Coronavirus pandemic

[wxfree]

...limiting outdoor social gatherings to 10 or fewer people for an 8-week period...

How is that compatible with "abridging...the right of the people peaceably to assemble?"

You can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater.

Unless there's an actual fire.

Are there any crowded theaters these days?

Yell in a theater and appeal the conviction.  Let the Supreme Court decide what constitutes crowded.  This is a legal question that's long overdue for an answer.

[Duke87]

...limiting outdoor social gatherings to 10 or fewer people for an 8-week period...

How is that compatible with "abridging...the right of the people peaceably to assemble?"

You can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater.

A better comparison is that fire marshals have the authority to limit the legal occupancy of public assembly spaces. If the fire marshal says that having more than 120 people in a restaurant is unsafe because in the event of a fire they won't all be able to evacuate fast enough, you can't use "but my first amendment rights" as defense for having 150 people in there. It's illegal and the fire marshal absolutely can show up and order people to leave.

It's the same basic idea that having more than 10 people in a dwelling unit is unsafe because in the event one of them has covid this can result in them spreading it to too many other people. The difference is that the risk being mitigated is highly variable from time to time and place to place, and therefore so are the limits.

That said, it does seem that even in states where governors have moved to tighten things back down, no one is really going after gatherings in private homes since they've realized this is both difficult to enforce and generally unpopular over how intrusive it is.

[Duke87]

Couple other news roundup items.

Item 1: NY Governor Cuomo flies to Savannah to hold a press conference. He won't be quarantining upon his return to NY. While technically he isn't required to, this still is not really going over well from a PR perspective.

Item 2: restaurants in Manhattan are bleeding money and a lot of them will be out of business by the end of the year if they aren't bailed out. They're all allowed to be open, that's not their problem - their problem is that they're located in areas where not very many people actually live, so they don't really have local customers to support them. They're used to subsisting on office workers going there for lunch, groups of friends stopping in for dinner before going to see a show or a concert, tourists stopping in for a meal on their tour of the city, etc... all of these demographics are still absent from the city and will not be coming back for quite a while.

[Roadgeekteen]

...limiting outdoor social gatherings to 10 or fewer people for an 8-week period...

How is that compatible with "abridging...the right of the people peaceably to assemble?"

You can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater.

Unless there's an actual fire.

Are there any crowded theaters these days?

Yell in a theater and appeal the conviction.  Let the Supreme Court decide what constitutes crowded.  This is a legal question that's long overdue for an answer.

I think yelling it would put people in danger so that would apply to large gatherings too.

[Scott5114]

Chicago will be rolling back in a few areas starting Friday

-Bars that don't serve food must close indoor seating, outdoor can continue

Lori must think alcohol spreads it. 

Well...it does, in a manner of speaking. Bars have been serving as superspreaders nationwide. Mostly because drunk people aren't inclined to follow social distancing or wear a mask.

But why does it matter whether or not the bar serves food? That should be completely irrelevant from an epidemiological perspective.

Because that is how you have to word it to keep from shutting down something like Applebee's.

In before someone posts "Why would it be a bad thing to shut down Applebee's?"

[SectorZ]

...limiting outdoor social gatherings to 10 or fewer people for an 8-week period...

How is that compatible with "abridging...the right of the people peaceably to assemble?"

You can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater.

There is a difference between "inciting violence to cause a stampede that is a clear and present danger" and "don't congregate with fellow humans because you MAY transmit a disease (even if you had it months ago and really can't) that has a .5% fatality rate".

It's pretty offensive to congregates to think they're the same, but I presume those good Metrowest schools teach you religion is superfluous these days.

[hotdogPi]

For those of you saying that the virus has a 0.5% fatality rate or less: Many people who recover don't fully recover, and there is something wrong with them afterwards that will never heal.

[kalvado]

For those of you saying that the virus has a 0.5% fatality rate or less: Many people who recover don't fully recover, and there is something wrong with them afterwards that will never heal.

"never" is a big word given that there are no patients who are more than 7 months into recovery. SARS had some pretty nasty post-effects though.

[jeffandnicole]

Yell in a theater and appeal the conviction.  Let the Supreme Court decide what constitutes crowded.  This is a legal question that's long overdue for an answer.

Sure, Mr. Money Bags.  First, yell it, get yourself arrested. Get convicted of a crime. Possibly go to jail. Then, lawyer up and let the municipal court, county court, state court, state appeals court, and state supreme court rule against you first, then ask to have it heard in the federal Supreme Court, which may or may not elect to hear your argument that you have a constitutional right to yell fire in a movie theatre because 'crowded' is a vague term.

[SEWIGuy]

For those of you saying that the virus has a 0.5% fatality rate or less: Many people who recover don't fully recover, and there is something wrong with them afterwards that will never heal.

It is a way for people to continue to minimize this.  These people should be ignored because they don't have the capacity for more than the simplest of thought.

