Jump to content

Menu

Shelter in Place order, part 2


Recommended Posts

I'd love input from the hive lawn chair legal experts. Our order just got extended and this time, instead of putting an end date on the order, it just says "until further notice." Something just smacks of illegality about that. Can they really issue orders with no time frame?

Also just saw this video about emergency orders in CA and I gotta say, what she's saying makes some sense to me. It just makes me wonder how much these orders are Kosher.

Personally, I do want people to SD and wear masks and not be cavalier but I also really wonder about the legality of everything. Can we trace everything back to Jacobson v Mass or are there other steps that the gov is supposed to be taking?

ETA: I took a look at the code and unless I'm missing something, I guess the orders don't have to have an end date, but I don't like that.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&division=105.&title=&part=1.&chapter=2.&article=

Also, this is an alarming phrase:   

Upon being informed by a health officer of any contagious, infectious, or communicable disease the department may take measures as are necessary to ascertain the nature of the disease and prevent its spread. To that end, the department may, if it considers it proper, take possession or control of the body of any living person, or the corpse of any deceased person.

 

Edited by sassenach
  • Like 1
  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That was the sentence that made me saddest of that whole article, too 😞. Some Christians are losing sight of what Christianity is about. And that’s not it. It’s not supposed to be all about us. 

That's exactly what our pastor said.  We don't want our church to be responsible for spreading the illness when we can easily stream services and meet in small groups via Zoom.  Eventually, we'll meet

It really doesn't matter if it was a church or a business that filed. If the governor needs the approval of the legislature to extend their emergency powers, then the governor needs to get that approv

Posted Images

Down here in SoCal, ours was changed to "until further notice" a few weeks ago. Then last week, out of the blue, the mask order was suddenly changed to recommended but not mandatory. A neighboring county dropped masks as well as social distancing orders. 

 

ETA: Going to watch video now

 

 

Edited by AbcdeDooDah
Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually have always thought of this as ‘until further notice’.  There is nothing to make the deadlines work specifically.  Each deadline so far has been a stop gap.  It makes planning a lot easier to think of the deadline as more or less indefinite.  

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I actually have always thought of this as ‘until further notice’.  There is nothing to make the deadlines work specifically.  Each deadline so far has been a stop gap.  It makes planning a lot easier to think of the deadline as more or less indefinite.  

Even when they're perpetually extending them, at least an end date forces an action point that they have to justify. IDK, I'm just feeling salty about everything right now.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

We live in Oregon and a judged ruled today that our governor's stay at home order is immediately and effectively null and void today because she didn't have her emergency orders approved by the legislature following 28 days as per OR constitution. 

She, our governor, will be taking it to the OR supreme court. 

So, in answer to your question, yes, it could be unconstitutional.

https://ktvz.com/news/coronavirus/2020/05/18/baker-county-judge-tosses-out-gov-browns-coronavirus-restrictions/

Edited by IfIOnly
  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sassenach said:

Even when they're perpetually extending them, at least an end date forces an action point that they have to justify. IDK, I'm just feeling salty about everything right now.

I guess so, but they really are not all that helpful I think.

For instance, the local National Forest administration closed all ‘developed areas’ until 5/15 but kept trails open.  This has never made any sense to me.  How do you know what is a ‘developed area’ vs. a ‘trail’?  I mean, the trails are developed and marked.  So???  

And then, they literally waited until the day of the supposed opening to extend the closure until 5/31.  So folks were taking reservations for forest lodging and then had to cancel them.  The ones who just said, we are staying closed until further notice, were much less hassled.  The deadlines actually made it harder to plan.

I want to see Newsome show up with shaggy hair.  That’s my salty thought for the day.  Don’t tell me he is not getting his perfect trims every 3 weeks.  

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

In Oregon, emergency orders beyond a certain time length have to be ratified by the legislature. Oregon’s governor did not do that and today a judge in an eastern, rural county (heavily Republican) struck down the emergency orders. Ballsy, but I appreciate the use of legal structures to maintain the balance of power. 
 

I suspect a lot of other states are closely re-reading their own emergency powers acts today.

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

And I personally know one of the pastors Stephen Williams who brought the lawsuit. He absolutely wants to social distance and practice safety precautions. He is quoted in the article below and mentions as much.

https://ktvz.com/top-stories/2020/05/08/churches-sue-gov-brown-over-oregon-coronavirus-restrictions/

"“All the pastors I’m aware of want to be safe," he said. "(They) want to practice church responsibly, but they want to be involved in the process and be allowed to meet and take responsibility and practice social distancing.”

