Shelter in Place order, part 2

[sassenach]

5 minutes ago, Momto6inIN said:

This part for some reason makes me picture the big contamination tents and hazmat suits in the final scene of E.T. and Elliott et al breaking him out of federal custody.

Go home, ET! You’re not essential!!

[wathe]

2 hours ago, Quill said:

Some people, too, do not want to find out if it is Covid or not. I don’t know whether it was true in this case, and I don’t know what happens if a person (in FL, or anywhere else) refuses to be tested. Do they do the test on people as part of a post-mortem exam if there was any possibility of Covid? I really have no idea. 

Some places are starting to, apparently. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/05/19/858390822/with-postmortem-testing-last-responders-shed-light-on-pandemic-s-spread

I know of one case locally that was determined by post-mortem testing early in the pandemic.  The post-mortem test was done because a close contact of the deceased presented to the hospital with typical COVID within days of the deceased's death.  Deceased was found to be COVID positive  Post-mortem testing is not done routinely here.  This case was unusual.

[Pen]

When I was in nyc during a TB outbreak, there was a guy in the news who had iirc antibiotic resistant TB and was supposed to be in quarantine.  But instead he was traveling, Europe maybe, refusing to quarantine.  He was finally stopped and forcibly hospitalized, and that really needed to be done, imo.

But the “possess and control” sounds sort of like ...  well ... other things that have happened historically that were not so needed.  Taking Native American women’s babies and sterilizing the mothers.  

Or even if needed for community safety, the inhumane way that lepers were sent to Molokai.

 

[sassenach]

11 hours ago, Pen said:

 

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. )

 

I think her best point may have been made after you stopped watching, which was that the text says that the order expires after 60 days unless extended by the legislature, which has not happened.

I agree with you that the state does have a role, and that this is an epidemic, but I do not agree that that gives the governor carte blanche to enforce illegal orders. He MUST work within the law. 

BTW, OC is extra salty because the governor shut down ONLY their beaches despite crowds up and down the coast and higher infection rates in other counties. It was a real power move meant to send a message.

[Frances]

12 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. 

But yet they chose to enter into a lawsuit organized by a lawyer who seems to have complete disregard for anyone outside of these churches because as he said, they will all go to heaven if they die, so it’s their choice to go to church. While I don’t doubt the sincerity you speak of, perhaps they should have not joined this lawsuit and instead found a lawyer who cares about both the churches and the communities. 

[Pen]

17 minutes ago, sassenach said:

I think her best point may have been made after you stopped watching, which was that the text says that the order expires after 60 days unless extended by the legislature, which has not happened.

I agree with you that the state does have a role, and that this is an epidemic, but I do not agree that that gives the governor carte blanche to enforce illegal orders. He MUST work within the law. 

BTW, OC is extra salty because the governor shut down ONLY their beaches despite crowds up and down the coast and higher infection rates in other counties. It was a real power move meant to send a message.

 

What code section has expiration in 60 days? 

I did not see it.

 

[sassenach]

28 minutes ago, Danae said:

I think we’ve been sliding into doing most things by executive action rather than legislative approval for decades.

When was the last time congress declared war, for example.

Afghanistan? But have we been at war since then?

[sassenach]

33 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

What code section has expiration in 60 days? 

I did not see it.

 

It’s in the notes of the YouTube. 

[Pen]

9 minutes ago, sassenach said:

It’s in the notes of the YouTube. 

 

Notes not visible on my cellphone. Afaik.  Maybe someone can teach me how to make notes visible. 

[Lanny]

Looking from afar (3 hours and 15 minutes to Miami or Fort Lauderdale) at a country I lived most of my life in, the compliance, in many U.S. states, seems sporadic.  Or, the violations are sporadic. The enforcement is in many cases not there. The SIP here in Colombia for those younger than 70 has been extended once or twice and is currently set to expire on  25 May. There was what I think was a false rumor, a couple of days ago, that it was being extended to June 6th.

