You are joking, right? Should one’s desires, or “rights” such as if you want to murder someone else be infringed upon? How about when that person caused harm to you or your family? How about such action or inaction that could reasonably expected to cause harm to another individual or community? Driving fast and recklessly may be fun or necessary to get to work on time, but would it be ok to endanger others? How about wearing PPE to help reduce or eliminate the spread of a pathogen known to be harmful to others? Especially a vulnerable group such as the eldery? Most people care about their parents, grandparents, and. great grand parents. This is why certain laws exist. To protect people from the irresponsible acts of others who don’t know better or are too selfish to care. Protection of the community generally supercedes the community from recognizing individual “rights” that could potentially harm that community. Try again.
Keeping everyone at home is illogical and destructive. When only vulnerable populations stay at home, they are no less AND no more susceptible to the virus, then had everyone stayed at home. In the later case, the economy, livelihoods, finances, and businesses and quality of life is destroyed. Not to mention the freedoms and American way of life. How does isolating the vulnerable but not the healthy make vulnerable populations more likely to contract the virus? It doesn't. Quarantine is quarantine is quarantine. The rights of the sick and the elderly don't supersede the Constitutional Freedoms this country was founded and based on for over 250 years. They never have. Not even during the Spanish Flu, which was about 5 times stronger then covid19. During the Spanish Flu, vulnerable groups were suggested to self-quarantine. And many did! Rightly so. That's what we should have done, and should do in the future.
It isn't even completely clear what the total extent of long-term damage is and the list is becoming larger. There are people with problems that persist months after they are negative. The only good thing I've heard lately is that once somebody has tested positive for the presence of anti-bodies there is persistent immunological memory so that new anti-bodies would be produced upon detection of the virus again. So vaccines can possibly work. There will be vaccines. Whether people will take them is another matter. I hate flu shots but I'm certain I would take this one.
As noted in many threads -- during the Spanish flu entire cities, counties, and regions locked down. Those cities that locked down properly endured less public health and economic impact from the 1918 flu. Those cities that failed to locked down properly such as Philly endured a much worse public health and economic impact. Similarly with the polio epidemic in the 1940s and early 1950s, cities that locked down properly endured less public health and economic impact. Those that failed to take proper precautions endured a much worse impact as polio spread quickly. Courts in the U.S. for over 200 years have determined that public health supersedes your supposed "constitutional freedoms". State and local governments are free to put whatever necessary lockdown measures they view are necessary in place during a public health emergency.
Ya that "pesky irrelevant little Constitution" eh gwb Can you cite the source for the Spanish flu lockdown data? Virus doesnt supercede the constitution. As the meme said. Constitution is the highest law in the land. Those judgements are unconstitutional.
There is over 200 years of finalized court decisions stating clearly that local and state governments in the U.S. have the right to lockdown and impose conditions on a community for public health emergencies. If you disagree feel free to file a suit and see how it goes. There is plenty of information previously discussed regarding the Spanish flu lockdowns and imposition of public health measures (no travel in/out, businesses closed, theaters closed, bars closed, no public gatherings, etc.) by cities. https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...o-re-open-america.343704/page-19#post-5090407