Coronavirus

[oldno7]

[oldno7]

James Woods



@RealJamesWoods



·
16h









In every major news event cell phone videos invariably materialize. Every shooting, fire, earthquake, tornado. Where are the videos of the hospitals being overwhelmed with patients? Something is creepy wrong and very scary about this entire event. #WuhanCoronaVirus.



James Woods



@RealJamesWoods



·
16h









In every major news event cell phone videos invariably materialize. Every shooting, fire, earthquake, tornado. Where are the videos of the hospitals being overwhelmed with patients? Something is creepy wrong and very scary about this entire event. #WuhanCoronaVirus.

[oldno7]

[oldno7]

[oldno7]

[oldno7]

[oldno7]

[oldno7]

[oldno7]

[oldno7]

[oldno7]

[oldno7]

[BasinCruiser]

^^^^If it suffocates on that plastic bag, will that death be counted as a Chinese Wuhan virus death?

[oldno7]

^^^^If it suffocates on that plastic bag, will that death be counted as a Chinese Wuhan virus death?

Well-----duh....

[oldno7]

Someone said--those are rookie numbers

Someone said you have to pump those numbers up....

We did!!!

[BasinCruiser]

All across the country, government leaders are shutting down businesses declaring them unessential, telling businesses what items that can and can't put on their shelves and declaring them unessential, closing down businesses, churches, locations that are gathering places for large groups of people, putting in other restrictions on actions and activities and behaviors due to their risk to personal and public safety- all of these controls and directives are being enacted by our government leaders under the guise that they are measures that will help protect public health and safety. How are they getting away with putting these restrictions on our rights and freedoms? They are basing their decisions on 'information and concensus from the scientific community that we are currently under a high risk public health crisis', and therefore to keep the public safe from this threat, they need to enact these measures, and the public needs to comply with them in order to make these measures effective, resulting in hopfully protecting as many people as possible from this threat.

If the government can get away with doing all of this if the threat is a pandemic, and the various health orginazations are tellling them these are the measures they need to take to protect the public from this virus, what is going to stop the government from enacting similar measures for any other health or other threat or potential crisis down the road?

Climate Change - Barack Obummer recently tried to make a correlation between climate change and this Chinese Wuhan Virus crisis - he's not the first one to do so, several other tabloid media outlets and provda activist 'reporters' have done the same. They can say that they have their 97% scientific community consensus that climate change is a real threat to human health, and therefore they need to take drastic measures to protect the public from this threat, and their health advisors agree. What's to stop a government official/group from taking this virus crisis response playbook, protocols, and processes and using them to implement similar restrictions in shutting down businesses declaring that they are not essential, or that they contribute too much to climate change, and are therefore a thread to the public health? What is going to stop them from putting a cap on how much we can drive each day (already has been going on in China - remember their driving restrictions before/during the Olympics) to cut down on car emissions due to the public health risk and threat? What about cutting down output and production of various industries declarinig that their products are not essential, and their use of certain resources are a threat to the environment, so they are putting a cap on how much product they can manufacture?

#2A Gun Control - Scientific consensus shows that guns, when used improperly, are a serious threat to public safety and health, and therefore need to be dealt with. Health departments agree that when shot with a bullet from a gun, a victim runs a high risk of personal injury or death, and therefore gun shots are a serious public health risk. What is to stop a governement entity from determining that certain guns (which could be everything but a muzzleloader) are non-essential, are a health risk if available to the public, and therefore need to be removed from public access?

#1A - RIght to assemble - If the government can close down businesses, churches, community areas because of group assembly under the premise that these are places where this particular virus can easily be spread and is therefore a public health risk, what happens if they decide that gathering and assembly of people fosters group think and may foster group idealogy that objects to government stances, actions, platforms, or laws, and since the government is what is best for the public, and the government is there for protection of the people, and the governemtn policies, platforms and laws are for public safety, therefore these group gatherings could potentially be dangerous to public health and safety, what is to stop them from shutting them down?