Here, the President issues a decree and that's it.  There are, as in the USA, some people who flagrantly disregard the restrictions, and the worst of them go to jail.

As far as I know (I am over 70 so I can't leave the house) there are no restaurants here where diners can go in and sit down and eat. Restaurant food is for those who go to the restaurant to pick it up or have it delivered to their house.  One person is allowed to go to the supermarket, one day a week, in the morning or afternoon. My Stepson is our designated shopper. He went yesterday,- in the morning.

Early this morning, just after Midnight, I heard an airplane going over our house. I looked at my phone at the FlightAware App.  It was a United Airlines flight, going from Houston, Texas, USA to Sao Paulo, Brazil.  So there you have two (2) countries not doing all they can to prevent the spread of Covid-19. Airline flights operating at this time increase the risk of spreading the virus.  China "seeded" the spread of the virus by sending passengers on civil turbojet aircraft?  Here, the first known case of Covid-19 was a passenger on a flight from Spain to Colombia. We have no Domestic or International flights here at this time. Possibly a few Domestic flights will be permitted in June?  It will be a 5 step plan and resuming International flights will be step 4.

There are never simple solutions to complex problems and in this case, when the virus first became known, there was a lot of false information and false theories about how to control it. Hindsight is often 20-20.

[Frances]

17 hours 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. 

Letter to the editor from an Oregon pastor who agrees with you. And as he notes, the vast majority of churches in OR did not join this suit. It’s a distinctive subset.

https://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/2020/05/opinion-churches-challenging-stay-home-orders-have-forgotten-whom-they-serve.html

[Pen]

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=1.&title=2.&part=&chapter=7.&article=3.

 

So far this is the only reference to 60 days pertaining to emergency powers I have found—and it pertains to local governments below State level—and it was waived in the State Declaration of Emergency: 

8630.  ...(b) Whenever a local emergency is proclaimed by an official ...

(c) The governing body shall review the need for continuing the local emergency at least once every 60 days until the governing body terminates the local emergency.

...

(Amended by Stats. 2018, Ch. 395, Sec. 1. (AB 2898) Effective January 1, 2019.)

[hopeallgoeswell]

Is anyone following HR 6666?  A non-profit I subscribe to just sent out a letter regarding this.  In short,  the group said the bill would violate the 4th, 5th, 8th, and 9th Amendments.  It could also open the door for more tracking in the future.  History has shown us over and over again that once a liberty is given to the government, it is usually not given back.  If it is, it's not without a fight.  

 

In regards to the statement "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" are there definable parameters for which this should happen?  Symptoms would not be a good indicator because a large portion with the virus are asymptomatic.  The testing kits are not very reliable, so it would almost be luck of the draw to either not be taken into custody if you are positive and get a negative test back or, to a much smaller extent, be taken into custody if you test positive but are actually negative.  Just coming into contact with a person with symptoms or who tested positive wouldn't mean that you have it.  What happens to the 5th Amendment?  

 

The government officials in America should be made to operate within the confines of state Constitutions and the American Constitution.  The best way to insure that happens is to have informed citizens.  I'm glad to see that citizens in some states are making sure their rights are being upheld.

[TCB]

6 hours ago, Arctic Mama said:

The chafing you are seeing isn’t mostly civil unrest because everyone is a hick who doesn’t love their neighbor more than the constitution.

It kind of is around me. We actually are not restricted at all around here now. There may be some state recommendations but they are not being enforced or even given much air time. The people who have been chafing are the same ones that started out either not ‘believing’ in the virus or loudly proclaiming it was nothing but the flu. They are now saying they won’t wear masks or that it is in fact unhealthy to do so. They have been posting every conspiracy theory that has been circulating. Unfortunately many of my homeschool friends are in this number, thankfully some aren’t, and a number of them are from my church. I feel pretty beleaguered here. I have heard a lot about their political beliefs through this but very little if anything about their Christian ones. I don’t know of 1 thing our church has done to help our community during this time. I hope there was something and I missed it. 

[Pen]

20 hours ago, sassenach said:

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.

