Good News Thread

whatithink said:
The examples you give are illogical. None of them compare to hundreds of people congregating in an indoor space and then talking and singing out loud for an hour or more. From a medical perspective, that is an extreme high risk gathering. A fairer comparison would be indoor concerts or the like, which were not permitted. Comparing chalk & cheese makes neither the other.

If someone wants to go to church or their respective place of worship and expose themselves thus, then whatever. It does not make them any more devote than the person who decides to care (more some would say) for their fellow man, and not go to their place of worship, despite it being equally important to them.

For me, its an extremely stupid, high risk and dangerous thing to do. It endangers both yourself and those that you then come in contact with.
Click to expand...

you miss the entire point of the first amendment. It’s up to each person to make that decision because government can’t be impartial in making that decision. Otherwise you get situations like in the uk where in the 1st lockdown blm protests were ok and police took a knee-but in the 2nd anti lockdown protests are cracked down on

but in any case the decision didn’t say no restrictions. The government for example could ban indoor singing so long as it banned all indoor singing and didn’t single out churches. The government could do %restrictions so long as it did so for all indoor businesses. The government can’t label churches non essential but say law offices and liquor stores are essential but it could restrict the churches if it narrowed the scope of essential businesses very narrowly and shut restaurants for example. And even if it does that the government can’t stop outdoor worship so long as it allows other 1st amendment activity outside whether Biden victory celebrations, trump rallies, blm protests or anti lockdown protests.

btw folks I warned a few weeks ago if Biden were somehow to get to a national lockdown (which for a variety of reasons is unlikely) there would be violence. You only need to see what happened this weekend in the Uk (which is much more compliant than we are) to see it.
 
Grace T. said:
you miss the entire point of the first amendment. It’s up to each person to make that decision because government can’t be impartial in making that decision. Otherwise you get situations like in the uk where in the 1st lockdown blm protests were ok and police took a knee-but in the 2nd anti lockdown protests are cracked down on

but in any case the decision didn’t say no restrictions. The government for example could ban indoor singing so long as it banned all indoor singing and didn’t single out churches. The government could do %restrictions so long as it did so for all indoor businesses. The government can’t label churches non essential but say law offices and liquor stores are essential but it could restrict the churches if it narrowed the scope of essential businesses very narrowly and shut restaurants for example. And even if it does that the government can’t stop outdoor worship so long as it allows other 1st amendment activity outside whether Biden victory celebrations, trump rallies, blm protests or anti lockdown protests.

btw folks I warned a few weeks ago if Biden were somehow to get to a national lockdown (which for a variety of reasons is unlikely) there would be violence. You only need to see what happened this weekend in the Uk (which is much more compliant than we are) to see it.
Click to expand...
No, I don't miss the point of the first amendment. Nobody's right to worship (or not) was impinged. Large gatherings were banned which included places of worship.

Biden will leave it up to the states. He has said that and has stated in plain language that a toddler would understand that he will not impose a national lockdown.
 
whatithink said:
The examples you give are illogical. None of them compare to hundreds of people congregating in an indoor space and then talking and singing out loud for an hour or more. From a medical perspective, that is an extreme high risk gathering. A fairer comparison would be indoor concerts or the like, which were not permitted. Comparing chalk & cheese makes neither the other.

If someone wants to go to church or their respective place of worship and expose themselves thus, then whatever. It does not make them any more devote than the person who decides to care (more some would say) for their fellow man, and not go to their place of worship, despite it being equally important to them.

For me, its an extremely stupid, high risk and dangerous thing to do. It endangers both yourself and those that you then come in contact with.
Click to expand...
Nonsense
 
whatithink said:
No, I don't miss the point of the first amendment. Nobody's right to worship (or not) was impinged. Large gatherings were banned which included places of worship.

Biden will leave it up to the states. He has said that and has stated in plain language that a toddler would understand that he will not impose a national lockdown.
Click to expand...
Errr. You clearly were asleep in may during the large blm protests that were allowed despite outdoor services, funerals, weddings and even drive in services being shut down

And members of Biden’s task force have been calling for a national lockdown. That doesn’t mean Biden will do it. But there are elements in his circle that want him to

If you are going to engage in a denial about the reality around you there’s no point in having an honest discussion with you. “Yay team blue”
 
Grace T. said:
Errr. You clearly were asleep in may during the large blm protests that were allowed despite outdoor services, funerals, weddings and even drive in services being shut down

And members of Biden’s task force have been calling for a national lockdown. That doesn’t mean Biden will do it. But there are elements in his circle that want him to

If you are going to engage in a denial about the reality around you there’s no point in having an honest discussion with you. “Yay team blue”
Click to expand...
No, I wasn't asleep. Those were stupid, just like the mass rally's in MI or the Trump rally's.

