Curfew restrictions: Is it legal to leave your house?

Jerry Robinson56 said:Turn off the engine and actually use your brain for once...
Travel restrictions have been an established concept since the days of the early American colonies.

Do you have a link?
It should be obvious to you that there is no alternative—it is either quarantine or nothing (and a quarantine offers a wide array of measures; it isn't necessarily "total").

Your inability to comprehend this only confirms the stupidity, though certainly not the kind you are implying... It is the classic affliction of intelligent people who fail to realize that others exist who are even more capable, and the unbearable arrogance of their own assumptions ...

Quite the opposite; I am referring to the sheer incompetence of the local residents who were unable to come to an agreement.
Perhaps you could actually step up and assist your local municipality once you identify the core issue. But then again, complaining from the sidelines is certainly the path of least resistance, isn't it?

It relies on conscience and moral awareness... a fact you seem to have grasped. But tell me, how would you handle those lacking a conscience? I would personally suggest rehab for the senseless, and perhaps some serious re-education for the unprincipled.
It is a far cry from a civilized society when people must be taught to value their responsibilities only upon their return...
What is your approach?
Though, I suspect many would remain dissatisfied with such solutions, wouldn't they?

P.S. Attempting to manufacture things with a 3D printer is a significantly greater folly... surely you haven't missed that?

Look, when I actually use my brain, I realize that those quarantine measures used to be a legit solution (at least at first, anyway). But this whole "stay at home" rule being applied to absolute morons is just pure stupidity...
If we had actually implemented a real 40-day quarantine for everyone entering the country like they did back then, we probably wouldn't even have this virus right now.

On the other hand, this current ban—with its million different loopholes—is sheer idiocy. Back in the day, you didn't have 700 different tiny counties inside the Republic, and you didn't have scammers handing out fake permits. You didn't get special passes after 15, 20, or 30 days, let alone on day one. You stayed in quarantine for the full 40 days, period. No exceptions because "it's Easter, so the virus doesn't matter for five days." 🙂

So, if you actually bother to think about it, you'll see why I don't buy the idea that these little paper permits are what's stopping the virus. It's obvious to me, even if it isn't to you...

stormybadger8 said:Look, when I actually use my brain, I realize that those quarantine measures used to be a legit solution (at least at first, anyway). But this whole "stay at home" rule being applied to absolute morons is just pure stupidity...
If we had actually implemented a real 40-day quarantine for everyone entering the country like they did back then, we probably wouldn't even have this virus right now.

On the other hand, this current ban—with its million different loopholes—is sheer idiocy. Back in the day, you didn't have 700 different tiny counties inside the Republic, and you didn't have scammers handing out fake permits. You didn't get special passes after 15, 20, or 30 days, let alone on day one. You stayed in quarantine for the full 40 days, period. No exceptions because "it's Easter, so the virus doesn't matter for five days." 🙂

So, if you actually bother to think about it, you'll see why I don't buy the idea that these little paper permits are what's stopping the virus. It's obvious to me, even if it isn't to you...

How exactly is a "ban," which isn't even a ban, but rather a controlled measure, considered idiocy?
You need to grasp that you are potentially a danger to others, yet you are acting as if you are the only one who matters. It’s like driving at 130 mph on a highway and claiming, "Well, I always drive like this," right before the crash...
Do you still fail to understand the objective here? It is about isolating the outbreaks.
I doubt such a rigorous form of quarantine would have been feasible today, given that there are high-level professional responsibilities requiring travel... naturally, there is a 14-day period upon return... but still.

stormybadger8 said:Look, when I actually use my brain, I realize that those quarantine measures used to be a legit solution (at least at first, anyway). But this whole "stay at home" rule being applied to absolute morons is just pure stupidity...
If we had actually implemented a real 40-day quarantine for everyone entering the country like they did back then, we probably wouldn't even have this virus right now.

On the other hand, this current ban—with its million different loopholes—is sheer idiocy. Back in the day, you didn't have 700 different tiny counties inside the Republic, and you didn't have scammers handing out fake permits. You didn't get special passes after 15, 20, or 30 days, let alone on day one. You stayed in quarantine for the full 40 days, period. No exceptions because "it's Easter, so the virus doesn't matter for five days." 🙂

So, if you actually bother to think about it, you'll see why I don't buy the idea that these little paper permits are what's stopping the virus. It's obvious to me, even if it isn't to you...

Quarantine has nothing to do with those historical maritime republics in the way you are presenting it. Such practices were utilized in parts of Africa for centuries before the concept of modern order took hold, often involving the burning of the infected along with their entire village... The infected were not permitted to leave their huts, thus preventing them from spreading the contagion to others.
The historical examples serve only to demonstrate that isolation is the only reliable measure. We still know very little about this virus, and it is referenced as being among the most dangerous pathogens when it reaches an unprepared location.
At least, that is how it is being framed.

stormybadger8 said:Look, when I actually use my brain, I realize that those quarantine measures used to be a legit solution (at least at first, anyway). But this whole "stay at home" rule being applied to absolute morons is just pure stupidity...
If we had actually implemented a real 40-day quarantine for everyone entering the country like they did back then, we probably wouldn't even have this virus right now.

