Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 05-20-2020, 11:18 PM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
So? That applies to every disease. The vast majority survive this virus.
But how do we know in advance who is going to survive? We know percentages and likelihoods, but no doctor in the world can say that you, Magiver, are guaranteed to live if you contract COVID-19, or that I am, or any other particular person. So who, EXACTLY, needs to be wearing a mask and who doesn't?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
this is a racist rant and serves no purpose other than to feed a bigoted mindset.
Yes, people who believe that only those Other People get the disease are bigots, and many are racists. Racism and bigotry are alive and well in the United States; racist bigots are some of the "people who are at risk [who] know who they are," and sorry, they DON'T know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Nothing is out of stock indefinitely and your cite is from a newspaper that in noway validates the on-going supply chain. The US military has contracted 39 million n-95 masks domestically over the next 3 months and we're importing another 166 million.
Yes, the masks will come back into stock at some unknown future date. That doesn't help if you need them right now.

Also, do some math. Those 39 + 166 million masks are spread over three months, which when combined with existing domestic production (~35 million/month) yields around 100 million masks per month. Now, how many Americans need masks, and how many do they each need? There are for example nearly a hundred million Americans aged 55 and over; if each gets just one new mask a month, you still have zero left for younger people with comorbidities, much less any left over for health care workers or others in high-risk work situations, or those such as prison guards and nursing home workers who are around people in high-risk categories. Are you assuming that no mask ever gets dirty, ripped, lost, or irrevocably contaminated, and that all of the masks can be sterilized and reused indefinitely? Nobody ever needs to go to work on a day when their mask is being sterilized?
  #52  
Old 05-21-2020, 01:35 AM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
YYou do not get to decide who lives and who dies. This is a public health emergency. The Governor is tasked with protecting the welfare of Oregon citizens -- all Oregon citizens -- both their health and their economic well being. Health comes first. She's already working to reopen industries that can be reopened safely. 'Safely' means no large gatherings of people indoors. Like in churches. She's doing her job, and the Oregon legislature should be ashamed if they are not willing to assist her. Ill informed, cow county circuit court judges who are agenda-driven and not cognizant of the science of pandemics should also be ashamed. Their ignorance endangers us all.

I suspect Governor Brown has already accomplished her goal of buying more time to do what must be done. You act like she is sitting on her hands. She's not, and your failure to recognize that is telling.
I think the point of the thread is that whether the Governor is doing a great job or a horrific one, Oregon law only allows her to have the exclusive say for 30 days. She is not a dictator or a monarch, so if it goes past 30 days then the people through their elected representatives get a say.

And that seems very reasonable to me.
  #53  
Old 05-21-2020, 04:04 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 37,530
It's not reasonable to follow the rules when the result will be massive deaths. People who care about rules and regulations more than people are "just following orders," which is not an excuse.

Sure, if they could just pass a law, that would be great. But one side is exploiting a loophole in the rules to do something morally horrible, killing people.

If the judge had, say, said that these people cannot stop a quorum, then maybe it would be okay to follow the rules. But when the rules are failing, and you have the power to fix it (which judges do by their ability to interpret the law) you have a responsibility.

This is because of morality: the choices you make that knowingly lead to horribly immoral outcomes are still your fault. Following the law does not change that.

Unfortunately, many lawyers get this basic aspect of morality hammered out of them, which is why you get unjust outcomes like this. They genuinely think being lawful neutral is good.
  #54  
Old 05-21-2020, 04:27 AM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
It's not reasonable to follow the rules when the result will be massive deaths. People who care about rules and regulations more than people are "just following orders," which is not an excuse.

Sure, if they could just pass a law, that would be great. But one side is exploiting a loophole in the rules to do something morally horrible, killing people.

If the judge had, say, said that these people cannot stop a quorum, then maybe it would be okay to follow the rules. But when the rules are failing, and you have the power to fix it (which judges do by their ability to interpret the law) you have a responsibility.

This is because of morality: the choices you make that knowingly lead to horribly immoral outcomes are still your fault. Following the law does not change that.

Unfortunately, many lawyers get this basic aspect of morality hammered out of them, which is why you get unjust outcomes like this. They genuinely think being lawful neutral is good.
You could say that about anything. The Legislature didn't agree with my education proposal so we will suspend democracy because I can't be asked to "just follow the rules" when children's futures are at stake!

The rules are there for a reason. If you cannot get legislative approval, then maybe the legislature is a bunch of dimwits, but then the people will have gotten what they chose.

A contrary view is not a sterile legal argument but a core commitment to democracy. Your argument leads to despotic rule.
  #55  
Old 05-21-2020, 07:54 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 13,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
It's not reasonable to follow the rules when the result will be massive deaths. People who care about rules and regulations more than people are "just following orders," which is not an excuse.

