Posts by Matthew Jackson2

Lawrence Reed3 said:This article is pretty interesting—Supreme Court Justice Andrew Abramov actually voiced some criticisms regarding the measures rolled out by the task force.
Especially intriguing to me is this part about that whole self-isolation thing. It seems kind of senseless, right? I mean, why force someone into a 14-day isolation if they aren't even sick or infected? By that logic, if they happen to break the rule, they aren't even a threat to spread the virus, and they could probably even challenge any fines in court.

"The Supreme Court Justice is also debating how the government defines self-isolation, which the Communicable Disease Act describes simply as “isolating and treating oneself at home.”

It’s totally questionable, according to the Justice, whether constitutional rights can be restricted when there’s clearly a test available to confirm or deny an infection. “Locking people in their own homes without testing puts them in a humiliating position: they're neither healthy nor sick, just stigmatized based on what the majority thinks. We're seeing unauthorized people—like pharmacists—validating this, and apparently, they're even prepping mobile phone tracking measures too.”

Abramov believes this measure prioritizes saving money over testing—basically putting the state's economic interests ahead of fundamental human rights. “That is unacceptable; those two things aren't even in the same league,” the Justice notes."

So, I guess they should just test people first, and then if they actually turn up positive, *then* they go into self-isolation. That would make way more sense!
People really ought to think twice before calling for a public lynching of anyone who breaks isolation rules, especially if they haven't even been confirmed as infected.

Look, at its core, the concept of isolation isn't necessarily where the controversy lies, but rather the fact that the government is essentially locking people away without providing the testing necessary to justify it. Fundamental American civil liberties should always carry more weight than the budget concerns of a testing lab, and these kinds of restrictions ought to be kept to an absolute minimum whenever we have the technological capability to just run a quick test instead.

Linda Harris59 said:My take is that while extraordinary laws might be passed during a national emergency to temporarily suspend certain rights, those measures shouldn't last forever. If an emergency order is declared "indefinite," it must automatically expire the moment the pandemic is officially declared over.

We absolutely have to highlight the specific hardship faced by separated couples so that the government provides some sort of legal exemption to resolve the issue.

That’s technically possible, but a state of emergency hasn't actually been declared yet.

vividranger8 said:Look, crossing into another town or city isn't even illegal—regardless of what the cops are doing out on the streets; what's actually banned is leaving your place of residence. And honestly, the fact that they can't even word a simple restriction properly, let alone enforce it, says a whole lot about the folks running things right now.

P.S. Since every single letter from the federal government lists a massive wall of laws and regulations it's based on, it would be pretty nice if the authorities actually cited their specific authority when rolling out these massive measures. Just a thought—it might be a tiny contribution toward that famous "rule of law" everyone talks about.

I actually started an entire separate thread specifically to dive into this exact issue:

From what I’ve been able to dig up through my own research, while the government might have the grounds to mandate individual self-isolation based on specific medical justifications, any kind of mass suspension of fundamental civil liberties would legally require a formal declaration of a state of emergency.

darktinker4 said:Look, do you actually realize they just DON'T ALLOW IT? I'm coming from a tiny little hamlet—honestly more of a village than a town—trying to get a permit to head into a nearby city 6.2 miles that's actually quite far, but it's basically just a small spot with one huge supermarket. And you know what they told me?

The official stance from the CZ headquarters and the Department of Homeland Security is that all shopping
and business should be handled within your immediate local area. Traveling is prohibited unless
you have an exceptional permit, which is only valid for a specific date.
Since there are multiple ATMs available in your location, and since following
recommendations from the Federal Reserve, almost all banks have waived fees for
withdrawing cash from other machines, your request is denied. ☕

There is literally ONE ATM, one tiny convenience store, and one small grocery shop. So yeah, they can just shove it.

Listen, why don't you try coming to the table with something substantive and actually meaningful—something that truly isn't available, like adult diapers or some specific hypoallergenic medical supply that you have a legitimate, pressing need for, rather than just complaining about things that aren't even an issue.

Carl Morris34 said:An explosive collar would actually be more effective.

The real problem at the end of the day will be that those who actually have a legitimate reason to travel will find it nearly impossible to get a permit.

