Debunking the New York Times' Latest Attempt to Defend the Lockdowns

mikegriffith1

Mike Griffith
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
5,405
Reaction score
1,918
Points
380
Location
Virginia

EXCERPT:

"If the United States had begun imposing social distancing measures one week earlier than it did in March, about 36,000 fewer people would have died in the coronavirus outbreak," the paper reports. "And if the country had begun locking down cities and limiting social contact on March 1, two weeks earlier than most people started staying home, the vast majority of the nation's deaths—about 83 percent—would have been avoided, the researchers estimated." The "cost of waiting to take action," the Times concludes, was "enormous."

Already we see a problem with the way the Times has framed the issue, since "the United States" never "impos[ed] social distancing measures," and "the country" never "lock[ed] down cities and limit[ed] social contact." Instead of a single national response to COVID-19, we have seen a wide variety of local and state responses.

Worse, by conflating social distancing not only with coercive government interventions but with the most sweeping kind, the Times ignores everything else that was happening as politicians decided how to fight the epidemic. Americans were learning about the threat posed by the COVID-19 virus, especially to people with serious preexisting medical conditions, and they were reacting accordingly. They were taking to heart advice about avoiding crowds, minimizing travel and social contact, and working at home when feasible. The same scary increases in COVID-19 cases and deaths that motivated politicians to impose lockdowns also motivated people throughout the country to take precautions. . . .

Do you know what else happened "in association with social distancing and other control measures"? People eventually started moving around more, even while they were still subject to lockdowns. Beginning in late March and early April, the charts show, "inter-county human movement" rose dramatically in all six metropolitan areas. Cellphone data likewise show a nationwide increase in mobility during this period.

Similarly, survey data from Gallup indicate that Americans started getting out more between late March and early May. The share of respondents who said they were completely or mostly isolating themselves—defined as limiting "contact" with people outside their households—fell from 75 percent in late March and early April to 58 percent in early May. That number fell both in states that had lifted their COVID-19 lockdowns as of May 4 and in states that were maintaining them, although the drop was bigger in the less restricted states.
 

Dragonlady

Designing Woman
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
23,845
Reaction score
6,657
Points
290
Location
Niagara Escarpment

EXCERPT:

"If the United States had begun imposing social distancing measures one week earlier than it did in March, about 36,000 fewer people would have died in the coronavirus outbreak," the paper reports. "And if the country had begun locking down cities and limiting social contact on March 1, two weeks earlier than most people started staying home, the vast majority of the nation's deaths—about 83 percent—would have been avoided, the researchers estimated." The "cost of waiting to take action," the Times concludes, was "enormous."

Already we see a problem with the way the Times has framed the issue, since "the United States" never "impos[ed] social distancing measures," and "the country" never "lock[ed] down cities and limit[ed] social contact." Instead of a single national response to COVID-19, we have seen a wide variety of local and state responses.

Worse, by conflating social distancing not only with coercive government interventions but with the most sweeping kind, the Times ignores everything else that was happening as politicians decided how to fight the epidemic. Americans were learning about the threat posed by the COVID-19 virus, especially to people with serious preexisting medical conditions, and they were reacting accordingly. They were taking to heart advice about avoiding crowds, minimizing travel and social contact, and working at home when feasible. The same scary increases in COVID-19 cases and deaths that motivated politicians to impose lockdowns also motivated people throughout the country to take precautions. . . .

Do you know what else happened "in association with social distancing and other control measures"? People eventually started moving around more, even while they were still subject to lockdowns. Beginning in late March and early April, the charts show, "inter-county human movement" rose dramatically in all six metropolitan areas. Cellphone data likewise show a nationwide increase in mobility during this period.

Similarly, survey data from Gallup indicate that Americans started getting out more between late March and early May. The share of respondents who said they were completely or mostly isolating themselves—defined as limiting "contact" with people outside their households—fell from 75 percent in late March and early April to 58 percent in early May. That number fell both in states that had lifted their COVID-19 lockdowns as of May 4 and in states that were maintaining them, although the drop was bigger in the less restricted states.
The failure to fully shut down ealy is the reason why you're still having difficulties and why most places should not be reopening.

In Canada, the Province of Quebec has their Spring Break one week earlier than the rest of Canada. Quebecsers went on spring break with no restrictions, and no countries closed. They went travelling for spring break. The net result of this one little thing. Quebec has double the cases of any Canadian province and half of all deaths in Canada. One week difference in their response.

Canada still isn't fully open. Restaurants, bars, beauty salons, are not open. Americans are behaving in the most suicidal way possible, positively guaranteed to drag the death and sickness on indefinitely.
 

