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.
Murphy will continue to require face masks and social distancing. That is not going away. However, enforcing that is another story.
You’re never going to achieve a 100 percent safe environment but waiting for a vaccine is unreasonable and a vaccine may never arrive.
I agree. See the post I just posted. Enforcement needs to be very serious, because are not going to do this on their own. There are ways to get to a new normal, but it requires investment in society and enforcement of measures meant to the protect the public. If other countries can do, we can too.
It's not just a business though. There is an entire society that exists beyond the walls of that business that that business is harming. Restaurants have health inspectors regularly. Do you also believe that is a government overreach?
Those private businesses that reopen and contribute to the spread of infection are not going to be paying medical bills for those who get sick. They are not going to be the ones in the hospital caring for the sick due to their negligence and selfishness. Their negligent business model of reopening everything however they please and disregarding masks, social distancing, sanitization, etc. will affect all of us because it spreads to further virus infections outside of just their store. Their business model will force other taxpayers to pick up the bill and treat more people in the hospital and buy more medical equipment. We don't live in anarchy. We live in a society where one person's actions affect other people. And in this case, their actions can affect an entire community or more than just one sector of business.
its scary when people talk like "you cant do something because that hurts society." it becomes a license to tell anyone to do anything now because of things that are beyond their control. a business is responsible for its business, not the world outside. it should be up to them if they wish to open or not. we arent all in this together to the point where we have the right to make decisions for other people. if businesses are open and you think that endangers you, then do whatever you think is necessary to protect yourself. you dont have the right to tell them not to open because somehow that indirectly endangers you.
I agree. See the post I just posted. Enforcement needs to be very serious, because are not going to do this on their own. There are ways to get to a new normal, but it requires investment in society and enforcement of measures meant to the protect the public. If other countries can do, we can too.
What do you think "very serious" enforcement should be? like putting people in jail because they walked to close to you or didn't have a mask on.
its scary when people talk like "you cant do something because that hurts society." it becomes a license to tell anyone to do anything now because of things that are beyond their control. a business is responsible for its business, not the world outside. it should be up to them if they wish to open or not. we arent all in this together to the point where we have the right to make decisions for other people. if businesses are open and you think that endangers you, then do whatever you think is necessary to protect yourself. you dont have the right to tell them not to open because somehow that indirectly endangers you.
I mean literally they could cause a public health crisis. How is that different than a restaurant repeatedly sickening people with salmonella or something? Or having roaches and rats? Eventually the government steps in and shuts them down for health code violations. And they're not an indirect threat when they provide a place for a virus to spread and then those people go back into society and infect other people. The virus doesn't stop at their doors. Do you believe that a restaurant should be allowed to deny service to minorities based on their minority status? Do you think people should be allowed to shoot guns in a store just because the store says it's okay? That causes problems for the other business owners nearby and endangers the lives of others. There are just so many laws already in place that keep businesses safe and they all make sense because they function to better promote the health and safety of society as a whole. Why does mandating masks cross the line? It literally affects you in absolutely no way at all. Until businesses can be forced to comply with health standards, they should not be allowed to open, regardless if that's food storage or food handling or virus control.
You still failed to answer any of the issues this causes such as childcare, unemployment benefits, etc.
What do you think "very serious" enforcement should be? like putting people in jail because they walked to close to you or didn't have a mask on.
Not walking too close. But if a restaurant owner purposely tries to squeeze as many people into their restaurant to maximize profits, that contributes to the spread of the virus. Start with a warning. If it happens again, a fine. If it happens again, suspend the liquor license since that's where a lot of income comes from. If the restaurant continues to violate everything, shut it down for health condition violations the same way the health department would shut them down for refusing to store food at a proper temperature and serving people salmonella-contaminated food repeatedly and doing nothing to improve their health standards.
As for individuals, let's look at all the videos of people refusing to wear masks to enter grocery stores. If they repeatedly do this, they'll get a fine. If that doesn't stop them, then yeah maybe some jail time. You're endangering the health and safety of others. The same way you might be fine speeding on the turnpike, it could be dangerous for others. That's why we have laws against that. If someone is speeding only once, a cop may only give a warning. Eventually it's a ticket. If it's bad enough, you can go to jail for it. You don't have a personal right to drive whatever speed you want because it endangers others. Unless we're literally calling for anarchy, then how do we differentiate what laws can be ignored? If wearing a mask can be ignored because someone just doesn't feel like it, even though it protects others, should we get rid of speed limits? They don't feel like driving safely to protect themselves, even though it protects others, so do away with speed limits?
I mean literally they could cause a public health crisis. How is that different than a restaurant repeatedly sickening people with salmonella or something? Or having roaches and rats? Eventually the government steps in and shuts them down for health code violations. And they're not an indirect threat when they provide a place for a virus to spread and then those people go back into society and infect other people. The virus doesn't stop at their doors. Do you believe that a restaurant should be allowed to deny service to minorities based on their minority status? Do you think people should be allowed to shoot guns in a store just because the store says it's okay? That causes problems for the other business owners nearby and endangers the lives of others. There are just so many laws already in place that keep businesses safe and they all make sense because they function to better promote the health and safety of society as a whole. Why does mandating masks cross the line? It literally affects you in absolutely no way at all. Until businesses can be forced to comply with health standards, they should not be allowed to open, regardless if that's food storage or food handling or virus control.
