There is NO USA LAW that exempts you from wearing a mask...

'Reasonable accommodations' comes up here and there in this discussion.

Public safety is served by limiting 'reasonable accommodations' to match with the role or service in question.

If a person has a disability, or is perceived as having a disability, they can ask for accommodations without retaliation or discrimination.

That said, if the accommodations would not be reasonable or sustainable for the target, they can be denied or revoked.

Who decides "reasonable or sustainable" is 99% of the caseload in courts.

In the situation Solwitch described, the business is offering reasonable alternatives that uphold the spirit of social distancing even if they don't follow to the letter. That aside, it is not unusual for a disabled person to feel uncomfortable when the accommodations draw attention to that person or single them out as different.

It's not commonly expressed, but some folks with disabilities, especially non-visible disabilities such as mental or cognitive problems, harbour resentment about having to do things differently, or getting specialized treatment, even if they have fought for it and need it to function in society.

We don't get to decide on the spot if a person is really disabled or not, or has medical "reasons" or not. But as a society we do get to decide what constitutes reasonable accommodation given all other things being equal, and when that has been used up or repudiated, to put the greater good first and accept an ongoing responsibility for our collective actions.

As for Morkonan's shooting range scenario most handguns are just that, designed for use in the hand. I've no doubt there are persons who have lost the use of their hands or were affected by birth defects and have limb abnormalities, who have deft and dexterous feet or reconstructed limbs or prostheses, who could handle a firearm with arguably more safety and skill than most average able-bodied folks.

They are uncommon and they would need to demonstrate safety and facility before most range operators would let them practice there. The risk is too great given the current low need for any private citizen to own and use a firearm in daily living. Were this a besieged outpost in a war-torn country or in the midst of civil rebellion, perhaps the rules would favour arming everyone who was willing.

People are generally really poor at judging acceptable risk, however, and civilization's love affair with firearms despite their immediate consequences for abuse/negligence, doesn't lead me to believe we will correctly assess risks from a pandemic whose toll on society lags our personal choices and behaviours by at least a week to 21 days.

"

Foreverhappychan wrote:

It's really hard to explain to someone who hasn't experienced it too. It's *really* bad on our snowfields, where the glaring white just reflects it all too.

And yes, Rest of the World. Australia has snowfields. It's not just a myth perpetuated by The Man.

I did live in Australia for about 8 years so I've experienced both, and we did go to a skifield so I could get a taste of home (I grew up in Canada as well as NZ).

I never once got sunburn while living in Australia, even though for a while I was working outside 8 hours a day, during the summer. Most of the time I would wear sunscreen if I was going to be outside for hours, but more than once I would forget it. Granted, by the time I moved to Australia, the hole had diminished in size from when it was at is peak.

There are numerous times in NZ where I've burned in less than an hour if I forgot to put sunscreen on, and back when the ozone hole was at it's worst, you could at times burn in less than 10 minutes.

The sun certainly feels a lot harsher in Australia, and there were quite a few days in Melbourne where you don't even want to be outside for more than a few minutes. I did get heatstroke several times due to how hot it got, but the UV just isn't as bad. That gets worse the further south you get.

Should have said that to the WHO last winter, would have saved lives...


"There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit. In fact, there's some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly," Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of the WHO health emergencies program, said at a media briefing in Geneva, Switzerland, on Monday.
"There also is the issue that we have a massive global shortage," Ryan said about masks and other medical supplies. "Right now the people most at risk from this virus are frontline health workers who are exposed to the virus every second of every day. The thought of them not having masks is horrific."

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/30/world/coronavirus-who-masks-recommendation-trnd/index.html

I seen they updated it, I wonder what was going on with their doctors in 2019.

They've bounced around like a pinball the whole time. They were largely right in suggesting that masks, assuming limited supply, should be reserved for frontline health workers. And they're also right that misuse/poor fitting won't do any good.

But that was March, and we've learned a lot since then, or at least learned to listen to the people who already knew a lot.