Maxdeath

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2018
Messages
5,062
Reaction score
2,502
Points
385
Always nice when someone has perfect 20/20 hindsight isn't it.
Somehow they forget the fact there was a partisan impeachment. A cry of racism and xenophobia from trying to ban travel. Pelosi walking the streets of Chinatown. Deblasio claiming everything was fine don't be afraid.
They somehow manage to forget that China cancelled in coming flights but allowed outgoing flights. China did their best to hid the outbreak. Once it couldn't be hidden China told everyone there was no evedince of human to human transmission.

The fact that individual rights can not be simply removed by the president no matter the reason. Then you consider the democratic bent of assigning evil intent to everything the president says or does.

But that 20/20 hindsight works so well in an imaginary world where no one can have the virus simply before lockdown, from going to the grocery store or by riding a bus or standing in line. Because people only get the virus if they don't follow lockdown.
 

miketx

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2015
Messages
80,606
Reaction score
18,174
Points
2,220

EXCERPT:

"If the United States had begun imposing social distancing measures one week earlier than it did in March, about 36,000 fewer people would have died in the coronavirus outbreak," the paper reports. "And if the country had begun locking down cities and limiting social contact on March 1, two weeks earlier than most people started staying home, the vast majority of the nation's deaths—about 83 percent—would have been avoided, the researchers estimated." The "cost of waiting to take action," the Times concludes, was "enormous."

Already we see a problem with the way the Times has framed the issue, since "the United States" never "impos[ed] social distancing measures," and "the country" never "lock[ed] down cities and limit[ed] social contact." Instead of a single national response to COVID-19, we have seen a wide variety of local and state responses.

Worse, by conflating social distancing not only with coercive government interventions but with the most sweeping kind, the Times ignores everything else that was happening as politicians decided how to fight the epidemic. Americans were learning about the threat posed by the COVID-19 virus, especially to people with serious preexisting medical conditions, and they were reacting accordingly. They were taking to heart advice about avoiding crowds, minimizing travel and social contact, and working at home when feasible. The same scary increases in COVID-19 cases and deaths that motivated politicians to impose lockdowns also motivated people throughout the country to take precautions. . . .

Do you know what else happened "in association with social distancing and other control measures"? People eventually started moving around more, even while they were still subject to lockdowns. Beginning in late March and early April, the charts show, "inter-county human movement" rose dramatically in all six metropolitan areas. Cellphone data likewise show a nationwide increase in mobility during this period.

Similarly, survey data from Gallup indicate that Americans started getting out more between late March and early May. The share of respondents who said they were completely or mostly isolating themselves—defined as limiting "contact" with people outside their households—fell from 75 percent in late March and early April to 58 percent in early May. That number fell both in states that had lifted their COVID-19 lockdowns as of May 4 and in states that were maintaining them, although the drop was bigger in the less restricted states.
Lmao.
 

Maxdeath

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2018
Messages
5,062
Reaction score
2,502
Points
385

EXCERPT:

"If the United States had begun imposing social distancing measures one week earlier than it did in March, about 36,000 fewer people would have died in the coronavirus outbreak," the paper reports. "And if the country had begun locking down cities and limiting social contact on March 1, two weeks earlier than most people started staying home, the vast majority of the nation's deaths—about 83 percent—would have been avoided, the researchers estimated." The "cost of waiting to take action," the Times concludes, was "enormous."

Already we see a problem with the way the Times has framed the issue, since "the United States" never "impos[ed] social distancing measures," and "the country" never "lock[ed] down cities and limit[ed] social contact." Instead of a single national response to COVID-19, we have seen a wide variety of local and state responses.

Worse, by conflating social distancing not only with coercive government interventions but with the most sweeping kind, the Times ignores everything else that was happening as politicians decided how to fight the epidemic. Americans were learning about the threat posed by the COVID-19 virus, especially to people with serious preexisting medical conditions, and they were reacting accordingly. They were taking to heart advice about avoiding crowds, minimizing travel and social contact, and working at home when feasible. The same scary increases in COVID-19 cases and deaths that motivated politicians to impose lockdowns also motivated people throughout the country to take precautions. . . .

Do you know what else happened "in association with social distancing and other control measures"? People eventually started moving around more, even while they were still subject to lockdowns. Beginning in late March and early April, the charts show, "inter-county human movement" rose dramatically in all six metropolitan areas. Cellphone data likewise show a nationwide increase in mobility during this period.

