Excellent sequence of thoughts put out on twitter the other day by a poster. Somebody has compiled them all in one thread. Good read. Here's the first two tweets as an example. These are things we the public have been told.

Quote:It’s just a mask. It’s just six feet. It’s just two weeks. It’s just for non essential businesses. It’s just for non essential employees. It’s just a bar. It’s just a restaurant. It's just a salon. It's just to not overwhelm hospitals. It’s just until the cases go down.

It’s just to flatten the curve. It’s just a few inmates. It’s just to keep others from being infected. It's just a few more weeks. It’s just church. It’s just until we get a vaccine. It’s just an app. It’s just for tracing. It’s just to let people know you have no temperature.

Link

With respect, Bronco....

There are things that make a difference and there are things that don't... both in terms of infringing on our liberties AND impacting disease. Tweets like these conflate the two... leading to false equivalencies. The best indication of the differences (though this is not remotely 100%) is if the ideas for these things pre-date this event... and especially if (like masks and 'cleanliness') they were accepted and encouraged and have following (even if it's not a big following) in other similar, less virulent situations.

Nobody supported apps for contact tracing before this... nobody supported closing churches to stop disease spread before this... etc...

and of course, (almost?) nothing that is openly voluntary, even if it is strongly encouraged, highly accepted and even incentivized is tyrannical to democracy.

Also with respect....

All people are essential, not just who the government says are essential.

"Just flatten the curve" has turned into "not until there's a vaccine". There may not EVER be a vaccine, and even it it is the economy will be destroyed before we get it and only the wealthy survivors will even be there to take advantage of it.

Will you also stand behind the "vaccine required or you can't work or eat" law that will come next?

Can someone explain why you cant buy seeds and plant a garden in Michigan?

"A mentality of "just wear the mask" can devolve into "just turn in your guns" real damn quick." - Rogan O'Handley

I prefer not to, but I put on my mask when I have to. However, I have no confidence that it's doing any good.

I was doing just fine without it (and so was everyone that I know) while this thing was supposedly spreading like wildfire. I'm told now that it's spreading like wildfire again.

Do I believe it? No. Not really.

(07-17-2020 09:59 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Also with respect....

All people are essential, not just who the government says are essential.

"Just flatten the curve" has turned into "not until there's a vaccine". There may not EVER be a vaccine, and even it it is the economy will be destroyed before we get it and only the wealthy survivors will even be there to take advantage of it.

Will you also stand behind the "vaccine required or you can't work or eat" law that will come next?

Since I don't stand behind mask requirements, I don't know why you'd even need to ask.

I do suspect that if this is expected to keep coming around like flu, that vaccines would be required for many industries as they are now... with the ability to opt out by wearing a mask while at work... or seek other employment... and they would also be as encouraged as flu shots now are for seniors etc. I also think there will be a decrease in buffets and self-serve places/items... because the market will chose this, not because it should be mandated.

(07-17-2020 10:13 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  "A mentality of "just wear the mask" can devolve into "just turn in your guns" real damn quick." - Rogan O'Handley

So? As long as its voluntary.....

Now let's assume for a minute that they're mandatory... which I don't support.... Whether you believe masks help, it's hard to really see how they hurt. Those that it does actually hurt can get waivers and make adjustment just as they do in healthcare for the flu shots. It's not hard at all to see how not having a gun can hurt you, even if you don't routinely keep thousands in cash on you

That said, I wonder how you feel about mandatory requirements that people in food service wash their hands/wear hair nets, wear shirts etc? Why aren't those 'slippery slope' arguments the same?

(07-17-2020 10:55 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 09:59 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Also with respect....

All people are essential, not just who the government says are essential.

"Just flatten the curve" has turned into "not until there's a vaccine". There may not EVER be a vaccine, and even it it is the economy will be destroyed before we get it and only the wealthy survivors will even be there to take advantage of it.

Will you also stand behind the "vaccine required or you can't work or eat" law that will come next?

Since I don't stand behind mask requirements, I don't know why you'd even need to ask.

I do suspect that if this is expected to keep coming around like flu, that vaccines would be required for many industries as they are now... with the ability to opt out by wearing a mask while at work... or seek other employment... and they would also be as encouraged as flu shots now are for seniors etc. I also think there will be a decrease in buffets and self-serve places/items... because the market will chose this, not because it should be mandated.

(07-17-2020 10:13 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  "A mentality of "just wear the mask" can devolve into "just turn in your guns" real damn quick." - Rogan O'Handley

So? As long as its voluntary.....

At least in North Carolina, the mask mandate is not voluntary. They can't really enforce it... but it's mandatory.

