Ira from Staten Island isn’t going to any Jets games

[TuscanyTile2]

On 5/3/2020 at 1:48 PM, BROOKLYN JET said:

Vaccines have risks too, they could be more likely to do damage to you than actual virus.

You can do whatever you want, I'll take my chances without getting one. 

Let’s hope we have that choice. I get the feeling that it’s going to be mandated in order to do anything (work, fly, drive to another state, go to a ballgame, etc)

[Ghost420]

On 5/3/2020 at 12:44 PM, Rhg1084 said:

You guys talk crap about Ira however he’s a fan who goes to every game home or away including preseason. He’s a true fan 

So if you dont got to every game you aren't a true fan? 

[Ghost420]

On 5/3/2020 at 3:17 PM, thebuzzardman said:

Hopefully the virus will contract about 4-6 teams in every major pro sports league. Too many damn teams, not enough talent. 

You should be banned you ******* loser. Almost 65k are dead already. Yes let's hope more pll  get it 

[Maxman]

On 5/3/2020 at 3:17 PM, thebuzzardman said:

Hopefully the virus will contract about 4-6 teams in every major pro sports league. Too many damn teams, not enough talent. 

Don't do this here. Maybe you think this is funny, it isn't.

People on this site have been sick, many people on this site have lost loved ones. This isn't funny.

[BROOKLYN JET]

8 hours ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

Let’s hope we have that choice. I get the feeling that it’s going to be mandated in order to do anything (work, fly, drive to another state, go to a ballgame, etc)

That would be unconstitutional, and a sure sign of medical tyranny.

[TuscanyTile2]

Just for the record, regarding the post about the league contracting 4-6 teams, I didn’t take that post in a macabre way.  I took it that he meant certain markets are weaker than others (financially) and only the stronger market teams are going to be able to continue. 

[Lil O]

1 hour ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

Just for the record, regarding the post about the league contracting 4-6 teams, I didn’t take that post in a macabre way.  I took it that he meant certain markets are weaker than others (financially) and only the stronger market teams are going to be able to continue. 

Then maybe he should’ve said that.  Words are very important especially if you want to talk about something like this. Very important to be clear… Crystal clear.

[flgreen]

18 minutes ago, Lil O said:

Then maybe he should’ve said that.  Words are very important especially if you want to talk about something like this. Very important to be clear… Crystal clear.

This Post is a bit confusing

[section314]

8 hours ago, Ghost420 said:

So if you dont got to every game you aren't a true fan? 

That's not what he is saying. Ira is 100% invested in the Jets. Has been forever. If he is willing to stop going to games until he feels it's safe, it shows just how worried he, and so many sports fans are about this hideous disease. He will make , in his eyes, the ultimate leisure sacrifice. Doesn't make him, or anyone else a "better"fan. But as someone who has invested way more than most anyone else in this team, it sure as heck makes him a damn smarter one.

[TuscanyTile2]

2 hours ago, BROOKLYN JET said:

That would be unconstitutional, and a sure sign of medical tyranny.

Agreed but I have to admit that it's a concern of mine

[Long Island Leprechaun]

2 hours ago, BROOKLYN JET said:

That would be unconstitutional, and a sure sign of medical tyranny.

First of all, private businesses can in fact set a whole range of policies that limit first amendment privileges. States have wide policing powers when the limits on "free expression" are clearly in public health interests, as they would be in this case. The federal government also has public health authority that overlaps with state authority when the public health emergency impacts interstate concerns -- travel, commerce, etc. That all being said, I can't imagine how someone would consider it a "constitutional right" to potentially infect others with a disease with lethal consequences because they are too infringed upon in their liberty to wear a mask or comply with distancing. That's the definition of a public menace and the height of selfish disregard for the larger community. As Justice Holmes once quipped regarding the first amendment, "my rights end where your nose begins." Engaging in reckless and negligent behavior that violates the health of others is frankly criminal and should be treated as such. Re vaccination, if you choose not to, so be it. But I certainly don't want you in my work setting, school, or stadium. You can enjoy your liberty from common sense in the confines of your own personal space.

