We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
I agree. Scott: "Do you want the f-ing government to decide when you live or die?" Scott is aware the experts are flying in the dark.
Scott's main blind spot is that he has become a wealthy guy with no need to ever work, and seems to assume that everybody has the money to live comfortably for a year or two without income. That's wrong. Good disctinctions between the childrens' table and the adult table.
In my opinion there were only ever two factors to consider.
1. The need to prevent excessive cases requiring hospital care prior to insuring that sufficient PPE was available. That should have been two weeks and arguably for multiple reasons it took longer but should be under control by now.
2. The need to prevent any hospital from being over run with seriously ill covid-19 patients. That would result in excessive deaths because they could not all be treated appropriately. I believe this is where NY City screwed up and they made a fatal decision to send sick patients back to nursing homes and most certainly caused excessive deaths.
I am not sure we have learned that lesson yet. By that I mean if St Louis suddenly had 400-500 people a day entering their hospitals seriously ill from covid-19 I suspect most would die from lack of care. This would/will be true in any city anywhere in the U.S. because we did not take advantage of the last three months to prepare for this. We should have, the indications are there, but the focus was political.
So when we open up the country I expect numerous cities to endure what NY City has and in each city, just like NY City, I think we will see a lot of people die unnecessarily.
At this point what I think should happen is a couple hundred lawsuits against NY and NY City and Governor Cuomo. Not because I like lawsuits but because it apparently is going to take something like this to wake them up to the seriousness of allowing a hospital to be over run.
The legal doctrine of sovereign immunity will bar those attempted lawsuits against cities, counties or states. Even if those officials made every wrong decision, they're immune from suit as long as it was done negligently and not with the intent to cause harm. As long as they acted on the advise of medical professionals, no one is even going to prove negligence.
Anyone can file a lawsuit, all you need is the filing fee. That means absolutely nothing except that the government lawyers are going to waste public funds defending. Getting past a motion to dismiss is something else entirely, and that won't happen. But it's unlikely to be reported by the clickbait press.
From the story:
"... violates his rights to free speech and to observe his Jewish faith".
That is a total fail under the constitutional analysis that the courts would use. The emergency powers of a governor to impose a quarantine to stop the spread of infectious disease far, far outweigh the temporary suspension of first amendment rights. People often think that guaranteed constitutional rights of an individual are absolute against the rights of other individuals or against the public, but that has never been the case. Note that the ban isn't permanent and Jews themselves are not being outlawed.
Lawyers do this all the time as publicity stunts because nonlawyers typically don't read between the lines or don't understand how constitutional process works.
There are a few of these suits now, one in Nevada. Someone else was was claiming a civil rights violation because, while the open areas of parks are available for use, the State has put locks on the restroom.
So when we open up the country I expect numerous cities to endure what NY City has...
The scale of the NY debacle is hard to comprehend. If the Democrats were honest about this they wouldn't be talking about replacing Biden with Cuomo, they'd be talking about putting him in jail.
The worst Wuhan Flu fatality rate in Europe (really the world outside China) is about 750/million in Belgium. People love to slag on Sweden because they won't join the lock downs but they are at about 350/million.
New York's death rate is 1403/million with New Jersey right behind at 1095/million.
NYC Metro area accounts for almost half of the fatalities in the entire United States.
The only places close to replicating NYC numbers are Connecticut and Massachusetts. Illinois (really, Chicago) might but it's got a ways to go.
I don't quite understand the often expressed view that places with low fatality rates are that way just because they are unaffected. There are cases and deaths reported in Montana and West Virginia. If it's made it that far, nobody in the US is unaffected.
NY screwed it up every way possible. Filthy public transportation that was literally never cleaned. And while locking down the state, they repeatedly forced infected patients into nursing homes where they had no ability to care for them or prevent the spread.
No other city will experience anything like New York. Los Angeles was laid out as a sprawling grid to avoid such epidemics - and it worked.
Scott is also wrong in assuming that the lockdown is to prevent YOU from getting sick and potentially ending up dead.
It's to prevent you from infecting others and them ending up dead.
And as it's impossible to test everyone for the virus before they leave a building and locking them inside if they test positive every time they wish to leave (just imagine the manpower to do that, the number of test kits needed, and the security needed to protect the medical staff from idiots trying to force their way past them), you lock down everyone.
But the total lockdown to prevent the infection of others is predicated that a substantial number of cases are caused by spread from casual contact with asymptomatic carriers. I am unaware of any studies demonstrating that this is indeed the case.
Indeed it seems to be more contact with "super-spreaders", people who went into the public without precautions even though they showed symptoms, and through more intimate contact or contact for prolonged periods.
Another Guy named Dan
The lockdown was to prevent everyone from getting sick at the same time and overwhelming the hospitals. Eventually you'll either get it and have severe symptoms or mild/no symptoms. The lockdown was about WHEN not IF.