quote:

Originally posted by Hamden106:

quote:

Originally posted by lizardman_u:
I am curious how legal it is for Oregon and Washington's Governors to limit the number of people who can gather.

Doesn't this violate our US Constitution?

I don't believe that our rights can be suspended if we aren't convicted felons.

If I am of able mind, body, and am willing to accept the risk of attending a gathering of 250 people or more that should be my choice.

I fully understand businesses closing if that is the wish of the business owner, and I understand events being cancelled if that is the wish of the company putting on the event.

Am I incorrect in my thinking?

Is this issue just between your ears? Or do you WANT to go where there are hundreds of people?

I was at Jerry's yesterday (Home Improvement in Eugene). The checkout line usually is nose to butt. But last evening the customers spaced themselves 6-7 feet apart.

I think maybe lizard's point is that you were still able to go get what you wanted. And it sounds like people were shopping responsibly. As a small business owner I have definite concerns about how this is going to affect my business. If my customers don't have money then I'm out of luck too.
Our governor is speaking right now about daycare. He is advising people to remove their kids from daycare but isn't closing daycare places down yet. Well governor, you closed the schools. Do you expect people to quit their jobs to stay home?

There is broad authority under a state's "general police power" to protect the public morals, health, safety or welfare.

Remember that the freedom to assemble under the 1st Amendment and the right to commerce and travel as understood from the commerce clause are not absolute, and can be limited if a compelling state interest is involved, and that compelling interest is achieved through a reasonable restriction, where "reasonable" is applied to scope and time.

Quarantines and public health restrictions have a long history in western legal thought, reaching all the way back to Venice in the 1600s where "quarantine" meant a 40 day restriction to avoid the black plague.

States absolutely have this power; although it can be tested in court.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
There is broad authority under a state's "general police power" to protect the public morals, health, safety or welfare.

I think it is a little late to protect the public morals (at least in some states), but I hope they have better luck with health, safety, and welfare.

Sigforum class: The word for the day is “Fomite” An object such as plastic,cloth or metal that can carry an infectious agent.

Next week we will be discussing the the five states of the Kubler Ross syndrome. Please prepare yourself for a pop quiz.

I find it interesting that measures are being taken with this virus when I don't recall any measures being implemented with H1N1 (Swine Flu).

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Thing about liberty is it’s supposed to be scary. I can think of another Amendment that restrictions are touted as “common sense”. Not a fan of any government intervention “for the children”. If private entities want to shut down, so be it. I am firmly against the government telling people that they can’t assemble.

Right now, Kentucky’s governor has suggested that all churches close until further notice. And he hasn’t ruled out closing them if they refuse to comply. Who can support this? I don’t care how many lives it may save. Or not. What was that quote about those who give up liberty for security and what not?

Thank you.

quote:

Originally posted by lizardman_u:
I find it interesting that measures are being taken with this virus when I don't recall any measures being implemented with H1N1 (Swine Flu).

or Ebola

I'm not a worry wort per say. But it is wise to limit strangers being elbow to elbow for a few hours at an event. The problem is sick people with poor judgement, how many times have you seen someone that was clearly very sick (flu/cold etc), wandering around in public to places that clearly aren't an emergency (ice cream parlor, bar, restaurant, shopping mall) infecting everyone and everything they touch. As a Nation we're learning when it comes to disease control with each and every new disease.

There is a person we all know who has had contact with multiple people in the past week who have tested positive or been quarantined any yet he keeps insisting on shaking people's hands.

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:
I'm not a worry wort per say. But it is wise to limit strangers being elbow to elbow for a few hours at an event. The problem is sick people with poor judgement, how many times have you seen someone that was clearly very sick (flu/cold etc), wandering around in public to places that clearly aren't an emergency (ice cream parlor, bar, restaurant, shopping mall) infecting everyone and everything they touch. As a Nation we're learning when it comes to disease control with each and every new disease.

For heaven's sake. Let's get a grip, folks.

Check this out: https://www.health.com/conditi...f-the-flu-every-year

Then think of this: Even if you were to somehow contract the COVID-19 coronavirus, your chances of complete recovery are 80%-90%. This isn't the Walking Dead where just being bitten is a death sentence.

No one likes getting the flu. And that's basically what this is. It's just a new strain.

The problem with touting the state's "broad police power" is when you turn your back on one Amendment, they'll surely try to take another from you.

https://www.nraila.org/article...ammunition-transfers

Some here are surely completely cool with this. "If it saves one life".

This type of nonsense is how gun control propagates.

Sorry, I don't support any "common sense" measures to circumvent or infringe on the Constitution. The Constitution is more than whether or not the population lives or dies.

quote:

Originally posted by lizardman_u:
I find it interesting that measures are being taken with this virus when I don't recall any measures being implemented with H1N1 (Swine Flu).

I saw a chart about all the big diseases like this and corona, going back to the 60s I think?

Most of them only affected thousands of people, in a handful of countries. But H1N1 had a death toll higher than the other 15 or so put together, in 200+ countries, with a huge infection rate.

quote:

Originally posted by Kraquin:
Bucking common sense for the common good is along the lines of anti-vaxxer thinking, no?

My thoughts precisely!

quote:

Originally posted by fpuhan:
For heaven's sake. Let's get a grip, folks.

Check this out: https://www.health.com/conditi...f-the-flu-every-year

Then think of this: Even if you were to somehow contract the COVID-19 coronavirus, your chances of complete recovery are 80%-90%. This isn't the Walking Dead where just being bitten is a death sentence.

No one likes getting the flu. And that's basically what this is. It's just a new strain.

The primary concern with coronavirus has never been the danger to any one individual person who gets it, or even whether it is worse than the flu.

