3 ms·

Quarantines of actually sick individuals, you mean. The use of PCR tests with ridiculously high thresholds to determine "asymptomatic carriers" was an extreme

Quarantines of actually sick individuals, you mean. The use of PCR tests with ridiculously high thresholds to determine "asymptomatic carriers" was an extreme overreach. It was such an overreach that the public health establishment has already backtracked on this level of sensitivity in PCR testing, with respect to vaccinated individuals, because they keep getting all these pesky "false positives" after vaccination. It's really messing with their outreach campaigns, understandably. You can be sure this will all be clarified in litigation over the next few decades while the Trump appointees get to work. Unless, of course, the restrictionists come down off the ledge. It seems you all are folding on all fronts recently. My genuine prediction is that all of this will be moot in a years time once no one pays any mind to the coronabros anymore.

geofft 5y ago
No, I don't mean quarantines of actually sick individuals. I mean quarantines of anyone and everyone, regardless of testing. From the Supreme Court case I linked to: > ... on September 29, 1898, the vessel arrived at the quarantine station some distance below the city of New Orleans, was there regularly inspected, and was found, both as to the passengers and cargo, to be free from any infectious or contagious disease, and accordingly was given a clean bill of health, whereby the ship became entitled to proceed to New Orleans and land her passengers and discharge her cargo. This, however, it was asserted she was not permitted to do.... Nobody on board the ship was sick, according to tests, and they were still lawfully quarantined, and the law was constitutional. But you're right, this will all be forgotten in a few years and relitigated afresh in the court of public opinion (in every country) next pandemic, just like this particular case has been completely forgotten, the quarantines of the Spanish Flu have been completely forgotten, etc.
- chitowneats 5y ago
  You’re completely misrepresenting the supposed similarities between your example and the reality in 2021. The document you reference is talking about quarantining travelers from abroad before they officially enter the US: > "It was asserted that the plaintiff, a corporation created by and existing under the laws of the Republic of France and a citizen of said Republic, on or about September 2, 1898, caused its steamship Britannia to be cleared from the ports of Marseilles, France, and Palermo, Italy, for New Orleans with a cargo of merchandise and with about 408 passengers, some of whom were citizens of the United States returning home, and others who were seeking homes in the United States, and who intended to settle in the state of Louisiana or adjoining states, and that all the passengers referred to at the time of their sailing were free from infectious or contagious diseases. It was further averred that on September 29, 1898, the vessel arrived at the quarantine station some distance below the city of New Orleans" It does not in any way justify indiscriminately restricting the constitutionally protected freedoms of American citizens, on American soil, for more than a year. Try telling someone in the early 1900's that their church or synagogue is closed for the next 15 months, by order of the U.S government. Good luck. In this case, when Americans have chosen to travel abroad, it justifies a limited quarantine when they return to the country. Nothing more. Indefinite lockdowns of entire states or the entire country is not quarantine. Rather, it's a grave human rights violation that we cargo culted from Communist China. Edit: lol to the comment below. gnight bro.
  - geofft 5y ago
    Are you claiming that American citizens have fewer constitutional rights when not on American soil but attempting to return? Where in the Constitution does it say that? Anyway, once again, this is all beside the point. I'm not talking about one particular country. I'm talking about the worldwide desire to avoid serious lockdowns. And I don't know about your church or synagogue, but my church closed voluntarily - and remains closed (we're reopening in limited amounts in a couple of weeks) - because our religion teaches us that when Satan says "You will not surely die!" and tempts us with short-term freedom, we say no. We've been online. It works great.

geofft 5y ago

No, I don't mean quarantines of actually sick individuals. I mean quarantines of anyone and everyone, regardless of testing. From the Supreme Court case I linked to: > ... on September 29, 1898, the vessel arrived at the quarantine station some distance below the city of New Orleans, was there regularly inspected, and was found, both as to the passengers and cargo, to be free from any infectious or contagious disease, and accordingly was given a clean bill of health, whereby the ship became entitled to proceed to New Orleans and land her passengers and discharge her cargo. This, however, it was asserted she was not permitted to do.... Nobody on board the ship was sick, according to tests, and they were still lawfully quarantined, and the law was constitutional. But you're right, this will all be forgotten in a few years and relitigated afresh in the court of public opinion (in every country) next pandemic, just like this particular case has been completely forgotten, the quarantines of the Spanish Flu have been completely forgotten, etc.

chitowneats 5y ago
You’re completely misrepresenting the supposed similarities between your example and the reality in 2021. The document you reference is talking about quarantining travelers from abroad before they officially enter the US: > "It was asserted that the plaintiff, a corporation created by and existing under the laws of the Republic of France and a citizen of said Republic, on or about September 2, 1898, caused its steamship Britannia to be cleared from the ports of Marseilles, France, and Palermo, Italy, for New Orleans with a cargo of merchandise and with about 408 passengers, some of whom were citizens of the United States returning home, and others who were seeking homes in the United States, and who intended to settle in the state of Louisiana or adjoining states, and that all the passengers referred to at the time of their sailing were free from infectious or contagious diseases. It was further averred that on September 29, 1898, the vessel arrived at the quarantine station some distance below the city of New Orleans" It does not in any way justify indiscriminately restricting the constitutionally protected freedoms of American citizens, on American soil, for more than a year. Try telling someone in the early 1900's that their church or synagogue is closed for the next 15 months, by order of the U.S government. Good luck. In this case, when Americans have chosen to travel abroad, it justifies a limited quarantine when they return to the country. Nothing more. Indefinite lockdowns of entire states or the entire country is not quarantine. Rather, it's a grave human rights violation that we cargo culted from Communist China. Edit: lol to the comment below. gnight bro.
- geofft 5y ago
  Are you claiming that American citizens have fewer constitutional rights when not on American soil but attempting to return? Where in the Constitution does it say that? Anyway, once again, this is all beside the point. I'm not talking about one particular country. I'm talking about the worldwide desire to avoid serious lockdowns. And I don't know about your church or synagogue, but my church closed voluntarily - and remains closed (we're reopening in limited amounts in a couple of weeks) - because our religion teaches us that when Satan says "You will not surely die!" and tempts us with short-term freedom, we say no. We've been online. It works great.