[Ruby2]

Chris Moore was the only guy with any sort of insight or interesting opinion on that station and they canned him.

[thebuzzardman]

9 hours ago, Maxman said:

Don't do this here. Maybe you think this is funny, it isn't.

People on this site have been sick, many people on this site have lost loved ones. This isn't funny.

This in no way is about people being sick. The comment was about decreased attendance due to social distancing perhaps causing some teams to fold. I think most of the leagues would be better off with fewer teams. I'm sure, however, we can all look forward to 40 and 50 team leagues, regardless of quality of product, sometime in the not too distant future 

[thebuzzardman]

2 hours ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

Just for the record, regarding the post about the league contracting 4-6 teams, I didn’t take that post in a macabre way.  I took it that he meant certain markets are weaker than others (financially) and only the stronger market teams are going to be able to continue. 

This. I should have been clearer 

[thebuzzardman]

1 hour ago, Lil O said:

Then maybe he should’ve said that.  Words are very important especially if you want to talk about something like this. Very important to be clear… Crystal clear.

I could have been clearer but in the context of the discussion I thought it was clear at the time. However, contextual reading might not be everyone's strong suit. I clarified a few posts up. 

[OCCH23]

43 minutes ago, Long Island Leprechaun said:

First of all, private businesses can in fact set a whole range of policies that limit first amendment privileges. States have wide policing powers when the limits on "free expression" are clearly in public health interests, as they would be in this case. The federal government also has public health authority that overlaps with state authority when the public health emergency impacts interstate concerns -- travel, commerce, etc. That all being said, I can't imagine how someone would consider it a "constitutional right" to potentially infect others with a disease with lethal consequences because they are too infringed upon in their liberty to wear a mask or comply with distancing. That's the definition of a public menace and the height of selfish disregard for the larger community. As Justice Holmes once quipped regarding the first amendment, "my rights end where your nose begins." Engaging in reckless and negligent behavior that violates the health of others is frankly criminal and should be treated as such. Re vaccination, if you choose not to, so be it. But I certainly don't want you in my work setting, school, or stadium. You can enjoy your liberty from common sense in the confines of your own personal space.

Hopefully this doesn't come across as sarcastic, but how do my actions make someone else sick unless they are performing the same action?  I can't get someone sick at a football game if they don't go to the game.  I can't get someone sick from not wearing a mask/gloves if they are wearing a mask/gloves.  I can't get someone sick by going outside if they stay inside.  Why does their liberty to do what they want infringe on my ability to do what I want?

If the people who are at higher risk continue to practice safety protocols, doesn't that just leave "the rest of us"?  People who may get sick (I did) but recover just like any other sickness?  People who have  < 1% chance of fatality?  And even if it did end that way, wouldn't we have brought it on ourselves by living life as we chose (as opposed to blaming it on someone else for doing the same)?

I'm sure I'm not saying anything that hasn't been argued ad nauseum here -- I usually purposely stay away from these threads.  So feel free not to respond, but I do find it interesting how people are so determined to take away other's freedoms instead of their own . . .

 

[OCCH23]

3 hours ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

Just for the record, regarding the post about the league contracting 4-6 teams, I didn’t take that post in a macabre way.  I took it that he meant certain markets are weaker than others (financially) and only the stronger market teams are going to be able to continue. 

Not that it matters, but I took it the same way

[Lil O]

11 minutes ago, thebuzzardman said:

I could have been clearer but in the context of the discussion I thought it was clear at the time. However, contextual reading might not be everyone's strong suit. I clarified a few posts up. 

Good man!  I wasn’t criticizing you, I just know that sometimes I’m not clear with my words, and sometimes they get me in trouble. My wife likes to remind me!

