D&D and the rising pandemic

[Dannyalcatraz]

Masks are to stop you infecting other yes?

And they're not 100% effective either afaik they just help was what I thought.

If delta gets out here there goes the game night and dining out. Mmmnnn pasta.

Masks are about 70% effective. And they do help prevent transmission more out than in- I suspect because the droplets closer to the source of emission are larger.

But I’m not going to quibble with a virologist on this. Perhaps there’s some info not being revealed in the article about him that led him to conclude it was ocular transmission. Perhaps the way it manifests in its earliest stages is the giveaway.

 

[Umbran]

Good luck changing the US constitution.

Your knowledge of US Constitutional case law seems a bit lacking.

They can indirectly pressure you eg no vaccine no job.

States can compel vaccination. This was settled by the SCOTUS over a century ago. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, in which Jacobson tried to argue that compulsory vaccination (against smallpox, in 1904) was unconstitutional, and the court found that, in the interest of public health, the states have the right to compel vaccination.

From that decision:
"...in every well ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand"

"...[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own [liberty], whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others."

This precedent already justifies the mask mandates, enforced business closings, and other pandemic control efforts. It has been referenced over and over since 1904 (like, in the 1918 flu pandemic, etc). This is pretty solid precedent, and why the courts have roundly rejected challenges to the various state measures already in place.

The problems facing compulsory vaccination in the US are not legal, but political.

 

[Zardnaar]

Masks are about 70% effective. And they do help prevent transmission more out than in- I suspect because the droplets closer to the source of emission are larger.

But I’m not going to quibble with a virologist on this. Perhaps there’s some info not being revealed in the article about him that led him to conclude it was ocular transmission. Perhaps the way it manifests in its earliest stages is the giveaway.

Your knowledge of US Constitutional case law seems a bit lacking.



States can compel vaccination. This was settled by the SCOTUS over a century ago. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, in which Jacobson tried to argue that compulsory vaccination (against smallpox, in 1904) was unconstitutional, and the court found that, in the interest of public health, the states have the right to compel vaccination.

From that decision:
"...in every well ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand"

"...[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own [liberty], whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others."

This precedent already justifies the mask mandates, enforced business closings, and other pandemic control efforts. It has been referenced over and over since 1904 (like, in the 1918 flu pandemic, etc). This is pretty solid precedent, and why the courts have roundly rejected challenges to the various state measures already in place.

The problems facing compulsory vaccination in the US are not legal, but political.

1904 was a long time ago though. I'm well aware of it's political but we're not allowed to discuss it to much.

Would you like to test that precedent in the current make up of the supreme court?

The court can also reverse previous decisions afaik yes?

 

[Umbran]

1904 was a long time ago though.

You say that as if it matters to the law or the court. That's not how it has operated, to date, even with the current seated justices.

Would you like to test that precedent in the current make up of the supreme court?

As if what I want is relevant here? We are discussing the law, not my preferences.

The court can also reverse previous decisions afaik yes?

It is possible, but the current court has not shown the zeal to overturn precedent that many seem to expect given the court's composition. It is almost as if the members of the court are aware that if they get into the precedent-flipping business, they will eliminate any chance for establishing a lasting legacy, as their own rulings will become targets for later flipping.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It is possible, but the current court has not shown the zeal to overturn precedent that many seem to expect given the court's composition. It is almost as if the members of the court are aware that if they get into the precedent-flipping business, they will eliminate any chance for establishing a lasting legacy, as their own rulings will become targets for later flipping.

I read an interesting article analyzing the current court that says one of the things that confounds people is that there's actually a two-dimensional split on it; besides the tradition political one, its also split among people who are strong on precedent and those who aren't, and the two splits don't line up.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Your knowledge of US Constitutional case law seems a bit lacking.



States can compel vaccination. This was settled by the SCOTUS over a century ago. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, in which Jacobson tried to argue that compulsory vaccination (against smallpox, in 1904) was unconstitutional, and the court found that, in the interest of public health, the states have the right to compel vaccination.

From that decision:
"...in every well ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand"

"...[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own [liberty], whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others."

This precedent already justifies the mask mandates, enforced business closings, and other pandemic control efforts. It has been referenced over and over since 1904 (like, in the 1918 flu pandemic, etc). This is pretty solid precedent, and why the courts have roundly rejected challenges to the various state measures already in place.

The problems facing compulsory vaccination in the US are not legal, but political.

I’ve mentioned Jacobsen more than once. Still good law. So far.

And those judges- at ANY level- who are weak on stare decisis have a flawed understanding of the nature of their job. Overturning cases on a whim instead of solid legal rationales means a judicial system mired in relitigation of contentious issues to the point of irrelevance.

 

[J.Quondam]

I’ve mentioned Jacobsen more than once. Still good law. So far.

And those judges- at ANY level- who are weak on stare decisis have a flawed understanding of the nature of their job. Overturning cases on a whim instead of solid legal rationales means a judicial system mired in relitigation of contentious issues to the point of irrelevance.

I'll go out on a limb here and guess that there are ideologues who see this bolded part as a feature, not a bug.

 

[Umbran]

I read an interesting article analyzing the current court ...

Yeah. I think that deep analysis of the court is off-topic for the thread, but the point that the court does not simply make rulings along the traditional political lines is sufficient for the needs of this discussion.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'll go out on a limb here and guess that there are ideologues who see this bolded part as a feature, not a bug.

Blinders of Idiocy would be a great cursed artifact, don‘t you think?

 

[Zardnaar]

You say that as if it matters to the law or the court. That's not how it has operated, to date, even with the current seated justices.



As if what I want is relevant here? We are discussing the law, not my preferences.



It is possible, but the current court has not shown the zeal to overturn precedent that many seem to expect given the court's composition. It is almost as if the members of the court are aware that if they get into the precedent-flipping business, they will eliminate any chance for establishing a lasting legacy, as their own rulings will become targets for later flipping.

And what you gonna do if 120 million people or whatever go with civil disobedience as option 1 or if various states and cities declear sanctuary cities and states?