Coronavirus

Kentucky Couple Reportedly Placed Under House Arrest After Failing To Sign COVID-19 Quarantine Notice

Elizabeth Linscott, who tested positive for COVID-19, says she objected to the wording of the health department's isolation orders.

|

A Kentucky couple says they were placed under house arrest for refusing to sign self-quarantine documents after testing positive for COVID-19.

Elizabeth Linscott of Hardin County told WAVE that she got a COVID-19 test in preparation for a trip to visit her parents in Michigan. Linscott's test came back positive. Shortly afterward, the Lincoln Trail District Health Department informed Linscott that she would need to sign a Self-isolation and Controlled Movement Agreed Order.

Linscott had no objection to quarantining herself. But she declined to sign, the Associated Press reports, because the order included this sentence: "I will not travel by any public, commercial or health care conveyance such as ambulance, bus, taxi, airplane, train or boat without the prior approval of the Department of Public Health." If Linscott needed to go to the hospital, she did not want to wait for the health department's permission. She would, however, take precautions, such as informing hospital workers that she had tested positive.

Last Thursday, the Hardin County Sheriff's Office and a health department employee appeared at her home. There, Linscott's husband was served three papers: one for his wife, one for himself, and one for their daughter. The Linscotts claim that they were told to wear ankle monitors to ensure that they remained within 200 feet of their home.

While the Hardin County Sheriff's Office was unable to provide Reason with its protocols for enforcing quarantine, it did release a statement via Facebook about the case:

Posted by Hardin County Sheriff's Office, Kentucky on Monday, July 20, 2020

According to the sheriff's office, any petition filed against the Linscotts was initiated by the Lincoln Trail District Health Department and any quarantine orders would be issued by a judge. The sheriff's office also denied installing monitoring devices.

Linscott told WAVE that the health department director had claimed to the judge that the couple was refusing to self-quarantine. Linscott maintains that her decision was mischaracterized and that she merely disliked how the document was worded.

Under Kentucky law, the Louisville Courier Journal reports, county health departments have the power to isolate contagious people who don't stay at home. The law does not state a penalty for objecting to or breaking quarantine orders.

If the Linscotts' account is accurate, and the authorities not only ignored reasonable objections from citizens and placed them under house arrest, but also lied about it, this is a deeply troubling turn for civil liberties in Hardin County.

NEXT: You Can’t Roast Marshmallows on Zoom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You just knew it was gonna happen sooner or later.

    1. Great Opportunitie Online Jobs ????ONLY USA????

      Corona is big threat of the century which effect physically, mentally and financially/CMe To over come these difficulties and make full use of this hostage period and make online earning.

      For more detail visit the given link…………► Click here

    2. Great Opportunitie Online Jobs ????ONLY USA????

      Corona is big threat of the century which effect physically, mentally and financially/CMe To over come these difficulties and make full use of this hostage period and make online earning.

      For more detail visit the given link…………► Jobs Here 

  2. Those who refuse to medically isolate themselves when diagnosed with COVID-19 should be arrested and forced into a fortified ghetto until a vaccine can be discovered. In addition, persons infected with COVID-19 should be forced to wear a yellow armband with a bio-hazard symbol to indicate their potential to infect the community.

    1. And don’t forget to say “Unclean, unclean” as you shuffle along.

    2. Yellow *mask* with bio-hazard symbol. That’s the new fad in government-forced fashion.

    3. You make a good case for the new world in which all are to conform without question, doubt, truth or facts. All you need do is comply. Don’t question, don’t resist, just comply and all will be good for you. It will be so easy and good for you.

  3. Self-isolation and Controlled Movement Agreed Order

    So, Sic Mao on Ms Linscott?

    1. Very nice! LMAO

  4. If you have reasonable cause to believe that you are infected, it is a violation of the NAP to then go about potentially spreading the disease. I can see how the level of response is up for debate, but at the end of the day, defending the public against a *known* vector of infection seems like a valid government response. Ankle monitors seem like a stretch, but then what other way are you going to track these people overtly (i.e. not using the tracking malware they already have in our phones).

    Likely what happened is that the wife got snippy with whomever demanded she sign the papers, and that person decided to punish her for it. It is Karens and the Bureau of Karens squaring off against one another.

    1. Now do HIV.

        1. You prove his point without realizing it.

          1. Yeah, intentional or reckless infection isn’t the same as simply being in public while infected, which is not an NAP violation. Huge reach and fail.

            1. What if they wear a mask?

            2. “Yeah, intentional or reckless infection isn’t the same as simply being in public while infected, which is not an NAP violation. Huge reach and fail.”

              I’d modify this by saying that there are various ways infections spread, often depending on the infection. If you are engaging in behavior that is likely to spread an infection you know you have, then you are violating the NAP. If the best science says that breathing indoors in proximity with people is likely to infect them, then it is at least morally repugnant to do so.

              But the libertarian system is a system of Justice, not morals. I don’t really know how you could Justly enforce the NAP here, other than in the manner they tried- signing a document that says you will not engage in “spreading” activities.

              1. If you are sick, you should stay home.
                If you test positive but are asymptomatic, go about life as mostly normal (which i would hope includes trying not to cough or sneeze on people). Maybe wear a mask and try to avoid getting close for a time.
                Like with any virus.
                But government probably shouldn’t be cheered on for forcibly quarantining people in their homes, and tracking them, especially not for this virus.

                What terrible precedents we’re setting

        2. Criminal transmission of HIV is now better known as HIV non-disclosure, which is the criminal punishment for not disclosing an HIV positive status. This can be intentionally or unknowingly not disclosing HIV status and then exposing or transmitting HIV to a person. HIV non-disclosure includes intentional transmission, accidental transmission, unknown transmission, and exposure to HIV with no transmission. People have been accused of and charged for HIV non-disclosure even if no harm was intended and if HIV was not actually transmitted

      1. Not really analogous since you don’t need to fuck someone to give them coronavirus.

        1. You dont need to fuck someone to give them HIV either.

          1. You need to do more than cough on them.

    2. “, it is a violation of the NAP to then go about potentially”

      Moronic.

    3. Now do the flu.

      Are we now saying life is a violation of the NAP?

      If you drive over 25mph are you violating the NAP for increasing risk to others?

      This is insane.

      1. “Now do the flu.”

        This is fair. I am willing to concede that it is probably hard to find a Just way to enforce the NAP here. Perhaps self isolation isn’t the answer, but I think you could make a case for prohibiting a person visiting, say, hospitals (absent some injurry) or nursing homes.

        And keep in mind, I am only calling this out for people SPECIFICALLY testing positive.

        That said, at the beginning of this mess, my first reaction was to think that finally the assholes who felt no problem coming to work with a fever, bleeding out their eyes, would finally knock it off.

        1. That said, at the beginning of this mess, my first reaction was to think that finally the assholes who felt no problem coming to work with a fever, bleeding out their eyes, would finally knock it off.

          And hopefully we get to a point in this entire conversation where we examine WHY people who are obviously sick feel compelled to go to work anyway. I don’t know about you but when I am feeling sick I don’t really want to work but often I have little choice but to do so. How can we create conditions such that those who are feeling sick don’t feel compelled to have to leave the house, in a non-coercive manner as possible?

