6 ms·

So they want to detain people in medical facilities who may be contagious rather than putting them in standard facilities. Reading this while squinting, I coul

So they want to detain people in medical facilities who may be contagious rather than putting them in standard facilities. Reading this while squinting, I could imagine this being manipulated by bad actors. On the surface though it seems benign?

rglover 6y ago
There's a lot of slippery wording and room for malfeasance, specifically relating to how a person's behavior will influence the terms of their detainment. Section 3, Article 9: > A PERSON WHO IS DETAINED IN A MEDICAL FACILITY, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE FACILITY OR PREMISES, SHALL NOT CONDUCT HIMSELF OR HERSELF IN A DISORDERLY MANNER, AND SHALL NOT LEAVE OR ATTEMPT TO LEAVE SUCH FACILITY OR PREMISES UNTIL HE OR SHE IS DISCHARGED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION. That should terrify people. It's basically saying "we can detain you if we think you have a virus and you're not allowed to fight us or try to escape." --- There's also lack of clarity on where you will be kept if arrested: Section 1, Article 2: > SUCH PERSON OR GROUP OF PERSONS SHALL BE DETAINED IN A MEDICAL FACILITY OR OTHER APPROPRIATE FACILITY OR PREMISES DESIGNATED BY THE GOVERNOR OR HIS OR HER DELEGEE AND COMPLYING WITH SUBDIVISION FIVE OF THIS SECTION. --- Section 4, Article 12 is basically describing indefinite detainment and forced vaccination/medication.
- geofft 6y ago
  This is no different from being arrested, is it? You can be arrested for probable cause, i.e. if the police think you committed a crime, even if you committed no crime. You can have your day in court later if you're innocent, but you certainly can't fight or try to escape. Unless you think it's also bad that the police can detain people who haven't committed a crime / should allow people being arrested to fight back and escape?
  - rglover 6y ago
    That's the exact problem. That makes this worse, not better. It means no personal autonomy over your health and sets the precedent for far worse things. That's always the point with stuff like this, the precedent, not the surface-level idea.
    - Spooky23 6y ago
      So what’s the personal consequence for your irresponsible exercise of autonomy? Perhaps the state should sue and seize your property to pay for the healthcare needs of folks infected by you.
      - rglover 6y ago
        If I get sick and die, I get sick and die. People who are concerned about getting sick or dying, then, should take more caution (staying home, wearing PPE, etc). That standard has always existed. Up until 2020, there was always the chance that you would catch some virus, bacterial infection, etc. The rebuttal that's always applied to this is that "so you don't care about people, then?" which is not the point. Personally, I can and should be legally able to take whatever precautions I think are necessary without any interference or looming punishment from the government. I'd much rather this sort of thing be policed socially amongst individuals as opposed to giving carte blanche to government to lock people up.
        Spooky23 6y ago
        Sounds great, as long as I can recover my losses resulting from your irresponsibility. Freedom isn’t free, dude. As executor of a COVID victim’s estate, if I can trace the infection to your idiocy, I want a lien on your house to meet the obligations of your victim.
        rglover 6y ago
        Can I recover my losses if the countermeasures destroy my business?
        u801e 6y ago
        > Can I recover my losses if the countermeasures destroy my business? Do you place more importance on the health of your business over others' lives?
  - dahfizz 6y ago
    > This is no different from being arrested, is it? This is very different. For example, you cannot be held for more than 48 hours without being charged. This skips over the arrest, the fair trial, and the rule of law and goes directly to imprisonment for an arbitrary length of time.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    Probable cause under the law is more strict than “the police think”. Even the significantly lower standard of reasonable suspicion is slightly more than “the police think” and yet is not enough to make an arrest.
    - Spooky23 6y ago
      In my state, if you are driving a car, display signs of alcohol intoxication and refuse to submit to a test, you will be taken into custody, have a blood test administered and driving privileges revoked. Same story, tested in court 1000x.
      - sokoloff 6y ago
        Sure. That is articulable probable cause, namely that you displayed signs X, Y, and Z of alcohol intoxication while driving. That's more than "a cops thinks", but rather that a cop can articulate specific evidence to suggest it's the case.
        Spooky23 6y ago
        You can observe and articulate specific evidence to suggest that an individual is infected with COVID-19, or that they were in a situation where exposure makes infection probable.
        sokoloff 6y ago
        Great. So make the law that people who have had high probability exposure must self-quarantine and make it an arrestable offense to be both subject to and breaking of a mandatory self-quarantine. I don't mind that being an arrestable offense. I do mind "I don't like the how Spooky23 looks today and they were out in public in a high-risk area, so lock them up!" "I don't like Spooky23 so I'm going to force them to stay in their house or a place of their choosing" has less potential for abuse.
        6y ago
- Spooky23 6y ago
