Jump to content

Menu

PSA: Quarantines infringe rights, but they're still legal


Recommended Posts

Every couple days someone pops into the main thread on this pandemic and gets upset that someone's religious rights are being infringed.  So I'm just starting a new thread on this topic.

Quarantines and social distancing orders infringe on almost ALL of your constitutional rights.  The laws and orders are still legal.

Your rights end when you endanger the life and rights of others.  And your rights are greatly abridged in times of war or emergency.  This is why so many states have declared emergency.

You can practice any religion you want.  You don't have unlimited right to assemble and endanger the lives of others during a pandemic.  If a religious leader chooses to do so (s)he can be arrested.  And a church or other house of worship that causes an immediate danger to public health can be closed forever and the property sold.  This should not be news.  We've already done it to many mosques in the name of fighting terrorism. Your rights to believe whatever extreme thing you want does not give you the right to willingly and recklessly endanger the lives of others during a pandemic.

 

Here's a bit of easy reading so those that disagree with me can have a clearer understanding.  Note: I am not talking about the way YOU WISH the constitution was interpreted.  I am talking about the way it is actually interpreted.

CDC- Legal Authorities for Isolation and Quarantine

Vox- Coronavirus: Your legal rights in a Quarantine, explained

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

You're reasonably correct insofar as by "rights" you mean "Constitutional rights"; I don't know that there's been an exact federal case on point, but under current constitutional jurisprudence, a generally applicable law (or order, or whatever) with the intent of protecting public health and not involving anti-religious animus would pass muster.

But do you have enough imagination to see why it is bitter to me as a Christian to see state actors deem marijuana stores, liquor stores, and gun stores as "essential services" that must stay open, with long lines and crowded aisles? While I can't go pray the rosary before the Sacrament with a handful of other old ladies sitting in different pews, because that's not essential. Personally I look forward to the lawsuits based on that.

  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Violet Crown said:

You're reasonably correct insofar as by "rights" you mean "Constitutional rights"; I don't know that there's been an exact federal case on point, but under current constitutional jurisprudence, a generally applicable law (or order, or whatever) with the intent of protecting public health and not involving anti-religious animus would pass muster.

But do you have enough imagination to see why it is bitter to me as a Christian to see state actors deem marijuana stores, liquor stores, and gun stores as "essential services" that must stay open, with long lines and crowded aisles? While I can't go pray the rosary before the Sacrament with a handful of other old ladies sitting in different pews, because that's not essential. Personally I look forward to the lawsuits based on that.

Because it isn't a church by church decision, and if you allow the tiny parish with only 20 attendees to come in the giant megachurch will meet too. Because people are dumb. 

Given that we have evidence it likely is being spread in the air, not to mention on doorknobs, etc, how would you be assured you were not giving it to those little old ladies? Or a priest? Or that they then don't give it to others?

If we COULD stop letting people be in crowds any where, including grocery stores, that would be even better. But given that people need to eat, we can't. And since they seem to dumb to grocery shop without being smart about it, I don't imagine the masses are any better at worshipping together safely. Less contacts is better than more. None isn't possible, so less is better. 

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

I don't need a clearer understanding of anything, especially if it involves the Supreme Court seeing as how they've previously said slaves don't count as full people. You guys who disagree don't need to constantly talk down to and chastise those of us who have different ideas about things. Why do we need 80 trillion threads on the same topic with all of them ending up with people needing to bring up stuff said in a different thread in order to talk down to people? This is why so many people won't say anything here anymore. We're staying in our homes as ordered to, but that doesn't mean we can't be concerned about how quickly everyone is ok with giving up rights. 

 

Quarantines aren't new.  Just because they haven't been widely done since vaccines became available doesn't mean the idea of them is new. Quarantines are ancient. It doesn't mean churches are closed forever. 

No one is giving up anything except the right to endanger lives.   You want to go get infected?  Go ahead.  But stay away from other people and stay home to die when you get sick instead of going to the hospital and endangering people trying to save the lives of the innocent.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Because it isn't a church by church decision, and if you allow the tiny parish with only 20 attendees to come in the giant megachurch will meet too. Because people are dumb. 

I don't think you are addressing what I said, but rather what you think I said.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Violet Crown said:

You're reasonably correct insofar as by "rights" you mean "Constitutional rights"; I don't know that there's been an exact federal case on point, but under current constitutional jurisprudence, a generally applicable law (or order, or whatever) with the intent of protecting public health and not involving anti-religious animus would pass muster.

But do you have enough imagination to see why it is bitter to me as a Christian to see state actors deem marijuana stores, liquor stores, and gun stores as "essential services" that must stay open, with long lines and crowded aisles? While I can't go pray the rosary before the Sacrament with a handful of other old ladies sitting in different pews, because that's not essential. Personally I look forward to the lawsuits based on that.