Edited by IfIOnly
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sassenach said:

 

ETA: I took a look at the code and unless I'm missing something, I guess the orders don't have to have an end date, but I don't like that.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&division=105.&title=&part=1.&chapter=2.&article=

 

 

Yeah, not liking something is very different from it being illegal. The correct process if one doesn't like something is to change the laws. (I get it, there are laws I don't like, trust me, lol)

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, IfIOnly said:

And I personally know one of the pastors Stephen Williams who brought the lawsuit. He absolutely wants to social distance and practice safety precautions. He is quoted in the article below and mentions as much.

https://ktvz.com/top-stories/2020/05/08/churches-sue-gov-brown-over-oregon-coronavirus-restrictions/

"“All the pastors I’m aware of want to be safe," he said. "(They) want to practice church responsibly, but they want to be involved in the process and be allowed to meet and take responsibility and practice social distancing.”

 

Baker county on the eEast, low population side of state, has only had 1 confirmed case, afaik. . It seems like they ought to be allowed to move quickly through reopening regardless of State Constitutional aspects of the Stay Home order. 

I am not so sure that a judge in Baker County should have made a decision that would change what is being done on the west , more populated, side of the Cascades, or even in Deschutes County (Bend) where there have been over 100 confirmed cases and a return to exponential growth might be much easier to happen with a sudden relaxation of rules.  The Church pastors may be cautious.  But will the bars? Will the tattoo parlors?  Will the pot shops?  Will the county fairs? Teens hanging out at malls? And that’s the area where I think one of the calls for community mask making because health care workers did not have enough has been a big thing.   It is where the pattern I saw for St Charles mask came from. 

 

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

I'd love input from the hive lawn chair legal experts. Our order just got extended and this time, instead of putting an end date on the order, it just says "until further notice." Something just smacks of illegality about that. Can they really issue orders with no time frame?

Also just saw this video about emergency orders in CA and I gotta say, what she's saying makes some sense to me. It just makes me wonder how much these orders are Kosher.

Personally, I do want people to SD and wear masks and not be cavalier but I also really wonder about the legality of everything. Can we trace everything back to Jacobson v Mass or are there other steps that the gov is supposed to be taking?

ETA: I took a look at the code and unless I'm missing something, I guess the orders don't have to have an end date, but I don't like that.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&division=105.&title=&part=1.&chapter=2.&article=

Also, this is an alarming phrase:   

Upon being informed by a health officer of any contagious, infectious, or communicable disease the department may take measures as are necessary to ascertain the nature of the disease and prevent its spread. To that end, the department may, if it considers it proper, take possession or control of the body of any living person, or the corpse of any deceased person.

 

 

Yep.  Some of that is concerning in terms of civil rights. 

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

I'd love input from the hive lawn chair legal experts. Our order just got extended and this time, instead of putting an end date on the order, it just says "until further notice." Something just smacks of illegality about that. Can they really issue orders with no time frame?

Also just saw this video about emergency orders in CA and I gotta say, what she's saying makes some sense to me. It just makes me wonder how much these orders are Kosher.

Personally, I do want people to SD and wear masks and not be cavalier but I also really wonder about the legality of everything. Can we trace everything back to Jacobson v Mass or are there other steps that the gov is supposed to be taking?

ETA: I took a look at the code and unless I'm missing something, I guess the orders don't have to have an end date, but I don't like that.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&division=105.&title=&part=1.&chapter=2.&article=

Also, this is an alarming phrase:   

Upon being informed by a health officer of any contagious, infectious, or communicable disease the department may take measures as are necessary to ascertain the nature of the disease and prevent its spread. To that end, the department may, if it considers it proper, take possession or control of the body of any living person, or the corpse of any deceased person.

 

I’m not a legal expert but I’m much prefer orders with an end date.  I don’t like open ended things.  We’ve had the opposite here where they are opening up before the end date of the orders because case numbers are so low and the economy needs fixing.

re the take possession thing I assume they are talking about quarantine but the wording is weird 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Yeah, not liking something is very different from it being illegal. The correct process if one doesn't like something is to change the laws. (I get it, there are laws I don't like, trust me, lol)

Yeah, I know.

I don't think our Ca State of Emergency is operating legally at this point. It expired after 60 days and the legislature hasn't extended it but no one seems to have noticed. It sounds like this was the basis of the Oregon lawsuit, as well. I don't care what's going on, the government needs to follow the laws that they wrote and I'm happy that citizens are forcing the issue.

As for our local order, you are correct, I don't have to like it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

Yep.  Some of that is concerning in terms of civil rights. 

I agree it sounds really alarming, but I can see the need to have such laws on the books. Let’s say a new virus emerged which was as contagious as measles and had a 100% fatality rate within three days. There would no doubt be people even in that circumstance who would be up in arms about forced quarantine being against their civil rights, and we would need some kind of extreme emergency law like the above to prevent the thing from wiping out the entire country. 

