OK Governor has Covid

[chiguirre]

16 minutes ago, EmseB said:

 

So the idea that if someone got uncomfortably sick they would change their principles about such an issue as government powers and use of force seems not good. No good for the one being indifferent to the suffering of someone they disagree with and not good for someone in charge of issuing executive orders to do so based on an uncomfortable or even traumatic personal experience.

We've seen governors change their minds about their principles when the situation in their states gets bad enough (Greg Abbott - TX and Kay Ivey - AL off the top of my head). They didn't even get Covid themselves but they saw what was happening without mask enforcement and changed their policies to avert an even bigger disaster. That's good leadership! Being able to admit you were wrong and correct course takes a lot of courage. 

[Happy2BaMom]

44 minutes ago, EmseB said:

The political issue is not mask wearing, IMO, it is mandates and police enforcing mask wearing with fines and jail time. Obviously we can't get into discussing that here, but that is literally the entire issue of mandating masks at all.

 

No, the issue is that some people IN THE U.S. (& pretty much the U.S. only) CHOSE to make mandate about mask-wearing (during the worst global pandemic in 100 years) the hill they wanted to die on about "government". This has not been an issue nearly anywhere else in the world.

Which has greatly contributed to the fact that the US is now the complete dumpster fire that it is (unmasked protectors, youth, bar-goers, etc also contributing heavily). Getting this virus under control will now be so very much harder than it might have been. And why other countries will resume businesses and schools and economies and the rest of normal life much sooner than we will.

 

ETA: needed to add that it's not just anti-gov types that have contributed to the explosion of Covid spread.

Edited July 17, 2020 by Happy2BaMom

[EmseB]

32 minutes ago, chiguirre said:

We've seen governors change their minds about their principles when the situation in their states gets bad enough (Greg Abbott - TX and Kay Ivey - AL off the top of my head). They didn't even get Covid themselves but they saw what was happening without mask enforcement and changed their policies to avert an even bigger disaster. That's good leadership! Being able to admit you were wrong and correct course takes a lot of courage. 

Standing on principle can also be good, and take a lot of courage depending on the issue. I would venture to guess that what people view as good leadership (pivot or stand firm) depends on where they stand on the law or idea being discussed. The fact that some think it is not problematic for leadership to go from one extreme (don't wear masks) to another extreme (wear masks or go to jail) in a matter of weeks seems shortsighted, but obviously that is a disagreement that can't be discussed here either because it is political. To deny this is political at all and is simply a given moral good and obligation for the government to penalize non-mask wearers is a point of view that allows for no disagreement or further study of the issue.

Of course, I differ from most here on police enforcement of mask wearing, and I can say that regardless of my personal experience with covid and what I want people to do, I'd rather it not happen under the threat of financial penalty or imprisonment. YMMV. 

Edited July 17, 2020 by EmseB

[EmseB]

14 minutes ago, Happy2BaMom said:

 

No, the issue is that some people IN THE U.S. (& pretty much the U.S. only) CHOSE to make mandate about mask-wearing (during the worst global pandemic in 100 years) the hill they wanted to die on about "government". This has not been an issue nearly anywhere else in the world.

Which is why the US is the complete dumpster fire that it is & getting this virus under control will now be so very much harder than it might have been. And why other countries will resume businesses and schools and economies and the rest of normal life much sooner than we will.

Our system of government does happen to be different than any other country in the world as well and limits what authorities are allowed to impose on individuals. I mean, other countries ban or mandate religious garments too, doesn't mean it's not political or that we could do that here (note, I'm comparing systems of government, NOT masks and burquas before someone jumps on that). It also isn't the only issue before the courts vis a vis the pandemic, by far. SIP orders, business closures, church and other gatherings being prohibited, travel bans, visa restrictions...if you think masks are the hill people are dying on, you're not paying attention to the numerous legal challenges making their way through the courts and how this pandemic is creating a lot of hills.

Also, a recent study about mask wearing as individuals puts us ahead of the UK and Australia among other places, so the US is far from the only place where masking isn't widespread. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/17/upshot/coronavirus-face-mask-map.html

[EmseB]

6 minutes ago, square_25 said:

When the evidence changes, people should change behavior. I do NOT think mask wearing should be a matter of principle. 