#1 - Free Speech - On a recent interview with a congressman (sorry, i can't remember what network or who the congressman is), the host was attacking Fox News for not portaying as much of a panic and pandamonium feel, as the rest of the tabloid news outlets were doing (even though those same outlets were downplaying this virus a month ago saying that it's not big deal, that it's just the flu), and therefore their audience aren't likely as scared and concerned as they should be, and thus are not giving the public the real and full information that they should, imlying that Fox News should be culpable for not informing the public properly so that they can take this as serious as they should and take the necessary precautions and actions. They were clearly sending a red flag to the public to cry out for legistative control over their counterpart, as well as to legilsators for taking action against Fox for putting the public at risk. With the precident being set today with government taking these actions to protect the community, what is stopping them from enacting control and consequences to news outlets if they don't present the information and messages the government deems necessary, and in a manner that the government deems effective in order to incur a response to the public that will result in behaviors that the governement deems necessary for public safety and protection?

#1 - Religion - A pastor was recently arrested in the South - i believe in LA - for holding church services for his congregation, becuase the local governement had deemed that church services didn't meet their criteria as essential activities under their stay at home orders, and therefore holding church services was a public health threat risk, and therefore the pastor should be arrested. What happens when the governement decides that the idealogy of a religion itself is unnecessary, and the idealogy is a public health risk, and therefore they are going to shut down that religion? What if they decide they want to force a church to perform gay weddings? It doesn't hurt anybody else if a gay couple is married in that church - the church shoulndn't have any right to object to that action being performed in their building.

If the governement can take any of the actions that it is currently taking today to shut down businesses and stop commerce on goods and services it deems unnecessary and is a health risk due to spreading of this virus, what is to stop it from declaring another crisis in the future, and use the same tactics to enact whatever measures it wants under the guise of public health and safety?

In this crisis, the battle lines are clearly being drawn between actions that are going to save lives by protecting them from this virus, and economic actions that are threatening the commerce, livelihood, and health of the community from jobs and the ecomomy. Where are the battle grounds for the rights and priviledges that we are losing to governement control in all of this?

[oldno7]

The answer you seek is the Bill of Rights.(I know, right now thats laughable)

Conservative Americans are allowing this to move on in the true fashion of our Country is in trouble.

progressive liberals are enjoying the Government control.

We are in an information vacuum right now and we skeptically go along.

The truth will come out, it has too, theres to much technology available to literally everyone for it not to.

I hope the truth replicates the actions taken, if not there will be a huge uprising by folks who are not known for doing so.

There is a fight in this Country for rights, the Right will not drop this incredible paper written for individual freedom.

The left did a very long time ago.

Whatever way the Country needs to go to get back to individual rights, we will endeavor.

[blueeyes]

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/0...inkId=85673130

This is good news. Mayo has developed a test that will help identify individuals who can return to work.

This kind of testing needs to be available within weeks of a newly suspected viral illness not months. And tests to identify current infections and be available in hospitals not just state health labs.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[BasinCruiser]

Since they are shutting down all non-essential businesses, telling people to not travel for non-essential trips, and closing off non-essential areas where people congregate, does that mean that all legistors are being laid off and kept at home?

[rockgremlin]

All across the country, government leaders are shutting down businesses declaring them unessential, telling businesses what items that can and can't put on their shelves and declaring them unessential, closing down businesses, churches, locations that are gathering places for large groups of people, putting in other restrictions on actions and activities and behaviors due to their risk to personal and public safety- all of these controls and directives are being enacted by our government leaders under the guise that they are measures that will help protect public health and safety. How are they getting away with putting these restrictions on our rights and freedoms? They are basing their decisions on 'information and concensus from the scientific community that we are currently under a high risk public health crisis', and therefore to keep the public safe from this threat, they need to enact these measures, and the public needs to comply with them in order to make these measures effective, resulting in hopfully protecting as many people as possible from this threat.

...


In this crisis, the battle lines are clearly being drawn between actions that are going to save lives by protecting them from this virus, and economic actions that are threatening the commerce, livelihood, and health of the community from jobs and the ecomomy. Where are the battle grounds for the rights and priviledges that we are losing to governement control in all of this?

What I'm hearing here is fear.

I think the scenarios you are proposing are possible but not very likely. There is a very large faction of the population that are remaining silent throughout these times of extreme measures. Not saying that your fears are invalid or unwarranted -- just unlikely in my opinion.