I haven't worn a mask more than 5 times in the past 6 months. I also haven't gone out more than 5 times. Point being, social distancing where possible obviously trumps mask-wearing, but in the absence of the former, it is important to do the latter properly. Again, not necessarily to prevent one from catching it, but because wearing a mask prevents a person from spreading it. Does that mean if you don't have it you shouldn't wear a mask? Of course not -- for a start, asymptomatic spreading is a thing; but more significantly, if everyone wears a mask, spread plummets, even if only .01% of them have the virus.

We're back at the whole 'thinking of others' crux here...

"

Toshis8 wrote:

On one hand i want people to have freedom, on the other - i think that people are too ... primitive, unfortunately. Many people lack empathy and understanding of how their actions affect others. Sometimes some control has to be put on this primitive mass. Hopefully someday, in a distant future, people will evolve into better beings.

Laughable. Mankind is far past the point where one's freedom starts infringing on another's. If you want a world of freedom, you essentially want a "strong eat weak" world; primitivity at its best. On the other hand, if you want everyone to have similar freedom up to whatever imaginary point, you need to draw lines and enforce rules. There will never exist an Elysium where humans have complete freedom and are restricted by no rules.

"

Foreverhappychan wrote:

Basic human nature doesn't change, but our concept of society, family, community...those definitely change.

Just wait until the aliens arrive. Then you'll see an unprecedented unity amongst humankind, guaranfuckinteed.

Sure, if the aliens are so strong that they can completely ignore our existence, to the point where no movie heroes would ever be able save us.

It's more likely that they'll use some form of divide and conquer to minimize their losses though. Humans are greedy and have strong survival insticts which makes dividing us very easy.

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

A new law has to passed by state legislation and/or voted on by citizens. You cannot simply say a new law exists single handedly.

A state mandate or ordinance isnt technically a crime if violated, it would result in a citation or fine which a person or business could refuse to pay, appeal, or sue.

The same goes for forced closure. A Govenor could say no indoor dining or limit capacity, and a business could refuse. Again a fine or citation could be issued, but the business can file a lawsuit. Or they could close, and then sue for damages/losses. The key point here is there is absolutely no authority for state governor to shut down business for this length of time outside a declaration of martial law.

I have seen some states & cities try and get around this by expanding existing curfew laws, but again, their enforcement or viability of citations & fines are in question (every municipality is different)

All true, generally speaking. But, if there are instruments existing that can be used... they can be used. For instance, curfews and the like exist and can be imposed. If other equally malleable powers exist, they can be applied as well. As you suggest, what powers a State government may have can differ between States.

"Martial Law" is the temporary suspension of existing Law. That's the most drastic form of some sort of "government" oversight. That's a sort of "nuke it from orbit" option that may not be a necessary means of achieving a desired goal.

^ again the bottom line is that each State Govenor doesnt actually have the power under law to shut down, or otherwise hurt business, in the name of public health.

They can issue guidelines and mandates, and try to apply public pressure through shaming and disappointment, but that's about it. In the early parts of COVID back in March and April many businesses wanted to do their part to help, but I think that goodwill has largely gone away as the realization of an extended fight and bankruptcy has set in.

As I mentioned I live in IL just outside Chicago. Here is a brief article talking about the situations these business owners are facing, and their legal standing which appears to be quite strong.

https://www.dailyherald.com/business/20201026/geneva-restaurant-can-serve-meals-indoors-while-fighting-governors-order

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

^ again the bottom line is that each State Govenor doesnt actually have the power under law to shut down, or otherwise hurt business, in the name of public health.

That's... false.

It's also unfairly misleading to characterize the purpose of such an act as being "otherwise hurt business."

https://www.nga.org/governors/powers-and-authority/

It's going to really matter in regards to the individual States exactly what powers their governor has. But, as above, it's a matter of governing principle that if there is an "Emergency" the governor has the power to respond to it.

An "Emergency" and whatever powers the Governor invokes does not have to be a case of extreme "Martial Law," btw. For instance, just because there's a curfew it doesn't mean a citizen does not retain certain Rights and enforcement doesn't include boots kicking in the doors of private homes.

"

...but I think that goodwill has largely gone away as the realization of an extended fight and bankruptcy has set in.

Becoming inured to the implications of a truly dangerous illness is something we're experiencing in the US. Other concerns rise to the fore and we've largely forgotten people fighting tooth-and-claw in the aisles over the last rolls of toilet paper.