You think people are upset about not being able to worship together? Close gun stores and you’d probably have full blown riots in some places. As for liquor stores, someone pointed out in another thread that the last thing emergency rooms and hospitals need right now are alcoholics going cold turkey. 
 

As for praying the rosary and attending mass, my mom still does both every day. She does the rosary alone and watches mass on TV or online. In the city where she lives they stopped an over 100 year old Catholic prayer vigil in order to protect the elderly nuns. Only one person had to be present at a time to keep it going. The nuns still decided to stop it to be extra cautious.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

In NZ we have a state of emergency.  That over rides all rights as does a state of war.  You agreed to this when you agreed to take part in society or at least didn't go and become a hermit.  You have the right to food, hygiene, water and not to have crimes committed against you.  You have the right to medical treatment.  Most of all you have the right to be protected from people who may be protected from covid 19 spread by idiots.

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Violet Crown said:

You're reasonably correct insofar as by "rights" you mean "Constitutional rights"; I don't know that there's been an exact federal case on point, but under current constitutional jurisprudence, a generally applicable law (or order, or whatever) with the intent of protecting public health and not involving anti-religious animus would pass muster.

But do you have enough imagination to see why it is bitter to me as a Christian to see state actors deem marijuana stores, liquor stores, and gun stores as "essential services" that must stay open, with long lines and crowded aisles? While I can't go pray the rosary before the Sacrament with a handful of other old ladies sitting in different pews, because that's not essential. Personally I look forward to the lawsuits based on that.


If is bitter to me that a pot store and a gun store are “essential” it is not because I can’t go to mass but because they are not essential and shouldn’t be open.

I don’t want those things closed out of misguided religious spite. I want them closed bc it’s a public health risk.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is definitely some politics to what gets closed and what doesn’t.  Personally I am happy to still get to pick up alcohol.... but it doesn’t make sense to me.  How in the world is that an essential business?  The thing is, they are allowed open because Walmart can sell wine and beer now and they can’t play favorites to wal mart.  
I miss my congregation in person a great deal.  But we are doing Zoom and doing our best.  SIP doesn’t  stop us from practicing our religion. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Frances said:

You think people are upset about not being able to worship together? Close gun stores and you’d probably have full blown riots in some places. As for liquor stores, someone pointed out in another thread that the last thing emergency rooms and hospitals need right now are alcoholics going cold turkey. 
 

As for praying the rosary and attending mass, my mom still does both every day. She does the rosary alone and watches mass on TV or online. In the city where she lives they stopped an over 100 year old Catholic prayer vigil in order to protect the elderly nuns. Only one person had to be present at a time to keep it going. The nuns still decided to stop it to be extra cautious.

1. Probably true that people would be unhappy about closing gun stores. But I wasn't suggesting that I (and people in my situation) are more unhappy about our favorite place to go being closed. Rather, I'm saying that it's obnoxious, and possibly unconstitutional (because it seems to undermine the "general applicability" argument requirement), for the state to designate liquor, cannabis, and gun stores as essential but religious services as inessential.

2. Forgive me but I find the "We'll be overwhelmed by alcoholics who have run out of booze" argument both morally and legally unconvincing.

3. Good for your Mom. I mean that unironically. But the fact that one person, or some pious nuns, decide to take a particular action doesn't mean that therefore other are morally or legally bound to take the same action.

1 hour ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

No worries- lawsuits are already in action, and yes, the ACLU has successfully struck down many a quarantine ruling in court.

The problem is it doesn't happen until after the fact. People in general should confer with public health attorneys before they make sweeping declarations on case law. 

I remember your saying so, and I want to make clear that it's the specific designation of religious services as "inessential" while society's favorite vices are designated as "essential" that I find troubling.

I feel as if I shouldn't have posted, as it seems that two "sides" have formed to this debate, and I've been assigned to one. But I'm not on either side.

For the record: I have no moral objection to the closing of religious services by the state under these conditions. Personally, I stopped receiving Communion weeks before people started talking about avoiding large gatherings. I stopped going to Mass and kept my family home before that was permitted by our bishop, and at a time when our pastor specifically said that only those personally at high risk were dispensed from Mass attendance. My religious beliefs make this totally fine. I have no patience for religious leaders of my own faith who think defying public health restrictions are a matter of conscience, because this has happened many times in the history of our faith.

Further, there is clearly no constitutional problem to shutting down religious services. if the ACLU wants to challenge that, they have no support from me. All I am saying is that it is morally objectionable, and very possibly legally problematic, for the state to designate certain businesses catering to vices as essential while designating (by default) religious gatherings as non-essential. That is ALL I am saying.

