White House Blocks CDC Guidance Over Economic and Religious Concerns (nytimes.com) 377
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times: As President Trump rushes to reopen the economy, a battle has erupted between the White House and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention over the agency's detailed guidelines to help schools, restaurants, churches and other establishments safely reopen. A copy of the C.D.C. guidance obtained by The New York Times includes sections for child care programs, schools and day camps, churches and other "communities of faith," employers with vulnerable workers, restaurants and bars, and mass transit administrators. The recommendations include using disposable dishes and utensils at restaurants, closing every other row of seats in buses and subways while restricting transit routes between areas experiencing different coronavirus infection levels, and separating children at school and camps into groups that should not mix throughout the day.
But White House and other administration officials rejected the recommendations over concerns that they were overly prescriptive, infringed on religious rights and risked further damaging an economy that Mr. Trump was banking on to recover quickly. A spokesman for the C.D.C. said the guidance was still under discussion with the White House and a revised version could be published soon. [...] The mixed signals extend to reopening guidelines: On April 16, Mr. Trump's coronavirus task force released broad guidance for states to reopen in three phases, based on case levels and hospital capacity. But the more detailed C.D.C. guidance was seen by some members of the task force and other aides as a document that could slow down the reopening effort, according to several people with knowledge of the deliberations inside the West Wing. "Protections against religious discrimination aren't suspended during an emergency. This means the federal government cannot single out religious conduct as somehow being more dangerous or worthy of scrutiny than comparable secular behavior," said Roger Severino, the director of the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services and a social conservative who once headed the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at the Heritage Foundation. "Governments have a duty to instruct the public on how to stay safe during this crisis and can absolutely do so without dictating to people how they should worship God."
Several federal agencies that reviewed the guidance in draft form, including the Department of Labor and the Office for Civil Rights at H.H.S., protested, saying it would be harmful to businesses and the economy and too burdensome for houses of worship.
But White House and other administration officials rejected the recommendations over concerns that they were overly prescriptive, infringed on religious rights and risked further damaging an economy that Mr. Trump was banking on to recover quickly. A spokesman for the C.D.C. said the guidance was still under discussion with the White House and a revised version could be published soon. [...] The mixed signals extend to reopening guidelines: On April 16, Mr. Trump's coronavirus task force released broad guidance for states to reopen in three phases, based on case levels and hospital capacity. But the more detailed C.D.C. guidance was seen by some members of the task force and other aides as a document that could slow down the reopening effort, according to several people with knowledge of the deliberations inside the West Wing. "Protections against religious discrimination aren't suspended during an emergency. This means the federal government cannot single out religious conduct as somehow being more dangerous or worthy of scrutiny than comparable secular behavior," said Roger Severino, the director of the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services and a social conservative who once headed the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at the Heritage Foundation. "Governments have a duty to instruct the public on how to stay safe during this crisis and can absolutely do so without dictating to people how they should worship God."
Several federal agencies that reviewed the guidance in draft form, including the Department of Labor and the Office for Civil Rights at H.H.S., protested, saying it would be harmful to businesses and the economy and too burdensome for houses of worship.
Discussion is discrimination? (Score:3, Insightful)
If people at non-religious places acted the same they'd get the same response. That means we're not discriminating against the religion, but what they're doing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So no crowds where people are in close proximity. This applies equally to churches and to strip clubs. Both of which have strong adherents claiming that the locations should be considered essential.
Mostly I think it comes from Trump's rich elite friends who claim that they have religious objections to eating off of paper plates.
Re: (Score:3)
It's right there in the summary:
...said Roger Severino...who once headed the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at the Heritage Foundation.
You don't get much more Republican than that.
With Earth worship as the new religion of the Leftist Democrats I can imagine that any demand to eat from disposable paper plates as being a violation of their right to exercise their religious beliefs.
Care to post a link showing any of that happening?
Re:Discussion is discrimination? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been bringing my own grocery bags to the store in ultra liberal Santa Clara County in the Socialist Republic of California and no one has complained. I just bag them myself as I have no authority to demand that the clerk handle or even touch my bags. I like freedom so no way would I want to infringe the freedoms of someone else merely because they're being paid minimum wage and are behind a plexiglass sneeze guard.
