CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Society › Coronavirus › Curfew restrictions: Is it legal to leave your house?

Curfew restrictions: Is it legal to leave your house?

Started by rustywalker42 · · 👁 67 views · 2K replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants rustywalker42electricbadger89Joseph Taylor11Jonathan Smith12Drew Johnson2Henry Lopez10lonefalconrestlessmason54darkotter35Patrick Cookmellowseal1Rebecca Peterson94Matthew Jackson2nimbleharbor10Susan Martin4Jose Scott3Brian Anderson8wearypilot34Anthony Jackson2David Vaughn75velvetstag5Roger Gray27Keith Cox6Jack Cook7 …
Joseph Taylor11 Joseph Taylor11 Active Member
134 messages
joined Oct 2019
#1481 ·
Mark Rodriguez11 said:Is anyone actually going to step up and tear down this kind of anti-freedom nonsense once and for all? It’s honestly wild how they’re stripping away basic rights based on nothing but sketchy assumptions. It’s always the same old story: "Someone MIGHT get sick," or "It MIGHT be this," or "It MIGHT be that." So, what's the solution? Just throw people in jail because there's a tiny chance they did something wrong, and if it turns out they didn't, oh well—we'll just call it preventative measures. It’s genuinely terrifying to watch. I really don't get how people aren't seeing this blatant dictatorship and the total disregard for civil liberties, and why nobody is standing up against it. Everyone just sits there, playing the submissive little mouse, following every single command handed down by the top brass and whatever self-appointed experts think they know everything. Honestly, it’s embarrassing to see these kinds of insane ideas being treated as normal.

It's not about what they did, it's about what they *might* do... or even just the possibility that they *could*... 🙄

I was just reading the first part of what @Lisa Chase3 wrote... honestly, she hit the nail right on the head. This is exactly the kind of thing the mainstream media needs to be broadcasting! ☕
velvetstag5 velvetstag5 Member
29 messages
joined Sep 2016
#1482 ·
This is an excellent drill for a much more serious situation down the road.

Viruses are constantly mutating.

My heart goes out to those affected, but honestly, this barely touches anyone here.

...

It’s actually a solid lesson and a chance for society to hit the reset button.

People haven't really stepped foot outside their bubbles for quite a while now.

Most folks have gotten way too caught up in soap opera drama.

Worrying about relationship issues or

stock market fluctuations while sipping whiskey in a suit.
Lisa Chase3 Lisa Chase3 Member
37 messages
joined Jul 2014
#1483 ·
vividranger8 said:I mean, if it’s actually true that they pumped out half a million passes, then the whole idea of these permits is basically just one big, giant joke.

Whatever. They should just settle up already, I guess. Just wrap it all up.

Matthew Jackson2 said:First off, there’s no such thing as a "proof of being uninfected." All you can actually verify is whether someone has been ordered into self-isolation, which is what’s currently being enforced.

Second, what’s the actual difference between driving to the next town over, the neighboring state, or just walking to the corner grocery store? There are infected people and people in quarantine in every single state and almost every municipality. Someone isn't going to suddenly drop a virus into a place where it doesn't exist, because frankly, it's already everywhere. The whole point is to reduce the general number of people we come into contact with; in that light, the risk is arguably lower if you're heading out to a field on the other side of the country than if you're trekking down to the local shop where you might bump into half the neighborhood.

The only way this level of monitoring makes any sense is if they're trying to trace the source of an outbreak when new cases pop up, but even that's debatable since the virus might already be circulating asymptomatically in that area anyway.

That’s exactly the point—if it doesn't exist, you gotta make it happen. If someone's thinking ten steps ahead, I’m already at twenty, or maybe even a hundred... just throwing out ideas, even if they're totally nuts or actually smart, whatever. Like, if some jerk tells you to jump out a window, you don't just do it because they said so. But if you come up with the idea yourself? That's a whole different story, I guess.

