court rejected these measures as insufficient based on the rise of asymptomatic positive cases occurring in the jail every step of the district court reasoning but infected with legal error beginning of course w improper collapsing of the objective and subjective process of deliberate indifference by focus by focusing on defendant inability to achieve what it called meaningful social distancing and seizing the measures defendant could and did actually control ineffective based on the rise in a symptomatic positive case as the district court plainly violated farmer and imposed a form of strict liability the th amendment not have the authority to reduce the population in the in the jail is that if i got that right that's not that's that's absolutely  and the prosecutor and the jailer are completely different entities in the state of florida so every single defense detainee who is a miami dade county jail is in there because the state court judge essentially asking this court to create a right that would apply throughout the th circuit that all inmates have a right to really in the midst of progress despite the fact that in this case the judge is not overcrowded  so a lot of the citations in those brief having to do with gain time and things like that relief would not apply in the situation the free trial the pain is and of course none of those arguments were ever raised by the what custody housing areas are you familiar with the concept well in the county jail the only thing that i'm familiar with is that there are in may who are released on their own rock in the pretrial and there are inmates who are allowed to go home on weekends and in those cases where the courts have permitted that they have stayed home and not come back inside the jail but but the medical condition to be to be rich to be released which would be hundreds and hundreds of in may and it is an extraordinary it is an extraordinary request to ask a federal court to intrude into the fake or prison system a system that is presently of value waiting inmates are released based on their medical condition and on a case by case basis there is simply no reason to believe that the district courts usurpation of local control will cure the difficulties posed by the pandemic the standard of liability that the district court imposed would in fact lead to every single jail in this country with dormitories housing being found that liberally indifferent and that order that indifferent despite all the other after that they've taken in this case the district court the injunction was especially inappropriate because it simply enjoying that the county to take action that they were already voluntarily pay taking and the done by the county which was to proactively adopt measures and when new technologies came about to adopt additional measures to protect women i mean you acknowledge that there is a dispute a fact about well st of all though the district court's order was not based on resolving those disputes the district courts twice stated that it was fighting to liberate and difference without resolving any factual disputes regarding the implementation  county is structured differently than the other sixty six counties in florida and that the mayor and the director of the prison exercises the power of the sheriff director jr is a superfluid party for every claim but the doing so with this awareness as the district court found reflect deliberate indifference to the health and lives of the people of metro at the finest only answer is that state law prevents daniel jr from releasing any wanted custody they don't start can i ask you a quick question so i feel like there's a disconnect between the parties here about what the district court's order said and didn't say did and didn't do  read the district court's order i guess beginning around thirty by thirty seven the district court basically says two things with respect to deliberate indifference one there are lots of factual dispute disputes here about sort of sufficiency of what the defendants i'm done i'm not going to resolve any of them and instead i'm going to rely on two things one the fact that the virus has spread that they haven't contained it and to that social say in essence that's not what the order is about at all it's about the failure to achieve what you call a feasible social distancing and that jr was somehow deliberately indifferent for refusing to release people i just don't see proposal within seven days but even if there's any question about reading that the district with opinion on that aspect it's clear that the district court found deliberate indifference based on the continued confinement of far too many people in metro west to enable adequate to control transmission of the disease but that it's a quick deliberate indifference finding rested on the fact that there is scientific and medical consensus that the measures that they are taking will not be adequate to control transmission of the disease and as a result people are being subject to an objective lee intolerable risk of harm to their lives and how i do my guess my reading is that i think you are looking at the same portion of the order i think sort of of the money pair of the rd seven hundred and thirty eight but you know i think it's a fair paraphrase to say that the district court says you know even considering all the measures the defendant adopted setting aside any factual disputes nonetheless there's a limit on that front and then the district court basically gives two subjective and objective components i just don't see how there's anything in there a part of the analysis about feasibility let alone about junior not releasing people the evidence  times a day for hold for headcount for daily headcount and that they stand shoulder to shoulder and defendants have been modified those key aspects of the way that the jail operates in order to ensure that social distancing is happening but  something that looks like recklessness how was it that we can conclude that the defendants were reckless deliberately indifferent and reasonable acted on reasonably in light of two things one sort of a thirty dollars foot level all of the things that they did do which the district court has basically given them in the way that it was all this case into the independent report which says they were doing their best how it's doing their best deliberately indifferent even indifferent for that matter well the evidence in terms of recklessness the question is do they know of ways to reduce the risk of harm and knowingly or population to ensure that social distancing it's possible and so to your two year thirty thousand question this court's precedents clear that even if you take some measures to abate a risk of harm if you're not taking the most important and the most effective step and you're not going to adequately update the risk when you know of a way to do so that can be deliberately indifferent and i think it's important i mean in essence the fact is that then those because he has a connection to the conduct complained of which is the continued confinement of too large a population that's really what is your point about legal authority the we shouldn't be so cut up about legal authority and the really what we should be concerned with  share argues that a population cap in that case would require him to violate the statutory duty this court said quote it's well established that inadequate funding will not excuse the perpetuation of unconstitutional conditions of confinement nor will matter of a crowbar have been of the proper defendant i mean there are lots of people who might have the physical capacity to break the place open and let people out employees janitors standing there and then damages it might be proper to say well they thought that they were bound by law and we don't want people to have to guess in that particular circumstance that they should disregard a law but as for injunctive relief surely a federal court can tell that has recognized the distinction in damages cases and injunctive relief cases if that were the law that would be extremely dangerous situation in which for instance when there is a flood a federal court would be powerless because there may not be can implement and is refusing to implement and in both of those cases the plaintiffs had identified a specific policy they had proven that the defendant was aware that they could adopt that policy and the defendant didn't saying you have to institute social discipline discipline policies right now no exceptions that would indicate that he had knowledge and took action it correctly applied farmer but the point the point that i'm trying to make your honor is the whole reason we're talking about individual social distancing which is only one component of social distancing when you look at the b b c guideline is because it is the liable because it is not being perfectly enforced that all times we now see that every day when we go into the supermarket and someone comes too close to us in one of the i this is simply part of living with coke that to the extent that there is any consensus emerging i want to call the court's attention to the three district court cases we cited in the supplemental authority and the two that we cited in our in our reply on page nine all five of those cases have a  l scenario very similar to this which is the jail has enacted sweeping social distancing regulations at the individual level the group level and the operational level and there are definite racing showing that there are some lapses in social distancing which is obviously going to be inevitable in a jail with thousands of people and all of those cases the district court found that is not indicative of the liberty and different simply because