Leaving the thread now for the two "sides" to argue it out.

 

Edited by Violet Crown
Deleted overheated rhetoric
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kdsuomi said:

I don't need a clearer understanding of anything, especially if it involves the Supreme Court seeing as how they've previously said slaves don't count as full people. You guys who disagree don't need to constantly talk down to and chastise those of us who have different ideas about things. Why do we need 80 trillion threads on the same topic with all of them ending up with people needing to bring up stuff said in a different thread in order to talk down to people? This is why so many people won't say anything here anymore. We're staying in our homes as ordered to, but that doesn't mean we can't be concerned about how quickly everyone is ok with giving up rights. 

Scolding, intentionally  misinterpreting, and chastising is a virtue on this forum. Approach with a thick skin. 🤪

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Violet Crown said:

1. Probably true that people would be unhappy about closing gun stores. But I wasn't suggesting that I (and people in my situation) are more unhappy about our favorite place to go being closed. Rather, I'm saying that it's obnoxious, and possibly unconstitutional (because it seems to undermine the "general applicability" argument requirement), for the state to designate liquor, cannabis, and gun stores as essential but religious services as inessential.

2. Forgive me but I find the "We'll be overwhelmed by alcoholics who have run out of booze" argument both morally and legally unconvincing.

3. Good for your Mom. I mean that unironically. But the fact that one person, or some pious nuns, decide to take a particular action doesn't mean that therefore other are morally or legally bound to take the same action.

I remember your saying so, and I want to make clear that it's the specific designation of religious services as "inessential" while society's favorite vices are designated as "essential" that I find troubling.

I feel as if I shouldn't have posted, as it seems that two "sides" have formed to this debate, and I've been assigned to one. But I'm not on either side.

For the record: I have no moral objection to the closing of religious services by the state under these conditions. Personally, I stopped receiving Communion weeks before people started talking about avoiding large gatherings. I stopped going to Mass and kept my family home before that was permitted by our bishop, and at a time when our pastor specifically said that only those personally at high risk were dispensed from Mass attendance. My religious beliefs make this totally fine. I have no patience for religious leaders of my own faith who think defying public health restrictions are a matter of conscience, because this has happened many times in the history of our faith.

Further, there is clearly no constitutional problem to shutting down religious services. if the ACLU wants to challenge that, they have no support from me, and I hope they lose and get sanctioned good and hard. All I am saying is that it is morally objectionable, and very possibly legally problematic, for the state to designate certain businesses catering to vices as essential while designating (by default) religious gatherings as non-essential. That is ALL I am saying.

Leaving the thread now for the two "sides" to argue it out.

 

As for #3, just make sure you and all the people getting together to pray agree not to get any medical care if you or any family members contract the virus, so as not to continue to endanger the healthcare workers risking their lives and the lives of the their family members. That’s the moral thing to do. As for pious, I have no idea if that applies to this particular group or not. But smart, informed, and caring certainly do. And moral and not selfish. 

Edited by Frances
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

I'm not seeing how this article supports your point.

In it they say, "Every disease is different and merits different public health responses. A person infected with Ebola, for example, is not contagious until after fever and other symptoms begin. That appears not to be the case with the coronavirus, and scientists’ recommendations will no doubt differ as a result. But no matter how bad any disease outbreak may get, responding in ways that are not supported by science is never the right thing to do." (bolding mine)

I'm sure there are some scientists and public health experts that do not support flattening the curve, but they are not exactly coming out of the woodwork.  

The article goes on to say, "We can expect pressure for counterproductive responses. Most panicky responses to disease outbreaks, according to epidemiologists and other experts, only make things worse. In particular, law enforcement-type approaches to stopping the spread of communicable disease such as forced treatment and large-scale quarantine are, as three preeminent public health experts put it, “generally acknowledged by experts to be either completely ineffective or only potentially marginally effective” in slowing the spread of disease." (bolding mine)

Again, in this current situation I am not seeing a flood of experts chiming in to say that shelter in place orders will be "completely ineffective".  I don't think anyone is arguing that they are expensive and disruptive and have other consequences, but I think most experts are agreeing that they are effective at slowing the spread and mitigating the death toll of the disease...certainly the data coming out of other countries backs them up on that.

So what I am reading from the article is that as long as science and preeminent public health experts are supporting shelter in place orders, then the ACLU agrees that they are necessary and legal.  As they put it in the article, "We at the ACLU have always acknowledged that civil liberties must sometimes give way when it comes to fighting a communicable disease — but only in ways that are scientifically justified."

