Coronavirus pandemic

[AsphaltPlanet]

Who cares about the constitution people are dying

I do.  People die every day, from all sorts of things.  Epidemics happen every so often.  That doesn't mean I stop caring about liberty.

What about the people who died in order to establish those freedoms?  Do you care about them, or only the ones who are dying now?

But, do you care only about liberty?

And specifically only individual liberty?

This pandemic is a tricky thing.  The impact to this illness to an individual person, in most cases, is a lot less severe than the impact to the community at large.

So in the case of the lockdowns, or mask requirements, there is a push to put the needs of the community ahead of the needs of an individual.  You may not agree with this, but the logic isn't necessarily wrong.

And societies balance the needs of individuals with the needs of the community all the time.

A drunk driver may need to get home, but the cost to society is very great if that drunk driver gets behind the wheel and kills an innocent road user.  So, our society made it illegal to drive drunk.  Our society placed the community need ahead of the individual need and made drunk driving illegal.  That drunk probably still needs to get home.

I tire of people complaining about how the coronavirus has impacted their rights -- the coronavirus isn't some foreign power taxing tea -- no matter which option society takes there is going to be a bitter pill to swallow.

Less lockdowns > more sickness and death.  More lockdowns < less sickness and death.

If individuals in society don't alter their behaviour more people will get sick and die.  If individuals in society alter their behaviour, less people will get sick and die.  You don't have to like it, or agree with it, but at least acknowledge and appreciate that no matter which path forward society takes in tackling this pandemic their is some kind of negative externality associated with that choice.

The needs of the many vs. the needs of the few.

[kphoger]

If that's the excuse you give to the cops when you're driving 80 mph in a 25 mph residential zone while snorting crack cocaine off a naked hooker in a convertible

[kphoger]

A drunk driver may need to get home, but the cost to society is very great if that drunk driver gets behind the wheel and kills an innocent road user.  So, our society made it illegal to drive drunk.  Our society placed the community need ahead of the individual need and made drunk driving illegal.  That drunk probably still needs to get home.

The drunk driver committed a crime by driving drunk.  It's illegal to drive drunk because doing so imminently risks the safety of others.

That's not the same thing as imposing restrictions on every citizen.  If you don't have the virus, haven't even been tested for it, then your liberties should not be impinged upon.  That would be like disallowing everyone from driving, whether they're drunk or not.

If individuals in society don't alter their behaviour more people will get sick and die.  If individuals in society alter their behaviour, less people will get sick and die.

This is true.  It's also true during every other epidemic.  That doesn't change my opinion.

[AsphaltPlanet]

A drunk driver may need to get home, but the cost to society is very great if that drunk driver gets behind the wheel and kills an innocent road user.  So, our society made it illegal to drive drunk.  Our society placed the community need ahead of the individual need and made drunk driving illegal.  That drunk probably still needs to get home.

The drunk driver committed a crime by driving drunk.  It's illegal to drive drunk because doing so imminently risks the safety of others.

That's not the same thing as imposing restrictions on every citizen.  If you don't have the virus, haven't even been tested for it, then your liberties should not be impinged upon.  That would be like disallowing everyone from driving, whether they're drunk or not.

Studies indicate that the virus is transmitted before people become symptomatic.  So your approach probably doesn't mitigate transmission much.

And if you think that drunk driving should be illegal, then at least in principal, you agree that there are situations where governments should be able to regulate individual behaviour to achieve a greater societal benefit.

In this case, it seems that you have drawn your arbitrary line in the sand of how much society should be able to curtail individual rights in a different location than those you are arguing against.

[jeffandnicole]

The drunk driver committed a crime by driving drunk.  It's illegal to drive drunk because doing so imminently risks the safety of others.

What's the definition of driving drunk?  It's up to the whim of the government to determine what is "drunk".  49 States say it's a BAC of .08.  1 says it's .05.  Unless you have a CDL, when it's .04.

Sounds like government overreach and we should eliminate the definition of a drunk driver, just like we should eliminate masks and closures based on the whim of the government due to COVID-19.  After all, more people have died this year from COVID-19 than from all forms of deaths due to traffic offenses last year.

The inherent risks of getting Covid-19 is why we have the measures in place that we have now, just like the BAC levels we have to determine who is a drunk driver.

[kphoger]

Studies indicate that the virus is transmitted before people become symptomatic.  So your approach probably doesn't mitigate transmission much.

Quite possibly true.  But again, that's true of any virus that's transmissible before symptoms present.  That doesn't mean I agree our rights should be impinged.

And if you think that drunk driving should be illegal, then at least in principal, you agree that there are situations where governments should be able to regulate individual behaviour to achieve a greater societal benefit.