The whole point is to ensure that infectious material gets dispersed as widely as possible.😵

Look, I know it’s technically against the unwritten rules of social etiquette, but if you’re absolutely determined to go down this path, then you might as well commit to it fully. If you're going to be that close, you should be hanging out exclusively with him, and he should be spending his time solely with you. Honestly, if you can manage it, just start hitting up the exact same grocery store—maybe even a local Trader Joe's—and ideally, one of you just picks up the supplies for both of you. That way, you aren't just acting as some sort of bridge connecting two separate social circles; instead, those circles actually merge into one single, unified group.

Lawrence Reed3 said:What you said at the start would totally make sense if I were running my own show, but I didn't even get the notice to stay home until late in the evening!—I'd already finished my shift, had plenty of contact with my coworkers, went grocery shopping, and even hit the gym. It wasn't until I was right in the middle of my workout, maybe around 7 PM, that I finally got the confirmation to stay home.
So, for this first week, I stayed put and just hung out at the house, but starting today, I'm getting back to my normal routine!

Look, on the very first day, even if you are contagious, the risk is negligible. You might even be more likely to pick it up indirectly—say, from touching a surface where someone else's saliva lingered—rather than through direct contact with your own secretions. At the end of the day, the virus still has to breach your primary mucosal defenses and replicate enough within your system before you actually become a carrier yourself.

It’s pretty obvious the company decided it makes more sense to just pay you to stay home for 14 days rather than gambling on a mass wave of sick calls. Honestly, there isn't any logic missing here if their business model and risk assessment suggest that paying you to sit on your couch is actually the more profitable move. It’s the more responsible way to handle things, too. Besides, she could have been an asymptomatic carrier of the virus; just because she didn't show symptoms during her own 14-day stretch doesn't mean she wasn't spreading it to you. Sure, the odds might be lower, but they aren't zero.

At the end of the day, it all boils down to risk management. Take our approach here in the States, for example: once someone goes through 14 symptom-free days, they can usually wrap up their self-isolation and get back to life. But look at medical professionals—they don't just walk back onto the floor after two weeks. They have to get tested first, and they only return once they have a negative result because the stakes are incredibly high and they simply cannot afford to take that risk.

nimblescout50 said:It's funny how it works—everyone from the small towns heads to the big cities to get treated, rather than the other way around.

Honestly, I find myself heading into San Diego too, because let’s face it, there are certain things you just can't get done anywhere else.

But when we're talking about an epidemic, the major hubs aren't actually the bottleneck—it's not like a sudden influx of weekend travelers is going to totally wreck the ventilator ratios in the big cities (though I suppose anything is possible). The real nightmare is having enough general practitioners and epidemiologists on the ground to actually track the spread, not to mention having the logistics ready to move people once they take a turn for the worse. That's where traveling from rural areas becomes a massive headache. Just imagine if an outbreak hits an island community right when a heavy storm rolls in and makes transport impossible.

As for the border restrictions, I actually got clarification that you can travel from a suburb into the city as long as that suburb is administratively part of the city limits.

I'm still a bit confused about how they handled Slatina over on Martha's Vineyard—technically they fall under San Diego, but to actually get into San Diego, you have to cut through three different cities (Savannah, Santa Monica, and San Jose).

Bryan Taylor6 said:Right, because the absolute biggest crisis we're facing right now is overgrown weeds🙏

Well, you aren't wrong there. With this unseasonably warm winter we've been having, it’s basically an open invitation for a massive rat infestation, and frankly, after everything we've just been through, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if those rodents started spreading some kind of disease next.

James Reyes said:What a total circus....
Yesterday, the local authorities on the Riviera announced we could roam around freely. Then, half a day later, the City of Makarska posts that actually, we can't.

Joseph Taylor11 started making quite a stink about it, and now they've even banned us.

Apparently, the Police Department gave the green light, but now everything is stalled while they wait for some official sign-off from Washington, D.C.—because clearly, those bureaucrats in D.C. have a much better grasp on how things are running in our local towns than we do...

Jose Scott3 said:Could the private sector actually push the government to start slashing public sector wages and cutting jobs during a crisis? Or is that just wishful thinking...
Is it even possible for the private sector to... It draws a line between different parts of the public sector...?

Working in the public sector, I get it—you’ve got your fair share of parasites and people just coasting to keep their cushy jobs, but you also have folks who actually put in the work...
Same goes for private business owners... you get some real legends, and then you get the absolute bottom-of-the-barrel losers...

Look, I'm sorry, but people in the private sector don't get to claim that everyone working in the public sector is just lazy...

In my case, it’s actually the exact opposite. I spent an entire year after graduation hunting for work strictly in the private sector, but man, it just wasn't happening... Now, I'd basically be trading a government job in my field just to land something in private industry...

