Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Describing a republic as democratic is slander.

Thinking that republic and democratic are mutually exclusive is... I think pointing out that sort of stupidity strays into politics.

An example of a monarchical democracy would be the UK.
An example of a democratic republic would be the USA.

(seriously, this is one of the more inane pieces of political propoganda that circulates in the USA)

Nothing to do with COVID-19

Swiss government is cautiously optimistic, worst case scenario not happened yet.

Sounds like Trump is considering locking down NY, NJ and parts of CT. As somebody who lives near the NY border and in the obvious quarantine area...good. It should be locked down. I would happily follow a 2 week, don’t leave the house, quarantine if it was helpful. The fact that people can’t seem to handle that is the reason this spreads.

From the perspective of a local, what is your assessment of the situation in NY?

Odd case in point.

I live in Henley-on-Thames. My daughter is an undergraduate at University of Exeter.

The university has quite rightly decided to hold all exams online.

My daughter came home last week. Government restrictions on unnecessary travel ban her from returning to her shared house in Exeter. The landlord's mortgage is protected by government guarantee.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Sounds like Trump is considering locking down NY, NJ and parts of CT. As somebody who lives near the NY border and in the obvious quarantine area...good. It should be locked down. I would happily follow a 2 week, don’t leave the house, quarantine if it was helpful. The fact that people can’t seem to handle that is the reason this spreads.

Its several days too late. It still needs to be done, but Cuomo should have taken this measure earlier- people were fleeing the city in large numbers last weekend, meaning an unknown number of infected headed to unknown locations. Its one of the worst possible (and most predictable) things people do in epidemics, and makes the whole situation worse, as it jumpstarts the infection cycle in new locations.

Its one of the reasons I'm tired of hearing how 'unprecedented' all this is. I've got several volumes on the history of disease and epidemics on the shelf behind me that say otherwise. The way people act, interact and panic is really predictable. The illusion of short term security always trumps long term beneficial behavior.

Any specific impressive title Voss?

Not Online!!! wrote:
Any specific impressive title Voss?

Impressive? Debatable (Though people used to rave a lot about Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel)

But for a list of titles-
Rats, Lice and History; Zinsser (an early 20th century text, but gets interesting once he gets past the basics of bacteria and infection)

Some compiled essays on different diseases:
Epidemics and History; Watts
Epidemics and Ideas; Ranger & Slack (editors)

The Black Death; Nohl
Black Death, The Great Mortality of 1348-1350, A Brief History with Documents; Aberth (good for the contemporary accounts)

Plagues and Peoples; McNeil - very broad overview

Been awhile. Remember Dakkadakka and knew there be a post on "19". Anyway. Movement Coordinator now for the US Military. I changed jobs awhile back. Main effort now is sending medical equipment and supplies to Gulfport, MS.

Think everyone knows USS Comfort is NY and USS Mercy to San Diego.

USS Mercy was supposed to be WA but CA went major blip on radar. WA is on back burner but county I live in Kitsap so 49 confirmed with some deaths.

US Navy and certain Army units are self isolating themselves. Force Protection paramount. USS Roosevelt put a scared in the Military big time

You hear about "Reefers", what we call refrigerated semi trailers. Are being deployed to NYC and surrounding areas. Face it. Not enough room in the morgues

AK is showing on radar now so Ft. Smith now becoming the region logistics . FL is the Navy base in Jacksonville to be a logistic HUB

Ventilators. Everyone knows the US Military hold on to everything till it hits a DEMIL date. Pretty much all ventilators are shipped, being serviced, and/or being broking out of storage.

Red Cross need blood so donate. They will screen you. If a fever over a 100F (no idea in Celsius), and showing 4 symptoms they will deny and pretty much tell you to go get tested.

Reactivating of retired and IRR military personnel. Well right now its HQ elements and medical. Basically military medical units are being formed. Some for deployment overseas and rest to get sent anywhere needed in the US.