If people get a pass just because they checked some random boxes—some of which aren't even vital, like having a "merit" permit or knowing a guy—that's straight-up discrimination against everyone else. Plus, you're risking spreading the virus from one state to another since there’s zero proof anyone's actually clean. I mean, honestly, we gotta think about the big picture here instead of just patching holes.

off: Three Americans—one single party. The U.S.—countless counties, cities, towns, suburbs, little outposts... you get the idea. And every single one has its own "boss," plus deputies, plus assistants, plus assistants to the assistants, plus secretaries, plus deputy secretaries... all of them need a paycheck. They get their direct deposits like clockwork, plus holiday bonuses, New Year’s perks, Easter money, this benefit, that benefit... at least, that’s how it’s worked in plenty of places so far. I didn't just make up the term "make-work job"—there's always going to be some position created for the "well-connected" or the "loyal." There are all these agencies with names so long you can't even say them without reading them off a list, plus all these nonprofits... you just have to know whose pockets to line. Honestly, I’m surprised we haven't started putting checkpoints at state lines yet just to increase the bureaucratic bloat. Any resemblance to actual reality is purely coincidental, I guess.

Also, what's even the point? Like, does it actually matter if you drove to the next town over, hit up the county seat, or just popped down to the local CVS? I guess it's all the same, maybe. I mean, there are infected people and folks in quarantine in basically every county and most areas anyway. It’s not like someone’s gonna carry the virus to some place that hasn't seen it yet, since it's pretty much everywhere now. I guess the whole point is just to cut down on how many people we're bumping into... so maybe it's less risky to drive out to a farm halfway across the country than to walk to the corner store.

The Bolden part—that's exactly what I've been saying this whole time. Like, what's even the difference?

So, if you're driving through another state or maybe seeing someone from a distance for some "legit reasons"—keeping all the safety rules in check—what’s even the big deal? I mean, how is that any different from meeting someone who drove in from out of state to hit up a local grocery store or a Shell station, following all the protocols, no hugging, no kissing, none of that "forbidden" stuff? It's basically the same thing, I guess. 🙄?

So, like, if you drive solo through Area A, you're safe from everyone and everything, right? But if you do that exact same thing in Area B or C where you actually need a permit—suddenly you're a danger to yourself and everybody else? Makes zero sense.

The only way this checkpoint makes any sense is if they're trying to trace where an outbreak started, but even that’s kinda iffy since the virus might already be floating around there asymptomatically anyway.

Everything's iffy, I guess. Look, I'm not some medical expert, so I won't sit here guessing how the virus spreads or what kills it instantly, even though we've all heard bits and pieces about it.

I'm not just arguing for the sake of arguing, hope that's clear. I get your point, I really do. It's just that I'm seeing these massive loopholes that nobody can explain, and nobody seems to be doing anything to fix them.

I'm done talking about these half-baked rules. We'll just have to see how things play out. Good luck to us all, especially with the next few months coming up.
Bryan Taylor6 Bryan Taylor6 Active Member
179 messages
joined Oct 2017
#1484 ·
vividranger8 said:I mean, if it’s actually true that they pumped out half a million passes, then the whole idea of these permits is basically just one big, giant joke.

And what else...
Matthew Jackson2 Matthew Jackson2 Active Member
146 messages
joined Jan 2016
#1485 ·
Lisa Chase3 said:Whatever. They should just settle up already, I guess. Just wrap it all up.

That’s exactly the point—if it doesn't exist, you gotta make it happen. If someone's thinking ten steps ahead, I’m already at twenty, or maybe even a hundred... just throwing out ideas, even if they're totally nuts or actually smart, whatever. Like, if some jerk tells you to jump out a window, you don't just do it because they said so. But if you come up with the idea yourself? That's a whole different story, I guess.