I'm not in denial, you are in deflection mode; "elements of his circle" - you can do better. He has been unambiguous in stating he will not impose a national lockdown.

"team blue"! Do you only have an "honest discussion" with people who agree with you?
 
whatithink said:
No, I wasn't asleep. Those were stupid, just like the mass rally's in MI or the Trump rally's.

I'm not in denial, you are in deflection mode; "elements of his circle" - you can do better. He has been unambiguous in stating he will not impose a national lockdown.

"team blue"! Do you only have an "honest discussion" with people who agree with you?
Click to expand...

well at least you are consistent then. It’s an open legal question about whether a government in a pandemic could ban protests/trump rallies/Biden victory celebrations/lockdown protests. The government cannot ban or restrict outdoor religious services, however (including arguably religious weddings and funerals) unless it takes similar content neutral restrictions against the other activities. The current scotus decision doesn’t say no restrictions...it just says religion can’t be treated worse.

as I’ve said before I think biden is a realist so a national lockdown or even a mask mandate isn’t likely. But it does strike me as odd that he has reigned in his covid task force from talking about it if it’s really truly off the table. Other political leaders both left and right would have read their people the riot act and told them not to do press inconsistent with the admin message. Doesn’t speak well for the competency of the incoming admin (any more than it does the prior one which was notoriously bad with this sort of stuff...we were promised better and so far, if you are right, it’s not off to a rip roaring start)
 
Grace T. said:
well at least you are consistent then. It’s an open legal question about whether a government in a pandemic could ban protests/trump rallies/Biden victory celebrations/lockdown protests. The government cannot ban or restrict outdoor religious services, however (including arguably religious weddings and funerals) unless it takes similar content neutral restrictions against the other activities. The current scotus decision doesn’t say no restrictions...it just says religion can’t be treated worse.

as I’ve said before I think biden is a realist so a national lockdown or even a mask mandate isn’t likely. But it does strike me as odd that he has reigned in his covid task force from talking about it if it’s really truly off the table. Other political leaders both left and right would have read their people the riot act and told them not to do press inconsistent with the admin message. Doesn’t speak well for the competency of the incoming admin (any more than it does the prior one which was notoriously bad with this sort of stuff...we were promised better and so far, if you are right, it’s not off to a rip roaring start)
Click to expand...
OK, my view on his statement that he will not impose a national lockdown is that he knows, realistically, that he has zero chance of doing it and it will just end up in court. Also, this is a huge country, so realistically, again, there's no point when the states are all over the map (sic) on infection rates etc.

I do think his admin will be more vocal and "in your face" about preventative measures.

I'd prefer not to prejudge his administration. It's in everyone's interest for it to succeed at least on vaccine distribution and economic recovery.
 
whatithink said:
Biden will leave it up to the states. He has said that and has stated in plain language that a toddler would understand that he will not impose a national lockdown.
Click to expand...
By January 20th (about 8 weeks from now) this wave will be well into its downside, and if you believe the CDC, 28% in the US already had COVID as of last week. It will likely be well over 1/3 by Christmas. Front line workers, those identified as most likely to catch and spread the disease, are to start being vaccinated by the middle of December, and by inauguration day, they may well be on to whatever group comes next. Moderna just had some great news on its vaccine as well. I'd guess that in many places, the conversation will be more likely be about how quickly we open up rather than how to implement another lockdown.
 
whatithink said:
I do think his admin will be more vocal and "in your face" about preventative measures.

I'd prefer not to prejudge his administration. It's in everyone's interest for it to succeed at least on vaccine distribution and economic recovery.
Click to expand...

I don’t think that will go well for him. We are dipping into the last of the good will even in blue states (given, rightly or wrongly, the allegations of fraud and how the election went down the red states are already there). Can’t tell you how many conversations I had with people this weekend about looking forward to things being different in the new year (because of the vaccine, schools/sports planning being out to new year, the new Biden admin/trump out, or just the calendar). Lots of people being set up for disappointment and this would pile on it.

