Bad News Thread

[happy9]

Get the point but a test, technically, is not really enough "to avoid quarantine". You could become positive after the test (exhibit A: Trump and the debates). The only way to be sure is to test after (I can't remember the exact recommended time...heard different things when a pod of my son's had to quarantine after exposure) 7-10 days.

Is there a reasonable delay where you can assume that you may have been infected and then test? Wait X number of days after someone tests positive and you know you had potential exposure to them.

Has happened on multiple occasions with my kids. Confirmed positive tests from friends (asymptomatic). We waited 3-4 days then tested everyone in our household. Tests came back negative. Frustrating to say the least but a necessary evil I suppose.

 

[Grace T.]

Is there a reasonable delay where you can assume that you may have been infected and then test? Wait X number of days after someone tests positive and you know you had potential exposure to them.

Has happened on multiple occasions with my kids. Confirmed positive tests from friends (asymptomatic). We waited 3-4 days then tested everyone in our household. Tests came back negative. Frustrating to say the least but a necessary evil I suppose.

We were told 7-10 days when it happened to us a month back. I tested my son 3 days out but the relevant party didn't accept that and made him retest after 10 days (he was annoyed because he had to get COVID test twice). For Trump he tested negative 2+ days after exposure. But I don't know what the actual right number is (I suspect 3 is too short though because our school requires 10 as well to be back for sports/wellness camps/clubs on campus).

 

[dad4]

some of the flu studies mention them as a problem with the advice to replace often. Nothing on COVID, but I suspect they aren't running them for fear of what they might find.

They may not run them on covid because they run them on droplets and aerosols. If you have a good ten year old wet mask droplet study, that may be enough.

I just want to know so I know what to do. If the advice is to carry an extra mask and replace my mask when it gets wet, I can do that. It's not like I don't have a bag of them by the front door.

 

[Grace T.]

They may not run them on covid because they run them on droplets and aerosols. If you have a good ten year old wet mask droplet study, that may be enough.

I just want to know so I know what to do. If the advice is to carry an extra mask and replace my mask when it gets wet, I can do that. It's not like I don't have a bag of them by the front door.

I had done one on the old COVID thread that specifically said wet masks should be replaced for flu and recommended medical practioners replace in between patient visits. If I come across it I'll post (hard with that archive gone) but for what it's worth my dad (old timey surgeon) said that's consistent with what they've always been told in the hospital.

 

[Grace T.]

As expected, Newsom gets slapped down on churches, given the instructions from SCOTUS

California Judge Slaps Down Newsom Ban on Church Gatherings

www.theepochtimes.com

 

[happy9]

We were told 7-10 days when it happened to us a month back. I tested my son 3 days out but the relevant party didn't accept that and made him retest after 10 days (he was annoyed because he had to get COVID test twice). For Trump he tested negative 2+ days after exposure. But I don't know what the actual right number is (I suspect 3 is too short though because our school requires 10 as well to be back for sports/wellness camps/clubs on campus).

Our school is on a 14 day policy, regardless of the number of negative tests.

They quarantined the entire football team in SEP because of 1 positive test. Not one other kid tested positive and......the team practiced distanced, by position group, every day. The positive case came from the offensive lineman group (about 10 kids total). Even the kicker and punter were quarantined. They also had not been using the locker room. Very strict polities had been enacted to avoid spread...but...well, they were all quarantined for 14 days.

 

[watfly]

Get the point but a test, technically, is not really enough "to avoid quarantine". You could become positive after the test (exhibit A: Trump and the debates). The only way to be sure is to test after (I can't remember the exact recommended time...heard different things when a pod of my son's had to quarantine after exposure) 7-10 days.

Yes, we had an employee that lost their taste and smell and tested negative. They still got a 10 day, paid vacation.

We follow CalOsha and CDC guidelines at a minimum. They've reduced the number of days you're required to keep the employee out of work, but I don't have the days memorized based on the circumstances of the symptoms, fevers or exposure. Our HR person does.

 

[espola]

As expected, Newsom gets slapped down on churches, given the instructions from SCOTUS

California Judge Slaps Down Newsom Ban on Church Gatherings

www.theepochtimes.com

That seems to open up one church in Bakersfield.

https://www.thomasmoresociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Burfitt-Win.pdf

 

[Grace T.]

That seems to open up one church in Bakersfield.

https://www.thomasmoresociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Burfitt-Win.pdf

true that and it’s only a sup court opinion so not controlling. Given though the instruction from SCOTUS I don’t expect too many of the other cases (including ours locally) to go different. And if you get an appellate decision at that point the plaintiffs get to add other nastier claims such as civil rights infringements. Plus not to mention the legal costs that build as others copycat. The SCOTUS ruling though left very little room to a maneuver and even though it’s a pc given the instruction the other lower courts have no real leeway or discretion unless they can distinguish, hence this

 

[dad4]

As expected, Newsom gets slapped down on churches, given the instructions from SCOTUS

California Judge Slaps Down Newsom Ban on Church Gatherings

www.theepochtimes.com

On the theory that religious services are akin to grocery stores.

