Jump to content
KJP

Coronavirus Pandemic

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

 

While parking restrictions are fair game on property you don't own and even property you do own, snow emergencies are restrictions on public movement and gathering. Indeed they are temporary, but somebody's going to have to show me where the time limit is in the Constitution.

The rule you are trying to articulate is going to be called strict scrutiny. Meaning, when it comes to suspending a fundamental right, it will be analyzed in such a way that such right could be suspended if no other possible alternatives exist to accomplish the state's goal in protecting the people. In the case of a snow emergency, or a hurricane order, suspending traffic for a short period of time in order to allow emergency vehicles the ability to do their jobs, and the restriction is short in time frame so the burden on the individual is minimal. 

The abortion argument is another example, in the Casey case, the Court struck down a provision that required parental consent if a minor sought an abortion. The theory was that it placed an undue burden on the individual who was a minor. Even if the % of abortions of minors was extremely low, and the the majority of parents would be reasonable to exercise that authority, it centered around the few minors who may have had an abusive parent at home or an incest situation. this was where the Court found the undue burden and what many thought a reasonable restriction failed. 

 

When you apply it to the protesting during a pandemic, there were too many carve outs in the law during the shelter in place orders (i.e. you could go to get take out, you could go to Home Depot or a big box store, you could site socially distanced in a public park, etc) that to restrict the fundamental right of protest was going to fail the strict scrutiny test and why the KY governor relented 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, YABO713 said:

 

Actually, to support @Ram23's point... I was at the Giant Eagle at I-77 and Rt. 82 in Broadview Heights, and I think out of the approx 200 people in there, maybe 5 were not wearing masks.

 

Compared to Dave's in Ohio City, where I usually shop, where its normally about 50/50. 

 

I was shocked. 

 

The places I've been in the borderlands (Nordonia-Twinsburg to be specific), it's about 70-30 not wearing them, among customers.

 

But staying 6 feet apart is de rigeur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The rule you are trying to articulate is going to be called strict scrutiny. Meaning, when it comes to suspending a fundamental right, it will be analyzed in such a way that such right could be suspended if no other possible alternatives exist to accomplish the state's goal in protecting the people."

 

People becoming gravely ill and dying due to individuals' continued failure to adhere to public health recommendations of social distancing and mask wearing in public during a global pandemic, would certainly seem to fit into the "strict scrutiny" argument.

 

As mentioned above, public mask wearing is now mandatory in Miami, and our mayor is Republican. Those who fail to comply are subject to fines.

 

It's not about the politics, it's about the facts and science.

 

Even before Miami's new mandate, Publix Supermarkets required masks for entrance. Non-mask wearing patrons were turned away at the door by a security officer. It may not always seem like it, lol, but last time I checked, South Florida was in the US.

 

I think it is more an issue of whether or not elected officials have the political will to take action vs violation of some perceived fundamental constitutionally guaranteed personal freedom. That's a flawed argument. You don't have the "right" to cause harm to another.

 

BTW, Dallas/Round Rock City, Sarasota, Nashville, Hilton Head, Jacksonville, Jefferson Parish in NOLA and the States of Oregon and Kansas also now mandate facemasks in public and it is gaining momentum and support nationwide. People are freaking out, but let them throw their childish tantrums; we're in the midst of a public health emergency!

 

Unfortunately, it is too little, too late for many. Politicians were warned months ago of this potentially deadly viruses ravages and they ignored those warnings.

 

 

Edited by Frmr CLEder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

Temperature checks have been the biggest example of security theater.   Even a significant percentage of symptomatic CS patients have little to no fever.

Initially, before we had testing available, temperature checks were and still are, a way to potentially identify symptomatic and/or presymptomatic carriers. As we've learned more about COVID-19, we now know asymptomatic and presymptomatic carriers pose the greatest threat.

Edited by Frmr CLEder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WARNING:

For Android users. If you go to "Settings," then "Google Settings," you will notice a new "Covid-19 Exposure Notification" app that has been automatically and unknowingly installed onto your mobile devices.