"Young and healthy" is irrelevant. Anyone can be a carrier, and anyone can die. The idea that this is only an old person's disease is a false myth. Babies have died, toddlers have died twenty somethings have died, even when they have not had underlying conditions like asthma. Anyone can die from this! Don't be cavalier about other people's lives.
This is not a Democratic versus Republican thing! This is not a political issue, it is a health issue. Governors and county officials from all political persuasions have implemented these orders. No one is trying to destroy your liberties or change your way of live except a tiny number of fringe individuals on both sides of the aisle.
Re: (Score:3)
If people start to gather and there is little change in the spread of disease
Don't science much, do you?
Re: (Score:3)
"If people start to gather and there is little change in the spread of disease" ... then there will be widespread calls for the lockdown governors and their collaborators to be put on trial for their crimes against humanity.
Conversely, "If people start to gather and there is a big increase in the spread of disease"... Then people like you will be the first up against the wall?
Well no. You are totally unaccountable to anyone. Which is why you are free to claim anything you like. It's very easy to play armchair hero on the Internet.
Re:Discussion is discrimination? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not being done for political purposes! Liberals are just as fond of the US constitution as conservatives are, maybe the just rank them differently. This is a health issue. We have had quarantines in the past. We have both Democratic and Republican governors issuing orders in their states. It is not "just the flu." Most states are making plans to open things back up gradually. These actions are not taken on a personal whim by the governors, but from the duly authorized health officials for which the state constitutions have granted.
All the rights in the constitution do come with limits which have been held up by the courts over a long period of time. Your rights are indeed being infringed, but the courts have held that governments can infringe such rights at certain times and under "strict scrutiny", it cannot be done on a whim. The courts have upheld quarantine laws in the past on these grounds. The courts have upheld libel and slander laws as well, despite infringing on the rights of individuals. The courts have upheld gun registration laws. If you think that the government cannot in any way or form or at any time or reason infringe upon rights, then you're missing out on over 200 years of history and court cases. If your individual rights infringe upon rights of other individual, then the government can step in - don't dump your trash into your neighbor's yard (or into the river that passes by the neighbor's house, etc).
The states can declare a state of emergency, and there must be a compelling reason, and it is temporary. You may disagree, so you have the right to take it up with the courts. You can argue "sippery slope", sort of what your post is implying, but if so take it up with the courts. But you will most likely find in your state's constitution the ability to declare a state of emergency and that it has been upheld by the courts in the past. You indeed have the right to act stupidly, but please don't act stupidly if it hurts someone else.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/e... [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
That is an absolute goddamn lie.
You're right, it is a goddam lie. Liberals aren't the ones who cheered on a president who pardoned someone convicted only of violating the constitution. Therefore liberals clearly are much more in favour of the constitution than conservatives.
Re:Discussion is discrimination? (Score:4, Insightful)
Protect old people (via stay-at-home programs) and this issue becomes less of a problem than a mild fucking flu year.
This is why nobody bothers to 'debate' people like you...
You live in your own separate reality, unattached to ours.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Discussion is discrimination? (Score:4, Insightful)
If people at non-religious places acted the same they'd get the same response. That means we're not discriminating against the religion, but what they're doing.
What do you expect? Religious people are already disconnected from reality, otherwise they would not believe in a fairy-tale of a type at most suitable for small children. Of course they believe everybody outside of their circle of stupidity is out to get them.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. But great invalid fail at trying to come up with some "argument"!
This is his job. (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember: To modern conservatives, this is the role of government.
Government exists to be hated.
Government exists to be the fallguy.
Government exists to hand money to private interests, then take all possible flack for that open corruption.
Trump is the perfect representation of this ideal.
He isn't there to be a good guy, or to save lives - he's there to place as big a possible stain on the core idea of shared governance, and to put as many barriers into place for future governance as possible.
In the scope of that, a few hundred thousand deaths and permanent lung injuries is a feather in his cap, not a bad thing in the least.