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

Hey! Remember when they wanted to quarantine people with AIDS?  History has been super kind to that idea. 

https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1560&context=hlr

My 13 year old was just talking to me about this today, as his 20th Century class just reached the 80s. (Don't get excited! It was a Zoom meeting!)

Edited by SamanthaCarter
Link to post
Share on other sites

quarantine orders are hardly new.  I remember quarantine orders for families where someone had the measles prior to widespread vax for it.

just watched TOGO last night - they had quarantine notices posted on various shops in Nome warning of diptheria.  that was 1925.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Frances said:

As for #3, just make sure you and all the people getting together to pray agree not to get any medical care if you or any family members contract the virus, so as not to continue to endanger the healthcare workers risking their lives and the lives of the their family members. That’s the moral thing to do. As for pious, I have no idea if that applies to this particular group or not. But smart, informed, and caring certainly do. And moral and not selfish. 

Frances, I think you're misunderstanding me, and I think that's a combination of (1) I'm posting more bluntly and heatedly than I ought (I blame weeks of quarantine plus my own tendencies to type without reflecting; (2) things can sound sarcastic and ironic on the internet when they aren't (and vice versa); and (3) as I mentioned above, there seem to be two sides forming and I don't find myself on either but I'm coming across as being on one of them.

I'm not offering to get together with anyone to pray: I was using that as an example of a clearly less hazardous activity -- one I wish I could still enjoy -- than the photos of crowds outside cannabis stores in California.

I agree with your characterization of the nuns. I was using "pious" in its straightforward, literal, and positive sense. They did the right thing, without being forced. 

(Clearly I'm not doing such a good job of not posting anymore on this thread.)

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

misguided religious spite

I regret to hear that I sound spiteful; I'm not conscious of any spite. I don't think of "bitter" and "spiteful" as the same thing; the former seems reasonable in the circumstances. At any rate I don't think I disagree with you on the points at issue.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

But hey- y'all hand over the rights. Go ahead. And then cry when you see what they do to people and it's too late. Anyone bothered to ask about the due process for the migrants in detention on the border about all of this lately? No? I guess they ceased to exist the minute shit got real, huh? 

Actually, yes.  Have been calling and writing and asking people about due process for migrants and how vulnerable they are to this virus in detention, since, well, October 2018?  Never stopped, but started raising the issue of covid 19 in phone calls in early February.  They're especially vulnerable and particularly unable to social distance.  

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Texan, why are you linking all these articles about quarantine? Most of these are referring to the right of the government to hold individuals against their will, or to cordon off geographic areas and allow no one to enter or leave. That is not happening! None of the articles you are linking say that what is happening right now is a violation of anyone's rights.

With one of the articles you linked, you clearly misrepresented it by including a quote about how we need "newer, more creative legal tools," as if they were saying that we should not close down businesses and tell people to stay home. But right above the quote you carefully selected, it says "With community transmission occurring in several parts of the United States, it is time to recognize that travel bans and mandatory quarantines alone cannot end the outbreak" — i.e. we need additional measures, not to eliminate what we are already doing. That article goes on to say that "flattening the curve is critical" and that in addition to what we are already doing we also need to make testing more accessible, provide financial help to those who cannot afford to lose their jobs, etc. Nowhere do they say that we should just reopen all businesses and send everyone back to work.

Edited by Corraleno
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

So wait, are you upset that they are forcing religious services to stop (you say no), or not? Cause you seem really upset about the whole idea of forcing places to close. 

This virus is spreading partly via people with no symptoms, via the air, and you seem to be sying there is no point in the closures, as long as people can go somewhere/anywhere. Which makes zero sense. 

And complaining about giving up rights. Which, given that my right to life is pretty important to me, seems to supersede the others right now. 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

This is it exactly. Questioning the limits of government is what this country is built upon. You can respect the restrictions in place, and still see the wisdom in questioning them. Questioning them doesn't mean that some aren't justified. But it does mean that they need to be justified, and by more than an emotional reaction that caters to frightened people. 

What's going to happen next flu season? And no- I am not saying that COVID 19 is the flu, let's not conflate. However, per CDC

So, 34,200 deaths. Well, if we look at those deaths as needing to all be prevented, why not justify these same measures every year? Where exactly do people draw the line and why, is what I cannot figure out. Why is this the straw?  Most people don't blink an eye over flu statistics every year. Nor do they bang down their representatives doors demanding that the FDA more aggressively push for the development of better vaccines. Nor do most donate money to the corporations trying to develop a wide spectrum flu shot. 

Right now experts are predicting possibly 100,000 deaths in the US, and that is WITH all the shut dowsn, stay in place, etc. 