[BROOKLYN JET]

1 hour ago, Long Island Leprechaun said:

First of all, private businesses can in fact set a whole range of policies that limit first amendment privileges. States have wide policing powers when the limits on "free expression" are clearly in public health interests, as they would be in this case. The federal government also has public health authority that overlaps with state authority when the public health emergency impacts interstate concerns -- travel, commerce, etc. That all being said, I can't imagine how someone would consider it a "constitutional right" to potentially infect others with a disease with lethal consequences because they are too infringed upon in their liberty to wear a mask or comply with distancing. That's the definition of a public menace and the height of selfish disregard for the larger community. As Justice Holmes once quipped regarding the first amendment, "my rights end where your nose begins." Engaging in reckless and negligent behavior that violates the health of others is frankly criminal and should be treated as such. Re vaccination, if you choose not to, so be it. But I certainly don't want you in my work setting, school, or stadium. You can enjoy your liberty from common sense in the confines of your own personal space.

Forced inoculations is unconstitutional, and I would not be visiting any place that that requires forced inoculations. My body my choice right? You get the vaccine and then you don't have to worry about me "potentially infecting" you.

[Long Island Leprechaun]

25 minutes ago, OCCH23 said:

Hopefully this doesn't come across as sarcastic, but how do my actions make someone else sick unless they are performing the same action?  I can't get someone sick at a football game if they don't go to the game.  I can't get someone sick from not wearing a mask/gloves if they are wearing a mask/gloves.  I can't get someone sick by going outside if they stay inside.  Why does their liberty to do what they want infringe on my ability to do what I want?

If the people who are at higher risk continue to practice safety protocols, doesn't that just leave "the rest of us"?  People who may get sick (I did) but recover just like any other sickness?  People who have  < 1% chance of fatality?  And even if it did end that way, wouldn't we have brought it on ourselves by living life as we chose (as opposed to blaming it on someone else for doing the same)?

I'm sure I'm not saying anything that hasn't been argued ad nauseum here -- I usually purposely stay away from these threads.  So feel free not to respond, but I do find it interesting how people are so determined to take away other's freedoms instead of their own . . .

 

Interesting comments and thoughtful. But my first question would be: what liberties do you want to exercise that you feel are so important they override public health risk? Second, while I don't wish COVID on anyone, I'm glad to hear you got it and successfully recovered. While you were unaware of your infection and were in effect a silent carrier, no one can say how many or whom you might have infected, which is precisely the point of the rules for safe interaction. Wearing gloves and/or a mask seems a very small infringement on the liberty of anyone, given the potential cost. Third, I would agree that there are many venues that will and should be avoided by those at higher risk. The burden is indeed on those individuals to choose their actions wisely. However, that does not go for basic and essential functions, such as getting groceries, going to the drug store, or attending a medical appointment. Virtually all of those establishments have mandated that you cannot enter the store without a mask. They're doing so to protect their employees as well as other customers. You are "free" to shop at will, but you also have to comply with a very simple safety requirement. No one in our society, whether under a pandemic situation or not, is entirely free. We do not live in a state of anarchy, but are governed by an enormous number of laws and statutes that limit our behavior. Many of those laws and statutes place the good of community over the individual indulgence of individuals. The balance point is of course always the debate. But very few would argue that anybody "should do whatever they want" and the rest be damned. At least to my mind there is a vast difference between good libertarian citizenship and childish self-indulgence. But as long as the self-indulgence isn't harming anybody else, I wouldn't stand in that person's way. (We all know that many people who espouse libertarian principles are quick to become ferocious regulators when the behaviors of other offend their moral compass, and why Madison argued so forcefully for the protection of minorities in the Federalist Papers as a crux of our constitution.) I have no idea where you stand in that regard. In any case, I have no problem maintaining some level of discipline for the good of my neighbors and myself. That's at least one part of my idea of being a good citizen.

