What I see is less regulation on a more dangerous situation. That's just reality.
I won't turn a blind eye to an infringed right while being expected to ignore that oversight
If it is truly about safety and not disproportionately applied regulation, I expect state officials to prove that
Why is that hard to grasp?
Not shocked that those defending the state's actions in this matter are very predictable though
Blanket bans with no consideration is dangerous to support. Especially when done in the face of hypocrisy.
Don't tell the religious they can't go to church when where they get there food has more people when they visit, sees more people every day, and sees those in the most danger of spreading the virus in the first place. How in the holy f**k does that make sense?
Not even to mention that in "hotzones" like Lombardy in Italy the death rate was way beyond the 5%, actually according to the numbers close to 20%. That's what happens when you let the virus run free and the hospitals cannot help the people anymore.
| Location | Confirmed | Recovered | Deaths | |
|---|
| | | |
| | | |
|---|
| Lombardy | 57,592 | 16,823 | 10,511 |
Now it might be lower due to people that are not tested, but still way above the 5%
Part of the issue in Italy was the design of the response, where sick people went to the hospitals for testing and treatment and got other people infected who went out and got other people sick who went to the hospitals, etc.
Bad seen in any case.
what a whiny bitch dude... theres only a thousand cases in Kansas. it's not NYC, and this lockdown isn't gonna last for months more.. there's no reason people should get fined, or thrown in jail for going to a mosque or church. f**k you. this isnt a dictatorship.
you want tyranny you'll get a war you damn carpetbagger
The response in the South of Europe was terrible, after it was known the virus was in Lombardy there was a football match between at team from there and a team from Spain, the government didn't block the game and let the supporters go, not much later we are in the same boat.
It was completely underestimated
"“Everything was crowded. The roads, all the surroundings, the stadium,” said Mr. Pontiggia, 55, who took nearly three hours to complete the 35-mile drive to the San Siro. “It was practically a whole town moving to Milan. It was amazing, incredible.”
It was also a contagion disaster. Atalanta fans were walking into a petri dish. In a single mass gathering, they were about to prove how sporting events could end up at the center of a global pandemic.
By then, the coronavirus was spreading through untold numbers of asymptomatic carriers. Forty thousand bouncing, hugging soccer fans were the perfect vector: Experts are now convinced that Atalanta’s 4-1 win over Valencia was a catalyst in
turning Lombardy into one of the worst-hit regions on the planet. The coronavirus was so present inside the stadium that night that once Valencia returned to Spain, 35% of its traveling squad eventually tested positive.
"
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-soccer-match-that-kicked-off-italys-coronavirus-disaster-11585752012It's entirely possible that many of the state's responses aren't gathering best-practices from other hard areas and are simply applying things ad hoc. Groceries here are taking orders and prepping orders and doing parking lot pick-ups. Front line hospital workers are well aware of the risk they may pose to members of the public, some of whom are being castigated after a 16 hour shift for not working more. Plenty of options to segregate them in hotels that are largely empty and have food brought to them while off-shift. Many places have this in place already so your worry that they're just coming out of hospitals still-smocked and covered in virus to buy supper is entirely inappropriate and kind of sinks your whole argument.
As far as the infringed rights part of your argument goes, their rights are not being infringed on as they would have to be infringed based off the applicable laws which have no religious bias to begin with. Any legal challenge to this issue is bound to fail, and is unlikely to be heard any time soon since court's aren't even in session regularly so good luck trying to establish that a breach has occurred. The rest of your posts on the matter are personal opinion, hyperbole and conjecture.
I've already addressed the constitutionality question as well so...
Not worth the risk at all in my opinion just stay home and do something at home.
+ 10 social credit has been added to your score.
I'm sure my social credit will be WAY in the negatives when it comes to the States part of the reason why I disabled my social media accounts( not that they can't go back and see what I wrote about our government lol)
Hey look did i say anything about dictatorship or months of lockdowns? You put a lot of words into other peoples mouths
If it could happen that all the people dumb enough to go gather right now, could, without infecting anyone else...Then i'd support it. But that's not how viruses work. there may be only a 1000 now, but if you open up gathering places, then it spreads.
Otherwise, if I go out and get 200 people and go to a park, and get arrested....then so should people who gather 200 people in some building. Not sure why you think one group of people is prvledged or somehow "protected" against the virus.
There is nothing in the any religions that says it doesn't work if you can't gather.
You think Groceries and Religion gatherings are on the same importance level? that governments are disproportionately applying regulation because food is as important as religion?
How?
Like in what world does something that needs to sustain life the same as an optional belief?
this is very very hard concept for me to grasp...
Blanket bans with no consideration is dangerous to support"
What Blanket ban? You can go out to get essentials. Like food water, etc
Ration food folks.
Yeah that stance of his is extremely weak, how in the world can you compare getting groceries for survival to a religious gathering, its absurd
I've talked a couple of times to the local grocer (in advocating for pay increases for the cashiers, which they finally did). There are a lot of "professional" shopper types from out of town, or those that go daily.
We need more restrictions on access, especially as we are starting to see closures of processors of food, and shipping systems in some locales.
As well what the f**k are people doing hanging out in the aisles chit chatting get caught up, while folks are outside waiting? Some people really need a slap.
im comparing the levels of risk you f**king twit.
how is it ok to go to a place unrestricted where the risk is far greater but not ok to go somewhere where the risk is much lower?