The primary concern is that it seems to be somewhat more contagious than the flu, and no one has ANY degree of immunity (due to vaccination or past infection) as is the case with the flu. That creates the possibility that coronavirus could spread through the population quickly enough to overwhelm our medical system to the point that large numbers of people can't get adequate care, not just for coronavirus but for any serious health issue.

The narrative of the hystericals mutates quicker than the virus. First, you were going to be 34 more times more likely to have 480k deaths. Now that the made up statistics are being called out for what they are, it’s “concern to the healthcare system”. After that falls apart, the next narrative will surface. Their battle cry was “But, Italy”. There was nothing you could do to dissuade them from it even if you brought in facts.

The left and their proxies are using the same tactics that they used with “Russia, Russia, Russia”. They have found a way to get a bunch of things they want, and use fear and a government gun to get it handed to them.

Eventually, just like with TSA, they will champion that stealing your Rights has saved lives, and none of this happened because you gave up your Rights. They may even try to use this to steal some of your Rights permanently. To which some Fudds will gladly hand them over out of fear. They’ll have yours over as well, don’t worry, it’s for the common good. You notice that you’re even seeing some pat China on the back for tyranny, and that is being used here as justification to steal your Rights.

You see pretty quickly who supports freedom, and those that are statists. Those who will rat you out to the left if gun confiscation ever comes about. They believe the Constitution is for sale “if it saves one life” or “common sense” measures.

The government has no business infringing on the Constitution. Ever.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
The problem with touting the state's "broad police power" is when you turn your back on one Amendment, they'll surely try to take another from you.

https://www.nraila.org/article...ammunition-transfers

Some here are surely completely cool with this. "If it saves one life".

This type of nonsense is how gun control propagates.

Sorry, I don't support any "common sense" measures to circumvent or infringe on the Constitution. The Constitution is more than whether or not the population lives or dies.

I don't disagree with you. I'm only pointing out that this power isn't being invented by current governors and presidents. Furthermore, it wasn't even invented by the modern progressive movement beginning with TR and Wilson in the early 1900s. It is an incredibly longstanding power.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
The problem with touting the state's "broad police power" is when you turn your back on one Amendment, they'll surely try to take another from you.

https://www.nraila.org/article...ammunition-transfers

Some here are surely completely cool with this. "If it saves one life".

This type of nonsense is how gun control propagates.

Sorry, I don't support any "common sense" measures to circumvent or infringe on the Constitution. The Constitution is more than whether or not the population lives or dies.

I don't disagree with you. I'm only pointing out that this power isn't being invented by current governors and presidents. Furthermore, it wasn't even invented by the modern progressive movement beginning with TR and Wilson in the early 1900s. It is an incredibly longstanding power.

At the risk of hyperbole, so was slavery, until it wasn't.

Just because it's old doesn't mesn much of anything, in and of itself, no more than X being meaningful because an authority figure or pop star said so. It's a nearly irrelevant attribute. We've been wrong for years and years over a great many things throughout human history. Age is a poor measure of right.

True. But a judge is far more likely to delay a final decision on something like this, than issue a sweeping ruling about the practice.

First a judge will look to the perceived threat and the scope of the restriction to see if it is "reasonable" under the circumstances. Isolation and quarantine in the face of a deadly disease may be found to be reasonable while the same restrictions with respect to a disease which approximates the common cold may not be. The judge will then leave the restriction in place while ordering the parties to prepare briefs on the threat and scope of response. All this will happen in the hope that the medical threat blows over before a final ruling has to be issued. If the threat doesn't blow over, most judges will likely elect to issue narrow rulings over individual local restrictions rather than a nationwide ruling. If it ever gets to the supreme court, and the threat is still in existence, we will have a much larger problem than issues of quarantine.

The question of whether the government has the power to impose these restrictions is a different discussion than whether the government should impose these restrictions. It unquestionably has the power.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
The narrative of the hystericals mutates quicker than the virus. First, you were going to be 34 more times more likely to have 480k deaths. Now that the made up statistics are being called out for what they are, it’s “concern to the healthcare system”. After that falls apart, the next narrative will surface. Their battle cry was “But, Italy”. There was nothing you could do to dissuade them from it even if you brought in facts.

I think you may be having a little trouble keeping up with different people posting different things.

If you go back and look at my posts in this thread and the other one, I have consistently said the same things since the beginning of my involvement in this discussion, and the statistics I have included are either actual statistics about current confirmed cases or are projections made by epidemiologists and infectious disease experts and include the context in which the projections were made.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by maladat:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
The narrative of the hystericals mutates quicker than the virus. First, you were going to be 34 more times more likely to have 480k deaths. Now that the made up statistics are being called out for what they are, it’s “concern to the healthcare system”. After that falls apart, the next narrative will surface. Their battle cry was “But, Italy”. There was nothing you could do to dissuade them from it even if you brought in facts.

I think you may be having a little trouble keeping up with different people posting different things.

If you go back and look at my posts in this thread and the other one, I have consistently said the same things since the beginning of my involvement in this discussion, and the statistics I have included are either actual statistics about current confirmed cases or are projections made by epidemiologists and infectious disease experts and include the context in which the projections were made.

Oh no, I’m having no problems whatsoever.

And I’m not arguing with you in another thread as Para has already warned about the whole argument of the fake numbers thing.

I will not disrespect him that way.

If you want to talk fake numbers, "34 times more likely to have 480k deaths" are the only numbers in the last few posts of this little exchange, and you posted them.

You see me as hysterical and posting fake numbers. Fine. I see you as acting like a child with your eyes closed and fingers stuck in your ears yelling "lalalalala" while you ignore reality.

It sounds like we don't have much basis for further discussion.