          1. Yeah, so, some of us are the first(!) to get to work, and open the building for everyone else. Even if I’m dying, I gotta go to work. Then, once others get there, I can go home and die in peace.

          2. Everything is so terrible and unfair.

          3. How can we create conditions such that those who are feeling sick don’t feel compelled to have to leave the house, in a non-coercive manner as possible?

            To balance the needs of the employer to have sufficient workforce available and employees who must earn a daily wage every day to survive we should mandate lower wages (about half?) so that the employer can hire sufficient staff to pay those who stay home and those who must produce something to pay those who stay at home.

            We need to come up with a name for a system like this.

    4. I think saying you can’t get an ambulance ride without permission goes way too far and she was quite right to object.

      We should deal with this disease like we deal with all the other ones. People take responsibility for themselves and enforcement is only through social pressure. I don’t think legal liability for spreading infection leads to good things.

    5. “…it is a violation of the NAP to then go about potentially spreading the disease.”

      The disease? Or does that apply to any potentially contagious disease?

      1. Strictly speaking it ought to apply to any disease. If I am sick, and I know I am sick, and I transmit the disease to you against your wishes, then I’ve harmed you, have I not? If we were in Libertopia, you would have a valid tort claim against me. At a bare minimum it is an act of negligence. The problem is a practical one, not a principled one – it would be far too difficult to try to prosecute every single time someone passed the cold to someone else, just like it is impractical to try to prosecute every single person who shoplifts or jaywalks. The real question should be how to resolve these types of NAP violations.

        1. “and I transmit the disease to you against your wishes”

          And the goalposts move.

          1. Well, if you *want* to be infected by a disease, then there are no NAP implications at all, since you wouldn’t consider yourself to be a victim of aggression.

            1. I think the point is “against your wishes” isnt a standard or even relevant.

            2. Is it really an act of aggression to not do anything to someone– or for someone?

              It is certainly an act of aggression by the virus, but the person who has been attacked by the virus is not himself the virus, but a victim of the virus. There is a difference between negligently getting into a car drunk and driving (a deliberate act, both in terms of getting drunk and in driving after getting drunk) and simply going about ones’ business as normal even as the victim of a virus (a non-action). How can it be a non-action *and* aggressive?

              Aggression is not based on the outcome of the action, so the inadvertent spread of a virus that a person never asked to have is not any different than those same actions would have been without the virus. Now, if the person deliberately got the virus, that would change everything; he’d surely be responsible for not acting to contain it, since it was his intentional act that made him sick.

              Similarly, if a person got the virus normally (non-intentionally), but then deliberately tried to infect people, that would be an aggressive act. But if he got the virus non-intentionally and simply lived life as normal, there’s no aggression. Aggressive acts are, first and foremost, acts… not lack of one.

          2. Dude should start a goalpost-moving company. He’s a pro.

        2. At a bare minimum it is an act of negligence

          No, legally it isn’t. Negligence is a legal term, not a synonym for “caused harm.”

          1. Under current law, no. But the current law doesn’t reflect what Libertopia would or could be. I would argue that “negligence” from a NAP perspective would be something along the lines of “recklessly aggressed against someone even if it wasn’t intentional”. I think that captures the spirit of the idea.

            1. “Under current law, no. But the current law doesn’t reflect what Libertopia would or could be.”

              I’m sorry but if you want to change the meaning of negligence to make it synonymous with “causes harm” you’re not a libertatian you’re a statist.

              1. Then what would you consider to be a reasonable interpretation of the term “negligence” from a libertarian, NAP-friendly perspective?

                1. Your question doesn’t even make sense.

                  1. What would a person have to do in order to be guilty of the crime of ‘negligence’ if one were to only apply the NAP to the situation?

                    1. Negligence is not an act of aggression. By definition. Christ you’re fucking stupid.

                    2. Only if you believe the term “aggression” necessarily implies an affirmative intent to cause harm on the part of the aggressor. That is not the case, “Claude”.

                    3. “crime”?

                      Make sense please.

                    4. Well, I am trying to have a constructive discussion on what would constitute an act of negligence in a libertarian society governed by the NAP, but you seem to want to prefer to nitpick on details. My bad for attempting to have a serious conversation then.

                    5. First you talked about torts then you began talking about crimes.

                      Are you aware they are different things?

                      I’m sorry that my attempts to clarify what you’re asking for upset you so much.

                    6. My bad for attempting to have a serious conversation then.

                      You sound like a child.

                    7. Okay let me try one more time then.

                      In your view, what would a person have to do in order to be guilty of the ACT of “negligence” in a libertarian society governed by the NAP as its guiding principole?

                    8. Only if you believe the term “aggression” necessarily implies an affirmative intent to cause harm on the part of the aggressor. That is not the case, “Claude”.

                      Actually it is the case. That is literally what differentiates negligence from non-negligence. You started out trying to use a non-standard definition of “negligence” and now you are trying to compound your error by appealing to a non-standard definition of “aggression”. When you’re trying to seriously argue that the NAP justifies government agents placing people under house arrest and preventing them from receiving medical transportation you understandably need to lie about several different things first, but you’re not talking to Canadian schoolchildren, cytotoxic, so your aspirational attempts at sophistry are not super effective. Just take the L and move on to shit up the next thread. See if they’ve published any new talking points at Democratic Underground or Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

                    9. Actually it is the case. That is literally what differentiates negligence from non-negligence.

                      I said “aggression” doesn’t necessarily imply affirmative intent to cause harm, not negligence.

                      I contend that, in the context of the NAP, it is possible for an individual to violate the NAP, i.e., commit an act of aggression against another person, without an affirmative intent of causing harm to that person. One of those ways is what I would classify, *broadly speaking*, as “negligence”.

                      Hope this helps, “Claude”.

                    10. Jeff. Go to the wiki—it’s going to be the easiest one for you to find—for ‘Negligence’ (Anglo-American legal concept), ‘Intentional Torts’, and ‘Crimes’. Specifically, look for ‘elements of a crime’, mens rea, and actus reus. Read those. It will take you awhile. Understand how they are all different—in particular how ‘negligently’ refers to a mental state in criminal law—and then perhaps your questions will be answered.

                    11. So while I’m doing that, perhaps you could offer your thoughts on how you think the concept of negligence should be treated in a libertarian society guided by the NAP.

                    12. The proper definition of negligence is a side show.

                      In libertopia, if I could somehow be shown 1) to have infected you, 2) while knowing I was infected, and 3) and while knowing that I was engaging in behavior likely to infect you and 4) you suffered damages as a result, then you would likely have a claim against me.

                      From a moral perspective, I’d see this as wrong- a moral violation of the NAP.

                      From a system of Justice, I do side with others who say it is almost impossible to have a just system that enforces the spreading of an airborne pathogen like this. The level of tracking and verification and speculation necessary for such a system to work would likely be unjust on its face.

                    13. The proper definition of negligence is a side show.

                      THANK YOU for someone around here who is actually trying to discuss the big picture idea, not getting lost in the weeds of some legal definition.

                      And I agree, *knowingly* infecting other people ought to be regarded as a violation of the NAP, and the difficulty here is a practical one, not a principled one.