On the other hand, this current ban—with its million different loopholes—is sheer idiocy. Back in the day, you didn't have 700 different tiny counties inside the Republic, and you didn't have scammers handing out fake permits. You didn't get special passes after 15, 20, or 30 days, let alone on day one. You stayed in quarantine for the full 40 days, period. No exceptions because "it's Easter, so the virus doesn't matter for five days." 🙂

So, if you actually bother to think about it, you'll see why I don't buy the idea that these little paper permits are what's stopping the virus. It's obvious to me, even if it isn't to you...

This merely highlights your lack of civility. A pass does not prevent the spread— where on earth did I write or even imply that it was a "cure"? .. you are trivializing my position through your own projections and words.
... a pass functions like a manifest on a shipping vessel... it ensures information is received, so they don't have to call stations for verification, and so on...
If one were to inquire about the coffee machine or the instant thermometer $17 — let's say, from a place like Walmart... you might struggle with the sensor whether you use the pass or not when the LCD fails to glow green 😁 .. I am merely jesting ..
In all seriousness, do try to be reasonable and accept that the deficiency lies within yourself rather than the system.
One need only observe the current state of affairs these days ...

James Phillips92 said:I'm with you on this—it was a failed strategy.

There is no doubt in my mind that he would offer his services to engineer a final solution through various adaptations... 😁

Jerry Robinson56 said:How exactly is a "ban," which isn't even a ban, but rather a controlled measure, considered idiocy?
You need to grasp that you are potentially a danger to others, yet you are acting as if you are the only one who matters. It’s like driving at 130 mph on a highway and claiming, "Well, I always drive like this," right before the crash...
Do you still fail to understand the objective here? It is about isolating the outbreaks.
I doubt such a rigorous form of quarantine would have been feasible today, given that there are high-level professional responsibilities requiring travel... naturally, there is a 14-day period upon return... but still.

Quarantine has nothing to do with those historical maritime republics in the way you are presenting it. Such practices were utilized in parts of Africa for centuries before the concept of modern order took hold, often involving the burning of the infected along with their entire village... The infected were not permitted to leave their huts, thus preventing them from spreading the contagion to others.
The historical examples serve only to demonstrate that isolation is the only reliable measure. We still know very little about this virus, and it is referenced as being among the most dangerous pathogens when it reaches an unprepared location.
At least, that is how it is being framed.

This merely highlights your lack of civility. A pass does not prevent the spread— where on earth did I write or even imply that it was a "cure"? .. you are trivializing my position through your own projections and words.
... a pass functions like a manifest on a shipping vessel... it ensures information is received, so they don't have to call stations for verification, and so on...
If one were to inquire about the coffee machine or the instant thermometer $17 — let's say, from a place like Walmart... you might struggle with the sensor whether you use the pass or not when the LCD fails to glow green 😁 .. I am merely jesting ..
In all seriousness, do try to be reasonable and accept that the deficiency lies within yourself rather than the system.
One need only observe the current state of affairs these days ...

Actually, the problem is entirely within the system—this ridiculous fragmentation into tiny towns and little isolated pockets where you can't even budge 1.9 miles from your house without a pass just to maintain some semblance of a normal life, unlike people in major cities who can wander miles without needing permission. People aren't looking for grand adventures; they're just trying to function as normally as today's circumstances allow. But hey... it's easy to sit there and judge everyone else, isn't it?

Matthew Jackson2 As stated by:
I suppose I should exercise caution here, but I find myself agreeing with your premise. You seem to be suggesting that I ought to present an alternative perspective—implying that, despite my reservations, their performance remains fundamentally sound. To be perfectly honest, I have absolutely nothing to add to that.

When I offer criticism, I make sure to provide both a valid argument and a viable solution. From what I can gather, you seem content to offer nothing but complaints. Every time I attempt to extract the core of your position, all I find is pure selfishness. Just look at how they are treating me.
Wouldn't it be preferable if things weren't conducted this way? It truly would. Economics is nothing more than a grand deception—a series of backroom deals masquerading as science.
The capital hasn't actually vanished; it’s just that the gears have stopped turning. Money is still out there, sitting stagnant, refusing to circulate through the economy like it ought to.

Matthew Jackson2 As stated by:
I consider myself a conscientious individual, truly. I try to play by the rules. But if I maintain this level of compliance for one week, then two, then three—all while the situation deteriorates and the mandates become increasingly draconian—at what point do I finally snap? At what point do I simply say, "To hell with you all; I refuse to be the only fool left following these absurdities"? Perhaps it won't be me personally, but surely at least ten percent of the population will reach that breaking point. The situation has spiraled completely out of control.