The scientists have different priorities - so, of course, they're going to be sidelined and belittled. They have no idea what is really important, when you get to the important priorities.
You'd think this would cost conservatism support over time - but it's key to its strategy.
Ryan Fenton
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Like where they prioritise peoples lives over making more money for shareholders you mean. I'll go with the scientists priorities over some asshat politician's any day.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"the economy" isn't just shareholders. It's also everyone who has to put food on the table and a roof over their family's heads. It's those who have to keep their small business afloat. And it's those who pay taxes without which the government can't just take over these responsibilities.
Scientists are not accountable for their recommendations. They can afford to claim whatever they want. They can shut down the world for months and still get paid. It's politicians who ultimately have to act and face the musi
Re: (Score:2)
The UK govt is having no problem supporting the population through lockdown, the financial payout is surprisingly small. /god this comment system is fucking retarded, I can't reply to 3 posts without it getting all fucking whiny bitch
Re: (Score:2)
Leaders make decisions in uncertain environments. Because they make the final call, they bare the ultimate responsibly no matter what the outcome. Advisors give advice, but they are not in the chain of command.
You are a paranoid fool who has confused idiot horror movies with the real world. There is not
Re: (Score:2)
Like where they prioritise peoples lives over making more money for shareholders you mean.
WTF? Shareholders? Most large corporations weren't restricted much anyway - after all, it was the government picking winners and losers, and the government is fully compromised. No. Try my barber. She'd really like to not starve to death. She'd really like to not lose her place of business due to back rent. Fortunately, Texas is sane and tomorrow she'll be back in business, albeit to a limited degree.
Now, if you're of the opinion that "people don't need haircuts, and shouldn't risk their lives needle
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help. " - this is an actual quote from a Republican president which, even though he's dead he still has up on his website. Do you think that attitude helped the US government prepare for Covid-19?
Please point to the part of the grandparent post which isn't supported by that statement. Please point to one particular thing which isn't really true. That it's clearly offensive and stupid when stated clear
Re:This is his job. (Score:4, Insightful)
You're assuming that Trump has the attention span to think on the scale of a doctrine. He clearly has difficulty thinking on the scale of coherent sentences or multi-syllabic words.
What's apparent is that the Republican Party does indeed share the values & sentiments that you've described. Trump's just the idiot buffoon that distracts the media & the public from what your elected representatives are actually up to. So far, it seems to be working like a charm.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Trump is a compromised narcissist with some kind of early onset dementia. Perhaps sundowner's symdrome.
But what's left of the republican party does think on that scale of doctrine. Including attacking schooling to prevent rational thinking, use of the scientific method, and to promote religious thinking.
Before this is all said and done- I think a fifth of religious conservatives will either have permanently damaged health and high levels of debt, or be dead.
And it appears they want to rush it which will r
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think any of these arguments are driven by desire for religious worship, I think they're driven by the declining revenue of for-profit evangelical-type churches which have become ideologically intermingled with gun-nut libertarianism.
Plus many "evangelical" churches have shifted to the so-called theology of prosperity vs. the more traditional hellfire-and-brimstone family values. American culture shifted, especially among working class people, and being absolutist about extra-marital sex and divorc
Re: (Score:2)
If Reagan was running for office today, I guarantee that the current conservative branch of the Republican party would label him a liberal RINO. Reagan campaigned about a smaller government, but in practice he actually managed to govern the country without having a tear-it-down motivation. He was even good friends with the Democratic majority leader of the house rather than having a bitter blood feud.
Re:This is his job. (Score:5, Interesting)
Reagan used that money to finance death squads in Nicaragua, those death squads murdered tens of thousands.
Reagan got away with all that, which has taught the Republican party that there are no consequences, so anything goes.
The conservative branch of the Republican party owe Reagan so much.
Re:This is his job. (Score:4, Insightful)
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: there must be in-groups that the law protects but does not bind, and out-groups that the the law binds but does not protect." - Frances Wilhoit
You see, we are not the first to see through the ruse of conservatism. It is authoritarianism, plain and simple. Rules for thee, but not for me. You can say that this is a straw man, and a misrepresentation of conservatism, and I will tell you plainly: conservatives lie. They do not care one whit for the truth, or for civility, except in so much as those things can serve as weapons. They will curse your family and turn right around and demand civility when you curse them back.
