Announcer:

The following program is a PBS Wisconsin original production.

Frederica Freyberg:

I’m Frederica Freyberg. Tonight on “Here & Now,” the state Supreme Court nullifies “Safer at Home” and Wisconsin counties rush to react. Where is Wisconsin headed? We get answers in our weekly one-on-one with Governor Tony Evers and also Republican State Representative Jim Steineke. Plus, a check-in with Dr. Nasia Safdar at the UW Division of Infectious Disease. And we share the story of a COVID-19 survivor from Crawford County. It’s “Here & Now” for May 15.

Announcer:

Funding for “Here & Now” is provided by the Focus Fund for Journalism and Friends of PBS Wisconsin.

Frederica Freyberg:

This week, a major shift in Wisconsin’s fight against the coronavirus as the extended “Safer at Home” order is ruled illegal. Republicans sued over whether Health Services Secretary-designee Andrea Palm exceeded her authority and violated state law by ordering an emergency extension until May 26. For the second time in as many months, the conservative majority Wisconsin Supreme Court has dealt Governor Evers and Democrats a defeat. Businesses across the state are swinging open their doors, some without restrictions. “Here & Now” Senior Political Reporter Zac Schultz is here to explain the fallout of that decision. And, Zac, thanks very much for being here.

Zac Schultz:

My pleasure, Fred.

Frederica Freyberg:

So the immediate results of the Supreme Court’s ruling was that everything was allowed to reopen and all at once and right away. But while waiting for these new rules, it’s kind of every county for itself?

Zac Schultz:

That’s right. The DHS authority to extend the “Safer at Home” order is gone. The only portion of that order that survived the court’s ruling was her ability to shut down schools. That survived in a footnote. Otherwise everything else in that order is gone. Now it’s up to individual counties because county-level public health officials were not affected by this. They have a different part of the state statutes that affect their authority. We’ve already seen five or six counties extend some of those rules. Some more may do that on their own to some degree or to the same language.

Frederica Freyberg:

As to the new state administrative rules, it’s this process but it basically forces the Evers’ administration to work with the Republican legislative leaders. How, in your understanding, are those new rules expected to look?

Zac Schultz:

Well, they won’t look anything like the “Safer at Home” order that we were under. Republicans have made it very clear they’re happy to see those orders gone. A couple weeks ago, they were asking for a regional approach to reopening parts of the state that hadn’t seen it. Now they’re saying everything wide open is perfect. They expect businesses to abide by WEDC or CDC rules on how best to be safe and it’s up to individuals and businesses to do the best thing to keep themselves and their families safe. These new administrative rules — the governor issued a scope statement. It’s going to take at least ten days before we see the language on a rule. They’ll have time to negotiate it, but it will have to be very broad because it won’t, by definition, be nimble enough to actually handle a hot spot or a flare-up that may occur.

Frederica Freyberg:

Super quickly, what stood out for you about that Supreme Court ruling?

Zac Schultz:

The thing is it was a 4-3 decision. The court is 5-2 conservatives to liberals and it was conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn who dissented as well. Justice Daniel Kelly, who just lost an election, will be leaving the court in July. He was the deciding vote. The new justice coming in could side with the liberals. If there’s a flare-up over the winter, we could see DHS try to figure out where the boundaries were on the powers because the Supreme Court, by rule in their decision, said we don’t define the scope of her authority. We just say this goes too far. This may be coming back in some form or fashion under a new court this winter.

Frederica Freyberg:

Zac Schultz, thanks very much and thanks for covering it.

Zac Schultz:

Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

Many places are back to business as usual without restrictions. The state Supreme Court decision comes just two days after a new directive from Governor Tony Evers that turned the dial to open Wisconsin a bit more. Under that new order earlier in the week, small retail businesses could reopen with restrictions. The order allowed customers to visit places like strip malls with doors that enter and exit directly to the outside, allowing for no more than five patrons inside at one time. A patchwork of counties and cities across the state are keeping the “Safer at Home” guidelines in place while others have fully reopened. We talk about this week’s developments in our weekly one-on-one with Tony Evers, who joined us earlier. And, governor, thanks very much for doing so.

Tony Evers:

Thanks, Frederica.