                    14. Negligence is the ‘breach’ by an actor, of a ‘duty’ of care, that ’causes’ a ‘harm’ to another. Aggression doesn’t enter into it. The quoted words are terms of art, and are not wholly intuitive when discussing negligence concepts. IOW, you’re actually going to have to do your homework here.

                      Negligence is also the lowest of the culpable mental states in criminal law. (There aren’t culpable mental states in determining guilt for strict liabiliy offenses, though mental state may be considered at punishment.) Then there’s recklessness. After that is knowingly acting while aware of a certain result. Finally, there’s intentional.

                      There, that should get you started.

                    15. So if in your view there is no connection between negligence and aggression at all, would acts of negligence ever be prosecuted, in any sense (civil or criminal), in a libertarian society guided by the NAP?

                    16. Define how you mean ‘aggression.’ If it involves intentional acts intended to harm another, then negligence has nothing to do with it An intentional tort like ‘battery’ would be what you mean.

                      If you mean instead that, in your Libertopia, each individual resident has a duty to refrain from actions that may lead to another individual having an increased risk of catching a disease? And that violating that duty by some act or omission, caused someone else to catch a disease? That sounds more like negligence. But you have to establish your terms: where is the duty, breach, causation, AND harm? Because if you don’t have one of those, you don’t have a negligence claim.

                    17. Well, just as a thought exercise, if we wanted to shoehorn the current standard for negligence into the libertarian concept of the NAP, I would say that individuals ought to have a duty not to knowingly transmit a contagious disease to strangers. I don’t know if that duty ought to be legally enforced, but it should at least be a moral duty that each individual takes upon him/herself in at least some fashion. I don’t think adherence to that duty should necessarily mean “stay home 24/7” but it should mean taking at least some preventive steps to try not to get others sick. And a breach of that duty would mean that a person didn’t even take minimal steps. The harm would obviously be that someone else got sick, and the consequences from that illness.

                      What do you think?

                    18. “…I would say that individuals ought to have a duty not to knowingly transmit a contagious disease to strangers.”

                      Having a positive test for a virus and going out in public is not knowingly transmitting a contagious disease. At best, it’s knowingly placing others in a circumstance where transmission is possible.

                      The idea that asymptomatic people can spread the virus is not certain, despite what the priests of the high church of Science in the media (Fauci, CDC, et al, included) have been telling us. They’ve been lying to us from the start, and it’s been very evident that what they tell us is designed to scare us into obedience, not give us information that we can use to make good decisions for ourselves.

                      There was at least one example of an asymptomatic carrier of SARS-CoV-2 who had contact with hundreds of people (455 of them) for a mean of 4 hours each, and not one of them caught the virus from that individual. I believe that particular study was discussed here, among other places.

                      This result does not indicate that asymptomatic spreading never happens, but it but it does strongly suggest that not every person with the virus is a potential spreader. One can not knowingly put others at risk if they were not actually at risk.

                      A positive test does not mean the person is a risk to others, and no one should have to pretend that it does to avoid being subjected to extra-judicial punishment and deprivation of liberty without due course of law.

              2. Jerry, meet Jeffy.

            2. Under current law, no. But the current law doesn’t reflect what Libertopia would or could be. I would argue that “negligence” from a NAP perspective would be something along the lines of “recklessly aggressed against someone even if it wasn’t intentional”.

              You have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about, and if you actually cared about not looking like a bigger fool than you already do, you should shut up now. At least crack open a copy of Black’s and actually read a little bit of it before telling us how the law should be in Libertopia.

              1. Well, the blockquotes in the first paragraph were supposed to be there…

                1. The sentiment translated just fine

        3. So fun watching you defend house arrest for the sniffles here considering you have argued in favor of unrestricted immigration without medical screening from countries with Ebola and multiple drug-resistant tuberculosis.

          1. Ok whatever “Claude”

            1. Have to give it to you cytotoxic, that’s the most well thought out response I’ve ever seen you post. Usually you just slink away like a pathetic little bitch or return 10 hours later to corpse-fuck the thread after everyone who has taken turns pummeling you has left.

              1. ‘Throw bombs at ’em with one hand, give ’em entrance visas with the other.’

        4. You have got to be the most un-radical individualist ever.

          1. He’s so radically individualist the his perspective is entirely collectivist

    6. “defending the public against a *known* vector of infection seems like a valid government response”

      So government can force gay men to wear condoms.

      That’s literally what you’re saying.

      1. He doesn’t mean for faggots spreading AIDS or immigrants spreading TB, silly.

        1. You don’t know what he means.

          1. Well that makes two of them, then.

        2. Why was that epithet necessary?

    7. >>If you have reasonable cause to believe that you are infected, it is a violation of the NAP to then go about potentially spreading the disease.

      if you have a cold don’t go outside. check. lol

    8. See my sarcastic comment below but then maybe you would think its a good idea

    9. So you’re cool with this, but object to federal agents arresting violent rioters after the fact of their violence?

    10. Every month start earning more cash from $20,000 to $24,000 by working very simple j0b 0nline from home. I have earned last month $23159 from this by just doing this 0nline w0rk for maximum 3 to 4 hrs a day using my laptop. This home j0b is just awesome and regular earning from this are much times better than other regular 9 to 5 desk j0b. Now every person on this earth can get this j0b and start making dollars 0nline just by follow instructions on the given web pageReadMore.

  5. All Glory to Trump from whom all Goodness flows!

    1. Can’t wait for Kween Kamala to rule the crib (i.e. America)

      1. Crib as in infants, or as in brothel?

    2. I remember when sarcasmic spent a few weeks in this stage of TDS.

      1. See it’s clever because they are making strawman arguments that literally no one has ever made, and it’s exactly analogous to the multiple times per day that they obstinately refuse to engage with people who disagree them on valid points of discussion because they are too stupid to offer a retort that didn’t come from a Democratic Underground bumper sticker.

  6. Now imagine squads of blm antifa left wingers getting elected and taking over positions of power like this and you will wonder how did it get worse than the horrid 20th century.

    They imagine the mass graves will be extensive throughout the Midwest.

    1. Probably; but the real question is who will be in them?
      The fascists or the patriots?

      1. Who do you think owns more guns?

  7. are the utes still using “feature, not bug” or is there a new gig?

    1. That is so 2019, Boomer (eye roll).

  8. Never sign that kind of thing. You’ll regret it. Even if it’s ‘temporary’ the people assigned to enforce it aren’t keeping track of the term and expiration of the order. They’re going to always think of you as their subject and if you ever move around again they’ll demand to see papers.

  9. “I will not travel by any public, commercial or health care conveyance such as ambulance, bus, taxi, airplane, train or boat without the prior approval of the Department of Public Health.”

    Do people regularly take an ambulance to go shopping? Hope she doesn’t have a heart attack.

    1. Can a citizen refuse to take a COVID-19 test? If so, can Democratic governors force gun owners to take psychiatric exams for gun ownership? When does a person’s right to bodily autonomy end?

      1. They will make tests and unproven vaccines mandatory for your own good.

      2. When does a person’s right to bodily autonomy end?

        When their bodily autonomy becomes inconvenient to Marxist revolutionaries.

      3. In chemejff’s libertopia? When you do something against his wishes.

      4. “By body my choice” only applies to killing babies.

