Bill Barr threatens to join lawsuits against stay-home orders

a reply to: Serdgiam

Honestly, with this one, my annoyance and outrage over this has less to do with the idea that this was a church service than that these were people parked in their own personal vehicles and not leaving them. Understanding the rules of the game, they posed no risks to each other as they are all in personal, contained spaces. The only possible reason to target them is that you don't like the reason they are parking their cars where they are.

It feels like the cops are there more because whoever is in charge feels this is just too much rebellion against their authority and won't have it.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Serdgiam

Notably: Economic failure will have exactly the same result for the medical establishment as the system being overwhelmed. Meaning, failure. However, it has even further reaching implications as well.

We're already seeing hospitals lay off non medical staff. At some point those support roles that are missing are going to have an impact.

I don't know why people have faith in a government that did nothing to foresee any of this.... So who's to say they'll forsee the economic ramifications micro and macro?

The layoffs are being used as reasons for "Single Payer" Government run healthcare.

I doubt that.

The hospitals and medical facilities are doing it. They aren't necessarily a proponent of single payer, especially after Obamacare and how that changed the landscape.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: CriticalStinker
What rights?
The right to spread infection?

How about some old fashioned responsibility. Own up and take charge of your natural immune system. Eat and live properly. Don't obsess with negativity. Stress is a real burden on the immune system. Purge out the heavy metals and toxins they bombard us with. Fasting is not just a spiritual thing.
I cannot believe they went this far this fast and so many of us are unable to connect the dots. The ones who can are "crazy" lol. A masterful system of deceit and control that nearly everyone is born into. Those chains are thick.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

How many lay offs have there been so far ?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Oh he really is his puppet isn't he?
Wow.

What ever happened to states rights?

The stupidity is infectious. Wash your hands.

State rights, Constitutional rights, your left goal post moves in whatever direction is convenient for your narrative at the time doesn't it? Just like 3 months ago I heard years worth of "get rid of the electoral college, F State rights" Get rid of the 2nd F the Constitution" so on and so forth. As far as what you are talking about here I think we are dealing with that 3rd branch called the judicial branch in this, so what is wrong with that?

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: CriticalStinker

How many lay offs have there been so far ?

No idea. I may have worded that wrong by saying lay off. Furlough would probably be more accurate... And that may be due to them being non essential.

As far as finding a number for the whole country right now, probably close to impossible.

a reply to: maskim

Spreading this kind of dangerous stupidity will get people killed.

What stupidity? And do be specific. With published peer-reviewed clinical studies. Thanks. I'll even start:

Should We All Be Wearing Face Masks? Here's Why Experts Are So Conflicted

We have reviewed the results of more than a dozen randomised trials of face masks and transmission of respiratory illnesses. We found the current best evidence suggests wearing a mask to avoid viral respiratory infections such as COVID-19 offers minimal protection, if any.

There is currently no evidence that wearing a mask (whether medical or other types) by healthy persons in the wider community setting, including universal community masking, can prevent them from infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.

the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the United States has recently recommended everyone wear a (cloth) mask. However, this is to prevent infected people passing on the infection, not to prevent the wearer getting infected.

The following is a statement from a contributor of the only study performed:

As authors of the only published randomised controlled clinical trial of cloth masks, we have been getting daily emails about this from health workers concerned about using cloth masks. The study found that cloth mask wearers had higher rates of infection than even the standard practice control group of health workers, and the filtration provided by cloth masks was poor compared to surgical masks.

The actual study expresses concern regarding the retention of moisture in/on the mask, which is breathed in by the person wearing it: A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers

And the adverse effects of the viral load -- i.e., the amount of the virus a patient is exposed to -- is considered a factor in the severity, duration and prognosis of the patient:

Much of COVID-19’s prevalence, severity, and lethality may have to do with viral particles you are exposed to—the issue of viral load, also called viral dose. Not much is written on this subject because it is difficult to study, but we can learn a little from studies on flu.

Coronavirus: The Importance of Viral Load

And FYI these shutdowns are already getting people killed. For example, a 400% increase in the number of at-home deaths. Are you just as concerned about those people?

But maybe that's the point. In that case, good job!

Indeed. But who's really pushing the dangerous disinfo???

We'll talk again after you bring me YOUR clinical studies and we compare and contrast.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Boadicea

"Lock her up!" boomeranged on us, lol.

LOL indeed!

Something about being careful what we wish for comes to mind...

a reply to: ketsuko

Yeah, theres a myriad of issues in our approach on pretty much everything nowadays. Its tough to discern exactly which one(s) might be in play in a given situation.