[kalvado]

For those of you saying that the virus has a 0.5% fatality rate or less: Many people who recover don't fully recover, and there is something wrong with them afterwards that will never heal.

It is a way for people to continue to minimize this.  These people should be ignored because they don't have the capacity for more than the simplest of thought.

OK, Mr. Braniak, without googling it - your comments on D614G?

[SEWIGuy]

For those of you saying that the virus has a 0.5% fatality rate or less: Many people who recover don't fully recover, and there is something wrong with them afterwards that will never heal.

It is a way for people to continue to minimize this.  These people should be ignored because they don't have the capacity for more than the simplest of thought.

OK, Mr. Braniak, without googling it - your comments on D614G?

It's not relevant to my point.

[kphoger]

For those of you saying that the virus has a 0.5% fatality rate or less: Many people who recover don't fully recover, and there is something wrong with them afterwards that will never heal.

Asthmatic people who contract influenza can develop bronchitis or pneumonia that linger after the flu is gone, but that doesn't mean the fatality rate of influenza is somehow not a valuable metric.

Resultant health problems from COVID are indeed a concern that need to be considered, but that doesn't mean the fatality rate is higher than it actually is, nor that people should stop citing it.

It is a way for people to continue to minimize this.  These people should be ignored because they don't have the capacity for more than the simplest of thought.

Attacking the intelligence level of someone who disagrees with them is a way for people to avoid forming their own arguments.  These people should be ignored.

[kphoger]

...limiting outdoor social gatherings to 10 or fewer people for an 8-week period...

How is that compatible with "abridging...the right of the people peaceably to assemble?"

It would be fairly easy to word such a restriction so as to permit larger gatherings, while maintaining that each 10-or-fewer cluster be separated from the others by some minimum distance.  That is, a gathering of 100 people could be required to divide into ten groups of ten people each.

[SEWIGuy]

Attacking the intelligence level of someone who disagrees with them is a way for people to avoid forming their own arguments.  These people should be ignored.

Go ahead and ignore me.  Won't bother me any.

But anyway, my arguments are well stated.  I will continue to ridicule those who ignore science.

[Max Rockatansky]

Attacking the intelligence level of someone who disagrees with them is a way for people to avoid forming their own arguments.  These people should be ignored.

Go ahead and ignore me.  Won't bother me any.

But anyway, my arguments are well stated.  I will continue to ridicule those who ignore science.

But you often attack people in this thread who don't agree with your views completely, even when there is room for actual debate.  I don't think many people have seriously come into this thread suggesting that the "virus isn't real"  or no measures shouldn't be taken.  Why does your opinion matter more than everyone else?

[SEWIGuy]

Attacking the intelligence level of someone who disagrees with them is a way for people to avoid forming their own arguments.  These people should be ignored.

Go ahead and ignore me.  Won't bother me any.

But anyway, my arguments are well stated.  I will continue to ridicule those who ignore science.

But you often attack people in this thread who don't agree with your views completely, even when there is room for actual debate.  I don't think many people have seriously come into this thread suggesting that the "virus isn't real"  or no measures shouldn't be taken.  Why does your opinion matter more than everyone else?

Because it is the correct one.

[kphoger]

Attacking the intelligence level of someone who disagrees with them is a way for people to avoid forming their own arguments.  These people should be ignored.

Go ahead and ignore me.  Won't bother me any.

But anyway, my arguments are well stated.  I will continue to ridicule those who ignore science.

But you often attack people in this thread who don't agree with your views completely, even when there is room for actual debate.  I don't think many people have seriously come into this thread suggesting that the "virus isn't real"  or no measures shouldn't be taken.  Why does your opinion matter more than everyone else?

The notion that "science" has only one conclusion is ridiculous.  Scientists disagree about things.  Statistics get manipulated based on politics and personal bias from all sides.  Claiming to follow "the science" is a meaningless claim.  There is no such thing as "the science".  Rather, science is a field of study in which individual scientists disagree and common understanding constantly shifts.

tradephoric is looking at data and interpreting it.  Other people disagree with him and use other data or interpret the given data differently.  But he isn't "ignoring science" any more than anybody else.

[NWI_Irish96]

Attacking the intelligence level of someone who disagrees with them is a way for people to avoid forming their own arguments.  These people should be ignored.

Go ahead and ignore me.  Won't bother me any.

But anyway, my arguments are well stated.  I will continue to ridicule those who ignore science.

But you often attack people in this thread who don't agree with your views completely, even when there is room for actual debate.  I don't think many people have seriously come into this thread suggesting that the "virus isn't real"  or no measures shouldn't be taken.  Why does your opinion matter more than everyone else?

