Why Is There No Legislation Introduced To Prevent Lockdowns or Shutdowns in the Future?

[JustAnotherNut]

Obviously the science and common sense indicates lockdowns and shutdowns do not help anyone's immune system. Sure it is in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, many state constitutions, English Common Law, and Natural Rights of Western Man. But apparently there needs something more to prevent Deep State bureaucrats like Tiny Tony Fraudi, and megalomaniac state and local politicians from attacking our democracy and attacking our health.

Are the Lockdown Orders Constitutional?

If you want to know whether something is unconstitutional, one group you might ask is judges. And in early rounds of litigation, a reasonably clear—and, to many of us, unsurprising—answer is emerging.

www.cato.org

I want you to find a single example of ANY judge now or in the past have ever ruled that taking measures to limit the spread of disease are unconstitutional. I don't know if you are aware but the framers of the constitution lived in a time were epidemics were more common and more deadly and often had to rely on quarantines to contain the spread. So please be my guest find me an example.

I want you to find a single example of anytime in this country's history that HEALTHY people were ever forced into quarantine to limit the spread of disease???????
Please be my guest to find an example....

Sure. How some cities ‘flattened the curve’ during the 1918 flu pandemic

History of Quarantine (Port Health) | Quarantine | CDC

Port health stations previously were known as quarantine stations. The practice of quarantine, which began hundreds of years ago, has evolved over time. Although we honor the history of quarantine and continue to carry out CDC’s public health authorities—including using federal quarantine or...

www.cdc.gov

These 2 links provide plenty of examples.

I do not have access to NatGeo and nowhere in the other link says anything about healthy people being quarantined. In each of the examples given within the link, suggests the people arriving in ships were quarantined....not the whole population.

Obviously the science and common sense indicates lockdowns and shutdowns do not help anyone's immune system. Sure it is in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, many state constitutions, English Common Law, and Natural Rights of Western Man. But apparently there needs something more to prevent Deep State bureaucrats like Tiny Tony Fraudi, and megalomaniac state and local politicians from attacking our democracy and attacking our health.

Are the Lockdown Orders Constitutional?

If you want to know whether something is unconstitutional, one group you might ask is judges. And in early rounds of litigation, a reasonably clear—and, to many of us, unsurprising—answer is emerging.

www.cato.org

I want you to find a single example of ANY judge now or in the past have ever ruled that taking measures to limit the spread of disease are unconstitutional. I don't know if you are aware but the framers of the constitution lived in a time were epidemics were more common and more deadly and often had to rely on quarantines to contain the spread. So please be my guest find me an example.

I want you to find a single example of anytime in this country's history that HEALTHY people were ever forced into quarantine to limit the spread of disease???????
Please be my guest to find an example....

During the Spanish Flu pandemic

Yes, healthy people were quarantined on a ship together with the sick. How the Bubonic Plague Almost Came to America By the way by implying that it's ok for sick people to be quarantined you acknowledge that a government can take measures to protect its population undermining the entire premise of the OP. Epidemics have been a common thing throughout history this includes the US. Quarantines have been quite often the only effective way to combat those epidemics. I'll provide another source than nat geo for the 1918 pandemic. The 1918 Influenza Pandemic: Response

Those people travelled months within close quarters, and were quarantined within the ship, whether they actually carried a disease or not or were sick or not. The quarantines were to prevent a possible outbreak within the general population. It is still completely different than what is going on now, where EVERYONE is being quarantined.
And don't be mincing my words or intent...….I am saying IF you are sick or test positive, then yes YOU should be quarantined or isolated from the general population so those that are healthy can continue their lives instead of being forced to stay home because a small fraction of the population might be sick.

My dad had TB back in the 40's, he and others like him were forced to stay in an 'asylum' facility for months......away from his family, job and the general population. It was unfortunate for those effected and their families and lives in general...……..but it didn't take the rest of the world with it either like is being done now.