Yes, people should! That's not the issue. The issue is if people should be compelled by force to wear a mask or change particular behaviors. The threshold for compelling behaviors by force via government mandate has always been a question of principle.

[katilac]

39 minutes ago, EmseB said:

The fact that some think it is not problematic for leadership to go from one extreme (don't wear masks) to another extreme (wear masks or go to jail) in a matter of weeks seems shortsighted, 

No one will go to jail for not wearing a mask unless they argue with a police officer and refuse to leave. It is much more likely that they will simply give you a warning or write you a citation, but yes, they may arrest you if you don't follow directions to put on a mask or move along. Police arrest people every. single. day! for failing to move along, they have tremendous discretion in deciding if you are likely to breach the peace. If you are arrested for not wearing a mask, it will be like any similar arrest: you'll be held for a few hours, until someone bails you out. Again, happens all the time. It's no worse or more remarkable because it may start to happen to people who have not experienced it before. 

30 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Our system of government does happen to be different than any other country in the world as well and limits what authorities are allowed to impose on individuals. 

We are hardly the only country in the world who limits the power of authorities. 

22 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Yes, people should! That's not the issue. The issue is if people should be compelled by force to wear a mask or change particular behaviors. The threshold for compelling behaviors by force via government mandate has always been a question of principle.

How do you see it as different from wearing seatbelts? I think it makes even more sense, because not wearing a seatbelt can usually only hurt that person, whereas not wearing a mask can hurt other people. 

Edited July 17, 2020 by katilac
words are hard

[kokotg]

Georgia's governor defended not mandating masks this morning by comparing it to speed limits and saying people still speed. This seems to so obviously and clearly contradict the point he was trying to make that I can't quite believe he said it. Except that I totally can. I breathlessly await his executive order banning speed limits in the state.

[EmseB]

2 hours ago, square_25 said:

I would think the threshold would be related to how much good it would do compel it, though. 

Not always, I don't think. I mean, that's certainly an argument that people use, that x must be compelled by force for the greater good.

In this case, specifically, I think we need to be really, really judicious about creating and enforcing laws against non-violent offenses including mask wearing. For one, I'd like it not to be a crime for people to be out and about just being without a mask. For other reasons: of not financially penalizing people during hard economic times and essentially creating debtors prisons, not putting people in confined congregate living spaces like jails, and because it puts police in a position of needing to use physical force in a time of needed DISCRETION (not desecration,  that was autocorrect!), or it puts business owners and workers in a place of enforcement.

I think societal and cultural pressure and good public health messaging is a much better way to go at this time.

Edited July 17, 2020 by EmseB

[TCB]

8 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Not always, I don't think. I mean, that's certainly an argument that people use, that x must be compelled by force for the greater good.

In this case, specifically, I think we need to be really, really judicious about creating and enforcing laws against non-violent offenses including mask wearing. For one, I'd like it not to be a crime for people to be out and about just being without a mask. For other reasons: of not financially penalizing people during hard economic times and essentially creating debtors prisons, not putting people in confined congregate living spaces like jails, and because it puts police in a position of needing to use physical force in a time of needed desecration, or it puts business owners and workers in a place of enforcement.

I think societal and cultural pressure and good public health messaging is a much better way to go at this time.

Where exactly are people being put into debtors prison and being confined in congregate living spaces like jails for not wearing a mask? Is that happening in places that have mask mandates already? I think if you make a mandate that people should wear masks it takes the guessing out of what to do for some people. I don't think you have to enforce it tightly to make it work better than what a lot of places have now. And if you aren't going to pass a mandate at least be a good example and wear one appropriately and really sincerely encourage people to do so also. Why the heck are health things even a political decision anyway? Why aren't the people responsible for public health making recommendations for what should or shouldn't be done? And why the heck aren't we listening to them?