That was a rather eloquent description you provided. However, one has to consider the implications: imagine if someone like that were to infect a member of your own family... simply because it’s easy, or perhaps just because they felt like it. What exactly would be the problem then?
I find myself agreeing with one particular sentiment expressed in this discussion. Those pedophile priests should be immediately shipped off to Manhattan Island without a second thought—let them go tend to sheep instead. This applies to all those self-righteous believers who continue to support them as well.

Matthew Jackson2 said:I suppose I should tread carefully here, but you seem to be under the impression that I’m looking for an alternative—as if my only grievance is that I haven't provided a better way of doing things while simultaneously acknowledging they actually do a decent job. Honestly, I find myself at a complete loss for words; I truly have nothing to add to that particular line of reasoning.

Look, I consider myself a reasonable man—a level-headed individual who understands the need for order—but there comes a point where patience isn't just tested, it’s systematically dismantled. If I spend the first week being cooperative, then the second week trying to play by the rules, and by the third week I see the situation spiraling further into chaos while the restrictions only get more draconian and suffocating, what exactly am I supposed to do? At what precise moment am I expected to simply snap? I mean, I can sit here and be the only one following every single arbitrary mandate, but eventually, I’m going to reach a breaking point where I just want to yell, "To hell with all of you, I refuse to be the only sane person left in this circus." Maybe I won't be the one to lose my cool, but let’s be realistic: when things get this out of hand, at least ten percent of the population is going to hit that wall and finally push back. This whole thing has completely spun out of control.

The only other way this plays out is if people finally decide to stop waiting for permission and start taking matters into their own hands by carving out their own version of justice—and honestly, if that happens, this whole damn pandemic situation starts looking like a much smaller problem than what we're actually facing.

If the Secretary of Homeland Security can't guarantee that officers on the ground are actually following protocol, or if the Secretary of Health and Human Services can't ensure that an ER isn't turning away someone in desperate need of life-saving care, then we have reached a point where they’ve completely lost their grip on the very systems they claim to oversee. It’s a fundamental breakdown of leadership. In any other professional setting—and I mean really high-stakes environments like a major hospital administration or even a large corporate firm here in the States—you don't just sit by when things go sideways; you resign. You step down because the responsibility rests at the top. During a crisis, that internal accountability shouldn't just be a suggestion; it should be the absolute bedrock of how we function. When a failure occurs, the immediate supervisor has to act instantly. If they fail to act, their superior is obligated to step in and course-correct immediately. But if that entire chain of command remains paralyzed, if this systemic refusal to respond trickles all the way up to the Cabinet level, then the conversation is effectively over. At that stage, there is no longer a functioning government to debate with, because the leadership has essentially abdicated its duty.

I mean, sure, if you're talking about the islands, there's a certain logic to it—especially those spots that get completely cut off from the mainland when a massive storm rolls in off the coast—but honestly, everyone else in the region is just going to gravitate toward the four major medical hubs anyway.

Let them try. If they are truly convinced that the state has failed in its fundamental duty to protect both their physical and mental well-being, then taking action is their prerogative. It is their right.

Matthew Jackson2 said:I suppose I should tread carefully here, but you seem to be under the impression that I’m looking for an alternative—as if my only grievance is that I haven't provided a better way of doing things while simultaneously acknowledging they actually do a decent job. Honestly, I find myself at a complete loss for words; I truly have nothing to add to that particular line of reasoning.

Look, I consider myself a reasonable man—a level-headed individual who understands the need for order—but there comes a point where patience isn't just tested, it’s systematically dismantled. If I spend the first week being cooperative, then the second week trying to play by the rules, and by the third week I see the situation spiraling further into chaos while the restrictions only get more draconian and suffocating, what exactly am I supposed to do? At what precise moment am I expected to simply snap? I mean, I can sit here and be the only one following every single arbitrary mandate, but eventually, I’m going to reach a breaking point where I just want to yell, "To hell with all of you, I refuse to be the only sane person left in this circus." Maybe I won't be the one to lose my cool, but let’s be realistic: when things get this out of hand, at least ten percent of the population is going to hit that wall and finally push back. This whole thing has completely spun out of control.

The only other way this plays out is if people finally decide to stop waiting for permission and start taking matters into their own hands by carving out their own version of justice—and honestly, if that happens, this whole damn pandemic situation starts looking like a much smaller problem than what we're actually facing.

If the Secretary of Homeland Security can't guarantee that officers on the ground are actually following protocol, or if the Secretary of Health and Human Services can't ensure that an ER isn't turning away someone in desperate need of life-saving care, then we have reached a point where they’ve completely lost their grip on the very systems they claim to oversee. It’s a fundamental breakdown of leadership. In any other professional setting—and I mean really high-stakes environments like a major hospital administration or even a large corporate firm here in the States—you don't just sit by when things go sideways; you resign. You step down because the responsibility rests at the top. During a crisis, that internal accountability shouldn't just be a suggestion; it should be the absolute bedrock of how we function. When a failure occurs, the immediate supervisor has to act instantly. If they fail to act, their superior is obligated to step in and course-correct immediately. But if that entire chain of command remains paralyzed, if this systemic refusal to respond trickles all the way up to the Cabinet level, then the conversation is effectively over. At that stage, there is no longer a functioning government to debate with, because the leadership has essentially abdicated its duty.