I didn't mince your words on intent. You asked me to show you something. Using my own wording in a way that I took as condescending. Not that I mind since when I used it I have to admit that wording was used the same way. So I simply did and answered your question on its merit by giving examples of healthy people being quarantined in the US, basically throughout its history. Something I think you assumed didn't happen.

The quarantines were to prevent a possible outbreak within the general population. It is still completely different than what is going on now, where EVERYONE is being quarantined.

I have to ask you now. How do you feel this is completely different? If your goal is to prevent a disease from spreading within the general population by quarantining, and the disease you are trying to prevent from spreading has a long incubation period and the ability to be transmitted by people who are asymptomatic. Quarantining of everybody and I use that term lightly since some people still work and almost all are allowed out of their house to do essential tasks. Seems little different and arguably less severe than measures taken in the past.

By the way, why aren't you mentioning the 1918 pandemic and the measures taken then? They included much of the same measures taken now and yet you keep on asserting that this situation is unheard of.

from post #85, of the differences between then & now....

Those people travelled months within close quarters, and were quarantined within the ship, whether they actually carried a disease or not or were sick or not. The quarantines were to prevent a possible outbreak within the general population. It is still completely different than what is going on now, where EVERYONE is being quarantined.



Perhaps we should have closed the door to international travel back in December to have prevented the current quarantines..

 

[forkup]

Obviously the science and common sense indicates lockdowns and shutdowns do not help anyone's immune system. Sure it is in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, many state constitutions, English Common Law, and Natural Rights of Western Man. But apparently there needs something more to prevent Deep State bureaucrats like Tiny Tony Fraudi, and megalomaniac state and local politicians from attacking our democracy and attacking our health.

Are the Lockdown Orders Constitutional?

If you want to know whether something is unconstitutional, one group you might ask is judges. And in early rounds of litigation, a reasonably clear—and, to many of us, unsurprising—answer is emerging.

www.cato.org

I want you to find a single example of ANY judge now or in the past have ever ruled that taking measures to limit the spread of disease are unconstitutional. I don't know if you are aware but the framers of the constitution lived in a time were epidemics were more common and more deadly and often had to rely on quarantines to contain the spread. So please be my guest find me an example.

I want you to find a single example of anytime in this country's history that HEALTHY people were ever forced into quarantine to limit the spread of disease???????
Please be my guest to find an example....

Sure. How some cities ‘flattened the curve’ during the 1918 flu pandemic

History of Quarantine (Port Health) | Quarantine | CDC

Port health stations previously were known as quarantine stations. The practice of quarantine, which began hundreds of years ago, has evolved over time. Although we honor the history of quarantine and continue to carry out CDC’s public health authorities—including using federal quarantine or...

www.cdc.gov

These 2 links provide plenty of examples.

I do not have access to NatGeo and nowhere in the other link says anything about healthy people being quarantined. In each of the examples given within the link, suggests the people arriving in ships were quarantined....not the whole population.

Obviously the science and common sense indicates lockdowns and shutdowns do not help anyone's immune system. Sure it is in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, many state constitutions, English Common Law, and Natural Rights of Western Man. But apparently there needs something more to prevent Deep State bureaucrats like Tiny Tony Fraudi, and megalomaniac state and local politicians from attacking our democracy and attacking our health.

Are the Lockdown Orders Constitutional?

If you want to know whether something is unconstitutional, one group you might ask is judges. And in early rounds of litigation, a reasonably clear—and, to many of us, unsurprising—answer is emerging.

www.cato.org

I want you to find a single example of ANY judge now or in the past have ever ruled that taking measures to limit the spread of disease are unconstitutional. I don't know if you are aware but the framers of the constitution lived in a time were epidemics were more common and more deadly and often had to rely on quarantines to contain the spread. So please be my guest find me an example.

I want you to find a single example of anytime in this country's history that HEALTHY people were ever forced into quarantine to limit the spread of disease???????
Please be my guest to find an example....

