John Hopkins Univ Covid-19 interactive map

Miscellaneous
21

There is something called ‘Innocent Until Proven Guilty’.

Due Process. The government is not authorized and it is not within the Rule Of Law, to quarantine everybody, or entire zip codes, or to deny individual rights, liberty or freedom.
I am advocating for the Constitution and the Republic.

I get my information from many sources, and some of them come from Britain and Europe. Britain is reporting a new hospital they are not building now…because… the need is not there.
They also demand ‘social distancing’… except when they are allowed to gather on the bridge to ‘applaud’ the NHS.

The flu and Coronavirus are both contagious, both can be high risk and both can be fatal, but we do not abuse and ignore the rule of law or the Constitution simply for a virus… or an emergency.
We still have emergencies from the Carter administration. If our rights are so easily suspended, and denied… are they truly rights… and do we have a Republic, a Constitution and a rule of law… or do we have a tyrannical rule of man… ever changing.

We had a pandemic in 2009, an H1N1 virus, but it was different so they named it H1N1 / 09. It spread, and was fatal to many, but we did not shutter our economy or curtail liberties and rights.

Yes, and there are hospitals that are ghost towns. New York has a subway, they pack them in. They have a very dense population, yet it is still New York, and not Montana, Iowa, or Nebraska, Why are those states being denied their rights, their liberty… to work, to use their faculties to earn what they are able, to pursue happiness, to make money to provide for their families.

So, every time there is an emergency, we should allow government to abridge our rights, to take power they were never granted, to act tyrannically? You are aware I hope that there are still emergencies from the Carter administration.
If it will save one life … is the mantra of the left… of anti-gun crowds, and we can use it here.

If it will save one life, we should prohibit driving vehicles. It will save approximately 33,000 people a year. Driving is not a right after all.

My answers to you are as follows.
First, the Second sentence. The mortality rate is working out to be much lower than reported and estimated. The models were inaccurate, and even Ferguson has admitted that (Neil Ferguson- epidemiologist, not Niall Ferguson the journalist.) There is a study from Stanford that has stated Covid-19 is more widespread, or as they put it, as many as 81K in Santa Clara county and I had heard a report that in California overall, there may be as many as 400K people who had contracted Covid-19, and most had little in the way of symptoms and recovered.

Second, just as with crime and courts, I would say the maxim quoted by Benjamin Franklin That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved., which was in a sense a paraphrase of Voltaire, that ’tis much more Prudence to acquit two Persons, tho’ actually guilty, than to pass Sentence of Condemnation on one that is virtuous and innocent. 1749, and Blackstone, It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. While that is dealing with a different issue, it is still within the same context. Innocent. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process… and of course there is Thomas Jefferson; I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.

The ultimate answer for how to handle it would be; The Rule of Law.

Now, at what point are you willing to surrender liberty, freedom, rights, and submit to government, and at what point do you say enough and ask government to give you back your rights, liberty and freedom… and to return the power they took.

I guess I should say, I find it amazing how many people surrender their rights so easily, and look to government to be their savior.

1 Like
22

To me, it’s not slavery to try to blunt the spread of a pandemic. It’s common sense. Nobody is being condemned to death by having to stay home to prevent the spread of a disease. The discussion on innocence or guilt doesn’t have a place in this argument, and if you asked the founding fathers what they would do to protect the population, what do you think they’d say?
The suffering they were describing was imprisonment without habeas corpus and death, not a stay at home order enacted for public health.

2 Likes
23

So, you only consider the rule of law or the Constitution… if someone is being condemned to death?

Actually, it does. It is the same context, the same principle. Government can not deny a person their life, LIBERTY, or PROPERTY (and their faculties are their properties, we have a right to our property and we have property in our rights.)… without due process. If they can deny us our rights to liberty, our rights to freedom of movement, or rights to work and use your faculties as you see fit, to earn money, to provide for yourself and your family.

As I said, I find it amazing how easily people surrender their rights and liberties… and expect government to be their savior… and what happens when a real contagion hits? Or worse, invasion… what happens when the supply chain is disrupted by far worse than this…

So, consider… we still have emergencies from the Carter administration. You willingly accept government can curtail your rights and liberties during an emergency? A 40 year emergency?

The numbers are coming in that Coronavirus is similar to the flu. We have had up to 60K fatalities from the flu this season alone, and should we surrender our rights and liberties for social distancing and stay at home orders to protect us from the flu? Stanford has already stated up to 81K in Santa Clara county have had the virus, and another report has stated California has up to 400K more cases… which would mean the mortality rate is far lower than the so called experts called for… the ‘experts who are running the nation’… which is exactly what the left wants.
By the way, there are people who are dying from this stay at home order, unconstitutional massive quarantine… and lives are being ruined and destroyed.