Frederica Freyberg:

We led into this talking about how your phased-in approach to reopening businesses was starting this week, when the Supreme Court shelved your plan. What was it like, first, when you learned of the decision, and then when you read it?

Tony Evers:

Well, it was disappointing, you know. I’ve always felt that facts and the state statutes and precedence mattered. It certainly didn’t in this case. It was just a wrong-headed decision. And so the bottom line is the impact has been immediate. There is — essentially they found it to be unconstitutional, and so we’ve moved into the new world of having no rule of the road.

Frederica Freyberg:

What was your reaction when you saw people pouring into bars immediately following the decision?

Tony Evers:

I know not all bars and all businesses are that way, but certainly to have the Tavern League get out in front of this and then having many too people together in a small place, shoulder to shoulder, no masks, it’s inviting the virus to walk on in and be transmitted. That’s the bottom line.

Frederica Freyberg:

In the face of that, several local or county health departments imposed their own safety orders in place of the statewide plan. But now some are starting to rescind them, worried about whether or not in fact they’re legal because of that court ruling. What in your mind does this say about this local approach?

Tony Evers:

Well, that’s just it. It creates great confusion, first of all, and — depending on the county you live in, and so that’s the main concern. Some of them may walk them back. Some of them won’t. I think it’s less around — less around the legality of it. I think, you know, it’s a different section of the law. So I think they have the ability to do it. But they want to make sure that they’re consistent with their neighbors, and I guess that’s a rational thing to do. But at the end of the day, having this being done locally creates a lot of confusion and, frankly, I think it doesn’t do much for people’s confidence.

Frederica Freyberg:

You’re now meeting with Speaker Vos and Majority Leader Fitzgerald to work up administrative rules to manage the pandemic, and your Department of Health wrote a scope statement outlining those rules. I read them. They look very much like “Safer at Home” and Badger Bounce Back under a different name. Why do you think those are going to fly?

Tony Evers:

Well, first of all, a scope statement is a very broad statement of what we’re going to be looking at. And, as you see, there’s lots of “mays” in that statement. And so, yes, it gives us a parameter. What matters is the rule itself. But also, Frederica, to be honest with you, this isn’t going to be any grand bargain among the Democrats and the Republicans because essentially we were told by the leadership that they weren’t going to accept anything that creates any new restrictions or new parameters around what’s happening now. In fact, they were very happy with what exists.

Frederica Freyberg:

In fact, the co-chair of the Rules Committee that must vote on and can veto any rules, Republican Senator Stephen Nass said, “I call on Governor Evers to withdraw the scope statement and end this needless confrontation.” What is your reaction to that?

Tony Evers:

I’d say wait until you see the rule. This is a scope statement, Senator Nass. This is not the rule. But again, I don’t want people to believe that this is some sort of panacea and a grand bargain. We’ve already told by the leadership that what’s going to come out of this is not going to be any kind of impingement or restriction on what already has happened. In fact, they’re very happy about that. You know, shortly after the turn of the month, May 1 or 2, get a letter from Speaker Vos saying they’re looking forward to slow, deliberate, thoughtful way of opening the economy, just like we are. But intervening has been this Supreme Court race — or not race, but the decision. So it is what it is. It exists, and we’re going to do everything we can to make sure — we’re hopeful people will still stay at home when they’re not out and were going to continue to test and do the tracings and all the things that are important.

Frederica Freyberg:

Governor Tony Evers, thanks very much for joining us. Of course, we and everyone else will be watching these developments. Thank you.

Tony Evers:

Thank you, Frederica.

Frederica Freyberg:

Republicans had been publicly pushing to relax the strict “Safer at Home” order at the same time they challenged it in the Wisconsin’s Supreme Court. Now with legal backing, the ball is in their court to act. Wisconsin Assembly Majority Leader Jim Steineke was able to join us early this afternoon. And, representative, thank you very much again for being here.

Jim Steineke:

Absolutely. Glad to be here.

Frederica Freyberg:

Well, so, as we all know, Wisconsin is reopen for business. What is your reaction to the court’s ruling?

