This is really disturbing

[Jumeby]

Originally Posted by BirdieBelle

No, he was arrested for violating the quarantine order, which applied to the temporary homeless shelter at the fairgrounds.



You are taking lines from this article out of context.

There are other articles out there about this situation, you know. You could read up on it and educate yourself. He was identified as homeless and taken to the temporary homeless shelter.

Temporary orders, such as the one in this situation, are enforceable whether you like it or not.

I'm not taking anything out of context.



Try educating yourself on the fourth amendment -- search and seizure.


The article even said the statue under which he was arrested does not covert his situation.

[BirdieBelle]

Originally Posted by Jumeby

I'm not taking anything out of context.

Yes, you are. Maybe you just didn't read far enough, but you left out this relevant bit:

Dr. Alex Jahangir, chairman of the city’s coronavirus task force, said the vast majority of people who tested positive in Nashville have cooperated with officials, so “formal quarantines” have been unnecessary.

However, the city has the option of using a legally enforceable quarantine order whenever necessary, Jahangir said. At the fairgrounds, where the city is attempting to quash an outbreak among homeless residents, everyone who has tested positive is subject to a formal order, he said.

“Everyone is entitled to come and go as they want, typically, but in the fairgrounds situation we wanted to make sure that people who are positive stayed in the ill parts of the shelter — period,” Jahangir said.

and you didn't include this part, right under the one sentence you quoted:

Brian Todd, spokesman for the Metro Health Department, said that law empowers police to arrest anyone who violates an infectious disease quarantine. The laws are not specific to residents of homeless shelters and could also be used to arrest someone who violates a Metro Health order to remain in quarantine at their home or a hospital.

The arrest highlights the difference between people merely advised to remain at home and those who are ordered into quarantine. Residents across Nashville have been instructed by the mayor to remain at home as much as possible, but those who venture outside don’t face arrest. However, residents who test positive for coronavirus can be ordered into quarantine, which police can enforce.

Originally Posted by Jumeby

Try educating yourself on the fourth amendment -- search and seizure.

**sigh**

Sorry, Jumeby, you're wrong.

First of all, I would think you'd be pushing the 5th and 14th amendments, since public health regulations used to impose such conditions as quarantine can’t be “arbitrary, oppressive and unreasonable."

So that you and others have a better understanding of how the federal and state jurisdictions work together in times of quarantine:

The federal government acts to prevent the entry of communicable diseases into the United States. Quarantine and isolation may be used at U.S. ports of entry. It also is authorized to take measures to prevent the spread of communicable diseases between states.

State, local, and tribal authorities enforce isolation and quarantine within their borders. That's thanks to the 10th Amendment, if you want to get technical.

It is possible for federal, state, local, and tribal health authorities to have and use all at the same time separate but coexisting legal quarantine power in certain events.

The Constitution does come into play here, but only if the methods used are arbitrary and unreasonable, and only because the federal government derives its authority for isolation and quarantine from the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

From the CDC website: Under section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S. Code § 264), the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to take measures to prevent the entry and spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States and between states.

Within the states, local authorities can enforce quarantine orders. In fact, governments have broad powers to handle a public health crisis, and state and local officials have even broader powers because they have the authority to maintain public safety. Any lawsuit stating otherwise is likely to fail.

Originally Posted by Jumeby

The article even said the statue under which he was arrested does not covert his situation.

You believe that because, as I pointed out above, you took that first quote out of context, without citing the rest of the article.

[roodd279]

basic math? shows you the death rate is less than the flu? Please continue - I'd really like to see that.


Meantime - I'm going with the CDC. They are not conflicted in the least. The asymptomatic transmission has been documented in several other countries - but it's not "official" here until the CDC does their thing. But right their on their own website - says it's likely. That's good enough for me.

[Jumeby]

Originally Posted by roodd279

basic math? shows you the death rate is less than the flu? Please continue - I'd really like to see that.


Meantime - I'm going with the CDC. They are not conflicted in the least. The asymptomatic transmission has been documented in several other countries - but it's not "official" here until the CDC does their thing. But right their on their own website - says it's likely. That's good enough for me.