Similarly, survey data from Gallup indicate that Americans started getting out more between late March and early May. The share of respondents who said they were completely or mostly isolating themselves—defined as limiting "contact" with people outside their households—fell from 75 percent in late March and early April to 58 percent in early May. That number fell both in states that had lifted their COVID-19 lockdowns as of May 4 and in states that were maintaining them, although the drop was bigger in the less restricted states.
The failure to fully shut down ealy is the reason why you're still having difficulties and why most places should not be reopening.

In Canada, the Province of Quebec has their Spring Break one week earlier than the rest of Canada. Quebecsers went on spring break with no restrictions, and no countries closed. They went travelling for spring break. The net result of this one little thing. Quebec has double the cases of any Canadian province and half of all deaths in Canada. One week difference in their response.

Canada still isn't fully open. Restaurants, bars, beauty salons, are not open. Americans are behaving in the most suicidal way possible, positively guaranteed to drag the death and sickness on indefinitely.
Yeah Canada has a lot less population and a lot less population density.
The fact that Canada does not have a bill of rights.
The fact they did not have a partisan impeachment during the early start of the virus.
The fact they did not have heads of the government and heads of large states and cities, calling Trudeaue xenophobic, racist for trying to stop travel. They weren't walking the streets telling everyone to come join them. They weren't telling everyone to not be afraid and were not shutting down schools. They were not forcing virus positive people into homes with the most vulnerable.
Might have had a bit of a diffrence on the impact of the virus.
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
112,860
Reaction score
24,138
Points
2,220
Location
Location, location

EXCERPT:

"If the United States had begun imposing social distancing measures one week earlier than it did in March, about 36,000 fewer people would have died in the coronavirus outbreak," the paper reports. "And if the country had begun locking down cities and limiting social contact on March 1, two weeks earlier than most people started staying home, the vast majority of the nation's deaths—about 83 percent—would have been avoided, the researchers estimated." The "cost of waiting to take action," the Times concludes, was "enormous."

Already we see a problem with the way the Times has framed the issue, since "the United States" never "impos[ed] social distancing measures," and "the country" never "lock[ed] down cities and limit[ed] social contact." Instead of a single national response to COVID-19, we have seen a wide variety of local and state responses.

Worse, by conflating social distancing not only with coercive government interventions but with the most sweeping kind, the Times ignores everything else that was happening as politicians decided how to fight the epidemic. Americans were learning about the threat posed by the COVID-19 virus, especially to people with serious preexisting medical conditions, and they were reacting accordingly. They were taking to heart advice about avoiding crowds, minimizing travel and social contact, and working at home when feasible. The same scary increases in COVID-19 cases and deaths that motivated politicians to impose lockdowns also motivated people throughout the country to take precautions. . . .

Do you know what else happened "in association with social distancing and other control measures"? People eventually started moving around more, even while they were still subject to lockdowns. Beginning in late March and early April, the charts show, "inter-county human movement" rose dramatically in all six metropolitan areas. Cellphone data likewise show a nationwide increase in mobility during this period.

Similarly, survey data from Gallup indicate that Americans started getting out more between late March and early May. The share of respondents who said they were completely or mostly isolating themselves—defined as limiting "contact" with people outside their households—fell from 75 percent in late March and early April to 58 percent in early May. That number fell both in states that had lifted their COVID-19 lockdowns as of May 4 and in states that were maintaining them, although the drop was bigger in the less restricted states.
In other words, if only we were more like the ChiComs
 

Mac-7

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
11,220
Reaction score
5,298
Points
290

EXCERPT:

"If the United States had begun imposing social distancing measures one week earlier than it did in March, about 36,000 fewer people would have died in the coronavirus outbreak," the paper reports. "And if the country had begun locking down cities and limiting social contact on March 1, two weeks earlier than most people started staying home, the vast majority of the nation's deaths—about 83 percent—would have been avoided, the researchers estimated." The "cost of waiting to take action," the Times concludes, was "enormous."

Already we see a problem with the way the Times has framed the issue, since "the United States" never "impos[ed] social distancing measures," and "the country" never "lock[ed] down cities and limit[ed] social contact." Instead of a single national response to COVID-19, we have seen a wide variety of local and state responses.

Worse, by conflating social distancing not only with coercive government interventions but with the most sweeping kind, the Times ignores everything else that was happening as politicians decided how to fight the epidemic. Americans were learning about the threat posed by the COVID-19 virus, especially to people with serious preexisting medical conditions, and they were reacting accordingly. They were taking to heart advice about avoiding crowds, minimizing travel and social contact, and working at home when feasible. The same scary increases in COVID-19 cases and deaths that motivated politicians to impose lockdowns also motivated people throughout the country to take precautions. . . .