 

The objective is to provide alerts when your phone comes into close proximity of the phone of an infected SARS-CoV-2 patient.

I'm not sure if the same thing has occurred on iPhones.

Now that's a little creepy.

Edited by Frmr CLEder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Frmr CLEder said:

WARNING:

For Android users. If you go to "Settings," then "Google Settings," you will notice a new "Covid-19 Notification" app that has been automatically and unknowingly installed onto your mobile devices.

 

The objective is to provide alerts when your phone comes into close proximity of the phone of an infected SARS-CoV-2 patient.

 

Now that's a little creepy.

 

Haha.  I just checked, but at least mine is turned off since I don't usually have Bluetooth on.

 

Wonder if our friends scared about "big brother" watching their entire lives will speak up.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

In case of the shelter in place orders, there were still many protests in OH, KY, MI, etc.  

As a matter of fact, the KY gov was essentially blocked by the courts from limiting people's right to protest on the Statehouse grounds and in front of the governors mansion because of their first amendment right to assembly and right to protest, even in a pandemic. 

A friend of mine was responsible for the filing the lawsuit in this case. I am not 100% sure if the 6th Circuit ruled on the case or the KY governor backed down before the 6th Circuit could rule on the matter because they knew they had overstepped and did not want to risk a negative ruling and precedent on the books. 

 

So are *all* shelter-in-place orders unconstitutional or merely unenforceable?  What about during an ongoing terrorist attack?


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Haha.  I just checked, but at least mine is turned off since I don't usually have Bluetooth on.

 

Wonder if our friends scared about "big brother" watching their entire lives will speak up.

I know.

 

I figured that would light a fire under certain members of the UO family! Lol.

Share this post


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

"The rule you are trying to articulate is going to be called strict scrutiny. Meaning, when it comes to suspending a fundamental right, it will be analyzed in such a way that such right could be suspended if no other possible alternatives exist to accomplish the state's goal in protecting the people."

 

People becoming gravely ill and dying due to individuals' continued failure to adhere to public health recommendations of social distancing and mask wearing in public during a global pandemic, would certainly seem to fit into the "strict scrutiny" argument.

 

 

So as mentioned earlier, specifically pertaining to masks, it is a very gray area. This specific fact pattern had not been litigated before so there would be a true question of fact here. There is certainly precedent on the free expression side, but it could certainly go the other way. Given that it is a gray area, a municipality could certainly enact such a ban without the risk of immediate injunction. Furthermore, while a Constitutional challenge will likely come, it would take a bit of time (a few weeks to a couple of months) to adequately find the correct plaintiff in such a case. In the meantime theoretically, the masks laws could remain in effect during that temporary period. However, depending on where it goes, there is always the risk of an injunction.

 

In regard to mass protests for whatever reason, precedent has been set that even in the Corona virus emergency, efforts to curtail protests of the closures would not pass Constitutional muster and the 6th Circuit has pretty much weighed in on that matter already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

So as mentioned earlier, specifically pertaining to masks, it is a very gray area. This specific fact pattern had not been litigated before so there would be a true question of fact here. There is certainly precedent on the free expression side, but it could certainly go the other way. Given that it is a gray area, a municipality could certainly enact such a ban without the risk of immediate injunction. Furthermore, while a Constitutional challenge will likely come, it would take a bit of time (a few weeks to a couple of months) to adequately find the correct plaintiff in such a case. In the meantime theoretically, the masks laws could remain in effect during that temporary period. However, depending on where it goes, there is always the risk of an injunction.

 

In regard to mass protests for whatever reason, precedent has been set that even in the Corona virus emergency, efforts to curtail protests of the closures would not pass Constitutional muster and the 6th Circuit has pretty much weighed in on that matter already.

 

Being a "gray area" has had no impact on those who value life over liberty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

So are *all* shelter-in-place orders unconstitutional or merely unenforceable?  What about during an ongoing terrorist attack?

