Curfew restrictions: Is it legal to leave your house?

hollowtrucker77 said:🤦😵🙂

🤣 Do you honestly believe that will help you... man... I still maintain a certain faith in humanity, though, well, God isn't watching over us anyway.

Larry Walker24 said:If you ask me, there’s no way they lift the travel ban between cities before June 1st. If we're lucky, maybe around May 15th

The folks in charge said they’re going to follow Austria's lead and try to match whatever they do.

I'll bet you anything that decision from Monday isn't getting renewed.😁

silentsurfer3 said:I'll bet you anything that decision from Monday isn't getting renewed.😁

hahaha 👍

Bryan Taylor6 said: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.

It is all a farce built on deception. The Republican Party simply carries on the legacy or copies the playbook. The issue lies within the system itself. Voter manipulation—utilizing non-existent or unreachable voters—is a far more potent tool. And that particular grease is well-applied by the Democratic Party.
And don't even get me started on how they select ministers. 🤦

Talking about it is the easy part, but let’s say you actually get hired.
How are you even going to get to work? And what about masks—does the office even require them?
Half the time, you don't even have a locker to put your stuff in.

Grace Jones86 said:That’s exactly what I’ve been thinking for days. But now I'm getting worried that this won't be easy, normal, or even rational. Instead, we'll have all these epidemiologists and task forces twisting things and playing games—intentionally keeping their boots firmly planted on our necks during this "epidemic" for as long as they feel like, regardless of whether it's necessary. China-style. 😵

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if we see a spike in cases every five or six days just so they can claim, "See? We can't lift the restrictions yet."

Melissa Phillips4 said:I’m wondering what happens six months from now when hospitals are overflowing with people who missed essential diagnostics and medical care during their 3rd and 4th months of this mess.
Honestly, it all leads to the same place: let the chronic patients stay home, let healthy people get on with their lives, and just test hospital staff daily. That’s it.
Hospitals need to be open for patients. It breaks my heart to see a facility like Dubrava sitting completely empty—and anyone who has ever even walked through those doors knows exactly what kind of place that is.
Our healthcare system is already collapsing anyway; waiting lists are endless. If you want to actually find out if you're sick in a timely manner, you're forced to go private.
By the way, in Germany, hospitals are functioning normally for patients, even with 80 million people and 120,000 infections.

I was saying the same thing after seeing a segment on your show. Now, everything has stalled—either because hospitals can't separate infected patients from everyone else, or because people are too terrified to even show up for essential checkups. I heard a doctor mention that cancer mortality rates are over 50%, yet even two weeks ago, the number of people coming in for screenings to catch things early had dropped several times below the usual levels.

For some people, these next two or three months are quite literally a matter of life or death. But I doubt those stats will be splashed across every news site for the next year like this whole COVID situation is. Not to mention, if you aren't literally dying, they barely even want to take you in—though apparently, that didn't help that guy out by the shopping mall either.

Carl Wilson said:Look, I know I’m basically reposting what I wrote a couple of days ago, but seriously, we are flying blind here. There is zero strategy, and if you listen to those press conferences, you can't even tell what the actual goal is supposed to be.

If the whole point is reaching some kind of herd immunity, then this entire approach is a total bust because there is no way we're ever getting there with these numbers. Instead, the move should be keeping cases at the absolute max that the healthcare system can actually handle without collapsing. Right now, it feels like the goal is to drive infection numbers down to zero, which is just impossible no matter what restrictions they slap on us—just look at what happened over in Mexico. So, my question is: what happens in a month or two? The task force really needs to step up and tell us exactly what the game plan is.

I honestly have no clue what the plan even is. I actually stopped following those pressers after those last few restrictions hit me personally. It started getting really grating how they act like they're high-and-mighty elites lecturing shepherds without any basic common sense.

I'm not saying you shouldn't treat everyone that way, but most people would appreciate an approach where they actually explain *why* certain rules are being introduced, how it'll work, how it'll be implemented, etc.

Larry Walker24 said:If you ask me, there’s no way they lift the travel ban between cities before June 1st. If we're lucky, maybe around May 15th

The folks in charge said they’re going to follow Austria's lead and try to match whatever they do.

Did they actually say that out loud? 🤣

fadedranger162 said:Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if we see a spike in cases every five or six days just so they can claim, "See? We can't lift the restrictions yet."

I was saying the same thing after seeing a segment on your show. Now, everything has stalled—either because hospitals can't separate infected patients from everyone else, or because people are too terrified to even show up for essential checkups. I heard a doctor mention that cancer mortality rates are over 50%, yet even two weeks ago, the number of people coming in for screenings to catch things early had dropped several times below the usual levels.

For some people, these next two or three months are quite literally a matter of life or death. But I doubt those stats will be splashed across every news site for the next year like this whole COVID situation is. Not to mention, if you aren't literally dying, they barely even want to take you in—though apparently, that didn't help that guy out by the shopping mall either.