I never said ban food or that church was more important. I asked why morons aren't demanding more restrictions in place to protect people while getting that food? and if you are not demanding those restrictions, how are you ok with disproportionately oppressing a particular demographic?
personally I wouldn't go to church right now if I was religious. however, im not going to dismiss those people when logically speaking the risk assessment is so far off. its called critical thinking, you should try it.
now you have demonstrated support for the diminishing of constitutional rights more than once, even to the point of flat out lying about the struggles that are still on going. so I don't expect you personally to be honest in any way, but this purposeful ignorance is amazing.
part of religion is the practice of it, not just being religious. if you expect me to be ok with what essentially a ban on the practice of religion, no matter how you attempt to pretend its not, then it has to be in a situation where we have done literally everything in terms of protecting the populace in this situation, which we have not.
I am of the mind set that its prejudicial to tell the religious that their RIGHT to practice their religion unrestricted is not safe while simultaneously allowing a far greater risk to a much larger amount of people to happen.
if the concern is the spread of the virus, then surely those most likely to be affected should at least be restricted from entering a grocery store and potentially infecting many others. Sags and his laughable comment about medical professionals going uncleaned kind of demonstrates the lack of consideration in an attempt to dismiss this very oppressive view point. those same people, cleaned or not, still have a much larger risk of infecting others. that's just a fact. you cant claim they are heroic for putting themselves in harms way and then pretend they don't pose a greater risk to the public.
if the restrictions currently stated curbside pickup or delivery only, then id be much more apt to agree that those limitations be in place. not only would it keep those out the greatest risk from interacting with the general public to a much greater degree, but it would also protect those under paid essential workers. currently all of that risk is ok though, just fine, for safety lol.
there are no limits in place here. the amount of people in the grocery stores is staggering. meanwhile our governor just banned the sale of non essential products lol.
its like telling people not to talk during a concert because you might be too loud. its f**king stupid.
if you want to force churches to hold their services outside while practicing social distancing, that's fine. if you want to tell them they have to wear a mask, that's fine. if you want to tell them you recommend they don't attend that's fine.
whats not fine is telling people its illegal to visit another home, its illegal to buy non essential products, its illegal to go to church, but don't worry about those 50+ people around the veggie aisle that potentially could have seen 100 covid patients last night because that's ok.
I truly don't understand why this concept is so hard to grasp.
The comparing of risks is that people cannot live without food. They can go on living without religious gatherings.
If you're noticing deficiencies in health and safety precautions at your local grocers, then you should raise them with the owners, the state health boards. Your personal experiences shopping for food are not exclusive nor are they universally true across the spectrum. Many areas have implemented various measures to reduce risk, but obviously the risk will never be brought down to zero.
As far as risk assessment and critical thinking goes, many of the religious institutions advocating for a religious waiver are doing so without precondition which creates a risk. They can televise, they can take it outside and spread out, they can propose smaller gatherings with greater spacing. A lot of what I'm seeing and reading about the efforts to gain a waiver is a faith-based response to a medical issue affecting all of society. Having large gatherings of people without preconditions based off a faith-based understanding of epidemiology runs counter to harm reduction strategies. It would also enhance the risks that you raise over grocers as these people's faith won't reduce their need for food, while many others can forego faith-based gatherings simply because they are either non-practicing, aren't regular attendees or can understand that their faith doesn't provide a waiver to risk the health and well-being of others.
As far as limiting constitutional rights, none of that has been established, that's only your opinion. It hasn't been tested in court. The laws enacted don't have religious bias which are required to establish a breach to religious freedoms, this is the benchmark that the conservative SC bench has determined via Scalia.
Again a lot of your argument is trying to establish that unfettered religious gatherings (which are mostly not occurring) is of a lesser risk to unfettered grocery shopping (which also mostly not occurring) based off a dubious and supported constitutional breach argument.
As far as my risk posed by healthcare workers comment your entirely misrepresenting what was stated. Healthcare workers
know they are at heightened risk of exposure and transmission - hence the national clamour for PPE by this sector - so many regions have implemented measures that creates a buffer for healthcare workers by renting out hotels and having food brought to them instead of having to go out into public spaces to possibly infect others. This is happening directly because it is recognized that they could potentially infect others while going out to get groceries. It's a reasonable harm reduction strategy. That also doesn't stop people out in public from bitching to their faces.
Example 1,
Example 2, etc.
"There are no limits in place here"
So this is actually the issue.
its not the only issue.
as far as the rest of you opinion goes, if I were a lawyer its how id argue about the safety affecting these gatherings go.
if situation a is safe and ok, how is situation b not? if situation b is safer, and it wont be hard to prove using experts recommendations, opinions, and data gathering, then why is those who practice b be in subject to diminished constitutional rights.
Cali is now being sued. so legally we will have an answer soon, at least in that state. id expect the same to follow in Kansas tbh though and wouldn't be shocked to see different outcomes requiring the SCOTUS to chime in. how do you think that will end?
well shucks son, if SOME measures are taken in SOME place that solves the entire problem. lol.
no offense, but you are smarter than that. that leads me to believe you are of the opinion that these people's rights are of less value than your perceived safety, regardless of how false that sense of security is. again, I wont pretend.
their gathering affects me as much as the next person. I don't go to church, so im not arguing for my benefit. if I did, I wouldn't go now. I wont pretend im safe though or somehow in more danger because these people go to church. the likelihood of them catching it the grocery store and taking it to church > going to church and taking it to the store. as I said, fix the dangerous situation and id be more apt to see the limiting of the safer one.
of course that ignores the fact we are clearly ignoring a portion at least of the threat front liners pose to the community, and that includes grocery workers right now, entirely
Food for thought:
"In Virginia, an evangelical pastor who defied stay-at-home orders to hold packed services died of COVID-19. Bishop Gerald Glenn told his congregation on March 22, “I firmly believe that God is larger than this dreaded virus. You can quote me on that.”
That's nearly a month of someone going around getting people together as a part of their faith, then getting sick and doing it all defiantly. f**k that guy and his God.