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

 

Also, this is an alarming phrase:   

Upon being informed by a health officer of any contagious, infectious, or communicable disease the department may take measures as are necessary to ascertain the nature of the disease and prevent its spread. To that end, the department may, if it considers it proper, take possession or control of the body of any living person, or the corpse of any deceased person.

 

It's more alarming to me to think about how to control the huge numbers of people who already have no regard for laws and/or are not in their right minds because of mental illness/drugs/alcohol.   I'm not in CA but I also live in a place with many of these people who aren't going to care if they spread coronavirus, hepatitis, etc. to the general public.   

The local health dept. workers have been providing free beer and cigarettes to the homeless people in a quarantine facility to try to keep them from leaving. ( For awhile they were also giving them edible marijuana products but stopped doing that since it was decided that there aren't such severe withdrawl symptoms.)  It seems like there should be some law to keep people in quarantine if they won't cooperate.  

How do you protect the public from contagious people like this?   What if they're pushing a dead body around in a shopping cart and don't want to give up the dead person?   (It's hard enough to deal with people like this as well as some crusading lawyer representing them when there isn't a pandemic...)

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IfIOnly said:

And I personally know one of the pastors Stephen Williams who brought the lawsuit. He absolutely wants to social distance and practice safety precautions. He is quoted in the article below and mentions as much.

https://ktvz.com/top-stories/2020/05/08/churches-sue-gov-brown-over-oregon-coronavirus-restrictions/

"“All the pastors I’m aware of want to be safe," he said. "(They) want to practice church responsibly, but they want to be involved in the process and be allowed to meet and take responsibility and practice social distancing.”

Given the 400+ person plus church service that was held at the Capitol over the weekend with very few masks, little to no social distancing, and lots of hand holding, there are at least some pastors in OR who don’t want to follow guidelines. And that was in the county with the highest number of cases per capita.
 

As the lawyer who brought the suit said, it’s our choice if we want to go to church and risk our lives because if we die we are going to heaven. Of course he didn’t bother to think of all the people not attending church who could later be sickened by church attendees, including healthcare workers.

https://www.salemreporter.com/posts/2396/photos-sunday-service-at-the-capitol-presses-for-right-to-gather-worship
 

https://www.oregonlive.com/coronavirus/2020/05/judge-finds-oregon-governors-coronavirus-restrictions-on-religious-gatherings-null-and-void-governor-to-seek-state-supreme-court-review.html

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Frances said:

 

As the lawyer who brought the suit said, it’s our choice if we want to go to church and risk our lives because if we die we are going to heaven.

That was the sentence that made me saddest of that whole article, too 😞. Some Christians are losing sight of what Christianity is about. And that’s not it. It’s not supposed to be all about us. 

  • Like 10
  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pen said:

 

Baker county on the eEast, low population side of state, has only had 1 confirmed case, afaik. . It seems like they ought to be allowed to move quickly through reopening regardless of State Constitutional aspects of the Stay Home order. 

I am not so sure that a judge in Baker County should have made a decision that would change what is being done on the west , more populated, side of the Cascades, or even in Deschutes County (Bend) where there have been over 100 confirmed cases and a return to exponential growth might be much easier to happen with a sudden relaxation of rules.  The Church pastors may be cautious.  But will the bars? Will the tattoo parlors?  Will the pot shops?  Will the county fairs? Teens hanging out at malls? And that’s the area where I think one of the calls for community mask making because health care workers did not have enough has been a big thing.   It is where the pattern I saw for St Charles mask came from. 

 

We already know some church pastors in OR aren’t being cautious. The outdoor hug fest at a church in my city last weekend is one example. Another was the large church service at the Capitol this weekend with few masks and little to no social distancing. And just to be clear to those not from the state, churches could hold services prior to the ruling. But they needed to follow social distancing guidelines and limit services to 25 people, just as all gatherings were limited to that size. I understand that is not easy to do and meet the needs of all members, but it was allowed.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kand said:

It’s not supposed to be all about us. 

That's exactly what our pastor said.  We don't want our church to be responsible for spreading the illness when we can easily stream services and meet in small groups via Zoom.  Eventually, we'll meet in person again, but not yet.  

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, klmama said:

That's exactly what our pastor said.  We don't want our church to be responsible for spreading the illness when we can easily stream services and meet in small groups via Zoom.  Eventually, we'll meet in person again, but not yet.  