(07-17-2020 10:55 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  So? As long as its voluntary.....

Wearing a mask is quickly becoming non-voluntary

(07-17-2020 10:55 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  That said, I wonder how you feel about mandatory requirements that people in food service wash their hands/wear hair nets, wear shirts etc? Why aren't those 'slippery slope' arguments the same?

Not even close to the same thing.

(07-17-2020 10:59 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 10:55 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  That said, I wonder how you feel about mandatory requirements that people in food service wash their hands/wear hair nets, wear shirts etc? Why aren't those 'slippery slope' arguments the same?

Not even close to the same thing.

Why? Do you mean because customers aren't required but employees are? Okay, but I addressed that in that flu shots are mandatory for people in healthcare... I wanted to address the idea that the government is often currently mandating that store employees wear masks... and that is what i was getting at.


As to the mandates on masks now on the public... I agree...


Let me see if I can say this clearly.... and I'm sorry but I get chastised for my lack of brevity.

We have a state of national emergency declared... a pandemic... We can debate whether it should be that or not, but that is the current situation. Under such a federal order, all sorts of state and national options become available to government. The same authority to restrict flights from China or to put people in 14 day quarantine who come into the country allows states to do things like this.... and the authority rests very strongly specifically with the CDC by law.

Regardless of anyone else's support or opinion, The CDC very strongly believes that 'good flu hygiene/practices' are important during regular flu season, much less a 'flu-like' pandemic.... and this is where these mandates come from... because many places don't trust their citizens to follow the consensus guidelines... so they feel they have to force them.

If as a culture, sick people wore masks during most of the year.... and 40% of us were 'extra vigilant' during regular flu season... and say that voluntarily rose to 75% during a flu-like pandemic without mandates... the ONLY places that would feel compelled/be remotely justified in engaging in mandates would be places experiencing abnormal spread... like perhaps NYC... and places like North Carolina would be politically conspicuous if they enacted mandatory masks while getting 75% compliance (only during the declared emergency) without them and not experiencing abnormal spread. We could lay bare their control.

Instead, we're really all over the place... so no reliable conclusions can be drawn... so people can argue whatever they want and find SOME support for even pretty illogical conclusions... often based in the panic they like to spread. I think even the CDC would not be recommending mandates if they got 75% compliance during the pandemic for what they have openly supported for decades.

My government isn't here to trust me. My government isn't here to protect me. They are here to serve me. That's what our constitution says.

This virus is going to kill whoever it's going to kill and all the"mandates" in the world are not going to change that. We've been living with things like this since the dawn of time. You can't stop death.

(07-17-2020 01:56 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  My government isn't here to trust me. My government isn't here to protect me. They are here to serve me. That's what our constitution says.

This virus is going to kill whoever it's going to kill and all the"mandates" in the world are not going to change that. We've been living with things like this since the dawn of time. You can't stop death.

I can't love ^^^ enough...

always loved some of youz memphians....

(07-17-2020 10:55 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  So? As long as its voluntary.....

Now let's assume for a minute that they're mandatory... which I don't support.... Whether you believe masks help, it's hard to really see how they hurt. Those that it does actually hurt can get waivers and make adjustment just as they do in healthcare for the flu shots. It's not hard at all to see how not having a gun can hurt you, even if you don't routinely keep thousands in cash on you

That said, I wonder how you feel about mandatory requirements that people in food service wash their hands/wear hair nets, wear shirts etc? Why aren't those 'slippery slope' arguments the same?

The first thing I thought about with your response here was kind of like a "poll tax" mentality. Also, like the ACA mandate, which was found unenforceable, and rightly so, I think individuals are tired of having govt micro-manage and babysit their every move, in addition to placing additional regulatory encumbrances upon their as they try to go about their normal daily lives. I think that's one big plus in favor of President Trump--that he's successfully and effectively removed so many burdensome regulations for every new one he's implemented--and people, and the economy, really appreciate that and both respond favorably to it. That's part of what the appeal of being an American citizen is, after all.

Second thing was I would not be opposed if individual businesses in food service decided to keep on wearing them in the kitchens. Wouldn't do that for waitstaff as being delivered to by a mask-wearing waiter/waitress ruins the experience... Pappi sneezing in the pasta primavera has probably sickened more people than the coronabug will.

(07-17-2020 06:16 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 10:55 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  So? As long as its voluntary.....

Now let's assume for a minute that they're mandatory... which I don't support.... Whether you believe masks help, it's hard to really see how they hurt. Those that it does actually hurt can get waivers and make adjustment just as they do in healthcare for the flu shots. It's not hard at all to see how not having a gun can hurt you, even if you don't routinely keep thousands in cash on you

That said, I wonder how you feel about mandatory requirements that people in food service wash their hands/wear hair nets, wear shirts etc? Why aren't those 'slippery slope' arguments the same?