Do you know what else happened "in association with social distancing and other control measures"? People eventually started moving around more, even while they were still subject to lockdowns. Beginning in late March and early April, the charts show, "inter-county human movement" rose dramatically in all six metropolitan areas. Cellphone data likewise show a nationwide increase in mobility during this period.

Similarly, survey data from Gallup indicate that Americans started getting out more between late March and early May. The share of respondents who said they were completely or mostly isolating themselves—defined as limiting "contact" with people outside their households—fell from 75 percent in late March and early April to 58 percent in early May. That number fell both in states that had lifted their COVID-19 lockdowns as of May 4 and in states that were maintaining them, although the drop was bigger in the less restricted states.
The failure to fully shut down ealy is the reason why you're still having difficulties and why most places should not be reopening.

In Canada, the Province of Quebec has their Spring Break one week earlier than the rest of Canada. Quebecsers went on spring break with no restrictions, and no countries closed. They went travelling for spring break. The net result of this one little thing. Quebec has double the cases of any Canadian province and half of all deaths in Canada. One week difference in their response.

Canada still isn't fully open. Restaurants, bars, beauty salons, are not open. Americans are behaving in the most suicidal way possible, positively guaranteed to drag the death and sickness on indefinitely.
Yeah Canada has a lot less population and a lot less population density.
The fact that Canada does not have a bill of rights.
The fact they did not have a partisan impeachment during the early start of the virus.
The fact they did not have heads of the government and heads of large states and cities, calling Trudeaue xenophobic, racist for trying to stop travel. They weren't walking the streets telling everyone to come join them. They weren't telling everyone to not be afraid and were not shutting down schools. They were not forcing virus positive people into homes with the most vulnerable.
Might have had a bit of a diffrence on the impact of the virus.
We dont need that canadian woman's consent to be Americans

Most deaths happened in the deepest blur meaning most liberal city in America under a democrat mayor and governor
 

Mac-7

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
11,220
Reaction score
5,298
Points
290

EXCERPT:

"If the United States had begun imposing social distancing measures one week earlier than it did in March, about 36,000 fewer people would have died in the coronavirus outbreak," the paper reports. "And if the country had begun locking down cities and limiting social contact on March 1, two weeks earlier than most people started staying home, the vast majority of the nation's deaths—about 83 percent—would have been avoided, the researchers estimated." The "cost of waiting to take action," the Times concludes, was "enormous."

Already we see a problem with the way the Times has framed the issue, since "the United States" never "impos[ed] social distancing measures," and "the country" never "lock[ed] down cities and limit[ed] social contact." Instead of a single national response to COVID-19, we have seen a wide variety of local and state responses.

Worse, by conflating social distancing not only with coercive government interventions but with the most sweeping kind, the Times ignores everything else that was happening as politicians decided how to fight the epidemic. Americans were learning about the threat posed by the COVID-19 virus, especially to people with serious preexisting medical conditions, and they were reacting accordingly. They were taking to heart advice about avoiding crowds, minimizing travel and social contact, and working at home when feasible. The same scary increases in COVID-19 cases and deaths that motivated politicians to impose lockdowns also motivated people throughout the country to take precautions. . . .

Do you know what else happened "in association with social distancing and other control measures"? People eventually started moving around more, even while they were still subject to lockdowns. Beginning in late March and early April, the charts show, "inter-county human movement" rose dramatically in all six metropolitan areas. Cellphone data likewise show a nationwide increase in mobility during this period.

Similarly, survey data from Gallup indicate that Americans started getting out more between late March and early May. The share of respondents who said they were completely or mostly isolating themselves—defined as limiting "contact" with people outside their households—fell from 75 percent in late March and early April to 58 percent in early May. That number fell both in states that had lifted their COVID-19 lockdowns as of May 4 and in states that were maintaining them, although the drop was bigger in the less restricted states.
In other words, if only we were more like the ChiComs
China is lying about their death count
 

LoneLaugher

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2011
Messages
60,192
Reaction score
8,769
Points
2,040
Location
Inside Mac's Head
100,000 dead. I’d say the president failed to adequately protect the nation’s citizens.

He was presented with a very difficult problem and he was unable to provide solutions in time.

There is no way to determine if another leader could have done better given the same circumstances. Perhaps any president would have failed similarly.

That fact doesn’t absolve him of his failure.
 

Mac-7

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
11,220
Reaction score
5,298
Points
290
100,000 dead. I’d say the president failed to adequately protect the nation’s citizens.

He was presented with a very difficult problem and he was unable to provide solutions in time.