No:  it means that, in principle, I agree there are situations where governments should be able to regulate individual behavior to avoid impinging upon another individual's safety.  In my opinion, legislation enacted with the goal of "societal benefit" should be very, very limited.

What's the definition of driving drunk?  It's up to the whim of the government to determine what is "drunk".  49 States say it's a BAC of .08.  1 says it's .05.  Unless you have a CDL, when it's .04.

Sounds like government overreach and we should eliminate the definition of a drunk driver,

That's a ridiculous argument.  Not being able to agree on the specifics is no reason to discount the principle.

[NWI_Irish96]

But, do you care only about liberty?

And specifically only individual liberty?

This pandemic is a tricky thing.  The impact to this illness to an individual person, in most cases, is a lot less severe than the impact to the community at large.

So in the case of the lockdowns, or mask requirements, there is a push to put the needs of the community ahead of the needs of an individual.  You may not agree with this, but the logic isn't necessarily wrong.

And societies balance the needs of individuals with the needs of the community all the time.

A drunk driver may need to get home, but the cost to society is very great if that drunk driver gets behind the wheel and kills an innocent road user.  So, our society made it illegal to drive drunk.  Our society placed the community need ahead of the individual need and made drunk driving illegal.  That drunk probably still needs to get home.

I tire of people complaining about how the coronavirus has impacted their rights -- the coronavirus isn't some foreign power taxing tea -- no matter which option society takes there is going to be a bitter pill to swallow.

Less lockdowns > more sickness and death.  More lockdowns < less sickness and death.

If individuals in society don't alter their behaviour more people will get sick and die.  If individuals in society alter their behaviour, less people will get sick and die.  You don't have to like it, or agree with it, but at least acknowledge and appreciate that no matter which path forward society takes in tackling this pandemic their is some kind of negative externality associated with that choice.

The needs of the many vs. the needs of the few.

Yes, yes 100%.  Yes the curve has been flattened for now, but we still don't have a vaccine and still don't have widespread testing.  Literally anybody could be infected with this virus and not know it, and above all other liberties is the right to life and health, and the only way to ensure that is to continue to keep people away from each other as much as possible. 

It's absolutely true that if businesses open up that nobody is forcing people to patronize them, but businesses opening up forces people to show up for work or lose their jobs, thus forcing them to choose between their jobs or their lives, because other people think their right to get out and about is more important. 

It's also true that if businesses open up, hospital workers and first responders get increased exposure to the inevitable surge in cases.  Their rights to health and safety are apparently less important than people's rights to enjoy themselves.

Finally, if you want to blame someone for the lockdowns going on to long, the only one to blame is the person who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW.  His response to this is why we don't currently have enough testing available to safely end the lockdowns.

[oscar]

I think it only applies in indoor businesses or similar buildings. Who's going to wear a mask outdoors?

I was able to get a bandana, but it's not for outdoor use.

I saw a lot of people wearing masks outdoors, just today while doing my shopping.

It's really unnecessary, but no big deal if you're wearing a washable mask. The masks I use are non-washable, so I stretch out my supply by using them only indoors. I also have a washable mask, but it's less comfortable so I'm saving that until I run out of the non-washable masks.

[kphoger]

above all other liberties is the right to life and health

That's not what the right to life means.  It doesn't mean that the government is allowed to remove the freedoms of everyone else in order to ensure you stay alive.  It means that the government doesn't get to kill you (with the obvious exceptions).

[SEWIGuy]

Exactly.  The rights and freedoms we are guaranteed exist for precisely those times during which they might reasonably be taken away.  As an example, imagine if the Second Amendment could be repealed any time the government were worried people might take up arms against it.  That would completely negate the purpose of having the Amendment in the first place!  It's the same with the First Amendment:  "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" is most important during times of crisis.

But no right is absolute.  The right of assembly has been shaped by courts over the years and allows for reasonable restrictions based on a compelling government interest. 

Under this standard, a government highly suggeting, or even mandating, that people wear a mask during a pandemic clearly isn't unconstitutional.  It really isn't even close. 

[vdeane]

There are two types of freedoms - the right to do something, and the right to be protected from the negative consequences of someone else doing something.  Which you consider more important (and to what extent) determines how you feel about the lockdowns (and a host of other issues).

Studies indicate that the virus is transmitted before people become symptomatic.  So your approach probably doesn't mitigate transmission much.

Quite possibly true.  But again, that's true of any virus that's transmissible before symptoms present.  That doesn't mean I agree our rights should be impinged.

It's not just "quite possibly true".  It's most definitely true!  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if MOST people spreading the virus don't have symptoms!

