Coronavirus pandemic

[Roadgeekteen]

This continues until a vaccine is developed.

Not a good plan.  What if the vaccine is four years away?

I think that we will have at least a somewhat effective vaccine sometime next year.

[kphoger]

Addendum to the Arkansas Mask Law: apparently it will be up to individual counties to enforce it and some county sheriffs are saying they will NOT because it infringes on their rights.

I'd like to know what rights they're talking about. In that case, wearing shirts and shoes infringes on people's rights as well.

Why do people keep making that comparison?  Shirt and shoes are not required by state order.  Masks are.  Not the same thing.

Clothing in general is required in many jurisdictions, but that is because even innocent nudity is considered indecent exposure there.  Note that, in some jurisdictions, the requirement for a woman to wear a shirt has been struck down as sexist.  In Yew York, for example, a person out in public without shirt or shoes or face mask could only be cited for the lack of a mask.

People keep making the comparison because it's an easy and understandable one to make. Even though it's not exactly the same from a legal perspective, it doesn't make sense to complain about wearing a mask, but not about wearing a shirt/shoes. There's not even really a health-related basis for shoes/shirts requirements like there is for masks.

They're also similar in the sense that it matters more when you're indoors and in close proximity to others. When exercising on your own, I couldn't care less if you have a mask, shirt, or shoes. I just went for a walk today sans two of those items, maintained my social distance, and no one cared.

But, if a sheriff publicly stated that officers wouldn't be citing citizens for going barefoot because such would be infringing on their rights, I'm betting there wouldn't be the same level of whining in response.

[kphoger]

This continues until a vaccine is developed.

Not a good plan.  What if the vaccine is four years away?

I think that we will have at least a somewhat effective vaccine sometime next year.

No offense, but action plans should be based on "I think".

[NWI_Irish96]

Addendum to the Arkansas Mask Law: apparently it will be up to individual counties to enforce it and some county sheriffs are saying they will NOT because it infringes on their rights.

I'd like to know what rights they're talking about. In that case, wearing shirts and shoes infringes on people's rights as well.

Why do people keep making that comparison?  Shirt and shoes are not required by state order.  Masks are.  Not the same thing.

Clothing in general is required in many jurisdictions, but that is because even innocent nudity is considered indecent exposure there.  Note that, in some jurisdictions, the requirement for a woman to wear a shirt has been struck down as sexist.  In Yew York, for example, a person out in public without shirt or shoes or face mask could only be cited for the lack of a mask.

People keep making the comparison because it's an easy and understandable one to make. Even though it's not exactly the same from a legal perspective, it doesn't make sense to complain about wearing a mask, but not about wearing a shirt/shoes. There's not even really a health-related basis for shoes/shirts requirements like there is for masks.

They're also similar in the sense that it matters more when you're indoors and in close proximity to others. When exercising on your own, I couldn't care less if you have a mask, shirt, or shoes. I just went for a walk today sans two of those items, maintained my social distance, and no one cared.

But, if a sheriff publicly stated that officers wouldn't be citing citizens for going barefoot because such would be infringing on their rights, I'm betting there wouldn't be the same level of whining in response.

Wearing shirts and shoes aren't laws, at least not anywhere I've been. They're requirements created by business owners. The only way you could get arrested would be to violate the business' requirement and then refuse to leave when asked, at which point you're being arrested for trespassing and not for failure to wear shirt/shoes.

Also, shoe requirements are as much if not more for liability reasons than for public health.

[kalvado]

This continues until a vaccine is developed.

Not a good plan.  What if the vaccine is four years away?

I think that we will have at least a somewhat effective vaccine sometime next year.

No offense, but action plans should be based on "I think".

It can, but it also has to have a part

What if it doesn't? You may hope for the best- but still need to have a backup plan...

[kphoger]

Wearing shirts and shoes aren't laws, at least not anywhere I've been. They're requirements created by business owners. The only way you could get arrested would be to violate the business' requirement and then refuse to leave when asked, at which point you're being arrested for trespassing and not for failure to wear shirt/shoes.

Also, shoe requirements are as much if not more for liability reasons than for public health.

Precisely my point.

If the governor passed an order to require shirt and shoes, one might reasonably expect local politicians and sheriffs to balk at that.  Similarly, when governors pass orders to require masks, it's likewise reasonable to expect local politicians and sheriffs to balk at that.