During the Spanish Flu pandemic

Yes, healthy people were quarantined on a ship together with the sick. How the Bubonic Plague Almost Came to America By the way by implying that it's ok for sick people to be quarantined you acknowledge that a government can take measures to protect its population undermining the entire premise of the OP. Epidemics have been a common thing throughout history this includes the US. Quarantines have been quite often the only effective way to combat those epidemics. I'll provide another source than nat geo for the 1918 pandemic. The 1918 Influenza Pandemic: Response

Those people travelled months within close quarters, and were quarantined within the ship, whether they actually carried a disease or not or were sick or not. The quarantines were to prevent a possible outbreak within the general population. It is still completely different than what is going on now, where EVERYONE is being quarantined.
And don't be mincing my words or intent...….I am saying IF you are sick or test positive, then yes YOU should be quarantined or isolated from the general population so those that are healthy can continue their lives instead of being forced to stay home because a small fraction of the population might be sick.

My dad had TB back in the 40's, he and others like him were forced to stay in an 'asylum' facility for months......away from his family, job and the general population. It was unfortunate for those effected and their families and lives in general...……..but it didn't take the rest of the world with it either like is being done now.

I didn't mince your words on intent. You asked me to show you something. Using my own wording in a way that I took as condescending. Not that I mind since when I used it I have to admit that wording was used the same way. So I simply did and answered your question on its merit by giving examples of healthy people being quarantined in the US, basically throughout its history. Something I think you assumed didn't happen.

The quarantines were to prevent a possible outbreak within the general population. It is still completely different than what is going on now, where EVERYONE is being quarantined.

I have to ask you now. How do you feel this is completely different? If your goal is to prevent a disease from spreading within the general population by quarantining, and the disease you are trying to prevent from spreading has a long incubation period and the ability to be transmitted by people who are asymptomatic. Quarantining of everybody and I use that term lightly since some people still work and almost all are allowed out of their house to do essential tasks. Seems little different and arguably less severe than measures taken in the past.

By the way, why aren't you mentioning the 1918 pandemic and the measures taken then? They included much of the same measures taken now and yet you keep on asserting that this situation is unheard of.

from post #85, of the differences between then & now....

Those people travelled months within close quarters, and were quarantined within the ship, whether they actually carried a disease or not or were sick or not. The quarantines were to prevent a possible outbreak within the general population. It is still completely different than what is going on now, where EVERYONE is being quarantined.



Perhaps we should have closed the door to international travel back in December to have prevented the current quarantines..

If I understand you correctly you are saying that the necessity of quarantine is tied to the number of people you need to quarantine? This is me trying to understand the point not some ploy btw.

What you seem to be doing is having a different argument from the original poster of this OP. He was arguing the position that what the states are doing is unconstitutional. You seem to be arguing it is too invasive. I just want it to be clear what we are arguing. Is that correct?

 

[Snouter]

forkup, the Nut simply stated those of isolated groups who might have been infected deserve attention, not the generally public. Why can't you comprehend such simple concepts? I am 100% behind examining all legal immigrants for contagions just like they were since day one in the USA. That conforms perfectly with the US Constitution. fuckup, do you support illegal aliens invading the USA with all their diseases, poverty, etc.? Be honest.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

Obviously the science and common sense indicates lockdowns and shutdowns do not help anyone's immune system. Sure it is in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, many state constitutions, English Common Law, and Natural Rights of Western Man. But apparently there needs something more to prevent Deep State bureaucrats like Tiny Tony Fraudi, and megalomaniac state and local politicians from attacking our democracy and attacking our health.

Are the Lockdown Orders Constitutional?

If you want to know whether something is unconstitutional, one group you might ask is judges. And in early rounds of litigation, a reasonably clear—and, to many of us, unsurprising—answer is emerging.

www.cato.org

I want you to find a single example of ANY judge now or in the past have ever ruled that taking measures to limit the spread of disease are unconstitutional. I don't know if you are aware but the framers of the constitution lived in a time were epidemics were more common and more deadly and often had to rely on quarantines to contain the spread. So please be my guest find me an example.