It's also worth noting that coronavirus is more severe than most other diseases that we deal with.  If you go to the hospital for the flu, you're there a few days.  If you get a severe case of coronavirus and have to go to the hospital, you're going to be in the ICU for WEEKS.  Our hospitals were not built to handle this.  They are built to rapidly turn over patients with little to no spare capacity.  Combine this with the far greater severity for the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions, and the extreme ease of spreading coronavirus, is why it tends to max out hospital capacity if allowed to spread without restrictions like social distancing and lockdowns.

[kphoger]

Exactly.  The rights and freedoms we are guaranteed exist for precisely those times during which they might reasonably be taken away.  As an example, imagine if the Second Amendment could be repealed any time the government were worried people might take up arms against it.  That would completely negate the purpose of having the Amendment in the first place!  It's the same with the First Amendment:  "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" is most important during times of crisis.

But no right is absolute.  The right of assembly has been shaped by courts over the years and allows for reasonable restrictions based on a compelling government interest. 

Under this standard, a government highly suggeting, or even mandating, that people wear a mask during a pandemic clearly isn't unconstitutional.  It really isn't even close. 

This, sir, is the reasonable argument, and it's not the first time I've seen it on here.  It also makes me woefully aware that I know too little about what restrictions are and are not allowed to be enacted during a disaster.  It also makes me wonder about the timeline:  should the government be able to issue temporary order after temporary order after temporary order?

[hotdogPi]

It also makes me wonder about the timeline:  should the government be able to issue temporary order after temporary order after temporary order?

I see no difference between that and "until further notice".

[NWI_Irish96]

above all other liberties is the right to life and health

That's not what the right to life means.  It doesn't mean that the government is allowed to remove the freedoms of everyone else in order to ensure you stay alive.  It means that the government doesn't get to kill you (with the obvious exceptions).

If the government lifts stay at home orders and that causes people to die, then in a way the government is killing them.

[kphoger]

It's also worth noting that coronavirus is more severe than most other diseases that we deal with.  If you go to the hospital for the flu, you're there a few days.  If you get a severe case of coronavirus and have to go to the hospital, you're going to be in the ICU for WEEKS.  Our hospitals were not built to handle this.  They are built to rapidly turn over patients with little to no spare capacity.  Combine this with the far greater severity for the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions, and the extreme ease of spreading coronavirus, is why it tends to max out hospital capacity if allowed to spread without restrictions like social distancing and lockdowns.

I'm very aware of that.  Our good friends' cousin up in Iowa got the virus several weeks ago, and he almost died.  He got fluid in his lungs and, AIUI, he had to be kept prone on a vibrating bed in order to prevent him suffocating to death.  He still cannot speak due to damage done to his respiratory system.  I think he might still be in the hospital, but I'm not sure of that.

It also makes me wonder about the timeline:  should the government be able to issue temporary order after temporary order after temporary order?

I see no difference between that and "until further notice".

Exactly.  And I don't believe the government should be allowed to remove our liberties "until further notice" period.

[kphoger]

If the government lifts stay at home orders and that causes people to die, then in a way the government is killing them.

Nope.  No more than, if they raise the speed limit and more people die in car crashes, the government killed them.

[SEWIGuy]

Exactly.  The rights and freedoms we are guaranteed exist for precisely those times during which they might reasonably be taken away.  As an example, imagine if the Second Amendment could be repealed any time the government were worried people might take up arms against it.  That would completely negate the purpose of having the Amendment in the first place!  It's the same with the First Amendment:  "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" is most important during times of crisis.

But no right is absolute.  The right of assembly has been shaped by courts over the years and allows for reasonable restrictions based on a compelling government interest. 

Under this standard, a government highly suggeting, or even mandating, that people wear a mask during a pandemic clearly isn't unconstitutional.  It really isn't even close. 

This, sir, is the reasonable argument, and it's not the first time I've seen it on here.  It also makes me woefully aware that I know too little about what restrictions are and are not allowed to be enacted during a disaster.  It also makes me wonder about the timeline:  should the government be able to issue temporary order after temporary order after temporary order?

Cornell Law School has an excellent site on Constitutional Law and Civil Liberties.  Here is what they say on Freedom of Assembly.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/rights-of-assembly-and-petition

[J N Winkler]

This, sir, is the reasonable argument, and it's not the first time I've seen it on here.  It also makes me woefully aware that I know too little about what restrictions are and are not allowed to be enacted during a disaster.  It also makes me wonder about the timeline:  should the government be able to issue temporary order after temporary order after temporary order?

I suggest a look at the Kansas Emergency Management Act, which sets limits on the length of time the governor can declare a state of emergency without obtaining legislative buy-in.  I suspect most if not all states have similar limits in their emergency management statutes, though the specifics will vary from state to state.