Of course, they all stem from similar sources and strategies..

I was making a more general statement though. Even if a gathering isnt practicing social distancing, "socially acceptable lockdown etiquette," at all.. Its only really an issue if it spikes hospital occupancy for an extended period. Which we arent seeing in a lot of places.

It might even have benefits in familiarizing more peoples immune systems to a given infectious disease. My perspective on that is we might be making this whole thing worse, specifically on the medical side of things, by long term lockdowns that are *now* based in whether or not people are getting sick at all.

ETA: And the underlying hum beneath so many things are convincing folks that the Constitution is easily and "temporarily" suspended. And that that is ok.. All for strategies and approaches that may make the situation worse under the premise that "it must be done to make things better."

Its a total mindf..

a reply to: Serdgiam

Ah well, that's a separate discussion. What measures, to what degree are a good idea? I think we've gone way too far in most places. I do think some restrictions and protections are prudent, but I think this obsessive halting of everything is overkill. To be sure, there are some situations that would likely demand it, but this disease isn't it.

originally posted by: Boadicea
Using insulting slurs to refer to people, is in fact saying something "bad." There were other neutral terms that you could have used, such as "seniors" and "elders." And "old people" is only slightly better than "boomers."

Okay, they also call it the senior deleter. Do ya like that better?

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

"Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."
www.justice.gov...

Uh-Ohhhh...😬

Let's start with the County Health Officers and work our way up.

a reply to: LordAhriman

I know you think you're funny, but I suppose if you inserted a racial slur of choice and a pithy alliterative or rhyming term to imply killing said group afterward, that would be funny too, yes?

a reply to: ketsuko

It might be a larger umbrella that includes church groups gathering in cars, but Id argue it is quite in line with Barr's move here.

Not only could many of these things be considered unConstitutional.. They may make the situation distinctly worse, both from the medical side directly as well as the economic side (which will also negatively impact medical capability).

Even if its all done unintentionally, of which I have my doubts, its a Problem.

a reply to: LordAhriman

Okay, they also call it the senior deleter. Do ya like that better?

Doubling down, eh?

Of course I don't like it. But you obviously do.

originally posted by: EternalShadow
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

www.justice.gov...

Uh-Ohhhh...😬

Very very good to know -- thank you!

Let's start with the County Health Officers and work our way up.

I guess that's as good a place/person as any. Gotta start somewhere, and Guvs won't be so trigger happy without the appropriate health officials to back them up.

a reply to: Boadicea
If we don't slay the mammoth we'll never eat.

originally posted by: loveguy
a reply to: Boadicea
...slay the mammoth...

Excellent -- I like that! It's perfect.

And it is a mammoth task to undertake. But if we wanna eat, we gotta do exactly that.

originally posted by: Boadicea
We'll talk again after you bring me YOUR clinical studies and we compare and contrast.

I'll sum it up for you:



- N95 or better protects you and others, but in short supply so leave it to healthcare workers who know how to use it
- Surgical masks mostly protects others, but still filters larger droplets from being inhaled by the wearer
- Homemade masks offer the least amount of protection, but still more than not wearing a mask at all.
- If you don't know how to properly wear a mask you'll increase your chances of infection by constantly touching your face to adjust the mask and by not being aware of safe donning/doffing procedures.

Virus needs human (or bat or whatever) cells to replicate.
A mask, professional or homemade, does not have any of these cells because it's an inanimate object.
If you are infected and breathe the virus into a mask, it will not multiply there so you can't increase your viral load by inhaling it back.

I am concerned about people living alone not getting the help they need. But the solution is not to remove all lockdown and social distancing measures, but to teach people proper hygiene and PPE protocols and then slowly lift or ease those measures.

In short; educate yourself and take care of others by wearing a mask when you are near them.


www.sciencedaily.com...

Surgical masks may help prevent infected people from making others sick with seasonal viruses, including coronaviruses

www.livescience.com...

The surgical mask was three times more effective in blocking transmission [of microorganisms] than the homemade mask," the researchers of that study found, who noted that homemade masks "should only be considered as a last resort to prevent droplet transmission from infected individuals

www.cdc.gov...

CDC is additionally advising the use of simple cloth face coverings to slow the spread of the virus and help people who may have the virus and do not know it from transmitting it to others

a reply to: Boadicea

We can sue all of them in their public and private capacities.

No where in that law does it state "unless there's a virus, state or national emergency, etc."

Class action suit anyone?