I honestly have no clue what the plan even is. I actually stopped following those pressers after those last few restrictions hit me personally. It started getting really grating how they act like they're high-and-mighty elites lecturing shepherds without any basic common sense.

I'm not saying you shouldn't treat everyone that way, but most people would appreciate an approach where they actually explain *why* certain rules are being introduced, how it'll work, how it'll be implemented, etc.

Did they actually say that out loud? 🤣

Yeah, Austria is dropping some measures tomorrow, so everyone's just sitting tight to see how things play out over there.

Aha, fine, let her be their guinea pig. Let's just hope their version of "discipline" actually ends up working in our favor for once.

But seriously, why on earth do they have these kinds of lockdowns and movement restrictions? Do they honestly think they can just open up shops and businesses like that? I'm not entirely sure how much our rules line up with theirs, if you happen to be more clued in than I am.

Matthew Jackson2 said: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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

I am neither reproaching nor lecturing you. My apologies if it came across that way. They aren't breaking any laws—though I suppose I don't need to cite Article 52 of the Police Act for you.
It is simply an idiot from a larger stable of idiots, defending the President’s "wisdom" (which is a value judgment, not a fact), throwing obstacles in the way of the only logical course of action that could have been taken.

Matthew Jackson2 said: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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

Could you please repeat yourself? If there are no eyes left to see, then of course there is no point.

Matthew Jackson2 said: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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

Of course they aren't; it wouldn't be expected otherwise. It's not as if a mandatory curfew and state-mandated distribution of essentials wouldn't be deemed problematic too. I am looking at this as a choice between leaving things to fate or strictly managing a quarantine. Most people aren't reacting based on policy; they are reacting because of those who have "personal" grievances and feel a sense of self-importance... much like those incompetent taxi drivers who shouldn't be behind a wheel. Thus, my earlier assertion holds true— s e l f - i n t e r e s t —is the driving force behind the critics.

Matthew Jackson2 said: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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

You’re philosophizing... your detachment from reality is quite palpable.

Matthew Jackson2 said: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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

The nature of this complex virus is interesting enough on its own regarding its transmission and speed... these comparisons are simply a distraction from the topic at hand.

Matthew Jackson2 said: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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

Perhaps, if you find yourself siding with the oppressors...

Matthew Jackson2 said: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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

🙄that happens constantly, regardless of the circumstances. Why don't you tell us who you voted for in the runoff... as for me, I crossed out both names on the ballot.

Review:

Grace Jones86 said:Austria dealt with much harsher hotspots and a significantly more intense epidemic.

You simply refuse to grasp that the sheer number or intensity of the hotspots is irrelevant; what matters is nothing more than the isolation of those locations. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if your entire profession consists of selling smoke and mirrors.

Jerry Robinson56 said:Review:

You simply refuse to grasp that the sheer number or intensity of the hotspots is irrelevant; what matters is nothing more than the isolation of those locations. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if your entire profession consists of selling smoke and mirrors.

Where exactly is the epicenter?🤦

I can't help but wonder what exactly is going on in those pockets of Virovitina-Podravina or Požega-Slavonia. I mean, we’ve been sitting here for a month and a half since that first case popped up, and they're still seeing three or four infections pop up. It makes you think.
So, here it is—they've officially banned travel between municipalities in those counties just to try and quarantine this massive outbreak. Only three cases... in the entire county.!! 🤦

Jerry Robinson56 said:Review:

You simply refuse to grasp that the sheer number or intensity of the hotspots is irrelevant; what matters is nothing more than the isolation of those locations. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if your entire profession consists of selling smoke and mirrors.

When I'm being an idiot—which happens plenty—and since I don't understand epidemiology to begin with.

And you? Are you some kind of school principal too?

Joseph Taylor11 said:Where exactly is the epicenter?🤦

I can't help but wonder what exactly is going on in those pockets of Virovitina-Podravina or Požega-Slavonia. I mean, we’ve been sitting here for a month and a half since that first case popped up, and they're still seeing three or four infections pop up. It makes you think.
So, here it is—they've officially banned travel between municipalities in those counties just to try and quarantine this massive outbreak. Only three cases... in the entire county.!! 🤦

Washington, D.C. is basically ground zero right now. Over the last few days, I’ve been seeing about 10 new cases popping up... and that number is dropping fast. In a few days, we'll be looking at maybe one or two cases for every 800,000 people. 😵

Burn, burn, burn... and then it ignites.

At this rate, Ebola will be more common in Washington, D.C. than COVID ever was. 😁

silentsurfer3 said:I'll bet you anything that decision from Monday isn't getting renewed.😁

If by "that decision" you mean the one about not being allowed to leave your home, that March 23rd order doesn't even have an expiration date set, so there’s nothing to "renew," right?