Without, they predict many more. And that's without adding in the cost of hospitalization, and the long term, permanent lung damage many will have, putting them at, ironically, higher risk of dying of the flu as well. 

And that doesn't add in the deaths from other causes because hospitals are overwhelmed. 

Do you serious think we shouldn't shut stuff down and try to prevent that?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scarlett said:

There is definitely some politics to what gets closed and what doesn’t.  Personally I am happy to still get to pick up alcohol.... but it doesn’t make sense to me.  How in the world is that an essential business?  The thing is, they are allowed open because Walmart can sell wine and beer now and they can’t play favorites to wal mart.  

 
This is how I viewed it too. Same for pot stores that call themselves “pharmacies”.  
As for guns and ammo. I don’t agree with OK’s relatively new carry laws anyways and this was a good reason why I don’t.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

ARRRGGG.  Had a really long comment that just got lost.  

I think this is a super complicated question with no great answers, and I think people of good will can disagree.  On the one hand, shelter in place orders seem like the only way to prevent massive deaths and the destruction of the health care system.  On the other hand, economic and psychological ramifications are real and significant to individuals, businesses, and public health as well.  And also (a third hand?) of course we need to be thinking through the legal and ethical ramifications of the suspensions of rights.  This is a great opportunity for a power grab by people of any political party, and with the courts closed, it's a real risk.  I feel like at this point the modeling of a respiratory spread virus with asymptomatic spread and long incubation times merits pretty harsh measures, since the modeling (which is not perfect, because we're largely lacking knowledge about the virus) seems to indicate massive overwhelm of health care system and millions of deaths.  

I had a lot better response going that I'd spent 30 minutes on, but it got lost, and I'm not even going to try to re-create it at this point.  

  • Like 5
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

They actually are trying this- I believe RI has in the last 72 hours as well as other states now issuing mandatory quarantines for out of state people- they are setting up roadblocks and have Officers going door to door looking for out of state residents in some cases. 

Also, you left off the last sentence: "With Covid-19 in our communities, the time has come to imagine and implement public health laws that emphasize support rather than restriction.

But how to can that be done without adequate testing?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

So what if the models are off? And then what if the "next big thing" which there will be, they decide that they want even more stringent measures? Do you just say okay, and take their word for it? Why don't people think it is okay to question things? Why suddenly, of all the crap y'all have freaked about with Donald Trump for the last four years, is THIS the thing no one is questioning? I am sincerely asking because it makes no sense to me that a man, who the vast majority of you guys have been gleefully waiting to be impeached for the last four years for numerous reasons, are suddenly 👍with the whole scenario without even asking a single question to push back. What is making you take this at face value when previous decisions weren't? Explaining that would go a long way for me to understand where many of y'all are coming from. 

Maybe next time people will be wiser than to elect a completely incompetent, lying, narcissist, egomaniac bully. We now have the result of that collective decision. So because of that, we now all have to make sacrifices until things are under control and normal public health measures can be used. Honestly, that it’s come to this is not at all surprising to me. What did people think was going to happen when the majority of leaders in this country rolled over and played dead. There would be no consequences? 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

Just because the media you are consuming isn't playing them doesn't mean they aren't there. They ARE there. You just aren't looking in the right places. Fox News or whatever isn't probably the best place. Perhaps try the journals- that's where most of this gets argued out outside of the court room in the moment. 

And I'm sorry, but your bolded is proving the point. "Responding in ways not supported by science is never the right thing to do." Quarantines  as noted by THREE PREEMINENT PUBLIC HEALTH EXPERTS say "either completely ineffective or only potentially marginally effective". 

The fact that most of you think that localities don't regularly use quarantines on certain populations and for certain issues just shows the ignorance about the general usage. Just because it's typically in populations you find distasteful and don't care about doesn't mean they don't have rights and that it's not an ongoing constant see-saw of give and take- it's simply that the people it's pulled on usually have no agency. 

I gotta say I’m not completely sure I understand your position on the approach to this current pandemic but with my current understanding of your position I’m kind of glad you’re not in charge of it. I think I saw you say on one of the threads that you had explained your opinion about it but I missed it so I’m maybe not understanding what you mean. I would be grateful if you could link it or tell me which thread it was.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

...it makes no sense to me that a man, who the vast majority of you guys have been gleefully waiting to be impeached for the last four years for numerous reasons, are suddenly 👍with the whole scenario without even asking a single question to push back. What is making you take this at face value when previous decisions weren't? Explaining that would go a long way for me to understand where many of y'all are coming from. 

In all fairness, those folks ARE questioning Trump’s handling of this. Their lack of questioning is at least in part because people in power with whom they happen to agree (politically) are pushing for more drastic intervention. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh goodness.  This has nothing to do with which political figures we love or detest.  This has nothing to do with Ebola or AIDS or TB.  This is about whether an airborne SARS virus that takes two weeks to show symptoms and two weeks on a ventilator to know if they will live or die should be contained so only a hundred or two hundred thousand people die or whether we should just all go about our business (for the sake of the economy of course), let it kill 4 million and completely decimate our healthcare system. 

We all know you argued fervently in the other thread that you don't care about who dies, you want freedom.  You want to argue that's more ethical because this may or may not lead to communism or economic collapse and kill even more people so be it.  But let's not pretend that this has anything to do with any of the legal stuff you post about other diseases that are either much less contagious or that have a vaccine. They don't.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

So devil's advocate: what if it delays the vote in November? What if that can be justified on these same exact public health measures? Is that going to be the straw, or are people just going to be "okay!" 

Not okay with me for sure. Although at this point I have little faith my fellow citizens will actually make a better decision than last time. Vote by mail would certainly help and my senator is advocating for it nationally.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SamanthaCarter said:

In all fairness, those folks ARE questioning Trump’s handling of this. Their lack of questioning is at least in part because people in power with whom they happen to agree (politically) are pushing for more drastic intervention. 

Because the feds missed the chance for less drastic intervention. And many of the leaders pushing for more drastic intervention have the most cases and deaths in their states and are now seeing healthcare workers infected and dying. We lost our chance at less drastic, normal public health measures due to the federal leadership or lack thereof.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

I've been wondering about Sweden, too.  I do wonder if their population density, which is significantly less than the United States's, is a protective factor?  Of course, both Sweden and the US are not even in their population density and have areas of essentially no people per square mile and areas with much higher density.  

I also have no idea if that's a relevant factor.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

Well, withholding the testing sure seems to have concentrated some power here in the US, hasn't it? 

There sure seem to be some countries that are proceeding with minimal interruptions- tell people to wear a mask all the time- and are still functioning not at a standstill. Sweden for one. Guess we will get to see. 

So why haven’t we tried that? I all for it and have been advocating for people to advocate for it wherever they can, including my mom’s senior complex and my husband’s place of work. 
 

Germany has implemented rapid antibody testing and is putting people back to work after they are certified. Lots we could learn from other countries, but I have no faith the feds will do it.

Edited by Frances
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

So what if the models are off? And then what if the "next big thing" which there will be, they decide that they want even more stringent measures? Do you just say okay, and take their word for it? Why don't people think it is okay to question things? Why suddenly, of all the crap y'all have freaked about with Donald Trump for the last four years, is THIS the thing no one is questioning? I am sincerely asking because it makes no sense to me that a man, who the vast majority of you guys have been gleefully waiting to be impeached for the last four years for numerous reasons, are suddenly 👍with the whole scenario without even asking a single question to push back. What is making you take this at face value when previous decisions weren't? Explaining that would go a long way for me to understand where many of y'all are coming from. 

The restrictions and business closings have been ordered by governors, not Trump. The federal response has been an utterly incompetent shitshow from day 1, and even three months into a pandemic that we saw coming and knew we were unprepared for, we still do not have adequate testing or PPE, which are prerequisites for even thinking about being able to "reopen" the country. States with governors who are presidential allies, like FL, are getting everything they ask for and more, while states with governors that failed to express sufficient praise and "appreciation" are getting only a small fraction of what they request, if that. I don't see any contradiction at all between being in favor of measures that will save lives and being opposed to the policies of the current POTUS. That's entirely consistent IMO.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

1) It's not SARS. But speaking of- I wasn't on the boards then. Were people screaming for a quarantine for SARS when that hit, seeing as it has a much higher fatality rate and they didn't know a whole lot about it's spread at the time either? 

2) I have never said I don't care who dies, so stop being hysterical and misrepresenting my words. There's a block button if I cause you distress.

Glad to know that rights have limitations in your eyes depending on whose are being affected by which disease. You're acting like they knew all of those things when they were in the thick of it. I guess it was okay to trample their rights at the time. Glad you feel that way. Guessing you're 👍with trampling the rights at the mosques as you mentioned in your OP as well. As long as the government can justify the threat (which, psst- they always try!) - who needs a lawyer or a defense or due process. 


It’s literally called SARS-COVD-2

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Frances said:

So why haven’t we tried that? I all for it and have been advocating for people to advocate for it wherever they can, including my mom’s senior complex and my husband’s place of work. 
 

Germany has implemented rapid antibody testing and is putting people back to work after they are certified. Lots we could learn from other countries, but I have no faith the feds will do it.

