Coronavirus

[net presence]

This whole deal is just getting more grey and less black and white every day. What is the bottom line? If you are at risk, take measures not to get it. The question is do we shut down everyone else to help out the at risk people? Do we all just wear masks? Isn't kind of like if have have a heart condition, then you probably shouldn't run a marathon. Do we ban all marathons then to protect you from yourself?

My parents are a bit of a classic case. They both have diabetes and blood pressure issues. They both were hospitalized over Christmas with pneumonia. They now go out in public very little and always wear masks. My mom is a bit of a rebel and eats inside a restaurant once a week with a friend. At this restaurant the employees don't wear masks. Not good. We tell her what to do and not to do, but she's a bit a rebel. We minimize their contact with my adult children kids who are working out in the public. Theirs hearts a truly saddened by not seeing them. My wife and I get together with them and hang out every couple weeks, my sister sees them once a week. They are definitely going stir crazy with such little contact with other people. That's why I just wish this situation would get back to being black and white. The whole thing is getting politicized now, which just fuels the fire of "screw it". Thanks for listening.

Tim... I don't think your analogy of someone with a heart condition should force marathons to shut down is a strong one -- to put it nicely. If a person with a bad heart chooses to run that marathon, they only put themselves at risk. They don't potentially and literally put any other person's life at risk. Whereas, if we allow team sports -- especially those played indoors -- there's a provably significant increase in risk of infection in allowing those activities, both between participants but also for anyone in attendance. Yes, the vast majority of the actual participants likely won't get significantly ill or die. But, what about those kids who have a grandparent living in their home? Three of my grandparents -- who all died of smoking related cancers -- spent their last 6-12 months living with my family so we they didn't need to go to a nursing home. Trust me, there are a lot more of those situations in the general population than you might think. In those cases, having the elderly "just stay home" doesn't really work now, does it?

Not only that, but what happens when a player tests positive? Well, according to the CDC and, I believe every state health department nation-wide, that player must quarantine for 14 days. As does any other person meeting the definition of close contact within a certain time frame. Meaning, literally every player on the team will need to quarantine for 14 days. AND, if that player played in the previous weekend's games, then technically, all of the players from the other team who played in the game need to quarantine for 14 days as well. So, then what happens to the next two series each of the teams are scheduled to play? Who's responsible for paying all of the late fees for short notice cancellations for flights, buses, and hotels? These schools -- especially the athletic departments, are already in the red in a significant way. Noe add the fact that there likely won't be many -- or any -- fans in the stands, those finances will take an even bigger hit. There are so many more potential and unpredictable scenarios that we simply can't predict that I just don't see how we can pull this off without a vaccine. Hope I'm wrong but....

 

[Timothy A]

Tim... I don't think your analogy of someone with a heart condition should force marathons to shut down is a strong one -- to put it nicely. If a person with a bad heart chooses to run that marathon, they only put themselves at risk. They don't potentially and literally put any other person's life at risk.

My point was if you are at risk, don't put yourself in risky situations and take care of yourself. By doing that you automatically do not put others at risk. Essentially, if my Mom wants to be stupid, I can't stop her from doing so.

I don't understand all the rage about having to wear a mask. It is for the good of society as a whole and in no way stops me from doing anything that I want or can do. By not wearing a mask you are increasing the likelihood of having the Government stop you from doing what you want to as it did before. I say wear a mask and have all businesses and schools be open and ramp up or keep ramped up the cleaning.

 

[DDad16]

A little long but some good information... Again, people are going to have opinions on this and cherry pick what they want to listen to. Just like the "science and data" that are being cherry-picked to align with our own opinions. I'm posting this link to a video but, you should know before you watch it, that she went to Duke AND North Carolina. Not sure you can trust someone like that. Since the smiley face doesn't seem to work, I'll end this with "smiley face".

https://www.facebook.com/goonegoall/...40216752758732

 

[TinyViking]

A little long but some good information... Again, people are going to have opinions on this and cherry pick what they want to listen to. Just like the "science and data" that are being cherry-picked to align with our own opinions. I'm posting this link to a video but, you should know before you watch it, that she went to Duke AND North Carolina. Not sure you can trust someone like that. Since the smiley face doesn't seem to work, I'll end this with "smiley face".

https://www.facebook.com/goonegoall/...40216752758732

I guess this is "cherry-picking" but I plan to get my coronavirus advice from the epidemiologists instead of Disaster Response consultants on FB, even if they are MDs. That said, if the death of 140,000 Americans can't inspire us to take some collective action on preventive measures, I don't think anything will.