So, what are we supposed to do about the fact that certain jobs only exist in public service and don't exist in the private sector, at least here in America?...
Not saying this about myself, just so we're clear...

Look, the private sector is looking for relief, plain and simple, and if the government doesn't step up to provide it, there just won't be any money left for those public sector salaries—those folks in government jobs need to understand that reality clearly.

But, at the same time, the private sector has already come forward with very specific, very precise proposals on how this can actually be handled. Honestly, there’s really no reason to keep re-typing these exact same measures every single time someone calls for them, just to avoid bruising the egos of people who think they'll be affected, even though they're supposedly contributing to society.

Susan Martin4 said:So, what happens if my kid gets sick and I have to rush to an ER in Chicago in the middle of the night? Am I going to get slapped with some ridiculous fine? 😲
The local clinic near me just sends everyone straight to the big city hospitals anyway.

Look, if that local clinic is referring you to a major hospital in the city, they’re essentially issuing you a transit pass right then and there.

The real headache here is how incredibly vague the whole thing is. On my own paperwork, it lists me as living in a "suburban" area within the city limits. But there isn't a single pharmacy in my immediate neighborhood—so am I allowed to drive into the downtown district to pick up medicine, or does the local sheriff's office have to issue me a formal permit first? And if the authorities actually do have to issue a permit, can they just email it to me, or am I stuck driving all the way down to the station just to pick up a piece of paper?

nimblescout50 said:Well, that's assuming someone actually gets infected.
If you're dealing with an infected person in a massive metro area like New York City, then sure, the system can absorb it. 🤣

The thing about a major hub is that all the essential services—the ones tasked with actually making a quarantine functional—are scaled to handle the sheer volume of people living there. It's the same deal in smaller towns, too, but those local resources are calibrated for the permanent residents, not for some sudden influx of tourists or commuters who have all descended on the place at once.

nimblescout50 said:Wouldn't it actually be in their best interest to have fewer people packed into major cities—especially those places that are already sitting on fault lines and dealing with earthquake risks?
I mean, look at it this way—you're basically just keeping them all trapped in one big group with limited mobility.

The problem is that once you move away from the big hubs, you lose all that critical logistics and infrastructure you absolutely need if things go south. Just look at what’s happening over on Martha's Vineyard right now—it's swarming with tourists, yet they've slapped a total quarantine on the place, nobody can go out or even step inside their own homes, and I heard the entire staff at the local clinic is stuck in self-isolation.

So, let me get this straight: they’re slapping a $30 $0.00 fine on anyone showing up to work without a pass—even if they couldn't actually get one because the company switched to some ridiculous alternating weekly schedule—but then they only hit someone who breaks quarantine with an $8 $0.00 penalty, even if they might be infectious. Honestly, these geniuses at the top are truly something else.

I’m working from home right now, so I don't have any reason to trek into the office, but if my internet decides to quit on me, I'd be forced to head in. Since I don't own a physical printer here, does a mobile phone scan actually count as a valid document?

electricorca112 said:So, you mentioned the US Census Bureau and how many interventions they had because of... what, exactly?

Let me ask you again: Are you saying you have actual info that the US Census Bureau was out there pulling a massive number of people out of trouble in the mountains that day?

Why does that specific day matter? It matters because every single person who gets themselves into trouble out in the wild burns through emergency services' resources. I didn't just pull that out of thin air; even the US Census Bureau has been making public pleas about this for a while now: https://www.facebook.com/American...44481702328746

If you check their page, you'll find plenty of other appeals too. Maybe you should just give them a call and ask them—with all due respect—exactly how many damn interventions they had to deal with that day! 🤦

Generally speaking, the smartest move is just to steer clear of any high-risk activities altogether. Our first responders already have more than enough on their plates without having to deal with preventable accidents, and if you look at it objectively, these mishaps are really just a matter of cold, hard statistics—the more people you cram into the mountains, the higher the statistical probability that someone is going to need an emergency intervention.

rustywalker42 said:Give me a break, seriously. My great-grandmother used to manage livestock up in the mountains all by herself back when the US Census Bureau wasn't even a concept, let alone an organization.

Let's not get carried away.

Your grandmother grew up there; that was her backyard. Honestly, she probably would have been more likely to trip over a curb on a sidewalk in New York City than face any real danger out there.