You still failed to answer any of the issues this causes such as childcare, unemployment benefits, etc.
anybody could cause a public health crisis. that doesnt mean we have a right to tell everybody what they can or cant do. everyone is responsible for managing their own safety. people entering the restaurant should be aware of the risks and that is it.
i said that those are not answers that are relevant. im not sure why you are mentioning child care for workers but that has always been an issue and its never been up for public debate and certainly not a reason to not operate a business. look at you all the sudden you decided its everyone's right to decide what businesses can or cant open or what everyone should do and now you think dealing with everyone's childcare and other issues are things you have a right to have a say in? you must feel pretty good thinking you have some kind of right to have say in other people's business. you focus on yourself and let them do what they want to do.
anybody could cause a public health crisis. that doesnt mean we have a right to tell everybody what they can or cant do. everyone is responsible for managing their own safety. people entering the restaurant should be aware of the risks and that is it.
i said that those are not answers that are relevant. im not sure why you are mentioning child care for workers but that has always been an issue and its never been up for public debate and certainly not a reason to not operate a business. look at you all the sudden you decided its everyone's right to decide what businesses can or cant open or what everyone should do and now you think dealing with everyone's childcare and other issues are things you have a right to have a say in? you must feel pretty good thinking you have some kind of right to have say in other people's business. you focus on yourself and let them do what they want to do.
So you think that it's fine to have a restaurant functioning as a petri dish for the virus and causing a more widespread outbreak? People who went to that restaurant get the virus, infect their families, those people go back to their own office, they infect people at grocery stores because they don't wear a mask, and all that's okay? I don't know how to explain it in any other way except that this is not just one establishment and one individual person who goes there. Viruses don't care who they infect. Viruses don't know "oh oops can't infect that person they chose to stay away from the infected restaurant and now they're just an innocent old lady going grocery shopping." No. The virus will still infect that old lady at the grocery store when the restaurant customer ends up at the grocery store with the old lady. Your solution sounds like "let every business work however it wants to regardless if that means millions of people die because of it because the government has absolutely no right to close a business for any reason no matter how much of a clear and present danger it presents to society." So do you also believe that health inspectors are unimportant and they should allow a disgusting restaurant to continue operating? They have no authority to shut down a restaurant that poses a serious health risk to the community? I can't go back in the kitchen and inspect how they store perishable items. I can't monitor if they cross-contaminate and cause salmonella outbreaks. I can't check the expiration dates of their ingredients. That's what health inspectors do. They make sure that we don't get sick from eating at a restaurant and they have the authority to shut down a restaurant that doesn't comply with health standards and sickens its customers. So should we stop that also?
What's your actual answer for childcare? If schools are not open, what does the waitress do now? Does she have to leave her child at home without a person watching him/her? Because if she does that, DCF will take her child. The employer won't let her take the child to work with her. So now because her employer is back open but she can't go back to work, she can't collect unemployment either. Do you have a real suggestion for that problem? It's not just one person. It could happen to thousands or even hundreds of thousands of families across the state when a single parent has no childcare or when both parents must return to work or risk termination and cannot collect unemployment.
To whom it may concern: To the sheeple that will do and obey whatever Murphy says that will create a "new normal" = hope that you love your then permanent decreased freedom. Then the "next emergency" = an eventual "alternate new normal" and more freedoms taken away, then rinse and repeat and vote in for the same because by that time you'll be dependent on government to live that you may wish you were dead but then again many may be already "brain-dead" by then.
Not walking too close. But if a restaurant owner purposely tries to squeeze as many people into their restaurant to maximize profits, that contributes to the spread of the virus. Start with a warning. If it happens again, a fine. If it happens again, suspend the liquor license since that's where a lot of income comes from. If the restaurant continues to violate everything, shut it down for health condition violations the same way the health department would shut them down for refusing to store food at a proper temperature and serving people salmonella-contaminated food repeatedly and doing nothing to improve their health standards.
As for individuals, let's look at all the videos of people refusing to wear masks to enter grocery stores. If they repeatedly do this, they'll get a fine. If that doesn't stop them, then yeah maybe some jail time. You're endangering the health and safety of others. The same way you might be fine speeding on the turnpike, it could be dangerous for others. That's why we have laws against that. If someone is speeding only once, a cop may only give a warning. Eventually it's a ticket. If it's bad enough, you can go to jail for it. You don't have a personal right to drive whatever speed you want because it endangers others. Unless we're literally calling for anarchy, then how do we differentiate what laws can be ignored? If wearing a mask can be ignored because someone just doesn't feel like it, even though it protects others, should we get rid of speed limits? They don't feel like driving safely to protect themselves, even though it protects others, so do away with speed limits?
I guess you would be locked in the closet in florida or many other states. I was in the supermarket today with about 20 or 30 other people and only 1 person had a mask on. Most restaurants are open at 50% capacity with most of the people with no masks on. It's amazing that you want to put people in jail for not wearing a mask. Didn't Murphy and Cuomo release people from jail because of the virus.
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.