If people get a pass just because they checked some random boxes—some of which aren't even vital, like having a "merit" permit or knowing a guy—that's straight-up discrimination against everyone else. Plus, you're risking spreading the virus from one state to another since there’s zero proof anyone's actually clean. I mean, honestly, we gotta think about the big picture here instead of just patching holes.

off: Three Americans—one single party. The U.S.—countless counties, cities, towns, suburbs, little outposts... you get the idea. And every single one has its own "boss," plus deputies, plus assistants, plus assistants to the assistants, plus secretaries, plus deputy secretaries... all of them need a paycheck. They get their direct deposits like clockwork, plus holiday bonuses, New Year’s perks, Easter money, this benefit, that benefit... at least, that’s how it’s worked in plenty of places so far. I didn't just make up the term "make-work job"—there's always going to be some position created for the "well-connected" or the "loyal." There are all these agencies with names so long you can't even say them without reading them off a list, plus all these nonprofits... you just have to know whose pockets to line. Honestly, I’m surprised we haven't started putting checkpoints at state lines yet just to increase the bureaucratic bloat. Any resemblance to actual reality is purely coincidental, I guess.

Also, what's even the point? Like, does it actually matter if you drove to the next town over, hit up the county seat, or just popped down to the local CVS? I guess it's all the same, maybe. I mean, there are infected people and folks in quarantine in basically every county and most areas anyway. It’s not like someone’s gonna carry the virus to some place that hasn't seen it yet, since it's pretty much everywhere now. I guess the whole point is just to cut down on how many people we're bumping into... so maybe it's less risky to drive out to a farm halfway across the country than to walk to the corner store.

The Bolden part—that's exactly what I've been saying this whole time. Like, what's even the difference?

So, if you're driving through another state or maybe seeing someone from a distance for some "legit reasons"—keeping all the safety rules in check—what’s even the big deal? I mean, how is that any different from meeting someone who drove in from out of state to hit up a local grocery store or a Shell station, following all the protocols, no hugging, no kissing, none of that "forbidden" stuff? It's basically the same thing, I guess. 🙄?

So, like, if you drive solo through Area A, you're safe from everyone and everything, right? But if you do that exact same thing in Area B or C where you actually need a permit—suddenly you're a danger to yourself and everybody else? Makes zero sense.

The only way this checkpoint makes any sense is if they're trying to trace where an outbreak started, but even that’s kinda iffy since the virus might already be floating around there asymptomatically anyway.

Everything's iffy, I guess. Look, I'm not some medical expert, so I won't sit here guessing how the virus spreads or what kills it instantly, even though we've all heard bits and pieces about it.

I'm not just arguing for the sake of arguing, hope that's clear. I get your point, I really do. It's just that I'm seeing these massive loopholes that nobody can explain, and nobody seems to be doing anything to fix them.

I'm done talking about these half-baked rules. We'll just have to see how things play out. Good luck to us all, especially with the next few months coming up.

To be perfectly honest, I can't quite tell if you're actually pushing for tighter government oversight or if you're just advocating for basic non-discrimination and consistency in how rules are applied.

In any case, if one truly wanted to account for every single factor, the only logical solution would be a total, nationwide lockdown—the kind where only essential services remain active to triage critical cases and distribute food and medicine. But even then, we run right back into the same issue of fragmented thinking, because you still have to ask whether those very workers can actually maintain safety protocols without becoming super-spreaders themselves through constant contact with the public. Furthermore, while a concept like that might work for a localized outbreak of a disease with a short incubation period, it's frankly an impossible strategy when dealing with a global pandemic characterized by a long incubation window.

So, yes, we are forced to deal with some level of fragmentation. However, any such measures ought to be rooted in what yields the maximum impact with the absolute minimum of collateral damage, and in my estimation, this current measure has been a complete failure, especially given how it was rolled out—a sentiment I know is shared by many leading epidemiologists over in Europe.
Nicholas King Nicholas King Regular
716 messages
joined Jan 2023
#1486 ·
A question for the group.

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?
Melissa Collins3 Melissa Collins3 Member
36 messages
joined Mar 2020
#1487 ·
Matthew Jackson2 said:To be perfectly honest, I can't quite tell if you're actually pushing for tighter government oversight or if you're just advocating for basic non-discrimination and consistency in how rules are applied.