Sure, if they could just pass a law, that would be great. But one side is exploiting a loophole in the rules to do something morally horrible, killing people.

If the judge had, say, said that these people cannot stop a quorum, then maybe it would be okay to follow the rules. But when the rules are failing, and you have the power to fix it (which judges do by their ability to interpret the law) you have a responsibility.

This is because of morality: the choices you make that knowingly lead to horribly immoral outcomes are still your fault. Following the law does not change that.

Unfortunately, many lawyers get this basic aspect of morality hammered out of them, which is why you get unjust outcomes like this. They genuinely think being lawful neutral is good.
I'm sorry, but this is just ridiculous. This seems to put forth the position that elected leaders don't need to follow the law as long as it seems like they are preventing "massive deaths"

Instead of just ignoring laws, the governor should have said on Day 1 - "My orders will only last 30 days, so during that 30 days, I will be working with the legislature to determine a way ahead after those 30 days, if it is necessary"

She shouldn't just do nothing during those 30 days and then act surprised when she can't just keep issuing orders without legislative approval.
  #56  
Old 05-21-2020, 07:57 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
Of course you latched onto that, because it suits your narrative. As the article mentioned, there were over 100 other items of legislation that were scrapped because Republicans spit the dummy. It is the citizens of Oregon who were losers for that.



Wearing a mask does not protect the wearer. It protects others who are sharing air with the wearer. People who don't wear a mask are basically advertising to those around them they couldn't care less whether his/her fellow citizens catch COVID-19.

I think you'll soon understand this fact within, oh, two to three weeks.
I've heard this often and I know it's been in the MSM, but WHY? Why doesn't it protect the wearer?
  #57  
Old 05-21-2020, 08:17 AM
xenophon41's Avatar
xenophon41 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Somewhere up country.
Posts: 5,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
I've heard this often and I know it's been in the MSM, but WHY? Why doesn't it protect the wearer?
That's a good question deserving a serious answer.

Any mask which presents a barrier to microdroplets of saliva and snot that the wearer expels with every breath, cough, sneeze or vocalized sentence will greatly cut down on the number of droplets which are released into the air (and which can sometimes remain suspended in the air for literally hours, depending on air exchange, humidity and other factors).

However, inhaling while wearing a mask will move the air surrounding the wearer's head through the mask, filtering out most of the suspended snot droplets in that air and allowing those droplets to adhere to the mask. That greatly increases the chances that those droplets will be inhaled at some point into the wearer's lungs, either through gaps in the sides of the mask, from being disturbed during adjustments by the wearer of the mask, or when the mask is removed and improperly handled after its extended use.

So, if everyone (or the vast majority) in an enclosed area wear the masks [properly], we're effectively protecting everyone in the area from the few who are carrying the virus by reducing by orders of magnitude the amount of virus laden snot droplets they're releasing into the area. Fewer snotlets in the air, fewer adhering to everyone's masks, etc.

Does that make sense?
  #58  
Old 05-21-2020, 09:13 AM
Iggy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 5,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
...

Governor Brown issued her emergency declaration and stay-at-home orders on March 8th. The legislature may have had to call a special emergency session to hear any proceeding pertaining to the pandemic -- and the article is evidence of what Republicans may have done to stop whatever the Governor was trying to accomplish. I'm sorry you're unable to connect those dots.

...
The Oregon constitution provides that when the Governor declares a Catastrophic Disaster the Governor "shall issue a proclamation convening the Legislative Assembly" unless the legislature is already in session or is scheduled to be in session in the next 30 days. See Oregon constitution Article X-A, Section 1, paragraph 4. Page 38 of my prior link.

The word "shall" is normally construed in legal-speak to be a command. It was Governor Brown's responsibility to convene the legislature when she made the declaration. It was not up to her to wait for the legislature to do so.
  #59  
Old 05-21-2020, 04:14 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by xenophon41 View Post
That's a good question deserving a serious answer.

Any mask which presents a barrier to microdroplets of saliva and snot that the wearer expels with every breath, cough, sneeze or vocalized sentence will greatly cut down on the number of droplets which are released into the air (and which can sometimes remain suspended in the air for literally hours, depending on air exchange, humidity and other factors).

However, inhaling while wearing a mask will move the air surrounding the wearer's head through the mask, filtering out most of the suspended snot droplets in that air and allowing those droplets to adhere to the mask. That greatly increases the chances that those droplets will be inhaled at some point into the wearer's lungs, either through gaps in the sides of the mask, from being disturbed during adjustments by the wearer of the mask, or when the mask is removed and improperly handled after its extended use.

So, if everyone (or the vast majority) in an enclosed area wear the masks [properly], we're effectively protecting everyone in the area from the few who are carrying the virus by reducing by orders of magnitude the amount of virus laden snot droplets they're releasing into the area. Fewer snotlets in the air, fewer adhering to everyone's masks, etc.

