darktinker4 said:Hey, don't get sassy with me. Everything you just listed is wrong anyway. You could travel anywhere within the County, specifically within the municipalities. And in those tiny rural areas where every little village has its own local government, that worked too.
Whatever
Who are we even supposed to call to get a straight answer?
March 20, 2020:
Given that certain regions are facing a significantly heightened risk of coronavirus transmission, and in an effort to curb the further spread of the virus, leaving one's primary residence or permanent place of abode is hereby prohibited.
Regardless of who is involved or how much money is changing hands—those shows where anonymous viewers jump in to spout all sorts of supposedly "verified facts" about specific, mostly political figures—are nothing short of pure Evil.
Matthew Jackson2 said:I’ve heard stories about this before, but honestly, it feels like an absurdity squared—I mean, criminal liability is already clearly defined by law if you bother to look it up. Then again, I suppose there's the cynical thought that maybe the very person handing you the pen is carrying something themselves... you can never really know these days.
It isn't an absurdity.
The whole point of signing a form like that is psychological. It serves the exact same purpose as swearing an oath in a courtroom to tell nothing but the truth.
hollowfox3 said:Honestly, we should just be straightforward about this: if you aren't currently under some kind of restriction—like isolation or quarantine—you should be able to get a pass. You can go wherever you want, provided you act like you're still following those protocols at home. Because, let’s face it, that’s how it works anyway.
If someone ends up having to isolate or something similar, their pass just becomes void.
I mean, seriously—wouldn't it be significantly easier to just focus all our attention on monitoring those who actually are subject to mandates, rather than dealing with this entire circus involving passes and, more importantly, those endless police checkpoints?
This is the second time I’ve heard this exact same claim.
Where on earth are you getting the idea that people traveling from the Midwest have to go into self-isolation just because they decided to head to the coast for vacation? Who exactly is dictating those isolation rules—some police patrol out on the highway???
If the coordinates you and Sugar provided are actually accurate, they honestly shouldn't have bothered with a carrier pigeon—they could have just folded up a paper airplane, tossed it in the air, and it probably would've reached the CDC by now.
Ms. Karen was incredibly adamant during the press conference about clearing her name of any wrongdoing—though, I suppose, the whole question of who called whom (or if anyone even called anyone at all) is going to be tied up in a criminal investigation for quite some time.
Mind you, in the middle of all that frantic nervousness, she did slip up and say, "We weren't able to get a hold of the parents of the facility residents..." 😬.
Has someone actually gone and banned kids from just being outdoors—you know, riding their bikes, taking walks through the woods, or even just tossing pebbles into the ocean?
I’ll say it for the third time, since apparently, I need to be incredibly clear: Secretary Beroš personally claimed that cycling is nothing more than mobile self-isolation.
The doctor from the local clinic explained what happened. She tried calling the CDC via telephone—multiple times, actually—but she just couldn't get anyone on the line. That was it. And yet, you all immediately jump to making jokes about it...
People have traveled, they’ve been tested, and then they were sent straight home to self-isolate—just like the long-haul truckers hitting the interstate or anyone else arriving from out of state
Honestly, though, I just can't wrap my head around why people feel the need to crucify them—it seems to me like nothing more than pure envy, or maybe just plain old hatred, or whatever else you want to call it.
fadedbear92 said:How on earth can they ban us from seeing our own families—which is just heartbreaking, really—while simultaneously letting in people from high-risk countries?!? Shouldn't we be tightening the borders instead? I thought they explicitly promised there wouldn't be any travel at all!
What exactly would you do with a college student who's stuck in Chicago on some exchange program? Would you just pull a trigger on them? I mean, honestly, why was he even over there in the first place—he was probably just out looking for trouble or getting high, most likely!!!
I've been reading these absolutely vitriolic rants regarding those selfish urbanites from the big metropolitan hubs—specifically those who, following the recent earthquake, scrambled to relocate to other parts of the country (mostly toward the coastal regions like California or the Pacific Northwest). Someone even tossed out a figure of roughly 300,000 😲 people fleeing the major cities—people who, being as self-centered and reckless as they are, were accused of spreading the contagion nationwide. Honestly, one has to wonder where the shame is, and frankly, what kind of logic is that?
It's almost as if the travel restrictions—limiting movement outside of one's primary residence—were implemented primarily to curb this supposed, massive, and supposedly dangerous migration wave.
Fast forward to today—right when this mass relocation should have resulted in thousands upon thousands of new infections along the coast—and we see that the coastal states are showing very little, if any, significant increase in new cases following that first major surge. It seems the urban exodus failed completely in its mission (unless, perhaps, everyone actually just moved to a place like Phoenix instead, which isn't a hotspot but rather a bonfire?).
How is that possible? How does that even make sense?
electricbadger89 said:How does e-visitor actually work? From what I can tell, it’s designed for landlords and short-term rentals.
So I can't use this to register my mom and grandma? They're staying with me because their place isn't structurally sound after the earthquake. I don't see why she’d be pushing to cram them into some rental when we have more than enough room right here at home. We’re just another municipality.
Mom needs to head over to the old apartment to grab some stuff, but I have no clue what kind of gate pass we should be requesting for her.
Initially, they claimed it was impossible to obtain.
Idiots.
It isn't exclusively for landlords, you know. Technically, anyone who stays at a property on a temporary basis should be registered through it.
When you go through the registration process, there is actually a specific category labeled "property owner and family members."
nimbleharbor10 said:Typical behavior from a selfish cyclist.
By any standard definition, a selfish person is someone who thinks only about themselves and their own interests—essentially, they cater to their own whims and satisfy their needs at the direct expense of everyone else and their respective requirements.
So, I have to ask: where exactly do you see this selfishness in a cyclist? Which specific people—and what specific needs of theirs—is a cyclist supposedly obstructing, endangering, or depriving just by riding their bike?
Good grief, this isn't even paranoia anymore—it’s some kind of grotesque, almost absurd desire to act more sanctimonious than the Pope, basically telling everyone to go jump in a lake because they won't bow down to our heroes and dear friend Will. But, look—for heaven's sake, look at what our friend Will actually had to say about cycling:
"Is cycling 'isolation in motion'?
"If you ride properly, it’s nothing more than self-imposed isolation in motion, provided there isn't anyone within two feet of you."