 

 

If anyone could post the code section or a link to the Code section that says this, I’d appreciate it. 

I did hear the woman on the video so intimate, but can’t see any Code section she is using to justify that. 

I think this may be an example of how myth information gets started. 

TIA

 

7 hours ago, MysteryJen said:

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.

 

I agree, but I cannot find that as a provision in the California Code. 

 

A woman on YouTube saying it is so doesn’t make it so. 

 

California Code section, please. 

 

 

[sassenach]

59 minutes ago, hopeallgoeswell said:

Is anyone following HR 6666?  A non-profit I subscribe to just sent out a letter regarding this.  In short,  the group said the bill would violate the 4th, 5th, 8th, and 9th Amendments.  It could also open the door for more tracking in the future.  History has shown us over and over again that once a liberty is given to the government, it is usually not given back.  If it is, it's not without a fight.  

 

In regards to the statement "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" are there definable parameters for which this should happen?  Symptoms would not be a good indicator because a large portion with the virus are asymptomatic.  The testing kits are not very reliable, so it would almost be luck of the draw to either not be taken into custody if you are positive and get a negative test back or, to a much smaller extent, be taken into custody if you test positive but are actually negative.  Just coming into contact with a person with symptoms or who tested positive wouldn't mean that you have it.  What happens to the 5th Amendment?  

 

The government officials in America should be made to operate within the confines of state Constitutions and the American Constitution.  The best way to insure that happens is to have informed citizens.  I'm glad to see that citizens in some states are making sure their rights are being upheld.

Yeah, big federal overreach here. These powers already belong to the states. 

[sassenach]

3 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

 

If anyone could post the code section or a link to the Code section that says this, I’d appreciate it. 

I did hear the woman on the video so intimate, but can’t see any Code section she is using to justify that. 

I think this may be an example of how myth information gets started. 

TIA

 

 

I agree, but I cannot find that as a provision in the California Code. 

 

A woman on YouTube saying it is so doesn’t make it so. 

 

California Code section, please. 

 

 

Sorry, I'm splitting my attention right now

§ 8627.5.

(a) The Governor may make, amend, or rescind orders and regulations during a state of emergency that temporarily suspend any state, county, city, or special district statute, ordinance, regulation, or rule imposing nonsafety related restrictions on the delivery of food products, pharmaceuticals, and other emergency necessities distributed through retail or institutional channels, including, but not limited to, hospitals, jails, restaurants, and schools.  The Governor shall cause widespread publicity and notice to be given to all of these orders and regulations, or amendments and rescissions thereof.

(b) The orders and regulations shall be in writing and take effect immediately on issuance.  The temporary suspension of any statute, ordinance, regulation, or rule shall remain in effect until the order or regulation is rescinded by the Governor, the Governor proclaims the termination of the state of emergency, or for a period of 60 days, whichever occurs first.

 

[Pen]

2 minutes ago, sassenach said:

Sorry, I'm splitting my attention right now

§ 8627.5.

(a) The Governor may make, amend, or rescind orders and regulations during a state of emergency that temporarily suspend any state, county, city, or special district statute, ordinance, regulation, or rule imposing nonsafety related restrictions on the delivery of food products, pharmaceuticals, and other emergency necessities distributed through retail or institutional channels, including, but not limited to, hospitals, jails, restaurants, and schools.  The Governor shall cause widespread publicity and notice to be given to all of these orders and regulations, or amendments and rescissions thereof.

(b) The orders and regulations shall be in writing and take effect immediately on issuance.  The temporary suspension of any statute, ordinance, regulation, or rule shall remain in effect until the order or regulation is rescinded by the Governor, the Governor proclaims the termination of the state of emergency, or for a period of 60 days, whichever occurs first.

 

 

I don’t think that says he has to have legislative action at the 60 day point otherwise it ends.

For any suspension of statute, ordinance, regulation or rule, it  seems on its face to say that Newsom would just need to reissue the suspension at the 60 day point.  