Does that make sense?
Your last paragraph doesn't seem the follow the former ones. It seems as if I am reasonably confident that I am not a carrier, then wearing a mask would only increase the probability that I get infected by a person who is not wearing a mask. So my own selfish desire should be that I don't wear a mask but hope everyone else does...sort of a prisoner's dilemma.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy View Post
The Oregon constitution provides that when the Governor declares a Catastrophic Disaster the Governor "shall issue a proclamation convening the Legislative Assembly" unless the legislature is already in session or is scheduled to be in session in the next 30 days. See Oregon constitution Article X-A, Section 1, paragraph 4. Page 38 of my prior link.

The word "shall" is normally construed in legal-speak to be a command. It was Governor Brown's responsibility to convene the legislature when she made the declaration. It was not up to her to wait for the legislature to do so.
Yeah, this whole thing seems to be a failure of the Governor to recognize the limits of her authority and a failure to get a plan together to compel the attendance of recalcitrant Republicans. It seems she has the votes for an extension but sat on her hands and now the legislature is not even meeting which was here mandatory duty to call it into session when she declared the emergency.
  #60  
Old 05-21-2020, 04:26 PM
xenophon41's Avatar
xenophon41 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Somewhere up country.
Posts: 5,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Your last paragraph doesn't seem the follow the former ones. It seems as if I am reasonably confident that I am not a carrier, then wearing a mask would only increase the probability that I get infected by a person who is not wearing a mask. So my own selfish desire should be that I don't wear a mask but hope everyone else does...sort of a prisoner's dilemma.
Why are you "reasonably confident" you're not a carrier? Were you tested this morning and already have the results back from a reliable lab? You wouldn't know if you're asymptomatically carrying the virus, so your confidence level should not be high. Particularly if you're doing a lot of walking around in public without a mask.

Wearing a mask does NOT increase your chances of contracting the virus; this isn't a prisoner's dilemma. Your civic minded solution would be to wear the mask, minimize your time in crowded and enclosed areas and practice social distancing. That's also your safest anti-virus solution, because wearing a mask, while it results in you wearing your own snotlets on the inside and other people's snotlets on the outside of the mask also reduces the amount of other peoples snotlets you're going to inhale per trip, provided you shorten your trips through crowded areas. But wash your hands and launder (or replace) your mask after every use.
__________________
If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee.
~Abraham Lincoln
  #61  
Old 05-21-2020, 04:38 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by xenophon41 View Post
Why are you "reasonably confident" you're not a carrier? Were you tested this morning and already have the results back from a reliable lab? You wouldn't know if you're asymptomatically carrying the virus, so your confidence level should not be high. Particularly if you're doing a lot of walking around in public without a mask.

Wearing a mask does NOT increase your chances of contracting the virus; this isn't a prisoner's dilemma. Your civic minded solution would be to wear the mask, minimize your time in crowded and enclosed areas and practice social distancing. That's also your safest anti-virus solution, because wearing a mask, while it results in you wearing your own snotlets on the inside and other people's snotlets on the outside of the mask also reduces the amount of other peoples snotlets you're going to inhale per trip, provided you shorten your trips through crowded areas. But wash your hands and launder (or replace) your mask after every use.
This is largely an academic debate as I do wear a mask in public, but from my understanding in your prior post, if someone is a carrier their snot droplets will adhere to my mask and give me a greater chance of infection. If I misunderstood that, then I am just wrong.

So I guess the calculus would be, if I am already a carrier, then I'm infected so it doesn't benefit numero uno to wear a mask. If I am not infected, then wearing a mask only increases my chances of getting infected because of the aforementioned snot particles on my mask so in either scenario, I don't benefit from a mask. But others do. However, I (the general I) am a selfish prick who won't wear a mask. A prisoner's dilemma.
  #62  
Old 05-21-2020, 04:56 PM
xenophon41's Avatar
xenophon41 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Somewhere up country.
Posts: 5,146
I'm pretty sure the longer you wear a mask without changing it, the more concentration of moisture (yours and others) is accumulated. I'm sure there's a point where the mask would be so saturated, migration through the cloth would occur and you'd be getting absolutely no benefit from the mask. But I don't know if there's a point where you'd have inhaled/ingested a higher viral load because of a soaked mask than you would have done without the mask. I suspect that would depend on a) how well the mask fits and covers mouth and nose, b) how long you wear it, and c) environmental factors like relative humidity and temperature.

In any case, I believe the medical consensus is that you do get some individual protection from wearing a surgical or cloth mask, but the biggest benefit of mask wearing is to protect everyone else from infected persons' exhalations.