I respect your point of view on not prejudging the admin so long as you were consistent with whichever team is in place. I prejudged the last one...like the last one I see some disturbing trends.
 
whatithink said:
OK, my view on his statement that he will not impose a national lockdown is that he knows, realistically, that he has zero chance of doing it and it will just end up in court. Also, this is a huge country, so realistically, again, there's no point when the states are all over the map (sic) on infection rates etc.

I do think his admin will be more vocal and "in your face" about preventative measures.

I'd prefer not to prejudge his administration. It's in everyone's interest for it to succeed at least on vaccine distribution and economic recovery.
Click to expand...

New York has said they'd sue if the federal government imposed a quarantine or lockdown:

www.cnbc.com

New York Gov. Cuomo says Trump has no authority to impose quarantine: 'It would be illegal'

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Saturday he does not believe President Donald Trump has the authority to impose a quarantine on New York, New Jersey and parts of Connecticut to stop the spread of the coronavirus.
www.cnbc.com www.cnbc.com
 
kickingandscreaming said:
By January 20th (about 8 weeks from now) this wave will be well into its downside, and if you believe the CDC, 28% in the US already had COVID as of last week. It will likely be well over 1/3 by Christmas. Front line workers, those identified as most likely to catch and spread the disease, are to start being vaccinated by the middle of December, and by inauguration day, they may well be on to whatever group comes next. Moderna just had some great news on its vaccine as well. I'd guess that in many places, the conversation will be more likely be about how quickly we open up rather than how to implement another lockdown.
Click to expand...

california and some of the other states may lag in part because our interventions have preserved some of the brush keeping us vulnerable. See New York for example on that effect. In addition its looking like coastal california just has the short end of the seasonality straw. I agree for the central and southern states second wave should be on downslope by January. Coastal states and the health expert establishment will resist That thinking.
 
Grace T. said:
california and some of the other states may lag in part because our interventions have preserved some of the brush keeping us vulnerable. See New York for example on that effect. In addition its looking like coastal california just has the short end of the seasonality straw. I agree for the central and southern states second wave should be on downslope by January. Coastal states and the health expert establishment will resist That thinking.
Click to expand...
Ha! Yes, in my "many places" I am not optimistic about CA being there and Santa Clara County will likely continue to be the among most cautious in CA.
 
BigRed said:
New York has said they'd sue if the federal government imposed a quarantine or lockdown:

www.cnbc.com

New York Gov. Cuomo says Trump has no authority to impose quarantine: 'It would be illegal'

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Saturday he does not believe President Donald Trump has the authority to impose a quarantine on New York, New Jersey and parts of Connecticut to stop the spread of the coronavirus.
www.cnbc.com www.cnbc.com
Click to expand...
He said that about the Trump admin.....but what would he do if Biden’s admin imposes it?

I hope he would stay consistent no matter the administration.
 
More to Kicking and Screaming point, Switzerland's curve has broken despite schools/worship/bars/restaurants open. I agree this is increasingly looking like a seasonal wave and the 2nd in a typical 1-2-3 respiratory epidemic pattern. Question then becomes if we have enough immunity/vaccine to forestall a 3rd wave.

www.focus.de

„Wir können nur spekulieren“: Die wundersame Corona-Wende in der Schweiz

Alle Intensivbetten belegt: Noch vor einer Woche galt die Schweiz als das große Corona-Sorgenkind Europas. Jetzt jedoch zeigt die Schweizer Kurve steil nach unten – obwohl die Politik keine größeren Maßnahmen erlassen hat. Selbst Experten sind verblüfft.
www.focus.de www.focus.de
 
And Fauci still banging the drum that we should expect "surge upon surge" and the media all too happy to spread the fear porn.....

 
Grace T. said:
I don’t think that will go well for him. We are dipping into the last of the good will even in blue states (given, rightly or wrongly, the allegations of fraud and how the election went down the red states are already there). Can’t tell you how many conversations I had with people this weekend about looking forward to things being different in the new year (because of the vaccine, schools/sports planning being out to new year, the new Biden admin/trump out, or just the calendar). Lots of people being set up for disappointment and this would pile on it.

I respect your point of view on not prejudging the admin so long as you were consistent with whichever team is in place. I prejudged the last one...like the last one I see some disturbing trends.
Click to expand...

What "allegations of fraud" do you find credible?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top