[ktgrok]

right it expires then, but doesn't say she can't reissue another. 

[MysteryJen]

The above is for California, right?

Oregon has a different situation, I think.

[Pen]

56 minutes ago, MysteryJen said:

The above is for California, right?

Oregon has a different situation, I think.

Yes. Though what it is in Oregon is subject to dispute.

 

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/the-story/what-power-does-the-governor-have-during-a-state-of-emergency-in-oregon/283-efbbf09b-f466-413f-82fb-bebe8dca0c02

[ktgrok]

29 minutes ago, Pen said:

Yes. Though what it is in Oregon is subject to dispute.

 

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/the-story/what-power-does-the-governor-have-during-a-state-of-emergency-in-oregon/283-efbbf09b-f466-413f-82fb-bebe8dca0c02

Very helpful! I can see how there was confusion, but it does seem she is operating within the powers of her elected office. Moreover, it seems that if people want the legislature to decide, like they are claiming, that is totally possible. At any time they could call a special session and vote to overrule her, and they have not done that. 

So maybe people should write their congressperson instead of insisting what she is doing is illegal. 

[Pen]

49 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Very helpful! I can see how there was confusion, but it does seem she is operating within the powers of her elected office. Moreover, it seems that if people want the legislature to decide, like they are claiming, that is totally possible. At any time they could call a special session and vote to overrule her, and they have not done that. 

So maybe people should write their congressperson instead of insisting what she is doing is illegal. 

 

There is one congressperson trying to get a special session going for that, but no one seems to be joining him. 

 

[IfIOnly]

10 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

 

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. 

You must be getting Oregon confused with another state? There have been about 3600 total covid cases in Oregon since January.  As far as I know, getting testing hasn't been a problem here. There's been almost 96,000 negative tests. Most of the cases have been in just a few, densely populated (unlike most of Oregon) counties that cover in a relatively small area of the state. 

https://govstatus.egov.com/OR-OHA-COVID-19

5 hours ago, Frances said:

But yet they chose to enter into a lawsuit organized by a lawyer who seems to have complete disregard for anyone outside of these churches because as he said, they will all go to heaven if they die, so it’s their choice to go to church. While I don’t doubt the sincerity you speak of, perhaps they should have not joined this lawsuit and instead found a lawyer who cares about both the churches and the communities. 

Although I really don't like and agree with the lawyers statement for many reasons, do you really think he meant he didn't care about the community? He certainly did not mention the community. He may have just been (crassly and grossly albeit) honing in on his comort with the "risk" (very small risk comparatively speaking) of resuming church meetings in Oregon. 

[Corraleno]

1 hour ago, Ktgrok said:

Very helpful! I can see how there was confusion, but it does seem she is operating within the powers of her elected office. Moreover, it seems that if people want the legislature to decide, like they are claiming, that is totally possible. At any time they could call a special session and vote to overrule her, and they have not done that. 

So maybe people should write their congressperson instead of insisting what she is doing is illegal. 

 

Although Democrats hold the majority in the Oregon senate (18 seats of 30), they need 20 senators (2/3) in order to hold a vote. Senators who oppose the governor's policies but know they will be outvoted have a habit of "disappearing" (i.e. hiding out in Idaho) before a vote, in order to obstruct the passage of policies they don't like. They've done this twice in the last 12 months, most recently in February, so I would not be surprised if this tactic is used to prevent the legislative approval they claim the governor needs (and would definitely get, if the vote was allowed) in order to continue the SIP order (which is in fact supported by the vast majority of Oregonians).

[Pen]

15 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

 

Although Democrats hold the majority in the Oregon senate (18 seats of 30), they need 20 senators (2/3) in order to hold a vote. Senators who oppose the governor's policies but know they will be outvoted have a habit of "disappearing" (i.e. hiding out in Idaho) before a vote, in order to obstruct the passage of policies they don't like. They've done this twice in the last 12 months, most recently in February, so I would not be surprised if this tactic is used to prevent the legislative approval they claim the governor needs (and would definitely get, if the vote was allowed) in order to continue the SIP order (which is in fact supported by the vast majority of Oregonians).

