Thread by @IAmNickReynolds

Sitting in House Corps where they're hearing 4 bills to reform the ability to issue health orders.

Various degrees of severity, sponsorship.

HB98 Public health orders-reforms.
HB113 Public health orders-limitations.
HB127 Public health amendments.
HB56 Public health orders-2.

HB-98 -- sponsored by Rep. Gray -- turns state health officer into Senate confirmed position, can be removed, governor has to sign all health orders. Legislature would ratify orders. wyoleg.gov/Legislation/20…

HB-127 -- by Barlow -- a little less strict. wyoleg.gov/Legislation/20…

HB-127 basically removes immediate actions -- i.e. quarantining sick individuals -- from legislative oversight.

"Political decisions" -- in this case, passing a mask mandate, limiting travel for many, etc. -- for longer than 10 days would be subject to approval by state/local.

Now we're hearing Rep. Dan Laursen's HB-56. wyoleg.gov/Legislation/20…

The sponsor says this one is close to Gray's, but it doesn't require governor to sign orders. State orders longer than 15 days would require legislative approval. Same for local govt.

FWIW, some -- incl. the gov's office -- have urged the Legislature to hold off on implementing any reforms until after the pandemic is over.

Said they support a task force to consider holistic reforms once the public health emergency has ended.

Lawmakers want something, tho.

"None of us are medical experts, so how would we know more than a medical expert?" asks Rep. Duncan.

"I'm not a doctor, 95% of us aren't But we're the elected people that have to answer to our constituents. If they ask to have a say in this, we should step up" Laursen responded.

Adds that as a group, the experts would come in and they would then decide whether what the experts recommend is correct.

But what if they need more than one extension, Duncan asks?

Laursen said if that's the case, they should meet every time they need an extension.

So if we had a mask mandate in-place, the Legislature would likely meet every 15 days, where they may or may not take an expert's recommendation on what to do.

Rep. Clifford has concerns. "Over the last year, we already had the experts brought in at the local and county level. They're directing us."

"Would we have the political will and capital to make a decision when there's so much unknown? ...I'm just not sure about that."

Laursen said they have no recourse to say "no" to their health officers other than to fire people.

"I'd say that's important," he said.

Gov. Mark Gordon's policy director, Renny Mackay, again reaffirming that the administration supports a retroactive look back at its response after the pandemic using a task force, but not during it. They and the WDH will also do a regular review on their own.

"Making changes before this particular pandemic is over... there could be some significant second order effect that should be considered," he said.

Steffan Johannson of WDH, said that their Title 35 authority in the Wyoming Constitution is used for much more pedestrian purposes than the COVID-19 pandemic.

Keep in mind with all of this, Dr. Harrist has several degrees and experience in handling the Zika and Ebola pandemics.

Eyre asks Harrist if she would have done anything different.

She says there are actions that could be improved upon but, at the beginning of the pandemic, we knew little about the virus or how to treat it, and had little PPE to slow it, requiring severe action.

But as we learned more, we applied it in an effort to allow activities. Says schools were an example of using updated science and available best practices to hold in-person session safely, even with high levels of transmission in the community.

Says when transmission levels are low, when hospital capacity isn't a concern, and when everyone has access to a vaccine is the time to sit down and review.

Right now, the federal projection is the end of May, though they "still have a ways to go."

"The Department has not considered mandating vaccines," Harrist says.

(Noteworthy -- we have a bill in the ether looking to limit any possibility of that happening: wyoleg.gov/Legislation/20…)

Hunt asks if this would interfere with the Department's ability to provide recommendations or messaging. The answer is no, she said, but could limit their ability to take actions necessary to slow the spread of the virus due to a changed definition of the word "quarantine."

Basically, they would be able to quarantine individuals who were sick, but could not quarantine those with high-risk exposures.

Said this was used effectively by the U.S. during the ebola outbreak. "The inability to quarantine would remove our ability" to do that, she said.

They also used their orders to close down a senior home where there was a high level of sickness, and found it was a carbon monoxide leak.

Duncan asks county commissioners if this rash of bills has been "knee-jerk."

Jerimiah Rieman, of the WCCC, says these are needed conversations, but he doesn't have that much angst as him and his members have shared their different needs over the past year.

Marguerite Herman -- a trustee at a local school district -- repeats what she said last week. They stayed in-session largely because they've followed the orders, and that those decisions shouldn't be politicized.

"Shield these orders from popular -- but unproven -- information."

Sheila Bush, Wyoming Medical Society, stands in "tentative opposition" to all of the bills on the docket today, though they support a conversation about the issues those bills seek to address.

Notes that the projected impacts to COVID case numbers from the public health orders we took on as a state were ultimately proven to be correct, and to keep that in mind as they legislate.

Clausen is moving HB-127 -- Barlow's bill.

The committee will meet tonight to discuss that one. They could potentially amend-in aspects of the other three bills they were looking at but I don't know how likely that is.

It sounds like the committee has no problem with HB-127 and want to advance it to the floor as-written.

That passes unanimously. Nobody wants to touch the other bills (which have similar aims), so there will be no meeting tonight. They could be revived next week if-needed.