In the case of N95 masks, those are respirators and actively filter out the virus, so wearers of those get more protection. -They are not recommended for non-healthcare workers, because they're harder to breathe through, and some of them are valved to release unfiltered exhalations, giving no benefit to the rest of the crowd. (Your selfish hypothetical prick would probably choose one of those.)
__________________
If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee.
~Abraham Lincoln
  #63  
Old 05-21-2020, 05:30 PM
TroutMan's Avatar
TroutMan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 5,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
So I guess the calculus would be, if I am already a carrier, then I'm infected so it doesn't benefit numero uno to wear a mask. If I am not infected, then wearing a mask only increases my chances of getting infected because of the aforementioned snot particles on my mask so in either scenario, I don't benefit from a mask. But others do. However, I (the general I) am a selfish prick who won't wear a mask. A prisoner's dilemma.
If you aren't a carrier and don't wear a mask, then any aerosols or droplets from an infected person goes straight in your nose or mouth. If you do have a mask, some of those particles can get in around the edges or eventually migrate through the mask. But both those paths are more difficult than the case where you aren't wearing a mask at all. The benefit of wearing a mask when you aren't infected is probably positive, and certainly not negative.
  #64  
Old 05-21-2020, 06:34 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I think the point of the thread is that whether the Governor is doing a great job or a horrific one, Oregon law only allows her to have the exclusive say for 30 days. She is not a dictator or a monarch, so if it goes past 30 days then the people through their elected representatives get a say.

And that seems very reasonable to me.
Then I think you have missed the point of this thread. It was started by an OP who found the efforts to stop physical distancing efforts under the guise of religious freedom disturbing. In fact, very few Oregonians disagree with the physical distancing rules being used as a tool to hold spread of CV-19 to a minimum. It has worked very well.

Governor Brown says that her orders were issued under ORS 401.165, which does not place time constraints on her executive orders related to a state of emergency. So you'll have to make your arguments about dictatorship or monarchy with that in mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy View Post
The Oregon constitution provides that when the Governor declares a Catastrophic Disaster the Governor "shall issue a proclamation convening the Legislative Assembly" unless the legislature is already in session or is scheduled to be in session in the next 30 days. See Oregon constitution Article X-A, Section 1, paragraph 4. Page 38 of my prior link.

The word "shall" is normally construed in legal-speak to be a command. It was Governor Brown's responsibility to convene the legislature when she made the declaration. It was not up to her to wait for the legislature to do so.
Well aware on both counts. Do you factually know that she has not issued a proclamation convening the Legislative Assembly? I don't. I would say if she has, she undercuts her own argument about the statute under which she acted.

I'll allow that I am not confident her argument to the Oregon Supreme Court is rested on sound legal ground. But neither do I feel that the Oregon State legislature has acted in good faith over the past couple of years since they started this nonsense. What they did during the regular legislative session was shameful, and it wasn't only Democrats who saw it that way. Like it or not, Democrats represent the majority of citizens in this state.

We only need one more Democratic senator for a quorum in the 2021 session. I hope we get that person with the 2020 election.
  #65  
Old 05-21-2020, 07:15 PM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Distanced
Posts: 16,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
Governor Brown says that her orders were issued under ORS 401.165, which does not place time constraints on her executive orders related to a state of emergency.
And the Court will have to rule on whether that takes precedence over the constitutional provision. (Which sounds to me like the lawmakers in Oregon got sloppy -- if a constitutional amendment passes, it behooves them to go over related statutes to make sure they all square with it and if there are going to be exceptions, they must be explicit.)

Last edited by JRDelirious; 05-21-2020 at 07:16 PM.
  #66  
Old 05-21-2020, 07:25 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
Then I think you have missed the point of this thread. It was started by an OP who found the efforts to stop physical distancing efforts under the guise of religious freedom disturbing. In fact, very few Oregonians disagree with the physical distancing rules being used as a tool to hold spread of CV-19 to a minimum. It has worked very well.

Governor Brown says that her orders were issued under ORS 401.165, which does not place time constraints on her executive orders related to a state of emergency. So you'll have to make your arguments about dictatorship or monarchy with that in mind.
First, like all states in the union, Oregon is a constitutional republic. It does not run on opinion polls. It runs by written law.

Second, although I am far from an expert on Oregon law, this seems like a classic non-delegation issue. If the Oregon Legislature is tasked by the Constitution to review a Governor's emergency declaration after thirty days, it cannot shirk that duty by passing a statute which purports to give the Governor an eternal dictatorial power, no matter how many legislators support it, or no matter what the public opinion polls say.

It would be no different than if the legislature passed a law saying that the Governor could set the state budget or appropriate funds as she sees fit. The state Constitution assigns this power to the legislature and it must act accordingly, not pass it off.

