Would it be any different if the requirement was to self-quarantine in a location of the individual's choosing, as opposed to a government quarantine facility? I'm thinking of, for example, people from NYC with a second home on the Atlantic coast who were allowed to go to their second home as long as they quarantined themselves there for 14 days. The question of whether someone has been in an area with more than 3 active COVID cases in their county seems like the kind of question just about anyone would have to answer in the affirmative. Looking at the issue of probable cause, if someone showed up at a state line with New York plates are you saying it should be for the government of the state they are attempting to enter to demonstrate why they should be quarantined, rather than for the driver of the vehicle to prove they weren't from a severely affected area? We know that NYC is one of the worst affected areas in the country but it would seem hard to tell someone who had driven north from NYC before turning west into northern PA from someone who had started in a rural part of upstate New York and driven into northern PA for reasons other than getting away from the city. A related question would be what makes crossing a state line different from crossing a county line - is there a specific provision that makes a state line more significant when it comes to restricting the freedom of movement?
I'll start another thread and post it there, serial style, which means I'll need to get past verse 8 fairly soon!
Crossing a country line is a federal jurisdiction issue. Contrary to some public opinion, borders do mean something and the executive branch is charged with the duty to enforce border and immigration law. This quarantine stuff gets tricky really quickly, and the problem is that there is no practical way to do it. Yes, the burden should always be on the government to deny freedom of travel as opposed to the citizen being required to prove the right to travel. Crossing a state line? Man, that gets to the heart of the federal system of government as a limited government and the power lying in the states and the people unless expressly reserved to the federal government (10th amendment stuff) There have been tons of rulings from the Supreme Court on interstate commerce and the lack of power of a state to stop traffic at the border or to charge tolls or fees for entering or carrying commerce from one state to the other. Crossing a county line? Just gives Andy and Barney an excuse to shoot someone by accident. Counties have no business setting their own guidelines for such things, as they lack any power independent from the state.
I can see the international borders being a matter of immigration and federal authority, I just wasn't sure if a state line was legally more significant than a county line as far as freedom of movement was concerned. I can only imagine the chaos if individual counties tried to introduce restrictions on who they would allow to enter (or perhaps who they would allow to leave), but then got lost somewhere around the issue of state lines and whether states' rights or federal law was dominant there. Hence me wondering whether powers reserved by the states would allow individual states to require people to self-quarantine. I don't suppose the issue of a potentially lethal virus that might not even have any symptoms helps matters - I remember when the various bird flu/swine flu/SARS etc were going around and the fear that anyone with the slightest indication that they even might have whatever the latest Very Scary Disease was wouldn't be allowed to board a flight. At least those problems typically came with symptoms.
If it turns out that masks are sufficiently effective then why would shelter in place be needed? If there were enough masks, which there aren't. It used to drive me crazy that so many asian people in California constantly wear masks. Not so much anymore.
One thing - Thinking of quarantine/isolation/lockdown as Government intrusion would be suicidal. When there is new pandemic prevention is the only measure that works. We will have treatment medicine/protocols, vaccine later, but it will surely take a lot of time. It's not govt taking your freedom, It's for the protection of people. Sitting at home for a few days is not a terrible thing. We forget we so desperately wished for such time a few days back. Two - Masks alone are not enough. This virus spreads via physical contact. When everybody is out and running, The probability of transmission increases exponentially. Protesting against and looking for conspiracies in everything doesn't work. We need to co-operate with the governments in crisis.
I'll respectfully disagree. This country's foundation is self reliance, independence, self governance, and personal responsibility. I don't need the government to tell me what to do, where to go, or with whom or how I may associate. Personal responsibility means I care for others as I care for myself. Every time the government intrudes we are lessens as a people and as a society. The problem is that we have a society of selfish, egocentric morons that have never grown up.
Up to a point, the trouble is that when the government does address what they are doing as a clear suspension of our rights it changes the dynamic. There's a huge difference between "People should stay home to help stop this disease" and "You are prohibited from earning a living". It's all very well to talk about stopping an epidemic but the question of the overall cost of the preventative measures needs to be considered. Telling an entire class of people, selected largely arbitrarily, that they are no longer allowed to earn a living and it's just too bad if they can't pay their bills or if the business they spent a decade building fails because they just started an expansion (but hey, don't worry, we'll send you $1200 eventually) is a totally different proposition. That is very much the government taking away rights, including the right to provide for yourself. When the government takes away the right to provide for yourself I don't think it's unreasonable to be concerned. It sets a precedent - if businesses fail during this downturn how many people will be inclined to start a new business when things recover, knowing that their state governor may simply flick his pen across an executive order and bankrupt them?
Also very helpful for particulate filtering, i.e., smog. Asian metropolii have lots of experience with brown air.
The transmission via touch seems to be more about the transfer of particles from one person to the eyes, nose or mouth of another. If you are infected and I shake your hand that probably won't infect me. If you just coughed into your hand, I shake your hand and then rub my eyes, that's more likely to infect me. If I bump into you in the grocery store aisle such that your clothed shoulder bangs against my clothed shoulder the chances of transfer are pretty slim. Hence the advice to do a lot of handwashing. But as usual everybody expects Someone Else to do everything to look after them, hence we get lots of posturing from companies who are Doing All They Can To Protect Us, which usually means a load of ineffective posturing so they can say there was nothing more they could do when it doesn't work. If people would rely on themselves and community more and stop assuming that it's the government's job to make all the problems go away we'd all be better off.
It's interesting how quickly people will not only willingly give up their freedoms but actively clamor for them to be taken away, under the umbrella of "it's for your own good". I guess it comes down to the assumption that I'm sensible and I'll do the right thing but all those other idiots have to be told and hit with the force of law if they don't comply. I'm reminded of the truism that a government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.
I think very few people have ever read John Stuart Mill or have any idea of how rampant his utopian philosophy is within the progressive movement from pre Woodrow Wilson days. '"The greater good" is an affront to individual liberty and personal responsibility. It flies in the face of God and His principles of human stewardship.
The greater good is a great idea, as long as you aren't the one being asked to sacrifice for someone else's benefit. Even if you are, it's a reasonable idea as long as you have the freedom to refuse. When government imposes upon some for the greater good it's a worrying development - to kill a healthy person could be "for the greater good" on the basis that they could donate organs to bring life to multiple others who might otherwise die. It's one thing to make some form of utilitarian judgment call when allocating scarce resources; it's another thing entirely when one is forced to suffer so another may avoid suffering.
I wonder how many of us are parsing the language to hear only what we think we hear. Yesterday on the news, the Canadian government weighed in on use of facemasks, homemade or otherwise. Their language was specifically that they would recommend it, but it is not mandatory. I think President Trump pretty much made the same remarks that it's a good idea, but it is not going to be enforced.
I think part of the issue is that, in some areas at least, what is advised today is mandated tomorrow. Our state governor recommended people wear masks when going out. His web site contained a helpful link to another site showing how to make a mask (because you'll struggle to find them for sale anywhere) using a sewing machine. Which is great, if you have a sewing machine. You can also stitch them by hand. Personally I just threw a scrap of material on the ground because I figure that's where it will end up given my experience of sewing and I might as well save myself the frustration. Improvised masks (I have a buff to keep the sun off my head that I can also use as a kinda sorta mask) are uncomfortable and make it harder to breathe. It's also rather ironic to be told that we should wear a mask when visiting the bank, for example.