COVID-19 Response: An issue that shouldn't be at all political....yet here we are

[GasMan]

I answered for him.

Didn’t know you’re his spokesperson. I’m more curious about what the person who made the comment thinks.

[GasMan]

Not in terms of capacity, which is what this conversation was started about.

There was a specific guideline that only applied to religious institutions that limited their capacity more than other non-essential businesses before the ruling? I didn’t see that in the guidelines others had posted.

[mngopher35]

I agree with Sitewolf and Dbroncs that a lot of it is murky and in grey areas. That means there will be some nuance, differences and no clear right answers. Every area is placing restrictions in multiple ways on tons of different businesses and organizations/activities but those differences and opinions of people that favor certain things isn't enough to exempt them/call it illegal (until now with just churches).

My issue is that hasn't been reason enough for any other businesses to gain special treatment with SCOTUS just by pointing to something else and saying it is different when it is a big grey area and not all of these places are the exact same in service/risk. It wasn't even enough just a few months ago by SCOTUS but here we are now.

[SiteWolf]

Does that mean that you aren’t going to tell us what other businesses are in that murky category?

well, I don't know that there really ARE businesses that are quite in the same category as a religious organization....for one there are no businesses that have the variety of events that may happen at a church, two there are no businesses that involve similar emotional draws

but the main reason I said 'who's on first' is because for me it just seems this entire discussion is going in circles...with religious people feeling it right that churches are being too restricted at times, and non-religious people feeling the opposite...and no amount of discussion will change either side's perception

[SiteWolf]

I agree with Sitewolf and Dbroncs that a lot of it is murky and in grey areas. That means there will be some nuance, differences and no clear right answers. Every area is placing restrictions in multiple ways on tons of different businesses and organizations/activities but those differences and opinions of people that favor certain things isn't enough to exempt them/call it illegal (until now with just churches).

My issue is that hasn't been reason enough for any other businesses to gain special treatment with SCOTUS just by pointing to something else and saying it is different when it is a big grey area and not all of these places are the exact same in service/risk. It wasn't even enough just a few months ago by SCOTUS but here we are now.

"The court did not say that these restrictions would be unacceptable if they had been imposed on all gathering places. It said that the problem was that they singled out houses of worship "for especially harsh treatment." To justify that claim, the court emphasized that "essential" businesses could allow as many people as they wished, even in red zones.

Those essential businesses included grocery stores, banks, acupuncture facilities, campgrounds, garages and transportation facilities. In a separate concurring opinion, Gorsuch put the point vividly: "While the pan*demic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues and mosques."

In a dissenting opinion, Roberts made a narrow procedural point: It was not the right time for the court to intervene, because Cuomo had loosened the restrictions after the case was filed, eliminating the numerical limits previously faced by houses of worship.

Everyone on the court agreed that if New York discriminated against houses of worship, its action would have to be struck down, pandemic or no pandemic. That idea breaks no new ground."

https://www.dispatch.com/story/opini...ng/6474666002/

[mngopher35]

"The court did not say that these restrictions would be unacceptable if they had been imposed on all gathering places. It said that the problem was that they singled out houses of worship "for especially harsh treatment." To justify that claim, the court emphasized that "essential" businesses could allow as many people as they wished, even in red zones.

Those essential businesses included grocery stores, banks, acupuncture facilities, campgrounds, garages and transportation facilities. In a separate concurring opinion, Gorsuch put the point vividly: "While the pan*demic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues and mosques."

In a dissenting opinion, Roberts made a narrow procedural point: It was not the right time for the court to intervene, because Cuomo had loosened the restrictions after the case was filed, eliminating the numerical limits previously faced by houses of worship.

Everyone on the court agreed that if New York discriminated against houses of worship, its action would have to be struck down, pandemic or no pandemic. That idea breaks no new ground."

https://www.dispatch.com/story/opini...ng/6474666002/

Except they didn’t single out places of worship differently than other businesses which all have different restrictions. Everything has been “singled out” if this is the standard as tons have different sets of restrictions not all the same.