        Welcome to the revolution.

      5. And that’s why I’ll never test.
        Early on, I considered seeing if I was eligible for plasma donation, since I’d had a very intense flu for a couple days in early January.
        But with all the irrational, totalitarian reactions I was worried about being on the record.
        Turns out, many states have openly admitted to putting together a database of people who’ve tested positive.
        That’s a grid I will damn sure stay off of

        1. Wife donated plasma and came up negative for antibodies. If I didn’t have a phobia of needles I’d do the same. Pretty sure I’ve been exposed to it since a majority of my work is in the DC/Northern VA area.

        2. I also considered giving a plasma donation, since it also includes a serology test to confirm if antibodies are present. I have an 80% confidence that I had an extremely mild case of the coronavirus during the 2nd week of March. So, getting verification would be useful, as would helping some sick person have a chance to get better. However, I don’t trust the incompetent, bossy Karens in government not to find a way to trample on my natural freedoms. Anonymity in relation to government is the safest way to live one’s life…

  10. hey Reason your video clip loop is showing the lies about the babies in Corpus Christi …

    1. I am creating $100 to $130 systematically by carrying down facebook. i used to be unemployed a pair of years earlier , but currently I actually have a very extraordinary occupation with that i build my very own specific pay .I am very appreciative to God and my director .If you wish to induce a good quantity of wage per month like ME , you’ll check my details by clicking the link>>>>CLICK HERE.

      1. “85 Infants Under Age 1 … “

        1. In all fairness though, it doesn’t define “the area around Corpus Christi.”

  11. I don’t understand how this problem isn’t solved with a mask or, conversely, if she can’t simply wear a mask to prevent the spred of contagion, then WTF are the rest of us doing?

    1. Masks are between 60 and 98% effective (depending on the construction of the mask) which is fine for those of us who probably aren’t sick, but if you know you’re sick you should still quarantine yourself

      Which is exactly what she was willing to do, she just didn’t want to sign a document saying she couldn’t even call an ambulance if she had a medical emergency without permission from the health dept

      1. Once upon a time we were told that the only time you should wear a mask is if you’re sick and symptomatic.

        1. And ONLY for the Communist Chinese Virus.
          For the “real” flu, from the CDC website:
          Unvaccinated Asymptomatic Persons, Including Those at High Risk for Influenza Complications
          No recommendation can be made at this time for mask use in the community by asymptomatic persons, including those at high risk for complications, to prevent exposure to influenza viruses

        2. Yeah, we were told that and that all of these measures were only about “flattening the curve.”

      2. Masks are between 60 and 98% effective

        Source: dude trust me.

        Wearing a paper or cotton mask to stop the spread of coronavirus is like putting up a chain link fence to keep bees out.

        1. Which would be true if coronavirus were airborne, but it spreads via droplets, which are closer to the size of rabbits in your analogy

          1. In fairness we don’t know for certain if coronavirus isn’t airborne, but we do know that one *major* mode of transmission is droplets, so wearing a mask at least cuts down on one big way that it can spread.

            So if your lawn is being invaded by both rabbits and bees, the chain link fence will help with the rabbit problem at least.

          2. Source: dude trust me.

            You know what’s a really good way to spread droplets from one person to another? Having them fingerfucking their own face 500 times a day placing, adjusting and removing a paper mask that doesn’t prevent the spread of viruses.

          3. Which would be true if coronavirus were airborne, but it spreads via droplets, which are closer to the size of rabbits in your analogy

            Considering you don’t have a source, we don’t know. Are those numbers for one mask between two people or two? N95 or cheesecloth? What about contact transfer? If I see literally dozens of people daily pull their mask from the same pocket or purse that they pull their wallet, pay for something, and then promptly return their mask to the same pocket as the wallet they just used to exchange money does the same 60-98% still apply?

      3. Masks are between 60 and 98% effective (depending on the construction of the mask) which is fine for those of us who probably aren’t sick

        So up to 40% of people who probably aren’t sick contract COVID by wearing a mask?

        Sounds like reason enough *not* to wear a mask to me.

        1. one study showed 70% chance of getting without mask and 50% chance with. of course that study is Bs since far more would actually have it than do or maybe they do but don’t know so it doesn’t matter

      4. They’re between 0% and ~50% effective (cloth masks and surgical masks at 0%, N95 at ~50%) in stopping aerosol virions.

    2. I’m doing what my employer demands because they pay me well enough for me to put up with it. That’s about it.

      1. I’m doing just less enough than required

      2. I do too, but I go a little further. If a business puts a sign up asking customers to wear a mask, then I go ahead and do it. I cut my teeth in the grain business; respirators/masks don’t bother me much.

        However, I firmly believe that government mask orders and the pervasive social shaming are wrong.

      3. Same when I go in and out of places, though i make it a point to very obviously wear it incorrectly (unless I go to hospital or nursing home – legitimate precautions there, which I respect). Almost every time I speak to someone, I pull the mask below my mouth. I wear it under, not over, my nose – sometimes just on my chin.
        I don’t have the energy these days to make a scene, and nobody who lives here has been taking it all that seriously, so I resist passively.
        In my younger days I would’ve put messages like “obey” or “all lies” on my mask(s), or worn a lone ranger type (how did nobody get that joke when Trump made it), or gone full helmet. If I could get one easily enough, going full old school deep sea diver, with the bell helmet and everything, would’ve been fun. Or just a full biohazard suit strolling through Walmart

        1. Wearing a biohazard suit in Walmart is always a good idea.

        2. I have earned $ 18394 last month by W0rking Online from home. I am a full time college student and just doing this Job in my part time for maximum 2 hrs a day using my laptop. This Job is just awesome and regular earning from this easy home Job is much times better than other regular 9 to 5 office Jobs. I suggest you all to join this right now and start earning easily by just follow details on the given WebSite……..
          here……. ⇢⇢⇢⇢⇢⇢⇢⇢ ReadMore.

        3. Why is it legitimate to wear a mask correctly in a hospital or nursing home and not elsewhere? What’s the risk cut-off for you, and how do you know the risk profiles of the people with whom you’re in proximity?

          1. Hospitals and nursing homes are places with high concentrations of vulnerable people who can’t really go anywhere else. They don’t have a choice but to be where they are, and the only precautions they can take to protect themselves are those prescribed by their caretakers.

            Those are isolated locations that don’t come to me, but I to them. As I’m visiting their domain, I don’t mind following the procedures they’ve set for themselves.

            This is juxtaposed to simply being out in public, and having governments exercise domain over all spaces. If a business of its own accord asks me to where a mask when I visit I may disagree with it, but their place their terms. That social dynamic is completely perverted when government orders all businesses to force their customers to wear masks, or face either fines or license revocation.
            Daddy Gov is now holding Mom & Pop hostage, threatening to execute them if they don’t kick me out of their store for not wearing a mask.
            That’s fucked up.

            Millions of lives and businesses have been destroyed because tyranny has been imposed upon them using bad models and manipulated data to stoke irrational fear of a virus that isn’t significantly, or any, greater a threat to the population than seasonal flu.
            Wearing a mask is acquiescence and a sign of approval for the tyrannical destruction wrought by Daddy Gov.