[OCCH23]

16 minutes ago, Long Island Leprechaun said:

Interesting comments and thoughtful. But my first question would be: what liberties do you want to exercise that you feel are so important they override public health risk? Second, while I don't wish COVID on anyone, I'm glad to hear you got it and successfully recovered. While you were unaware of your infection and were in effect a silent carrier, no one can say how many or whom you might have infected, which is precisely the point of the rules for safe interaction. Wearing gloves and/or a mask seems a very small infringement on the liberty of anyone, given the potential cost. Third, I would agree that there are many venues that will and should be avoided by those at higher risk. The burden is indeed on those individuals to choose their actions wisely. However, that does not go for basic and essential functions, such as getting groceries, going to the drug store, or attending a medical appointment. Virtually all of those establishments have mandated that you cannot enter the store without a mask. They're doing so to protect their employees as well as other customers. You are "free" to shop at will, but you also have to comply with a very simple safety requirement. No one in our society, whether under a pandemic situation or not, is entirely free. We do not live in a state of anarchy, but are governed by an enormous number of laws and statutes that limit our behavior. Many of those laws and statutes place the good of community over the individual indulgence of individuals. The balance point is of course always the debate. But very few would argue that anybody "should do whatever they want" and the rest be damned. At least to my mind there is a vast difference between good libertarian citizenship and childish self-indulgence. But as long as the self-indulgence isn't harming anybody else, I wouldn't stand in that person's way. (We all know that many people who espouse libertarian principles are quick to become ferocious regulators when the behaviors of other offend their moral compass, and why Madison argued so forcefully for the protection of minorities in the Federalist Papers as a crux of our constitution.) I have no idea where you stand in that regard. In any case, I have no problem maintaining some level of discipline for the good of my neighbors and myself. That's at least one part of my idea of being a good citizen.

Thank you for your civil response.  I'll admit my thoughts went more towards the overall closing of society than towards "essential" places like grocery stores and doctor offices (though even those things can be done from home nowadays).

I guess my point is I don't agree with the idea that one person's rights are hostage to another's.  Yes I could wear a mask when going outside, but if I don't, I shouldn't have to take more responsibility for getting someone sick than the person himself who chose to leave the house and stand next to me.  In my opinion, everything should be open NOW.  Let individuals determine where they are/aren't comfortable going.  Let businesses determine how they are/aren't comfortable conducting business.  Let me decide if I'm comfortable going to work.  Let me decide if I'm comfortable going to football games.  Let me decide if I want to see a movie or go out to eat.  Leave those decisions in my hands, not some elected official whose decisions can only be made in "broad strokes".

This whole "lockdown" is based on the assumption that people WON'T make the right decisions, and therefore gov't has to make them for them.  That might be status quo in other countries, but IMO it's a dangerous precedent to set here in the U S of A . . .

[Snell41]

Thank you for your civil response.  I'll admit my thoughts went more towards the overall closing of society than towards "essential" places like grocery stores and doctor offices (though even those things can be done from home nowadays).
I guess my point is I don't agree with the idea that one person's rights are hostage to another's.  Yes I could wear a mask when going outside, but if I don't, I shouldn't have to take more responsibility for getting someone sick than the person himself who chose to leave the house and stand next to me.  In my opinion, everything should be open NOW.  Let individuals determine where they are/aren't comfortable going.  Let businesses determine how they are/aren't comfortable conducting business.  Let me decide if I'm comfortable going to work.  Let me decide if I'm comfortable going to football games.  Let me decide if I want to see a movie or go out to eat.  Leave those decisions in my hands, not some elected official whose decisions can only be made in "broad strokes".
This whole "lockdown" is based on the assumption that people WON'T make the right decisions, and therefore gov't has to make them for them.  That might be status quo in other countries, but IMO it's a dangerous precedent to set here in the U S of A . . .

The thing is you can’t open everything and let people then decide if they want to go out or not. An open economy means you must be working to earn income which means you have to go out whether you’re at risk or not.


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

[Lil O]

1 hour ago, OCCH23 said:

Thank you for your civil response.  I'll admit my thoughts went more towards the overall closing of society than towards "essential" places like grocery stores and doctor offices (though even those things can be done from home nowadays).