As noted this is like saying places are discriminating against black business owners because some are more restricted than others. Women. Lgbt. So is everyone who can point to something they find similar but with slightly different restrictions play victim and get special treatment due to discrimination? Or is that kinda ridiculous and it’s more of a grey area than just singling out any identity?

Another opinion correctly pointed out risk factors for bike shops and liquor stores are different than large gatherings with risky behavior like churches as well. Data has been shared on outbreaks/risk related as well on here. That’s not proof of discrimination when tons of other businesses in grey area have more/less restrictions than others too for various reasons.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Crovash]

2600 confirmed Covid-19 deaths yesterday (Tuesday) in the US, which of course may reflect some holiday weekend catch up in the statistics.

Nevertheless, this number will likely be close the 7-day running average soon in light of the fact that hospitalizations have soared nationwide to over 100,000 — double what it was just one a month ago and almost four times the number from three months ago.

EDIT: Interestingly, my local full-service grocery store (an actual essential business) just reestablished an earlier policy of limiting the premises to 10 customers at a time. Nice to know that some businesses take the safety of their employess and customers seriously.

[SpecialFNK]

Wrong again, genius. The president calling COVID-19 the "China virus" has absolutely stoked racism and violence towards Chinese people. Especially by simple-minded fools that eat up everything your hero Donnie boi says. You might be able to realize and admit this if you weren't so hopelessly caught up in defending the incompetent leader of a country you don't even reside in.

that is on them, not the truth about where the virus came from.

you're so busy trolling that you can't pay attention to reality that the 2nd bold is not even accurate.

[brett05]

2600 confirmed Covid-19 deaths yesterday (Tuesday) in the US, which of course may reflect some holiday weekend catch up in the statistics.

Nevertheless, this number will likely be close the 7-day running average soon in light of the fact that hospitalizations have soared nationwide to over 100,000 — double what it was just one a month ago and almost four times the number from three months ago.

and less than projected in Late summer early fall

[Crovash]

and less than projected in Late summer early fall

If accurate (and since this generalized statement comes from you, I must question your sources), but if accurate, gee, what a comfort to all those families whose loved ones have died (and will die).

[dbroncos78087]

2600 confirmed Covid-19 deaths yesterday (Tuesday) in the US, which of course may reflect some holiday weekend catch up in the statistics.

Nevertheless, this number will likely be close the 7-day running average soon in light of the fact that hospitalizations have soared nationwide to over 100,000 — double what it was just one a month ago and almost four times the number from three months ago.

EDIT: Interestingly, my local full-service grocery store (an actual essential business) just reestablished an earlier policy of limiting the premises to 10 customers at a time. Nice to know that some businesses take the safety of their employess and customers seriously.

It's nice when some businesses demonstrate for others what it means to care about life.

[Crovash]

Published August 2:

A widely cited University of Washington model predicts U.S. deaths from COVID-19 will reach nearly 300,000 by Dec. 1.

The forecast of 295,011 deaths is 137,000 more than the roughly 158,000 U.S. deaths reported so far.

The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) model assumes that many states will impose new stay-at-home orders as deaths climb.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention monitors the model along with forecasts from about 30 other modeling groups. Combined, the models predict from 168,000 to 182,000 total COVID-19 deaths by Aug. 22.

The IHME model shows a steady rise in overall COVID-19 deaths as well as daily fatalities, which the model estimates could reach more than 1,800 per day by Dec. 1.

https://www.fox6now.com/news/univers...in-us-by-dec-1

[dbroncos78087]

This is what it means to be pro-life to some people in this country:

[catman]

CDC has cut quarantine time from 14 days to 7-10 days for Covid.

[dbroncos78087]

CDC has cut quarantine time from 14 days to 7-10 days for Covid.

I would like to know what made them do that. Was it legit science or was it Trump saying **** you Biden and trying to make things worse?