Stay At Home Orders

welkin said:
Tell me how much sooner the government should have acted.. Should they have acted before there was even one death in the US? Should they have acted during the primary elections? What would your be saying if the administration had closed down the country during the primary elections without a single death in this country?

Stick to the facts. Don't try to rewrite history for your political motives.
Click to expand...


Here are some facts for you about another "epidemic" that was handled quite differently with very different results.

2014-2016 Ebola Outbreak in West Africa | History | Ebola (Ebola Virus Disease) | CDC
 
justblue said:
You just don't get it do you? EVERYONE is at risk.

'I'm Young, Healthy, And I Exercise Five Times A Week—And COVID-19 Came For Me Anyway'
Click to expand...

I certainly do get it and agree- everyone is at risk. However, not everyone is a risk.
Quarantine authority exists for people who are a risk, or are infected.
Those who fear for their health can stay away from public. Just as they can attend church from home if they choose, they can also shop for groceries from home, pay bills, and do any number of other essential tasks.
One person's fear does not justify limiting another's freedom.
 
Day 22 of my self imposed exile in our secure underground bunker secreted somewhere in the hinterlands of the Texas Hill Country.

I've done many things in my lifetime.

I've endured far worse than a period of self imposed exile.

Stay safe to all of you elite Eloi who dwell above ground.

As a newly converted underground Gnome (not to be confused with the Morlocks), stay safe up there. ;) :D

Someone ought to get busy rounding up all of those feral felines.

Word has it that felines can transmit that "virus".
 
Better get a few gaiters.

I've worn them for decades.

Dad introduced me to them when we went fishing and hunting.

Uncle Sammy issued them to me during Nam, and I've worn them ever since.

To paraphrase AMEX, "Don't go outside unless you're wearing a gaiter!"

gaiter.JPG
 
mightymoose said:
I certainly do get it and agree- everyone is at risk. However, not everyone is a risk.
Quarantine authority exists for people who are a risk, or are infected.
Those who fear for their health can stay away from public. Just as they can attend church from home if they choose, they can also shop for groceries from home, pay bills, and do any number of other essential tasks.
One person's fear does not justify limiting another's freedom.
Click to expand...
Considering that you may be infected and contagious without knowing you are sick...who am I, or you for that matter, to determine who is a risk? That woman in NY who got sick at a dinner party didn't know she was being exposed....and likely the person that dropped the Covid-19 bomb at that party displayed no symptoms.

By the time you show symptoms you have already exposed God know's how many people to the virus.

Everyone is at risk and EVERYONE is potentially a risk.

One persons blasé attitude doesn't give them the "right" to infringe on others right to life.
 
Tax Counsel said:
So far every place that has tried going that route has regretted it when the cases start pouring in. Eventually the lock down comes; it's just a question of how many die before that happens. I hope for the citizens of your state that somehow your state will prove to be the exception to what every other place that delayed experienced. The health experts say that to keep things under control you have to get ahead of it and stop the spread before you see a serious problem. Once the virus infects enough people for the politicians to finally see it is a problem it's already too late to stop a lot of people from getting ill and from a spike in deaths — a number of whom would not have died had the government acted sooner.
Click to expand...

We are doing pretty well. Our duration for doubling has increased from 3 to 7 days at last count.

Our Governor did ban those from out of state coming in and staying unless it was essential travel. Including overnight stays in our state parks. Seems we had a bunch of Yankees show up to camp in their RVs.
 
PayrollHRGuy said:
We are doing pretty well. Our duration for doubling has increased from 3 to 7 days at last count.

Our Governor did ban those from out of state coming in and staying unless it was essential travel. Including overnight stays in our state parks. Seems we had a bunch of Yankees show up to camp in their RVs.
Click to expand...
Damned Yankees! See what happens when they can't play ball?? ;)
 
I am not refusing it or denying it- but I am acknowledging people hold certain civil liberties until following due process they don't.
An executive order circumvents due process and is arguably insufficient to compel anyone to do anything in the first place. Fear alone that someone might be sick is no justification to restrict them. There must be something more.
People who are afraid of those who might be unknowingly infected should take extra precautions because those people will always be out there. Confining everyone to their homes is not reasonable.
 
I see. So If you don't know if you're infected or not, you should be allowed to do anything you like, and if I don't want to contract it from you I have to hide away. Thus granting you rights that you are effectively taking away from me.
 
cbg said:
I see. So If you don't know if you're infected or not, you should be allowed to do anything you like, and if I don't want to contract it from you I have to hide away. Thus granting you rights that you are effectively taking away from me.
Click to expand...

Nobody is taking anything away from anyone who is choosing to stay home, and nobody else gains anything because someone chooses to stay home.

It is far more reasonable to let those who are fearful to be inconvenienced than to inconvenience an entire population with questionable restrictions because of others fear. A very small percentage of people have anything to worry about over this, even if they become infected.

If someone's freedom is to be restricted there must be more of a reason than fear. There is no reason to take that actin when those whip have the fear have the opt-in to avoid others.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry, but I don't see any way to interpret what you are saying as anything but that your right to do what you please supersedes public safety.
 
welkin said:
Stick to the facts. Don't try to rewrite history for your political motives.
Click to expand...

I did stick to the facts. The medical science is clear: the sooner you slow the spread of the virus, the fewer people that get the disease and thus the fewer people that die. If you bother to actually read the advice of medical experts rather than politicians you'll see that. If those facts don't fit your political views, well, that's not my problem.
 
mightymoose said:
There is no reason to take that actin when those whip have the fear have the opt-in to avoid others.
Click to expand...

Sure there is. Reread my post #116 where I explain why those who want to go out need to be restricted: they are not just putting themselves at risk. They impact the rest of society, too. As much as you might wish it otherwise, that reality is why those restrictions need to include everyone.
 
Tax Counsel said:
I did stick to the facts. The medical science is clear: the sooner you slow the spread of the virus, the fewer people that get the disease and thus the fewer people that die. If you bother to actually read the advice of medical experts rather than politicians you'll see that. If those facts don't fit your political views, well, that's not my problem.
Click to expand...

And if you actually read (or listened to) what the medical experts have said about remedial action in the US you would know that every recommendation was adopted at the time it was given.

 

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top