Jim Steineke:

Well, it’s unfortunate that we got to this place. We’ve been trying over the last few weeks to engage with the administration to see if we can come up with a bipartisan plan that everybody can support. As late as 10 or 12 days ago now, we met with Governor Evers to discuss those things while the court case was going on to try to see if there was some common ground, asked for additional meetings beyond that day, and he said he didn’t want to talk until after the Supreme Court decision came down, which was his right. But that’s kind of why we’re here where we are today without anything succeeding that original 60-day authority.

Frederica Freyberg:

He has disputed that it was he who said he wanted to wait, but let’s move along, because this is where we are now, and I know that leadership met with the governor this week to talk about new rules. Going forward, at this moment, I suspect that you want to work with the governor to fashion these rules.

Jim Steineke:

Yeah. Again, we met this week with the governor, had some initial discussions about what our priorities were, what his were in any new rule. He took some input. He’s — obviously, he put out a scope statement for the new rule and now that is open for public comment for ten days, and then they’ll come back to us with whatever their proposed rule is, hopefully taking into account everybody’s input.

Frederica Freyberg:

Taking a look at that scope statement, it looks very similar to the “Safer at Home” and the Badger Bounce Back Plan. Do you support what’s in that document?

Jim Steineke:

Parts. I mean, I think what we’re seeing now is a vast majority of the country is starting to reopen. We were one of only a handful of states that hadn’t started to reopen yet. And one of our frustrations with what the governor has proposed in his original “Safer at Home” package was a statewide order, with no accounting for regional differences. And what we see in a vast majority of counties in the state is very few cases of the virus, very few hospitalizations. So we think that we can start to open up in a vast majority of the state.

Frederica Freyberg:

So, as you know, the Joint Committee on Review of Administrative Rules has the power to block these new rules that are going to be drafted. Should it, in your mind?

Jim Steineke:

Well, I think we have to wait and see what the new rules are. I’d hate to presume that the governor isn’t going to listen to the public and isn’t going to listen to the legislature in crafting these new rules. So hopefully he’ll do that and give us an opportunity to accept the new rules. But that’s yet to be seen.

Frederica Freyberg:

So in your mind, do you think that the committee should kind of save these kinds of rules for any surge in cases?

Jim Steineke:

Well, I think that’s one of the things that Representative Ballweg, who is co-chair of the Joint Committee on the Review of Administrative Rules, talked about, was having something in place in case we do have another surge. As we’ve seen in Wisconsin, there are no hospitals operating at crisis level, so we’re in a really good spot. That’s why I think you’ve seen most of the counties start to open up. Some counties are choosing to extend those “Safer at Home” orders but let’s remember that the governor’s order only lasted until the 26th and even he said he wasn’t going to extend them beyond that date.

Frederica Freyberg:

What is your opinion of these local or county orders?

Jim Steineke:

Well, I think it’s well within their rights, as I see it. I think they have to do what they believe is correct with the situation on the ground within their own counties. I’d much rather see that approach than a statewide approach, where every area is treated exactly the same. Because, like I said, in the vast majority of the state there aren’t these crisis levels of the virus.

Frederica Freyberg:

Will you be going out to a restaurant this weekend or elsewhere because of the ruling from the court?

Jim Steineke:

Well, unfortunately, I’m in a county that chose to extend the “Safer at Home” order indefinitely, even though Outagamie County only has 124 cases. So I’m kind of confused as to why this particular county decided to go further than every other county — almost every other county out there. But I happen to be in one of those counties that has a “Safer at Home” extended and surrounded by Brown County and Winnebago and Calumet that also have that order in place.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right. We need to leave it there, Representative Steineke. Thank you again for joining us.

Jim Steineke:

Absolutely. Thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

For the second time in as many months, Wisconsin voters went to the polls during the COVID-19 crisis. The Wisconsin National Guard also activated again to help work polling places in Tuesday’s 7th Congressional District special election. About 160 guard members helped serve the 700 municipalities. They worked in civilian clothes, performing the same duties as other poll workers. And on Tuesday, Republican Tom Tiffany defeated Democrat Tricia Zunker in the 7th Congressional District. It spans 26 northern Wisconsin counties. Like every other seat in Congress, the 7th Congressional District is on the ballot again in November. Tiffany is expected to be in Washington next week, where Congress is looking at more measures to combat COVID-19.