Re:This is his job. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait... so now it's "authoritarianism, plain and simple" for the government to REFUSE to force onerous regulation upon citizens that controls the way they live and work?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
They don't seem to mind being authoritarian when it serves the things they're interested in. More of that rules for thee but none for me.
Re:This is his job. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh yes. You are right. The government is very concerned about your freedom to live your life as you see fit.
For example: they are preparing legislation that will protect your employer from any damages that may result from you getting sick because he made you work too closely together with others, without sufficient protection and without testing nor contact tracing.
So there you are. Your boss has all the freedom to force you to risk your health and that of your family and relatives and has the freedom to tell you to suck it up or be fired! And he will not face any consequences for that (otherwise it would not be freedom, now would it?)
In my opinion a government must protect its citizens from any reasonable and forseable risk. Especially in a big crisis like this a global federal government can make a huge difference. Want proof? Approx. 1/3 of the corona cases and 1/4 of the deaths worldwide come from the US. Why? Because the central government is refusing to step in.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"they oppose states interpreting the second amendment as only applying to militias "
SCOTUS said as much with DC v Heller. SCOTUS opinion has more weight than a washingtonpost article authored by an assistant professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Conservatives are supposed to be opposed to Big Government
I think it's clear (as hindsight often is) that the supposed principles of conservatism have just been a pretext this entire time. Those supposed principles just provided cover for the real conservative agenda. Trump has abandoned any shred of pretext, leaving the real agenda plainly visible.
I don't think you can have Small Government (Score:4, Informative)
It's a game you're forced to play.
We're better off with stuff like National Vote by Mail, Mandatory Voting and more and more education. Make better people for a better government and then require those people to participate so they can't be disenfranchised.
That last one is key, you don't make voting mandatory to force people to vote, you do it to make it impossible to take away the right to vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything you said is part of the bullshit.
What rule says that conservatives cannot be for big government? I have found EVERYONE wants big government when government is promising to wipe their asses and advance their agendas and EVERYONE wants less government when government is not promising to wipe their asses and advance their agendas.
It's the same bullshit that says Democrats are for human rights... they are not. Democrats are for Democrats... that's all... just like Republicans are for Republicans...
Re: (Score:3)
"The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as “very liberal.” The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives." - Haidt.
I don't think you have accurately represented conservatives.
Re: (Score:2)
It is authoritarianism, plain and simple.
Democrats are the ones who impose draconian restrictions in their states but conservatives who advocate freedom are the authoritarians?
They do not care one whit for the truth, or for civility, except in so much as those things can serve as weapons.
Again, I think you have your wires crossed. Three words: believe all women.
They will curse your family and turn right around and demand civility when you curse them back.
To quote some commenter a couple of posts above you "It's not funny when they die. Unless they voted for Trump. Then it's kinda funny..."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Conservative" changes meaning very often. What was true about conservatives ten years ago is not true today. Originally conservative mostly meant sticking to the tried and true traditions, laws, and norms. Today it often seems like conservatives love freedom (they shout it out at every chance) but they really mean freedom for themselves and their families only; certainly they don't want freedom for those with different religions, different family styles, different morals, or different economic values.
Th
Re:This is his job. (Score:5, Insightful)
Causing various agencies to fail and then using that failure as an excuse to eliminate the services it failed to provide is a well documented part of the GOP playbook, and has been for some time now.
Re: (Score:2)
When you tried to play the "But Billy did it too!" card to get out of trouble with your parents, did it ever actually work?
Re:Smiles and nods (Score:3)
The cardinal sin is to cause a fuss in front of power, where the commonors can see it.
All governments, all power structures, all institutional norms we humans have follow the same repetitive pattern of capturing violent or provocative behavior (driven by anger or other emotion), and progressively stepping it down until it's presentable in public the Way It Ought To Be and you can be shuffled under the rug or made example of, as befits your social caste.