I mean, sure, if you're talking about the islands, there's a certain logic to it—especially those spots that get completely cut off from the mainland when a massive storm rolls in off the coast—but honestly, everyone else in the region is just going to gravitate toward the four major medical hubs anyway.

That particular branch of the system is absolutely crawling with incompetents, and I find myself in complete agreement with your assessment. Tell me, did you cast your vote for the Republican Party or the Democratic Party? If you did, then frankly, you’ve come to your senses far too late. Given the state of our presidency, we should simply be grateful that we are still drawing breath.

Matthew Jackson2 said:I suppose I should tread carefully here, but you seem to be under the impression that I’m looking for an alternative—as if my only grievance is that I haven't provided a better way of doing things while simultaneously acknowledging they actually do a decent job. Honestly, I find myself at a complete loss for words; I truly have nothing to add to that particular line of reasoning.

Look, I consider myself a reasonable man—a level-headed individual who understands the need for order—but there comes a point where patience isn't just tested, it’s systematically dismantled. If I spend the first week being cooperative, then the second week trying to play by the rules, and by the third week I see the situation spiraling further into chaos while the restrictions only get more draconian and suffocating, what exactly am I supposed to do? At what precise moment am I expected to simply snap? I mean, I can sit here and be the only one following every single arbitrary mandate, but eventually, I’m going to reach a breaking point where I just want to yell, "To hell with all of you, I refuse to be the only sane person left in this circus." Maybe I won't be the one to lose my cool, but let’s be realistic: when things get this out of hand, at least ten percent of the population is going to hit that wall and finally push back. This whole thing has completely spun out of control.

The only other way this plays out is if people finally decide to stop waiting for permission and start taking matters into their own hands by carving out their own version of justice—and honestly, if that happens, this whole damn pandemic situation starts looking like a much smaller problem than what we're actually facing.

If the Secretary of Homeland Security can't guarantee that officers on the ground are actually following protocol, or if the Secretary of Health and Human Services can't ensure that an ER isn't turning away someone in desperate need of life-saving care, then we have reached a point where they’ve completely lost their grip on the very systems they claim to oversee. It’s a fundamental breakdown of leadership. In any other professional setting—and I mean really high-stakes environments like a major hospital administration or even a large corporate firm here in the States—you don't just sit by when things go sideways; you resign. You step down because the responsibility rests at the top. During a crisis, that internal accountability shouldn't just be a suggestion; it should be the absolute bedrock of how we function. When a failure occurs, the immediate supervisor has to act instantly. If they fail to act, their superior is obligated to step in and course-correct immediately. But if that entire chain of command remains paralyzed, if this systemic refusal to respond trickles all the way up to the Cabinet level, then the conversation is effectively over. At that stage, there is no longer a functioning government to debate with, because the leadership has essentially abdicated its duty.

I mean, sure, if you're talking about the islands, there's a certain logic to it—especially those spots that get completely cut off from the mainland when a massive storm rolls in off the coast—but honestly, everyone else in the region is just going to gravitate toward the four major medical hubs anyway.

Things could certainly be organized more efficiently, but if you find yourself lacking the necessary personnel, you might as well just take a photo. Given the current circumstances, I would argue that using the term "speaking" in this context is perfectly acceptable.

Tyler Vaughn7 said:Actually, the problem is entirely within the system—this ridiculous fragmentation into tiny towns and little isolated pockets where you can't even budge 1.9 miles from your house without a pass just to maintain some semblance of a normal life, unlike people in major cities who can wander miles without needing permission. People aren't looking for grand adventures; they're just trying to function as normally as today's circumstances allow. But hey... it's easy to sit there and judge everyone else, isn't it?

In that light, yes, anomalies are an inevitable constant, and any high-level overview can only offer generalizations. Unfortunately, the rigid hierarchies found in law enforcement, medicine, education, and so on... they stifle intelligence and halt progress by dismissing any genuine initiative. I encounter this firsthand in my professional life every single day. You have to realize that systems are sustained by good people. That is the only way a system survives and evolves.
One must undergo the process of burning out and rising again more times than a phoenix just to prove a point.
Therefore, you must advocate for necessary changes at your own level, while remaining mindful not to compromise others. If the precinct captains or deputies are reasonable individuals, they possess the discretionary authority to exercise common sense in their enforcement. A solution can always be engineered, regardless of how insurmountable the obstacle appears.
Someone articulated it well: the Republican Party is directly responsible (utilizing artificial divisions to consolidate power) for all the, forgive me, nonsense we've had to endure, whereas the Democratic Party serves as the accelerator and the innovator.

How exactly is the Democratic Party an accelerator and an innovator?