COVID-19 Antibody Seroprevalence in Santa Clara County, California


From the report:
We can use our prevalence estimates to approximate the infection fatality rate from COVID-19 in Santa Clara County. As of April 10, 2020, 50 people have died of COVID-19 in the County, with an average increase of 6% daily in the number of deaths. If our estimates of48,000-81,000 infections represent the cumulative total on April 1, and we project deaths to April 22 (a 3 week lag from time of infection to death22), we estimate about 100 deaths in the county. A hundred deaths out of 48,000-81,000 infections corresponds to an infection fatality rate of 0.12-0.2%. If antibodies take longer than 3 days to appear, if the average duration from case identification to death is less than 3 weeks, or if the epidemic wave haspeaked and growth in deaths is less than 6% daily, then the infection fatality rate would be lower. These straightforward estimations of infection fatality rate fail to account for age structure and changing treatment approaches to COVID-19. Nevertheless,our prevalence estimates can be used to update existing fatality rates given the large upwards revision of under-ascertainment.

[roodd279]

First, the flu is less than 0.1% - so even if that's right - you're wrong. They give COVID a 0.12 - 0.2%.



But that report has already been declared a fail, for a number of reasons, that the authors agree with. So you'll have to find another link. The main reason it's a fail is because - at 0.1% - all of NY is infected - and that's not true. Ergo, report is wrong.


Seriously - brush up on some "modern" news. that report was written a month ago. it was analyzed heavily, some weak spots in data gathering and methods were found, the authors agree, and it's water under the bridge. They weren't trying to fool anyone - and their data pretty much applies ONLY to santa clara county - not the USA. But their report was a start - "we gotta start somewhere" - and that's what they did.


Do not just believe these things - you can download their own PDF and go over the data one case at a time. I did. It's fascinating. I do it for all these reports before I post - while keeping in context the data of the research, the location, the trajectory before and after, and so on. All of it. Or as much as I can wrangle. Sometimes - the technicalities are too great to hurdle. In those cases - you'll never see me posting. Over my head. If you're not going to do the same - please don't just spread misinformation for the fun of it. It's dangerous.



So your basic math trick was to use someone else's math? Nice. Still wrong.

[Jumeby]

Originally Posted by roodd279

First, the flu is less than 0.1% - so even if that's right - you're wrong. They give COVID a 0.12 - 0.2%.

But that report has already been declared a fail, for a number of reasons, that the authors agree with. So you'll have to find another link. The main reason it's a fail is because - at 0.1% - all of NY is infected - and that's not true. Ergo, report is wrong.

Seriously - brush up on some "modern" news. that report was written a month ago. it was analyzed heavily, some weak spots in data gathering and methods were found, the authors agree, and it's water under the bridge. They weren't trying to fool anyone - and their data pretty much applies ONLY to santa clara county - not the USA. But their report was a start - "we gotta start somewhere" - and that's what they did.

Do not just believe these things - you can download their own PDF and go over the data one case at a time. I did. It's fascinating. I do it for all these reports before I post - while keeping in context the data of the research, the location, the trajectory before and after, and so on. All of it. Or as much as I can wrangle. Sometimes - the technicalities are too great to hurdle. In those cases - you'll never see me posting. Over my head. If you're not going to do the same - please don't just spread misinformation for the fun of it. It's dangerous.

So your basic math trick was to use someone else's math? Nice. Still wrong.

If you want to discredit that report than you need to provide credible evidence, not just words.

I provided the credible report from highly respected sources (see below) so it's your turn to do the same to discredit it.

Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford CA
Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford CA
SolPrice School of Public Policy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles CA
Health Education is Power, Inc., Palo Alto CA
The Compliance Resource Group, Inc., Oklahoma City OK
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford CA
Bogan Associates, LLC, Palo Alto CA
ARL BioPharma, Inc. , OklahomaCity OK
Sports Medicine Research and Testing Laboratory, Salt Lake City UT
Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford CA

[JMT]

This discussion has devolved into one that is not specific to Nashville. To continue discussing the science of coronavirus, please go to the Current Events thread:

https://www.city-data.com/forum/current-events/

This thread is now closed.