Since you seem to not see the comparison… let’s try it this way.

During an emergency, your right to keep and bear arms is curtailed… you will have your firearms confiscated, for the ‘Public Health’.

Would you still find it so acceptable to surrender your rights?

I must also ask… why the difficulty in accepting the ‘Rule of Law’.

1 Like
24

Kevin, I would submit that your dramatic quotes from the founding fathers had to do with a different context, and don’t in any way represent my position on the rule of law or the constitution.

I don’t disagree with your basic premise that limiting freedom is bad, and when it’s been done historically (Lincoln, FDR, Truman, Bush), there have clearly been abuses of civil liberty. I never said it was good. I would suggest that it might be temporarily necessary.
And yes, we have a lot of emergencies still in place. Again, I never said I am supportive of ongoing abuses of power that lead to infringement on liberty.
That said, I’m also unwilling to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some short term restrictions re: public gathering is in the words of Thomas Paine–common sense.

25

I use your words;

I would say, a ‘mandated stay at home order’ is imprisonment. These actions by the government, primarily by state and local governments, are in fact denying the rights to life, liberty and property… (pursuit of happiness)….
Again, we do not shut down the nation for the flu, and this season alone, we have had upwards of 60K flu fatalities.
We have had emergencies in constant existence for over 40 years. I notice you did not address the idea that you are stating rights can be suspended under an emergency… and the right to keep and bear arms could be suspended due to an emergency. (If you can not see the similarity in this, you are being blind to reality).
Nor did you address the fact that this new virus is showing numbers similar to the flu. So, do you argue that we should suspend rights to protect people from the flu?

Yet, you argue in defense of them.

There is nothing so permanent as a Temporary government program - Milton Friedman

What are your limits on government power? What criteria to determine when it is acceptable to have rights and liberty suspended?

I put the Constitution and rule of law first, and defend it. I have not seen anything that suggests government can deny due process, simply by declaring an emergency, and if one is declared and rights are suspended, what is the expiration… when does the emergency end, not when will the ‘administrative state’ surrender the expanded powers… when will it be restored to the people.

I can not be the only one who thinks government overreach and tyrannical acts to deny rights is wrong, and we should not surrender our rights, liberty and freedoms so easily. There must be others out there.

If I am not explaining it clearly enough for Aaron25 to see, jump in and try to explain it better.

1 Like
26

I don’t want to argue whose facts are right. I get the sense your bias is causing you to focus on one side of the discussion as it relates to Covid and its severity.

I think the coronavirus is a serious disease that is more dangerous than the seasonal flu, and that this pandemic warrants public health related restrictions for social distancing. You’re not going to argue me to your side, brother.

1 Like
27

Bias?
My bias is to the Constitution and rule of law.

By the way, it is not bias to review multiple sources, and the numbers are not adding up.

You can post a news clip, but it is not going to do much except show that one source is preferred by you.

In Virginia, there are currently 354 fatalities from the Coronavirus, yet there are approximately 800 flu fatalities.
North Carolina is reporting 167 flu deaths for this season and 245 from the Coronavirus.

Based on just these numbers, your argument is incorrect and wrong. Based on the numbers by Neil Ferguson of Imperial College, the Coronavirus is not as severe as it was made out to be.

I never said it was not a serious disease, but the flu is serious to certain people.

Now, I may not convince you the Constitution and the rule of law are more important… and I may not convince you that tyrannical acts by government are NEVER acceptable, no matter the excuse or reason, and I still find that sad and amazing.

I also still note… you did not address certain points. Since you accept government overreach, do you accept the government declaring a public health emergency and prohibiting the right to keep and bear arms? If you think the government can deny the rights to assembly, free speech, freedom of movement, association, and due process, as home confinement is still confinement and imprisonment, and the rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, to property… our rights in our property… since you think it perfectly acceptable for government to deny life, liberty and property without due process, do you also accept the government has the power to deny your Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms, as long as they declare a public health emergency.

There are many available sources, and the numbers just are not there… and even if they were, we should NEVER accept suspension of our rights and liberties. The number of people who have had Coronavirus being far higher than thought originally, would mean the mortality rate is far lower than the media is reporting…

But, you seem content to surrender your rights… yet you still refuse to discuss the loss of the Second Amendment under a public health emergency. Does this also mean that you accept these same actions to be taken each and every flu season, as some people are highly at risk.

I do not mean to sound flippant or rude, but I still find it amazing that anyone willingly surrenders their rights and liberties, allows themselves to be imprisoned, even if only under a stay at home order, or to be told to not operate their business… and in some states, not fish even for food to survive. And yes, if they can declare an emergency and suspend rights, they can do so with the Second Amendment.

28

Interesting updates!