You can be angry and violent with the cops. That's okay
Re: (Score:3)
OK, give up on compromise without trying then.
Mitch McConnell pleged NO COMPROMISE. Somehow you've convinced yourself it's the liberals fault.
Re: (Score:2)
> goal of leaders is to prove through example that governments are terrible
Do you really think this is accurate? Do you really think conservatives have the goal for leaders to prove governments are terrible?
Bugger science... (Score:3)
If I repeat a mantra often enough... people seem to bend to whatever I say.
(Microbes aren't quite as gullible unfortunately...)
Discrimination against worship (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Discrimination against worship (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Food intake can also be paused for awhile. In fact, the body is designed with a mechanism for just this purpose, and at an average expenditure of 1200-1500 calories a day, the average American has 70 days of reserve capacity.
Think about it for a while: if an infected person visits a church, they might infect a few of the congregants through the airborne route, but an infected cashier or stocker could infect the entire town, because unlike the pastor, they touch everything the customer eats.
If anything
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like a simple solution. Tell people they can go to church *or* the grocery school. One or the other, just pick one.
Results should be interesting.
Re: (Score:3)
I happen to agree with you, but many strong religious believers don't. Some believe that they may be tortured forever if they don't get religious rites every week (or, in extreme cases, day).
To them religious services really *do* seem essential. I, as a heretical gnostic, feel free to give myself my own religious services.
Re: (Score:2)
How is that not discrimination when you can do those thing while shopping at the supermarket?
How are you possibly comparing religious services to shopping at a supermarket? Comparisons to movie theaters would be more appropriate.
Re:Discrimination against worship (Score:4, Insightful)
From an epidemiological point of view, there is no difference between a packed Sunday sermon and a movie theater. The virus really doesn't care whether you're packing people together to praise God or the latest Marvel film.
Re: (Score:2)
packing people together to praise... the latest Marvel film.
This is slashdot. We can just stay at home and praise Jet Girl for a few decades as long as the supermarket and the cheesey poof factories stay open.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget the big rock candy mountains!
And the prerolled trees
The Mountain Dew springs
Where the bluebird sings
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains
.
Re: (Score:2)
That's true but at this point there are a lot of people with cabin fever, and if they are not allowed to leave with the government's permission then they will leave without it. The best thing the government can do right now is make logical guidelines on who can do what and when. There is little risk to allowing healthy children to go to schools or daycare centers. Most adults under 60 years old are also quite safe to go back to work. People with certain risk factors, like obesity, diabetes, and asthma,
Re:Discrimination against worship (Score:5, Insightful)
During the 1918 flu pandemic, Seattle and a number of other cities shut down public worship. It was the cause of no small amount of frustration and anger, but as it turns out, viruses don't care about the Constitution either. And the Constitution doesn't give anyone absolute liberties. The whole premise behind stay at home orders is compatible with the notion of "your liberty to swing your fist ends at my nose." Packing a bunch of people together in a small space while a highly communicable disease is making the rounds is just plain fucking stupid, and the premise that somehow freedom of religion allows people to ignore temporary health orders is beyond absurd.
Re:Discrimination against worship (Score:5, Interesting)
Simple: the vast majority of religious people in WA State are various forms of Christians.
Christians are not required to attend specific services. They're allowed and even encouraged to pray privately, and it is believed that God can see in their heart to know if they really wished they were at church on Sunday, or not, and they'll get full credit for their secret obedience.
If there was a major religion in WA that believed that even during a pandemic you're required to attend the service and do the full ritual, even if it kills you, then they'd be making some sort of provision for that.
As it is, the complaint is merely whining over personal preference. Whining in the context of church doesn't turn public health restrictions into discrimination.
And while God will purportedly see your Love for Him in your heart while you pray at home, in isolation, your stomach will in fact not see your desire for food if you stay home and don't go to the market.
Re:Discrimination against worship (Score:5, Interesting)
It is not discriminatory unless there is a bona-fide religious requirement for the exemption.
"I'm a Deist, give me special rules" is not good enough.