    3. Here is their inconsistent reasoning:

      1) If you test positive in a PCR test, self-quarantine at home for 14 days; in some states, they will punish you harshly for non-compliance, with the only exception being granted for rioting in the streets
      2) In some states, if you fly in from a state with community spread and hyperactive journalistic reporting about it, you will be assumed to be Typhoid Mary and ordered to self-quarantine for 14 days, without any PCR test ever being administered
      3) If you are a Covid-19 survivor (most likely with antibodies), you better wear a face mask when in public or you will be assumed to be Typhoid Mary and persecuted by bossy Karens inside and outside of government
      4) If you are not infected by SARS-CoV-2, you better wear a face mask when in public or you will also be assumed to be Typhoid Mary and accosted as in Item (3) above
      5) If you are infected but asymptomatic (properly defined as never getting symptoms, which is different than pre-symptomatic), you are the least contagious person due to the tiniest viral load in your body; however, you will also be assumed to be Typhoid Mary and accosted as in (3) and (4) above
      6) If you are infected but pre-symptomatic (usually developing mild symptoms in a few hours to 1 day), you are the 2nd least contagious person due to a viral load that is small but increasing (and due to minimal infected water droplet exhaust due to no sneezing or coughing); however, you will also be assumed to be Typhoid Mary and treated as above
      7) If you are a senior citizen whose immune response has been overwhelmed by the rapidly multiplying SARS-Cov-2 virus, you are 100-1000 times more contagious than a pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic person, respectively (ballpark numbers), and the closest thing to an actual Typhoid Mary just before death
      8) If you are an infected senior citizen slowly recovering from Covid-19 with stable vital signs but still contagious, you are 10-100 times more contagious than a pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic person, respectively (again, ballpark numbers); however, in some states (we know which ones…), you will be forcibly sent back to nursing homes usually ill-equipped to handle contagious seniors

      I hope that helps. Perhaps they will print a SARS-Cov-2 viral response manifesto soon… 🙂

      1. Is all this about _NewYork_state, or are some other states included? I hear NY is where if you fly in from a state with community spread _but much lower per capita infection and death rates_, you will be assumed to be Typhoid Mary and ordered to self-quarantine for 14 days.

    4. “then WTF are the rest of us doing?”

      Following orders from above, keeping peace from busybodies with their little red books, obeying store requirement so as not to cause a scene and end up on youtube, perhaps showing off how self righteous we are, “feeling safe,” and wearing them but purposely touching them and pulling them down so as to say, “see, I have my mask on, so keep your little red book in your purse” and yet annoying them at the same time.

      Oh, and the masks appears to free us from social distancing. It keeps the Tonys quiet but allows us to go with life as normal.

  12. So what *should be* the proper libertarian response to a pandemic? The state should do nothing at all? That is an anarchist response, not a libertarian one. Even the Cato Institute begrudgingly came to the conclusion that some emergency powers wielded by the state can be temporarily justified during a pandemic. But around here the proper ‘response’ seems to be more along the lines of “fuck you I won’t do what you tell me”.

      1. True.
        Though Strolling Down Rodeo might be my favorite

    1. The state should do nothing at all? That is an anarchist response, not a libertarian one.

      Maybe an individualist one?

        1. I don’t think Jeff is capable of an individualist perspective.
          It’s just a word to him – like “negligence” or “aggression”

          1. Whatever, Nardz

    2. The state should do nothing at all?

      Bingo. Healthcare is not a legitimate function of government.

    3. Depends on the pandemic. I think the appropriate government response to this one would have been close to nothing. If they were going to do something, then it should have been entirely focused on nursing homes and other health care facilities. The standard needs to be how disruptive the thing will be to the whole society, not some emotional appeal about saving lives. 200k mostly old people dying isn’t nearly as disruptive to society as the response has been.
      If this were the black death or airborne ebola or something, then maybe the calculation changes. But for something that’s maybe 2x as bad as a typical seasonal flu, leave people alone.

      1. If this were the bubonic plague, we could also largely ignore it. Maybe encourage more people to have cats in the house, and remind people of the important of showering and wearing clean clothes. The spread of the Black Death was largely an indictment of medieval societies.

        1. Sure, perhaps an out of date example. I just mean something that is killing a big chunk of the population.

      2. We need to mandate government approved condoms to prevent the pandemic of HIV infection in the homosexual community.

        1. “put a sock in it”

      3. Well, coronavirus is not just “bad flu”, it has other effects that the flu virus doesn’t have, such as increased ability to form blood clots, which can be dangerous in a lot of ways.

        https://www.medicinenet.com/covid-19_vs_flu_blood_clots_in_lungs-news.htm

        And I agree that something like a “sliding scale” response depending on the severity of the disease and the outbreak would be most appropriate.

        1. Well, coronavirus is not just “bad flu”, it has other effects that the flu virus doesn’t have, such as increased ability to form blood clots, which can be dangerous in a lot of ways.

          The seasonal flu can also cause those complications. They just never get mentioned because it happens about 1 time in every 10 million infections, just like your corona hobby horse. Is it hard sucking the nearest Democrat’s cock 24 hours a day with a mask on your face, cytotoxic?

        2. I’m saying it’s on the same order of destructiveness to society at large as a bad flu, not that it’s identical in every symptom.

          1. I’m not convinced it’s any worse than the average flu yet.

    4. So just to be clear, the state should allow unfettered immigration with no screening from countries mired in last century’s communicable diseases because it is not the proper role of government to regulate free movement. However, the state should be allowed to force citizens to perform theatrical but utterly useless disease prevention measures because of a 1/10th of 1% chance that they might be fatally infected with a virus.

      I have to hand it to you cytotoxic, this one is right up there with your famous statement that only immigrants should be given welfare.

      1. Ok whatever “Claude”

        1. Thank you for actually having enough balls to admit that you have absolutely no retort. You usually just slink away like a pathetic little bitch and pretend it never happened.

          1. Ok whatever “Claude”

            1. It’s hilarious that you think this is in any way different from your usual 3-phrase algorithmic programming. Or that it’s distracting anyone from noticing how you got absolutely fucking bodied.

              1. You seem triggered, “Claude”.

            2. Thanks, for a minute I thought it was the actual Claude DeBussey

              /s

              1. Well Jeff’s acting like Che Guevara already. All we need is to set this to a disco beat…

                Left to my own devices, I probably would.

                  1. No, and the Pet Shop Boys don’t seem to either. Which is what I’d have linked to. But—and I haven’t checked to see if every venue is sold out yet—they are (were) touring this year with New Order: https://www.strangewaysradio.com/2020/02/new-order-and-pet-shop-boys-the-unity-tour/

      2. The problem is, the way the US “screens” immigrants merely ensures that most of them either enter illegally and unscreened, or enter on short-term papers and stay long past where their papers expired. (And sometimes people who entered with green cards become “illegal” when their papers expire while the INS takes over six months to process the application.) Either way, they have a good chance of staying for decades before the INS notices them – long enough to put down roots and raise their children as Americans, so the neighbors think it’s unfair if they are finally deported.