RipTide mention something to the effect to not bring politics into is. He's right. They're all idiot's and still want to play Politics with our collective butt in the wind. Though know this. We were already moving some cargo already to preposition sites.

BTW I'm not breaking OPSEC.

Thanks for the heads-up, man.

And... quarantining New York City is back off the table. Glad this idea got less than 24 hours of analysis.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52080119

No idea why Cuomo believes it wouldn't be legally enforceable. They're in a state of medical emergency and drawing on various wartime laws to deal with it. Physically doing quarantining a city seems far more difficult, and NYC is one of the easiest cities in the country to block off, with bridges and chokepoints instead of the usual endless web of city roads in a 360 degree circle.

Voss wrote:
And... quarantining New York City is back off the table. Glad this idea got less than 24 hours of analysis.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52080119

No idea why Cuomo believes it wouldn't be legally enforceable. They're in a state of medical emergency and drawing on various wartime laws to deal with it. Physically doing quarantining a city seems far more difficult, and NYC is one of the easiest cities in the country to block off, with bridges and chokepoints instead of the usual endless web of city roads in a 360 degree circle.

Freedom of Travel is a well established right within the US and the only legal provisions for infringing on it are in the context of foreign invasion, which a disease is definitely not. Quarantining people in the case of infectious diseases legally generally requires them to be proven to be infected or have come in direct contact with an infected person. Applying that sort of restriction to millions of people without any verified exposure is an extremely questionable leap. IE: its legal to quarantine specific individuals you know have been exposed. Its not legal to make a blanket quarantine targeting millions of people who may or may not have come in contact with it.

Legally speaking, the Shelter in Place orders in-effect in various states right now are almost certainly illegal and would not survive legal challenge.

All of the Shelter in place and quarantine orders really are relying on the willing compliance of everybody, because they are almost certainly not constitutional. Which is why in a lot of areas outside the major cities the cops aren't enforcing them.

Nobody is really putting too much effort into enforcing them to be fair, I can walk around town I want all day and I'm not going to get asked for my papers. Thus far, the only enforcement I've seen is shutting down of large gatherings and slapping additional charges on people doing stupid stuff that already had generated large rap sheets

That said, there doesn't appear to be too much significant enforcement needed, people do appear to mostly generally be voluntarily adhering to the restrictions.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Nobody is really putting too much effort into enforcing them to be fair, I can walk around town I want all day and I'm not going to get asked for my papers. Thus far, the only enforcement I've seen is shutting down of large gatherings and slapping additional charges on people doing stupid stuff that already had generated large rap sheets

That said, there doesn't appear to be too much significant enforcement needed, people do appear to mostly generally be voluntarily adhering to the restrictions.

Same here, which incidentally is gerat for once seeing the people working together for the most part.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Voss wrote:
And... quarantining New York City is back off the table. Glad this idea got less than 24 hours of analysis.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52080119

No idea why Cuomo believes it wouldn't be legally enforceable. They're in a state of medical emergency and drawing on various wartime laws to deal with it. Physically doing quarantining a city seems far more difficult, and NYC is one of the easiest cities in the country to block off, with bridges and chokepoints instead of the usual endless web of city roads in a 360 degree circle.

Freedom of Travel is a well established right within the US and the only legal provisions for infringing on it are in the context of foreign invasion, which a disease is definitely not. Quarantining people in the case of infectious diseases legally generally requires them to be proven to be infected or have come in direct contact with an infected person. Applying that sort of restriction to millions of people without any verified exposure is an extremely questionable leap. IE: its legal to quarantine specific individuals you know have been exposed. Its not legal to make a blanket quarantine targeting millions of people who may or may not have come in contact with it.

Legally speaking, the Shelter in Place orders in-effect in various states right now are almost certainly illegal and would not survive legal challenge.

All of the Shelter in place and quarantine orders really are relying on the willing compliance of everybody, because they are almost certainly not constitutional. Which is why in a lot of areas outside the major cities the cops aren't enforcing them.