Despite the state Supreme Court ruling, work on the front lines continues and the number of people able to get tested for coronavirus is on the rise. The Wisconsin National Guard now has 25 collection teams, including this one in Green Bay. More than 20 Wisconsin counties are benefiting from the increased testing at community-based sites, with guard members collecting nearly 25,000 samples. By midweek at the Alliant Energy Center in Madison, the National Guard had taken more than 1,000 samples. 1600 troops are now serving in direct support of the state’s COVID-19 response.

As Wisconsin jumps forward to immediate reopening with some counties maintaining “Safer at Home” rules, health care workers stay the course, bracing for incoming patients, deaths and the duress of the front line care. When the pandemic first hit Wisconsin back in March, we talked with Dr. Nasia Safdar with the UW Division of Infectious Disease. This week, we want to check back in with her. And, Dr. Safdar, thank you for joining us again.

Nasia Safdar:

Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

What is your reaction to the court ruling that immediately reopened the state?

Nasia Safdar:

You know, I think from a public health and infection control standpoint, I think we have always advised that reopening should be a gradual, carefully-monitored process. And so this goes against that.

Frederica Freyberg:

And what do you think about that?

Nasia Safdar:

I think potentially there are activities as people co-mingle and gather that will make it challenging to contain COVID-19 in the way that we have been able, fortunately, locally and in the larger state, been able to do thus far.

Frederica Freyberg:

Yeah. I was going to ask you if you believe that the “Safer at Home” order had flattened the curve.

Nasia Safdar:

I think most people believe that to be true. And I think the data on mobility and the effect of reducing mobility on COVID-19 growth rate and new cases is pretty compelling. So I think when you have something that has worked successfully, if you do decide to deescalate it, it should be done in a very careful, gradual manner.

Frederica Freyberg:

And meanwhile this will, at least so far, be done in kind of a patchwork manner, with some number of counties deciding to go ahead and maintain those orders, whereas others will not. If there were to be a surge in cases as we reopen the state in this way, are health care workers where you are able to manage a jump in cases?

Nasia Safdar:

You know, I think we’re much better positioned than we were in the earlier stages of this pandemic in this country in the sense that we now know a lot more about transmission, about its impact, the populations at risk and all those things that we really had very limited information about before. Having said that, I think while we are better prepared to manage more patients, we still want to avoid a surge that would overwhelm any one or more health systems.

Frederica Freyberg:

Is the supply of things like personal protective equipment now adequate, I mean, for right now and going forward?

Nasia Safdar:

So it’s adequate for right now. I think going forward as well, in all likelihood, but it would to some extent depend on how many cases we see and how sick those individuals are and what kind of PPE is required. I think our use of PPE has been optimized considerably, so we are conserving, in the earlier stages conserving and reusing things that we wouldn’t normally do and that has led to us being able to keep our PPE around longer.

Frederica Freyberg:

You’ve said that there are things you have learned about COVID-19, obviously, since the early days. What would you estimate is the most important thing that you’ve learned about this virus?

Nasia Safdar:

I think the fact that there is this ease of transmission from asymptomatic people is probably the most important new data that has come forward. And that suggests that, you know, if asymptomatic carriage is the main reason or one of the main reasons that transmission is happening, that’s pretty hard to contain without some of the more drastic measures like the “Safer at Home” order.

Frederica Freyberg:

So what would be your message then to people out there in the community?

Nasia Safdar:

I think now more than ever it’s really important that we don’t go from zero to 100 even if the “Safer at Home” order has been lifted at a statewide level. I think people should still think to themselves, do I really need to leave the house and, if I do, what’s the essential activity I must perform. It’s going to be hard to keep people at the level we were at for too much longer in any case. I think it takes all kinds of negative toll on one’s mental and psychological health. But nonetheless, I don’t think we’re at a place where we want to encourage large public gatherings and trying to go back to the way we were before COVID hit.

Frederica Freyberg:

What about things like shopping or socializing? Are those safe, in your mind?

Nasia Safdar:

I think I would consider those riskier than the current state. I would recommend avoiding them to the extent one can.

Frederica Freyberg:

How important does ramped-up testing continue to be?

Nasia Safdar:

I think testing capacity has considerably improved, and I think it’s going to be really important to determine the circle of individuals who might have come in contact with somebody who tests positive for COVID. That’s much easier now to determine as we can test a much broader swath of the population than we had been able to previously.