I guess my point is I don't agree with the idea that one person's rights are hostage to another's.  Yes I could wear a mask when going outside, but if I don't, I shouldn't have to take more responsibility for getting someone sick than the person himself who chose to leave the house and stand next to me.  In my opinion, everything should be open NOW.  Let individuals determine where they are/aren't comfortable going.  Let businesses determine how they are/aren't comfortable conducting business.  Let me decide if I'm comfortable going to work.  Let me decide if I'm comfortable going to football games.  Let me decide if I want to see a movie or go out to eat.  Leave those decisions in my hands, not some elected official whose decisions can only be made in "broad strokes".

This whole "lockdown" is based on the assumption that people WON'T make the right decisions, and therefore gov't has to make them for them.  That might be status quo in other countries, but IMO it's a dangerous precedent to set here in the U S of A . . .

I think one of the issues with your philosophy is how much we trust people in the world. I don’t know you personally but I’m sure you are an intelligent human being capable of making wise responsible choices, however that is not true for many people in the world. A perfect example of the fact that we are killing this planet. If we were all wise responsible people we wouldn’t be. I have been in North Carolina since March taking care of my mother-in-law, who just passed away two weeks ago at the age of 93. She had many caregivers that would come and go and I was speaking to one of them who told me that this whole thing was a “Plandemic created by the US government to git rid of old folks and minorities”.  I wouldn’t want her making any decisions on her own, and she has three children who she is teaching this.  I agree that it’s hard to have someone tell me what to do when I think I’m being responsible. But I wear gloves and a mask every time I go into a store, not because I’m afraid of catching COVID-19 so much, but more to put others at ease and to be respectful of my fellow citizens. This is simply some people put themselves before others first and some people don’t it’s always been that way always will.

[Long Island Leprechaun]

52 minutes ago, OCCH23 said:

Thank you for your civil response.  I'll admit my thoughts went more towards the overall closing of society than towards "essential" places like grocery stores and doctor offices (though even those things can be done from home nowadays).

I guess my point is I don't agree with the idea that one person's rights are hostage to another's.  Yes I could wear a mask when going outside, but if I don't, I shouldn't have to take more responsibility for getting someone sick than the person himself who chose to leave the house and stand next to me.  In my opinion, everything should be open NOW.  Let individuals determine where they are/aren't comfortable going.  Let businesses determine how they are/aren't comfortable conducting business.  Let me decide if I'm comfortable going to work.  Let me decide if I'm comfortable going to football games.  Let me decide if I want to see a movie or go out to eat.  Leave those decisions in my hands, not some elected official whose decisions can only be made in "broad strokes".

This whole "lockdown" is based on the assumption that people WON'T make the right decisions, and therefore gov't has to make them for them.  That might be status quo in other countries, but IMO it's a dangerous precedent to set here in the U S of A . . .

I wish it were that simple. I would argue that the whole lockdown is based on the assumption that enough people will behave selfishly and infect others thereby spreading the pandemic that rules have to be put in place for everyone to follow. On the other hand, if the rule makes sense, and people are indeed making the "right" decisions, then the rule is really no burden at all. And when you say government,  you mean all forms of government -- federal, state, local -- again, we are regulated in a million ways already. Take a simple example: can you drive your car anywhere and any way you want? Of course not. Public safety dictates a lot of detailed requirements, not to mention a driver's license, to be able to operate a vehicle in public. There is actually no precedent setting here at all. A national emergency has always resulted in temporary limits on the citizenry until the crisis is passed. People waving guns and confederate flags because they are put out by a pandemic seems pretty phony to me. It's the wrong cause at the wrong time. It's the height of partisanship when mutual consideration and unity are called for. And it only serves to increase the risks of extending the pandemic rather than curtailing it. 

[OCCH23]

53 minutes ago, Snell41 said:

 

The thing is you can’t open everything and let people then decide if they want to go out or not. An open economy means you must be working to earn income which means you have to go out whether you’re at risk or not.


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

 

Maybe I don't understand your point, but don't people make that decision every day?  Aren't there people every day going to work sick because they have to pay the bills?  Aren't there people every day losing jobs because they simply can't go to work?