Because the Republican Party is the one responsible for the way our cities and towns are divided up today.

Jerry Robinson56 said:

Matthew Jackson2 As stated by:
I suppose I should exercise caution here, but I find myself agreeing with your premise. You seem to be suggesting that I ought to present an alternative perspective—implying that, despite my reservations, their performance remains fundamentally sound. To be perfectly honest, I have absolutely nothing to add to that.

When I offer criticism, I make sure to provide both a valid argument and a viable solution. From what I can gather, you seem content to offer nothing but complaints. Every time I attempt to extract the core of your position, all I find is pure selfishness. Just look at how they are treating me.
Wouldn't it be preferable if things weren't conducted this way? It truly would. Economics is nothing more than a grand deception—a series of backroom deals masquerading as science.
The capital hasn't actually vanished; it’s just that the gears have stopped turning. Money is still out there, sitting stagnant, refusing to circulate through the economy like it ought to.

Matthew Jackson2 As stated by:
I consider myself a conscientious individual, truly. I try to play by the rules. But if I maintain this level of compliance for one week, then two, then three—all while the situation deteriorates and the mandates become increasingly draconian—at what point do I finally snap? At what point do I simply say, "To hell with you all; I refuse to be the only fool left following these absurdities"? Perhaps it won't be me personally, but surely at least ten percent of the population will reach that breaking point. The situation has spiraled completely out of control.

That was a rather eloquent description you provided. However, one has to consider the implications: imagine if someone like that were to infect a member of your own family... simply because it’s easy, or perhaps just because they felt like it. What exactly would be the problem then?
I find myself agreeing with one particular sentiment expressed in this discussion. Those pedophile priests should be immediately shipped off to Manhattan Island without a second thought—let them go tend to sheep instead. This applies to all those self-righteous believers who continue to support them as well.

Let them try. If they are truly convinced that the state has failed in its fundamental duty to protect both their physical and mental well-being, then taking action is their prerogative. It is their right.

That particular branch of the system is absolutely crawling with incompetents, and I find myself in complete agreement with your assessment. Tell me, did you cast your vote for the Republican Party or the Democratic Party? If you did, then frankly, you’ve come to your senses far too late. Given the state of our presidency, we should simply be grateful that we are still drawing breath.

Things could certainly be organized more efficiently, but if you find yourself lacking the necessary personnel, you might as well just take a photo. Given the current circumstances, I would argue that using the term "speaking" in this context is perfectly acceptable.

Look, when I am actually being paid to find solutions, then you can come at me and claim I’m failing to provide them, or that my solutions aren't up to par—in fact, you'd not only have the right, but the literal obligation to criticize me if you felt I wasn't doing the job I was hired for. But currently, we have people who *are* being paid specifically for that purpose, individuals who implement measures that I see as highly questionable; meanwhile, they dance around the law, claiming they aren't breaking any rules, and then they go about changing the laws just so they can pretend they aren't violating the ones they supposedly followed. It's all a performance to make it look like they are the ones saving the country, ensuring the opposition can't hold them accountable or, Heaven forbid, take credit for the success.

Besides, I've actually written down several proposals myself, but what good does that do?

Jerry Robinson56 said:

Matthew Jackson2 As stated by:
I suppose I should exercise caution here, but I find myself agreeing with your premise. You seem to be suggesting that I ought to present an alternative perspective—implying that, despite my reservations, their performance remains fundamentally sound. To be perfectly honest, I have absolutely nothing to add to that.

When I offer criticism, I make sure to provide both a valid argument and a viable solution. From what I can gather, you seem content to offer nothing but complaints. Every time I attempt to extract the core of your position, all I find is pure selfishness. Just look at how they are treating me.
Wouldn't it be preferable if things weren't conducted this way? It truly would. Economics is nothing more than a grand deception—a series of backroom deals masquerading as science.
The capital hasn't actually vanished; it’s just that the gears have stopped turning. Money is still out there, sitting stagnant, refusing to circulate through the economy like it ought to.

Matthew Jackson2 As stated by:
I consider myself a conscientious individual, truly. I try to play by the rules. But if I maintain this level of compliance for one week, then two, then three—all while the situation deteriorates and the mandates become increasingly draconian—at what point do I finally snap? At what point do I simply say, "To hell with you all; I refuse to be the only fool left following these absurdities"? Perhaps it won't be me personally, but surely at least ten percent of the population will reach that breaking point. The situation has spiraled completely out of control.

That was a rather eloquent description you provided. However, one has to consider the implications: imagine if someone like that were to infect a member of your own family... simply because it’s easy, or perhaps just because they felt like it. What exactly would be the problem then?
I find myself agreeing with one particular sentiment expressed in this discussion. Those pedophile priests should be immediately shipped off to Manhattan Island without a second thought—let them go tend to sheep instead. This applies to all those self-righteous believers who continue to support them as well.

Let them try. If they are truly convinced that the state has failed in its fundamental duty to protect both their physical and mental well-being, then taking action is their prerogative. It is their right.