There is no way to determine if another leader could have done better given the same circumstances. Perhaps any president would have failed similarly.

That fact doesn’t absolve him of his failure.
Trump did a great job

it was deblasio and cuomo who failed to get the job done
 

Gdjjr

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
4,707
Reaction score
1,465
Points
215
Location
Texas
100,000 dead. I’d say the president failed to adequately protect the nation’s citizens.
His oath of office is to protect and defend the constitution- FYI

100,000 out of 300+million. I'd say we've been hoaxed, again.
 

Nostra

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
12,859
Reaction score
7,137
Points
1,045
Did they say how many lives would have been saved if Cuomo hadn’t sent Chinese Virus infected people into nursing homes?

How many saved if Cuomo had shut down his subways of death?

How many saved if Cuomo had at least been cleaning the subway trains?

Did they mention only Governors can close down a state?
 

Nostra

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
12,859
Reaction score
7,137
Points
1,045

EXCERPT:

"If the United States had begun imposing social distancing measures one week earlier than it did in March, about 36,000 fewer people would have died in the coronavirus outbreak," the paper reports. "And if the country had begun locking down cities and limiting social contact on March 1, two weeks earlier than most people started staying home, the vast majority of the nation's deaths—about 83 percent—would have been avoided, the researchers estimated." The "cost of waiting to take action," the Times concludes, was "enormous."

Already we see a problem with the way the Times has framed the issue, since "the United States" never "impos[ed] social distancing measures," and "the country" never "lock[ed] down cities and limit[ed] social contact." Instead of a single national response to COVID-19, we have seen a wide variety of local and state responses.

Worse, by conflating social distancing not only with coercive government interventions but with the most sweeping kind, the Times ignores everything else that was happening as politicians decided how to fight the epidemic. Americans were learning about the threat posed by the COVID-19 virus, especially to people with serious preexisting medical conditions, and they were reacting accordingly. They were taking to heart advice about avoiding crowds, minimizing travel and social contact, and working at home when feasible. The same scary increases in COVID-19 cases and deaths that motivated politicians to impose lockdowns also motivated people throughout the country to take precautions. . . .

Do you know what else happened "in association with social distancing and other control measures"? People eventually started moving around more, even while they were still subject to lockdowns. Beginning in late March and early April, the charts show, "inter-county human movement" rose dramatically in all six metropolitan areas. Cellphone data likewise show a nationwide increase in mobility during this period.

Similarly, survey data from Gallup indicate that Americans started getting out more between late March and early May. The share of respondents who said they were completely or mostly isolating themselves—defined as limiting "contact" with people outside their households—fell from 75 percent in late March and early April to 58 percent in early May. That number fell both in states that had lifted their COVID-19 lockdowns as of May 4 and in states that were maintaining them, although the drop was bigger in the less restricted states.
The failure to fully shut down ealy is the reason why you're still having difficulties and why most places should not be reopening.

In Canada, the Province of Quebec has their Spring Break one week earlier than the rest of Canada. Quebecsers went on spring break with no restrictions, and no countries closed. They went travelling for spring break. The net result of this one little thing. Quebec has double the cases of any Canadian province and half of all deaths in Canada. One week difference in their response.

Canada still isn't fully open. Restaurants, bars, beauty salons, are not open. Americans are behaving in the most suicidal way possible, positively guaranteed to drag the death and sickness on indefinitely.
We don’t care about Quebec. Find a Canuck board.
 

LordBrownTrout

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
28,721
Reaction score
6,704
Points
280
Location
South Texas

EXCERPT:

"If the United States had begun imposing social distancing measures one week earlier than it did in March, about 36,000 fewer people would have died in the coronavirus outbreak," the paper reports. "And if the country had begun locking down cities and limiting social contact on March 1, two weeks earlier than most people started staying home, the vast majority of the nation's deaths—about 83 percent—would have been avoided, the researchers estimated." The "cost of waiting to take action," the Times concludes, was "enormous."

Already we see a problem with the way the Times has framed the issue, since "the United States" never "impos[ed] social distancing measures," and "the country" never "lock[ed] down cities and limit[ed] social contact." Instead of a single national response to COVID-19, we have seen a wide variety of local and state responses.

Worse, by conflating social distancing not only with coercive government interventions but with the most sweeping kind, the Times ignores everything else that was happening as politicians decided how to fight the epidemic. Americans were learning about the threat posed by the COVID-19 virus, especially to people with serious preexisting medical conditions, and they were reacting accordingly. They were taking to heart advice about avoiding crowds, minimizing travel and social contact, and working at home when feasible. The same scary increases in COVID-19 cases and deaths that motivated politicians to impose lockdowns also motivated people throughout the country to take precautions. . . .