I don't think a lot of this is true, depending.

a.) State quarantines are surely legal. The US doesn't have "Freedom of Travel" at all, not spelled out the way you are thinking. The 14th amendment allows for the privileges and immunities of citizens, which has been interpreted as a right to interstate travel... but also has the words "without due process" attached to them. A lawfully declared quarantine by the state IS due process, constitutionally.

b.) States usually have specific quarantine laws on the books. Both NY state and NYC specifically have a handful that clearly would apply to this situation - ref N.Y. Public Health Law § 2100, but there are actually several that would apply.

c.) A federal quarantine is surely NOT legal. The CDC can detain people reasonable suspected of carrying contagion, but of course that can be challenge and would never work for 9 million people.

Interestingly, there was a brief period where a federal quarantine WOULD have been totally legal, although complex: the insurrection act was briefly re-written in 2006 to allow federal troops to be used to: "restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency". This was rewritten back out a year later.

You're right that shelter-in-place really relies upon voluntary compliance, because lol, you can't jail 9 million people - which is a bad idea even if you could - and surely not when the NYPD themselves are also on fire with Covid.

Went looking up 2100 and that interpretation would be a stretch. And I happened on one article written by a lawyer who doesn't agree with you. https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2020/03/16/coronavirus-the-law-and-you/?slreturn=20200229080153.

Im willing to bet that A States are only going to try an enforce against the worse jackholes and B if they try and enforce penalties after this is all "over" you may see a case make it to the supreme court because different appellate courts will come down on different sides of the argument

Jerram wrote:
[spoiler]Went looking up 2100 and that interpretation would be a stretch. And I happened on one article written by a lawyer who doesn't agree with you. https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2020/03/16/coronavirus-the-law-and-you/?slreturn=20200229080153.

Is this an intentional misreading aimed at people who won't bother reading the article? What you posted clearly indicates NYS 2100 does what I said it did, and furthermore the lawyer's article includes it specifically under broad powers of quarantine. Where he disagrees is functionally that any wide-scale quarantine - NYS or otherwise - is generally legally defensible. Saying applying that law as a quarantine is a stretch is bizarre at best - he has 6 or 7 NY based statutes he could have gone with as an example and picked that one as one of the most clear.


So far as who is right, well, I don't think widespread state-based quarantines have generally been implemented, so as such not litigated much, so I think we'll have to see if and when. For it to actually make to to the Supreme Court means this is going to have to hang on for a while and get much worse that it currently is. Which, who knows?

It seems reasonable to ask people to quarantine if coming from an epicenter of infection... not sure why that's causing such a ruckus. Definitely better to be implemented at a state level, though, imo, which is what Rhode Island is doing...

It's an American attitude problem....or...quirk, maybe?. We tend, as a group, to see every little restriction on us as chafing or conspiratory.

Sometimes a national mindset like that is good, sometimes bad. The problem with something largely invisible like a virus is the constant need for fearful people to look for some focal point for blame, to establish something definite in a nebulous situation. All I know is that things are getting severely worrisome here in the US, because everything seems like such a clusterfeth and us people at ground-level in our houses can really only be reactionary.

Well a few states are starting, for lack of words, forcing quarantine (14 days) on anyone from another State flying. Heard something stupid, which I kind of agree, that people from out of states who swoops into another state cannot buy from grocery stores and others to that effect. I cannot confirm.

All semi truck drivers are being screened at the entry point of bases and they do cross state lines and go into effected area. They start going corona then military 88 series might be next, just a word. That possibly includes USMC Med Tactical drivers...just saying

 Ouze wrote:

Jerram wrote:
[spoiler]Went looking up 2100 and that interpretation would be a stretch. And I happened on one article written by a lawyer who doesn't agree with you. https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2020/03/16/coronavirus-the-law-and-you/?slreturn=20200229080153.