[NWI_Irish96]

Wearing shirts and shoes aren't laws, at least not anywhere I've been. They're requirements created by business owners. The only way you could get arrested would be to violate the business' requirement and then refuse to leave when asked, at which point you're being arrested for trespassing and not for failure to wear shirt/shoes.

Also, shoe requirements are as much if not more for liability reasons than for public health.

Precisely my point.

If the governor passed an order to require shirt and shoes, one might reasonably expect local politicians and sheriffs to balk at that.  Similarly, when governors pass orders to require masks, it's likewise reasonable to expect local politicians and sheriffs to balk at that.

I just explained how they're different. Requiring shoes isn't a public health issue, requiring masks is. You don't endanger anybody else by not wearing shoes.

[kphoger]

I just explained how they're different. Requiring shoes isn't a public health issue, requiring masks is. You don't endanger anybody else by not wearing shoes.

Right, but that's not how the argument went.  People bring up shirt and shoes in order to knock down the premise that wearing a mask infringes on people's rights.  They say, if the law can require you to wear shirt and shoes, then it can require you to wear a mask.

And that's why I brought up the fact that the law doesn't require you to wear shirt and shoes.

[webny99]

Why do people keep making that comparison?  Shirt and shoes are not required by state order.  Masks are.  Not the same thing.
...

People keep making the comparison because it's an easy and understandable one to make. Even though it's not exactly the same from a legal perspective, it doesn't make sense to complain about wearing a mask, but not about wearing a shirt/shoes. There's not even really a health-related basis for shoes/shirts requirements like there is for masks.
They're also similar in the sense that it matters more when you're indoors and in close proximity to others. When exercising on your own, I couldn't care less if you have a mask, shirt, or shoes. I just went for a walk today sans two of those items, maintained my social distance, and no one cared.

But, if a sheriff publicly stated that officers wouldn't be citing citizens for going barefoot because such would be infringing on their rights, I'm betting there wouldn't be the same level of whining in response.

I'm not sure rights infringement would or could ever be part of that conversation, unless it was somehow public-health related the way masks are.

This continues until a vaccine is developed.

Not a good plan.  What if the vaccine is four years away?

I think that we will have at least a somewhat effective vaccine sometime next year.

No offense, but action plans shouldn't be based on "I think".

FTFY (I think)?

[NWI_Irish96]

I just explained how they're different. Requiring shoes isn't a public health issue, requiring masks is. You don't endanger anybody else by not wearing shoes.

Right, but that's not how the argument went.  People bring up shirt and shoes in order to knock down the premise that wearing a mask infringes on people's rights.  They say, if the law can require you to wear shirt and shoes, then it can require you to wear a mask.

And that's why I brought up the fact that the law doesn't require you to wear shirt and shoes.

People use the wrong reasoning to come up with the right conclusion all the time.

[kalvado]

Wearing shirts and shoes aren't laws, at least not anywhere I've been. They're requirements created by business owners. The only way you could get arrested would be to violate the business' requirement and then refuse to leave when asked, at which point you're being arrested for trespassing and not for failure to wear shirt/shoes.

Also, shoe requirements are as much if not more for liability reasons than for public health.

Precisely my point.

If the governor passed an order to require shirt and shoes, one might reasonably expect local politicians and sheriffs to balk at that.  Similarly, when governors pass orders to require masks, it's likewise reasonable to expect local politicians and sheriffs to balk at that.

"reasonable" is not a good word here.  Until your reasoning is "yeah, since elected officials are less than brightest and smartest people".

[oscar]

South Dakota, which never shut down

Not statewide. But some local restrictions, such as for the state's largest city (after a meatpacking plant outbreak), its second-largest city, and some Sioux reservations in the western part of the state.

[kphoger]

No offense, but action plans shouldn't be based on "I think".

FTFY (I think)?

Dang, man, you are the MASTER at finding my typos!  Gotta keep me humble, so thank you.

People use the wrong reasoning to come up with the right conclusion all the time.

Yeah, my comments weren't so much to be in favor of or against mask orders.  Just that they have nothing to do with shirt and shoes requirements.

Wearing shirts and shoes aren't laws, at least not anywhere I've been. They're requirements created by business owners. The only way you could get arrested would be to violate the business' requirement and then refuse to leave when asked, at which point you're being arrested for trespassing and not for failure to wear shirt/shoes.

Also, shoe requirements are as much if not more for liability reasons than for public health.

Precisely my point.