Do you know what else happened "in association with social distancing and other control measures"? People eventually started moving around more, even while they were still subject to lockdowns. Beginning in late March and early April, the charts show, "inter-county human movement" rose dramatically in all six metropolitan areas. Cellphone data likewise show a nationwide increase in mobility during this period.

Similarly, survey data from Gallup indicate that Americans started getting out more between late March and early May. The share of respondents who said they were completely or mostly isolating themselves—defined as limiting "contact" with people outside their households—fell from 75 percent in late March and early April to 58 percent in early May. That number fell both in states that had lifted their COVID-19 lockdowns as of May 4 and in states that were maintaining them, although the drop was bigger in the less restricted states.
The failure to fully shut down ealy is the reason why you're still having difficulties and why most places should not be reopening.

In Canada, the Province of Quebec has their Spring Break one week earlier than the rest of Canada. Quebecsers went on spring break with no restrictions, and no countries closed. They went travelling for spring break. The net result of this one little thing. Quebec has double the cases of any Canadian province and half of all deaths in Canada. One week difference in their response.

Canada still isn't fully open. Restaurants, bars, beauty salons, are not open. Americans are behaving in the most suicidal way possible, positively guaranteed to drag the death and sickness on indefinitely.
A nation shouldn't be locked down due to a virus with a .004 death rate.
 
K

KGB

Guest

EXCERPT:

"If the United States had begun imposing social distancing measures one week earlier than it did in March, about 36,000 fewer people would have died in the coronavirus outbreak," the paper reports. "And if the country had begun locking down cities and limiting social contact on March 1, two weeks earlier than most people started staying home, the vast majority of the nation's deaths—about 83 percent—would have been avoided, the researchers estimated." The "cost of waiting to take action," the Times concludes, was "enormous."

Already we see a problem with the way the Times has framed the issue, since "the United States" never "impos[ed] social distancing measures," and "the country" never "lock[ed] down cities and limit[ed] social contact." Instead of a single national response to COVID-19, we have seen a wide variety of local and state responses.

Worse, by conflating social distancing not only with coercive government interventions but with the most sweeping kind, the Times ignores everything else that was happening as politicians decided how to fight the epidemic. Americans were learning about the threat posed by the COVID-19 virus, especially to people with serious preexisting medical conditions, and they were reacting accordingly. They were taking to heart advice about avoiding crowds, minimizing travel and social contact, and working at home when feasible. The same scary increases in COVID-19 cases and deaths that motivated politicians to impose lockdowns also motivated people throughout the country to take precautions. . . .

Do you know what else happened "in association with social distancing and other control measures"? People eventually started moving around more, even while they were still subject to lockdowns. Beginning in late March and early April, the charts show, "inter-county human movement" rose dramatically in all six metropolitan areas. Cellphone data likewise show a nationwide increase in mobility during this period.

Similarly, survey data from Gallup indicate that Americans started getting out more between late March and early May. The share of respondents who said they were completely or mostly isolating themselves—defined as limiting "contact" with people outside their households—fell from 75 percent in late March and early April to 58 percent in early May. That number fell both in states that had lifted their COVID-19 lockdowns as of May 4 and in states that were maintaining them, although the drop was bigger in the less restricted states.
The failure to fully shut down ealy is the reason why you're still having difficulties and why most places should not be reopening.

In Canada, the Province of Quebec has their Spring Break one week earlier than the rest of Canada. Quebecsers went on spring break with no restrictions, and no countries closed. They went travelling for spring break. The net result of this one little thing. Quebec has double the cases of any Canadian province and half of all deaths in Canada. One week difference in their response.

Canada still isn't fully open. Restaurants, bars, beauty salons, are not open. Americans are behaving in the most suicidal way possible, positively guaranteed to drag the death and sickness on indefinitely.
Canada has one tenth the population of the US. Hardly an apples to apples comparison. Secondly, the federal government does not have the authority to shut down the country. It’s called being a Constitutional Republic. Only the states can do that based on their local conditions. That’s how the system works. Thirdly, what works in New York probably doesn’t work in Kansas & vice versa. A one-size-fits-all approach is categorically stupid. Finally, & this cant be stressed enough, economic collapse is far worse than the virus. Orders of magnitude worse.
2A7760AD-7EED-4426-BBF4-685546735DB0.jpeg
 

Grampa Murked U

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2011
Messages
80,473
Reaction score
18,132
Points
2,205
Location
Kansas City

EXCERPT:

"If the United States had begun imposing social distancing measures one week earlier than it did in March, about 36,000 fewer people would have died in the coronavirus outbreak," the paper reports. "And if the country had begun locking down cities and limiting social contact on March 1, two weeks earlier than most people started staying home, the vast majority of the nation's deaths—about 83 percent—would have been avoided, the researchers estimated." The "cost of waiting to take action," the Times concludes, was "enormous."