        If you want a secure border, start by relaxing the rules to where most immigrants will find it easier to do it legally and be fully screened. Then reform the INS so it is at least semi-competent in that screening (e.g., _not_ issuing a visa renewal for flight school to a dead 9/11 hijacker, six months later), in processing paperwork promptly, in deporting lawbreakers promptly, and in finding out whether those that were on short-term papers left on time – maybe by closing the entire department and starting a new one with all new hires.

    5. So what *should be* the proper libertarian response to a pandemic?

      Making sure nursing homes and the CDC are communicating would be a good idea. Except they fucked that up. I would say an informational and/or advisory role as well but they were pretty good about consistently fucking that one up as well. They’ve done a decent job of telling people to wash their hands, stay home if they’re sick, and stop touching their faces but much beyond that, they’ve been terrible.

      That is an anarchist response, not a libertarian one.

      No it’s not. Going out in the pandemic and shouting “Defund the police!” is an anarchist response. Saying that the CDC and DHHS should continue doing what they’ve been doing is decidedly not anarchistic.

      1. Well, the government has done a pretty good job in using force too. Don’t forget that.

        And maybe to a few people “defund the police” meant “have no public law enforcement at all”, but I think what is mainly intended by that phrase is to reconsider the scope of the duties assigned to the police. Which is completely reasonable IMO. They aren’t supposed to be society’s all-purpose problem solvers. And if we really want them to be, then they need a LOT more training, and a LOT more restrictions on when and how they are going to be using force.

    6. What kind of pandemic are we talking about here, Jeff?
      That’s a very important question.
      Covid19 doesn’t come close to justifying the measures taken.
      A real threatening virus might, but then what’s the threshold?
      People have been getting and passing, surviving and dying, adapting to and mitigating viruses for as long as there have been people.

      1. A real threatening virus might, but then what’s the threshold?

        You tell me. What is the threshold in your view for the government to do something serious about a pandemic?

        1. What is the threshold of crimes that the police should be involved in?

        2. If i had the answer, in this case, I wouldn’t ask the question.

          And are we assuming “something serious” consists of what Daddy Gov has done this year? More? Less? Different?

          Part of the problem with the hypothetical is that, as others have mentioned, precedent plagues have been more a matter of lifestyles and scientific limitations of the times. The modern world, without any gov intervention, is highly equipped to deal with communicable diseases just in normal course.
          So it’s tough for me to imagine a disease/virus that is both exceptionally contagious and exceptionally deadly. Those things tend to be inversely related.

          If some virus comes along that has something like a 10% death rate and a 2+ r0, then there might be room for Daddy Gov to take unprecedented measures.
          But is such a virus possible nowadays?
          Similarly, if aliens invade theres room for Daddy Gov to take unprecedented steps.

          1. The modern world, without any gov intervention, is highly equipped to deal with communicable diseases just in normal course.

            That statement takes a LOT for granted, such as: public roads, public sanitation, public hospitals, mandatory vaccinations, public health care.

            There ought to be a clear-eyed view of how much government is currently involved in stopping the spread of disease, how much is desirable, and how much is the minimum amount we’d be willing to live with.

            I personally do not think it is possible to have modern levels of general healthiness when it comes to communicable diseases without some government intervention. The problem is determining what’s the minimal amount we need with the minimal amount of coercion for the maximal benefit.

            1. Fine – government intervention at pre covid19 levels.
              That’s really beside the point

          2. Nardz,

            How do we know that the aliens are not already here? /sarc
            As annoying as the bossy Karens inside and outside government are these days, perhaps alien domination would be preferable… /sarc
            I’ve been trying to resuscitate my sense of humor lately, because it’s easy to get depressed at the rapid loss of freedoms and the general apathy or acceptance of it by many of our neighbors…

            1. I’m happy I’m in northeast Florida.
              Hasn’t been as bad here as other places, like my former home Atlanta

          3. If some virus comes along that has something like a 10% death rate

            750 million fewer people on the planet would not necessarily be a bad thing

      2. Keep in mind that the early projections weren’t for what we see now (perhaps twice as bad as a _typical_ flu season, and not as bad as the worst flu season of the decade), but something like the 1918 “Spanish” flu – which was the worst epidemic in history since smallpox vaccines were adopted and cities began trying to control the rat population and keep human excrement out of water supplies.

        We’ve gone quite a ways in science since 1918, but keep in mind that the greatest improvements in public health were in the century _before_ Louis Pasteur first proved that a disease was caused by an organism he could see under a microscope.

        1. I forgot to say: The government reaction was appropriate for something like the Spanish flu, let alone cholera, bubonic plague, or smallpox. We now know it was a gross overreaction – but government hates to let go of power once it was seized.

    7. Even the Cato Institute begrudgingly came to the conclusion…

      Dude…you were talking about libertarians, then all of a sudden you throw Cato out there. WTF?

    8. The Cato institute is no more libertarian than Reason.

      This is not a government issue. Viruses are not subject to laws and cannot be sued in court. Out of the government’s wheelhouse– no role.

  13. I am creating $100 to $130 systematically by carrying down facebook. i used to be unemployed a pair of years earlier , but currently I actually have a very extraordinary occupation with that i build my very own specific pay .I am very appreciative to God and my director .If you wish to induce a good quantity of wage per month like ME , you’ll check my details by clicking the link>>>>CLICK HERE.

  14. While we’re on the subject of coronavirus.

    There is apparently a connection between the coronavirus and male sexual function.

    https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/25937/20200604/testicles-suffer-damage-coronavirus-without-actual-infection-study.htm

    But don’t worry guys, I’m sure it’s all a hoax, you don’t need to wear a mask. Nothing to fear guys.

    1. Kleenex doesn’t care about sperm motility

    2. Lol. Coronavirus is truly magic. It’s a-comin’ fer yer balls! Even if you’re not infected! SCIENCE!

    3. Did you know that all the cock you suck puts you at an enormously high risk of contracting HPV and developing throat cancer? Good thing you’ve got that mask on!

    4. A limitation of the study, however, is that the researchers failed to note the men’s sperm counts or sperm quality. According to Professor Paolo Madeddu from the University of Bristol, hormonal changes could be because of the general inflammation also affecting genitalia function.

      On the contrary, two studies from China found no evidence of the virus in the semen of men who had recovered from COVID-19. The studies were relatively small, collecting data from only 12 and 34 men, respectively. Results from one of the studies suggested that testicular cells containing the protein ACE2 were deficient of a second protein, which the virus required to make its entrance into the cells.

      But panic and cry like a pathetic little bitch guys, I’m sure the ‘rona is a-coming fer yer balls, you need to never leave the house again.

      1. And hey, look at the followup studies that have reproduced these results in the 2 months since this one was published. The time to panic was yesterday, gentlemen. Rona. Is. A-comin’. Fer. Yer. BALLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        1. Don’t worry. I’m sure you have nothing to fear, “Claude”. Please, carry on.

          1. It’s hilarious that you think groveling for government agents putting people under house arrest indefinitely because 12 Chinese men experienced inflammation in their testicles without any concomitant adverse effects to their sperm or testosterone production makes you a man.

    5. Let me ask this again. What is the end game for mask wearing? Wait until there is a vaccine? Or what? I don’t think a vaccine is just around the corner. I wouldn’t count on ever having a particularly effective one. So I think that most people wearing masks is just putting off the inevitable and likely increasing risk for many people.