You cant necessarily paint it with a broad brush. It is extremely fact specific and when the court rules, it rules on the specific facts in front of it in order to allow wiggle room for other fact patterns that may emerge down the line

 

In the 6th Circuit, concerning the KY protests, (and there was also a religion case in KY too), it would be extremely difficult to prevent protest from taking place, but there *could* be reasonable scenarios where they could be curtailed. Using Corona as an example, If, the KY governor had hard lockdown order with martial law and nobody was allowed on the street for any reason whatsoever, then theoretically, a ban on protests could stand a better chance of passing muster.  The theory being that being allowed to go to Home Depot or Kroger's is not a fundamental right under the Constitution, but expression is a fundamental right and you cant curtail that right while allowing people out for other things. If it is safe enough to go to Giant Eagle or Kroger, it is same enough to protest. 

 

This is also what the 6th Circuit used recently to apply to the opening of churches in KY too. The KY Gov order categorized churches as a mass gathering similar to gyms or movie theaters. While that may be an appropriate way to view a church gathering from a practical point of view, the fundamental right of practicing religion could not have been curtailed or regulated the same way movie theaters or gyms were, especially given that big box stores were allowed to operate. Furthermore, the court recognized that the state could place reasonable restrictions on the churches who chose to operate but the way KY went about the restrictions (closing them down completely) was not considered the least burdensome way they could have accomplished the goal of slowing the spread.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, KJP said:

Ahem...

 

 

 

This is what makes the right's backlash to mask wearing so mind-boggling.  It's the single most effective tactic we have right now in stopping the spread...which would get us back to "normal" sooner than doing nothing...which would lessen the economic fallout...which would be *GOOD* for Trump in a re-election year.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Frmr CLEder said:

 

Being a "gray area" has had no impact on those who value life over liberty.

 

But that assumes everyone has the same calculus of life over liberty every time. Obviously, each individual weighs those differently 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

But that assumes everyone has the same calculus of life over liberty every time. Obviously, each individual weighs those differently 

Clearly, as I stated above with new mask-wearing mandates, numerous Cities and States think otherwise, and rightly so.

 

"Individual freedoms" have low priority in the middle of a public health crisis and the cities, states and municipalities mentioned above, obviously agree.

 

The argument you should be pursuing is whether or not the same is true for your municipality.

Edited by Frmr CLEder

Share this post


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

Now that's a little creepy.

 

I have posted about the new Exposure Notification protocol several times in this thread. I would urge everyone to turn this on. Please do some research into how this technology works. It is not "creepy" at all, it was actually designed and built in an extremely privacy-conscious way. It does not "track" anyone (it is not based on GPS), and does not reveal sensitive information about you to any other party. But it does notify you if you came in contact with someone who later tested positive with COVID-19, which is pretty useful information to have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, taestell said:

 

I have posted about the new Exposure Notification protocol several times in this thread. I would urge everyone to turn this on. Please do some research into how this technology works. It is not "creepy" at all, it was actually designed and built in an extremely privacy-conscious way. It does not "track" anyone (it is not based on GPS), and does not reveal sensitive information about you to any other party. But it does notify you if you came in contact with someone who later tested positive with COVID-19, which is pretty useful information to have.

As a healthcare professional, even though I stated it was a "little creepy," I did so in jest to stimulate some debate. As DarkandStormy mentioned, it should generate contempt in those who think "Big Brother" is infringing upon their personal liberties.

 

Personally and professionally I think it is a great tool to help stem the spread.

Edited by Frmr CLEder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Frmr CLEder said:

Clearly, as I stated above with new mask-wearing mandates, numerous Cities and States think otherwise, and rightly so.

One thing to keep in mind is that cities do not often care about the Constitutionality when coming up with some of their ordinances. They often just push ahead and will fight the Consitutional battle later, if that is what the majority of the people want. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

One thing to keep in mind is that cities do not often care about the Constitutionality when coming up with some of their ordinances. They often just push ahead and will fight the Consitutional battle later, if that is what the majority of the people want. 

