Well it’s very simple.
You refer to rights and constitutionality.
What do you think of that act, passed in 1944 which codified the federal governments ability to take all of these actions which you deem unconstitutional?
Are you one of those constititionologist who wants to protect it UNTIL YOU GET TO THE PARTS YOU DON’T LIKE?
Cuz that’s the definition of Conservitard.
We haven’t even delved into the misreporting and the seemingly high rate of false cases. Anecdotally, a guy from, I think Pennsylvania got a call that his covid test came back positive, except, he never took the test. And there are stories of many numbers in FL and TX where some testing sites are showing 90% to 100% positive cases where further investigation showed that was not true, but were already counted in the case rate.
Quarantine was to slow spread to managable levels. Once we opened back up some areas flaunted basic precautions and we saw the begining of exponential rise in cases, so quarantine was reinstated to slow spread back down to manageable levels. Once spread is slowed, those places will open and stay open until an exponential trend emerges again.
This is why taking basic precautions is helpful.
Soooo…open, close, open, close?
That’s another thing that doesn’t make sense. The Canadian government was saying they expect 60-70% of the population to eventually get infected, and at that time the data that was available showed the death rate to be around 4%. Then it turns out the death rate is less than 1% most cases and most cases are asymptomatic, but now we have to stop the spread completely? I don’t get it.
Just look at this headline. No wonder people are freaking out, they can’t think for themselves and the media is acting like it’s the end of the world.
No. Open, everyone do their part to prevent unnecessary spread and stay open. If selfish pricks flaunt basic precautions and contribute to exponential infection rates we have to close back down till rates are at managable levels.
I honestly don’t understand why this is so difficult to understand? Keep infection rates at managable levels.
You forget the elephant in the room, the protests and riots. Magically, covid all but disappeared in early June. Then the absolute lunacy of the reporting, complete with health experts certain that said protests and riots would or even could contribute to the spread of covid.
Any reasonable person knows that this is a lie.
In NY you cannot go to church, go to events or gather in quantities of more than 10 people, but you can protest by the thousands for BLM.
Nothing flaunted the basic precautions more than the protests. Now, I am fine with protests, so long as they are peaceful but that’s not the issue. The issue is that the protests of thousands are allowed, but anything else is banned.
Either the precautions and guidelines are for everybody or nobody. It cannot be right for some but not for others.
Well you should have stated that as your question, not simply say “What about this?” and provide a 1000 pages of reading assignments.
As far as constitutional issues, these laws have not been challenged in the courts so we don’t know what the ruling would be. But barring church services and free expression, the right to peaceably assemble are defined as things that ‘shall not be infringed’. So by the letter, barring such assemblies is unconstitutional. The amendment does not make exceptions.
Technically, a church should have been able to open and tell the government to pound sand.
That’s whattaboutism, but I’ll bite.
No doubt the protests helped spread it to a degree. But, at least where I live, the vast majority wore masks and it appears that being outdoors reduces transmission significantly. So, I’d be in favor of allowing outdoor church services that provided good spacing and mandatory masks.
Take common sense precautions. But people can’t be bothered to do the basics, do govt has to be heavy handed and force them.
Open, with reasonable exceptions to protect the most vulnerable.
‘Whataboutism’ is not a fallacy, particularly when dealing with an entire demographic all under the same rules.
It’s not 'What about protests in Iran!?" It’s in the same place where, for instance, anti-lock down protests were decried and derided, but the same governor who wouldn’t even let people mow their own lawns, walked should to shoulder with thousands of people in a BLM protest. Of course I am referring to Michigan.
The media’s incessant lies and misinformation during this whole thing have been unbelievable. They seemingly have no issue contracting themselves on a regular basis.
You agree the protests were not a great idea to prevent spread… Yet you are using that as an example as to why you think church services should be allowed. You are looking at this from a childish “but they got to gather why can’t I”?" Perspective as opposed to a " they did something to help spread the virus, we should avoid doing that again" perspective.
It’s like you want fairness even if it’s to everyone’s detriment. Get over it. Life ain’t fair.
Please start thinking about what the best options are moving forward to balance managable transmission rates, with opening the economy. If wearing a mask inside reduces transmission by 10%, is that inconvenience worth opening 10% more of the economy?
I find it strange that you would judge this guy based on making his own personal choices that have no effect on anybody else. So he gears up, it his business. He knows what’s best for him.
I haven’t seen anything regarding steroid use and viral spreading, if anything it may even help.
Personal attacks on peoples personal decisions are kinda shitty. Don’t worry about what @everybodygetsone does and worry about yourself.
People in this country often seem very concerned about their neighbors behavior without ever bothering to look in a mirror.
“He who have no sin, cast the first stone.”
Both are covered under the 1st amendment. One is allowed and the other is not.
It’s not just unfair, its unjust and technically illegal. The first amendment was not created just for people having the ‘approved’ ideology of the time, it’s for every citizen. You cannot allow for one because you approve of their thinking, but not the other because you don’t like it.
Completely beside the point. They did something bad, so I should be able to do something bad is a childish way to think.
The point is figuring out what we can do to get the economy back firing while keeping transmission rates managable.
Neither one is bad. Protesting peacefully and religious worship are both protected by the 1st Amendment, which I support. The issue is governors and mayors picking and choosing which ones are “safe.” It’s all politically motivated and driven to satisfy their constituents and voters.
If people can gather to protest, can others not also gather to worship, too? Assuming we are all human, neither one is going to overwhelmingly increase the transmission rate (unless you’re factoring in the fact that protests contain A LOT more people than a religious service).
No, because communists want religion abolished.
Yes you often have issues with the media telling lies and spreading misinformation but never with the President doing it. We are aware.
You know what would help avoid this? People following the advice of health professionals. But it’s far more important to say you reject Covid you won’t follow that advice whatever and then say what are we supposed to do?!
We’re supposed to not be selfish fucking idiots not listening to health professionals during a pandemic. But that’s a tall task for a lot of people I realize. And that’s why the US is having issues other places aren’t.