Already we see a problem with the way the Times has framed the issue, since "the United States" never "impos[ed] social distancing measures," and "the country" never "lock[ed] down cities and limit[ed] social contact." Instead of a single national response to COVID-19, we have seen a wide variety of local and state responses.

Worse, by conflating social distancing not only with coercive government interventions but with the most sweeping kind, the Times ignores everything else that was happening as politicians decided how to fight the epidemic. Americans were learning about the threat posed by the COVID-19 virus, especially to people with serious preexisting medical conditions, and they were reacting accordingly. They were taking to heart advice about avoiding crowds, minimizing travel and social contact, and working at home when feasible. The same scary increases in COVID-19 cases and deaths that motivated politicians to impose lockdowns also motivated people throughout the country to take precautions. . . .

Do you know what else happened "in association with social distancing and other control measures"? People eventually started moving around more, even while they were still subject to lockdowns. Beginning in late March and early April, the charts show, "inter-county human movement" rose dramatically in all six metropolitan areas. Cellphone data likewise show a nationwide increase in mobility during this period.

Similarly, survey data from Gallup indicate that Americans started getting out more between late March and early May. The share of respondents who said they were completely or mostly isolating themselves—defined as limiting "contact" with people outside their households—fell from 75 percent in late March and early April to 58 percent in early May. That number fell both in states that had lifted their COVID-19 lockdowns as of May 4 and in states that were maintaining them, although the drop was bigger in the less restricted states.
The failure to fully shut down ealy is the reason why you're still having difficulties and why most places should not be reopening.

In Canada, the Province of Quebec has their Spring Break one week earlier than the rest of Canada. Quebecsers went on spring break with no restrictions, and no countries closed. They went travelling for spring break. The net result of this one little thing. Quebec has double the cases of any Canadian province and half of all deaths in Canada. One week difference in their response.

Canada still isn't fully open. Restaurants, bars, beauty salons, are not open. Americans are behaving in the most suicidal way possible, positively guaranteed to drag the death and sickness on indefinitely.
Yeah Canada has a lot less population and a lot less population density.
The fact that Canada does not have a bill of rights.
The fact they did not have a partisan impeachment during the early start of the virus.
The fact they did not have heads of the government and heads of large states and cities, calling Trudeaue xenophobic, racist for trying to stop travel. They weren't walking the streets telling everyone to come join them. They weren't telling everyone to not be afraid and were not shutting down schools. They were not forcing virus positive people into homes with the most vulnerable.
Might have had a bit of a diffrence on the impact of the virus.
She's an idiot. Best just to ignore her blabbering and move on.
 

Gdjjr

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
4,707
Reaction score
1,465
Points
215
Location
Texas
Governors shutting down States. Hold on just a dad gum minute.


The following is a response to the legal opinion provided by John F Driscoll, Jr., Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for Spokane County in an April 30, 2020 letter to the Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington.

Mr. Driscoll’s letter contains a legal opinion. The subject of the opinion is the Governor’s purported emergency powers and the question posed by the Commissioners is this:

“What are the governor’s emergency powers during the present COVID-19 pandemic, including enforcement of any orders issued by the governor during that time?”

The April 30 th letter (the opinion) contains one paragraph which is titled SHORT ANSWER and then 5 pages titled ANALYSIS which includes text taken from the State Code.

RESPONSE
We respectfully disagree with the substance of the short answer and with the body of analysis for the reasons herein:

Short answer Section:
The opinion begins by making the following statement:
“The Governor derives his power both constitutionally and statutorily.”
This is true but begs the question as to the lawful source and limits of that power. The remaining sentences in this section recite the penalties for disobeying the governor and asserts that the orders of local health officers also must be obeyed so as to avoid fines and punishments. We can find no discussion in the opinion documenting the constitutional source of authority for health officials to make law.

Analysis Section:
This section begins with the statement that the governor’s power to make law is initially derived from Article X of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution commonly known as the Tenth Amendment which states:

“ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”

After citing the Tenth Amendment the opinion concludes, “This basically allows the state, through its executive, to decide state matters.”
This is not an accurate summation of the nature, purpose and effect of the Tenth Amendment. Under the terms of the United States Constitution certain powers are delegated to the national government by the states. In addition, the language of Article I, Section 10, prohibits the states from certain other things, i.e. treaties and coining money.