So again, when faced with death and despair from a global pandemic, a growing number of Cities and States have chosen public health and welfare over personal freedoms; as facts and Science dictate they should.

 

Where is Ohio, NEO, Cuyahoga County and the City of Cleveland at in this debate?

Edited by Frmr CLEder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Frmr CLEder said:

So again, when faced with death and despair from a global pandemic, they've chosen public health and welfare over personal freedoms; as facts and Science dictate they should.

Again, people tend to give up freedoms out of fear so when crisis hits, they certainly look to surrender them. It is a reflex tendency and governments take advantage of this. Science may dictate that masks are important to containing the spread, but science alone is not the sole determinate factor. It is an important factor but should not be the sole factor. We must examine all factors involved, including the Constitution and liberties granted under in when formulating a response.  We are not China, thank God. While they may be able to respond in a more heavy handed capacity to get an outbreak under control, their citizens lack any ability to have freedom and free thought at the same time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are being forced to give up "muh freedom" based upon scientific truth and facts, as we know them.

 

There are no other considerations. Period. End of story.

Edited by Frmr CLEder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Frmr CLEder said:

People are being forced to give up their freedoms based upon scientific truth and facts. There are no other considerations. Period. End of story.

The liberties guaranteed in the Constitution do not end solely because science says so. That is not how it works. Science is important, it is good to have the facts, but you cannot make decisions solely because Science. There are other factors that must always be considered. 

We do not live in an authoritarian society where you can suspend rights when it is convenient. 

There is data out there that says mass protests whether they be against the shelter in place orders or for BLM can contribute to the spread. The science is there and irrefutable on those facts, but you can't ban people from exercising their rights (even though the science says otherwise). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The liberties guaranteed in the Constitution do not end solely because science says so. That is not how it works. Science is important, it is good to have the facts, but you cannot make decisions solely because Science. There are other factors that must always be considered. 

We do not live in an authoritarian society where you can suspend rights when it is convenient. 

There is data out there that says mass protests whether they be against the shelter in place orders or for BLM can contribute to the spread. The science is there and irrefutable on those facts, but you can't ban people from exercising their rights (even though the science says otherwise). 

In this case, the freedom NOT to wear masks in public has ended because Science and truth has dictated that they should; not because of lies, half-truths, conspiracy theories, deflection to BLM protests, constitutional mumbo jumbo and alternate realities.

Edited by Frmr CLEder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The liberties guaranteed in the Constitution do not end solely because science says so. That is not how it works. Science is important, it is good to have the facts, but you cannot make decisions solely because Science. There are other factors that must always be considered. 

We do not live in an authoritarian society where you can suspend rights when it is convenient. 

There is data out there that says mass protests whether they be against the shelter in place orders or for BLM can contribute to the spread. The science is there and irrefutable on those facts, but you can't ban people from exercising their rights (even though the science says otherwise). 

 

Okay - argue it to me. What provision of the Constitution could be used to reverse an EO or Act of Congress implementing a temporary order to wear a mask? Would the same also be used to reverse evacuation orders? Food rationing in war time? Water rationing in drought?

 

Moreover, states would have even broader authorities to enforce temporary orders. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're discussing two different things.  I totally understand why people are still allowed to protest during a pandemic- the importance of the First Amendment does arguably override even those health concerns (otherwise a despotic ruler could determine anything a pandemic and shut down all descent). 

 

What I don't understand (because Brutus has ignored my question) is how requiring masks in public might run afoul of the First Amendment.  He keeps talking about grey areas and precedents, which I point blank think he's making up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, YABO713 said:

 

Okay - argue it to me. What provision of the Constitution could be used to reverse an EO or Act of Congress implementing a temporary order to wear a mask? Would the same also be used to reverse evacuation orders? Food rationing in war time? Water rationing in drought?

 

Moreover, states would have even broader authorities to enforce temporary orders. 