[kokotg]

As recently as when my oldest (19) was a baby, I remember being asked if we wanted smoking or non-smoking in restaurants. The fact that I (and, say, my asthmatic 14 year old) can go to enclosed public spaces without breathing in cigarette smoke makes me feel much MORE free, not less. 

[katilac]

37 minutes ago, kand said:

 I'm very much an Independent voter and obviously think masks are not a hill anyone should be dying on as a matter of principle--especially because I think people are literally going to be dying on that hill, and taking others with them.

 What sets wearing a mask in public during a pandemic apart as being a bridge too far?

 

I don't understand this argument, because I don't want leadership that would continue to do and say the wrong thing because they learn new information but doesn't want to admit it.  

This. 

22 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Not always, I don't think. I mean, that's certainly an argument that people use, that x must be compelled by force for the greater good.

In this case, specifically, I think we need to be really, really judicious about creating and enforcing laws against non-violent offenses including mask wearing. For one, I'd like it not to be a crime for people to be out and about just being without a mask. For other reasons: of not financially penalizing people during hard economic times and essentially creating debtors prisons, not putting people in confined congregate living spaces like jails, and because it puts police in a position of needing to use physical force in a time of needed desecration, or it puts business owners and workers in a place of enforcement.

I think societal and cultural pressure and good public health messaging is a much better way to go at this time.

People are constantly financially penalized during hard economic times. The police don't quit writing tickets during recessions. The same $250 speeding ticket means nothing to a wealthy person, everything to a poorer person. Poor people often do languish in jail  for unconscionable periods of time while awaiting trial on nonviolent offenses, and that is an outrage, but it's not suddenly more of an outrage because it may occur due to mask mandates. I really hope everyone maintains their dismay at these things when the current crisis is over, and works to prevent them from happening for all the other reasons they happen, not just violating mask mandates. 

Once past the fiasco of pretending masks weren't needed because we didn't have any, I think the public health messaging has been pretty good. "My mask protects you, your mask protects me" is a strong and succinct message, so we're good there. What do you have in mind by societal and cultural pressure? The mask refusers that I know have their beliefs enforced by their culture, and take pride in defying societal expectations. I'm not sure how you work with that. Mask refusers have really planted their flag on this hill, I don't think frowns of disapproval are going to change their minds at this point. 

What do you mean by a time of needed desecration? 

[kokotg]

8 minutes ago, square_25 said:

And I gotta say, I felt a lot less safe in Ukraine, where there weren't road markings and cars were squashing into three lanes where I thought there was room for 2 ;-). Rules of this sort form the overall "feel" of the society. 

And that makes me think about how much more restrictive the US is than a lot of countries about all kinds of public health and safety issues (the drinking age comes to mind, as well as smoking in public places and traffic laws). I don't think the argument that the US is uniquely unlikely to impose laws about nonviolent public health issues holds up.

[katilac]

22 minutes ago, kokotg said:

As recently as when my oldest (19) was a baby, I remember being asked if we wanted smoking or non-smoking in restaurants. The fact that I (and, say, my asthmatic 14 year old) can go to enclosed public spaces without breathing in cigarette smoke makes me feel much MORE free, not less. 

Back in the stone ages, when my state was moving to raise the minimum age to purchase tobacco to 18, one politician's completely serious argument against it was the parents would no longer be able to send their kids to the store to buy their cigarettes.

 

[kokotg]

1 minute ago, katilac said:

Back in the stone ages, when my state was moving to raise the minimum age to purchase tobacco to 18, one politician's completely serious argument against it was the parents would no longer be able to send their kids to the store to buy their cigarettes.

 

My mother was pretty excited when I turned 18 (or maybe it was 17 then?) and could buy her cigarettes. And when my Dad was in high school, kids could smoke at school if they brought a note from their parents. And now we've just raised the age to 21 a few months ago, right? 

[katilac]

9 minutes ago, kokotg said:

My mother was pretty excited when I turned 18 (or maybe it was 17 then?) and could buy her cigarettes. And when my Dad was in high school, kids could smoke at school if they brought a note from their parents. And now we've just raised the age to 21 a few months ago, right? 

Yes, nationwide in December 2019. 