The work bans started on March 19th and last for 30 days, along with some of those later calls.

----

What Capak said about needing a few days of declining infection numbers... I mean, sure, that works if you actually have a curve or a line to look at. But we don't have a curve, and we don't have a line—we just have this freaking drunken EKG. Honestly, we have way too few official cases to draw any real conclusions because this sequence here: 77, 77, 96, 48, 68, 47, 56, 40, 60, 61, 64, 88, 39, 66, 50? It literally means absolutely nothing.

I’m thinking about packing up and moving out to San Diego to be with my fiancée until all this chaos settles down, but I’m stuck on what to actually put on my application for a permit so it doesn't get flagged... I don't have any family down there, just my fiancée living by herself in her apartment.

Wedding preparations? I am not kidding around.

Elizabeth Lewis10 said:I’m thinking about packing up and moving out to San Diego to be with my fiancée until all this chaos settles down, but I’m stuck on what to actually put on my application for a permit so it doesn't get flagged... I don't have any family down there, just my fiancée living by herself in her apartment.

Well, just tell them you're relocating. You might end up stuck in a 14-day self-isolation period once you arrive, but I guess you'll manage.

On what possible legal grounds can someone be forced into isolation just because they're moving to a different state???

Or did California somehow decide to secede from the mainland of the USA while I was busy working out?

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 ...

If you want a policy to actually work, it needs a damn target. You can't just throw restrictions at everything and hope they stick. It has to be aimed at something specific, and honestly, in situations like this, the oversight needs to be incredibly tight. ☕
How can anyone not see this? The guy clearly hasn't a clue, and apparently, our brilliant Minister doesn't either.

That policy doesn't actually target anything. It’s based on "residency," which is a joke. On one hand, you’ve got Washington, D.C. with a million people, and on the other, you have tiny rural towns with maybe a hundred souls. It's meaningless.
And when it doesn't matter to anyone else either, then it's pretty obvious this "measure" isn't actually aimed at anything at all.
It literally makes zero sense. They left movement completely unrestricted in the biggest hotspots with the highest infection rates—even in Washington, D.C., where there are a million people just wandering around like nothing's happening.

Even more importantly, there’s zero way to actually enforce this "famous" measure. Controlling something like this is basically impossible unless we start begging the US government to lend us their entire police force, the military, and all their high-tech gear. Only then—and that's a huge if—would we maybe, just maybe, have enough boots on the ground to pull it off.
Drop the link to the map. I mean, you can't even tell how many there are in the photo unless you zoom in...


So, those green lines represent the municipal borders we're supposed to be watching. If they actually want this movement ban to work as a controlled measure, they’d better start by actually monitoring those boundaries and the movement itself first. 🙂
It’d be pretty interesting if someone actually sat down and crunched the numbers to figure out the physical distance here. We could even start a betting pool to see how many miles it really takes to cover it. What do you think—is it more or less than... 62 miles ?

Maybe if we actually imported enough military and police force from the US, we might stand a chance at controlling this measure...
Then we’ve got this other headache: that famous "golden ticket" issued by a massive, bloated mess of employers, task forces, doctors, and whatever else.
So, I guess we also have to keep an eye on them and their issuance if we want this to actually be some kind of controlled measure.

And then, just to top it all off, they’ll probably expect us to be out there on the ground manually verifying those permits too. Great.

You're talking about a policy that’s a complete joke. It’s literally impossible to enforce, let alone actually control. Total farce.
This isn't some "controlled measure." It’s pure, unadulterated chaos that nobody can actually manage, and all it’s achieved is a massive, pointless waste of money.
The effect was exactly the same as if Beroš had just calmly asked everyone to stay put. Honestly, his polite request probably would've kept people from moving even more than this whole "measure" nonsense did.

Grace Jones86 said:Listen, I’m going to make this simple because clearly, we aren't on the same page. You’re sitting there in your local town hall meeting acting like you own the place, but you don't even know the basics of how the modern workforce functions. It's called job hopping. It isn't some kind of failure or laziness like you're implying. It's a strategy. People move from one company to another every couple of years to secure better pay, better benefits, and actual career growth. In today's economy, if you sit in the same cubicle at some mid-sized firm in Indianapolis for twenty years waiting for a gold watch, you're just getting left behind. Get it through your head: moving up often means moving out. Stop judging what you don't understand. 😁
And why exactly is that important? Why is it considered normal or even justified to go...

That kind of horror doesn't exist anywhere else. Personally, I try to have zero contact with the American public—especially those bureaucrats and low-level civil servants—under normal circumstances. I don't want any conversation with them. I view them as nothing more than primitive, medieval bottom-feeders. Then, suddenly, some ridiculous crisis forces you to actually communicate with those shallow shells of human beings. 🐔

Your way with words is something else... that guy was right about you; since you're so incredibly modern, you should probably just stick to Skype.