I want you to find a single example of anytime in this country's history that HEALTHY people were ever forced into quarantine to limit the spread of disease???????
Please be my guest to find an example....

Sure. How some cities ‘flattened the curve’ during the 1918 flu pandemic

History of Quarantine (Port Health) | Quarantine | CDC

Port health stations previously were known as quarantine stations. The practice of quarantine, which began hundreds of years ago, has evolved over time. Although we honor the history of quarantine and continue to carry out CDC’s public health authorities—including using federal quarantine or...

www.cdc.gov

These 2 links provide plenty of examples.

I do not have access to NatGeo and nowhere in the other link says anything about healthy people being quarantined. In each of the examples given within the link, suggests the people arriving in ships were quarantined....not the whole population.

Obviously the science and common sense indicates lockdowns and shutdowns do not help anyone's immune system. Sure it is in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, many state constitutions, English Common Law, and Natural Rights of Western Man. But apparently there needs something more to prevent Deep State bureaucrats like Tiny Tony Fraudi, and megalomaniac state and local politicians from attacking our democracy and attacking our health.

Are the Lockdown Orders Constitutional?

If you want to know whether something is unconstitutional, one group you might ask is judges. And in early rounds of litigation, a reasonably clear—and, to many of us, unsurprising—answer is emerging.

www.cato.org

I want you to find a single example of ANY judge now or in the past have ever ruled that taking measures to limit the spread of disease are unconstitutional. I don't know if you are aware but the framers of the constitution lived in a time were epidemics were more common and more deadly and often had to rely on quarantines to contain the spread. So please be my guest find me an example.

I want you to find a single example of anytime in this country's history that HEALTHY people were ever forced into quarantine to limit the spread of disease???????
Please be my guest to find an example....

During the Spanish Flu pandemic

Yes, healthy people were quarantined on a ship together with the sick. How the Bubonic Plague Almost Came to America By the way by implying that it's ok for sick people to be quarantined you acknowledge that a government can take measures to protect its population undermining the entire premise of the OP. Epidemics have been a common thing throughout history this includes the US. Quarantines have been quite often the only effective way to combat those epidemics. I'll provide another source than nat geo for the 1918 pandemic. The 1918 Influenza Pandemic: Response

Those people travelled months within close quarters, and were quarantined within the ship, whether they actually carried a disease or not or were sick or not. The quarantines were to prevent a possible outbreak within the general population. It is still completely different than what is going on now, where EVERYONE is being quarantined.
And don't be mincing my words or intent...….I am saying IF you are sick or test positive, then yes YOU should be quarantined or isolated from the general population so those that are healthy can continue their lives instead of being forced to stay home because a small fraction of the population might be sick.

My dad had TB back in the 40's, he and others like him were forced to stay in an 'asylum' facility for months......away from his family, job and the general population. It was unfortunate for those effected and their families and lives in general...……..but it didn't take the rest of the world with it either like is being done now.

I didn't mince your words on intent. You asked me to show you something. Using my own wording in a way that I took as condescending. Not that I mind since when I used it I have to admit that wording was used the same way. So I simply did and answered your question on its merit by giving examples of healthy people being quarantined in the US, basically throughout its history. Something I think you assumed didn't happen.

The quarantines were to prevent a possible outbreak within the general population. It is still completely different than what is going on now, where EVERYONE is being quarantined.

I have to ask you now. How do you feel this is completely different? If your goal is to prevent a disease from spreading within the general population by quarantining, and the disease you are trying to prevent from spreading has a long incubation period and the ability to be transmitted by people who are asymptomatic. Quarantining of everybody and I use that term lightly since some people still work and almost all are allowed out of their house to do essential tasks. Seems little different and arguably less severe than measures taken in the past.