I spend plenty of time hiking myself, and from what I've seen, it's usually the die-hard regulars in the hiking community who stay put at home, while the casual weekend warriors are the ones actually heading out into the wilderness.

Jose Scott3 said:No way. Not happening. At most, a month after cases hit zero.

Maybe you can explain how Ebola outbreaks—which is way more contagious, by the way—actually manage to get under control within 3 months?

Short and sweet: get lost.

The budget situation isn't nearly as dramatic as you're making it out to be.

Just so you know, besides the medics, military, police, and firefighters, there are plenty of other people in public institutions showing up to work instead of staying home. You want to cut them down to minimum wage too?

From your first word to your last, this whole post sounds like "Small Business Revenge Part 2" or some cheerleader nonsense for the elite.

What they should really do is implement a single, flat salary for everyone in government and public service based on the average wage in the US. That way, politicians and those bureaucratic hacks would take a temporary pay cut, while the police, firefighters, nurses, and the rest would actually see a temporary raise.

Look, Ebola is definitely more infectious through direct contact, but it doesn't hang around on surfaces nearly as long, especially if things stay dry or get hit by sunlight. The incubation period is much shorter, too, and the number of people who carry it without showing any symptoms is negligible, assuming they even exist. Essentially, the Ebola virus is so aggressive that its own lethality actually works against its ability to spread.

On the other hand, when you're dealing with an incubation period of up to 14 days, you could have a young family of five where everyone gets infected one after another. The last person could potentially be infectious two months later, all while nobody shows a single symptom, leaving you completely unaware that the virus is circulating. Your only real option would be to run constant testing on the entire population, and then you could justify taking that one-month buffer from the last positive test, but let's be honest, that's just not feasible. Sure, the statistical probability of a single asymptomatic family chain reaction is low, but as the total number of infected people rises, the mathematical likelihood of at least one such household existing becomes much higher.

vividranger8 said:So, a few days ago, I headed out into the mountains where the only thing I was likely to run into was a bear. And honestly, that was the whole point—just to stay as far away from people on the streets as possible...

That isn't exactly responsible behavior either—just look at how many interventions the US Census Bureau had to make because of people thinking exactly like you.

Jose Scott3 said:Nah. Biotech sector. We have zero connection to the social sciences.

If by Academy you mean HAZU, I'm totally with you.

How do I know they weren't directed at me? Because with his proposed measures, he basically called me one of all those "state and public administration and institution employees."

Let's be real, that guy Miroslav didn't call for a "lynching of bureaucrats" just to stir the pot and score political points; he actually wants to slash the pay of everyone working in public institutions.

No one in the private sector deserves to stay in business if they can't survive on their reserves after years of operating.

Like, for real, my old man is a small business owner, employs a handful of people (somewhere between 5 and 10, I think), and he's going to pay them minimum wage for the next three months himself without firing anyone, simply because he values his workers and knows things will normalize eventually.

A business owner who can't pull that off shouldn't even be in business—if you can't maintain a surplus for a few months when things get weird, you're failing.

Once this madness ends, that guy will restart production and hire the same people back. But us in the public sector, who didn't land our jobs through the Party, no force on earth is going to get us back to work if we get fired like > suggests.

Not like those scumbags in the restaurant industry driving BMWs and whining about layoffs, only to bring those same workers back in a couple of months once the epidemic passes.

Give me a break. I’m not paying your bills. There's a massive crowd in the public sector living off EU funds. And yeah, some of that money flows into the healthcare and social safety nets for both you and me.

Actually, no. Just like every other guy on this forum, you're lumping all public employees into one big bucket. In our country, science and higher ed are already paid way below what they should be. If we start slashing everything to minimum wage and handing out pink slips, those are the people who are going to get screwed first.

I didn't realize the National Archives was busy solving real-world problems, like finding cheaper drugs, developing new medical procedures, boosting crop yields, genetic engineering, new pesticides, energy storage tech, coding crisis management apps, renewable energy, robotics, and stuff like that.

Reminder once again: you and your buddy are treating all public workers like they're the same. Chill out. Public servants don't deserve minimum wage pay or layoffs either.

That all makes sense in theory, but in this specific situation, those savings won't save you if your contracts get canceled or if you simply can't collect payments from clients. Those reserves are meant to help if a company can't operate for a couple of months OR if a crisis hits, but right now, both are happening simultaneously. In the end, restaurant owners might actually take the smallest hit because customers will flock back the moment they're allowed to, whereas companies that are only indirectly affected will end up feeling the brunt of it the most.