 

[DDad16]

I guess this is "cherry-picking" but I plan to get my coronavirus advice from the epidemiologists instead of Disaster Response consultants on FB

Again... It will depend on which epidemiologist/infectious disease doctor you want to listen to. They also are offering differing opinions on the how serious this strain of virus is as compared to other strains. Along with the actual number of deaths attributed to this particular virus (and not the actual underlying condition a lot of people already had). There is just too much conflicting information around all of this that I, personally, don't trust any of it. Like I said, we are going to cherry-pick the information/science/data and live our lives as we feel based on how that information makes us feel.

 

[ARM]

When I was young, there was much controversy regarding the wearing of seat belts. Eventually, public safety arguments won out over arguments of personal freedoms, and seat belts became mandatory. When I first started working, my boss could call me into his office for a meeting and chain smoke throughout it. Eventually, a smoker's right to smoke in public became secondary to the rights of others to not inhale cigarette smoke.

Is wearing masks to attempt to slow the spread of Covid-19 that different? Americans do have rights to choose what to wear or not, but at least when I was taught U.S. Government, we also have responsibilities to not put others at risk.

 

[robertearle]

When I was young, there was much controversy regarding the wearing of seat belts. Eventually, public safety arguments won out over arguments of personal freedoms, and seat belts became mandatory. When I first started working, my boss could call me into his office for a meeting and chain smoke throughout it. Eventually, a smoker's right to smoke in public became secondary to the rights of others to not inhale cigarette smoke.

Is wearing masks to attempt to slow the spread of Covid-19 that different? Americans do have rights to choose what to wear or not, but at least when I was taught U.S. Government, we also have responsibilities to not put others at risk.

"No shirt, no shoes, no service".

Reasonable restrictions put in place to further public safety. Happens all the time. Masks here are no different.

(As for legal justifications, there is a 1905 Supreme Court case - Jacobson v Massachusetts - where the Court held that a state can compel compliance with a vaccination law in the interest of public health and safety; in that case, a smallpox outbreak. If a state can compel the actual invasion of a citizen's body in the form of an injection, they can **** well order the wearing in public of a piece of clothing.)

(LOL! The web site did an 'auto-correct' on the homonym for a structure that contains the flow of water. Dang!)

 

[Call It]

When I was young, there was much controversy regarding the wearing of seat belts. Eventually, public safety arguments won out over arguments of personal freedoms, and seat belts became mandatory. When I first started working, my boss could call me into his office for a meeting and chain smoke throughout it. Eventually, a smoker's right to smoke in public became secondary to the rights of others to not inhale cigarette smoke.

Is wearing masks to attempt to slow the spread of Covid-19 that different? Americans do have rights to choose what to wear or not, but at least when I was taught U.S. Government, we also have responsibilities to not put others at risk.

Seat Belt laws were driven forward by the Insurance companies and masked behind a concern for public safety.

 

[Call It]

My point was if you are at risk, don't put yourself in risky situations and take care of yourself. By doing that you automatically do not put others at risk. Essentially, if my Mom wants to be stupid, I can't stop her from doing so.

I don't understand all the rage about having to wear a mask. It is for the good of society as a whole and in no way stops me from doing anything that I want or can do. By not wearing a mask you are increasing the likelihood of having the Government stop you from doing what you want to as it did before. I say wear a mask and have all businesses and schools be open and ramp up or keep ramped up the cleaning.

First it's a Mask and then its a ... ? The mask, social distancing and all of other protocols are good on paper and horrible in human execution. Most don't wear them properly.

 

[Call It]

When I first started working, my boss could call me into his office for a meeting and chain smoke throughout it. Eventually, a smoker's right to smoke in public became secondary to the rights of others to not inhale cigarette smoke.

Is wearing masks to attempt to slow the spread of Covid-19 that different? Americans do have rights to choose what to wear or not, but at least when I was taught U.S. Government, we also have responsibilities to not put others at risk.

So presumed guilty? You are assuming that someone is putting you at risk just by their presence. This is a horrible precedent going forward. I'm choosing not to live in a bubble but rather boost my immune system.

 

[Russell Jaslow]

So presumed guilty? You are assuming that someone is putting you at risk just by their presence. This is a horrible precedent going forward. I'm choosing not to live in a bubble but rather boost my immune system.

I know anyone who comes in contact with me is putting me at risk. It's up to me to decide how much risk I want to be in by how much I want to isolate myself. But, it's also up to you to help reduce that risk to me by wearing a mask, just like I will wear a mask to reduce your risk to me. It's called being a responsible member of society. Which we obviously don't have in this country.

 

[robertearle]

"So presumed guilty?"

If you want to frame it that way, yes.

"You are assuming that someone is putting you at risk just by their presence."

Yes. And for the time being, with good cause and good reason.

"This is a horrible precedent going forward."

It is not the "precedent"; Jacobson v Massachusetts is the precedent.

"I'm choosing not to live in a bubble but rather boost my immune system."

It can become, and - depending on where you live - may already be NOT your "choice".