And if some Republican members are doing this or that, then have the sergeant at arms arrest them and compel their attendance. Don't just complain that those meany Republicans won't come to the state house. Those rules are written for these reasons.
  #67  
Old 05-21-2020, 07:34 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
First, like all states in the union, Oregon is a constitutional republic. It does not run on opinion polls. It runs by written law.

Second, although I am far from an expert on Oregon law, this seems like a classic non-delegation issue. If the Oregon Legislature is tasked by the Constitution to review a Governor's emergency declaration after thirty days, it cannot shirk that duty by passing a statute which purports to give the Governor an eternal dictatorial power, no matter how many legislators support it, or no matter what the public opinion polls say.

It would be no different than if the legislature passed a law saying that the Governor could set the state budget or appropriate funds as she sees fit. The state Constitution assigns this power to the legislature and it must act accordingly, not pass it off.

And if some Republican members are doing this or that, then have the sergeant at arms arrest them and compel their attendance. Don't just complain that those meany Republicans won't come to the state house. Those rules are written for these reasons.
I'll wait for the Oregon Supreme Court decision, thanks.

The Republican members could not be compelled to attend since they had all left the state. Do some homework before you jump up on your high horse.
  #68  
Old 05-21-2020, 07:39 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious View Post
And the Court will have to rule on whether that takes precedence over the constitutional provision. (Which sounds to me like the lawmakers in Oregon got sloppy -- if a constitutional amendment passes, it behooves them to go over related statutes to make sure they all square with it and if there are going to be exceptions, they must be explicit.)
Yes, I agree with this, which is why I said I wasn't confident in her argument.

Still, I think what she wants to accomplish is to have a little more time to get these important decisions right that affect all of her citizens. The Oregon Supreme Court may have given her that breathing room by granting her stay.

Hopefully the entire matter will be moot by the time it is heard.
  #69  
Old 05-21-2020, 07:48 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
I'll wait for the Oregon Supreme Court decision, thanks.

The Republican members could not be compelled to attend since they had all left the state. Do some homework before you jump up on your high horse.
Well, so just support the position that gives a Governor the power to flout the Constitution because you agree with that position for today. Just don't complain when in 2045 and Donald Trump IV is governor and he uses the power set by the precedent you argue.
  #70  
Old 05-21-2020, 09:44 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 29,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by slash2k View Post
But how do we know in advance who is going to survive? We know percentages and likelihoods, but no doctor in the world can say that you, Magiver, are guaranteed to live if you contract COVID-19, or that I am, or any other particular person. So who, EXACTLY, needs to be wearing a mask and who doesn't?
People with respiratory or immune deficiencies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by slash2k View Post
Yes, the masks will come back into stock at some unknown future date. That doesn't help if you need them right now.
Since they're available right now then those I just listed are the ones who would benefit most from them.
  #71  
Old 05-21-2020, 10:41 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 64,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
People with respiratory or immune deficiencies.
How many times do you have to be told that the masks help prevent you from spreading the disease, not getting the disease, before it finally sinks in?
  #72  
Old 05-21-2020, 11:32 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 29,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
How many times do you have to be told that the masks help prevent you from spreading the disease, not getting the disease, before it finally sinks in?
The same number of times you have to be told you're wrong.
  #73  
Old 05-21-2020, 11:47 PM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
People with respiratory or immune deficiencies.
So how do you explain the people who DIDN'T have any known respiratory or immune deficiencies and ended up in hospital (or the morgue) anyway? Would they have benefited from wearing a mask, or would the people around them have benefited if they'd worn a mask? Why or why not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Since they're available right now then those I just listed are the ones who would benefit most from them.
How do you figure that a hundred million masks a month is adequate to provide reasonable quantities of masks for the ones who would benefit most from them? That hundred million has to be spread among health care workers, military personnel, police and prison workers, nursing home attendants, nursing home residents, vulnerable adults in the community, etc., etc., so how many people do you figure qualify, and how many masks are you allocating to each?
  #74  
Old 05-21-2020, 11:49 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
It's not reasonable to follow the rules when the result will be massive deaths. [snip]
Do you know how many deaths due to COVID-19 Oregon has suffered?

4 today. 7 on their worst day.

This does not sound like a situation where a governor gets to be a dictator.

How many deaths have happened and will happen because people are not going to prior but cancelled appointments? There is no way to know as far as I am aware. But a discussion may be legitimately held, and claiming opponents want people to die is one sorry refutation.
  #75  
Old 05-22-2020, 12:28 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 64,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
Do you know how many deaths due to COVID-19 Oregon has suffered?