  Some people are incredibly stupid and willing to hurt those around them if that allows them to exercise their whims. The rest of society needs to be protected from them, and that is a key function of government. Someone close to me had a coworker who doesn’t believe in the COVID-19 virus and feels that his employer’s guidelines were designed to embarrass the president. He came to work with symptoms, and infected dozens of people, a few of which are hospitalized. It’s branch of stupid human behavior that’s always with us. Google the history of “Typhoid Mary”.
  - MikeIkerson 6y ago
    > Some people are incredibly stupid and willing to hurt those around them if that allows them to exercise their whims. You're talking about Cuomo, right?
  - systemvoltage 6y ago
    So then its a question between: A) Tolerate stupid people B) Institute deeply fascist laws that can be taken advantage of and put the entire society in perill. To me, its pretty clear which is the way to go. I'd rather have the society shame people than put them in undisclosed location for being stupid. Karen's movement is great!
    - vosper 6y ago
      Society has a lot of tolerance for stupid people. In normal times their stupidity isn’t spreading an infectious disease that’s killing thousands of people every day in the US alone (3,764 people died in the US from Covid yesterday)
      - nerdponx 6y ago
        A good analogy might be the penalties for driving while intoxicated, which is even more likely to kill or seriously injure somebody than going to a public place while infected with SARS-CoV-2. We as a society have tremendous tolerance for these people (at least in the US), who are less "stupid" and more some combination of "dangerously selfish" and "mentally ill". Many such people still have driver's licenses, and you only really get punished for a DWI when you actually do kill or injure somebody. So if that is the standard society has, we should apply it to COVID-19 to be consistent. If someone dies of a Covid case that is traceable to your own negligence (e.g. going to work with symptoms and no mask), you should be held liable for manslaughter.
- Shivetya 6y ago
  Frankly after how the current governor has acted with regards to the COVID19 event he is the last person that should have any power to isolate someone. Health officials yes, governors or his political appointees no. This is an administration which forced nursing homes to take in sick people which resulted in hundreds if not thousands of deaths.[0] This is a governor deciding how people can assemble with bias and not science based decision only giving in when a court slaps him down. While 6700 Bill's fans can assemble in a stadium the same does not hold true for other methods of assembly by his rule. He was recently struck down with his numbers game for churches and synagogues as similar restrictions were not in place on business types or other assemblies he favored[1 - PDF warning] No, this law looks tailored made so he has further means in his arsenal to stand up in court. Fortunately the courts have been slapping his restrictions around with quick actions and he has not seen fit to try at the Supreme Court. Yes, some restrictions are necessary. However there is little consistency between the types of groups it is applied to or by what measure. This new method really looks like it could easily be turned to opponents of his actions or any governor who follows. I have zero issue with medical professionals operating under law can have a means to isolate dangerously infectious people. I have a serious problem when political offices and their appointees are granted the same authority under the guise there is any protection from the review process, a process they control [0]https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/01/politics/andrew-cuomo-nursing-homes-fact-check/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/01/politics/andrew-cuomo-nursing... [1]https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/abc8dbc2-2055-44cc-9bd7-87be2b136622/1/doc/20-3572%2020-3590_opn.pdf#xml=https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/abc8dbc2-2055-44cc-9bd7-87be2b136622/1/hilite/ https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/abc8dbc2-20...
- hprotagonist 6y ago
  > It's basically saying "we can detain you if we think you have a virus and you're not allowed to fight us or try to escape." Look up what an involuntary psychiatric hold is. In NYS, for example, i very strongly advise you not to say phrases like "i want to hurt myself" in front of an on duty EMT; the next 48 to 96 hours of your life have a fair chance of being, uh, weirder than you'd anticipated. >Section 4, Article 12 is basically describing ... forced vaccination/medication. That's been a matter of settled law for 115 years. The state police power to ensure the public welfare does, in some situations, permit this.
  - drmom4 6y ago
    And having allergies is scary now because it could appear to be "symptoms". There is no reliable test yet that shows a person actually has enough viral load to be a danger to others!
kenny87 6y ago
To put some context on this, the underlying social problem is the overcriminalization of behavior and the alarming growth [1] in incarceration rates here in the U.S. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#/media/File:US_incarceration_timeline-clean.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#/me...
dahfizz 6y ago
This would give unelected officials the power to detain people "suspected" of having a disease. I would much rather live in a world where the government does not have that power. All the government has to do is declare a medical emergency (which they can do arbitrarily) and they can entirely subvert the justice system. This is the kind of thing conspiracy theorists have been laughed at for fearing, and now people like you openly support these authoritarian policies.

