Should the federal government issue a national forced quarantine?

Forum rules
Keep News and Politics about News and Politics.

Do not post full articles from other websites. Always link back to the source

Discuss things respectfully and take into account that each person has a different opinion.

Remember that this is a place for everyone to enjoy. Don’t try and run people off of the site. If you are upset with someone then utilize the foe feature.

Report when things come up.

Personal attacks are against guidelines however attacks need to be directed at a member on the forum for it to be against guidelines. Lying is not against guidelines, it’s hard for us to prove someone even did lie.

Once a topic is locked we consider the issue handled and no longer respond to new reports on the topic.
29again
Regent
Regent
Posts: 3183
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:56 pm

Unread post

Thelma Harper wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 10:42 pm
29again wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 9:55 pm
No. I don't think there should be a nationwide forced quarantine. I don't agree with forced anything. Should people stay home as much as possible? Sure, but it should also be their decision to make. I do not agree with shutting down certain businesses, and a lot of what has been done so far. Now, I do KNOW that it was likely a prudent move, but I still don't agree with it. To me, it flies in the face of the Constitution and what this country stands for. If we were at war with another nation that was attacking us, then I could support it whole-heartedly. But we are fighting a virus that can easily be killed off. We have tools to clean our environments thoroughly. I would rather see the state passing out cleaning supplies than making sure I'm inside....
Which certain businesses do you mean? You realize the Stafford Act allows the federal government to authorize this?
I mean the restaurants, the bars, the movie theaters, hair salons, tattoo parlors, day spas, and all the others that have been forced to shut down. Where does the Stafford Act allow for mandatory closing of businesses? I read through the wiki article, which explained the different Titles, but I did not see anything about this specifically.
Expand your thinking
29again
Regent
Regent
Posts: 3183
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:56 pm

Unread post

highlandmum wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 10:45 pm
29again wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 9:55 pm
No. I don't think there should be a nationwide forced quarantine. I don't agree with forced anything. Should people stay home as much as possible? Sure, but it should also be their decision to make. I do not agree with shutting down certain businesses, and a lot of what has been done so far. Now, I do KNOW that it was likely a prudent move, but I still don't agree with it. To me, it flies in the face of the Constitution and what this country stands for. If we were at war with another nation that was attacking us, then I could support it whole-heartedly. But we are fighting a virus that can easily be killed off. We have tools to clean our environments thoroughly. I would rather see the state passing out cleaning supplies than making sure I'm inside....
There is no way to “kill this virus off”. The only way to deal with it is through physical distancing. However there are a lot of people who are refusing to do so. So as a result government has to take measures like quarantine entire cities, states and counties. It’s not as easy as clean the environment, what are you going to do follow behind everyone with a bottle of disinfectant?
Hydroxychloroquine with Azithromycin kills it. 6 days and you are cured. But yes, distance and disinfectant will help.
Expand your thinking
29again
Regent
Regent
Posts: 3183
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:56 pm

Unread post

WellPreserved wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 10:54 pm
29again wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 9:55 pm
No. I don't think there should be a nationwide forced quarantine. I don't agree with forced anything. Should people stay home as much as possible? Sure, but it should also be their decision to make. I do not agree with shutting down certain businesses, and a lot of what has been done so far. Now, I do KNOW that it was likely a prudent move, but I still don't agree with it. To me, it flies in the face of the Constitution and what this country stands for. If we were at war with another nation that was attacking us, then I could support it whole-heartedly. But we are fighting a virus that can easily be killed off. We have tools to clean our environments thoroughly. I would rather see the state passing out cleaning supplies than making sure I'm inside....
" But we are fighting a virus that can easily be killed off. We have tools to clean our environments thoroughly."

What does that look like?
For the virus, hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin for 6 days. For the environment, we have all kinds of sanitizers, disinfectants and cleaners. We even have laundry sanitizer, for crying out loud! We have anti-bacterial everything, to wipe down everything we touch. We can legitimately disinfect every item in our house, in our vehicles, at our work... every single thing.
Expand your thinking
Thelma Harper
Princess Royal
Princess Royal
Posts: 7884
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:46 pm

Unread post

29again wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 11:16 pm
Thelma Harper wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 10:42 pm
29again wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 9:55 pm
No. I don't think there should be a nationwide forced quarantine. I don't agree with forced anything. Should people stay home as much as possible? Sure, but it should also be their decision to make. I do not agree with shutting down certain businesses, and a lot of what has been done so far. Now, I do KNOW that it was likely a prudent move, but I still don't agree with it. To me, it flies in the face of the Constitution and what this country stands for. If we were at war with another nation that was attacking us, then I could support it whole-heartedly. But we are fighting a virus that can easily be killed off. We have tools to clean our environments thoroughly. I would rather see the state passing out cleaning supplies than making sure I'm inside....
Which certain businesses do you mean? You realize the Stafford Act allows the federal government to authorize this?
I mean the restaurants, the bars, the movie theaters, hair salons, tattoo parlors, day spas, and all the others that have been forced to shut down. Where does the Stafford Act allow for mandatory closing of businesses? I read through the wiki article, which explained the different Titles, but I did not see anything about this specifically.
Do you not realize the impact of those close quarter businesses?