You do not explain Catholic requirements well enough to convince me that you have a bona-fide complaint there. Let the Catholics make that argument if they want, they'll at least know what is expected of them. And really, if they're in isolation they should be committing less sins. They could actually also just pause their sinning during the pandemic, and they wouldn't need to attend services. But Catholics are not in fact complaining about this.
The Pope gets to choose what Catholics say, not InternetFreedomfryWarrior. https://www.vaticannews.va/en/... [vaticannews.va]
and then respecting the public health instructions that we've seen happen all over the world now in terms of social distancing and trying to avoid contact with crowds and others.
If you listen to Pope Francis, what you need to be worried about regarding COVID-19 is the effect it has on the poor, and you should be working to help relieve their suffering. Selfishly complaining about yourself is exactly the sort of sinning you need to avoid during lockdown, when you can't attend Confession. Not that you'd even notice the sin in order to confess it...
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Who cares about religion? (Score:3, Interesting)
If Christians can stomp their feet and force their religion down people's throats while claiming they don't have to abide by the laws of this nation, people don't have to give a flying fuck what Christians think or want. If it offends Christians, so what?
James Madison was absolutely correct when he put separation of Church and State in the First Amendment, stating:
Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.
The reason being:
And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.
Re: (Score:3)
That was compromised when religions were given tax exempt status.
Re: (Score:3)
The practice of saying the pledge in the DOD school system, with the words, "under God".
There's your example. Do you know how I know this?
I know this because I was sent home and suspended for refusing to say it, as a child.
Economy matters (Score:3)
The economy matters for the working poor and middle class far more than it does for the wealthy. When the economy is in shambles it is much harder for the working poor to get decent jobs, much less with jobs with benefits like usable health insurance. The real damage is amongst the people that lose their jobs and are now living in poverty. Poverty leads to despair and despair leads to drug and alcohol abuse and suicide. In Australia they are estimating that suicides alone will result in more deaths then the pandemic.
https://www.theaustralian.com.... [theaustralian.com.au]
Never mind all of the other deaths that poverty will lead to from poor nutrition, stress and poor lifestyle choices inspired by very limited budgets. Poverty Kills. The death toll from the damaged economy is easily going outweigh the number of people that would be killed by the pandemic. To put this in context:
https://nypost.com/2020/04/20/... [nypost.com]
Let them open the chruches (Score:5, Interesting)
Like nuclear reactors, (Score:5, Insightful)
It works best if you concentrate the faith by barring shut the doors and bricking them up.
Maybe, we're better off without CDC? (Score:3)
Is this same CDC, that took over 2 months to make up its mind over whether wearing a mask is a good idea [msn.com]? Even our fellow slashdotters were confused — and suspected, Trump recommends them out of nepotism [slashdot.org].
Maybe, we don't need a government bureaucracy like that at all...
People are fucking idiots (Score:3)
"Governments have a duty to instruct the public on how to stay safe during this crisis and can absolutely do so without dictating to people how they should worship God."
Governments also have a duty to keep the rest of the people safe from those who are ignorant or defiant of the facts about how a disease can spread through a population. If you're too fucking stupid to understand that gathering in large numbers and close proximity during a viral outbreak is a bad idea then, perhaps, the Government DOES need to dictate to certain people about how they go about practicing their religion.
If you want to worship, go for it. I won't discriminate against you in any way, shape or form.
I have no issues with you risking YOUR own health.
The problem is you then mingle with all of us after attending services in a crowded Church / Mosque / Whatever and you put the rest of us at risk as well.
Why didn't the Republicans say this in 1996?!?!?! (Score:3)
"This means the federal government cannot single out religious conduct as somehow being more dangerous or worthy of scrutiny than comparable secular behavior."
Unless those being singled out are African-Americans. Then the Federal government will allow good "Christian" white folk to tell African-Americans to not go to church.
Source WIKI: "More than 30 black churches were burned in an 18-month period in 1995 and 1996, leading Congress to pass the Church Arson Prevention Act."