I can’t wait to see what the courts say when a theater claims that, unless they can open, the state has discriminated against them.

Either the court authorizes a further unravelling of the gathering restrictions, or the court contrives some non-religious explanation of the difference between a sermon and a poetry reading.

 

[Grace T.]

On the theory that religious services are akin to grocery stores.

I can’t wait to see what the courts say when a theater claims that, unless they can open, the state has discriminated against them.

Either the court authorizes a further unravelling of the gathering restrictions, or the court contrives some non-religious explanation of the difference between a sermon and a poetry reading.

There have been a couple of these cases already, and so far they've lost. Because they charge, the T/P/M restrictions you put on these can be more restrictive than say if you were trying to ban a free indoor Trump or BLM rally or a free religious service. One of the reasons, though, they've lost is that generally they've been held to a similar standard as indoor dining and other indoor facilities....where it gets tricky is when they are treated differently. So far, in most places if the indoor restaurants have been shut so have the theaters. See also the poll dancer cases in San Diego and Buffalo.

The bigger vulnerability for lockdowns is the lack of a rational basis behind certain governmental policies (outdoor dining, and maybe even schools). Given the data that's emerged, the behavior of some officials (like Newsom and the LA Supervisor), and public statements by California, HHS, and La County that they don't have data showing outdoor dining---> spread, it's an area of vulnerability. Leaves them only the argument it was a necessary step to stop people from gathering (but they'd have to prove that's the case....don't know if they can). Gorsuch's concurrence touched on this and I think he was signaling to folks his concern about this issue (Alito too given his remarks on lockdown, but he's approaching it more from an executive action without legislative input for too long approach)

 

[kickingandscreaming]

Ugh. There's actually some indication that we may be near the peak in the case rise. It's tough to call though as there are many regional "waves" that make up this national graph. CA and NY aren't helping much.

 

[dad4]

There have been a couple of these cases already, and so far they've lost. Because they charge, the T/P/M restrictions you put on these can be more restrictive than say if you were trying to ban a free indoor Trump or BLM rally or a free religious service. One of the reasons, though, they've lost is that generally they've been held to a similar standard as indoor dining and other indoor facilities....where it gets tricky is when they are treated differently. So far, in most places if the indoor restaurants have been shut so have the theaters. See also the poll dancer cases in San Diego and Buffalo.

The bigger vulnerability for lockdowns is the lack of a rational basis behind certain governmental policies (outdoor dining, and maybe even schools). Given the data that's emerged, the behavior of some officials (like Newsom and the LA Supervisor), and public statements by California, HHS, and La County that they don't have data showing outdoor dining---> spread, it's an area of vulnerability. Leaves them only the argument it was a necessary step to stop people from gathering (but they'd have to prove that's the case....don't know if they can). Gorsuch's concurrence touched on this and I think he was signaling to folks his concern about this issue (Alito too given his remarks on lockdown, but he's approaching it more from an executive action without legislative input for too long approach)

Given the current ruling, how do you permit church services while prohibiting live theater and poetry readings?

It seems unarguably a content restriction. One is a 60 minute reading and commentary on Alan Ginsberg. The other is a 60 minute reading and commentary from the Bible. It isn't even clear that you could tell the difference if you have the sound turned off.

I expect this will return to bite the court in the butt within months.

 

[dad4]

Ugh. There's actually some indication that we may be near the peak in the case rise. It's tough to call though as there are many regional "waves" that make up this national graph. CA and NY aren't helping much.

View attachment 9653

View attachment 9654

Near the peak nationally or for CA?

The CA case count is nowhere near the 6-10% that has preceded other states' count declines. I thought we are in for it for another few weeks.

 

[Grace T.]

Given the current ruling, how do you permit church services while prohibiting live theater and poetry readings?

It seems unarguably a content restriction. One is a 60 minute reading and commentary on Alan Ginsberg. The other is a 60 minute reading and commentary from the Bible. It isn't even clear that you could tell the difference if you have the sound turned off.

I expect this will return to bite the court in the butt within months.

a. free v charge a fee. Like I said, I free poetry reading is harder. The thrust of the New Jersey lawsuit is that NJ is discriminating in favor of religion against theatres. The decisions handed down so far make a distinction because a theater is a commercial enterprise.
b. SCOTUS didn't say you have to open indoor worship. It just said you can't treat it worse. If indoor dining is open but a theatre is not, that's probably an issue. If the same percentage limitations apply I bet you they'd say that's o.k. (indoor dining is closed so theatre can be closed....indoor dining at 25% so theatres at 25%)
c. there's a hierarchy of speech: political speech > free performance and opinion speech > commercial speech like books and films >commercial speech like advertising. SCOTUS just wanted religion treated in the top tier.