In any case, if one truly wanted to account for every single factor, the only logical solution would be a total, nationwide lockdown—the kind where only essential services remain active to triage critical cases and distribute food and medicine. But even then, we run right back into the same issue of fragmented thinking, because you still have to ask whether those very workers can actually maintain safety protocols without becoming super-spreaders themselves through constant contact with the public. Furthermore, while a concept like that might work for a localized outbreak of a disease with a short incubation period, it's frankly an impossible strategy when dealing with a global pandemic characterized by a long incubation window.

So, yes, we are forced to deal with some level of fragmentation. However, any such measures ought to be rooted in what yields the maximum impact with the absolute minimum of collateral damage, and in my estimation, this current measure has been a complete failure, especially given how it was rolled out—a sentiment I know is shared by many leading epidemiologists over in Europe.

But seriously, why even bother with all that logistics? There's absolutely no need to be out there delivering anything. We should just lock ourselves away with maybe 40 pounds of flour and a massive stack of toilet paper. Don't open the windows, don't step onto the porch. Give it a few months and that virus will definitely be gone. If someone doesn't make it through the interim, well, that's on them—they clearly didn't stock up on enough flour. And if they don't survive after that? Honestly, what can you do? At least the virus is dead. We can just do it all over again come autumn.

Is anyone here actually thinking straight?

Back in 2020, in a supposedly democratic nation, we were practically writing formal petitions just to be (re)permitted to buy groceries, to drop off food for struggling parents, to show up for work, or to pick up prescriptions at the pharmacy... It feels like the virus ended up being one of our smaller concerns along the way..
rustywalker42 rustywalker42 Active MemberOP
244 messages
joined Oct 2012
#1488 ·
Mark Rodriguez11 said:Is anyone actually going to step up and tear down this kind of anti-freedom nonsense once and for all? It’s honestly wild how they’re stripping away basic rights based on nothing but sketchy assumptions. It’s always the same old story: "Someone MIGHT get sick," or "It MIGHT be this," or "It MIGHT be that." So, what's the solution? Just throw people in jail because there's a tiny chance they did something wrong, and if it turns out they didn't, oh well—we'll just call it preventative measures. It’s genuinely terrifying to watch. I really don't get how people aren't seeing this blatant dictatorship and the total disregard for civil liberties, and why nobody is standing up against it. Everyone just sits there, playing the submissive little mouse, following every single command handed down by the top brass and whatever self-appointed experts think they know everything. Honestly, it’s embarrassing to see these kinds of insane ideas being treated as normal.

Nope. Not happening. Americans love an iron fist.

vividranger8 said:I mean, if it’s actually true that they pumped out half a million passes, then the whole idea of these permits is basically just one big, giant joke.

Total joke. Just like the entire way the government handled the COVID crisis.

Nicholas King said:A question for the group.

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?

Who actually bought those numbers? We know the real count. The police stopped and sent back at least 1,500 people from the city that day. Maybe some people avoided the main highways and slipped through, but I doubt the number is even over 1,000.
Matthew Jackson2 Matthew Jackson2 Active Member
146 messages
joined Jan 2016
#1489 ·
Melissa Collins3 said:But seriously, why even bother with all that logistics? There's absolutely no need to be out there delivering anything. We should just lock ourselves away with maybe 40 pounds of flour and a massive stack of toilet paper. Don't open the windows, don't step onto the porch. Give it a few months and that virus will definitely be gone. If someone doesn't make it through the interim, well, that's on them—they clearly didn't stock up on enough flour. And if they don't survive after that? Honestly, what can you do? At least the virus is dead. We can just do it all over again come autumn.

Is anyone here actually thinking straight?

Back in 2020, in a supposedly democratic nation, we were practically writing formal petitions just to be (re)permitted to buy groceries, to drop off food for struggling parents, to show up for work, or to pick up prescriptions at the pharmacy... It feels like the virus ended up being one of our smaller concerns along the way..