That particular branch of the system is absolutely crawling with incompetents, and I find myself in complete agreement with your assessment. Tell me, did you cast your vote for the Republican Party or the Democratic Party? If you did, then frankly, you’ve come to your senses far too late. Given the state of our presidency, we should simply be grateful that we are still drawing breath.

Things could certainly be organized more efficiently, but if you find yourself lacking the necessary personnel, you might as well just take a photo. Given the current circumstances, I would argue that using the term "speaking" in this context is perfectly acceptable.

That says more about you than it does about me—you're operating from a standpoint of total polarization, where anyone who doesn't agree with you is automatically cast into the opposing camp. If I believe certain measures aren't well-designed, or that they result in less efficacy while placing a heavier burden on the economy and wasting more resources, is it really your contention that I must also believe all measures should be abolished entirely?

Jerry Robinson56 said:

Matthew Jackson2 As stated by:
I suppose I should exercise caution here, but I find myself agreeing with your premise. You seem to be suggesting that I ought to present an alternative perspective—implying that, despite my reservations, their performance remains fundamentally sound. To be perfectly honest, I have absolutely nothing to add to that.

When I offer criticism, I make sure to provide both a valid argument and a viable solution. From what I can gather, you seem content to offer nothing but complaints. Every time I attempt to extract the core of your position, all I find is pure selfishness. Just look at how they are treating me.
Wouldn't it be preferable if things weren't conducted this way? It truly would. Economics is nothing more than a grand deception—a series of backroom deals masquerading as science.
The capital hasn't actually vanished; it’s just that the gears have stopped turning. Money is still out there, sitting stagnant, refusing to circulate through the economy like it ought to.

Matthew Jackson2 As stated by:
I consider myself a conscientious individual, truly. I try to play by the rules. But if I maintain this level of compliance for one week, then two, then three—all while the situation deteriorates and the mandates become increasingly draconian—at what point do I finally snap? At what point do I simply say, "To hell with you all; I refuse to be the only fool left following these absurdities"? Perhaps it won't be me personally, but surely at least ten percent of the population will reach that breaking point. The situation has spiraled completely out of control.

That was a rather eloquent description you provided. However, one has to consider the implications: imagine if someone like that were to infect a member of your own family... simply because it’s easy, or perhaps just because they felt like it. What exactly would be the problem then?
I find myself agreeing with one particular sentiment expressed in this discussion. Those pedophile priests should be immediately shipped off to Manhattan Island without a second thought—let them go tend to sheep instead. This applies to all those self-righteous believers who continue to support them as well.

Let them try. If they are truly convinced that the state has failed in its fundamental duty to protect both their physical and mental well-being, then taking action is their prerogative. It is their right.

That particular branch of the system is absolutely crawling with incompetents, and I find myself in complete agreement with your assessment. Tell me, did you cast your vote for the Republican Party or the Democratic Party? If you did, then frankly, you’ve come to your senses far too late. Given the state of our presidency, we should simply be grateful that we are still drawing breath.

Things could certainly be organized more efficiently, but if you find yourself lacking the necessary personnel, you might as well just take a photo. Given the current circumstances, I would argue that using the term "speaking" in this context is perfectly acceptable.

Once again, you're missing the point entirely. Policy measures have to account for every angle. A measure that might be epidemiologically perfect is a bad measure if it's impossible to implement in practice. If the infection of a certain number of people is a statistical certainty, then that is something that must be factored into the decision-making process—something we should strive to avoid, or if it can't be avoided, something we must work to minimize the fallout from. Whether or not the person who gets sick happens to live next door to me, whether they threaten my own family, and whether I personally blame them in that moment is a matter of my own perspective; however, whether or not the leadership accounts for the fact that such cases are inevitable is a direct reflection of the quality of their management.

Jerry Robinson56 said:

Matthew Jackson2 As stated by:
I suppose I should exercise caution here, but I find myself agreeing with your premise. You seem to be suggesting that I ought to present an alternative perspective—implying that, despite my reservations, their performance remains fundamentally sound. To be perfectly honest, I have absolutely nothing to add to that.

When I offer criticism, I make sure to provide both a valid argument and a viable solution. From what I can gather, you seem content to offer nothing but complaints. Every time I attempt to extract the core of your position, all I find is pure selfishness. Just look at how they are treating me.
Wouldn't it be preferable if things weren't conducted this way? It truly would. Economics is nothing more than a grand deception—a series of backroom deals masquerading as science.
The capital hasn't actually vanished; it’s just that the gears have stopped turning. Money is still out there, sitting stagnant, refusing to circulate through the economy like it ought to.

Matthew Jackson2 As stated by:
I consider myself a conscientious individual, truly. I try to play by the rules. But if I maintain this level of compliance for one week, then two, then three—all while the situation deteriorates and the mandates become increasingly draconian—at what point do I finally snap? At what point do I simply say, "To hell with you all; I refuse to be the only fool left following these absurdities"? Perhaps it won't be me personally, but surely at least ten percent of the population will reach that breaking point. The situation has spiraled completely out of control.

