It is a federal and state public health order. They've since changed those orders. The county has even less authority, especially by a single individual and in contrast to the state.

Also laws only work as long as the citizens believe in them and civil obedience is a thing. There needs to be good reason for the shutdown and its effects, and many do not agree with the county.

> It is a federal and state public health order.

There has been no federal public health order (there's been a federal national defense order to keep meat plans open to promote the spread of the virus, but that's the opposite of a public health order), there are, relevant to the case at hand, state and county orders.

> They've since changed those orders.

Yes, both the state and county orders have been updated over time. What's your point?

> The county has even less authority, especially by a single individual and in contrast to the state.

No, actually, state law makes county public health officers the main authority to issue orders for the control of communicable disease.

> Also laws only work as long as the citizens believe in them and civil obedience is a thing.

Shutdown orders have overwhelming majority support; there is a very loud (predominantly elite) but small minority opposed.

They've changed those orders to be more open. That's the point. This single county is disagreeing on flimsy reasoning. You're free to follow whatever law you think exists. Others have the right to counter orders they feel are unjust.

Where do you see this overwhelming majority support? If that were true, there wouldn't be any news about so many violations of these lock-down orders. They would just be arrested and shutdown. But that's not happening is it?