rglover 6y ago

There's a lot of slippery wording and room for malfeasance, specifically relating to how a person's behavior will influence the terms of their detainment. Section 3, Article 9: > A PERSON WHO IS DETAINED IN A MEDICAL FACILITY, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE FACILITY OR PREMISES, SHALL NOT CONDUCT HIMSELF OR HERSELF IN A DISORDERLY MANNER, AND SHALL NOT LEAVE OR ATTEMPT TO LEAVE SUCH FACILITY OR PREMISES UNTIL HE OR SHE IS DISCHARGED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION. That should terrify people. It's basically saying "we can detain you if we think you have a virus and you're not allowed to fight us or try to escape." --- There's also lack of clarity on where you will be kept if arrested: Section 1, Article 2: > SUCH PERSON OR GROUP OF PERSONS SHALL BE DETAINED IN A MEDICAL FACILITY OR OTHER APPROPRIATE FACILITY OR PREMISES DESIGNATED BY THE GOVERNOR OR HIS OR HER DELEGEE AND COMPLYING WITH SUBDIVISION FIVE OF THIS SECTION. --- Section 4, Article 12 is basically describing indefinite detainment and forced vaccination/medication.

geofft 6y ago
This is no different from being arrested, is it? You can be arrested for probable cause, i.e. if the police think you committed a crime, even if you committed no crime. You can have your day in court later if you're innocent, but you certainly can't fight or try to escape. Unless you think it's also bad that the police can detain people who haven't committed a crime / should allow people being arrested to fight back and escape?
- rglover 6y ago
  That's the exact problem. That makes this worse, not better. It means no personal autonomy over your health and sets the precedent for far worse things. That's always the point with stuff like this, the precedent, not the surface-level idea.
  - Spooky23 6y ago
    So what’s the personal consequence for your irresponsible exercise of autonomy? Perhaps the state should sue and seize your property to pay for the healthcare needs of folks infected by you.
    - rglover 6y ago
      If I get sick and die, I get sick and die. People who are concerned about getting sick or dying, then, should take more caution (staying home, wearing PPE, etc). That standard has always existed. Up until 2020, there was always the chance that you would catch some virus, bacterial infection, etc. The rebuttal that's always applied to this is that "so you don't care about people, then?" which is not the point. Personally, I can and should be legally able to take whatever precautions I think are necessary without any interference or looming punishment from the government. I'd much rather this sort of thing be policed socially amongst individuals as opposed to giving carte blanche to government to lock people up.
      - Spooky23 6y ago
        Sounds great, as long as I can recover my losses resulting from your irresponsibility. Freedom isn’t free, dude. As executor of a COVID victim’s estate, if I can trace the infection to your idiocy, I want a lien on your house to meet the obligations of your victim.
        rglover 6y ago
        Can I recover my losses if the countermeasures destroy my business?
        u801e 6y ago
        > Can I recover my losses if the countermeasures destroy my business? Do you place more importance on the health of your business over others' lives?
- dahfizz 6y ago
  > This is no different from being arrested, is it? This is very different. For example, you cannot be held for more than 48 hours without being charged. This skips over the arrest, the fair trial, and the rule of law and goes directly to imprisonment for an arbitrary length of time.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  Probable cause under the law is more strict than “the police think”. Even the significantly lower standard of reasonable suspicion is slightly more than “the police think” and yet is not enough to make an arrest.
  - Spooky23 6y ago
    In my state, if you are driving a car, display signs of alcohol intoxication and refuse to submit to a test, you will be taken into custody, have a blood test administered and driving privileges revoked. Same story, tested in court 1000x.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      Sure. That is articulable probable cause, namely that you displayed signs X, Y, and Z of alcohol intoxication while driving. That's more than "a cops thinks", but rather that a cop can articulate specific evidence to suggest it's the case.
      - Spooky23 6y ago
        You can observe and articulate specific evidence to suggest that an individual is infected with COVID-19, or that they were in a situation where exposure makes infection probable.
        sokoloff 6y ago
        Great. So make the law that people who have had high probability exposure must self-quarantine and make it an arrestable offense to be both subject to and breaking of a mandatory self-quarantine. I don't mind that being an arrestable offense. I do mind "I don't like the how Spooky23 looks today and they were out in public in a high-risk area, so lock them up!" "I don't like Spooky23 so I'm going to force them to stay in their house or a place of their choosing" has less potential for abuse.
        6y ago
Spooky23 6y ago
Some people are incredibly stupid and willing to hurt those around them if that allows them to exercise their whims. The rest of society needs to be protected from them, and that is a key function of government. Someone close to me had a coworker who doesn’t believe in the COVID-19 virus and feels that his employer’s guidelines were designed to embarrass the president. He came to work with symptoms, and infected dozens of people, a few of which are hospitalized. It’s branch of stupid human behavior that’s always with us. Google the history of “Typhoid Mary”.