"If they don't go, they won't be a target." said a jackass to a television news reporter. And he wasn't the only one which had the opinion that the solution was for certain church goers were to stay at home until the arsonists were apprehended.
Republicans deemed this a "local issue" which the Federal government could not interfere in and if southern cities wanted to close churches for the public good there was nothing the President could do about it.
Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 - Makes Federal criminal code prohibitions against, and penalties for, damaging religious property or obstructing any person's free exercise of religious beliefs applicable where the offense is in, or affects, interstate commerce.
There is no such thing as god (Score:3)
Just a little technical correction, in case it is needed: There is no such thing as god.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The CDC guidelines, as well intentioned as they may be, sure seem idiotic. Disposable plates? It goes downhill from there.
Oh yes, I am sure you are also far more knowledgeable about how to limit the spread of an infectious disease than the CDC is.
Re: (Score:3)
Naw, they're just completely full of shit and hubris.
Re:This is going to get messy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Disposable plates are a smart idea. No one has to clean them, and people can put their own plates in the trash. That obviously limits the potential to spread disease. Would you like to handle an object that had been licked by someone with coronavirus? "It goers downhill from there" is simply intellectual laziness on your part, because in fact the ONLY thing you could even begin to find fault with was the plates, but that is only because you did not think things through.
Why would you assume you know more than the experts in this field? Are you and expert in epidemiology? Perhaps you think they are dumber than you, or maybe you think they are deliberately lying? In any case, you are wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Disposable plates at restaurants would probably go some distance to mitigating the spread of the virus. It actually seems like a damned sensible idea. The less surfaces that have to be handled, the small the vector for the virus to spread.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's completely pointless, detergent kills coronavirus, all you have to do is stick plates in soapy water or a dishwasher instead of the bin. I'd expect better from CDC, very unscientific.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but consider this.
The waiter who brings your food to your table. He has his mask, face shield and gloves and gives you your food.
But what was the waiter doing 5 minutes ago? Say, cleaning up the table near you of dishes. He brings them into the kitchen and puts them on the dishwasher pile. He then goes and grabs your
Re: (Score:2)
And what's to stop the waiter from touching the disposable items? Half of people dispose of their crap, half don't. And how are they going to pay? Are they going to stop breathing so as to avoid infecting other people?
This is all complete bollocks basically, restaurants should be closed unless everyone is in hazmat and you can't eat whilst wearing hazmat. The droplets from a sneeze can go 8m easily, the virus is very contagious it creates huge numbers at virus particles in the days before symptoms appear -
Re: (Score:3)
One thing I didn't see in the document but somewhere in the news is that some places are having the food placed on carts (supposedly by the cook/preparer) and then the server takes the cart to the diner. Once there the diner takes the food off the cart taking one person out of the chain of handlers.
From the CDC document (which was posted by the CBC [www.cbc.ca]):
o Clean and disinfect frequently touched surfaces (for example, door handles, work stations, cash registers) at least daily and shared objects (for example, pay
Re: (Score:2)
There you go. That's why you use disposable plates. Because there are poeple who think you just have to dip something in detergent and bam, you're good.
Re: (Score:2)
Detergent kills the virus, that's what the science says, why the fuck do think you;re being told to wash your hands? FML.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you miss the part where you're being told to wash your hands *thoroughly* for *at least 20 seconds*?
Detergent doesn't magically kill the virus like a nuke from orbit.
FYL indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Regular plates ge
That is a worse idea (Score:2)
No one has to clean them, and people can put their own plates in the trash.
So now instead of having no contact with surfaces in a restaurant other than plates which were washed in soap, and a table that was cleaned with soap, I have to also interact with a trash areas that's maybe cleaned a few times a day and where every single visitor has to go...
How is that better? Employees are no better off, as they still have to clean the table, and the trash area. Instead you'd made the situation much worse for dine
Re: (Score:2)
Disposable plates are a bad idea....but the problem is, many plates are left with food on them, that needs to be cleaned off before they go into the dish washer. People need to handle plates that other people have been eating off of. Etc.