"Too little, too late" - We're kind of reaping the whirlwind, here. We could have quickly pulled the band-aid off and suffered brief and intense pain or slowly peeled it back, feeling the yank of every hair being pulled out by its roots.

That people are staring to see the secondary effects of a pandemic as more dangerous than the actual pandemic itself is pretty telling - "Covid Fatigue." We see the death toll numbers rise every day. What's another hundred in the face of thousands? What are those deaths compared to the fact that my job is gone or all my favorite restaurants are now out of business?

We elect and hire people to pay very close attention to collective risks and dangers of all sorts. We've already all agreed we're basically a collective of morons, incapable of coming together to figure out how to make it all "work." So, we have delegated that task to others and lend them some of our individual agency and power so they can do that job.

Yet, when these people come up with solutions that are not something we "like," no matter how necessary, we tend to get very angry about it all.

"

As I mentioned I live in IL just outside Chicago. Here is a brief article talking about the situations these business owners are facing, and their legal standing which appears to be quite strong.

https://www.dailyherald.com/business/20201026/geneva-restaurant-can-serve-meals-indoors-while-fighting-governors-order

It's not an uncommon situation. Again, though, individual States may have their own rules/laws/powers.

Certainly, the heavy-hand of government isn't liked by most Americans (and many citizens in other countries) even if they're the staunchest supporter of collective rule. It's as if, for some strange reason, people don't get upset about something until they see it in their own back yards. :) "The Government should act, just stay off my lawn!"

Not every solution is going to be equally applicable. Not all restaurants are the same, after all. A "drive-thru only" fast-food joint probably shouldn't be required to obey certain "occupancy" laws unless they're directly applicable. They probably shouldn't shove fifty employees into a twenty square-foot room, but could easily keep operating under laws designed for indoor seating. The problem of evaluating each and every establishment, though, represents an unnecessary, likely impossible, problem. The ability, however, for an establishment to legally protest against such restrictions has not been denied - They could file in protest and be heard by the Courts.

In the article you linked above, the restaurant may remain open while seeking legal recourse as compliance would basically mean the restaurant wouldn't be around by the time the case made it through the Courts. :) But, in the end, unless the Governor's order is ruled invalid, the restaurant will likely have to comply with it. (The counter-argument comparing it to "big-box" food stores is... nonsensical, IMO.)

Note: Restaurants are one of the most unstable business there is, right behind selling snowballs in Alaska. Taken as a whole class, opening a restaurant is usually little different from gambling. Though, most people who open independent restaurants are very large on enthusiasm and very small on common sense. It's very easy to spot a brand new restaurant opening up that will shut its doors in three years. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, I would hope, that on-site serving restaurants are particularly vulnerable to not having on-site customers.

"

Morkonan wrote:

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

^ again the bottom line is that each State Govenor doesnt actually have the power under law to shut down, or otherwise hurt business, in the name of public health.

That's... false.

It's also unfairly misleading to characterize the purpose of such an act as being "otherwise hurt business."

https://www.nga.org/governors/powers-and-authority/

It's going to really matter in regards to the individual States exactly what powers their governor has. But, as above, it's a matter of governing principle that if there is an "Emergency" the governor has the power to respond to it.

An "Emergency" and whatever powers the Governor invokes does not have to be a case of extreme "Martial Law," btw. For instance, just because there's a curfew it doesn't mean a citizen does not retain certain Rights and enforcement doesn't include boots kicking in the doors of private homes.

I think we are engaging in semantics, and not in disagreement, so I'm not sure that False / True can apply in the discussion we are having regrading business operations. There is significant grey area, and why there are so many lawsuits pending.

I suppose the crux of the actual question here, is an indefinite "emergency" really an "emergency"? Does that overstep the Govender's powers which were meant to centralize a quick response, not entertain ongoing policy without input from citizens or the state legislators? These emergency powers, in my opinion, and a number of legal experts, do not extend permanently, or give the Governor the power to select which businesses stays open, and which don't, or to what degree.

Intresting content on this thread hahah! But i usually wear a mask just to be safe!