Yeah. When we’re told to go forth and spread the gospel, that’s definitely not what He meant. Pretty sure this is having  the opposite effect right now. Well I miss corporate worship as much as the next person, I don’t even think corporate worship is anywhere among the top things we’re called to do. I also think that “whenever two or more of you are gather in my name” surely applies to Zoom 😊

Edited by kand
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, kand said:

That was the sentence that made me saddest of that whole article, too 😞. Some Christians are losing sight of what Christianity is about. And that’s not it. It’s not supposed to be all about us. 

No, it isn't.  This drives me crazy.  It's ALL about other people, not us.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Michigan has a court case pending a ruling now on this exact issue.  Governor extended the emergency orders, legislature says that is above her powers.   Likely heading to the Michigan supreme court.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that this is going to come down to really nitty gritty, state level case law and constitutional law. So I don't think the lawn chair legal experts are going to really know. This seems like it's going to be state level and very specific.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Frances said:

Given the 400+ person plus church service that was held at the Capitol over the weekend with very few masks, little to no social distancing, and lots of hand holding, there are at least some pastors in OR who don’t want to follow guidelines. And that was in the county with the highest number of cases per capita.
 

As the lawyer who brought the suit said, it’s our choice if we want to go to church and risk our lives because if we die we are going to heaven. Of course he didn’t bother to think of all the people not attending church who could later be sickened by church attendees, including healthcare workers.

Or maybe he considers such people to be damned because they don’t worship in his own denomination and thus doesn’t care?

I wonder where right to worship at own church moves into something that is considered a sin like suicide or murder. 

 

1 hour ago, Frances said:

 

It sounds like the plaintiffs forum shopped to Baker County. And if the churches represented had few enough congregants such that they could have met anyway, I wonder if on appeal they will be found to have Standing to sue.   Lawn chair: Higher court may find there isn’t Standing, and by time it gets heard again, most of state may be in phase 2 or 3 with even bigger gatherings allowed so that it is Moot. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pen said:

 

Yep.  Some of that is concerning in terms of civil rights. 

 

5 hours ago, sassenach said:

I'd love input from the hive lawn chair legal experts. Our order just got extended and this time, instead of putting an end date on the order, it just says "until further notice." Something just smacks of illegality about that. Can they really issue orders with no time frame?

Also just saw this video about emergency orders in CA and I gotta say, what she's saying makes some sense to me. It just makes me wonder how much these orders are Kosher.

Personally, I do want people to SD and wear masks and not be cavalier but I also really wonder about the legality of everything. Can we trace everything back to Jacobson v Mass or are there other steps that the gov is supposed to be taking?

ETA: I took a look at the code and unless I'm missing something, I guess the orders don't have to have an end date, but I don't like that.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&division=105.&title=&part=1.&chapter=2.&article=

Also, this is an alarming phrase:   

Upon being informed by a health officer of any contagious, infectious, or communicable disease the department may take measures as are necessary to ascertain the nature of the disease and prevent its spread. To that end, the department may, if it considers it proper, take possession or control of the body of any living person, or the corpse of any deceased person.

 

Didn’t we see videos out of China of them taking control and possession of living people?  Dragging them down halls from apartments and shoving them into vehicles?  Not sure I’d like living somewhere that is okay with that. 😳

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

So the Oregon supreme court temporarily reinstated the governor's mandates until it can go to court. I don't have a problem with that or the mandates and opening plan. I might feel differently if we had no dates or set plan like some of you all. I do like seeing the checks and balances at play though. Good for all.

We live in an area with 200,000 people and our county applied ASAP to receive permission to enter phase one of opening. We were approved. Since I'm not a shelter in place til there's a vax vote, we've been more than ready to open up. In fact, most of Oregon has been. Being a business owner, I'm more sympathetic to businesses than churches if I'm honest. 

 

St Charles has been fully masked and redirecting donations to other members of the community for some time now. 

Screenshot_20200518-212540.png

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

See now I disagree firmly with this.  Because the church requiring communal worship and fellowship and service to one another IS about the church.  And explicit biblically in the command to meet together.

I think there is a lot of leeway in emergencies and in temporarily separating because of the Governing Authorities, but that is not the ONLY consideration at play.  Neither is caring for potentially vulnerable congregation members.  The concerns of the church and ability to meet IS a concern of the elders as well as every church member.  There is not one demographic or need that rules them all in perpetuity, it’s a balance of their entire flock.  And the longer this goes on, the more the difficulties in not physically meeting will stress and wear on the body.  For the health of the whole church, the end of this can’t just be indefinite months on end.  I’d say it’s already pushing it pretty hard for a lot of areas. And I have multiple church friends sinking into despair and depression I’m praying for, who are suffering physically and psychologically for this. 
 

