View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
dcharlton
Joined: 24 Apr 2002 Posts: 414
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
U2U2U2
Joined: 06 Jul 2001 Posts: 5467 Location: Shipsterns Bluff, Tasmania. Colorado
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20936
|
Posted: Tue May 19, 2020 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Now, wait just a gol-darn minute. My jaw dropped far enough when we watched this on TV last month, because a) he's exposing no one and b) IT WAS THE COPS ON THE BEACH THAT ULTIMATELY INITIATED EXPOSURE ... mutual, to boot. Now the LAT is telling us that the governor issued a stay at home order? Izzat true? An actual order to stay home? I'd heard rumors to that effect pertaining to some unnamed states, but this is the first time I've seen it claimed that some specific state had actually issued such an order.
Requests to reduce travel? Sure. Advisories (as in "it's in your best medical interests)? Sure. Don't stage commercial events that draw crowds? Sure. Please don't hang out with crowds? Sure. Reduce your non-essential travel? Of course. But legal orders, especially actually enforced, to stay on your own property under penalty of law? Without a long list of exceptions including exercise, buying pot and booze and other high tax items, allowing the Speaker of the House to get another facelift and allowing an ex-president to play golf, etc?
My jaw just dropped even farther. Literally STAY AT HOME OR YOU CAN BE ARRESTED? Bite Me! Show us medical cause and legal authority for that nonsense. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
U2U2U2
Joined: 06 Jul 2001 Posts: 5467 Location: Shipsterns Bluff, Tasmania. Colorado
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20936
|
Posted: Tue May 19, 2020 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's pretty cut and dried, and does not have the "exercise" clause we see so often in the other 49, less Draconian, states. But it does bring up some problems:
1. Is that degree of oppression constitutional?
2. Since most cops, including the LAPD by decree of its mayor, refuse to enforce it, who's going to take it seriously? How does that not provide a legal precedent for any defense attorney?
3. Not even WA, OR, Michigan, or many other such overreactionary states (or LA) go anywhere near that far. It's as though Californians were frogs placed in cool water on a cool stove subsequently set on HIGH; they're so used to whacko dictators that -- so far -- they just sit back and let their rulers chip or sledgehammer their rights to bits.
4. What's the science behind allowing people to walk in CA's wet tidal sands but not on dry sand?
5. No WONDER I've had trouble getting very excited about this "shutdown"; compared to Newsome's edict, not even our Inslee has gone that far off the deep end. I can think of nothing I want or need to do that is being forbidden by law due to the panicdemic. I don't live in a pot of boiling water. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
boardsurfr
Joined: 23 Aug 2001 Posts: 1266
|
Posted: Tue May 19, 2020 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
California: 3,302 COVID-19 deaths
New York: 22,729 COVID-19 deaths
California had the earlier cases, and has twice the population of New York. It's got big cities with large minority populations, too.
The difference? California acted earlier. San Francisco and parts of LA issued stay-at-home orders even before the state did, and did not have an arrogant governor telling them "you can't do that", only to do it himself later, after the number of cases had grown by another factor of 4.
There is a very clear relation between how strict stay-at-home orders are (which includes enforcing the order), and how much COVID-19 infections dropped. The more lenient the measures were, the less effective they were. Nebraska and Montana are a good example. Overall, the US has only managed to achieve a weekly drop in cases of about 10%, substantially less than other countries. And now, thanks to a rushed re-opening, we can already see the reversal of the trend, with an increase in predicted new cases and deaths. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
U2U2U2
Joined: 06 Jul 2001 Posts: 5467 Location: Shipsterns Bluff, Tasmania. Colorado
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
U2U2U2
Joined: 06 Jul 2001 Posts: 5467 Location: Shipsterns Bluff, Tasmania. Colorado
|
Posted: Tue May 19, 2020 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Good discussion. I think your point is by acting sooner California, did better against the 19.
Your figures , California, about 40 million, vs New York 19.5 million are correct, twice as many. LA population 3.9 vs NYCity of 8.4 goes the other way.
The NYC , areas , is the population denser than LA, don’t know, but numbers , can be bent to suit the discussions.
What I see as critical now is that due to economic pressure and or, we may be opening up too soon. Won’t know till the fat lady sings, or about 3-4 weeks. _________________ K4 fins
4Boards....May the fours be with you
http://www.k4fins.com/fins.html
http://4boards.co.uk/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
PeconicPuffin
Joined: 07 Jun 2004 Posts: 1830
|
Posted: Thu May 21, 2020 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
California has nothing analogous to the mass transit situation in the New York metro area, with ten million people in physical contact with strangers on trains subways and buses every day. Of course acting sooner would have made a big difference. That's true for the entire country. _________________ Michael
http://www.peconicpuffin.com |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You can attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
|
|
|