It seems to me like because we've lacked competent leadership at the national leadership, state and local officials are feeling like they have no alternative but to step in and issue these draconian stay at home orders.  The state and local officials can't get testing.  They can't do any of the things that might be less draconian but efficient, and so they're left with only the bluntest of instruments, but it's the only tool in their toolbox, because they don't have information or ability or legal right to do anything less.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SamanthaCarter said:

In all fairness, those folks ARE questioning Trump’s handling of this. Their lack of questioning is at least in part because people in power with whom they happen to agree (politically) are pushing for more drastic intervention. 

Nope. I disagree with pretty much every policy of Gov. DeWine, but I think he has done an admirable job handling this crisis, and I have seen effusive praise for his actions from both sides of the political aisle. OTOH, I've been seriously dismayed by the wimpy, indecisive behavior of my own governor, whose liberal politics I largely agree with. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

1) It's not SARS. But speaking of- I wasn't on the boards then. Were people screaming for a quarantine for SARS when that hit, seeing as it has a much higher fatality rate and they didn't know a whole lot about it's spread at the time either? 

2) I have never said I don't care who dies, so stop being hysterical and misrepresenting my words. There's a block button if I cause you distress.

Glad to know that rights have limitations in your eyes depending on whose are being affected by which disease. You're acting like they knew all of those things when they were in the thick of it. I guess it was okay to trample their rights at the time. Glad you feel that way. Guessing you're 👍with trampling the rights at the mosques as you mentioned in your OP as well. As long as the government can justify the threat (which, psst- they always try!) - who needs a lawyer or a defense or due process. 

 

1) The term all my friends in medicine or nursing are using is SARS-CoV-2.  So yes, it IS SARS.  I wasn't on the boards for the first round of SARS either but I was in nursing.  We were briefed about it but it wasn't in our area so no one in the circles I was familiar with were that nervous about it.

2) You did clearly say the vulnerable will die, implying it is fine to let them die because (possibly) damaging the economy will indirectly (possibly) kill others.  Yes, the duty of government to protect people DOES depend on the likelihood and severity of a particular disease. Are you honestly arguing something like Ebola is no different whatsoever than this infection?  I'm never okay with trampling rights, UNLESS it is to protect the rights of others.  You honestly do not see the difference between millions of citizens dying and losing hundreds of thousands of doctors and nurses vs these other, relatively slow and tiny epidemics you're discussing, that don't threaten to kill millions of people?  It's delusional.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

So what if the models are off? And then what if the "next big thing" which there will be, they decide that they want even more stringent measures? Do you just say okay, and take their word for it? Why don't people think it is okay to question things? Why suddenly, of all the crap y'all have freaked about with Donald Trump for the last four years, is THIS the thing no one is questioning? I am sincerely asking because it makes no sense to me that a man, who the vast majority of you guys have been gleefully waiting to be impeached for the last four years for numerous reasons, are suddenly 👍with the whole scenario without even asking a single question to push back. What is making you take this at face value when previous decisions weren't? Explaining that would go a long way for me to understand where many of y'all are coming from. 

What? What person who disliked Trump before suddenly likes him now? I'm not agreeing with HIM (he doesn't even know the name of the virus or what it is), I'm agreeing with multiple mulitple health experts. I have ZERO interest in taking anything Trump says at face value. 

16 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

I don't know if you're talking to me or not. But let's look at the churches. How come I can go on the subway (I know, essential!) and not have to follow distancing, but I can't go to church if they enacted the same measures as my local grocery store does, with people at 6 foot intervals? Why is the dry cleaner essential? Why is the car wash essential, but the church isn't? These are issues that have to do with consistency- one of which the most scared is right to assemble. They didn't even give the churches a chance to address this. They just closed them down here. How is that okay? 

Conversely, why is it okay to keep public transportation running when it's a known reservoir for disease transmission, it's putting the health of the workers at risk, and it's a risk to the riders, and they don't even have to operate under any level of SD? Doesn't that seem to be a threat to the public health as well? 

This has been explained .Because people can't get to food, doctors, etc without public transportation. People SHOULD distance on their too. Laundry facilities are considered a matter of hygiene, especially in a pandemic. And the measures at the grocery store are NOT enough to totally prevent spread, but are allowed to be open becaues people not eating won't work. People can give up assembling at church. they can't give up eating. And given that a percentage of peoplehave to go buy groceries, and possibly ride the subway to do it, it would be ridiculous to then allow those same people, now potentially carriers, to go hang out at a church together. Or anywhere else. 

5 minutes ago, Frances said:

So why haven’t we tried that? I all for it and have been advocating for people to advocate for it wherever they can, including my mom’s senior complex and my husband’s place of work. 

Partly because there simply are not enough masks. 

4 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

1) It's not SARS.