Statistics tell us that the vast majority of people who get it will not be majorly affected.  If one business has a majority of workers not come in, then that business may have to close temporarily, not because they're forced to but because their specific situation called for it.

The sad thing is all these "at-risk" people we're trying to protect are also the ones who find it significantly harder to find work when they lose a job.  And the majority of them wouldn't have gotten majorly sick anyway (at least according to statistics).  So in the end many will get destroyed economically and emotionally, all because of a potential illness they may not have gotten anyway.  If that's going to happen, I'd rather it be by the person's choice than government mandate . . .

[OCCH23]

48 minutes ago, Long Island Leprechaun said:

I wish it were that simple. I would argue that the whole lockdown is based on the assumption that enough people will behave selfishly and infect others thereby spreading the pandemic that rules have to be put in place for everyone to follow. On the other hand, if the rule makes sense, and people are indeed making the "right" decisions, then the rule is really no burden at all. And when you say government,  you mean all forms of government -- federal, state, local -- again, we are regulated in a million ways already. Take a simple example: can you drive your car anywhere and any way you want? Of course not. Public safety dictates a lot of detailed requirements, not to mention a driver's license, to be able to operate a vehicle in public. There is actually no precedent setting here at all. A national emergency has always resulted in temporary limits on the citizenry until the crisis is passed. People waving guns and confederate flags because they are put out by a pandemic seems pretty phony to me. It's the wrong cause at the wrong time. It's the height of partisanship when mutual consideration and unity are called for. And it only serves to increase the risks of extending the pandemic rather than curtailing it. 

So perhaps we need to define "emergency"?  "Crisis"?  Does millions potentially losing their job/home/business qualify as as one?

We know for the vast majority of Americans, this is just like any other sickness -- deal with it and move on with life.  The only difference is how contagious it is, which again isn't a big deal for most people (we'll be better off when most HAVE had it), but is for some.  So shouldn't the "some" be the ones responsible for taking precautions?

I don't know where you live, but in NY they're actually ENCOURAGING people to rat out those who aren't socially distancing.  If my neighbor is comfortable inviting me over for a BBQ in his yard, I don't think the gov't has any right to tell me not to.  That's NOTHING like driving on the sidewalk or randomly shooting a firearm.

I should be able to go to a movie, football game, mall, etc. and not feel responsible for everyone who crosses my path.  If I'm sick, I stay home.  If the mall CHOOSES to close, I stay home.  But this shouldn't be 2nd grade, where the teacher decides "a few ruin it for everyone else".  And when you consider much more extreme situations (like losing jobs/homes/businesses) it makes it even easier to understand why some people are acting out.

Funny thing is, I don't mind staying home and willingly follow (most) protocols.  I just don't like the precedent this all sets, because gov't is not known for giving power up once they've taken it, and I believe people are suffering in MANY other ways that aren't just health related . . .

[OCCH23]

41 minutes ago, Lil O said:

I think one of the issues with your philosophy is how much we trust people in the world. I don’t know you personally but I’m sure you are an intelligent human being capable of making wise responsible choices, however that is not true for many people in the world. A perfect example of the fact that we are killing this planet. If we were all wise responsible people we wouldn’t be. I have been in North Carolina since March taking care of my mother-in-law, who just passed away two weeks ago at the age of 93. She had many caregivers that would come and go and I was speaking to one of them who told me that this whole thing was a “Plandemic created by the US government to git rid of old folks and minorities”.  I wouldn’t want her making any decisions on her own, and she has three children who she is teaching this.  I agree that it’s hard to have someone tell me what to do when I think I’m being responsible. But I wear gloves and a mask every time I go into a store, not because I’m afraid of catching COVID-19 so much, but more to put others at ease and to be respectful of my fellow citizens. This is simply some people put themselves before others first and some people don’t it’s always been that way always will.

I agree, but I don't believe the gov't has the right to tell me what I "have" to do, simply because others choose not to.