You had an entirely different perspective when Obama was president so I'm having a hard time believing your constitutional argument.

Thoughts about the following?

As defined by Title I, an emergency is any instance, or thought that is determined by the President, in which state or local efforts need federal assistance to save lives and protect the health and welfare of the people in a community. A major disaster is defined as any natural catastrophe, fire, flood, or explosion, determined by the president to warrant the additional resources of the federal government to alleviate damages or suffering they cause.[2]
29again
Regent
Regent
Posts: 3183
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:56 pm

Unread post

Thelma Harper wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 11:24 pm
29again wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 11:16 pm
Thelma Harper wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 10:42 pm


Which certain businesses do you mean? You realize the Stafford Act allows the federal government to authorize this?
I mean the restaurants, the bars, the movie theaters, hair salons, tattoo parlors, day spas, and all the others that have been forced to shut down. Where does the Stafford Act allow for mandatory closing of businesses? I read through the wiki article, which explained the different Titles, but I did not see anything about this specifically.
Do you not realize the impact of those close quarter businesses?

You had an entirely different perspective when Obama was president so I'm having a hard time believing your constitutional argument.

Thoughts about the following?

As defined by Title I, an emergency is any instance, or thought that is determined by the President, in which state or local efforts need federal assistance to save lives and protect the health and welfare of the people in a community. A major disaster is defined as any natural catastrophe, fire, flood, or explosion, determined by the president to warrant the additional resources of the federal government to alleviate damages or suffering they cause.[2]
Oh, do tell me what my perspective was when Obama was president. I would love to know.

Ok, if that's how you interpret that, then get on the phone to Nancy and tell her to get off her ass and get the people who were forced out of work some alleviation, toute de suite! And that would include whoever owns the businesses that were forced to close. While the workers are losing money, so are the owners.
Expand your thinking
29again
Regent
Regent
Posts: 3183
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:56 pm

Unread post

Thelma Harper wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 11:24 pm
29again wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 11:16 pm
Thelma Harper wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 10:42 pm


Which certain businesses do you mean? You realize the Stafford Act allows the federal government to authorize this?
I mean the restaurants, the bars, the movie theaters, hair salons, tattoo parlors, day spas, and all the others that have been forced to shut down. Where does the Stafford Act allow for mandatory closing of businesses? I read through the wiki article, which explained the different Titles, but I did not see anything about this specifically.
Do you not realize the impact of those close quarter businesses?

You had an entirely different perspective when Obama was president so I'm having a hard time believing your constitutional argument.

Thoughts about the following?

As defined by Title I, an emergency is any instance, or thought that is determined by the President, in which state or local efforts need federal assistance to save lives and protect the health and welfare of the people in a community. A major disaster is defined as any natural catastrophe, fire, flood, or explosion, determined by the president to warrant the additional resources of the federal government to alleviate damages or suffering they cause.[2]
To address the "close quarters" point -- there is such a concept of making an appointment, wearing a face mask, and limiting the number of people in an establishment at one time. Some people are acting like this is the Black Plague and if you get withing 4 ft, you're gonna die.......
Expand your thinking
cgd5112
Donated
Donated
Marchioness
Marchioness
Posts: 637
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 6:18 pm

Unread post

Where did you read that a malaria/Sjogrens drug cures Covid-19? There is no cure for any virus. And an antibiotic for pink eye? Antibiotics treat bacterial infections. SARS Cov - 2/Covid -19 is a virus.

The malaria drug has shown promise in minimizing symptoms and duration. That is not a cure. And it isn’t working on everyone being treated for Covid -19, regardless of age.

There is no data/evidence that taking the malaria drug chronically will minimize possibility of infection. As it is, reports are out that people in Africa took the drug and are being treated for poisoning. Again, misinformation driving people to do stupid things.

And for those taking it for Sjogrens, well, that population is immunosuppressed by the disease, making them more at risk.


29again wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 11:23 pm
WellPreserved wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 10:54 pm
29again wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 9:55 pm
No. I don't think there should be a nationwide forced quarantine. I don't agree with forced anything. Should people stay home as much as possible? Sure, but it should also be their decision to make. I do not agree with shutting down certain businesses, and a lot of what has been done so far. Now, I do KNOW that it was likely a prudent move, but I still don't agree with it. To me, it flies in the face of the Constitution and what this country stands for. If we were at war with another nation that was attacking us, then I could support it whole-heartedly. But we are fighting a virus that can easily be killed off. We have tools to clean our environments thoroughly. I would rather see the state passing out cleaning supplies than making sure I'm inside....
" But we are fighting a virus that can easily be killed off. We have tools to clean our environments thoroughly."

What does that look like?
For the virus, hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin for 6 days. For the environment, we have all kinds of sanitizers, disinfectants and cleaners. We even have laundry sanitizer, for crying out loud! We have anti-bacterial everything, to wipe down everything we touch. We can legitimately disinfect every item in our house, in our vehicles, at our work... every single thing.
Thelma Harper
Princess Royal
Princess Royal
Posts: 7884
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:46 pm

Unread post

29again wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 11:32 pm
Thelma Harper wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 11:24 pm
29again wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 11:16 pm


I mean the restaurants, the bars, the movie theaters, hair salons, tattoo parlors, day spas, and all the others that have been forced to shut down. Where does the Stafford Act allow for mandatory closing of businesses? I read through the wiki article, which explained the different Titles, but I did not see anything about this specifically.
Do you not realize the impact of those close quarter businesses?

You had an entirely different perspective when Obama was president so I'm having a hard time believing your constitutional argument.

Thoughts about the following?

As defined by Title I, an emergency is any instance, or thought that is determined by the President, in which state or local efforts need federal assistance to save lives and protect the health and welfare of the people in a community. A major disaster is defined as any natural catastrophe, fire, flood, or explosion, determined by the president to warrant the additional resources of the federal government to alleviate damages or suffering they cause.[2]
Oh, do tell me what my perspective was when Obama was president. I would love to know.

Ok, if that's how you interpret that, then get on the phone to Nancy and tell her to get off her ass and get the people who were forced out of work some alleviation, toute de suite! And that would include whoever owns the businesses that were forced to close. While the workers are losing money, so are the owners.
Oh good lord...
Francee89
Regent
Regent
Posts: 3369
Joined: Fri May 25, 2018 7:13 pm

Unread post

29again wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 11:23 pm
WellPreserved wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 10:54 pm
29again wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 9:55 pm
No. I don't think there should be a nationwide forced quarantine. I don't agree with forced anything. Should people stay home as much as possible? Sure, but it should also be their decision to make. I do not agree with shutting down certain businesses, and a lot of what has been done so far. Now, I do KNOW that it was likely a prudent move, but I still don't agree with it. To me, it flies in the face of the Constitution and what this country stands for. If we were at war with another nation that was attacking us, then I could support it whole-heartedly. But we are fighting a virus that can easily be killed off. We have tools to clean our environments thoroughly. I would rather see the state passing out cleaning supplies than making sure I'm inside....
" But we are fighting a virus that can easily be killed off. We have tools to clean our environments thoroughly."

What does that look like?
For the virus, hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin for 6 days. For the environment, we have all kinds of sanitizers, disinfectants and cleaners. We even have laundry sanitizer, for crying out loud! We have anti-bacterial everything, to wipe down everything we touch. We can legitimately disinfect every item in our house, in our vehicles, at our work... every single thing.
The combination drugs were successful in one small French study, but they haven’t been tested in any kind of legitimate clinical trial, there’s been no study of the long term impacts of the drugs or whether the side effects should limit their usage and there’s already a shortage of them just based on people discussing them as a potential treatment.

How do sanitizers help prevent the spread of a disease that’s contagious through respiratory droplets? A restaurant or club can sanitize every single surface, but two people standing at a busy bar or sitting at close tables can’t protect against it being airborne if someone coughs, sneezes or spits when they talk.
Thelma Harper
Princess Royal
Princess Royal
Posts: 7884
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:46 pm

Unread post

Francee89 wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 11:57 pm
29again wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 11:23 pm
WellPreserved wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 10:54 pm


" But we are fighting a virus that can easily be killed off. We have tools to clean our environments thoroughly."

What does that look like?
For the virus, hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin for 6 days. For the environment, we have all kinds of sanitizers, disinfectants and cleaners. We even have laundry sanitizer, for crying out loud! We have anti-bacterial everything, to wipe down everything we touch. We can legitimately disinfect every item in our house, in our vehicles, at our work... every single thing.
The combination drugs were successful in one small French study, but they haven’t been tested in any kind of legitimate clinical trial, there’s been no study of the long term impacts of the drugs or whether the side effects should limit their usage and there’s already a shortage of them just based on people discussing them as a potential treatment.

How do sanitizers help prevent the spread of a disease that’s contagious through respiratory droplets? A restaurant or club can sanitize every single surface, but two people standing at a busy bar or sitting at close tables can’t protect against it being airborne if someone coughs, sneezes or spits when they talk.
For crying out loud...
Post Reply Previous topicNext topic