Is this an intentional misreading aimed at people who won't bother reading the article? What you posted clearly indicates NYS 2100 does what I said it did, and furthermore the lawyer's article includes it specifically under broad powers of quarantine. Where he disagrees is functionally that any wide-scale quarantine - NYS or otherwise - is generally legally defensible. Saying applying that law as a quarantine is a stretch is bizarre at best - he has 6 or 7 NY based statutes he could have gone with as an example and picked that one as one of the most clear.


So far as who is right, well, I don't think widespread state-based quarantines have generally been implemented, so as such not litigated much, so I think we'll have to see if and when. For it to actually make to to the Supreme Court means this is going to have to hang on for a while and get much worse that it currently is. Which, who knows?

Either me and you are miscommunicating sice you seemed to imply 2100 allowed broad based quarantine, or you are misreading.

He states quite clearly that
A You can quarnatine only indivduals that are believed to have the virus and even that requires a magistrate.
B it requires due process that "requires a right to notice, representation by counsel, a hearing, and prompt judicial review"
C That despite you poopooing it earlier "the “right to travel” both within and between states is a “fundamental personal right” under the Constitution"

A British man who spat at police and claimed to be infected has been jailed for a year.

@RiTides, I agree nothing wrong with requesting, just a question of what does the government have the legal authority to do. Heck I haven't left the house in almost 2 weeks and that was a special circumstance.

@ Aegis There's a legitimate concern that government has a habit of expanding its authorities during extreme circumstances then continue using those powers where they shouldn't really apply, but I don't want to go too far down that rabbit hole since it could turn partisan quick, so ask me when you have good reason, sure I'm all in. Order me to when you dont have the authority, long walk, short pier.

@ Jihadin yeah my sister's a truck driver, between that and my son who works in a hospital, no Im not really a fan of those breaking voluntary quarantine for recreational activities


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
A British man who spat at police and claimed to be infected has been jailed for a year.

WTH is wrong with people, what was he convicted of ? Assault or some terrorist threat related crime ?

You know how you've been told not to wear a mask?

Well, this study claims that 100% usage in Czechoslovakia "flattened" the growth of CoVid, in just ten days. The government made it compulsory to wear a mask -- or scarf, and DIY from old-tshirts counted. Besides preventing people from touching their faces, the masks may have prevented transmission by reducing spread from those who had the virus, but were not aware of it, as the virus shows no symptoms in its early stages.

https://www.aninews.in/news/world/asia/usage-of-masks-flattened-growth-of-coronavirus-cases-in-czech-republic20200329043711

I haven't found rates of transmission with DIY masks, but I'm sure they're worse than face masks but better than nothing -- or even as good as face masks when it comes to avoiding touching one's face.

"Dr. Frank Esper, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the Cleveland Clinic, explained the circumstances when some really sick people should wear a mask. ... "If they are coughing, if they are feeling like they have symptoms, we do ask them to put on mask when they are coming to our waiting room or ER or into a public space," he said. "It helps prevent the spread of infection."

Following the SARS virus outbreak in the early 2000s, which also originated in China, researchers in Australia wanted to test data that suggested transmission of the viral respiratory infection could be reduced with the use of face masks as well as other infection control measures. ... The study, published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases in 2008, found that masks were 80% effective in protecting against clinical influenza-like illness when worn consistently — but there was a catch. The researchers noted that "compliance with mask use was less than 50%," meaning more than half the people in the study did not actually keep wearing them as directed."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-face-mask-symptoms-prevent-protect/

Masks -- including scarves and DIY -- protect you by keeping you from touching your face. You can wear glasses or sunglasses to protect your eyes. Masks prevent OTHERS from catching the virus. I doubt there will be a UK or USA mandate like Czechoslavakia, but that doesn't mean you can't wear a mask if you, unfortunately, have the virus but have not shown symptoms yet. Amazon still sells cheap plastic gloves you can wear outside the car when touching public surfaces, such as door handles.