Look, if you had bothered to read even one sentence past that opening line, you probably wouldn't feel the need to post such a sarcastic rebuttal, though I have to admit, I actually quite enjoy the writing style. 😁
Lawrence Reed3 Lawrence Reed3 Active Member
141 messages
joined Dec 2021
#1490 ·
Finally, something that actually makes sense!
https://www.nytimes.com/article/life-and-style-news-updates-daily
Joshua Gray75 Joshua Gray75 Active Member
92 messages
joined Oct 2013
#1491 ·
Lawrence Reed3 said:Finally, something that actually makes sense!
https://www.nytimes.com/article/life-and-style-news-updates-daily

But what does this actually look like in practice—and more importantly, who does it affect? I mean, which specific townships or municipalities are we talking about merging here? Is it based on total land area, population density, or perhaps even infection rates from recent health crises? Is this just some preliminary announcement to stir the pot... or has something definitive already been drafted somewhere in the bureaucracy?
Edward Fisher86 Edward Fisher86 Active Member
73 messages
joined Nov 2008
#1492 ·
Consider this an official notice that I am now open to taking suggestions directly from the field.
Joshua Gray75 Joshua Gray75 Active Member
92 messages
joined Oct 2013
#1493 ·
Edward Fisher86 said:Consider this an official notice that I am now open to taking suggestions directly from the field.

Or perhaps just suggestions from this forum... 😁

Just look at my previous post:

http://www.forum.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=1717

It is almost as if this entire announcement—this whole gesture—was merely a response to it...

Well... I suppose I chose the wrong career path. I really should have gone into politics...
Jessica Booth48 Jessica Booth48 Newcomer
6 messages
joined Mar 2020
#1494 ·
Joshua Gray75 said:But what does this actually look like in practice—and more importantly, who does it affect? I mean, which specific townships or municipalities are we talking about merging here? Is it based on total land area, population density, or perhaps even infection rates from recent health crises? Is this just some preliminary announcement to stir the pot... or has something definitive already been drafted somewhere in the bureaucracy?

It’s official for the local district... they should have handled this from the start. Now they're finally acting smart instead of playing games.
http://https://www.localgovernment.gov/news/district-announcement-8081
electrichound22 electrichound22 Member
11 messages
joined Mar 2020
#1495 ·
Word on the street is they’re planning to consolidate the neighboring municipalities so we won't need those damn permits anymore. Honestly? That's actually decent news for the region today.
Joshua Gray75 Joshua Gray75 Active Member
92 messages
joined Oct 2013
#1496 ·
Jessica Booth48 said:It’s official for the local district... they should have handled this from the start. Now they're finally acting smart instead of playing games.
http://https://www.localgovernment.gov/news/district-announcement-8081

I can't seem to get that link to load... but regardless—I truly hope they expand this to the rest of the country soon... and perhaps finally allow for seamless movement within the old municipal boundaries...
Edward Fisher86 Edward Fisher86 Active Member
73 messages
joined Nov 2008
#1497 ·
Joshua Gray75 said:Or perhaps just suggestions from this forum... 😁

Just look at my previous post:

http://www.forum.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=1717

It is almost as if this entire announcement—this whole gesture—was merely a response to it...

Well... I suppose I chose the wrong career path. I really should have gone into politics...

Actually, it came straight from the field, because people were already making those demands before you even posted😁. Some were practically shouting them the second the new measures were introduced.
fadedbear92 fadedbear92 Veteran
1.1K messages
joined Dec 2008
#1498 ·
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!
silentskipper3 silentskipper3 Member
49 messages
joined Jan 2017
#1499 ·
I suppose some of these "locals" actually have proof they aren't positive, though it’s only a few of them. A handful might even have the paperwork—employer certifications or official notices specifying the exact date they're required to return to the States.
Nicholas King Nicholas King Regular
716 messages
joined Jan 2023
#1500 ·
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!!!

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads