View Single Post
Old 03-25-2020, 08:01 AM
Hamlet is online now
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Where the Wild Things Are
Posts: 14,809
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
1) Since the founding, nobody has instituted a population-wide lockdown of healthy people because of the spread of a disease.
A "population wide lockdown"? Do you mean like what cities/counties/states have done (quarantining people), but for the entire nation? Something like this?

Or do you mean the CDC and the federal government simply recommending social distancing, without any real civil or criminal penalties? I mean, I think you're right that we've never had a "population wide lockdown" in the US, but I also don't think we're going to see one now unless things go really south. What is much more likely, and is in fact occurring, is that cities and counties institute quarantines for local populations. And that' something that has definitely occurred in the US before. From the CDC: "Large-scale isolation and quarantine was last enforced during the influenza (“Spanish Flu”) pandemic in 1918–1919." Cite.

Originally Posted by UltraVires
So, no, these decisions were not made by any people/groups/institutions since the founding and I have said so at least two times in this thread.
It would be easier for me to understand what you're asserting if you actually cited to something.

Originally Posted by UltraVires
2) I believe that the government does not have the power to suspend constitutional rights based upon a spread of a virus that does not effect the health of the vast majority of people. No I do not.
By government, do you mean the only the feds or local governments too? Do you doubt the legality of, let's pick an example at random, a state law requiring people (even not sick people) to get vaccinated for smallpox with a potential fine for violation? Do you doubt the legality of a mandatory quarantine for 14 days for all people, not just ones who are clearly infected, but anyone who travelled from a potential hotspot?

Do you doubt the legality of a city to quarantine a person who came into contact with someone with a disease, but claimed to not be sick? Do you think a court would rule that: "It is not necessary that one be actually sick, as that term is usually applied, in order that the health authorities have the right to restrain his liberties by quarantine regulations. Quarantine is not a cure — it is a preventive." Did your "research" find any of those?

Originally Posted by UltraVires
I don't believe that should even be up for a vote. Quarantine sick people, yes. Healthy people, no.
If only it were that easy, we might agree.