 

Tbh, I do not think she needs the legislature to do anything.  We will see what the State Supreme Court says, but I think they will probably uphold what she did as valid with no need for legislative vote.  She chose a provision that doesn’t appear to require legislative approval.  

 

I think if is the other way around—that legislators who want it ended can call a special session to do that, but probably will have trouble getting that passed, or perhaps even a quorum . 

[ktgrok]

32 minutes ago, IfIOnly said:

You must be getting Oregon confused with another state? There have been about 3600 total covid cases in Oregon since January.  As far as I know, getting testing hasn't been a problem here. There's been almost 96,000 negative tests. Most of the cases have been in just a few, densely populated (unlike most of Oregon) counties that cover in a relatively small area of the state. 

 

Sorry, I was referring to the church in the article I quoted, in Houston. They have had a huge number of cases. 

[hopeallgoeswell]

Is it just the governor who decides when a state of emergency is declared?  And if the governor can keep extending an order during a state of emergency without having to have legislation meet and vote to keep it in place, that sounds like there aren't any checks and balances, which sounds very un-American. 

[ktgrok]

13 minutes ago, hopeallgoeswell said:

Is it just the governor who decides when a state of emergency is declared?  And if the governor can keep extending an order during a state of emergency without having to have legislation meet and vote to keep it in place, that sounds like there aren't any checks and balances, which sounds very un-American. 

The checks and balances are that 1. the legislature can convene and overrule her, and 2. people can take it to court (as they have done) and have the court weigh in. 

[Pen]

11 minutes ago, hopeallgoeswell said:

Is it just the governor who decides when a state of emergency is declared?  And if the governor can keep extending an order during a state of emergency without having to have legislation meet and vote to keep it in place, that sounds like there aren't any checks and balances, which sounds very un-American. 

 

The Legislature can meet and vote against the State of Emergency if they wish.

In an Emergency, government needs to be able to be nimble, which legislative deliberation is not usually that. In some types of emergencies legislators might not be able to meet. Or might even be dead. It is better to have a system that allows government to continue in such a situation. If all is well, and that there is no emergency seems clear to many, then Legislators meeting and voting down an over reach by a governor is a good check and balance.

The court system is another option. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Frances]

1 hour ago, IfIOnly said:

You must be getting Oregon confused with another state? There have been about 3600 total covid cases in Oregon since January.  As far as I know, getting testing hasn't been a problem here. There's been almost 96,000 negative tests. Most of the cases have been in just a few, densely populated (unlike most of Oregon) counties that cover in a relatively small area of the state. 

https://govstatus.egov.com/OR-OHA-COVID-19

Although I really don't like and agree with the lawyers statement for many reasons, do you really think he meant he didn't care about the community? He certainly did not mention the community. He may have just been (crassly and grossly albeit) honing in on his comort with the "risk" (very small risk comparatively speaking) of resuming church meetings in Oregon. 

Testing has been a huge problem in Oregon since the very beginning, especially in certain areas. While it is better now, there are still restrictions. Every single person I know who likely had it, as confirmed by their doctor, was not able to get tested. My husband works in healthcare, so I am very aware of the testing and PPE situation. 
 

As for the lawyer, I don’t think he was thinking of anyone but church members, especially those he was representing. I don’t think he has to explicitly say he doesn’t care about the community. His selfishness is evident in his statement. Someone who was concerned about the entire community would not make such a statement. As for it being a small risk, I’m not sure that squares with some church gathering being super spreader events. Regular church services are pretty high on the list of risky situations from my understanding, especially without masks and social distancing and including singing and physical touching. All things present at the 400+ person service held at the Capitol over the weekend by those of similar denominations. 
 

It is comforting, though, that so few churches in OR decided to join this suit.