The Constitution was specifically set up so individual rights are protected.  Not one of those rights puts ANYONE in physical harm, because they could just stay home and be safe.  This idea of "lives over economy" is nonsense, because many are expecting this whole ordeal to increase suicides, divorces, bankruptcies etc. -- we can't blame all of that on the virus, but also on our reaction to it.

You talk about not wanting that nurse to make her own decisions, but we have people in office who think a penis doesn't make you male, being in the country illegally doesn't make you illegal, and a baby isn't human until it's been out of the womb for a set amount of time.  These are the people I'm supposed to willingly hand my rights over to?

 

[Lil O]

23 minutes ago, OCCH23 said:

I agree, but I don't believe the gov't has the right to tell me what I "have" to do, simply because others choose not to.

The Constitution was specifically set up so individual rights are protected.  Not one of those rights puts ANYONE in physical harm, because they could just stay home and be safe.  This idea of "lives over economy" is nonsense, because many are expecting this whole ordeal to increase suicides, divorces, bankruptcies etc. -- we can't blame all of that on the virus, but also on our reaction to it.

You talk about not wanting that nurse to make her own decisions, but we have people in office who think a penis doesn't make you male, being in the country illegally doesn't make you illegal, and a baby isn't human until it's been out of the womb for a set amount of time.  These are the people I'm supposed to willingly hand my rights over to?

 

Like I said ...I am sure you are a responsible citizen, who has the intelligence to make wise choices.  It is the never ending debate...How much control should our Government have?  I don’t want the government telling me what to do either. I choose to do what I do out of respect for others.  I choose to show my caring by wearing a mask and gloves out of respect for those who have lost friends or family members.  At the present moment I just feel that their feelings are more important than whether or not I have to wear a mask.  That’s just me.  My mother is in Maryland, and she is 72 years old. She has hip problems and can’t walk without a walker. In March I wanted to go visit her and spend time with her but Rules were made that they couldn’t have any visitors. My initial response was no one is going to tell me that I can’t see my mother!  Then my mom told me baby you can’t come because you put people at risk. She’s all alone and as much as she would love to have a visit she made me follow the rules.

[Jetsfan80]

On 5/3/2020 at 1:48 PM, BROOKLYN JET said:

Vaccines have risks too, they could be more likely to do damage to you than actual virus.

Totes.  Vaccines do way more damage than Polio. 

Wake up sheep.  

[Jetsfan80]

6 hours ago, BROOKLYN JET said:

That would be unconstitutional, and a sure sign of medical tyranny.

Well OK then.  I'll use my 2nd Amendment right to defend myself from people who refuse to vaccinate.

[munchmemory]

7 minutes ago, Lil O said:

Like I said ...I am sure you are a responsible citizen, who has the intelligence to make wise choices.  It is the never ending debate...How much control should our Government have?  I don’t want the government telling me what to do either. I choose to do what I do out of respect for others.  I choose to show my caring by wearing a mask and gloves out of respect for those who have lost friends or family members.  At the present moment I just feel that their feelings are more important than whether or not I have to wear a mask.  That’s just me.  My mother is in Maryland, and she is 72 years old. She has hip problems and can’t walk without a walker. In March I wanted to go visit her and spend time with her but Rules were made that they couldn’t have any visitors. My initial response was no one is going to tell me that I can’t see my mother!  Then my mom told me baby you can’t come because you put people at risk. She’s all alone and as much as she would love to have a visit she made me follow the rules.

I feel what you're going through.  Just off the phone (FaceTime) with my Dad who is 88 years-old and in assisted living.  Haven't been able to visit in several months.  Hang in there.  Best wishes for your Mom remaining healthy and safe.

[Lil O]

4 minutes ago, munchmemory said:

I feel what you're going through.  Just off the phone (FaceTime) with my Dad who is 88 years-old and in assisted living.  Haven't been able to visit in several months.  Hang in there.  Best wishes for your Mom remaining healthy and safe.

You too brother.  Hang in there.  Beat wishes for you father as well my man!  Cheers!