4 today. 7 on their worst day.
You cannot know this.
  #76  
Old 05-22-2020, 01:20 AM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 29,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by slash2k View Post
So how do you explain the people who DIDN'T have any known respiratory or immune deficiencies and ended up in hospital (or the morgue) anyway? Would they have benefited from wearing a mask, or would the people around them have benefited if they'd worn a mask? Why or why not?
You're trying to use an argument of absolutism. You can't apply that to anything. No vaccine is 100%. No medical treatment is 100%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by slash2k View Post
How do you figure that a hundred million masks a month is adequate to provide reasonable quantities of masks for the ones who would benefit most from them? That hundred million has to be spread among health care workers,
the numbers I cited were additional masks needed in the short term. It does not represent the sum total being produced. Since very few people are actually likely to die from the virus that just leaves the few who are vulnerable.

You're not being rational in this discussion. People will die from this just as they die from the flu and a host of other diseases every day. We're not trying to save everyone. We're trying to keep a health care system from collapsing. We're also trying to keep an economy from collapsing because we need the taxes to survive. That's reality. We've done a tremendous amount of financial damage to prevent the health care system from collapsing.

At some point the reality of the suicides and drug overdoses from this are going to sink in. You don't seem to give a damn about these people but it's going to happen.
  #77  
Old 05-22-2020, 05:28 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutMan View Post
Yeah, I honestly don't know how it would play out. Does the speaker say "the missing members aren't here because of the emergency, therefore I declare a quorum," and it would be up to the courts to put a stop to it? ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oregon State Constitution
Two thirds of each house shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may meet; adjourn from day to day, and compel the attendance of absent members. [sgs7's emphasis]
Texas Rs played hardball with Texas Ds a few years ago, sending Texas Rangers(?) to a neighboring state to arrest D legislators who were refusing to join a quorum call! When are Ds going to start playing hardball like the Rs do?
  #78  
Old 05-22-2020, 07:14 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 13,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
The same number of times you have to be told you're wrong.
Wait, you don't believe that masks help people from spreading the disease if they have it?
  #79  
Old 05-22-2020, 08:46 AM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Distanced
Posts: 16,464
Y'know this is an interesting side-debate but I don't think the constitutionality or non constitutionality of a statute is dependent upon whether it is scientifically "right" to carry it out. Those Schooled in the Law may correct me on that.

Last edited by JRDelirious; 05-22-2020 at 08:47 AM.
  #80  
Old 05-22-2020, 08:55 AM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 691
>Originally Posted by sps49sd
>Do you know how many deaths due to COVID-19 Oregon has suffered?

4 today. 7 on their worst day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
You cannot know this.
How may any of us know anything, when the Universe is divided between the word within our head and the world outside our head?
Those numbers com from here and here.
It's really easy to find information like this. Do I know, absolutely, "this"? No. But unless and until I get better information, sources like I provided will have to do.

Note: The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at UW site gave actual numbers yesterday, not 'per 100,000, but those capable of math will see the numbers are the same.

Last edited by sps49sd; 05-22-2020 at 08:57 AM.
  #81  
Old 05-22-2020, 09:01 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 64,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
>Originally Posted by sps49sd
>Do you know how many deaths due to COVID-19 Oregon has suffered?

4 today. 7 on their worst day.



How may any of us know anything, when the Universe is divided between the word within our head and the world outside our head?
Those numbers com from here and here.
It's really easy to find information like this. Do I know, absolutely, "this"? No. But unless and until I get better information, sources like I provided will have to do.

Note: The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at UW site gave actual numbers yesterday, not 'per 100,000, but those capable of math will see the numbers are the same.
You cannot know the real numbers unless the dead are tested for the virus after the fact. What you have are the numbers of people that have died after already being diagnosed with the virus.
  #82  
Old 05-22-2020, 09:28 AM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: At home, hunkered.
Posts: 31,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious View Post
Y'know this is an interesting side-debate but I don't think the constitutionality or non constitutionality of a statute is dependent upon whether it is scientifically "right" to carry it out. Those Schooled in the Law may correct me on that.
I was having to be same thought. Nor do the religious beliefs or motivations of the plaintiffs undercut the merits of their legal argument.
__________________
My great-grandparents came through emigrating to a new country.
My grandparents came through the Great War and the Great Depression.
My parents came through the Great Depression and World War II.
We will come through this pandemic. Hang on tight to the ones you love.
  #83  
Old 05-22-2020, 09:30 AM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: At home, hunkered.
Posts: 31,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Well, so just support the position that gives a Governor the power to flout the Constitution because you agree with that position for today. Just don't complain when in 2045 and Donald Trump IV is governor and he uses the power set by the precedent you argue.
Precisely.
__________________
My great-grandparents came through emigrating to a new country.
My grandparents came through the Great War and the Great Depression.
My parents came through the Great Depression and World War II.
We will come through this pandemic. Hang on tight to the ones you love.
  #84  
Old 05-22-2020, 09:31 AM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: At home, hunkered.
Posts: 31,050
Why on earth is the quorum set so high? That gives control of the Legislature to the minority.
__________________
My great-grandparents came through emigrating to a new country.
My grandparents came through the Great War and the Great Depression.
My parents came through the Great Depression and World War II.
We will come through this pandemic. Hang on tight to the ones you love.
  #85  
Old 05-22-2020, 09:41 AM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 29,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Why on earth is the quorum set so high? That gives control of the Legislature to the minority.
Yes, it gives some power to the minority. At some point they are forced to work through their differences so it's limited by time.
  #86  
Old 05-22-2020, 09:52 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Why on earth is the quorum set so high? That gives control of the Legislature to the minority.
It might have worked at one time.

Empowering a political minority is not inherently bad. It's bad when the political minority uses its minority to obstruct the legislature for no reason other than to exercise its power to disrupt, which is what a political party does when it appeals to fewer and fewer people - it becomes less democratic in spirit, and it relies more on abusing what remaining powers it does have to corrode the will of the majority.
  #87  
Old 05-22-2020, 10:06 AM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: At home, hunkered.
Posts: 31,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Yes, it gives some power to the minority. At some point they are forced to work through their differences so it's limited by time.
what forces them to work through their differences? what is the time limit?
__________________
My great-grandparents came through emigrating to a new country.
My grandparents came through the Great War and the Great Depression.
My parents came through the Great Depression and World War II.
We will come through this pandemic. Hang on tight to the ones you love.
  #88  
Old 05-22-2020, 12:15 PM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,578
I'm a little surprised at the course of the debate here. Given our current president, and the one we had before Obama, liberals should be particularly sensitive to this. In general, it is a Bad Idea to allow a chief executive to wield indefinite emergency powers. If that means the response to a public health emergency is not what it ought to be, then the constitution and relevant legislation should be amended. But no one from any party should be allowed to rule by fiat, even if their motives are pure.
__________________
This can only end in tears.

Last edited by Really Not All That Bright; 05-22-2020 at 12:16 PM.
  #89  
Old 05-22-2020, 03:44 PM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: At home, hunkered.
Posts: 31,050
I agree. However, I find it very odd that there is an emergency powers statute on the books that is more expansive than the constitutional provision and seems to be the source of the ambiguity.
__________________
My great-grandparents came through emigrating to a new country.
My grandparents came through the Great War and the Great Depression.
My parents came through the Great Depression and World War II.
We will come through this pandemic. Hang on tight to the ones you love.
  #90  
Old 05-23-2020, 04:53 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Why on earth is the quorum set so high? That gives control of the Legislature to the minority.
Not when the chair has the authority to compel the attendance of absent members.

I am just guessing, but a higher quorum number is simply protective of the entire house. Suppose a 51-49 Republican majority and the majority proposes a radical right wing bill that only gets 28 GOP votes and no Dem votes. Under a majority quorum, you could call a quick session, round up the Republicans, and pass the radical bill on a 28-23 vote, whereas if you had to have more members you couldn't do this.

I also don't see anything wrong with the idea that the legislators have a job to do and that they should all be there for every session unless excused for illness or personal emergency.
  #91  
Old 05-23-2020, 04:57 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
I agree. However, I find it very odd that there is an emergency powers statute on the books that is more expansive than the constitutional provision and seems to be the source of the ambiguity.
What is your position on the ambiguity? I'm not familiar with Oregon case law, but it seems that the Constitution has already set out the balance of power between the executive and legislative and the legislature cannot simply cede its own power by statute.

I don't see how this would be any different (under the US Constitution) than a law requiring a unanimous vote to overturn a veto or allowing the President to ratify a treaty without approval of the Senate.
  #92  
Old 05-23-2020, 05:44 PM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: At home, hunkered.
Posts: 31,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
What is your position on the ambiguity? I'm not familiar with Oregon case law, but it seems that the Constitution has already set out the balance of power between the executive and legislative and the legislature cannot simply cede its own power by statute.

I don't see how this would be any different (under the US Constitution) than a law requiring a unanimous vote to overturn a veto or allowing the President to ratify a treaty without approval of the Senate.
Don't know enough to comment, beyond what I said; would be a question of Washington constitutional law. If that's the basis for the current disagreement between the Governor and the Legislature, it seems odd that the earlier emergency statute was never repealed when the constitutional amendment went through.
__________________
My great-grandparents came through emigrating to a new country.
My grandparents came through the Great War and the Great Depression.
My parents came through the Great Depression and World War II.
We will come through this pandemic. Hang on tight to the ones you love.
  #93  
Old 05-23-2020, 06:17 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
You cannot know the real numbers unless the dead are tested for the virus after the fact. What you have are the numbers of people that have died after already being diagnosed with the virus.
So what is your point?
Mine is that the governor of Oregon is abusing her power for a non- crisis situation, and those low numbers underscore the degree of her overreach.
  #94  
Old 05-23-2020, 06:27 PM
susan's Avatar
susan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Coastal USA
Posts: 10,326
The governor of Oregon is making reasoned and informed decisions, which has kept all of us safer.
  #95  
Old 05-23-2020, 06:40 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Well, so just support the position that gives a Governor the power to flout the Constitution because you agree with that position for today. Just don't complain when in 2045 and Donald Trump IV is governor and he uses the power set by the precedent you argue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Precisely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
I was having to be same thought. Nor do the religious beliefs or motivations of the plaintiffs undercut the merits of their legal argument.
Do either of you actually read what I write before you decide what I said?

I said twice, in 2 separate posts, that I am not confident that Governor Brown’s arguments will prevail.

The fact that the persons bringing the legal action are religious has no bearing, and I have not said otherwise. I would be equally disturbed if a small, noisy group of indoor tap dancing enthusiasts were asserting the view that their rights to assemble and tap dance exceeded in importance the safety and welfare of citizens during a pandemic emergency. I see no 30-day restriction over governors in New York or California, so obviously not everyone in the country sees a 30-day limitation on emergency governors' powers as a necessary bar to abject tyranny.

Obviously the flaw exists in how high the numbers are for a quorum. But as asahi points out, Republicans in the Oregon senate are not looking for consensus, only disruption. And this in the midst of a pandemic that is with us now, today, not whenever the state legislature is next set to meet.

I do think it is inappropriate that a circuit court judge accepted jurisdiction over and heard the case of one of his Facebook buddies. I was always taught that even the appearance of impropriety should be avoided. Seems a joke these days.

If there is an effort here to have an honest discussion about the authority of a state governor to protect the welfare of his/her citizens in the midst of a crisis that is clearly going to exceed an arbitrary 30-day limit over the perceived rights of a vocal minority seeking to supersede those concerns, it's hard to tell with the way this discussion has gone.
  #96  
Old 05-23-2020, 07:38 PM
Lance Turbo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Not when the chair has the authority to compel the attendance of absent members.
Oregon GOP senator on governor sending police: 'Send bachelors and come heavily armed'

Quote:
"Send bachelors and come heavily armed," Sen. Brian Boquist, a Republican from Dallas, said late Wednesday as the prospect of a walkout loomed. "I'm not going to be a political prisoner in the state of Oregon. It's just that simple."
  #97  
Old 05-23-2020, 07:59 PM
madsircool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 8,667
I like this part:

Quote:
The tactic is rare, but it has been used throughout history, sometimes creating comical scenes. Abraham Lincoln once leapt out of a window in an attempt to deny a quorum when he was a lawmaker in Illinois.
  #98  
Old 05-23-2020, 08:05 PM
needscoffee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 7,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
>Originally Posted by sps49sd

>Do you know how many deaths due to COVID-19 Oregon has suffered?



4 today. 7 on their worst day.







How may any of us know anything, when the Universe is divided between the word within our head and the world outside our head?

Those numbers com from here and here.

It's really easy to find information like this. Do I know, absolutely, "this"? No. But unless and until I get better information, sources like I provided will have to do.



Note: The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at UW site gave actual numbers yesterday, not 'per 100,000, but those capable of math will see the numbers are the same.
You can shut down before a lot of people die, or after a lot of people die. Pretty hard to find that sweet spot of just enough dead people to satisfy everyone.
  #99  
Old 05-23-2020, 10:04 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 64,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
So what is your point?
Mine is that the governor of Oregon is abusing her power for a non- crisis situation, and those low numbers underscore the degree of her overreach.
My point?
"Dead Right" is not something you want on a tombstone.
  #100  
Old 05-23-2020, 10:31 PM
susan's Avatar
susan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Coastal USA
Posts: 10,326
Here's from an Oregon paper today, in case it's useful:
Quote:
The ruling by the county judge in Oregon turned on the legal mechanism Brown used to issue her orders. The plaintiffs allege — and the judge agreed — that they were issued under a statute pertaining to public health emergencies, not an older provision that addresses natural disasters such as storms, earthquakes or floods.

The public health statute contains the 28-day time limit, while the other does not contain a time limit.

Brown maintained in court papers that the statue on public health emergencies was intended by the Legislature to supplement, and not supersede, the emergency powers granted her for natural disasters — including disease — and therefore the time limit doesn’t apply.

[...]

Brown extended the order another 60 days until July 6. All but one Oregon county, however, has since received the state’s approval to begin loosening the coronavirus restrictions. In those counties, restaurants can provide dine-in service with 6 feet (2 meters) of social distancing and salons, gyms and other nonessential businesses can also reopen with strict safety precautions.

Last edited by susan; 05-23-2020 at 10:32 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017