My older siblings can remember the senior smoking lounge but I can't. It was pretty common for kids as young as 10 to buy cigarettes for their parents, and of course that translated into buying cigarettes for themselves as well. An acquaintance from my old neighborhood recently posted about her smoking habit, and that it was so hard to quit because she started at the age of 7! Because her brother were smoking and didn't want her to tell, they let her smoke as well. The brothers would probably have been about 9, 11, and 13 at the time. It was really very common (1970s). Seven was really young but nine or ten wasn't. I never smoked, but one of my sisters was 12 or 13 at most when she started. That's the age when she got caught, lol. 

Edited July 17, 2020 by katilac

[Wheres Toto]

37 minutes ago, katilac said:

Back in the stone ages, when my state was moving to raise the minimum age to purchase tobacco to 18, one politician's completely serious argument against it was the parents would no longer be able to send their kids to the store to buy their cigarettes.

 

I used to walk down to the store and buy my mother cigarettes all the time.  I was probably 10 when I started going alone.  And yep, my high school had smoking areas for students. 

[Spy Car]

1 hour ago, EmseB said:

Not always, I don't think. I mean, that's certainly an argument that people use, that x must be compelled by force for the greater good.

In this case, specifically, I think we need to be really, really judicious about creating and enforcing laws against non-violent offenses including mask wearing. For one, I'd like it not to be a crime for people to be out and about just being without a mask. For other reasons: of not financially penalizing people during hard economic times and essentially creating debtors prisons, not putting people in confined congregate living spaces like jails, and because it puts police in a position of needing to use physical force in a time of needed desecration, or it puts business owners and workers in a place of enforcement.

I think societal and cultural pressure and good public health messaging is a much better way to go at this time.

Showing callous disregard for human life by refusing to wear a mask during a deadly pandemic does not qualify as a "non-violent" offensive in the eyes of this citizen. Quite to the contrary. It is a decidedly violent behavior.

Ethics, morality, and--in many cases--the law requires people to take reasonable measures to prevent their infecting (and potentially killing) other people with a clearly deadly illness. Your attitude strikes me as entirely selfish, extremist, and deplorable.

Bill

 

 

[Excelsior! Academy]

On 7/16/2020 at 12:42 PM, EmseB said:

Wishing severe illness on those who don't agree with mandating masks.

 

I don't wish severe illness on anyone, especially for an opinion.  One can comply with laws and suggestions and still have a contrary opinion.

[katilac]

22 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

Showing callous disregard for human life by refusing to wear a mask during a deadly pandemic does not qualify as a "non-violent" offensive in the eyes of this citizen. Quite to the contrary. It is a decidedly violent behavior.

I gave up on trying to get the wording right, but yes, this. 

[ktgrok]

4 hours ago, EmseB said:

 

The political issue is not mask wearing, IMO, it is mandates and police enforcing mask wearing with fines and jail time. Obviously we can't get into discussing that here, but that is literally the entire issue of mandating masks at all.

Ok...so..why are masks special? Why is it okay to mandate and enforce speed limits, drunk driving, school zones, crosswalks, smoking areas, etc but not masks?

2 hours ago, EmseB said:

Not always, I don't think. I mean, that's certainly an argument that people use, that x must be compelled by force for the greater good.

In this case, specifically, I think we need to be really, really judicious about creating and enforcing laws against non-violent offenses including mask wearing.

A lot of people would say breathing on others in a pandemic can be violent. 

But that aside, again, why is it bad to mandate masks, but not bad to mandate speed limits, drunk driving, non smoking areas, food safety rules in restaurants, etc?

[chiguirre]

This isn't the first time people's personal freedom has need to be abridged in favor of public health. Typhoid Mary eventually was locked up because she refused to stop working as a cook. There were leper colonies. John Snow vandalized a pump to stop the spread of cholera and I'm sure he ticked off a whole bunch of people who had to walk farther to get water. This is established practice and, frankly, it's much better to require masks than to lock down everyone again, which is the alternative cited by Govs. Ivey and Abbott.

[Rosie_0801]

This thread is going nowhere in a hurry, so we're locking it.