[all2]

> a safety net in times of pandemic is, in my opinion, nowhere close to a Constitutional overreach based on how these objectives have been interpreted.

Fair.

The provisions in the bill are not impermanent, though. If they had a time limit on them, they would be reasonable.

[Edit for spelling]

[crooked-v]

Novel coronaviruses and high-lethality flu strains aren't going to stop appearing, and if anything are going to become increasingly common as the world population increases and becomes ever more interconnected. Putting a time limit on the social safety nets needed to deal with them means you have to rebuild the entire structure again every time it happens, and the only benefit is cutting costs by a few billion dollars a year in between outbreaks (less, when you consider training and turnover costs from creating an entire program from scratch and then destroying it every time). The US takes in upwards of $3 trillion in taxes: we can easily afford it, just shut down a military base or two somewhere.

[all2]

> Novel coronaviruses and high-lethality flu strains aren't going to stop appearing, and if anything are going to become increasingly common

You aren't wrong. South Korea has prior experience in this arena and they've done really well by learning from their prior contagions.

I think there is a lot the Fed could do to enable state CDCs to handle outbreaks in the future. Part of all of this is the logistical half: materials for testing (which I understand is one of the major slowdowns this time around), distribution of knowledge, etc.

There's a lot of ground to cover even at a municipal level. The Fed has the ability to collect information and act as a hub of best practices. I think that will be critical for saving lives this time around and next.

[edit for missing words]