Timeline for Is the banning of large events in the USA constitutional?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 27, 2020 at 13:51 | comment | added | phoog | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Aug 27, 2020 at 13:44 | comment | added | Cell | @phoog I'd assume hand and surface sanitation is a given. The issue is banning people from being in proximity to one another vs. being close with masks. I.e why close down my research institution when we can sanitize our hands before entering and wear masks in the lab. | |
| Aug 27, 2020 at 13:43 | comment | added | phoog | "the cost of masks plus alcohol sanitation would have saved more money than shutting down business": Maybe, if it was effective; if it wasn't, maybe those businesses would have closed anyway as more people got sick and died. "Also, unless one works in healthcare or is at high risk from the virus one doesn't need the N95 surgical masks": How do you know this? "One just needs a mask that can block water droplets": what about aerosols (which can flow around the edge of the mask, as does smoke)? "ordering restaurants to only serve those with masks": what about those wearing masks improperly? | |
| Aug 27, 2020 at 13:40 | comment | added | phoog | @Cell it's not at all unreasonable to expect otherwise. Perhaps the virus is spread from infected peoples' fingers and hands and clothing, contaminated before (or when) they put on the mask. Establishing that the virus is spread through that route does not establish that masks are effective at preventing the spread. Then there is the pesky compliance question as I alluded to in my previous comment: establishing that masks are effective in ideal conditions does not establish that they are effective generally (similar to condoms). | |
| Aug 27, 2020 at 13:35 | comment | added | Cell | @phoog I'd argue the cost of masks plus alcohol sanitation would have saved more money than shutting down business (some of which had to close down) and paying for unemployment. Also, unless one works in healthcare or is at high risk from the virus one doesn't need the N95 surgical masks. One just needs a mask that can block water droplets. Enforcement is an issue, but ordering restaurants to only serve those with masks might have been more effectively than shutting them down. | |
| Aug 27, 2020 at 13:32 | comment | added | Cell | @phoog I don't know if it has been formally established, but it's extremely unreasonable to expect otherwise. Viruses reside in liquid droplets; it's not like the body can expell purely dried particles and its highly contagious nature narrows it down to respiratory tract, saliva and sweat fluids as the vehicles. Since it was known that infections cause coughing and lung complications that means the virus was being mass produced in regions of the respiratory tract. You can two and two together. | |
| Aug 27, 2020 at 4:13 | comment | added | phoog | @Cell If it is established. Has it been established? As far as I can tell, not definitively. The judiciary will defer to the executive on that. Even if it's firmly established that some specific mask design is 100% effective in preventing transmission when used properly, there's still the question of the costs of enforcing the proper use of those masks in gatherings with 250 or more people (or of whatever size). The executive may find that these costs are excessive, and the judiciary will defer to the executive on that, too. | |
| Apr 12, 2020 at 0:20 | comment | added | Cell | If it is established that viruses are spread from the human host through liquid droplets released from the mouth and possibly nose, then wouldn't the "least-restrictive means" be to enforce wearing a mask or any kind of barrier to limit transmission of particles from the mouth instead of banning gatherings? General purpose masks wont prevent 100% of viral particles from passing through, but banning gatherings of an arbitrary amount of people doesn't prevent infections 100% either. I don't understand why no one has challenged this. | |
| Mar 13, 2020 at 11:30 | comment | added | D M | @ohwilleke Most likely true, but it also has to be enforced the constitutional way. | |
| Mar 12, 2020 at 22:49 | comment | added | ohwilleke | Also, to the extent that a regulation could be read in a way that is unconstitutional, but could also be read in a way that is constitutional, it will be interpreted to avoid a conflict. | |
| Mar 12, 2020 at 16:30 | comment | added | user6726 | It's not a quote, it's a hypothetical alternative restriction. | |
| Mar 12, 2020 at 16:21 | comment | added | Azor Ahai -him- | I recognize the quotes from strict scrutiny, but where are you quoting "certifiably not exposed" from? | |
| Mar 12, 2020 at 9:45 | comment | added | JdeBP | Globe School District No 1 of Globe, Gila County v. Board of Health of City of Globe, 179 Pac 55. Alden v. State 179 Pac 646. And those are only some of the U.S. lawsuits from the 1918 Influenza pandemic. | |
| Mar 12, 2020 at 9:16 | comment | added | gerrit | Only time, and a lawsuit, will tell — has this never happened before? | |
| Mar 12, 2020 at 0:30 | history | answered | user6726 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |