Do societies sometimes "quarentine" the healthy.

[Quagmire]

You brought up the 'concept of others' as though I didn't recognize it. I simply addressed it in regards to the people's jobs. You want to make me appear the bad man who doesn't care for others. Sorry, that cuts both ways.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Third time I've brought this up: you claim to care so much about people being able to go back to their jobs, yet you've admitted --- even bragged about--- the fact that you and your friends flat out refuse to wear masks, practice social distancing, or do anything that might help get the pandemic under control so people could get back to work.

How do you resolve the contradiction?

 

[Polymath257]

Guess what? I am not required to wear a mask. How does that strike YOU?

Good-Ole-Rebel

It's scary that you seem to think that makes you immune.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes you are. You have never answered them. I asked how are you going to know? Testing? Quarantine? Because a day after I have gotten a test and it was negative, or released from quarantine, I may have the virus? What now?

You say we should be tested on a regular basis. What would that be? Every two hours? Two days? Two weeks? Two months? Think of all the Corona I could be spreading in those times. So, how often should everyone be tested?

Indeed, it is ridiculous.

Good-Ole-Rebel

You never asked me these questions. You asked someone else, so I could not be avoiding questions not asked of me. Very disingenuous of you to make that claim about me. You tend to the ridiculous in your questions, so I imagine even those you do ask must wonder if you are serious.

However, any questions asked of me have been answered.

I never made any statements about getting regular testing. I went back through my posts to verify this. In doing so, I noted that in several of my posts, I asked you questions that you have so far avoided answering. Honesty does not appear to be your strength does it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Guess what? I am not required to wear a mask. How does that strike YOU?

Good-Ole-Rebel

Selfish. Reckless. Not very Christian.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Third time I've brought this up: you claim to care so much about people being able to go back to their jobs, yet you've admitted --- even bragged about--- the fact that you and your friends flat out refuse to wear masks, practice social distancing, or do anything that might help get the pandemic under control so people could get back to work.

How do you resolve the contradiction?

It is an interesting dichotomy considering the demographic represented. It has always been my understanding that far right Christians look down on those that want something, but refuse to work for it or take personal responsibility for it. Here, however, we are shown just the opposite being promoted by a putative member of that group.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Third time I've brought this up: you claim to care so much about people being able to go back to their jobs, yet you've admitted --- even bragged about--- the fact that you and your friends flat out refuse to wear masks, practice social distancing, or do anything that might help get the pandemic under control so people could get back to work.

How do you resolve the contradiction?

Bragged? I was't bragging. Just answering the question you asked. Funny how you perceive it as bragging. I'm sure many I know do wear the masks if their job requires it or if they will be fined for not doing it. But, at this time where I live we are not forced to by law. We are asked to. And so I don't and neither do many people.

Or, like yesterday, Mother's Day, quite a few folk were here. So yes, no mask wearing or social distancing practiced. And, no concern over it.

It's not a contradiction with me. Government is going to find the numbers it needs to do what it wants when it wants.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

It's scary that you seem to think that makes you immune.

I didn't say it made me immune.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

You never asked me these questions. You asked someone else, so I could not be avoiding questions not asked of me. Very disingenuous of you to make that claim about me. You tend to the ridiculous in your questions, so I imagine even those you do ask must wonder if you are serious.

However, any questions asked of me have been answered.

I never made any statements about getting regular testing. I went back through my posts to verify this. In doing so, I noted that in several of my posts, I asked you questions that you have so far avoided answering. Honesty does not appear to be your strength does it.

I believe the original question was in post #(90).

In post #(94) you speak of regular testing for all.

In (97) I respond to the silliness of it and question.

Your reply in (98) was no answer.

The question involves the impracticality of 'testing'. When do you determine to test a person? If you test them and they are negative, then when do you test them again, as two hours later they may have caught the virus?

If you say two days or two weeks, no matter what time period you are using, there is a time when they can have the virus and be spreading it.

Testing everyone everyday is absolutely insane. But, that is what you would have to do to make the testing of any value. That is 'ridiculous'.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Selfish. Wreckless. Not very Christian.

The question wasn't to you. Since you sense a dishonesty on my part in responding to you of a question 'you say' you didn't ask, why would you enter upon this question that is not to you?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Guitar's Cry]

She was not sick of the disease. She was healthy. Maybe they should have centered on her immune system being as such to not be affected by typhoid. How is typhoid spread?

Oh please. People don't wear masks because they don't feel they need to. It's silly.

If you want to live in a protective bubble go ahead. Your immune system will diminish. You will need more 'bubble'. And whatever you do...dont step out of it. Cause every disease on earth is after you.

Good-Ole-Rebel

I don't think folks are expecting to do this for every disease. COVID-19 is a special case right now because it is rapidly spreading, deadly, and has the potential to overwhelm our medical systems. We wear masks and isolate not to protect ourselves only, but to protect others.

In fact, this is good practice for even worse diseases. Imagine something gruesome like Ebola with the same infection rate that we are seeing with the c'rona. Would you be so eager to mingle with the populace if something like that were hanging around with the same potential for infection?

My hope is we learn from this experience and nip it in the bud before we have to shut things down.

 

[Shad]

Lol! Back to that are we?

Back to the definition you omitted?

 

[Quagmire]

It's not a contradiction with me. Government is going to find the numbers it needs to do what it wants when it wants.

Good-Ole-Rebel

So what are you saying? You sound like you're saying you think the government health organizations are lying to us about the need to wear masks or practice social distancing.

Was that your point?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I believe the original question was in post #(90).


In post #(94) you speak of regular testing for all.


In (97) I respond to the silliness of it and question.

Your reply in (98) was no answer.

The question involves the impracticality of 'testing'. When do you determine to test a person? If you test them and they are negative, then when do you test them again, as two hours later they may have caught the virus?

If you say two days or two weeks, no matter what time period you are using, there is a time when they can have the virus and be spreading it.

Testing everyone everyday is absolutely insane. But, that is what you would have to do to make the testing of any value. That is 'ridiculous'.

Good-Ole-Rebel

This is what you consider honesty, responsibility and Christian behavior?

I find it engaging and educational to interact with a person like yourself, Someone who claims certain ideological positions and to hold the high ground, while acting in ways that are completely contradictory to those claims.

For instance, you have never answered any of my questions. You avoid answering and spend most of your responses on ridiculous posturing, ridiculous points and false statements. I never made the posts number 90 and 94 that you falsely attribute to me, for instance. As I said, I look and verify.

Then you brag about how you are not going to follow sensible guidelines and regulations related to the management of this pandemic, while demanding everything return to normal.

All this leads me to wonder how you justify much more than your contradictory demands associated with this pandemic. How is what you are doing honest and following Christian ideology? Of course, you can always claim that you made a mistake about the posts, but that is a pretty big mistake to accept, given the evidence. If, in your capacity, you cannot follow the conversations well enough to keep track of who said what, then it raises further questions about the validity of your entire position.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The question wasn't to you. Since you sense a dishonesty on my part in responding to you of a question 'you say' you didn't ask, why would you enter upon this question that is not to you?

Good-Ole-Rebel

Ah, I am supposed to answer questions never asked of me and not allowed to answer questions not directly asked of me. Your rules are rather fluid and seem to appear only when it benefits you in avoiding valid responses.

I still sense dishonesty. I wonder why?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Enforced regarding quarantines are government actions

I was hoping for a little broader elaboration. Are you claiming that only governments can quarantine?

 

[Wandering Monk]

I know it has been asked, but haven't seed Good Ole Rebel's reply:

Reb: how do you know you are healthy, given that people can have the virus and spread it and not show symptoms for five days?

 

[Wandering Monk]

With regard to quarantine, SCOTUS upheld the authority of the state and federal governments to impose quarantines. This is from the Harvard Law site:

"The Supreme Court passed upon the validity of federal quarantine powers under the Commerce Clause and the simultaneous power held by states to implement their own quarantines in Bartlett v. Lockwood in 1896. The Court held as unquestionable the "authority of Congress to establish quarantine regulations and to protect the country as respects its commerce from contagious and infectious diseases,"[126] . It also, however, recognized that this federal power did not invalidate state laws relating to the same policy domain, citing Congress's decision "in view of the different requirements of different climates and localities and of the difficulty of framing general law upon the subject, ...to permit the several States to regulate the matter of protecting the public health as to themselves seemed best."[127] The Court thus seemed to view the federal appropriation of a power which had traditionally belonged to the states as justified under the Commerce Clause. Another case before the court in 1896 presented the more pointed question of whether state or federal laws would prevail in the case of conflict, when the federal law was enacted under the authority of the Commerce Clause and the state law enacted for the purpose of regulating health. In Hennington v. Georgia , Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court:

"If the inspection, quarantine, or health laws of a State, passed under its reserved power to provide for the health, comfort, safety of its people, come into conflict with an act of Congress, passed under its power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, such local regulations, to the extent of the conflict, must give way in order that the supreme law of the land—an act of Congress passed in pursuance of the Constitution—may have unobstructed operation."[128]

This ruling left little question that Congress could enact quarantine laws and the Surgeon General could enforce them even if those laws conflicted with state quarantine laws."​

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The question wasn't to you. Since you sense a dishonesty on my part in responding to you of a question 'you say' you didn't ask, why would you enter upon this question that is not to you?

Good-Ole-Rebel

Since you could only muster this non-answer, then you do recognize that the behavior you brag about is selfish, reckless and not very Christian?

 

[Quagmire]

Nope. You merely cut out the noun use which is about medical reason banking on no one looking.

"Banking on no one looking", Lol! Just when I think your posts couldn't get any sillier.

As always, thanks for providing the thread with some much needed comic relief.

Definition of QUARANTINE

Notice the noun use is medical? You just ignore that fact.

pssst, notice the "quarantine" in the title is a verb?

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

So what are you saying? You sound like you're saying you think the government health organizations are lying to us about the need to wear masks or practice social distancing.

Was that your point?

I'm saying because Government has crashed the economy and done such harm to so many people as a result, they will never admit to being wrong concerning their decision. Government will always find the numbers to make the government right. And yes I think the numbers are inflated.

Good-Ole-Rebel