Jerram wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Jerram wrote:
[spoiler]Went looking up 2100 and that interpretation would be a stretch. And I happened on one article written by a lawyer who doesn't agree with you. https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2020/03/16/coronavirus-the-law-and-you/?slreturn=20200229080153.

Is this an intentional misreading aimed at people who won't bother reading the article? What you posted clearly indicates NYS 2100 does what I said it did, and furthermore the lawyer's article includes it specifically under broad powers of quarantine. Where he disagrees is functionally that any wide-scale quarantine - NYS or otherwise - is generally legally defensible. Saying applying that law as a quarantine is a stretch is bizarre at best - he has 6 or 7 NY based statutes he could have gone with as an example and picked that one as one of the most clear.


So far as who is right, well, I don't think widespread state-based quarantines have generally been implemented, so as such not litigated much, so I think we'll have to see if and when. For it to actually make to to the Supreme Court means this is going to have to hang on for a while and get much worse that it currently is. Which, who knows?

Either me and you are miscommunicating sice you seemed to imply 2100 allowed broad based quarantine, or you are misreading.

He states quite clearly that
A You can quarnatine only indivduals that are believed to have the virus and even that requires a magistrate.
B it requires due process that "requires a right to notice, representation by counsel, a hearing, and prompt judicial review"
C That despite you poopooing it earlier "the “right to travel” both within and between states is a “fundamental personal right” under the Constitution"

Indeed. The orders are too broad and have not actually given anyone affected by them due process.

I certainly didn’t get a court hearing for my shelter in place and there is no proof I have been exposed or not.

Jerram wrote:


WTH is wrong with people, what was he convicted of ? Assault or some terrorist threat related crime ?

Newspapers say that it was two convictions of assault, the one that landed him in custody and the second when he spat on police. I didn't spot if they declared which was the greater conviction, though in light of the current atmosphere I'd wager the corona one might have carried more weight.

Though I suspect there weren't any major new powers required for that save for adding Corona virus under some of the same legislation that HIV/AIDs is under because that's also been done where people spit on police and try to use infection as a weapon. Heck some police forces even use these bubble like covers that they throw over peoples heads so that they can't spit.

Jerram wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
A British man who spat at police and claimed to be infected has been jailed for a year.

WTH is wrong with people, what was he convicted of ? Assault or some terrorist threat related crime ?

A few people in the states have done similar things. Spitting is already covered under Assault and claiming you are infected could also carry various charges related to making threats.

 Overread wrote:

Jerram wrote:


WTH is wrong with people, what was he convicted of ? Assault or some terrorist threat related crime ?

Newspapers say that it was two convictions of assault, the one that landed him in custody and the second when he spat on police. I didn't spot if they declared which was the greater conviction, though in light of the current atmosphere I'd wager the corona one might have carried more weight.

Though I suspect there weren't any major new powers required for that save for adding Corona virus under some of the same legislation that HIV/AIDs is under because that's also been done where people spit on police and try to use infection as a weapon. Heck some police forces even use these bubble like covers that they throw over peoples heads so that they can't spit.

Thanks and yeah I would say getting sick with this plague would count as serious bodily harm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Jerram wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
A British man who spat at police and claimed to be infected has been jailed for a year.

WTH is wrong with people, what was he convicted of ? Assault or some terrorist threat related crime ?

A few people in the states have done similar things. Spitting is already covered under Assault and claiming you are infected could also carry various charges related to making threats.

Yeah I've seen some of the cases here and they usually jump to terroristic threats, which is why I was interested in how our cousins across the pond were treating it.

Checked the last few pages and didn't see it, but the CDC *now* says that masks do help. Current recommendation is for the elderly and high-risk.

"NEW: CDC guidance on masks expected to change in next 10 days. Americans will be advised to wear masks in everyday life. Current recommendation is for high-risk groups only."

https://twitter.com/DrMattMcCarthy/status/1243891663162019841

Yeah, like you can get a mask now. Time for the scarves and old t-shirts.