By the way, why aren't you mentioning the 1918 pandemic and the measures taken then? They included much of the same measures taken now and yet you keep on asserting that this situation is unheard of.

from post #85, of the differences between then & now....

Those people travelled months within close quarters, and were quarantined within the ship, whether they actually carried a disease or not or were sick or not. The quarantines were to prevent a possible outbreak within the general population. It is still completely different than what is going on now, where EVERYONE is being quarantined.



Perhaps we should have closed the door to international travel back in December to have prevented the current quarantines..

If I understand you correctly you are saying that the necessity of quarantine is tied to the number of people you need to quarantine? This is me trying to understand the point not some ploy btw.

What you seem to be doing is having a different argument from the original poster of this OP. He was arguing the position that what the states are doing is unconstitutional. You seem to be arguing it is too invasive. I just want it to be clear what we are arguing. Is that correct?

I didn't at any time address the OP...…..I addressed your comments of who should be quarantined in an epidemic/pandemic. You seem to insist on everyone being quarantined because of a few infections as has been done and being done currently that has attributed to the current state of affairs in this country...….job losses, unemployment, business's closing, trillion$ debt, etc

I am and have been arguing the point that if only the infected were quarantined from the beginning (like has ALWAYS been done).....people would still be working, kids still in school and able to graduate, no exploding unemployment or increase to debt, business's still open, etc

Enough argument or explanation, just stick a fork in it, we're done

 

[Lesh]

I didn't at any time address the OP...…..I addressed your comments of who should be quarantined in an epidemic/pandemic. You seem to insist on everyone being quarantined because of a few infections as has been done and being done currently that has attributed to the current state of affairs in this country...….job losses, unemployment, business's closing, trillion$ debt, etc

I am and have been arguing the point that if only the infected were quarantined from the beginning (like has ALWAYS been done).....people would still be working, kids still in school and able to graduate, no exploding unemployment or increase to debt, business's still open, etc

Enough argument or explanation, just stick a fork in it, we're done

The key words "from the beginning"

We MISSED that opportunity because Trump was watching the Stock Market instead of listening to medical experts. We've been playing catch up since

 

[busybee01]

The Constitution is not a suicide pact as a former President remarked.

It wasn't a President. It was a disgruntled Supreme Court Justice, in a dissent on the losing side of a case involving free speech. He was wrong, and a majority of his colleagues agreed that he was wrong. Interestingly, in the same dissent in which he devised this bullshit statement, he quoted Adolf Hitler; make of that what you will. It has gone on to be a popular catchphrase among corrupt, criminal pieces of shit who like to make excuses for trashing the Constitution, but it has no legal standing, nor any ethical standing with anyone who is not such a criminal piece of shit.

Merely quoting that statement, and treating it as if it has any standing, tells me all that I need to know about you.

The4re [sic] is also a general welfare clause in the Consttution [sic]. The general welfare can trump other parts of the Constitution.

Bullshit.

Nothing in the General Welfare clause states any power, and certainly nothing in it states (nor even implies) any conditions under which government is authorized to violate the rules and rights that the Constitution goes on to lay out.

The general welfare clause was meant to be vague. Protecting the country from a pandemic does come under the general welfare clause. The Constitution is not a do whatever you want to do document.

 

[forkup]

Obviously the science and common sense indicates lockdowns and shutdowns do not help anyone's immune system. Sure it is in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, many state constitutions, English Common Law, and Natural Rights of Western Man. But apparently there needs something more to prevent Deep State bureaucrats like Tiny Tony Fraudi, and megalomaniac state and local politicians from attacking our democracy and attacking our health.

Are the Lockdown Orders Constitutional?

If you want to know whether something is unconstitutional, one group you might ask is judges. And in early rounds of litigation, a reasonably clear—and, to many of us, unsurprising—answer is emerging.

www.cato.org

I want you to find a single example of ANY judge now or in the past have ever ruled that taking measures to limit the spread of disease are unconstitutional. I don't know if you are aware but the framers of the constitution lived in a time were epidemics were more common and more deadly and often had to rely on quarantines to contain the spread. So please be my guest find me an example.