That was a rather eloquent description you provided. However, one has to consider the implications: imagine if someone like that were to infect a member of your own family... simply because it’s easy, or perhaps just because they felt like it. What exactly would be the problem then?
I find myself agreeing with one particular sentiment expressed in this discussion. Those pedophile priests should be immediately shipped off to Manhattan Island without a second thought—let them go tend to sheep instead. This applies to all those self-righteous believers who continue to support them as well.

Let them try. If they are truly convinced that the state has failed in its fundamental duty to protect both their physical and mental well-being, then taking action is their prerogative. It is their right.

That particular branch of the system is absolutely crawling with incompetents, and I find myself in complete agreement with your assessment. Tell me, did you cast your vote for the Republican Party or the Democratic Party? If you did, then frankly, you’ve come to your senses far too late. Given the state of our presidency, we should simply be grateful that we are still drawing breath.

Things could certainly be organized more efficiently, but if you find yourself lacking the necessary personnel, you might as well just take a photo. Given the current circumstances, I would argue that using the term "speaking" in this context is perfectly acceptable.

And I suppose you’d apply that same logic to the conspiracy theorist who’s convinced the threat is just a fabrication designed by the establishment to keep him housebound? Does he feel the state isn't protecting him, thus giving him the right to wander out? Or how about that absolute moron who started hurlng stones at women walking their dogs from a high-rise balcony—mind you, the guy actually had to lug those rocks up to the balcony first! Or should we talk about the Taliban, who are so certain doctors are coming to sterilize them rather than vaccinate them against infectious diseases that they end up killing the medics instead?

Your statement is deeply unsettling, frankly.

Jerry Robinson56 said:

Matthew Jackson2 As stated by:
I suppose I should exercise caution here, but I find myself agreeing with your premise. You seem to be suggesting that I ought to present an alternative perspective—implying that, despite my reservations, their performance remains fundamentally sound. To be perfectly honest, I have absolutely nothing to add to that.

When I offer criticism, I make sure to provide both a valid argument and a viable solution. From what I can gather, you seem content to offer nothing but complaints. Every time I attempt to extract the core of your position, all I find is pure selfishness. Just look at how they are treating me.
Wouldn't it be preferable if things weren't conducted this way? It truly would. Economics is nothing more than a grand deception—a series of backroom deals masquerading as science.
The capital hasn't actually vanished; it’s just that the gears have stopped turning. Money is still out there, sitting stagnant, refusing to circulate through the economy like it ought to.

Matthew Jackson2 As stated by:
I consider myself a conscientious individual, truly. I try to play by the rules. But if I maintain this level of compliance for one week, then two, then three—all while the situation deteriorates and the mandates become increasingly draconian—at what point do I finally snap? At what point do I simply say, "To hell with you all; I refuse to be the only fool left following these absurdities"? Perhaps it won't be me personally, but surely at least ten percent of the population will reach that breaking point. The situation has spiraled completely out of control.

That was a rather eloquent description you provided. However, one has to consider the implications: imagine if someone like that were to infect a member of your own family... simply because it’s easy, or perhaps just because they felt like it. What exactly would be the problem then?
I find myself agreeing with one particular sentiment expressed in this discussion. Those pedophile priests should be immediately shipped off to Manhattan Island without a second thought—let them go tend to sheep instead. This applies to all those self-righteous believers who continue to support them as well.

Let them try. If they are truly convinced that the state has failed in its fundamental duty to protect both their physical and mental well-being, then taking action is their prerogative. It is their right.

That particular branch of the system is absolutely crawling with incompetents, and I find myself in complete agreement with your assessment. Tell me, did you cast your vote for the Republican Party or the Democratic Party? If you did, then frankly, you’ve come to your senses far too late. Given the state of our presidency, we should simply be grateful that we are still drawing breath.

Things could certainly be organized more efficiently, but if you find yourself lacking the necessary personnel, you might as well just take a photo. Given the current circumstances, I would argue that using the term "speaking" in this context is perfectly acceptable.

And do you really think a system like that won't eventually screw up, find an opening for some petty theft, or exploit a situation to serve their own interests or settle political scores? That is precisely why they demand scrutiny and constant criticism.

Jerry Robinson56 said:In that light, yes, anomalies are an inevitable constant, and any high-level overview can only offer generalizations. Unfortunately, the rigid hierarchies found in law enforcement, medicine, education, and so on... they stifle intelligence and halt progress by dismissing any genuine initiative. I encounter this firsthand in my professional life every single day. You have to realize that systems are sustained by good people. That is the only way a system survives and evolves.
One must undergo the process of burning out and rising again more times than a phoenix just to prove a point.
Therefore, you must advocate for necessary changes at your own level, while remaining mindful not to compromise others. If the precinct captains or deputies are reasonable individuals, they possess the discretionary authority to exercise common sense in their enforcement. A solution can always be engineered, regardless of how insurmountable the obstacle appears.
Someone articulated it well: the Republican Party is directly responsible (utilizing artificial divisions to consolidate power) for all the, forgive me, nonsense we've had to endure, whereas the Democratic Party serves as the accelerator and the innovator.