      See, even if masks are proven to slow transmission a lot, what good is that if all it accomplishes is making sure the virus is still spreading when cold weather comes? For the vast majority, the risk from the virus is well within the normal range of risks they take every day like driving or playing sports. It seems to me quite reasonable to take that risk and get this all over with sooner. It’s going to suck if this is still going on when the next flu season comes.

      1. I can only speak for myself – I would say, the “end game” is when the risks associated with coronavirus are on par with those from diseases like the flu or the cold. That includes things like vaccines – even if it’s only partially effective, like the flu vaccine. That also includes more research and more understanding about what the proper treatment ought to be – right now there is a lot of uncertainty about that. It would be nice if there was an OTC medication for it, like there are OTC medications for the flu right now.

        And the virus is going to still be spreading when cold weather comes anyway, mask or no mask, because it mutates, just like the flu virus.

        And again, the main point of wearing a mask isn’t to protect yourself, it is to protect others. And since there are a lot of anxious people out there, strangers about whom you don’t know what their risk level is like or their sensitivity, it is just courteous, in the absence of other information, to err on the side of caution. It is like holding open a door for a person. That person might take it as a patronizing insult, but most won’t and will be appreciative of that small token of help. Same here. Once the overall anxiety level has dropped to that of something like the flu or the cold, then maybe masks won’t be considered a courteous gesture anymore.

        1. Well, I appreciate the answer. I disagree with a lot of what you say, but I don’t think you are a horrible person or a secret communist or whatever it’s supposed to be. And I don’t have time to argue about it more. I think you already know what the more sensible arguments on the other side are.

          1. Thanks Zeb. I do understand the sensible arguments, and I don’t think masks should be mandatory from the state.

        2. “the main point of wearing a mask isn’t to protect yourself, it is to protect others.”

          And that is the greatest threat of the virus: the for-the-children justifications.
          “It’s just a mask” …covering a very slippery slope

          1. Do you occasionally open doors for strangers?
            Do you worry that if you open too many doors for strangers, that some day government will mandate that everyone must open doors for strangers?

            1. No, that’s a poor comparison.
              If i open the door for someone, it’s open. The person can walk through or not. The science there is quite simple, there’s no question of “public health”, and there haven’t been massive amounts of misinformation spread.

              Masks in response to covid, mandated or not, are a political statement. They are submission to social/state coercion and endorsement of bad science (both regarding the threat of the virus and the efficacy of masks) used to justify not only mask wearing, but also radical disruptions both to the economy and our way of life.

              Wearing a mask is not at all analogous to opening the door for someone

            2. I hold open doors for friendly neighbors. However, angry feminists with a chip on their shoulders would assume I am trying to impose patriarchal norms on them if I hold open the door for them; so, I don’t hold the door open for a woman who looks like an angry, unfriendly feminist.

        3. “Once the overall anxiety level has dropped”

          Everybody wearing masks will totes help people be less anxious…

        4. Now I am supposed to be take action based on other people’s anxiety levels?

          The risk is already on par with the flu.

      2. >>What is the end game for mask wearing?

        something will be lit on fire.

      3. Hey, Fauci says it’s likely we’ll have a vaccine around the beginning of next year. Given the track record of his predictions about everything over the course of his long and illustrious career, it will be a very long time before we have an effective vaccine.

    6. The good news is that if you’re married, you don’t have testicles to worry about damaging because the Mrs. has already mounted them over the mantle.

  15. Love all the people on here who whine about fines for not keeping themselves in isolation while they are contagious and/or not wearing a mask while in an indoor public setting, yet when it comes to concerns about the health of those with preexisting conditions and/or the elderly they’re quick to tell them they basically have to stay home for an indefinite period of time (no grocery shopping, no public transit, no tending to any businesses that they might own, etc) because calls for common sense public health measures are an infringement on their own “freedom”

    It’s almost as if Libertarians don’t actually care about making society more free and only care about following a dogmatic ideology, very much in the same way that Socialists don’t actually want to make society more equitable and just want to virtue signal and throw a public temper tantrum.

    1. They “have to”, not in the sense of being compelled by law. And actually in the long run hardly anybody even in a high risk group is going to isolate themselves to the degree necessary to make this work.

      If masks do work, then the best thing would be for people in most situations to not wear them, because our best shot at stopping this pandemic is still to spread it around the lower-risk population as fast as possible.

    2. Everyone is free to assess the risk themselves and act accordingly.

      The longer the virus is in circulation, the more chances the vulnerable people will have to catch it.

      I can’t speak for anyone else, but I take the position I do because I care about those people, and also about the young people whose futures are being fucked over and all the people suffering the stress of unemployment and social isolation. This isn’t about me, I’m fine. I’ve got a job, no one is curtailing my activities, I can do pretty much what I normally do.
      Disagree with me if you want, but fuck off with this idea that it’s just selfishness and blind ideology. People are really suffering because of the heavy handed and disproportionate government response.

      1. I’ve said this in comments on other articles and you people consistently assume that I’m pro let’s keep everything locked down forever, for some reason. It is precisely because I want the lockdown to end as soon as possible that I would support policies that would fine people for not wearing masks or exposing others in indoor environments when they know they are contagious with this disease. There are tradeoffs in everything in life and the response to this disease is no different; we have to choose some freedoms in exchange for others, and I personally would like retail stores/barbershops/tailors etc to be able to open even if it means I have to wear a cloth around my face the entire time I’m in there. The government fines people for walking around naked in public, are you against that law as well?

    3. NotSureSoWhat is a public health crisis and should be immediately executed.
      It’s not to protect him/her, it’s to protect other people

    4. “Love all the people on here who whine about fines for not keeping themselves in isolation while they are contagious and/or not wearing a mask while in an indoor public setting, yet when it comes to concerns about the health of those with preexisting conditions and/or the elderly they’re quick to tell them they basically have to stay home for an indefinite period of time”

      Couple of things. First, nothing short of herd immunity is going to save the old and vulnerable. Not lockdowns, not stay at home orders, not closing businesses, not social distancing, not masks. None of it is going to change the final death tally. It only changes the date on the death certificate.

      Second, masks do not protect anyone. They put the wearer at greater risk and do nothing to protect anyone else.

      Third, no, the old or vulnerable don’t have to stay home. Why are the only choices you suggest involve people being forced into things? If they want to go out and take the risk, they’re free to do so. If they want to take measures to protect themselves, they’re free to do that too. They are responsible for evaluating the risk of any given action and deciding what to do for themselves.

      I, though, am _not_ responsible for them. I’m responsible for evaluating the risks to myself and acting accordingly. If that means I am too scared to go out even though I am not in a high risk group, I have the option of staying home, or wearing a mask (either of the somewhat effective N95 variety or the rabbit’s foot-grade cloth or surgical mask), or doing whatever else I think will help.

      1. Your first point: The idea is we try to maintain these measures for as long as it takes until a vaccine can be deployed first to the elderly and vulnerable populations. The development of a vaccine against a coronavirus had already been in the works for years ever since the 2002 SARS outbreak but was never able to be brought to a field trial.

        Your second point: What? Masks make you more vulnerable to COVID? Can you send me the link to the Infowars article that brainwashed you into believing something as ridiculous as this?