ALL Constitutional rights can be limited under the 'right' circumstances. The conflict between individual rights and societal rights and powers is as old as humanity itself. Courts weigh those conflicts and set the standards that become the law and the conditions under which you live as part of that society.

And our courts have decided that the state can compel you to put on an effing mask!

 

[Call It]

And our courts have decided that the state can compel you to put on an effing mask!

Perhaps but who will enforce it after the police are defunded? What's the penalty? This isn't a small percentage of the population opposing masks.

How many schools with WIH do not make it through this? The NESCAC schools will be fine but State schools?

 

[robertearle]

after the police are defunded?

Change the channel on your TV.

------------

When things got bad in Italy - and things were BAD in Italy in March and April - they went into a lock-down strict enough that they had armed troops on the streets enforcing the lock-down. If you didn't have proper paperwork, they would stop you and either arrest you or fine you.

And that worked. They were able to contain the spread of the infection, and are back to some reasonable version of normal life.

I'm tempted to say that right now, we're Italy and it's April. But the US right now puts up numbers of new infection cases in a matter of four or five days the equal or more of the number of cases Italy has had during the ENTIRE time of the pandemic. We are SO MUCH worse off than Italy was and Spain was, etc etc.

Put on the effing mask.

 

[Offsides Guy]

How about this? Trump and his administration lead the way in asking (mandating?) all of America to wear masks in public for 21 days. He says he and his people will lead by example and the goal is to see just how much we stop the spread of the virus before schools open. He could make it a patriotic thing ("America's health first!") and call it the 21-Day War on the virus (#21daywar). With a definitive, 21-day trial period, everyone knows the end date and, for those not into masks, they're being asked to make a small, temporary sacrifice for their country. Also, if at the end of the 21 days there's little or no reduction in the spread of the virus, then we know masks aren't effective enough to be mandated.

If it's true that the mask argument seems to be falling along party lines, Trump's taking the lead on this could go a long way getting those currently defiantly not wearing masks to wear them. Though personally it would pain me, it could even help his reelection effort as he would be seen as a caring leader and Dems certainly could not fault him for such leadership.

I'm no genius but I don't see why this plan wouldn't work.

 

[Timothy A]

Dems certainly could not fault him for such leadership.

I'm no genius but I don't see why this plan wouldn't work.

Sure they would fault him....why didn't you mandate sooner? They would say. Nothing he does will ever be deemed the right move by Dems. Nothing. Sadly, that won't change.

I think conservatives who oppose the mask are wrong. Put one on. It's no big deal. Do that or the Gov shuts down your life like they did 2 months ago. Take one for the team. I am.

 

[ARM]

So presumed guilty? You are assuming that someone is putting you at risk just by their presence.

Note that I didn't say anyone was putting me at risk. I don't think that I am positive for Covid-19, but I don't know that for a certainty at any moment. So I choose to wear a mask in situations where I'm not socially distanced, in the hope that it will help protect others. I'm not presuming that I'm "guilty," just that I'm not 100 percent confident that I'm "innocent" when it comes to carrying Covid-19. I believe that is my responsibility as a member of our society. You are free to decide that your rights far outweigh any such responsibilities.

 

[robertearle]

You are free to decide that your rights far outweigh any such responsibilities.

...unless and until your state government and the courts decide otherwise.

Once more, EVERY Constitutional right can be restricted and abridged under the 'right' circumstances.

 

[Offsides Guy]

...unless and until your state government and the courts decide otherwise.

Once more, EVERY Constitutional right can be restricted and abridged under the 'right' circumstances.

What is the constructional right that relates to face coverings? Is it the same one that does not allow a woman to walk around topless in public? Is forcing women to wear tops unconstitutional?

 

[robertearle]

"Is forcing women to wear tops unconstitutional?"

No. That's the point.

"What is the constructional right that relates to face coverings?"

"No shirt, no shoes, no service" is not unconstitutional because we have decided that wearing shoes in a public store or restaurant, etc. is in the interest of public safety and public health. You don't have to go into the store, but if you do, you gotta wear shoes.

"Put on a mask" is VERY MUCH the same thing.

The right to not "wear tops" would be an individual freedom of expression - aka. "freedom of speech" - in what clothes we wear, or choose to not wear. But - like ALL Constitutional rights - that freedom of expression can be limited when it collides with what we'll call 'public modesty' or 'public decorum', etc.; courts have decided that we can't walk around with our boobs out or our junk out on display. (And obviously, there are situations - strip clubs, etc., - where the restriction does not apply, where 'speech' of that kind is allowed.) Now, you can disagree with that decision and that restriction. But that's the way it goes; disagreeing does not equate to a right to ignore the restriction or defy the restriction.

"Put on a mask" is VERY MUCH the same thing.