Frederica Freyberg:

Is plasma from recovered patients proving a successful treatment?

Nasia Safdar:

I think it’s a potentially promising treatment. I don’t think we can say conclusively that it is proving to be the case. We believe it is. There some small case series that have suggested improved outcomes. But there’s very little comparative data. So the outcomes of people who got it versus those that didn’t, is there really a compelling difference. We’re awaiting that. There are multiple studies underway. We don’t know that yet for a fact.

Frederica Freyberg:

What do experts think about how long it will be before we see a vaccine?

Nasia Safdar:

I think sometime next year, assuming that the existing candidates that are in various stages of development, one or more of them turn out to be promising enough to move forward. So it’s a very accelerated time frame compared to most other vaccine developments. So I remain optimistic.

Frederica Freyberg:

Dr. Nasia Safdar, thank you very much, and thank you for your work.

Nasia Safdar:

Thank you very much.

Frederica Freyberg:

Tonight we share the story of a COVID-19 survivor. A Crawford County man who never thought it would affect him. He’s a skeptic no more. As Trevor Keller reports, he’s now telling his story.

Trevor Keller:

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, Craig Bell wasn’t worried.

Craig Bell:

And I’ll be honest with you. I thought boy, this thing is just getting blown out of proportion. I’m like everybody else. I thought, this stuff ain’t coming here.

Trevor Keller:

“Here” is Eastman, a small town of 400 in Crawford County. Bell is a 59-year-old mail carrier. In April he nearly became a COVID fatality.

Craig Bell:

I was getting a fever and my head was out of sorts.

Trevor Keller:

He says it took two trips to urgent care to get a COVID test, which turned out positive. He was taken to Mayo Clinic in La Crosse, where he’d spend eight days in a coma with a breathing tube.

Mike Harrison:

He was breathing close to 40 times a minute, which is exhausting. It’s not something people will do for very long.

Craig Bell:

They said this isn’t looking good at all. He’s basically — he’s ready for the — he’s ready for the graveyard here.

Mike Harrison:

During that time period, his kidneys stopped working and we had to start him on dialysis.

Trevor Keller:

Bell’s wife, Julie, was told by doctors to expect the worst, but she wasn’t allowed to visit the hospital.

Craig Bell:

If he’s going to be gone, I’d like to say goodbye to him. And they said, we can’t let you do that, but we promise that we’ll make sure that he goes, you know — he won’t feel pain and he’ll go easy.

Trevor Keller:

Bell’s condition improved on days seven and eight and he was brought out of the coma. He’d spend two weeks in the hospital.

Mike Harrison:

The odds were stacked against him. So I’m very surprised, very happy that we’ve had the outcome that we’ve had.

Julie Bell:

It’s a beautiful day in Eastman. It’s a great day to be alive.

Trevor Keller:

Bell still goes to kidney dialysis three times a week and doctors hope for a full recovery. Bell says he’s feeling better and that people should take the virus seriously. His wife described their experience as, “hell.”

Craig Bell:

I don’t have one word to describe it other than — it’s hell. My wife’s got it right. It’s hell.

Trevor Keller:

For “Here & Now,” I’m Trevor Keller.

Frederica Freyberg:

Helping with everything from testing to voting, the National Guard also took to the air this week, with F-16 pilots from the Wisconsin Air National Guard staging flyovers Tuesday to honor and salute health care workers and first responders on the front lines of COVID-19. The 115th Fighter Wing based out of Madison took part in the national effort flying over hospitals in 17 communities across the state from Kenosha to Wausau and Eau Claire, and back again to their base at Truax Field.

That’s our program for this week. Be sure to join us online throughout the week for updates on the COVID-19 pandemic at PBSwisconsin.org, and then click on the “news” tab. Also for ongoing in-depth coverage in Wisconsin, visit our partner news site at WisContext.org This week, a look at contact tracing. It’s the next big step in the fight against COVID-19. That’s WisContext.org. Thank you for watching “Here & Now.” Stay well, Wisconsin, and we will see you next week. I’m Frederica Freyberg. Have a great weekend.

Announcer:

Funding for “Here & Now” is provided by the Focus Fund for Journalism and Friends of PBS Wisconsin.