- MikeIkerson 6y ago
  > Some people are incredibly stupid and willing to hurt those around them if that allows them to exercise their whims. You're talking about Cuomo, right?
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  So then its a question between: A) Tolerate stupid people B) Institute deeply fascist laws that can be taken advantage of and put the entire society in perill. To me, its pretty clear which is the way to go. I'd rather have the society shame people than put them in undisclosed location for being stupid. Karen's movement is great!
  - vosper 6y ago
    Society has a lot of tolerance for stupid people. In normal times their stupidity isn’t spreading an infectious disease that’s killing thousands of people every day in the US alone (3,764 people died in the US from Covid yesterday)
    - nerdponx 6y ago
      A good analogy might be the penalties for driving while intoxicated, which is even more likely to kill or seriously injure somebody than going to a public place while infected with SARS-CoV-2. We as a society have tremendous tolerance for these people (at least in the US), who are less "stupid" and more some combination of "dangerously selfish" and "mentally ill". Many such people still have driver's licenses, and you only really get punished for a DWI when you actually do kill or injure somebody. So if that is the standard society has, we should apply it to COVID-19 to be consistent. If someone dies of a Covid case that is traceable to your own negligence (e.g. going to work with symptoms and no mask), you should be held liable for manslaughter.
Shivetya 6y ago
Frankly after how the current governor has acted with regards to the COVID19 event he is the last person that should have any power to isolate someone. Health officials yes, governors or his political appointees no. This is an administration which forced nursing homes to take in sick people which resulted in hundreds if not thousands of deaths.[0] This is a governor deciding how people can assemble with bias and not science based decision only giving in when a court slaps him down. While 6700 Bill's fans can assemble in a stadium the same does not hold true for other methods of assembly by his rule. He was recently struck down with his numbers game for churches and synagogues as similar restrictions were not in place on business types or other assemblies he favored[1 - PDF warning] No, this law looks tailored made so he has further means in his arsenal to stand up in court. Fortunately the courts have been slapping his restrictions around with quick actions and he has not seen fit to try at the Supreme Court. Yes, some restrictions are necessary. However there is little consistency between the types of groups it is applied to or by what measure. This new method really looks like it could easily be turned to opponents of his actions or any governor who follows. I have zero issue with medical professionals operating under law can have a means to isolate dangerously infectious people. I have a serious problem when political offices and their appointees are granted the same authority under the guise there is any protection from the review process, a process they control [0]https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/01/politics/andrew-cuomo-nursing-homes-fact-check/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/01/politics/andrew-cuomo-nursing... [1]https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/abc8dbc2-2055-44cc-9bd7-87be2b136622/1/doc/20-3572%2020-3590_opn.pdf#xml=https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/abc8dbc2-2055-44cc-9bd7-87be2b136622/1/hilite/ https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/abc8dbc2-20...
hprotagonist 6y ago
> It's basically saying "we can detain you if we think you have a virus and you're not allowed to fight us or try to escape." Look up what an involuntary psychiatric hold is. In NYS, for example, i very strongly advise you not to say phrases like "i want to hurt myself" in front of an on duty EMT; the next 48 to 96 hours of your life have a fair chance of being, uh, weirder than you'd anticipated. >Section 4, Article 12 is basically describing ... forced vaccination/medication. That's been a matter of settled law for 115 years. The state police power to ensure the public welfare does, in some situations, permit this.
- drmom4 6y ago
  And having allergies is scary now because it could appear to be "symptoms". There is no reliable test yet that shows a person actually has enough viral load to be a danger to others!

kenny87 6y ago

To put some context on this, the underlying social problem is the overcriminalization of behavior and the alarming growth [1] in incarceration rates here in the U.S. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#/media/File:US_incarceration_timeline-clean.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#/me...

dahfizz 6y ago

This would give unelected officials the power to detain people "suspected" of having a disease. I would much rather live in a world where the government does not have that power. All the government has to do is declare a medical emergency (which they can do arbitrarily) and they can entirely subvert the justice system. This is the kind of thing conspiracy theorists have been laughed at for fearing, and now people like you openly support these authoritarian policies.