[Wheres Toto]

1 hour ago, Corraleno said:

 

Although Democrats hold the majority in the Oregon senate (18 seats of 30), they need 20 senators (2/3) in order to hold a vote. Senators who oppose the governor's policies but know they will be outvoted have a habit of "disappearing" (i.e. hiding out in Idaho) before a vote, in order to obstruct the passage of policies they don't like. They've done this twice in the last 12 months, most recently in February, so I would not be surprised if this tactic is used to prevent the legislative approval they claim the governor needs (and would definitely get, if the vote was allowed) in order to continue the SIP order (which is in fact supported by the vast majority of Oregonians).

Legislators, both state and national, should not be able to play these kinds of games to hold up things they disagree with (won't mention any names on the national level but I'm sure everyone knows who I'm referring to).   That is definitely not what the checks and balances were intended for. 

[IfIOnly]

1 hour ago, Frances said:

Testing has been a huge problem in Oregon since the very beginning, especially in certain areas. While it is better now, there are still restrictions. Every single person I know who likely had it, as confirmed by their doctor, was not able to get tested. My husband works in healthcare, so I am very aware of the testing and PPE situation. 
 

As for the lawyer, I don’t think he was thinking of anyone but church members, especially those he was representing. I don’t think he has to explicitly say he doesn’t care about the community. His selfishness is evident in his statement. Someone who was concerned about the entire community would not make such a statement. As for it being a small risk, I’m not sure that squares with some church gathering being super spreader events. Regular church services are pretty high on the list of risky situations from my understanding, especially without masks and social distancing and including singing and physical touching. All things present at the 400+ person service held at the Capitol over the weekend by those of similar denominations. 
 

It is comforting, though, that so few churches in OR decided to join this suit.

I appreciate your thoughts. And on the bright side, if we've had so many unrecorded covid cases, it's also comforting that our state death rate is incredibly low at a total of 137 deaths. 

edit: as it stands regarding official records and minus unaccounted for cases, our covid death to infection rate rate is .38 or so. 

 

Edited May 20, 2020 by IfIOnly

[Frances]

1 hour ago, Arctic Mama said:

https://babylonbee.com/news/im-glad-were-closing-churches-for-public-safety-says-woman-in-line-at-walmart?utm_content=buffer5e57d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

I can’t not post this, I hope you all understand. 🤗

Yeah, logical consistency is missing in lots of people, unfortunately. And just for the record, since I’ve been pretty vocal on this thread, I’ve been nowhere except my backyard for ten weeks, except one quick, masked trip to my almost deserted workplace to get a necessary item for telecommuting. My husband works in healthcare, so I figure that’s a big enough risk right there, for both myself and others.

[Corraleno]

59 minutes ago, Frances said:

Yeah, logical consistency is missing in lots of people, unfortunately. And just for the record, since I’ve been pretty vocal on this thread, I’ve been nowhere except my backyard for ten weeks, except one quick, masked trip to my almost deserted workplace to get a necessary item for telecommuting. My husband works in healthcare, so I figure that’s a big enough risk right there, for both myself and others.

FYI, that website is a right-wing "satire" site. That's not a real person and no one ever said those things, it's designed to portray those who are worried about the potential for viral spread in churches as dumb anti-Christian hypocrites. Those dumb libruls —   it's not like there've ever been any super spreader events in churches or anything!

[The Governess]

If you all haven’t read up on the history of how smallpox outbreaks in the US were handled, it’s fascinating reading. Here’s an article to get you started:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-new-york-separated-immigrant-families-smallpox-outbreak-1901-180971211/

I was spurred to look into this after going through some of my great-grandma’s things and finding a proof of smallpox vaccination page in her passport.

[Frances]

4 hours ago, IfIOnly said:

I appreciate your thoughts. And on the bright side, if we've had so many unrecorded covid cases, it's also comforting that our state death rate is incredibly low at a total of 137 deaths. 

edit: as it stands regarding official records and minus unaccounted for cases, our covid death to infection rate rate is .38 or so. 