I want you to find a single example of anytime in this country's history that HEALTHY people were ever forced into quarantine to limit the spread of disease???????
Please be my guest to find an example....

Sure. How some cities ‘flattened the curve’ during the 1918 flu pandemic

History of Quarantine (Port Health) | Quarantine | CDC

Port health stations previously were known as quarantine stations. The practice of quarantine, which began hundreds of years ago, has evolved over time. Although we honor the history of quarantine and continue to carry out CDC’s public health authorities—including using federal quarantine or...

www.cdc.gov

These 2 links provide plenty of examples.

I do not have access to NatGeo and nowhere in the other link says anything about healthy people being quarantined. In each of the examples given within the link, suggests the people arriving in ships were quarantined....not the whole population.

Obviously the science and common sense indicates lockdowns and shutdowns do not help anyone's immune system. Sure it is in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, many state constitutions, English Common Law, and Natural Rights of Western Man. But apparently there needs something more to prevent Deep State bureaucrats like Tiny Tony Fraudi, and megalomaniac state and local politicians from attacking our democracy and attacking our health.

Are the Lockdown Orders Constitutional?

If you want to know whether something is unconstitutional, one group you might ask is judges. And in early rounds of litigation, a reasonably clear—and, to many of us, unsurprising—answer is emerging.

www.cato.org

I want you to find a single example of ANY judge now or in the past have ever ruled that taking measures to limit the spread of disease are unconstitutional. I don't know if you are aware but the framers of the constitution lived in a time were epidemics were more common and more deadly and often had to rely on quarantines to contain the spread. So please be my guest find me an example.

I want you to find a single example of anytime in this country's history that HEALTHY people were ever forced into quarantine to limit the spread of disease???????
Please be my guest to find an example....

During the Spanish Flu pandemic

Yes, healthy people were quarantined on a ship together with the sick. How the Bubonic Plague Almost Came to America By the way by implying that it's ok for sick people to be quarantined you acknowledge that a government can take measures to protect its population undermining the entire premise of the OP. Epidemics have been a common thing throughout history this includes the US. Quarantines have been quite often the only effective way to combat those epidemics. I'll provide another source than nat geo for the 1918 pandemic. The 1918 Influenza Pandemic: Response

Those people travelled months within close quarters, and were quarantined within the ship, whether they actually carried a disease or not or were sick or not. The quarantines were to prevent a possible outbreak within the general population. It is still completely different than what is going on now, where EVERYONE is being quarantined.
And don't be mincing my words or intent...….I am saying IF you are sick or test positive, then yes YOU should be quarantined or isolated from the general population so those that are healthy can continue their lives instead of being forced to stay home because a small fraction of the population might be sick.

My dad had TB back in the 40's, he and others like him were forced to stay in an 'asylum' facility for months......away from his family, job and the general population. It was unfortunate for those effected and their families and lives in general...……..but it didn't take the rest of the world with it either like is being done now.

I didn't mince your words on intent. You asked me to show you something. Using my own wording in a way that I took as condescending. Not that I mind since when I used it I have to admit that wording was used the same way. So I simply did and answered your question on its merit by giving examples of healthy people being quarantined in the US, basically throughout its history. Something I think you assumed didn't happen.

The quarantines were to prevent a possible outbreak within the general population. It is still completely different than what is going on now, where EVERYONE is being quarantined.

I have to ask you now. How do you feel this is completely different? If your goal is to prevent a disease from spreading within the general population by quarantining, and the disease you are trying to prevent from spreading has a long incubation period and the ability to be transmitted by people who are asymptomatic. Quarantining of everybody and I use that term lightly since some people still work and almost all are allowed out of their house to do essential tasks. Seems little different and arguably less severe than measures taken in the past.