[SAM SAM HE'S OUR MAN]

1 hour ago, Long Island Leprechaun said:

People waving guns and confederate flags because they are put out by a pandemic seems pretty phony to me

[Long Island Leprechaun]

51 minutes ago, OCCH23 said:

So perhaps we need to define "emergency"?  "Crisis"?  Does millions potentially losing their job/home/business qualify as as one?

We know for the vast majority of Americans, this is just like any other sickness -- deal with it and move on with life.  The only difference is how contagious it is, which again isn't a big deal for most people (we'll be better off when most HAVE had it), but is for some.  So shouldn't the "some" be the ones responsible for taking precautions?

I don't know where you live, but in NY they're actually ENCOURAGING people to rat out those who aren't socially distancing.  If my neighbor is comfortable inviting me over for a BBQ in his yard, I don't think the gov't has any right to tell me not to.  That's NOTHING like driving on the sidewalk or randomly shooting a firearm.

I should be able to go to a movie, football game, mall, etc. and not feel responsible for everyone who crosses my path.  If I'm sick, I stay home.  If the mall CHOOSES to close, I stay home.  But this shouldn't be 2nd grade, where the teacher decides "a few ruin it for everyone else".  And when you consider much more extreme situations (like losing jobs/homes/businesses) it makes it even easier to understand why some people are acting out.

Funny thing is, I don't mind staying home and willingly follow (most) protocols.  I just don't like the precedent this all sets, because gov't is not known for giving power up once they've taken it, and I believe people are suffering in MANY other ways that aren't just health related . . .

I fully agree that this is a truly terrible dilemma for us as a nation. COVID is far from an ordinary illness. The death rates are already at catastrophic levels and climbing fast by any measure, include time of war. I am personally fully supportive of rational re-opening plans for areas that are well under control or have minimal cases (although rural areas will be quickly overwhelmed if there even a modicum of hospitalizations because of the vast shortage of medical services in rural areas of our country). The economic price has already been high. On the other hand, simply acting like this is no big deal and sending people back to work, school, shopping, etc. will be completely counter-productive. Look at what happened with meat packing plants that ignored protective measures. They can't continue to function and are closing down. Here's a question: should employees have a right to continue to work from home/remotely if they do not feel safe returning to their cubicles/spaces while the virus still rages? Should workers be allowed to continue to collect unemployment? (P.S. the real reason many states are trying to reopen is precisely so they don't have to pay unemployment benefits). While you might want to go to a movie, is it reasonable for the movie theatre to remain closed because they don't want to expose their employees to risk (which means risk to their families as well)? If you're the employer, what would you do? How would you determine whether employees must work or not? It's just so complicated. I don't envy the people who have to make any of these decisions.

[OCCH23]

25 minutes ago, Lil O said:

Like I said ...I am sure you are a responsible citizen, who has the intelligence to make wise choices.  It is the never ending debate...How much control should our Government have?  I don’t want the government telling me what to do either. I choose to do what I do out of respect for others.  I choose to show my caring by wearing a mask and gloves out of respect for those who have lost friends or family members.  At the present moment I just feel that their feelings are more important than whether or not I have to wear a mask.  That’s just me.  My mother is in Maryland, and she is 72 years old. She has hip problems and can’t walk without a walker. In March I wanted to go visit her and spend time with her but Rules were made that they couldn’t have any visitors. My initial response was no one is going to tell me that I can’t see my mother!  Then my mom told me baby you can’t come because you put people at risk. She’s all alone and as much as she would love to have a visit she made me follow the rules.

The thing is, we don't get to decide who's "responsible" and who isn't.  We either have rights or we don't.  Break the law and lose your rights.  But don't have them taken away before you even get the chance to exercise them.

I agree that you made the right decision to not see your mother.  But it sounds like it was YOUR decision (with some help from mom?)h.   I don't believe the government has the right to tell you that you CAN'T.

Having said that, I fully support following rules.  I'm just afraid the rules we accept now are inevitably going to lead to worse ones in the future . . .