It’s not some straight up and down ‘this is the only godly way to do it and the church being concerned for itself is the Wrong Motive’.  Witnessing and caring for others outside the body is specifically to be done AFTER caring for our brethren and their needs in our church family.  This isn’t particularly unclear in scripture???

I know for a fact that some participants in the lawsuit care very, very much for their churches and the community. It's not a we-miss-social-gathering- superficial thing. It's much, much deeper and caring and loving than that. 

Edited by IfIOnly
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IfIOnly said:

So the Oregon supreme court temporarily reinstated the governor's mandates until it can go to court. I don't have a problem with that or the mandates and opening plan. I might feel differently if we had no dates or set plan like some of you all. I do like seeing the checks and balances at play though. Good for all.

We live in an area with 200,000 people and our county applied ASAP to receive permission to enter phase one of opening. We were approved. Since I'm not a shelter in place til there's a vax vote, we've been more than ready to open up. In fact, most of Oregon has been. Being a business owner, I'm more sympathetic to businesses than churches if I'm honest. 

 

St Charles has been fully masked and redirecting donations to other members of the community for some time now. 

Screenshot_20200518-212540.png

 

Afaik all counties but those around Portland area have been approved for, and have already entered phase 1.  ???

Many of the east side of Cascades counties though, it seems like they could probably go more quickly to phase 2 without a 2 week wait, while some of the west side ones, it looks like could use a little longer than the barest 2 weeks chance to make sure there’s not a surge. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, sassenach said:

I'd love input from the hive lawn chair legal experts. Our order just got extended and this time, instead of putting an end date on the order, it just says "until further notice." Something just smacks of illegality about that. Can they really issue orders with no time frame?

Also just saw this video about emergency orders in CA and I gotta say, what she's saying makes some sense to me. It just makes me wonder how much these orders are Kosher.

Personally, I do want people to SD and wear masks and not be cavalier but I also really wonder about the legality of everything. Can we trace everything back to Jacobson v Mass or are there other steps that the gov is supposed to be taking?

ETA: I took a look at the code and unless I'm missing something, I guess the orders don't have to have an end date, but I don't like that.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&division=105.&title=&part=1.&chapter=2.&article=

Also, this is an alarming phrase:   

Upon being informed by a health officer of any contagious, infectious, or communicable disease the department may take measures as are necessary to ascertain the nature of the disease and prevent its spread. To that end, the department may, if it considers it proper, take possession or control of the body of any living person, or the corpse of any deceased person.

 

 

I am finally getting a chance to see the video.

She is correct that Orange County has a department of health and that people in Orange County would be dealing with their county health department for many matters related to numerous issues including CV19.

She is ***incorrect*** in my lawn chair view,  that state and federal have no role.  It is much like there being an Orange County sheriff department as well as city of Orange, Anaheim, Costa Mesa, etc etc, police departments.   There is also a CHP, State Highway Patrol, there is also a Federal FBI.  Normally, one calls the local police department if there is one about police matters, or the local Sheriff about Sheriff matters (or police matters in absence of a local police dept).  (But that does not mean that State Police, FBI, ATF, etc do not exist, nor have a role in law enforcement.  And similarly the local county health department does not negate state and Federal jurisdictions over public health as well as the local entity’s)

She is also incorrect in my lawn chair view that Covid -19 is not an epidemic.     I did not go on beyond that assertion.

 

(She reminds me of some of my John Burch Society school teachers. John Burch was big in Orange County. I don’t know if it still is. )

 

Edited by Pen
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, matrips said:

 

Didn’t we see videos out of China of them taking control and possession of living people?  Dragging them down halls from apartments and shoving them into vehicles?  Not sure I’d like living somewhere that is okay with that. 😳

Well we do that with criminals already.  I guess it comes down to whether quarantine is enforceable.  If it’s not enforceable you will have a percentage of people who will continue to go around sick.  Or at least we did in Aus before the started doing police checks on people who were self isolating and had armed guards at the hotels.  It seems pretty shocking that we did that but we had people catching public transport who were meant to be in quarantine.  The alternative is fines or other penalties.  Or you just consider quarantine requests as a polite order and if people choose to ignore it they can.  The level of response justified probably depends on the severity of the disease.  If someone’s breaching quarantine with something like say Ebola it seems different to something more mild.

in China they went the next step and tried to assess everyone in Wuhan to try to really knock it on its head I guess with the goal of ending lockdowns and reopening factories.  This meant a lot of forcible quarantine. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Well we do that with criminals already.  I guess it comes down to whether quarantine is enforceable.  If it’s not enforceable you will have a percentage of people who will continue to go around sick.  Or at least we did in Aus before the started doing police checks on people who were self isolating and had armed guards at the hotels.  It seems pretty shocking that we did that but we had people catching public transport who were meant to be in quarantine.  The alternative is fines or other penalties.  Or you just consider quarantine requests as a polite order and if people choose to ignore it they can.  The level of response justified probably depends on the severity of the disease.  If someone’s breaching quarantine with something like say Ebola it seems different to something more mild.

in China they went the next step and tried to assess everyone in Wuhan to try to really knock it on its head I guess with the goal of ending lockdowns and reopening factories.  This meant a lot of forcible quarantine. 