If anything I don't think it bites the court....if anything I think they'll be happy to extend similar restrictions as other businesses: so churches and political protests must be >= theatres, pole dancers and sports venues >= grocery stores, box chains and personal services.

 

[dad4]

a. free v charge a fee. Like I said, I free poetry reading is harder. The thrust of the New Jersey lawsuit is that NJ is discriminating in favor of religion against theatres. The decisions handed down so far make a distinction because a theater is a commercial enterprise.
b. SCOTUS didn't say you have to open indoor worship. It just said you can't treat it worse. If indoor dining is open but a theatre is not, that's probably an issue. If the same percentage limitations apply I bet you they'd say that's o.k. (indoor dining is closed so theatre can be closed....indoor dining at 25% so theatres at 25%)
c. there's a hierarchy of speech: political speech > free performance and opinion speech > commercial speech like books and films >commercial speech like advertising. SCOTUS just wanted religion treated in the top tier.

If anything I don't think it bites the court....if anything I think they'll be happy to extend similar restrictions as other businesses: so churches and political protests must be >= theatres, pole dancers and sports venues >= grocery stores, box chains and personal services.

B- if you can't treat sermons worse than grocers, then there is no way to ban indoor services. If you did, then you have to ban grocery stores. That causes problems.

a- to he link to commerce is odd. Free religious services are kind of a new invention. Not that long ago you had to rent your pew: religion was a type of commerce. Seems weird that the court would draw the line at paid versus unpaid speech. It puts some religious speech on one side and some on the other.

Does that mean my church loses some of its free speech protections when I decide to rent pews or make tithe mandatory? After all, if I rent pews then it is no longer free.

I hope the outcome is for states to tighten rules on non religious venues. My bet is they just open the churches and feign impotence when church contagion makes cases rise.

 

[kickingandscreaming]

Near the peak nationally or for CA?

The CA case count is nowhere near the 6-10% that has preceded other states' count declines. I thought we are in for it for another few weeks.

Nationally. The one thing you’ll notice about the steep increases as we’ve seen in the Midwest, upper Midwest is that they tend to drop quickly as well. We can hope.

 

[Grace T.]

B- if you can't treat sermons worse than grocers, then there is no way to ban indoor services. If you did, then you have to ban grocery stores. That causes problems.

The problem wasn't that the grocers were open and the religious services were closed. The problem is the religious places of worship were closed but dining and a lot of other places like tattoo parlors, construction and bike shops were open and classified as essential...SCOTUS implied the remedy might be a capacity limitation. SCOTUS already ruled on closing places of worship in the summer. It would seem a European style, short emergency lockdown (where everything is closed except really essential businesses like markets and pharmacies) is o.k. What rankled was the dining, tattoo parlors and nail salons, construction, bike shops or in California movie production.

 

[dad4]

The problem wasn't that the grocers were open and the religious services were closed. The problem is the religious places of worship were closed but dining and a lot of other places like tattoo parlors, construction and bike shops were open and classified as essential...SCOTUS implied the remedy might be a capacity limitation. SCOTUS already ruled on closing places of worship in the summer. It would seem a European style, short emergency lockdown (where everything is closed except really essential businesses like markets and pharmacies) is o.k. What rankled was the dining, tattoo parlors and nail salons, construction, bike shops or in California movie production.

The CA link specifically mentioned grocers, as did you. Drop grocers, and it has a chance of being reasonable. If you keep the link to grocers, the ruling means you have to let churches spread covid at will.

Capacity limit would be fine, but no church can run with even a 20 person capacity limit. Tattoo parlors will be just fine with a 4 person limit. You still end up with churches closed and tattoo parlors open.

 

[Grace T.]

The CA link specifically mentioned grocers, as did you. Drop grocers, and it has a chance of being reasonable. If you keep the link to grocers, the ruling means you have to let churches spread covid at will.

Capacity limit would be fine, but no church can run with even a 20 person capacity limit. Tattoo parlors will be just fine with a 4 person limit. You still end up with churches closed and tattoo parlors open.

SCOTUS suggested a % limit based on the capacity of the building.

 

[N00B]

B- if you can't treat sermons worse than grocers, then there is no way to ban indoor services. If you did, then you have to ban grocery stores. That causes problems.

a- to he link to commerce is odd. Free religious services are kind of a new invention. Not that long ago you had to rent your pew: religion was a type of commerce. Seems weird that the court would draw the line at paid versus unpaid speech. It puts some religious speech on one side and some on the other.

Does that mean my church loses some of its free speech protections when I decide to rent pews or make tithe mandatory? After all, if I rent pews then it is no longer free.

I hope the outcome is for states to tighten rules on non religious venues. My bet is they just open the churches and feign impotence when church contagion makes cases rise.

Not a SCOTUS position... but commerce wasn’t a factor in the speech decision regarding strip club closures and that is certainly not a free venue.