Coronavirus in Massachusetts (Boston, Chelsea: increased, opportunity, fire)

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by justyouraveragetenant

IF you dont find that violations then you dont deserve freedom. you dont care about individual rights.

IF a church building had toxic mold the members would congregate elsewhere in normal times. They are not allowed to congregate anywhere. The govenor has no authority to prevent people from assembeling . If people want to do it for the saftey of everyone that is different. Ever hear of seperation of church and state? I guess not.

They can assemble all they want as long as they keep the gatherings below the 10 people or whatever it is in whatever state.

Originally Posted by justyouraveragetenant

I never discredit a source because of where it came from because I am a critical thinker. I check multiple sources to find the accuracy of the claim.

Clearly not.



https://www.providencejournal.com/ne...-1500-cars-day
"Troopers and Guard members are stopping about 1,500 out-of-state cars a day, primarily on Interstate 95, northbound, in the southwest corner of Rhode Island.
Those motorists who say they plan to stay are asked to give their name and address. The information is forwarded to the state Department of Health for possible contact tracing purposes if they come down with the respiratory illness. They are also reminded that Gov. Gina Raimondo has ordered them to self-quarantine for 14 days to ensure they are not spreading the coronavirus.
Those who say they are simply passing through the state are waived through and are not asked to provide any information."



Also, a critical thinker not only scrutinizes the sources but also goes out and seeks the truth. Care to share what you know about federal quarantining laws as well as the broad powers state and local governments have over such when it comes to public health (and past court decisions on the matter)? I really want to hear what you think you know...

Originally Posted by justyouraveragetenant

Let me educate you on the origins of that statement which had nothing to do with yelling fire in a crowded theater.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national...-quote/264449/


In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" (mine).

All speech is protected unless it immedietly incites violence.

When religious people want to gather the goverment can not infringe on that right. If in this case the church wanted to limit the amount of people in a church and have everyone stay 6 feet apart they could do that. They could hold more religious gatherings to keep the amount of people in a church lower .A governor can not create laws and can not stop people from getting together even if it could spread a virus. You can not have exceptions on freedom.

In michigan people assembled and could of spread more of the virus but the governor knew she could not do anything about it. They practiced their first amendment rights by protesting what the govenor was doing by shutting down buisness.

Not real sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying somebody CAN yell fire in a crowded theater???


While the MI governor's orders are pretty harsh, I'm not aware that they are unlawful. While I'm not familiar with MI law, their A.G. doesn't seem to feel so and I certainly take his word over a random internet troll who doesn't appear to even understand the basic principles of the Constitution. Those protestors were in violation, whether they got away with it or not doesn't mean a whole lot. People break the law all the time and get away with it.

[wolfgang239]

I can't imagine what traffic will be like once everything is back to normal. Lots of people who can afford to will be avoiding the T for the foreseeable future given the transmission characteristics of the virus. This is of course not accounting for the unknown economic/employment impact or schools going back on schedule, or people avoiding uber. Personally I'm not getting in any rideshare vehicle or any form of public transportation any time soon.

[RBThescot]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

The world has experienced many pandemics and people still live in cities. Why is this one any different? .

This is an excellent question that's worth digging into.

In the viral pandemic of my childhood, in the 1940's into the 1950's, news travelled slower but was much more reliable. There was no internet or social media. People had radios, everyone read news papers, a lot of homes had telephone but many were still on multiple party lines and television was not common.

I will never forget going into a polio ward with dozens of terrified children in iron lungs, only their little heads visible on a shelf with a thin canvas pillow and a mirror for them to see a little of their surroundings. Now they will sedate and intubate you and they call it a ventilator. Bad news by another name.

The first polio vaccine, the Salk vaccine, often credited with ending the pandemic, was a failure. Salk rushed to be the "first." It was a live vaccine he tested on his children and himself but when he put it on the market it killed and afflicted many more children. The later vaccine developed by Albert Sabin ended polio in America but even now it exists around the world.

There never was a cure for polio and you may still see survivors if you know what to look for. Viral diseases are tricky. Haste causes death and suffering.

[Bridge781]

Originally Posted by wolfgang239

I can't imagine what traffic will be like once everything is back to normal. Lots of people who can afford to will be avoiding the T for the foreseeable future given the transmission characteristics of the virus. This is of course not accounting for the unknown economic/employment impact or schools going back on schedule, or people avoiding uber. Personally I'm not getting in any rideshare vehicle or any form of public transportation any time soon.

I am nervous for this as well. It’s all the more reason people will be working from home for longer after the distancing ends whenever that is. I am not getting on a train and I’m not paying $40 a day for parking either. My boss will have to get used to be working remotely or I’ll likely consider leaving or finding a job closer to my house.

[Arya Stark]

Originally Posted by Bridge781

I am nervous for this as well. It’s all the more reason people will be working from home for longer after the distancing ends whenever that is. I am not getting on a train and I’m not paying $40 a day for parking either. My boss will have to get used to be working remotely or I’ll likely consider leaving or finding a job closer to my house.

I think this is fueling the continuing of the shut down.

But I definitely am going to demand that my boss let me work from home in the future (at least in part). Corona virus or not. The argument used to be that we were needed at work but 60+ days on at home.. that argument doesn't work anymore.

The money I have saved on parking, MBTA, and meals is like a pay raise.

[Bridge781]

Yeah we’ve had several meetings as a company and as a department where everyone keeps emphasizing how well we are working together remotely. No reason to go back in anytime soon then!

[BostonMike7]

No real urgency to go “back to normal” in terms of work schedule and location anytime soon. We are working well remotely, and those that go in (like myself) appreciate the smaller staff number in the building.

I also know of several people who were surprised to find they earn more in unemployment than they do working. The $600 on top of unemployment doesn’t have a cap it seems. That alone would lessen the urgency to get back to work. I imagine this is true only for a certain level of income though.

[OutdoorLover]

While cases and deaths have leveled off in the USA and are no longer increasing, which is a great achievement, things aren't actually "good". We're actually losing more than 10,000 American lives per week right now. Somehow we've got to drive down this epidemic.

[Arya Stark]

Originally Posted by BostonMike7

No real urgency to go “back to normal” in terms of work schedule and location anytime soon. We are working well remotely, and those that go in (like myself) appreciate the smaller staff number in the building.

And this has really made me see how much time is being lost due to the MBTA. I leave my home at 7 am and I get into work at 8:45 (usually 15 minutes late) and then I have to leave slightly early to get my train due to the schedule.. and basically I am losing about 4 hours of leave time each pay period.

BTW I only live 30 miles outside of Boston.

I really have to start reconsidering the way i get to work.

From a productivity stand point if I start work at 7 am I give my employer extra hours.

[brightdoglover]

Originally Posted by OutdoorLover

While cases and deaths have leveled off in the USA and are no longer increasing, which is a great achievement, things aren't actually "good". We're actually losing more than 10,000 American lives per week right now. Somehow we've got to drive down this epidemic.

This is a very good site that is updated constantly. I have used it to follow my former county in Mass. and counties in my current state of Colorado.

The numbers are going up in non-coastal areas, especially non-coastal smaller city areas. Because these areas are not as densely populated as coastal cities, the numbers don't look as bad, but there is no question of virus spread and increasing numbers of infections. Of course, such numbers are also a matter of testing, so it's somewhat arbitrary.