The notion that "science" has only one conclusion is ridiculous.  Scientists disagree about things.  Statistics get manipulated based on politics and personal bias from all sides.  Claiming to follow "the science" is a meaningless claim.  There is no such thing as "the science".  Rather, science is a field of study in which individual scientists disagree and common understanding constantly shifts.

tradephoric is looking at data and interpreting it.  Other people disagree with him and use other data or interpret the given data differently.  But he isn't "ignoring science" any more than anybody else.

When you are interpreting data in such a bizarre way so as to fit a specific political point, that's pretty much ignoring science.

[hotdogPi]

The notion that "science" has only one conclusion is ridiculous.  Scientists disagree about things.  Statistics get manipulated based on politics and personal bias from all sides.  Claiming to follow "the science" is a meaningless claim.  There is no such thing as "the science".  Rather, science is a field of study in which individual scientists disagree and common understanding constantly shifts.

tradephoric is looking at data and interpreting it.  Other people disagree with him and use other data or interpret the given data differently.  But he isn't "ignoring science" any more than anybody else.

When you are interpreting data in such a bizarre way so as to fit a specific political point, that's pretty much ignoring science.

It's not bizarre. He's making one major error, which is assuming that twice as many tests means twice as many positive cases. Other things he's saying, such as getting a wave in April vs. July, are up for debate. (Getting it later is better because we know some partial treatment, but on the other hand, getting it later is more preventable because we know more about the virus.)

[NWI_Irish96]

The notion that "science" has only one conclusion is ridiculous.  Scientists disagree about things.  Statistics get manipulated based on politics and personal bias from all sides.  Claiming to follow "the science" is a meaningless claim.  There is no such thing as "the science".  Rather, science is a field of study in which individual scientists disagree and common understanding constantly shifts.

tradephoric is looking at data and interpreting it.  Other people disagree with him and use other data or interpret the given data differently.  But he isn't "ignoring science" any more than anybody else.

When you are interpreting data in such a bizarre way so as to fit a specific political point, that's pretty much ignoring science.

It's not bizarre. He's making one major error, which is assuming that twice as many tests means twice as many positive cases. Other things he's saying, such as getting a wave in April vs. July, are up for debate. (Getting it later is better because we know some partial treatment, but on the other hand, getting it later is more preventable because we know more about the virus.)

There has been ample evidence that that assumption is false, but he's sticking to it. That's moved into the territory of ignoring science.

[kphoger]

When you are interpreting data in such a bizarre way so as to fit a specific political point, that's pretty much ignoring science.

I haven't seen tradephoric tie anything he's said to "a specific political point".  Did I miss something?

[kalvado]

Attacking the intelligence level of someone who disagrees with them is a way for people to avoid forming their own arguments.  These people should be ignored.

Go ahead and ignore me.  Won't bother me any.

But anyway, my arguments are well stated.  I will continue to ridicule those who ignore science.

But you often attack people in this thread who don't agree with your views completely, even when there is room for actual debate.  I don't think many people have seriously come into this thread suggesting that the "virus isn't real"  or no measures shouldn't be taken.  Why does your opinion matter more than everyone else?

Because it is the correct one.

How can someone claim any right to have an opinion on the situation without knowing about D614G is beyond me. The guy who can't interpret such simple data has THE CORRECT opinion....

[SEWIGuy]

Attacking the intelligence level of someone who disagrees with them is a way for people to avoid forming their own arguments.  These people should be ignored.

Go ahead and ignore me.  Won't bother me any.

But anyway, my arguments are well stated.  I will continue to ridicule those who ignore science.

But you often attack people in this thread who don't agree with your views completely, even when there is room for actual debate.  I don't think many people have seriously come into this thread suggesting that the "virus isn't real"  or no measures shouldn't be taken.  Why does your opinion matter more than everyone else?

The notion that "science" has only one conclusion is ridiculous.  Scientists disagree about things.  Statistics get manipulated based on politics and personal bias from all sides.  Claiming to follow "the science" is a meaningless claim.  There is no such thing as "the science".  Rather, science is a field of study in which individual scientists disagree and common understanding constantly shifts.

tradephoric is looking at data and interpreting it.  Other people disagree with him and use other data or interpret the given data differently.  But he isn't "ignoring science" any more than anybody else.

Yes.  He is interpreting it differently.  Wrongly. 

[SEWIGuy]

Attacking the intelligence level of someone who disagrees with them is a way for people to avoid forming their own arguments.  These people should be ignored.

Go ahead and ignore me.  Won't bother me any.

But anyway, my arguments are well stated.  I will continue to ridicule those who ignore science.

But you often attack people in this thread who don't agree with your views completely, even when there is room for actual debate.  I don't think many people have seriously come into this thread suggesting that the "virus isn't real"  or no measures shouldn't be taken.  Why does your opinion matter more than everyone else?

Because it is the correct one.

How can someone claim any right to have an opinion on the situation without knowing about D614G is beyond me. The guy who can't interpret such simple data has THE CORRECT opinion....

Uh...I know about D614G.  It wasn't relevant to what we were talking about.  Yet another poor assumption on your part.