Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Half a million dead people have no rights now, and the Supreme Court disagrees with your right-wing interpretation of the Constitution during a public health emergency. This may come as a surprise, but other people have rights too. Its impossible to enjoy the Right to Liberty and to Pursue Happiness when your Life has been taken away by the selfiishness of an ignorant minority.
Eh. Did you say the same in past pandemics? I suspect not.
The emergency powers allowed by the government was only ever meant to be used temporarily and under very strict and limited circumstances. Constitutional rights still exist and were never meant to be suspended arbitrarily. The Constitutional model also allows different states their own ways of interpreting the powers given to them by the Constitution, but there is also a reason why the brief attempts at restricting population movement among states was voluntarily only and never politically enforced. And also why various state courts have struck down state governors' emergency powers. And it is why Biden hasn't enacted a national mask requirement outside the limited areas where he can, such as on Federal properties.
You are still perfectly free to respond to the pandemic the way you want to, by staying at home. Your choice, your decision, your actions. As long as your freedom doesn't come at the expense of other people's freedoms. But by ordering other people to accept suspension of their civil liberties (which may or many not have any real meaningful impact) you are definitely infringing on their freedoms.
I think it will end in a mixture of "pandemic fatigue" as did the Spanish Flu pandemic in 1917-20. People can only endure restrictions and lockdowns for so long. Even during the height of the pandemic, fund raising via bond parades took a front seat to public health, arguably sparking a flu surge in Philadelphia and other cities. The authority for this is The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History by John M. Barry (that link is to my review of it on CD). After the various waves of the Spanish Flu came and went there were still outbreaks, but the "Return to Normalcy", campaign slogan for Warren Gamaliel Harding in 1920, symbolized America's fatigue with WW I (then the Great War) and collaterally with the Spanish Flu. In those days, fiscal stimulus to "spend your way out" of the economic impact wasn't yet in fashion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DXBtoFL
Hard lockdowns that you envisioned rarely worked anywhere else in the world (such as Europe, which had much stricter and longer lockdowns but still ended up with raging epidemics). Only in island nations like New Zealand or Taiwan did it have success.
Even there it can't linger forever. Students abroad have to be allowed to come home, for example, and both countries do trade with the outside world. Still as you point out a near-hermetic seal is more possible in small island nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DXBtoFL
Then there is also the constitutional issue. America has a Constitution, for better or for worse. The lockdowns represented a severe restriction on Constitutional civil liberties. Maybe you were fine with it, but others were not and your views don't triumph over theirs.
And the Governor has stated that factories and schools have contributed to the spread of COVID–19, id., Exh. H, at 3; App. to Application in No. 20A90, pp. 98, 100, but they are treated less harshly than the Diocese’s churches and Agudath Israel’s synagogues, which have ad-mirable safety records.Because the challenged restrictions are not “neutral” and of “general applicability,” they must satisfy “strict scrutiny,” and this means that they must be “narrowly tailored” to serve a “compelling” state interest....
Not only is there no evidence that the applicants have contributed to the spread of COVID–19 but there are many other less restrictive rules that could be adopted to minimize the risk to those attending religious services. Among other things, the maximum attendance at a religious service could be tied to the size of the church or synagogue. Almost all of the 26 Diocese churches immediately affected by the Executive Order can seat at least 500 people, about14 can accommodate at least 700, and 2 can seat over 1,000. Similarly, Agudath Israel of Kew Garden Hills can seat up to 400. It is hard to believe that admitting more than 10 people to a 1,000–seat church or 400–seat synagogue would create a more serious health risk than the many other activities that the State allows.
Justice Gorsuch, in a memorable concurring opinion stated: "Even if the Constitution has taken a holiday during this pandemic, it cannot become a sabbatical." This case arises out out of the current pandemic and reflects current constitutional thinking (Link from New England Journal of Medicine, excerpt below):
Quote:
Originally Posted by New England Journal of Medicine
Already, the case’s effects have been felt. In December, the Court ordered a lower court to reconsider its rejection of a challenge to a California regulation that affects in-person worship. Beyond the pandemic, Roman Catholic Diocese’s most important legacy may be the dethroning of Jacobson. Gorsuch is correct that Jacobson was not a free-exercise case and does not control such claims. Still, for more than 115 years, Jacobson has been the key precedent supporting vaccine mandates and other public health laws. It has also served as a reminder of the importance of public health evidence and the fact that “real liberty” cannot exist in the absence of reasonable restraints to protect the public’s health. With Jacobson apparently sidelined, the future of many public health laws, including and especially vaccine mandates, appears perilous.