 

Yes, we’ve been very fortunate in terms of deaths, only 140 so far. Though given the people I know who have had it combined with talking to healthcare professionals, for me personally I’m far more concerned about the risk of long term health  effects than death. 
 

I think it is a death rate of 3.8% though, not 0.38.

Edited May 20, 2020 by Frances

[IfIOnly]

20 minutes ago, Frances said:

Yes, we’ve been very fortunate in terms of deaths, only 140 so far. Though given the people I know who have had it combined with talking to healthcare professionals, for me personally I’m far more concerned about the risk of long term heath effects than death. 
 

I think it is a death rate of 3.8% though, not 0.38.

Oh, yes, you're right. I mistakenly figured 36000 not 3600. Thanks for that.

[Liz CA]

Thanks for posting this. Hadn't heard yet - I am so buried in work and try not to listen to radio too much.

Our county is more rural and has been opening up - I think we are in Phase 2 now. We had very few CV19 cases. The video you linked is more or less describing exactly what is happening here. Our local health official has reviewed the numbers and evidence based information (as she put it) and decided that we can move forward.

In more densely populated counties, this will take some time. Don't know where you are @sassenach, but if you are closer to the Bay Area or LA, the "until further notice" probably just means "we don't know yet."

The part of taking custody of a living or dead body is creepy though. 

Edited May 20, 2020 by Liz CA

[Frances]

Testing and PPE shortages are still a problem in Oregon.

https://www.wweek.com/news/state/2020/05/20/even-as-gov-kate-brown-reopens-oregon-a-shortage-of-masks-and-other-personal-protective-equipment-at-hospitals-suggest-a-state-still-in-crisis/

https://www.wweek.com/news/state/2020/05/20/when-will-oregon-devise-a-plan-for-covid-19-testing-in-nursing-homes/

 

 

[hopeallgoeswell]

On 5/19/2020 at 11:03 AM, Danae said:

I think we’ve been sliding into doing most things by executive action rather than legislative approval for decades.

When was the last time congress declared war, for example.

 

On 5/19/2020 at 11:33 AM, sassenach said:

Afghanistan? But have we been at war since then?

1942 was the last time Congress declared war (https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/h_multi_sections_and_teasers/WarDeclarationsbyCongress.htm).

 

I thought this was an interesting read: https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/War-Powers/.  I'm fairly certain in times of high stress and multiple unknowns,  rights are given to government officials and then the future generations have to deal with the fallout, which is a sentiment we should all keep in mind during the present crisis.  From the link: "Take, for example, the Tonkin Gulf Resolution of 1964. As communist forces in Vietnam took increasingly militaristic actions against U.S. forces, Congress authorized the President, in sweeping but vague language, “to promote the maintenance of international peace and security in southeast Asia.”¹⁷

In fact, despite engaging in conflicts in places like Vietnam and Iraq over the last 70 years, Congress has not declared war since 1942. Rather, the individual congressional AUMFs have been interpreted “as fully empowering the President to prosecute the wars,” according to law professors, Curtis A. Bradley and Jack L. Goldsmith.^18"

[Sk8ermaiden]

22 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

Sorry, I was referring to the church in the article I quoted, in Houston. They have had a huge number of cases. 

To be fair, Harris county is the second or third most populous county in the country, only behind the one containing LA and maybe Chicago. Unless you're looking at cases per capita, of course the number will be huge. But yet the county of almost 6 million has only recorded 310 deaths due to Covid. Our hospitals never even came close to filling up, and most people I know have to go to friend-of-an-acquaintance level to find someone they "know" who tested positive.

I mean, MY PERSONAL OPINION, is that a church that loves its members or its neighbors won't meet in person, inside at this time, or if they do will keep their numbers extremely small (we know the 6 ft distance really does nothing if you're there for an extended period of time, nor does sanitizing and washing. But it's not like the church the priest belonged to was wantonly holding masses while our hospitals spilled over or anything. Harris county has been EXTREMELY lucky with our infection rate compared to almost every other large or small metro, so mischaracterizing the numbers as huge isn't really accurate.

