Exactly. We were given one excuse for infringing on our rights, and now we are being given a different one with each extension of these illegal acts.

People are dying over this bull****. They aren't doing cancer surgeries. Those are considered "unnecessary" in Illinois. But as long as no one dies of COVID-19.

Well they can’t blame cancer on Trump...

(They CAN of course but even TDS-afflicted stooges have to realize that one’s a hard sell... COVID is so much easier to blame on him).

This is all about election year spin and blame-gaming at this point. I seriously doubt any of the politicians making these decisions gives a fart in the wind about any of us (not that they ever did or I ever expected they would but...)

don't be ridiculous

If anyone thinks they can control this thing, they are an epidemiologist.



Also:
Who says that "there is a second phase when they are carrying the virus but their immune response has stopped the shedding of the live virus."

Highly likely.

We should rethink some of our "city planning" ideas about how wonderful density is.

Have you considered a telemedicine session with a psychiatrist?

Find me a state constitution that allows it.

No. Completely wrong. you seem to be in some sort of disinformation spreading contest with Island.

Take a chill pill and read this:

https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-quarantine-and-isolation-statutes.aspx

Yea, NYC is 302 square miles with 18 million people. People packed in high rise building jammed in together. They have 1/4 of all the deaths from the China flu in the US. One city 1/4 of all the US deaths is not a place I want to be.

Quarantines are orders for specific sick people to remain in their homes for a set period of time. They are not general orders for the whole populace to remain in their homes indefinitely.

Clearly, these orders involve the restriction of numerous constitutional rights.

As such they would be subject to strict scrutiny.

If these orders were suddenly imposed during, say, a regular flu season, they surely would be found unconstitutional.

As of today, in most states, given the circumstances and what is known, in many instances it’s debatable.

As time passes the analysis changes, depending on what happens with the virus, New information from around the world, etc.

Just because this is a different virus doesn't make it any less illegal.

Just because something is in a statute or a guideline cooked up by some cubicle-rat bureaucrat does NOT mean it passes constitutional muster. These “stay at home” policies are flatly unconstitutional as orders. They are perfectly acceptable as GUIDELINES. The moment government tries to enforce them through force or penalty they become a gross overreach.

Historically the SCOTUS has only allowed for very narrow and specifically targeted temporary suspensions of constitutional rights (aside from those taken by due process say, for conviction of a crime). These are NOT targeted, NOT specific and left open-ended.

Government has completely overstepped its bounds here and it’s good to see some acknowledgment of that and demands for accountability / changes.

Government should be EDUCATING the populace about why VOLUNTARY cooperation with social distancing measures is smart and appropriate, not demanding it with threats of fines and arrest (and quite plainly weaponizing it to use as a political tool).

This is EXACTLY the kind of overreach and establishment of corrosive precedents the Founding Fathers tried to protect us against - exactly.

No.

You have to read the link I posted. Read.

you might also want to look into the power of a state - they are not limited sovereigns like the US.

I get that you don't like it. I'd tell you to go live in another country but don't know of any w/o the power to quarantine for public health.

You may need to buy your own island.

Some of what’s being done as of today is probably unconstitutional.
For example, at this time in many areas of the country, orders that outlaw 10 people walking to a neighbor’s house to get together for a religious observance probably wouldn’t pass constitutional muster.

also wrong

strict scrutiny is a specific term of art - it relates to racial discrimination

reasonable will be the phrase here - and I'm sure there will be some cases brought eventully - maybe legion can bring one

Cases won’t be brought because hopefully the most restrictive orders are going to be reasonably temporary.

I bet it would pass.

I forget the name of the case but I call it the chicken chopping case....

Members of Santa Ria (a combo of voodoo and christianity) perform sacrifices of chickens as a religious observance. They did this in members homes, and the neighbors - after viewing the blood and chicken parts, and the sounds of murdered chickens... complained.

This was - of course - in Florida (maybe miami). They got banned in residential areas so sued in federal court.

The Court ruled that they could indeed be banned based on practices (not beliefs) in areas zoned for residential use, and could go kill chickens in areas zoned for meat packing plants.

Above 20% in NYC.

0.6% mortality with the crowded inner cities bearing the brunt.

Makes sense.