Half a million dead people have no rights now, and the Supreme Court disagrees with your right-wing interpretation of the Constitution during a public health emergency. This may come as a surprise, but other people have rights too. Its impossible to enjoy the Right to Liberty and to Pursue Happiness when your Life has been taken away by the selfiishness of an ignorant minority.
Looking at the pandemic from more than year of different measures both here and around the world I think we can come up with some conclusions.
If you compare US states. The ones that locked down more than those who did not have done about the same. If you look at the US compared to Europe or many parts of the world. Again no indication that more lock downs and restrictions make much of a difference. If you look at deaths per capita the US is #14. Better than the UK, Belgium, Italy and just slightly worse than France and Spain. And they all had much stricter lock downs. 500k were going to die here whether we took away constitutional rights or not. Outside of declaring marital law there was not much more we could have done.
What does make a difference is being geographically isolated like Australia or New Zealand or China who can clamp down as hard as they want on their people. Also countries like Japan or Korea that have more experience with wearing masks due to previous outbreaks or now vaccine distribution where countries who have gotten a jump are doing much better now.
Of course lockdowns work. They have to be taken seriously though and they don't work if only half the population participates.
If infected people keep from interacting with non-infected, the virus doesn't spread.
One month would not have been enough. It would have taken two full months of the strictest possible lock-down, taking into account the need to deliver food, water, electricity and maybe a few other basic essentials to hundreds of millions of people, even billions, with zero planning or previous experience at executing such an operation under such circumstances.
As it stands, it is a counter-factual not worth arguing about.
Fact is, almost all countries have pursued some combination of slowing the spread, as very clearly advertised, and herd immunity, left mostly unsaid but still obvious, because as a practical matter, including cultural and legal realities, there was no better choice (whining and complaining about counter-factuals does not count).
Furthermore, however unsavory people at organizations like WHO and CDC, there have also been as clear as possible guidelines on how to avoid getting infected and reducing the chances of severe illness.
At that point, individuals are responsible for calibrating their own risk sets and behaving accordingly.
Fact is, the majority of humans on the planet have not been infected or severely ill or killed, even if they almost all have been affected in some way.
As a conclusion, many people have been skillful or lucky, or a happy combination of both.
One month might not have been enough, in part because every lockdown has come a bit too late. Just like the next one we might be heading toward. I think it was a mistake to ease up restrictions when we are sooooo close.
Lockdowns only really work if they are taken ahead of the wave, and kept in effect long enough.
Looking at the pandemic from more than year of different measures both here and around the world I think we can come up with some conclusions.
If you compare US states. The ones that locked down more than those who did not have done about the same. If you look at the US compared to Europe or many parts of the world. Again no indication that more lock downs and restrictions make much of a difference. If you look at deaths per capita the US is #14. Better than the UK, Belgium, Italy and just slightly worse than France and Spain. And they all had much stricter lock downs. 500k were going to die here whether we took away constitutional rights or not. Outside of declaring marital law there was not much more we could have done.
What does make a difference is being geographically isolated like Australia or New Zealand or China who can clamp down as hard as they want on their people. Also countries like Japan or Korea that have more experience with wearing masks due to previous outbreaks or now vaccine distribution where countries who have gotten a jump are doing much better now.
I don't know why people somehow forget why we had to "lock down". It was never about deaths, it was about not overwhelming the hospitals so people could be treated when they needed medical help. And now one year later, so many people are afraid to talk to a stranger unless it's behind a glass wall or virtually. Some people would actually rather get cancer than covid. It's sad what the media has done.
One month might not have been enough, in part because every lockdown has come a bit too late. Just like the next one we might be heading toward. I think it was a mistake to ease up restrictions when we are sooooo close.
Lockdowns only really work if they are taken ahead of the wave, and kept in effect long enough.
Nope. As soon as lockdowns are lifted, cases and infections start increasing if most people still have no immunity.
According to viroloigst Geert Vanden Bossche vaccines will be the cause of more infectious strains.
He lists DVM as a key credential which means he's a practicing veterinarian. He lists PhD in virology which means he's studied it. Anything that treats a disease, such as a vaccine, antibiotic, or antiviral, is going to lead to other mutations coming to the fore that are resistant. You do nothing and it mutates anyways.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