Edited May 20, 2020 by Sk8ermaiden

[Ausmumof3]

https://www.christianpost.com/amp/georgia-church-closes-two-weeks-after-reopening-as-families-come-down-with-coronavirus.html?__twitter_impression=true
 

[Ausmumof3]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/20/nyregion/coronavirus-catholic-church-nyc.html#click=https://t.co/i9KZDR21wb
 

this would not work for my denomination but another thing that one church is doing.

[Pen]

14 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

https://www.christianpost.com/amp/georgia-church-closes-two-weeks-after-reopening-as-families-come-down-with-coronavirus.html?__twitter_impression=true
 

 

Quote from article: 

‘During that time, officials noted that “all modes of social distancing were practiced and followed by the families attending.”

“Seating was marked to only permit sitting within the six foot guidelines, all doors were open to allow access without the touching of doors, and attendees were asked to enter in a social distancing manner and were dismissed in a formal manner as well to ensure that the social distancing measures were adhered by all,” the church said.’

———

 

Hence I guess we must conclude that they have an Asymptomatic spreader among those attending and that “all modes of social Distancing” are insufficient to prevent spread in Church. 

 

[Pen]

14 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/20/nyregion/coronavirus-catholic-church-nyc.html#click=https://t.co/i9KZDR21wb
 

this would not work for my denomination but another thing that one church is doing.

 

The priest already had CV19, so hopefully he has some immunity now allowing him to give a blessing to sick with less risk.  

I think this is great and probably a help to morale amongst the parishioners. 

[IfIOnly]

16 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

Quote from article: 

‘During that time, officials noted that “all modes of social distancing were practiced and followed by the families attending.”

“Seating was marked to only permit sitting within the six foot guidelines, all doors were open to allow access without the touching of doors, and attendees were asked to enter in a social distancing manner and were dismissed in a formal manner as well to ensure that the social distancing measures were adhered by all,” the church said.’

———

 

Hence I guess we must conclude that they have an Asymptomatic spreader among those attending and that “all modes of social Distancing” are insufficient to prevent spread in Church. 

 

Or some people were hanging out together outside of church as well and transmitted it that way. 🤷 Has that been ruled out? I hang out several times a week in homes with people from my church, well, before stay home orders anyway, which we know not everyone follows and are legal here in groups no larger than 10 anyway. Playdates, dinners, coffee, prayer.

Edited May 21, 2020 by IfIOnly

[Ausmumof3]

2 minutes ago, IfIOnly said:

Or some people were hanging out together outside of church as well and transmitted it that way. 🤷 Has that been ruled out? I hang out several times a week in homes with people from my church, well, before stay home orders anyway, which we know not everyone follows and are legal here in groups no larger than 10 anyway. Playdates, dinners, coffee, prayer.

Yes I wondered that it’s not clear from the article.  It did say only 25 percent were attending so I guess if the infection was only in that 25 percent it would indicate it was linked to the service not external socialisation.  Although realistically those who were attending were probably also more likely to be relaxed about socialising again.

[sassenach]

2 hours ago, Pen said:

 

Quote from article: 

‘During that time, officials noted that “all modes of social distancing were practiced and followed by the families attending.”

“Seating was marked to only permit sitting within the six foot guidelines, all doors were open to allow access without the touching of doors, and attendees were asked to enter in a social distancing manner and were dismissed in a formal manner as well to ensure that the social distancing measures were adhered by all,” the church said.’

———

 

Hence I guess we must conclude that they have an Asymptomatic spreader among those attending and that “all modes of social Distancing” are insufficient to prevent spread in Church. 

 

I think it comes down to the airborne nature of C19. I wonder if they were wearing masks? Did they sing?

 

[Pen]

1 minute ago, sassenach said:

I think it comes down to the airborne nature of C19. I wonder if they were wearing masks? Did they sing?

 

 

It does not say.  

If they were not wearing masks, then I think “all forms of social Distancing” is not a correct statement.  

Also I wonder if the were all actually 6 feet apart  all the time.