So, a short term EO from the president or governor would like be enforceable given if it is very limited in nature and it is the only possible way to address the matter such that the burden it places on the individual's loss of rights cannot be limited by any other means. It would have more weight if it came in the form of a legislative edict instead of an EO. So there is that. However, assuming a mask edict that is broad sweeping and applies everywhere nationwide with no exceptions. The key is the lack of exceptions. Now the problem is that when you start introducing exceptions it causes non-compliance elsewhere, so it is tricky. 

It would have to be a fact specific case and going to rest on a unique set of facts and individual. Chances are the best path to success would likely be on first amendment grounds. However, there could be other grounds maybe a 4th amendment claim that could arise as well. Again, it would be very fact specific. You would need a plaintiff who may have such a unique grievance to demonstrate that they were deprived of their rights. Remember in strict scrutiny analysis, it does not matter if the majority of people will be affected or aggrieved. So my point has always been, and it is going to be a gray area since the fact pattern has not arisen, but a broad sweeping policy no matter how neutral it may seem on its surface will likely run into Constitutional issues as the right plaintiff can certainly be found to show deprivation of their rights. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, X said:

We're discussing two different things.  I totally understand why people are still allowed to protest during a pandemic- the importance of the First Amendment does arguably override even those health concerns (otherwise a despotic ruler could determine anything a pandemic and shut down all descent). 

 

What I don't understand (because Brutus has ignored my question) is how requiring masks in public might run afoul of the First Amendment.  He keeps talking about grey areas and precedents, which I point blank think he's making up.

See my response to Ybo. It should answer your question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Frmr CLEder said:

In this case, the freedom NOT to wear masks in public has ended because Science and truth has dictated that they should; not because of lies, half-truths, conspiracy theories, deflection to BLM protests, constitutional mumbo jumbo and alternate realities.

You miss the point. Science is important yes, but it does not override the freedom of speech and expression. It can in some cases, but the specific fact pattern is important. You act like the science settles the argument, but it doesn't. It is an important factor, but there are other factors too. The half truths and conspiracy theories are not factors. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like the form of an answer, but not the substance of one.  Of course there's a "path to success" if a plaintiff has the grounds to prove they were deprived of a right.  That's how it works.  But you haven't filled in any potential reason why wearing a mask might even possibly be considered a First Amendment violation, or a Fourth Amendment one, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

You miss the point. Science is important yes, but it does not override the freedom of speech and expression. It can in some cases, but the specific fact pattern is important. You act like the science settles the argument, but it doesn't. It is an important factor, but there are other factors too. The half truths and conspiracy theories are not factors. 

Science has settled the argument.

 

It's simple, just wear the damn mask!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Frmr CLEder said:

Science has settled the argument.

 

It's simple, just wear the damn mask!

 

 

If you keep going back to that, you clearly do not understand the Constitution and how it works. You may as well live in China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

 

Well, there goes the population density argument.  


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If you keep going back to that, you clearly do not understand the Constitution and how it works. You may as well live in China"

 

You're either incredibly dense or lack common sense. I'll try this again:

 

States, Cities and Municipalities are mandating mask wearing because we are in the midst of a global pandemic with 129+K fatalities in 5 months, increasing case counts, increasing hospitalizations, and increasing positivity. There are limited treatment options, no cure, no vaccine and citizens have failed to follow the advice of public health officials. 

 

Period. End of story.

 

 

Edited by Frmr CLEder
Increased death toll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/06/30/883703403/as-coronavirus-surges-how-much-testing-does-your-state-need-to-subdue-the-virus?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_term=nprnews&utm_campaign=npr

 

You can check how much daily testing every state needs to do to either mitigate or suppress the spread.  Ohio needs to do at least 35,000 tests a day to reach mitigation and almost 129,000 tests a day to reach suppression.  Last week, the average was about 16,400 a day.  Keep in mind that with mitigation, cases would still rise, just slow enough to have some semblance of control, particularly in hospitals.