By the way, why aren't you mentioning the 1918 pandemic and the measures taken then? They included much of the same measures taken now and yet you keep on asserting that this situation is unheard of.

from post #85, of the differences between then & now....

Those people travelled months within close quarters, and were quarantined within the ship, whether they actually carried a disease or not or were sick or not. The quarantines were to prevent a possible outbreak within the general population. It is still completely different than what is going on now, where EVERYONE is being quarantined.



Perhaps we should have closed the door to international travel back in December to have prevented the current quarantines..

If I understand you correctly you are saying that the necessity of quarantine is tied to the number of people you need to quarantine? This is me trying to understand the point not some ploy btw.

What you seem to be doing is having a different argument from the original poster of this OP. He was arguing the position that what the states are doing is unconstitutional. You seem to be arguing it is too invasive. I just want it to be clear what we are arguing. Is that correct?

I didn't at any time address the OP...…..I addressed your comments of who should be quarantined in an epidemic/pandemic. You seem to insist on everyone being quarantined because of a few infections as has been done and being done currently that has attributed to the current state of affairs in this country...….job losses, unemployment, business's closing, trillion$ debt, etc

I am and have been arguing the point that if only the infected were quarantined from the beginning (like has ALWAYS been done).....people would still be working, kids still in school and able to graduate, no exploding unemployment or increase to debt, business's still open, etc

Enough argument or explanation, just stick a fork in it, we're done

Can I ask why you are upset? If you want to have an argument, making the respective position you take clear to those you are arguing against is common sense. You are the one that inserted yourself in the conversation by asking me to clarify something to you.

A couple of problems here if this is your argument. The biggest one being is that this thing is capable of being spread asymptomatically. Meaning the only way to even know who's infected is by literally testing everybody. The US is just now starting to be able to have testing to the level of adequate, meaning they are just now able to test all of the people that are suspected of having it. How are you supposed to be able to quarantine only those that are infected if you don't know who those are? Wishing for something that isn't feasible doesn't exactly solve anything now does it?

My second problem is that this is subjective. Both from a personal standpoint and a societal one. Maybe I'm a seventy-year-old man with medical issues. And maybe you are a twenty-something in his prime. The point is that the perspective of the risk someone takes by letting this virus spread unchecked will be different.

From a societal standpoint, it is even more complex. There is a real and undeniable human cost to this lockdown. On the other hand, there's a real and undeniable cost to not having this lockdown. What's the price of human life and more importantly how willing is society as a whole willing to pay that price?

Let me put it in a human perspective for you. I don't know if you have close family members in the high-risk group but all indications point to a very high mortality figure in this group, so let's just say ten percent. Are you willing to risk this virus going out of control and give that family member a 1 in 10 chance of dying to avoid economic damage?

 

[forkup]

forkup, the Nut simply stated those of isolated groups who might have been infected deserve attention, not the generally public. Why can't you comprehend such simple concepts? I am 100% behind examining all legal immigrants for contagions just like they were since day one in the USA. That conforms perfectly with the US Constitution. fuckup, do you support illegal aliens invading the USA with all their diseases, poverty, etc.? Be honest.

Snouter for someone who tries to call out people for ad hominem arguments (used wrongly I might add), you sure use them yourself a lot. That's not a little bit ironic. So is the fact that you just committed another one namely the strawman with your little immigration tangent. So I suggest you go and take that little course in logical fallacies you suggested for me, yourself. You seem in much more need of it.

 

[Snouter]

Protecting the country from a pandemic does come under the general welfare clause.

That statement is an ad hominem. An epidemic not a pandemic would be a concern, but even then "protecting" the country would only mean isolating and testing all legal immigrants when they enter to insure they are not bringing in disease. No where does anything imply state governors could ever issue edits, let alone unconstitutional edicts. The primary function of a Governor is supposed to be to sign or veto legislation passed by the state houses and senates.