If the governor passed an order to require shirt and shoes, one might reasonably expect local politicians and sheriffs to balk at that.  Similarly, when governors pass orders to require masks, it's likewise reasonable to expect local politicians and sheriffs to balk at that.

"reasonable" is not a good word here.  Until your reasoning is "yeah, since elected officials are less than brightest and smartest people".

Actually, it might be the ambiguity of the word "expect".  I didn't mean it to say reasonable people should want their mayors and sheriffs to go against governor mask orders.  Rather, I meant it to say that reasonable people should not be surprised when they do.

[SEWIGuy]

We should do what we should have done.  Largely shut down for six to eight weeks and open up reponsibly.

And then, when we open up responsibly and case numbers start to rise again, we should shut down again?  Rinse and repeat forever?  Doesn't shutting down just delay the inevitable?

That's a genuine question, not sarcasm.  If we shut down again, is there actually any long-term benefit, or are we just kicking the can down the street a ways?

I think shutting down to "re-flatten the curve," then opening up thoughtfully is the way to go.  But that means bars don't open until this is over.  Restaurants at limited capacity, etc.

When outbreaks occur, you do aggressive contact tracing and testing to avoid having to lock down again.  And if you do, you have it be geographically limited to where it is occurring.

[US71]

This continues until a vaccine is developed.

Not a good plan.  What if the vaccine is four years away?

I think that we will have at least a somewhat effective vaccine sometime next year.

Some preliminary trials are showing promise, though we're still a ways from "official" testing.

[kalvado]

"reasonable" is not a good word here.  Until your reasoning is "yeah, since elected officials are less than brightest and smartest people".

Actually, it might be the ambiguity of the word "expect".  I didn't mean it to say reasonable people should want their mayors and sheriffs to go against governor mask orders.  Rather, I meant it to say that reasonable people should not be surprised when they do.

well, it is reasonable to expect that some people are unreasonable. It it reasonable to expect elected  leaders to be unreasonable? Well, some would say  it is a part of a politician's job description.

[webny99]

No offense, but action plans shouldn't be based on "I think".

FTFY (I think)?

Dang, man, you are the MASTER at finding my typos!  Gotta keep me humble, so thank you.

Oh, anytime!

It's just how we roll

In Yew York

(Dang, forgive me... but that set up was just too perfect!)

[kphoger]

But that means bars don't open until this is over.  Restaurants at limited capacity, etc.

Oh, thanks for bringing that up again.  I forgot to comment earlier, when I was reading through five pages of new posts since I was last on...

Restaurant bars (such as, say, Chili's), in my opinion, are different beasts to traditional bars.  Part of the point of going to a bar is to be close to other people.  Restaurant bars and hotel bars, though, don't seem to have that same sort of vibe.  So that puts me on the fence about opening bars or not.

[NWI_Irish96]

But that means bars don't open until this is over.  Restaurants at limited capacity, etc.

Oh, thanks for bringing that up again.  I forgot to comment earlier, when I was reading through five pages of new posts since I was last on...

Restaurant bars (such as, say, Chili's), in my opinion, are different beasts to traditional bars.  Part of the point of going to a bar is to be close to other people.  Restaurant bars and hotel bars, though, don't seem to have that same sort of vibe.  So that puts me on the fence about opening bars or not.

Allow bars to be open if they serve customers in the same manner as a restaurant--seated at a table and ordering from a server. Prohibit sitting at the actual bar or otherwise ordering directly from the bartender. That's where you lose control of how spaced out people are.

[hbelkins]

...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?"

[SEWIGuy]

...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?"

No rights are absolute.

[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.

[Brandon]

...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.

[jeffandnicole]

But that means bars don't open until this is over.  Restaurants at limited capacity, etc.

Oh, thanks for bringing that up again.  I forgot to comment earlier, when I was reading through five pages of new posts since I was last on...

Restaurant bars (such as, say, Chili's), in my opinion, are different beasts to traditional bars.  Part of the point of going to a bar is to be close to other people.  Restaurant bars and hotel bars, though, don't seem to have that same sort of vibe.  So that puts me on the fence about opening bars or not.

I guess in most areas of the country, Chili's (and the many other restaurants like it) usually are for family dining.  Some people may prefer to sit at the bar, but it rarely gets too crowded.  However, if the restaurant has the only bar in the area, or it's located in a business park or hotel area catering to those staying on business, those restaurants probably have a much larger bar-feel to it with more people standing around.

[GaryV]

...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?