The Tenth Amendment clarifies that, but for these powers, powers that previously belonged to the states continue to rest with them. At the same time, powers that previously belonged to the people are similarly reserved to them.
The Tenth Amendment, then, is not a grant of plenary power which devolves to the executive of the state. It is simply an acknowledgment that powers, other than those affected by the terms of the Constitution of the United States, remain as status quo ante. That is, whatever powers resided in the state government still exist. In like manner, whatever powers resided in the people still reside there.
This last point is salient because Article I, Section 1 of the Washington State Constitution acknowledges that all governmental authority comes from the people and is authorized by virtue of their consent:

ARTICLE I
Section 1: All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

Nothing in the 10th amendment operates, then, to subtract in any way from the authority of the people, or to give the governor of Washington State any power or authority which is not specifically delegated to him by the people under the terms of the Washington State Constitution.

Turning then to the Washington State constitution, the opinion cites Article III, Sections 2 and 5 as follows:

ARTICLE III
SECTION 2 GOVERNOR, TERM OF OFFICE. The supreme executive power of this state shall be vested in a governor, who shall hold his office for a term of four years, and until his successor is elected and qualified.
SECTION 5 GENERAL DUTIES OF GOVERNOR. The governor may require information in writing from the officers of the state upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and shall see that the laws are faithfully executed.

The opinion then states:
“This basically allows the governor to enforce state laws, including orders or proclamations he may issue under those laws.”
We respectfully disagree. This is not an accurate statement. Pursuant to article III, Section 2 the governor is not “allowed” but is required to faithfully execute state laws. But there is nothing in the constitution that authorizes or permits him to make laws or to issue orders or proclamations that pretend to be law.
In fact, all authority to make law is reserved to the legislative branch under Article II, Section 1.

ARTICLE II
SECTION 1 LEGISLATIVE POWERS, WHERE VESTED. The legislative authority of the state of Washington shall be vested in the legislature, consisting of a senate and house of representatives, which shall be called the legislature of the state of Washington, but the people reserve to themselves the power to propose bills, laws, and to enact or reject the same at the polls, independent of the legislature, and also reserve power, at their own option, to approve or reject at the polls any act, item, section, or part of any bill, act, or law passed by the legislature.

Therefore, any proclamation issued by the Governor must be executory in nature (executing existing law) and not legislative (pretending to make law). And since valid executive orders only apply to those who are under the authority of the executive, no executive order is binding on anyone outside the executive branch of government.
The opinion’s reference to Article III, Section 5 above is consistent with the idea that the Governor may impose requirements on those in the executive branch, that is, those already under his authority, but NOT on anyone else. (See Addendum 2 for separate discussion regarding executive orders generally).
Moreover, Article II, Section 18, confirms this point by stating plainly that no laws shall be enacted except by bill (not by order, mandate, directive or edict).

ARTICLE II
SECTION 18 STYLE OF LAWS. The style of the laws of the state shall be: "Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Washington." And no laws shall be enacted except by bill.

Finally, and in any event, no executive order or pretended legislation is lawful which contravenes or violates the God-given constitutionally protected rights of the people as particularly described in Article I, Sections 2,3,4,5 and 11, as well as many other sections of the Washington State Constitution:

ARTICLE I
SECTION 2 SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.
SECTION 3 PERSONAL RIGHTS. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
SECTION 4 RIGHT OF PETITION AND ASSEMBLAGE. The right of petition and of the people peaceably to assemble for the common good shall never be abridged.
SECTION 5 FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.
SECTION 11 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion…

The dangerous situation in which we find ourselves was contemplated and provided for by the Founders and the necessity for civil officials to exercise fidelity to the rule of law has been rearticulated by courts throughout the American political experience.

For example, in Federalist 51, Madison observed that when one level or branch of government gets out of its lane, another level and/or branch will interpose itself to defend the people from tyranny.

"Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. (Federalist 51, at 323)"

More recently, Justice Scalia observed:
"But the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions. It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate powerin one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day.”

For these reasons we believe that the analysis in the opinion should be revisited and reconsidered. The circumstances of the “current crisis” can never be used to justify lawlessness, either on the part of individuals or government officials or institutions.

Respectfully submitted,
Michael Anthony Peroutka, Attorney at Law
Co-Founder, Institute on the Constitution
151 Longfellow Drive, Millersville, MD 21108
410-971-5650​
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top