3 ms·

Having a memory more than a goldfish means I know exactly what was said, and they did more then just say "masks may not work" I vividly remember Facui stating

Having a memory more than a goldfish means I know exactly what was said, and they did more then just say "masks may not work" I vividly remember Facui stating many times on multiple interviews that masks were not effective. >the public should not get masks until medical professionals are equipped with what they need? disagree. I think people should be free to acquire any product they want on the market, and I believe it is HIGHLY unethical for government to come in cease medical equipment / masks/ or anything else under the guise they "do not work" for the public so we need to take them from you and give them to these other people that are better than you

ethanbond 4y ago
Well we can disagree on the ethics for sure. Legally, of course consumers do not have the right to acquire any product they want on the market and of course the government does have the ability to seize most anything for the national interest. Both of these powers are well established and have been used throughout history both for good things and bad things. Regarding Fauci, are you pointing to his March 8 2020 communication that "there's no reason to be walking around with a mask?" The full statement is here: "In America, right now, there's no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel better and it might even block a droplet here or there. But it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And often, there are unintended consequences - people fiddling with their mask and touching their face." This was both at the time, and currently, an open question as to how these things net out at the population level. This is a pretty nuanced and detailed communication that, unsurprisingly, the "I deserve nuance" crowd has completely eliminated.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  >>Well we can disagree on the ethics for sure From your comments you clearly on the camp of supporting government tyranny, I bet you fully supported lock-downs, mandated masking, mandated vaccinations as well? let me ask then, are there any limits on government at all in your worldview or can the government exclaim "national emergency" and wipe away any an all limits to their authority? >>the government does have the ability to seize most anything for the national interest. Both of these powers are well established and have been used throughout history both for good things and bad things. that is absolutely incorrect, as the Supreme Court has shown more than a few times (see case law around the seizing of guns after Katrina for an example of government exceeding their authority). There has not been much if any adjudication around the ceasing of medical supplies during the pandemic, or the seizing of labor (i.e lockdowns) both of which should clearly be 5th amendment violation and require just compensation. I would love to see some lawsuits over that, if the ACLU was actually about protecting civil liberties they would be at the forefront of those suits. >>are you pointing to his March 8 2020 communication No I am pointing to multiple TV interviews
  - ethanbond 4y ago
    There are a lot of limits on government powers! You can find them in the Constitution and the last 200 years of case law, and of course you're free to challenge any of those powers even today. "The government has the ability to seize most anything" == there are not classes of items the government cannot seize. Rather there are circumstances under which they can and circumstances under which they cannot. I suspect the reason you're not seeing much adjudication about these circumstances (medical supplies during a pandemic) is that it's not that controversial an application in legal circles. Ah yes the vague "that thing I remember that I cannot point to."

ethanbond 4y ago

Well we can disagree on the ethics for sure. Legally, of course consumers do not have the right to acquire any product they want on the market and of course the government does have the ability to seize most anything for the national interest. Both of these powers are well established and have been used throughout history both for good things and bad things. Regarding Fauci, are you pointing to his March 8 2020 communication that "there's no reason to be walking around with a mask?" The full statement is here: "In America, right now, there's no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel better and it might even block a droplet here or there. But it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And often, there are unintended consequences - people fiddling with their mask and touching their face." This was both at the time, and currently, an open question as to how these things net out at the population level. This is a pretty nuanced and detailed communication that, unsurprisingly, the "I deserve nuance" crowd has completely eliminated.

phpisthebest 4y ago
>>Well we can disagree on the ethics for sure From your comments you clearly on the camp of supporting government tyranny, I bet you fully supported lock-downs, mandated masking, mandated vaccinations as well? let me ask then, are there any limits on government at all in your worldview or can the government exclaim "national emergency" and wipe away any an all limits to their authority? >>the government does have the ability to seize most anything for the national interest. Both of these powers are well established and have been used throughout history both for good things and bad things. that is absolutely incorrect, as the Supreme Court has shown more than a few times (see case law around the seizing of guns after Katrina for an example of government exceeding their authority). There has not been much if any adjudication around the ceasing of medical supplies during the pandemic, or the seizing of labor (i.e lockdowns) both of which should clearly be 5th amendment violation and require just compensation. I would love to see some lawsuits over that, if the ACLU was actually about protecting civil liberties they would be at the forefront of those suits. >>are you pointing to his March 8 2020 communication No I am pointing to multiple TV interviews
- ethanbond 4y ago
  There are a lot of limits on government powers! You can find them in the Constitution and the last 200 years of case law, and of course you're free to challenge any of those powers even today. "The government has the ability to seize most anything" == there are not classes of items the government cannot seize. Rather there are circumstances under which they can and circumstances under which they cannot. I suspect the reason you're not seeing much adjudication about these circumstances (medical supplies during a pandemic) is that it's not that controversial an application in legal circles. Ah yes the vague "that thing I remember that I cannot point to."