 

[Snouter]

Let me put it in a human perspective for you. I don't know if you have close family members in the high-risk group but all indications point to a very high mortality figure in this group, so let's just say ten percent. Are you willing to risk this virus going out of control and give that family member a 1 in 10 chance of dying to avoid economic damage?

As usual, nothing but ad hominems. Ad hominem #1, "a virus going out of control." Ad hominem #2, "you should do as the insane governors say or elderly, immune compromised individuals will croak because, see Ad hominem #1." Questions: Is there a virus in control? And should folks susceptible to complications from common viruses change their behavior to protect themselves?

 

[zaangalewa]

...Why Is There No Legislation Introduced To Prevent Lockdowns or Shutdowns in the Future?...

Because never say "no". This could be the same as to do suicide.

 

[Snouter]

Zanglistianio, why is banning unconstitutional, illegal, dangerous governor edicts "suicide" in your opinion?

 

[forkup]

Let me put it in a human perspective for you. I don't know if you have close family members in the high-risk group but all indications point to a very high mortality figure in this group, so let's just say ten percent. Are you willing to risk this virus going out of control and give that family member a 1 in 10 chance of dying to avoid economic damage?

As usual, nothing but ad hominems. Ad hominem #1, "a virus going out of control." Ad hominem #2, "you should do as the insane governors say or elderly, immune compromised individuals will croak because, see Ad hominem #1." Questions: Is there a virus in control? And should folks susceptible to complications from common viruses change their behavior to protect themselves?

As usual, little sign of you understanding what an ad hominem fallacy is.

Claimed ad Hominem one# not one at all. Your response to it is another fallacy though namely a strawman.

Are you willing to risk this virus going out of control

"a virus going out of control."

See the difference between my position and your representation of my position? Mine is a statement of possibility, you represent it tough like I said it would happen. They call misrepresenting a position and then arguing against that position a strawman.

Number 2 is exactly the same. When have I said you just should just do what governors say? In fact, by recognizing that whether or not a lockdown is warranted is subjective I acknowledged that there's merit in not doing so. By the way, by adding "insane" to governors you make a hasty generalization which is yet another logical fallacy.

As for my post. You could argue I used a fallacy myself. It's called an appeal to pity. So I took pains in the post to frame it as a supported argument namely by stating that science supports my assertion that mortality for high-risk groups is higher. Mortality Risk of COVID-19 - Statistics and Research

You really should look up what ad hominem means, every time you use it wrongly as you are, you come across as dumb. 15 Logical Fallacies You Should Know Before Getting Into a Debate

 

[zaangalewa]

Zanglistianio ,,,

You are not able to learn. So it's senseless to speak with you.

 

[Snouter]

Mine is a statement of possibility, you represent it ... like I said it would happen.

You said a virus is out of control. I agreed.

 

[Snouter]

You are not able to learn. So it's senseless to speak with you.

Don't you put me on ignore, Zangliorenis! I asked you a question. Answer it, if you can!

 

[zaangalewa]

You are not able to learn. So it's senseless to speak with you.

Don't you put me on ignore, Zangliorenis! I asked you a question. Answer it, if you can!

no comment

 

[Snouter]

no comment

So we are still on speaking terms? Why can't you answer the question? Because you are not familiar with American history. The whole concept in America's development was freedom and liberty. Politicians were never allowed to be tiny, midget versions of "Kings of England" that colonial America shed blood to rid themselves of. To top it off the governors most outspoken in asserting their unconstitutional authority are the most ridiculously grotesque.

 

[zaangalewa]

no comment

So we are still on speaking terms? Why can't you answer the question? Because you are not familiar with American history. The whole concept in America's development was freedom and liberty. Politicians were never allowed to be tiny, midget versions of "Kings of England" that colonial America shed blood to rid themselves of. To top it off the governors most outspoken in asserting their unconstitutional authority are the most ridiculously grotesque.

no comment

 

[Snouter]

zanglo, respond intelligently or I will put you on ignore!