The first thing I thought about with your response here was kind of like a "poll tax" mentality.

Which part? The food service laws are like a poll tax? Poll taxes are unconstitutional. Are you suggesting that health codes are unconstitutional?

If you mean voluntary ones, I see it more like the 'do you want $3 to go to the re-election fund' on your taxes or 'do you want to round up your purchase for the homeless' option.

Quote:Also, like the ACA mandate, which was found unenforceable, and rightly so, I think individuals are tired of having govt micro-manage and babysit their every move, in addition to placing additional regulatory encumbrances upon their as they try to go about their normal daily lives.

How/when was it found unenforceable? I can't really address the rest because I'm unaware of 'this'. All that's happened is that Trump has set the penalty (which was determined to be a tax) to 'zero' rendering it essentially moot, not unenforceable. I think mask mandates are mostly unenforceable as well, unless we're going to have police at every store and businesses running off customers... another reason I support 'encouragement' rather than mandates. Just as I think non-compliance encourages mandates, I think mandates encourage non-compliance.

Quote:I think that's one big plus in favor of President Trump--that he's successfully and effectively removed so many burdensome regulations for every new one he's implemented--and people, and the economy, really appreciate that and both respond favorably to it. That's part of what the appeal of being an American citizen is, after all.

Don't disagree... similarly, I'd like to see him (and of course others) not enforce lots of things. I'm not really speaking to this... I only say that because I don't know if you were speaking to me on this.

Quote:Second thing was I would not be opposed if individual businesses in food service decided to keep on wearing them in the kitchens. Wouldn't do that for waitstaff as being delivered to by a mask-wearing waiter/waitress ruins the experience... Pappi sneezing in the pasta primavera has probably sickened more people than the coronabug will.

From the start, I suggested that ending/fewer buffets/open pasta primavera and self-serve food, plus generally better public hygiene was probably something that would/should result from this... and that would be a general positive.

(07-17-2020 07:00 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 06:16 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 10:55 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  So? As long as its voluntary.....

Now let's assume for a minute that they're mandatory... which I don't support.... Whether you believe masks help, it's hard to really see how they hurt. Those that it does actually hurt can get waivers and make adjustment just as they do in healthcare for the flu shots. It's not hard at all to see how not having a gun can hurt you, even if you don't routinely keep thousands in cash on you

That said, I wonder how you feel about mandatory requirements that people in food service wash their hands/wear hair nets, wear shirts etc? Why aren't those 'slippery slope' arguments the same?

The first thing I thought about with your response here was kind of like a "poll tax" mentality.

Which part? The food service laws are like a poll tax? Poll taxes are unconstitutional. Are you suggesting that health codes are unconstitutional?

If you mean voluntary ones, I see it more like the 'do you want $3 to go to the re-election fund' on your taxes or 'do you want to round up your purchase for the homeless' option.

Quote:Also, like the ACA mandate, which was found unenforceable, and rightly so, I think individuals are tired of having govt micro-manage and babysit their every move, in addition to placing additional regulatory encumbrances upon their as they try to go about their normal daily lives.

How/when was it found unenforceable? I can't really address the rest because I'm unaware of 'this'. All that's happened is that Trump has set the penalty (which was determined to be a tax) to 'zero' rendering it essentially moot, not unenforceable. I think mask mandates are mostly unenforceable as well, unless we're going to have police at every store and businesses running off customers... another reason I support 'encouragement' rather than mandates. Just as I think non-compliance encourages mandates, I think mandates encourage non-compliance.

Quote:I think that's one big plus in favor of President Trump--that he's successfully and effectively removed so many burdensome regulations for every new one he's implemented--and people, and the economy, really appreciate that and both respond favorably to it. That's part of what the appeal of being an American citizen is, after all.

Don't disagree... similarly, I'd like to see him (and of course others) not enforce lots of things. I'm not really speaking to this... I only say that because I don't know if you were speaking to me on this.

Quote:Second thing was I would not be opposed if individual businesses in food service decided to keep on wearing them in the kitchens. Wouldn't do that for waitstaff as being delivered to by a mask-wearing waiter/waitress ruins the experience... Pappi sneezing in the pasta primavera has probably sickened more people than the coronabug will.

From the start, I suggested that ending/fewer buffets/open pasta primavera and self-serve food, plus generally better public hygiene was probably something that would/should result from this... and that would be a general positive.