It is ONE of the SARS viruses. 

3 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

The restrictions and business closings have been ordered by governors, not Trump. The federal response has been an utterly incompetent shitshow from day 1, and even three months into a pandemic that we saw coming and knew we were unprepared for, we still do not have adequate testing or PPE, which are prerequisites for even thinking about being able to "reopen" the country. States with governors who are presidential allies, like FL, are getting everything they ask for and more, while states with governors that failed to express sufficient praise and "appreciation" are getting only a small fraction of what they request, if that. I don't see any contradiction at all between being in favor of measures that will save lives and being opposed to the policies of the current POTUS. That's entirely consistent IMO.

If it makes you feel better, even with the governors butt kissing, we still don't have anywhere NEAR enough tests or resources. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

What are you talking about? I think it's pretty well understood that when people say SARS they are discussing the previous epidemic and when people say COVID 19 they are discussing the current pandemic. We don't all have to sound like pretentious asses writing out the full name for everything every post. 


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32207910/

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

What are you talking about? I think it's pretty well understood that when people say SARS they are discussing the previous epidemic and when people say COVID 19 they are discussing the current pandemic. We don't all have to sound like pretentious asses writing out the full name for everything every post. 

 

Maybe you should spend some time googling this.  You are flat-out wrong.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

So then the question is, how long do you put up with the incompetence and the blunt instrument. Because incompetency can linger for a very long time- and like I said- election year. Sort of a huge deal, whichever side of the aisle you are on. If they're going to change the election system that sort of needs to be underway NOW. But no one is even talking about it. I'm hearing some estimates that this is going to go into June or July, and then the possible see-sawing shut downs. There is no way that's not going to affect US elections. 

That is the million dollar, terrifying question.  I know Virginia Democratic party is trying to get voting changed to vote by mail, so I think that work is underway.  I assume it's underway in other states too, but I don't know for sure.  People ARE talking about it, but it's not getting huge press, I guess because that kind of work is pretty boring?  

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Frances said:

So why haven’t we tried that? I all for it and have been advocating for people to advocate for it wherever they can, including my mom’s senior complex and my husband’s place of work. 

We don't have remotely enough masks even for health care providers, let alone the general public, and we still have barely enough tests just for testing those with the most severe symptoms. If we had had adequate stocks of PPE and the capacity for aggressive testing and contact tracing, we wouldn't be in nearly as much of a mess right now.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

Because it isn't a church by church decision, and if you allow the tiny parish with only 20 attendees to come in the giant megachurch will meet too. Because people are dumb. 

Given that we have evidence it likely is being spread in the air, not to mention on doorknobs, etc, how would you be assured you were not giving it to those little old ladies? Or a priest? Or that they then don't give it to others?

If we COULD stop letting people be in crowds any where, including grocery stores, that would be even better. But given that people need to eat, we can't. And since they seem to dumb to grocery shop without being smart about it, I don't imagine the masses are any better at worshipping together safely. Less contacts is better than more. None isn't possible, so less is better. 

Note that the pp didn't say grocery stores 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

This disease is surely acknowledged to cause a sudden acute respiratory system failure as a result of a Coronavirus discovered in 2019. Have I missed anything?

Edited by Sneezyone
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kdsuomi said:

What's funny to me is that we aren't even advocating for going against the orders. We're just saying that there's another view and that's OK. There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying that we should maybe consider handing over all of our rights to the government to curtail isn't a good thing.  Some denominations and churches teach that baptism is absolutely 100% required for salvation, and many states have banned that from occurring, and that should concern people. Why is it only OK for rights to be taken away in certain cases? It isn't.

Baptism only needs two people and it’s happening here 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

Dry cleaning? Not really essential. Laundromat- maybe. 

But why are you so okay with giving up church and synagogue and mosque? Why isn't that *essential* to the people of those faiths? Sorry Muslims- you can shove it? 

Seriously? Because it is entirely possible to live without going to church. That is why. Christians all over the globe have had to give up mass gatherings at various times, and the religion survived. It will again. This is one cross to carry, sure. But sacrifice for others is sort of the entire point of Christianity, so I cannot see someone complaining about having to actually do so after giving the idea lip service for years. If churches are going to say they no longer are willing to sacrifice for the sake of the least of these, they better tear down their crosses first, and start tearing out some major parts of the Bibles in their pews. 

And many dry cleaners if not most also do regular laundry, not just dry cleaning. And people who are say, working in the government, or hospitals, and such that wear clothes that are dry clean only can't just run out and get non dry clean only clothes since the clothing stores are closed. But I don't want them showing up to their jobs wearing clothes they've been wearing for weeks without having been cleaned. 

 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...