 

2 hours ago, matrips said:

 

Didn’t we see videos out of China of them taking control and possession of living people?  Dragging them down halls from apartments and shoving them into vehicles?  Not sure I’d like living somewhere that is okay with that. 😳

 

The videos of people in China being dragged out of apartments were mostly supposed to have been people who broke voluntary quarantine at home.  

(Though also might have been some journalists and others who they wanted out of the way regardless of whether even sick.) 

 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Pen said:

 

 

The videos of people in China being dragged out of apartments were mostly supposed to have been people who broke voluntary quarantine at home.  

(Though also might have been some journalists and others who they wanted out of the way regardless of whether even sick.) 

 

Yes.  I think the most concerning part is the potential for abuse in terms of designating people sick as a way to forcibly quarantine them if they aren’t really.  It could possibly be a work around where the person has the right to call a doctor of their choice to appeal if they think quarantine is not required or something.  I’m not sure exactly  how that would work but I can imagine some kind of work around possibly.  It’s worth thinking about though rather than handing over open ended powers like that.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

Afaik all counties but those around Portland area have been approved for, and have already entered phase 1.  ???

Many of the east side of Cascades counties though, it seems like they could probably go more quickly to phase 2 without a 2 week wait, while some of the west side ones, it looks like could use a little longer than the barest 2 weeks chance to make sure there’s not a surge. 

We could have opened up at least two weeks ago. When the stay at home benefits no longer outweight the risks and we're more suffering more from forced isolation and unemployment, suicides attempts shockingly high espcially in the under 20 population, drug use and ODs up locally, businesses sinking further into the red, etc., those weeks are freaking long and oppresive. I know someone whose addiction recovery group is not meeting (through a church), and he and his family has suffered through this state closure, but he does so well when he's able to be in-person in his weekly accountabilty meetings.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, sassenach said:

Also, this is an alarming phrase:   

Upon being informed by a health officer of any contagious, infectious, or communicable disease the department may take measures as are necessary to ascertain the nature of the disease and prevent its spread. To that end, the department may, if it considers it proper, take possession or control of the body of any living person, or the corpse of any deceased person.

 

Canadian here.  I would imagine most states have a law that allows public health officials to force involuntary quarantine and possibly even involuntary treatment of communicable disease.  Canadian provinces certainly do.  Involuntary detention and treatment for tuberculosis (ETA as a last resort when community-based more patient-centred strategies fail) has been ongoing for decades.  A little snippet from the Health Protection and Promotion Act of Ontario regarding communicable diseases:

"Under section 35, a judge may order the person who has failed to comply with the section 22 order of the MOH: 1) To be taken into custody and admitted to and detained in a hospital or other appropriate facility named in the order; 2) To be examined by a physician to ascertain whether or not the person is infected with an agent of a virulent disease; and 3) To be treated for the disease if found, on examination, to be infected with an agent of a virulent disease."

Though the terms "possess and control" do sound horror-movie-ish.

ETA - our emergency orders have all had end-dates, though they seem to be more like renew-by dates.  I think the intervals have been 2 weeks.  I agree that and end-date forces a government to have to justify renewing the order, and that that accountability is a good thing.

 

Edited by wathe
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

“Civil rights” can be a very broad term. I mean, MY rights to health and safety fit in there, right?

On the personal opinion end, I’ve felt that end dates have only added to some people’s frustrations. No matter how many caveats some governors have stressed, people have pinned their hopes on he calendar being the determiner of public health.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I actually have always thought of this as ‘until further notice’.  There is nothing to make the deadlines work specifically.  Each deadline so far has been a stop gap.  It makes planning a lot easier to think of the deadline as more or less indefinite.  

That’s how I always viewed the school closures. Never did I ever think the date the authorities were giving would be *the date* school would resume. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I wish I had some more details about exactly what all went on at this church (and the TN church). It says masks and alternate row seating, but I wonder about so much more: did they sing? Did they prohibit or ask people not to hug/shake hands, etc.? Was there Holy Communion and, if yes, how was it dispersed? 

I wonder if those who tested positive have an idea of specifically how the contracted it, for ex., would they say, “Yes, I hugged the pastor because I had missed him so much.” Or whatever. Or if it was just a non-specific exposure? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carrie12345 said:

“Civil rights” can be a very broad term. I mean, MY rights to health and safety fit in there, right?