The last has happened at my son's university. I imagine pretty much all schools.

Here's one of the outdoor dining tents Purdue has set up. Kind of looks like prison, but I do applaud the effort.

(07-17-2020 07:00 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 06:16 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 10:55 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  So? As long as its voluntary.....

Now let's assume for a minute that they're mandatory... which I don't support.... Whether you believe masks help, it's hard to really see how they hurt. Those that it does actually hurt can get waivers and make adjustment just as they do in healthcare for the flu shots. It's not hard at all to see how not having a gun can hurt you, even if you don't routinely keep thousands in cash on you

That said, I wonder how you feel about mandatory requirements that people in food service wash their hands/wear hair nets, wear shirts etc? Why aren't those 'slippery slope' arguments the same?

The first thing I thought about with your response here was kind of like a "poll tax" mentality.

Which part? The food service laws are like a poll tax? Poll taxes are unconstitutional. Are you suggesting that health codes are unconstitutional?

If you mean voluntary ones, I see it more like the 'do you want $3 to go to the re-election fund' on your taxes or 'do you want to round up your purchase for the homeless' option.


I wasn't referring to foodservice in the first part, rather I was addressing the part about having to make people get waivers, etc... so they wouldn't have to wear masks. That reminded me of poll taxes--making people have to do extra stuff to make it more difficult for them when they had the right to just do what they set out to in the first place without the additional encumbrance. I understand you were couching that in the hypothetical of if they would be made mandatory (which they are in some states, I believe, right?)

Quote:Also, like the ACA mandate, which was found unenforceable, and rightly so, I think individuals are tired of having govt micro-manage and babysit their every move, in addition to placing additional regulatory encumbrances upon their as they try to go about their normal daily lives.

How/when was it found unenforceable? I can't really address the rest because I'm unaware of 'this'. All that's happened is that Trump has set the penalty (which was determined to be a tax) to 'zero' rendering it essentially moot, not unenforceable.

Oops, you know I believe you're right, my bad; but somehow I thought the court addressed this at the SC level, or are we still waiting for that one to come up?

(07-17-2020 10:55 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I think mask mandates are mostly unenforceable as well, unless we're going to have police at every store and businesses running off customers... another reason I support 'encouragement' rather than mandates. Just as I think non-compliance encourages mandates, I think mandates encourage non-compliance.

I have seen an increase in the presence of what must be off0-duty police and/or security-dressed folks in some stores, and now that I think about it, that is probably one thing they are there for. I guess it means more jobs? But what if they are de-funded? Do they count? It's just getting so confusing to read the libs minds--they don't want police preventing actual crimes, property destruction and assaults, but the Left DOES want police funded to enforce mask-wearing (and soon, something like pink tu-tus, I guess---or is that the gender-dysphoiria thing? It's gotten so confusing....

Quote:I think that's one big plus in favor of President Trump--that he's successfully and effectively removed so many burdensome regulations for every new one he's implemented--and people, and the economy, really appreciate that and both respond favorably to it. That's part of what the appeal of being an American citizen is, after all.

Don't disagree... similarly, I'd like to see him (and of course others) not enforce lots of things. I'm not really speaking to this... I only say that because I don't know if you were speaking to me on this.

[/quote]


I was speaking in general. I saw the Infraqstructure regulation streamlining news conference he did from Georgia the other day--what shopuld have been big news, not sure there was even a thread on it. Anyway, he had two charts blown up--one showing the regulaatory process for getting projects approved where it was a maze of symbols and flows that endlessly went nowhere, costing billuions and delaying needed projects and improvenments for up to 20 years; and the new version he approved which stream8lines everything to five phases and should take nom more than 2 years, where all the same objections can be raisded, but they have to do their work promptly and all at once rather than sit around for 10 years and wait while they draw their paychecks for obstruction. It really in a nutshell illustrated the differences in mentality of the two perspectives. One was like Alabama football...the old Dem version was like, well, Rice football, to be honest.. where those who need it are made to suffer due to the system and lack of direction or incentive.

Quote:Second thing was I would not be opposed if individual businesses in food service decided to keep on wearing them in the kitchens. Wouldn't do that for waitstaff as being delivered to by a mask-wearing waiter/waitress ruins the experience... Pappi sneezing in the pasta primavera has probably sickened more people than the coronabug will.

From the start, I suggested that ending/fewer buffets/open pasta primavera and self-serve food, plus generally better public hygiene was probably something that would/should result from this... and that would be a general positive.
[/quote]

I was thinking Seinfeld, but, yes, I agree with you, let's look for any silver linings we can. I've been upset seeing so many exit the restrooms without washing hands at all for many years. More than just coronabug can be reduced with improved public hygiene.