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


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

"If you keep going back to that, you clearly do not understand the Constitution and how it works. You may as well live in China"

 

You're either incredibly dense or lack common sense. I'll try this again:

 

States, Cities and Municipalities are mandating mask wearing because we are in the midst of a global pandemic with 127+K fatalities in 5 months, increasing case counts, increasing hospitalizations, and increasing positivity. There are limited treatment options, no cure, no vaccine and citizens have failed to follow the advice of public health officials. 

 

Period. End of story.

 

 

I know you have a difficult time comprehending this. It is ok, if you want me to give it to you in remedial terms, you can take the remedial level class I teach at the local community college. It really is not that difficult of a concept though and most people of average intelligence can understand it. 

 

I get it. To you Science is the only thing that matters. There is nothing else besides the science to you. It is your Bible. If the science says do this, then do it. I get it. The thing is that the Science is not the only consideration that matters when making policy. There are other concerns and issues that need to be taken into account (because we are not China and actually have other rights that override the science). So while important, the Science does not get to trump other individual rights that we have, even if those individual rights may be contrary to that science. This is all part of the calculus. 

Share this post


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

 

Haha.  I just checked, but at least mine is turned off since I don't usually have Bluetooth on.

 

Wonder if our friends scared about "big brother" watching their entire lives will speak up.

 

This has been a discussion in my right-libertarian circles for a couple months now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I know you have a difficult time comprehending this. It is ok, if you want me to give it to you in remedial terms, you can take the remedial level class I teach at the local community college. It really is not that difficult of a concept though and most people of average intelligence can understand it. 

 

I get it. To you Science is the only thing that matters. There is nothing else besides the science to you. It is your Bible. If the science says do this, then do it. I get it. The thing is that the Science is not the only consideration that matters when making policy. There are other concerns and issues that need to be taken into account (because we are not China and actually have other rights that override the science). So while important, the Science does not get to trump other individual rights that we have, even if those individual rights may be contrary to that science. This is all part of the calculus. 

 

Again, you haven't stated anything about how mask wearing, or mandates of such, could substantively impact rights.  If you don't want to do that, then you're just wasting everyone's time here, and need to drop it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Thank you. The science behind the pandemic has dictated the need for mask-wearing and social distancing mandates; more and more mandates are being adopted regardless of what is, or is not in the Constitution.

Edited by Frmr CLEder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, X said:

 

Again, you haven't stated anything about how mask wearing, or mandates of such, could substantively impact rights.  If you don't want to do that, then you're just wasting everyone's time here, and need to drop it.

There is an argument that wearing a mask or not wearing a mask in public is an example of freedom of expression and speech. Your personal decision to not wear a mask can be interpreted as a form of expression and speech that would be protected under the Constitution. If you are looking for a hypothetical, there will eventually be an aggrieved plantiff that arises to state their claim. Whether the courts will be amenable to that depends on the fact pattern they state. As I have mentioned, this has not happened before so there is no specific fact pattern on the issue, but there is some precedent as to the potential deprivation of rights to acknowledge that there would be a sufficient question of law. 

 

5 minutes ago, Frmr CLEder said:

^ Thank you. The science, in the case of mandates, has dictated the response.

Yes, the science has dictated the response that many cities are doing now. That does not mean someone will not be successful if they bring a claim to overturn the mask mandate. That is all I have been saying. 

Share this post


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

People are being forced to give up "muh freedom" based upon scientific truth and facts, as we know them.

 

There are no other considerations. Period. End of story.

 

I think we're all wasting time debating Brutus on this.  He's not going to get it.  He doesn't respect the science or the moral and rational valuation of putting lives first.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allow me to place this in remedial terms....

 

Whether someone does or does not bring a frivolous law suit does not negate the fact that Cities and States are using the Science to implement public health measures to mitigate the death and despair associated with this virus. It's long overdue and will save lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Frmr CLEder said:

Allow me to place this in remedial terms....