On the personal opinion end, I’ve felt that end dates have only added to some people’s frustrations. No matter how many caveats some governors have stressed, people have pinned their hopes on he calendar being the determiner of public health.

These lawsuits are not over civil rights....at least in Michigan, it is over how much power does the governor have to declare an emergency.....and then make rules (like laws) all on her own without the legislature being involved.  Was she in her Michigan constitutional rights or not?   That is the question.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Arctic Mama said:

See now I disagree firmly with this.  Because the church requiring communal worship and fellowship and service to one another IS about the church.  And explicit biblically in the command to meet together.

I think there is a lot of leeway in emergencies and in temporarily separating because of the Governing Authorities, but that is not the ONLY consideration at play.  Neither is caring for potentially vulnerable congregation members.  The concerns of the church and ability to meet IS a concern of the elders as well as every church member.  There is not one demographic or need that rules them all in perpetuity, it’s a balance of their entire flock.  And the longer this goes on, the more the difficulties in not physically meeting will stress and wear on the body.  For the health of the whole church, the end of this can’t just be indefinite months on end.  I’d say it’s already pushing it pretty hard for a lot of areas. And I have multiple church friends sinking into despair and depression I’m praying for, who are suffering physically and psychologically for this. 
 

It’s not some straight up and down ‘this is the only godly way to do it and the church being concerned for itself is the Wrong Motive’.  Witnessing and caring for others outside the body is specifically to be done AFTER caring for our brethren and their needs in our church family.  This isn’t particularly unclear in scripture???

Yes, but does online service, zoom meetings, families meeting together, etc count as meeting together?

And I'd say that given the history of the church, a few months of not meeting is very minor....we have places that still can't meet in the open, where Christians never can attend group services, and yet we here complain that we have to do it via zoom or online or yes, even not at all, for a matter of months? As for caring for the church before caring for others, pretty sure the story of the good samaritan shows us that our "neighbor" is not just the people in our group, but everyone, including outsiders. And love thy neighbor, along with loving God, is the greatest commandment. 

Now, one could argue that in a lot of places, the greater love is serving spiritual needs, due to low risk of transmitting the virus. But in areas like the Texas church, or the California church, etc, I can't possibly see how it is loving your neighbor to hold services. The texas one linked, there have been almost 10,000 cases just in that county, and case numbers and deaths continue to rise! The oregon one - cases are highest in the state, etc. 

I get that not gathering in those kinds of circumstances is hard, I do. But Chrisitanity is hard, and we are told it will be. This may be the cross to bear right now. Having to meet via online services for a while is better than being cast into the lions den, or hung on a cross,  so, in comparison not so bad, lol? Seriously though, I think our nation, and our churches, really do need to be saying the hard things right now, and flat out talking about sacrifice for neighbors, taking up one's cross, etc. WAY more focus on the sacrificial nature of Christianity, rather than the drum beat about "our rights". Our national leaders have done a crap job of focusing on this kind of communal self sacrifice as well, and really, it is an idea lost to society in a lot of places. This is an "ask not what my country can do for me" moment. 

Jesus died on a cross for us, we can stay home in areas of high case numbers, you know?

(and I say that agreeing that in areas with very low numbers, and the ability to social distance, a willingness to go without communal singing for a while, etc, churches should be able to meet)

7 hours ago, IfIOnly said:

I know for a fact that some participants in the lawsuit care very, very much for their churches and the community. It's not a we-miss-social-gathering- superficial thing. It's much, much deeper and caring and loving than that. 

Loving toward whom? I get they want to meet the spiritual needs of their congregation, I do, but in areas like the place below, the best way to do that may be reaching out safely to point out that this is a chance to be like Jesus, to sacrifice for our brothers and sisters, to carry our cross with hope. To reach out and help connect people with various needs, etc. Not to bring hundreds together in an area with tens of thousands of cases, and rising numbers, in an enclosed space for an hour or more...basically exactly what we are finding is the greatest risk. 

4 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Harris County has the highest number of COVID-19 cases in Texas, with 9,635 cases in the county and city of Houston combined, according to the Harris County public health department. Texas has seen a steady rise in cases and fatalities since reopening....On Friday, bars and recreational facilities like bowling alleys will be permitted to reopen at up to 25% capacity, and restaurants will be allowed to increase their dine-in capacity to 50%.

  • Like 5
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Quill said:

I wish I had some more details about exactly what all went on at this church (and the TN church). It says masks and alternate row seating, but I wonder about so much more: did they sing? Did they prohibit or ask people not to hug/shake hands, etc.? Was there Holy Communion and, if yes, how was it dispersed? 

