Only reason they won’t is if they’re right about spread being minimized by warmer weather. I havent seen any updates to that in the past couple weeks so idk
Outdoor events dramatically reduce attack rate. Of all worldwide outbreak events where double digit infections can be traced back, there are only a handful that are outdoor. thats why most models have a plateau/downslope during summer and a spike in fall/late fall. this is why I don’t get jimmies rustled at the pics of outdoor events. Probably some transmission happening but probably not catastrophic levels
I’ve never sought an expert designation from the bar, but I’m a licensed attorney. My experience is in litigation generally, with an emphasis in criminal defense and criminal appeals.
I apologize fot the “get fucked”s. I said those based on your comments on my using ”quarantine” instead of “cordon“ and your seeming indifference to stare decisis in your initial response as it came off as ignorant. I no longer think you’re ignorant, just wrong. Now, not to argue, but I only quoted Scalia because you said that any restriction which affects free exercise will get strict scrutiny, which you agree isn’t actually true. The first question is whether the law is generally applicable. The underlying laws here are the emergency powers acts in each state which allow the governors to act in times of emergency, and those are generally applicable to all. These laws give powers to the governors which are temporary in nature to do as they see fit to protect the health and safety of the public. Emergency powers of executives have a history of being able to limit (temporarily) individual rights both at the state and federal level. While Koramatsu was an extreme (and too far) of an example of this, this principle is even embodied in Article I’s limitation on writs for habeus corpus during times of insurrection or invasion to public safety.That’s why I am not sure strict scrutiny would apply here. Now, there is a legit argument that governors should not be able to extend these powers without the legislatures as required by the acts, as we saw play out to differing conclusions in Illinois and Wisconsin. Edit: I know koramatsu received strict scrutiny, but I think it was due to the racial aspect.
Fwiw, for those excited to get the fuck out there, Sicily and Japan are talking about covering portions of traveler's expenses for visiting "this year." Don't know if anything has solidified or what the exact deadline to travel to these locations might be. My gf's trip to Japan with her friends was derailed by corona so it wouldn't be unwelcome to have to postpone but spend half the amount at a later date, pending things chilling the fuck out (big if). edit: Japan might be strictly domestic tourism.
It's trashy fun. And tbh COVID probably doesnt crack the top 5 of things you need to worry about contracting in that hoosier soup
Maintaining property is essential. I sort of get that? Honestly. I don’t care. That’s a warehouse vs someone breathing on you while they cut your hair.
I'm not arguing with you, but this America in 2020: I want to plant flowers, get my hair and nails done and play golf and I don't care who gets sick providing those services!!!
Correct. People twist themselves in knots to abrogate responsibility for someone else’s death. That’s the premise.
I just think if we really cared about doing this the right way they should all be operating online delivery or curbside only. There is absolutely no reason you really need to step into a Home Depot right now if we really care about getting rid of this. Every story right now is how packed these places are and how crazy business is. That’s not BC peoples toilets are breaking. Grocery stores are certainly more tough but honestly we need to get people out of them too either by curbside online delivery or scheduled shopping times. I know I am venting but we have just done this whole shutdown in such a poor way.
This is true. A lot of people lack tech savviness to do this though. These stores should have people outside in masks taking online orders curbside. Pretty simple.
For a lot of ppl, CV is something that's happening somewhere out there. Not here. It's too bad about the old folks succumbing to this, but yolo.
There was never a proper shutdown and there never will be one. This country is fine with letting tens of thousands of people die so they won’t be inconvenienced.
Not that this is a surprise to anyone, but the social media posts I’m seeing tonight say Florida has decided the pandemic is over.
1) Thank you, no worries, no offense taken. 2) Yes, that was sloppy writing on my part--obviously anyone may bring a free exercise claim for any reason. I was attempting to distinguish those claims that receive a balancing test and those that don't. As I read Employment Division v. Smith, you analyze such challenges using a two-part inquiry. Question 1 is whether the law is facially neutral and generally applicable. If the answer is 'yes,' then the process is over, because the law either doesn't implicate, or simply isn't a violation of, free exercise. If on the other hand, the answer is 'no,' then the law infringes on free exercise, but you still need to conduct a balancing test. Question 2 is whether the infringement on free exercise passes strict scrutiny, i.e., whether it serves a compelling interest, is narrowly tailored, and the least restrictive means. 3) I just don't see how you can credibly say that the law is generally applicable; it's not even facially neutral. It explicitly states that religious services may not participate in identical conduct (in-person gatherings of X amount of people following Y and Z social distancing measures) that others are permitted to do. It's a textbook example of applying different rules for churches than it does to to other entities: most businesses, non-profits, government agencies, public parks, etc... The government may absolutely abridge free exercise in an emergency situation (compelling interest); it just needs to do so in a narrowly tailored manner using the least restrictive means possible. Regardless of where I stand on the issue, I'd at least admit that the initial orders had a more credible argument for being constitutionally sound. Applying a different rule to churches than an entity which people need to survive such as grocers or public utilities is somewhat of a narrowly tailed line and more proper use of the States' police powers despite also being an infringement. Once non-essential activity is allowed to resume, the balancing test equation changes. Like I said, when you get to the point where you're allowing 10 people to shop at Nordstroms, and yet those same 10 people can't attend a church service even if they follow all the same precautions, something is out of line. You no longer have a narrowly-tailored law--it arbitrarily privileges physically identical secular activity above religious activity with no regard to the necessity or risk to the public. 4) Yes, Koramatsu received strict scrutiny based on race. It wasn't a 1st Amendment case, but it's the same test either way. Race isn't the only category or classification that receives strict scrutiny. FWIW, SCOTUS overruled/disavowed the holding in Koramatsu two years ago and said it would not pass strict scrutiny today.
The mortality rate is double that of the rest of Brazil's population, according to advocacy group Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (APIB) which tracks the number of cases and deaths among the country's 900,000 indigenous people. APIB has recorded more than 980 officially confirmed cases of coronavirus and at least 125 deaths, which suggests a mortality rate of 12.6 percent -- compared to the national rate of 6.4 percent.
This is exactly why the "personal responsibility" crowd shouldn't be listened to because the only way everyone will make the right choice is if it's the only choice they're given
It's the same as gun violence. It's stuff that happens to people elsewhere. I'm safe with my gun so who cares if other people's kids are accidentally shooting themselves? Covid is an inconvenience because the bad stuff is happening to other people and I need to weed my flower bed.
I got my final haircut right when shit was going down Italy, mid March, by the same girl who always cuts my hair, and as she was cutting my hair, we discussed the situation, the symptoms of covid. I told her a business like this is probably one of the worst for spreading covid, and that she would likely be shut down soon. Well, she tells me she had a terrible cough 2 weeks before this, soon after getting off a cruise. The cringe in my head as she told me this, though it helped when she said she had a consistent history of bronchitis.
I'm sure the person working has to work to make ends meet, especially after not working for a month or so. I mean in a perfect world they wouldn't have to work but I get it.
I believe in most if not all states you need to have a license to cut hair. Revoking that license seems to be a start. I blame the government more than I blame individuals and there are absolutely cases where someone is asymptotic and it’s unfortunate but not negligent. It’s reported that this person was symptomatic though and that’s just simply not okay.
I don’t know the story but I am sure when you are out of work for 2 months, you used up your vacation and sick time, you are only making 60% on unemployment etc it must be a hard choice
The blame belongs to the federal government for providing no financial support for individuals and great clips for not having safeguards.