

I am not sure this is within her power or not. I have read some interesting news articles claiming either way. As you point out, she has the authority to control movement of people in her jurisdiction and that might include saying people can only move if they are wearing a mask. It would be an interesting court case when someone does fight it. As an aside, San Antonio requires people to wear masks made from cloth. It does not define what type of cloth as near as I could tell. I keep wondering when someone will make a mask out of fishnet stockings just to challenge the law. It meets the definition and does about as much good as any other cloth mask, IMO.

What I was referring to though was that failure to obey the management plan is a crime as defined in the law. Section 418.173 is where the legislature made it a crime to not obey an emergency management plan. A lawsuit claiming that the Judge tried to define the crime by issuing the order to wear masks as part of the management plan is, IMO, going to fail because of that law.

The one point I am sure of is that chapter 418 was clearly written assuming some type of natural disaster, such as a hurricane or wildfire and they are stretching it hard to cover the current situation.

Rafe wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 3:29 pm Not unexpectedly, Harris County Judge Hidalgo has been sued over yesterday's mandatory face mask order. Per the Houston Chronicle article linked below:

Hotze...said in a petition filed in state district court that the mask rule is at odds with a provision of the Constitution that gives the Legislature "exclusive authority to define crimes and to designate the punishments for those crimes." The petition also contends that Hidalgo cannot issue more restrictive orders than Abbott, who has not mandated that Texans wear masks in public.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/h ... 221364.php

On the first point they will lose. The legislature defined the crime. I did find that in chapter 418 when I read the code.

TreyHouston wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 7:54 pm

der Teufel wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 10:33 am The CDC statistics don't necessarily include the TOTAL population of the United States.

They state "A mortality rate is a measure of the frequency of occurrence of death in a defined population during a specified interval."
— Emphasis added

In this case I believe the "defined population" would be, as TAM noted, those who had experienced the disease.

No, thats the -Proportionate mortality-

Did you read the CDC link?

https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dsepd/ss1978/ ... tion3.html

I think part of the problem is that different statistics show different things. CDC is trying to clarify what they mean in each case. We are using English to describe mathematical concepts and it is not as precise.

If I want to know how deadly a disease is to people who caught it, I use the fatality from it number divided by the people diagnosed with it number. If I want to know how deadly a disease is to the population overall, I use the fatality from it number over the population overall number. But these indicate two different things. The fatality rate of a disease to the people who did not catch it is meaningless because they cannot die from it.

I think that most people are talking about the death rate from the disease to who caught it when they talk about how fatal it is. That is how I generally look at it. I know the CDC sometimes uses the death rate to the population for certain things, because it makes it sound more serious. For example, to show that we all need to lose weight and workout more, they will say that the death rate from heart disease and diabetes combined is XX% of the population. Obviously, the implication is that if you get in better shape, you may not develop diabetes or heart disease and may improve your chances of living a little longer.

But I really don't think this is a point worth getting upset over. We just have to agree on which death rate we are talking about. For specific diseases, such as COVID-19, I generally talk about the percentage of people diagnosed with it who die.