As a general rule, I would not expect attempts to evade these limitations by chaining together discretionary exercises of state power to survive constitutional analysis by the courts.  A substantive argument as to necessity has to be made, and quite significant limitations on rights can survive strict scrutiny (e.g., incitement is not protected by the First Amendment, with criminally facilitative speech--such as instructions on how to make a bomb--being where precedent starts to become nuanced).

[NWI_Irish96]

If the government lifts stay at home orders and that causes people to die, then in a way the government is killing them.

Nope.  No more than, if they raise the speed limit and more people die in car crashes, the government killed them.

If speed limits were raised to the point that they caused a significant increase in car crash deaths, then yes, that would be irresponsible government.

[kphoger]

If the government lifts stay at home orders and that causes people to die, then in a way the government is killing them.

Nope.  No more than, if they raise the speed limit and more people die in car crashes, the government killed them.

If speed limits were raised to the point that they caused a significant increase in car crash deaths, then yes, that would be irresponsible government.

Ah, so if the increase is "significant", then the government killed people, but if it isn't "significant" enough, then it didn't?

[kphoger]

incitement is not protected by the First Amendment, with criminally facilitative speech--such as instructions on how to make a bomb--being where precedent starts to become nuanced

Ah, yes, I once hitchhiked a ride from a couple who had obtained a copy of Steal This Book and couldn't rave about it enough.

[NWI_Irish96]

If the government lifts stay at home orders and that causes people to die, then in a way the government is killing them.

Nope.  No more than, if they raise the speed limit and more people die in car crashes, the government killed them.

If speed limits were raised to the point that they caused a significant increase in car crash deaths, then yes, that would be irresponsible government.

Ah, so if the increase is "significant", then the government killed people, but if it isn't "significant" enough, then it didn't?

Significant in the statistical sense.  A 2% increase isn't an insignificant number of deaths, but statistically insignificant as to determining causation.

[kphoger]

I suggest a look at the Kansas Emergency Management Act, which sets limits on the length of time the governor can declare a state of emergency without obtaining legislative buy-in. 

Chapter 48, Article 9?
Goodness, which section?

[Scott5114]

There's going to be a real human toll in this that has nothing to do with contracting the virus itself.

The son of a former boss of mine OD'd and died over the weekend. The family asked me to write his obituary. This kid was a talented artist but had battled substance abuse issues for a few years. He'd recently been promoted at his job and had been clean for two years. His sister told me that it appeared the isolation from the guidelines that have been set got to him and caused him to relapse -- sadly, fatally for him.

I'm also familiar with at least one suicide; a "friend of a friend" deal. A young man lost his job due to the virus reactions/restrictions and was already behind on his child support payments. It pushed him over the edge and he killed himself.

That's the part of all this that not enough people are considering. Suicides and murders will increase due to the mental stress of isolation and more free time to stew about things out of our control. There are women and children that may now be trapped in abusive situations that increase the time around the abusers. So, in essence, we are trading the lives of the ones with compromised immunities for those with compromised mental or living situations. Which are more valuable to society? Who can say? There are no easy or right answers, but I don't think enough have asked the questions.

Do we have any evidence to believe that this is anything close to resembling a 1:1 trade? If we save, say, 500 patients from the covid for every 1 that dies of mental health issues, I think most people would agree that it would be worth it. But I haven't seen any numbers on how many excess mental-health-related deaths have occurred during the pandemic. Not to mention that theoretically, if our mental health system was up to snuff, it would be a more balanced use of resources to reduce the number of infectious-disease staff needed and shift some of the load onto mental health professionals.

Of course, the underlying problem here is that the US mental health system is far, far below the standard of most Western countries. We tend to take care of the mentally unwell by throwing them in jail, or in a facility that is marketed for mental health treatment but is still basically a jail.

[Scott5114]

Exactly.  The rights and freedoms we are guaranteed exist for precisely those times during which they might reasonably be taken away.  As an example, imagine if the Second Amendment could be repealed any time the government were worried people might take up arms against it.  That would completely negate the purpose of having the Amendment in the first place!  It's the same with the First Amendment:  "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" is most important during times of crisis.

But no right is absolute.  The right of assembly has been shaped by courts over the years and allows for reasonable restrictions based on a compelling government interest. 

Under this standard, a government highly suggeting, or even mandating, that people wear a mask during a pandemic clearly isn't unconstitutional.  It really isn't even close. 

This, sir, is the reasonable argument, and it's not the first time I've seen it on here. 

Fire marshal codes are allowed to limit gatherings of more than a certain number within a building due to safety reasons.

How are the emergency coronavirus restrictions any different than temporarily setting the fire marshal limit to 10 in every building?