New Indiana coronavirus order won’t ban tighter local rules

Any easing of Indiana’s statewide stay-at-home order won’t limit the authority of city or county officials from imposing tighter restrictions in their attempts to slow the coronavirus that has killed at least 1,000 people across the state, the governor said Thursday.

Gov. Eric Holcomb is poised to announce on Friday modifications to the business and travel restrictions that have been in place since March 25 as a growing number of states are loosening their shutdown orders.

Indianapolis officials, however, extended Marion County’s stay-at-home order on Thursday by two weeks, through May 15, saying the state’s largest city was still experiencing too many COVID-19 cases to safely relax restrictions. Some other cities and counties around the state also have adopted rules responding to outbreaks in their communities.

Holcomb said he supported Indianapolis Mayor Joe Hogsett’s decision and that the new state order wouldn’t strip away local authority.

“Local jurisdictions can always be stricter than what we have said,” Holcomb said. “This has been the case, not just once, in the state of Indiana. We’ll seek to 100% of the time work with those local officials.”

Holcomb spoke Thursday from Kokomo, where he joined Vice President Mike Pence in touring a General Motors electronics plant that’s been converted to produce critical care ventilators for hospitals around the country.

Holcomb said his changes to statewide restrictions will be “methodical” and come in stages, but did not provide any details.

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

Editor's note: You can comment on IBJ stories by signing in to your IBJ account. If you have not registered, please sign up for a free account now. Please note our updated comment policy that will govern how comments are moderated.

7 thoughts on “New Indiana coronavirus order won’t ban tighter local rules

    1. I work as a doctor and too many people suffered because idiots wont stay home. I applaud what the govt does. Im not risking my life because Neil Deez here wants to drink some beer at bar

    1. Just guessing that, “Jay K,” or jk, you aren’t really a doctor. Could be wrong.

    2. I work as a doctor is not the same as I am a doctor! If Jay K was a MD he would understand heard immunity and realize the narrative was to flatten the curve to not over burden the hospital system. It was not to eliminate the virus. and if you are a front line worker thank you.

  1. Ok. 1. I am a doctor and I work as a doctor. I see the unfortunate parallels to JK. I am not making a pun with my name.
    Anyway, ‘heard’ immunity is herd immunity. Herd immunity is not guaranteed. It requires the virus to impart immunity which we do not know. Importantly for herd immunity to work 70% of the population needs to be infected. Theoretically we cant control how many do get infected but if we even get to that number then even with the lowest estimated accurate death rates (approx 1%) you are looking at 1-2 million deaths. Is that an acceptable trade off for a herd immunity we dont even know works?

    I understand flattening the curve but flattening the curve is not magical. Once we open up and do so prematurely if too many people get re infected then the hospitals get overwhelmed.

    Look Im not saying we shouldnt open. My response was about lawsuits implying we should never (in the past) had stay at home orders. We should have and needed them.
    Anyway peace out. Im not posting about this anymore. Too exhausted.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets in {{ count_down }} days.