(07-17-2020 07:00 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 06:16 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 10:55 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  So? As long as its voluntary.....

Now let's assume for a minute that they're mandatory... which I don't support.... Whether you believe masks help, it's hard to really see how they hurt. Those that it does actually hurt can get waivers and make adjustment just as they do in healthcare for the flu shots. It's not hard at all to see how not having a gun can hurt you, even if you don't routinely keep thousands in cash on you

That said, I wonder how you feel about mandatory requirements that people in food service wash their hands/wear hair nets, wear shirts etc? Why aren't those 'slippery slope' arguments the same?

The first thing I thought about with your response here was kind of like a "poll tax" mentality.

Which part? The food service laws are like a poll tax? Poll taxes are unconstitutional. Are you suggesting that health codes are unconstitutional?

If you mean voluntary ones, I see it more like the 'do you want $3 to go to the re-election fund' on your taxes or 'do you want to round up your purchase for the homeless' option.


I wasn't referring to foodservice in the first part, rather I was addressing the part about having to make people get waivers, etc... so they wouldn't have to wear masks. That reminded me of poll taxes--making people have to do extra stuff to make it more difficult for them when they had the right to just do what they set out to in the first place without the additional encumbrance. I understand you were couching that in the hypothetical of if they would be made mandatory (which they are in some states, I believe, right?)

Quote:Also, like the ACA mandate, which was found unenforceable, and rightly so, I think individuals are tired of having govt micro-manage and babysit their every move, in addition to placing additional regulatory encumbrances upon their as they try to go about their normal daily lives.

How/when was it found unenforceable? I can't really address the rest because I'm unaware of 'this'. All that's happened is that Trump has set the penalty (which was determined to be a tax) to 'zero' rendering it essentially moot, not unenforceable.

Oops, you know I believe you're right, my bad; but somehow I thought the court addressed this at the SC level, or are we still waiting for that one to come up?

(07-17-2020 10:55 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I think mask mandates are mostly unenforceable as well, unless we're going to have police at every store and businesses running off customers... another reason I support 'encouragement' rather than mandates. Just as I think non-compliance encourages mandates, I think mandates encourage non-compliance.

I have seen an increase in the presence of what must be off0-duty police and/or security-dressed folks in some stores, and now that I think about it, that is probably one thing they are there for. I guess it means more jobs? But what if they are de-funded? Do they count? It's just getting so confusing to read the libs minds--they don't want police preventing actual crimes, property destruction and assaults, but the Left DOES want police funded to enforce mask-wearing (and soon, something like pink tu-tus, I guess---or is that the gender-dysphoiria thing? It's gotten so confusing....

Quote:I think that's one big plus in favor of President Trump--that he's successfully and effectively removed so many burdensome regulations for every new one he's implemented--and people, and the economy, really appreciate that and both respond favorably to it. That's part of what the appeal of being an American citizen is, after all.

(07-17-2020 10:55 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Don't disagree... similarly, I'd like to see him (and of course others) not enforce lots of things. I'm not really speaking to this... I only say that because I don't know if you were speaking to me on this.

I was speaking in general. I saw the Infrastructure regulation streamlining news conference he did from Georgia the other day--what should have been big news, not sure there was even a thread on it. Anyway, he had two charts blown up--one showing the regulatory process for getting projects approved where it was a maze of symbols and flows that endlessly went nowhere, costing billions and delaying needed projects and improvements for up to 20 years; and the new version he approved which stream8lines everything to five phases and should take no more than 2 years, where all the same objections can be raised, but they have to do their work promptly and all at once rather than sit around for 10 years and wait while they draw their paychecks for obstruction. It really in a nutshell illustrated the differences in mentality of the two perspectives. One was like Alabama football...the old Dem version was like, well, Rice football, to be honest.. where those who need it are made to suffer due to the system and lack of direction or incentive.

Quote:Second thing was I would not be opposed if individual businesses in food service decided to keep on wearing them in the kitchens. Wouldn't do that for waitstaff as being delivered to by a mask-wearing waiter/waitress ruins the experience... Pappi sneezing in the pasta primavera has probably sickened more people than the coronabug will.

(07-17-2020 10:55 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  From the start, I suggested that ending/fewer buffets/open pasta primavera and self-serve food, plus generally better public hygiene was probably something that would/should result from this... and that would be a general positive.

I was thinking Seinfeld, but, yes, I agree with you, let's look for any silver linings we can. I've been upset seeing so many exit the restrooms without washing hands at all for many years. More than just coronabug can be reduced with improved public hygiene.