ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Lovelyh**ps://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/A8378
h**ps://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/A2240
looks like some of them have been removed
a822 a3091 but not a416
uh oh USA
- Thread starter way 2 go
- Start date
Derf
Well-known member
I read that the normal shot schedule here in Colorado had the kids getting some 78 inoculations by age 12, even before covid.Lovely
Right Divider
Body part
You have a very broad definition of "lethal".
The VAST MAJORITY of people that get COVID do not die from it.
Derf
Well-known member
I declare [whatever is wrong with skeeter] to be a lethal, communicable disease in the midst of a health crisis.
There. The authorities will be by to pick you up shortly.
What you declare is meaningless because you are not a state governor duly elected by the people. And, even a governor is charged to act reasonably. If it was obvious the disease was not really communicable or serious, a violation of the Constitution has occurred and the state can be sued.
I haven't referenced covid and neither does the legislation. The legal language addresses a epidemic generically. If you wanted to make a good point, you could suggest that the legislation operationalize the level of risk needed for a governor to allow quarantine rather than leave it to the governor's discretion. But, did you do that? No.
You have a very broad definition of "lethal".
The VAST MAJORITY of people that get COVID do not die from it.
way 2 go
Well-known member
like HIV positive ?
Yes. But, the restrictedness should be rationally related to our understanding of the particular virus. HIV was not an airborne disease. They really should have required testing before entering a bath house or similar. A case could be made for quarantining a promiscuous person who refused to use contraception during the early years of AIDS epidemic.
Right Divider
Body part
How about the flu?
It is a lethal airborne virus that kills ~30,000 people in the US every year.
Good question. I do not know how to draw the line on how serious the risk must be in order to mandate restrictions. Some level of risk must be tolerated, but how much?
Right Divider
Body part
Enough to tolerate this bad flu called COVID-19.
Derf
Well-known member
The risk level can be reduced by everybody taking note of their own symptoms and not going out to share them with others. Mandating lockdowns for healthy people was harmful to society in general and to some people specifically.
That depends on how contagious the virus is in asymptomatic carriers. Lock downs may be needed when a new virus emerges with potential to be the next black plague. Events that look like overreaction in hindsight, may under other circumstances save countless lives. We do have to balance things though, because repeated shocks to the economy can also have very negative results.
You are an astute meme selector. Do you have other talents as well?
I recognize reality...What's your talent?
Derf
Well-known member
Not for almost 2 years in some places. Definitely an overreaction.
The plague is an interesting example, because it highlights biblical measures that could have been taken to minimize the reach, like burying fecal matter and taking rotting garbage away from homes and businesses.
I’m not saying you do nothing. And sometimes a lockdown of limited extant is necessary, and biblical. You quarantine the sick, along with their households. People need to be responsible for not getting on public transportation when they are symptomatic. And any time a society ceases to do the things that protect others from spread of disease, tyrants will arise to do it for them. But tyrants they are, and not to be allowed to continue in their tyranny.