        Third: This point is basically moot because you didn’t listen to my comment to understand that I am not pro lockdown. The only things I’m in favor of “locking” down are the obvious venues such as bars, nightclubs, concerts, etc which have business models that rely on packing as many people in an indoor environment as possible, and I’m in favor of paying them bailout money so they can stay afloat. Everything else, I want to see opened. I just also don’t see why fining people for not taking the basic precautions such as mask wearing and staying at home when you know you are contagious is such an existential threat to your liberty and freedom.

        1. Whether or not you intend it, supporting masks implicitly supports lockdowns.

          If it’s bad enough that you need to wear a mask to go out in public, it’s bad enough that they can shutdown businesses.

          Once you concede to the necessity or wisdom of masks, you’ve already given up the ground you need to oppose lockdowns.

          1. I can’t help but wonder about the psychological phenomenon sometimes referred to as ‘groupthink’.
            There is a reason police, military, sports teams, etc; all dress alike.
            It is because it allows people to act and be controlled as a cohesive unit. People don’t question their team, their thought processes are subservient to their ‘side’, and are willing to do things, and act in ways that they wouldn’t as individuals.
            When people are anonomized, even by being a nameless faceless comment on a blog, they say things that they would never say to another face to face.
            The most unique thing about you is your face. Covering it deprives folks of the communication of facial expressions that people in public constantly express.
            There are many immuno compromised people and many seriously detrimental contagious diseases. Always have been.
            But all of a sudden, we are all compelled and shamed into covering our faces?
            If I wasn’t told better, I would suspect a sinister social experiment was being forced upon us.

            1. a sinister social experiment was being forced upon us.

              We are all burqua wearers now.

  16. So here we have a virus that’s spread worldwide and has apparently infected millions, the overwhelming majority of whom don’t get seriously ill, and they’re treating an individual family like this is a rare virus that usually produces severe disease, such that out of the millions with it, quarantining this family is going to make a difference?

    1. The purpose of power is power, Roberta.

    2. Roberta,

      Stop thinking as a logical individual. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. Your independent thinking will be replaced with forced conformity. Welcome to 2020 America… /sarc

  17. I don’t know why Reason is upset considering Bailey thinks everyone should be tested daily and report such test to authorities. the solution to this is a micro chip under the skin than can wifi results to authorities every day. its simple cost effective and it will save lives. i don’t know why anyone wouldn’t be accepting of such a great opportunity to know their medical condition daily.

    anyone else ever seen THX1138, “have you had your medication today”

    1. BTW weekly updates from Microsoft will leave you bedridden for an hour at a time. do not do anything during the program update or it will have to restart.

      1. nothing can go wrong, nothing can go wrong, nothing can ggogoggogo…..

  18. Tests are grossly inaccurate and irrelevant even if not so. Symptoms are relevant. Only then can contagion happen. Almost all who test positive don’t get sick. No young people die. This is not a serious disease.
    Govt. coercion is a serious disease, now at pandemic level.

    1. “Symptoms are relevant. Only then can contagion happen.”

      Wrong. With most diseases, people are shedding germs for a few days before symptoms appear. Otherwise, the disease could not spread. Even if the lab work to prove COVID-19 spreads before symptoms has not been completed, how else has it spread so widely?

      And have you heard of Typhoid Mary? It was quite difficult to identify her, even though she gave 53 people a sometimes-fatal disease that usually manifested with severe and distinctive symptoms, through the highly traceable route of food preparation. If there are any COVID-19 Marys, it is going to be much more difficult to find them…

  19. This article is like porn to the likes of Tony, DOL, and Jeffy. Raging boners all around.

  20. My last month paycheck was for 11000 … All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour HERE? learn More

  21. Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generated and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and earning from this job are just awesome. Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this link and vist tabs( Home, Media, Tech ) for more details thanks…══════❥❥❥❥Join Here

  22. I don’t think so, Nobody was thought-about to save human life, everybody looking for growth of business due to coronavirus .

  23. The Kentucky flag has a distancing problem.

    1. If they made one small change and replaced the goldenrod with hemp below the seal, then that would be the most libertarian flag ever…

      A gay Indian and white man embracing, with a side arm hip holstered, standing over their weed farm.

  24. So why didn’t they just sign the paper and then do whatever they wanted like everyone does?
    Thee seems to be no legal repurcussion to signing and then taking a needed ambulance ride.

  25. The article left out her full quote:
    “I will do my best to stay home, as I do every other time I get sick. But I cannot comply to having to call the public health department everytime [sic] that I need to go out and do something. It’s my right and freedoms [sic] to go where I please and not have to answer to anyone for it. There is no pandemic and with a survival rate of 99.9998%, I’m fine. I will continue to avoid the elderly, just like PRIOR guidelines state, try to stay home, get rest, get medicine, and get better. I decline.”

    She clearly was going to spread it to others, she deserves what she gets.

    1. And I suppose you have never left the house while sick?

      1. The point is that she does not even believe in a pandemic and expresses little concern for how she can infect others.

        1. BTW, Molly, Criteria used by the CDC to declare an epidemic is when a disease is above 7.2% of all deaths in America.

          According to the CDC, the China Virus is now below epidemic level since it accounts for 6.4% of all deaths in America.

          The China Virus is not at epidemic level!

          1. And by keeping those infected at home is how we keep it that way.

    2. Molly, you’re obviously a big fan of presumption and innuendo. Not much of proof or substantiation?

  26. A tale of three headlines.

    Trump Is Wrong…
    Trump Deploys Lawlessness…

    Kentucky Couple Reportedly

    Why so circumspect Zuri? Was it just too hard to verify anything prior to publication?

    Or are the headline standards different for different topics?

  27. Be quiet … shhhh … be quiet … this won’t hurt … just comply with our dictates and all will be well … shhhh … comply …. comply … do as we say … shhhh … comply ….

  28. All she has to do is wear a mask right? All these so called “experts” keep telling us the reason we should wear a mask is we need to presume we all have it and “in case” we do, avoid spread it to others. If that is all the protection we need then she should be free to go about her business as before getting tested.

  29. “House arrest” is a bit melodramatic. It’s an enforced quarantine.

    The way they’re doing it in New York is similar. There’s a set of statutes on the books that gives the government the ability to relocate you and detain you in order to prevent you from infecting anyone else. But if you get “tagged,” what they put in front of you is an “order” for you to sign acknowledging that you’ve been directed to self-isolate for purposes of the state’s medical leave law, and moreover that you will, even though the order itself is… ambiguous about whether it actually binds you to do anything. But if you sign it, and don’t self-quarantine, you’re falsifying government documents.

    I imagine other states are somewhat similar. They have a big stick that they don’t want to use, so they try to get people to sign these “softer” orders that let people at least stay in their homes and take care of themselves. It’s all this kind of legal grey area.

  30. Every month start earning more cash from $20,000 to $24,000 by working very simple j0b 0nline from home. I have earned last month $23159 from this by just doing this 0nline w0rk for maximum 3 to 4 hrs a day using my laptop. This home j0b is just awesome and regular earning from this are much times better than other regular 9 to 5 desk j0b. Now every person on this earth can get this j0b and start making dollars 0nline just by follow instructions on the given web page.click for jobs its a limited offER.

Please to post comments