It would be much better to use regular plates, but then the customers would need to clean their own plates after eating. This would require significant structural changes, and many people just wouldn't do it anyway. Probably the better idea is to replace the mechanism w
Re: (Score:2)
I fully believe that some people like sharing a cup with a whole bunch of other people while they pretend to drink zombie blood. That doesn't make it a good idea from a public health perspective.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying you completely trust the guy who couldn't do better than washing dishes for minimum wage to not miss several spots when washing the dishes (or sneeze on them after...).
Sure, you might get the dish washer who's just had a temporary setback or just wanted beer money while in school, but you might not.
Re: (Score:2)
The CDC guidelines, as well intentioned as they may be, sure seem idiotic. Disposable plates? It goes downhill from there
Disposable plates to prevent the spread of infectious disease a completely sane and reasonable measure. What's your objection?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
While I do not go to church, I cannot imagine a service being more engaging in person ...
A chain of churches have been selling bleach components to be injested for communion.
Due to being a church, the government isn't seeking charges against them for those hospitalized, because somehow the justice department expects to lose on freedom of religion grounds.
Instead, they are trying to have the FDA issue an injunction to make them label their bleach as containing bleach, and to stop claiming it is a cure for anything.
The churches are even fighting that on religious freedom grounds
https://www.fda.go [fda.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Riots?
If you start claiming that simple protests are riots, you're paving the road to just arresting anyone who says anything objectionable, because, duh, speech = rioting.
What the fuck are you smoking?
Re: Sorry, have to open the country back up (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Sorry, have to open the country back up (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Riots is an exaggeration, but a gang of people showing up at the government offices with a bunch of weapons and brandishing them isn't just a protest, either.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Brandish has a higher standard.
What part of "keep and bear" is difficult for you to understand?
Re: (Score:3)
The same part of "well regulated militia" that you seem to fail to comprehend.
Re:Sorry, have to open the country back up (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems reasonable to want to open it up.
Also seems reasonable to try to do it in a way that minimizes the risk. One way to do that would be to have a set of guidelines that states could turn to for information and then pass them on if they wanted.
And that's all the CDC doc was, a set of guidelines. It carried no authority. But the WH was worried that some states would opt to delay based on them so they shelved it.
Now what will happen is states will still proceed at their own pace ... just with less information at their disposal, all to provide a minuscule amount of political cover to Trump. Good plan.
Trump be like, (Score:2)
Get up, come on get down with the sickness
Open up your hate, and let it flow into me
Get up, come on get down with the sickness
You mother get up come on get down with the sickness
You fucker get up come on get down with the sickness
Madness is the gift, that has been given to me
Re: (Score:2)
Citation [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They're guidelines you dumbfuck not mandates. The document spells out things like what 'proper social distancing protocols for restaurants' actually mean when the government says 'restaurants should follow proper social distancing protocols'. But the WH doesn't really want to release any thing that makes them look responsible so restaurants can bloody well take their best guess as to what that means.
They intended to be informative and do not hold any legal power. So Trump isn't some savior from oppressiv
Re: (Score:2)
Viruses don't care about civil rights.
Re: (Score:2)
It's kind of pathetic to see people thinking political ideologies or constitutional documents have any actual impact on how the natural world functions.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you point out any factual errors in his post? (There *is* a bit of editorializing, but that isn't unusual. Factual errors are specific claims that cannot be validated.)
P.S.: He did make a few factual errors, but can you recognize them.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that simple. If you're called back to work, and the conditions are unsafe, your choices are work and spread the disease or starve. Theoretically you could find another job, but when unemployment is high that's pretty theoretical. Sometimes it happens, but it's likely to take awhile, and the disease has an incubation period of a couple of weeks without symptoms, sometimes more. So you're likely to spread the disease to your new job.
Re: (Score:2)
Just remember that every country is only one or two elections away from this.
Go volunteer to keep the scientific method and rational thinking alive in your country lest you share our fate.
Re: (Score:2)
People must always remember that eternal vigilance is the requirement to remain free. The moment you stop looking you find out you lost something.
It never takes long to change a lot... just look at how fast 9/11 got people to just sacrifice multiple liberties and privacy. The Terrorists won that day.