I wonder if those who tested positive have an idea of specifically how the contracted it, for ex., would they say, “Yes, I hugged the pastor because I had missed him so much.” Or whatever. Or if it was just a non-specific exposure? 

So far, from what I can tell, the cases in that church were not in the congregation, but in the religious community - aka religious order - that were living together in a communal home. So a group of religious (priests, nuns/sisters, monks, what have you) living in a house or building. Says there were 7 living there, 5 have tested positive, and I think it said 2 or 3 were involved in public Mass. We don't know yet if any of the congregation that came in contact with them at those services have tested positive. 

Also it is so odd to me that the priest died at home of pneumonia but was never tested earlier? He must have been symptomatic, if he progressed that far, why on earth didn't he get tested/treatment? I'd think that is a huge dereliction of duty by someone, either him or someone else - and is part of why I am having a REAL hard time trusting the church leaders to do the right thing! This man was symptomatic, living with other people, saying mass to over a hundred people, and never got tested, nor isolated himself!

GRRRRRR! This is why we can't have nice things!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carrie12345 said:

“Civil rights” can be a very broad term. I mean, MY rights to health and safety fit in there, right?

On the personal opinion end, I’ve felt that end dates have only added to some people’s frustrations. No matter how many caveats some governors have stressed, people have pinned their hopes on he calendar being the determiner of public health.

I think that’s true for a lot of people - a four weeks end date makes them frustrated when It gets extended but I think from the point of view of concern over a power grab An end date provides some level of insurance.  Maybe calling it a review date is better.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Quill said:

I wish I had some more details about exactly what all went on at this church (and the TN church). It says masks and alternate row seating, but I wonder about so much more: did they sing? Did they prohibit or ask people not to hug/shake hands, etc.? Was there Holy Communion and, if yes, how was it dispersed? 

I wonder if those who tested positive have an idea of specifically how the contracted it, for ex., would they say, “Yes, I hugged the pastor because I had missed him so much.” Or whatever. Or if it was just a non-specific exposure? 

And does living in some kind of religious order facility lead to more spread like nursing homes and ships due to the close contact 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It really doesn't matter if it was a church or a business that filed. If the governor needs the approval of the legislature to extend their emergency powers, then the governor needs to get that approval. If the governor can't convince the legislature- it is unlikely they can convince the people, that is why the law or the constitution is written that way.

If your state doesn't have that rule, you don't have much recourse or influence. Expect to see one introduced in your next legislative session.

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

So far, from what I can tell, the cases in that church were not in the congregation, but in the religious community - aka religious order - that were living together in a communal home. So a group of religious (priests, nuns/sisters, monks, what have you) living in a house or building. Says there were 7 living there, 5 have tested positive, and I think it said 2 or 3 were involved in public Mass. We don't know yet if any of the congregation that came in contact with them at those services have tested positive. 

Also it is so odd to me that the priest died at home of pneumonia but was never tested earlier? He must have been symptomatic, if he progressed that far, why on earth didn't he get tested/treatment? I'd think that is a huge dereliction of duty by someone, either him or someone else - and is part of why I am having a REAL hard time trusting the church leaders to do the right thing! This man was symptomatic, living with other people, saying mass to over a hundred people, and never got tested, nor isolated himself!

GRRRRRR! This is why we can't have nice things!

The official statement from the archdiocese is that the priest went to urgent care and then was referred to an emergency room.  He was diagnosed with pneumonia, was given medication, but was not admitted to the hospital.  The statement goes on to say that it is not yet clear yet whether he was tested for COVID.  They do not give any information about the time that passed from the diagnosis of pneumonia and the priest's death.  So, we can't assume anything about his failure to get tested or isolate himself once he had reason to believe that he might have COVID-19.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What states can do legally, varies by state.  Oregon's Gov's just got ruled by a judge to be in violation of the law because she's done a lockdown for more than 28 days without consulting the state legislature.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

What states can do legally, varies by state.  Oregon's Gov's just got ruled by a judge to be in violation of the law because she's done a lockdown for more than 28 days without consulting the state legislature.

Time.com

but that judge’s ruling has been stayed pending review, so for the time being the Oregon Governor’s State of Emergency, etc. stand

“(SALEM, Ore.) — The Oregon Supreme Court late Monday halted a rural judge’s order earlier in the day that had tossed out statewide coronavirus restrictions imposed by Democratic Gov. Kate Brown.

Baker County Circuit Judge Matthew Shirtcliff had ruled that Brown erred by not seeking the Legislature’s approval to extend the stay-at-home orders beyond a 28-day limit. The Supreme Court’s ruling stays Shirtcliff’s decision pending review by all the high court justices.”

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...