 

Whether someone does or does not bring a frivolous law suit does not negate the fact that Cities and States are using the Science to implement public health measures to mitigate the death and despair associated with this virus. It's long overdue and will save lives.

I dont think you should be talking to me about remedial terms when it comes to constitutional lawsuits. Best off if you stay in your lane. 

Someone filing a claim for deprivation of rights under the Constitution will not be treated as frivolous and will be given a hearing. Will it be successful in the end? I cant say, but to call it frivolous shows that you lack even the most basic (or shall we say remedial)  understanding of the law.  

 

Cities are welcome to use the science and they should be using the science, but that does not mean they can override Constitutional rights in crafting their response. You cant fall back on science alone when crafting the policy. 

 

7 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

I think we're all wasting time debating Brutus on this.  He's not going to get it.  He doesn't respect the science or the moral and rational valuation of putting lives first.  

I completely respect and value people's lives. I also value their liberties. They are all connected. It is irresponsible and dare I say immoral to separate them. That is the greater immorality. But you and I choose to disagree on that issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Frmr CLEder said:

Allow me to place this in remedial terms....

 

Whether someone does or does not bring a frivolous law suit does not negate the fact that Cities and States are using the Science to implement public health measures to mitigate the death and despair associated with this virus. It's long overdue and will save lives.

 

And luckily I do think the majority of people get that.  The problem is that during something like a pandemic where nearly every person's actions are consequential, a minority of people who don't get it or refuse to get it can ensure that the damage continues no matter what the majority does.  The anti-maskers and "muh freedom" people are enough of the population that they're affecting state and national outcomes for the worse.  Amy Acton would still be in her position if those people weren't so busy suing her or hadn't been protesting at her house and sending her death threats.  And that's just one example of many. The minority in this case is essentially acting as an additional comorbidity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

I completely respect and value people's lives. I also value their liberties. They are all connected. It is irresponsible and dare I say immoral to separate them. That is the greater immorality. But you and I choose to disagree on that issue. 

 

Yeah, I'm sure my father appreciates that you respect his liberties, but not whether he lived or died in order to enjoy them.

Share this post


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

I dont think you should be talking to me about remedial terms when it comes to constitutional lawsuits. Best off if you stay in your lane. 

Someone filing a claim for deprivation of rights under the Constitution will not be treated as frivolous and will be given a hearing. Will it be successful in the end? I cant say, but to call it frivolous shows that you lack even the most basic (or shall we say remedial)  understanding of the law.  

 

Cities are welcome to use the science and they should be using the science, but that does not mean they can override Constitutional rights in crafting their response. You cant fall back on science alone when crafting the policy. 

 

I completely respect and value people's lives. I also value their liberties. They are all connected. It is irresponsible and dare I say immoral to separate them. That is the greater immorality. But you and I choose to disagree on that issue. 

My "lane" is Infectious disease and public health.

 

The last time I checked, COVID-19 and the virus that causes it, SARS-CoV-2, and its public health threat were Infectious disease and public health related issues. So, that being said, the medical and public health response will be dictated by the medical and public health threat, not what you perceive to be constitutionally-derived liberties.

 

When you become an Infectious Disease/Immunology Specialist and/or a Public Health expert, I will consider your suggestions as to what should/should not be the appropriate course of action for this pandemic. Until then, it's best you stay in "your lane."

Edited by Frmr CLEder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I dont think you should be talking to me about remedial terms when it comes to constitutional lawsuits. Best off if you stay in your lane. 

 

Only Brutus has the authority to post on constitutional lawsuits.  Uses status to attempt to shut down any critique of his ideas.  Very normal.

 

12 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I completely respect and value people's lives. I also value their liberties. They are all connected. It is irresponsible and dare I say immoral to separate them. That is the greater immorality. But you and I choose to disagree on that issue. 

 

You don't seem to value the "liberty" women have over deciding what to do with their own bodies unless I've mistakenly perceived you to be "pro life" (anti-abortion) on that issue.  So spare us the life vs. liberty lecture.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


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...