🤦😵🙂

When exactly do you all anticipate this measure being scrapped,
so we can finally travel without any hassle around May or June?

Personally, I’m worried that someone behind the scenes made a massive profit off this whole e-portal rollout—and now we’re stuck dealing with these permits indefinitely just so they don't have to admit they wasted taxpayer money if they were scrapped in a week.
The moment they first announced they were building the system, I had a gut feeling this wasn't about phasing out the permits, but rather gearing up to make them a permanent fixture of our lives.

I can't quite remember where I posted this originally, so I guess I'll just say it again...
Will counties that have been sitting at zero infections for days on end (say, at least 5 days in a row... or maybe 7...) be allowed to ask for permission to move around freely within their own borders?
I've been looking at places like Virovitina-Podravina and Požega-Slavonia... they haven't seen a single new case in about 10 days...

Or are they just expected to "show solidarity" with everyone else?
Or—like Sean Stewart mentioned—do we now have to justify the whole massive expense of rolling out those e-portals...?🤔

☕

Honestly, if you ask me, travel between cities is going to be a total mess until mid-May at best.

That’s the very first measure they’ll scrap by the end of April, because it’s the one that most brutally insults the basic civil rights of citizens. They know it too. The economy is secondary here; this is about fundamental human dignity and people's actual lives, their property, etc.

Look, from the moment this measure was implemented and the pandemic hit, causing growth to stall, I predicted they’d pull the plug in the last week of April when the general "easing" begins.
Since the number of cases hasn't actually started dropping yet, maybe this gets pushed to the first week of May, but I simply cannot hold out longer than that.
If they drag this out any further, the public is going to start getting seriously agitated, and they don't need that... it would be completely counterproductive for them.

Then again... our leadership structures and our people are trash. They could easily keep this in place for months. Fortunately, we have the examples of Germany and Austria, which will be lifting movement restrictions by early May at the latest, so we'll be forced to follow suit.

Larry Walker24 said:Honestly, if you ask me, travel between cities is going to be a total mess until mid-May at best.

Yes, and that is entirely possible, unfortunately. ☕

It’s just lovely how we aren't allowed within 200 miles of the capital of this legalistic nation, yet construction crews from Germany can breeze through four states and ten counties without needing a single permit.
Of course, they'll be in total self-isolation within their own four walls. Even though every single time they returned in the past, they spent days and nights out at every bar in sight. But now? They'll be quiet as mice. We totally believe them.

At press conferences, journalists have been grilling them about this measure being one of the worst possible moves for citizens—since we're all traveling constantly—and they know it. They realize this policy is pure barbarism... and it isn't even particularly relevant from an epidemiological standpoint... especially when cases are already trending downward.

I get that they felt they needed to handle the situation somehow, but if their plan for the next 3-4 months is to manage tens of thousands of infected and isolated people by simply abusing the entire population, then good luck to them.

And don't even get me started on the economic impact. It's straight-up suicide.

Grace Jones86 said:Yes, and that is entirely possible, unfortunately. ☕

As for traveling between cities within the county—I’m guessing we might see movement by early May at the earliest. That would be about six weeks after the mandate kicks in, which feels like the absolute breaking point for people who are already losing their minds... ☕

Joseph Taylor11 said:As for traveling between cities within the county—I’m guessing we might see movement by early May at the earliest. That would be about six weeks after the mandate kicks in, which feels like the absolute breaking point for people who are already losing their minds... ☕

Screw the counties.

If they don't open up normal access to Washington, D.C., they haven't achieved anything.
We are talking about damn Washington, D.C.

If they think they can lock down Washington, D.C. for half a year, a year, or five years (🙄), then forget the epidemic and everything else.

At what point would they actually restore normal traffic flow, especially since they even mentioned public transit as something that needs to be brought back?!
Never?

And public transit isn't going to run based on permits? Are they insane? 🐔

edit:
Even in the long term—and a few months is already a long time—repressively restricting people's lives to their specific municipalities or counties is inconceivably perverse and aggressive.
I sincerely hope they realize exactly what they're doing.

We all agreed to this regime because they promised TEMPORARY AND SHORT-TERM brutal restrictions. I agreed to that because I am rational and I understand what epidemiological containment looks like.
They need to be held strictly to their word instead of us acting like sheep.

According to news outlets, Spaniards are planning to roll back those damn restrictions very soon, despite the absolute disaster we've faced here in the USA.

I just hope nobody in America played such a pathetic game that they decide to keep movement bans in place even one day longer than absolutely necessary... so there's really no reason to assume this will drag on deep into May. We shouldn't give them credit for that. No country is going to stay this insane for that long, and I seriously hope we don't either.