Which raises the question, whether or not, this Tweet is similar to the going-private one.
If it’s illegal for Musk to make political commentary like this, then that doesn’t mean Musk broke the law, it means the law is unconstitutional.
Is that really not something they are prepared to do.
If so, maybe you could take your next several checks and send them to people who are out of work.
You should be willing to do your part, right?
Where exactly do you see him saying that total prevalence would be 0.1%?
But - and here is the rub - it will be because the lockdown interrupted person-to-person transfers, and not because the inert bases making up the virus suddenly decided all by themselves, and all over the world, to lower their R0 from > 3 to < 1.
The US already has over 1M cases, so 0.3%?
Being antirepublican, antiTrump and antilockdown is a valid position.
I think that voluntary-only measures will cost a LOT of lives. I think everyone agrees more restriction == more lives saved, this is the classic argument for antiterrorism. Where people are diverging is where the best place to draw that line.
Maybe everyone should begin with a disclaimer of how many people they are willing to let die relative to essential-workers-only.
That human aspect doesn't seem to be figured in to the situation; as though it is a matter of only money vs life. But the collapse will kill, too.
Therefore, from his perspective, the current lockdown is putting a huge brake on the progress necessary to help humanity and eventually reach utopia. Of course, more concretely, it also endangers his fortune and life's work, but people don't tend to like thinking of themselves as selfish to the point of acquiescing to mass death, so I imagine he rationalises his opposition to himself in this greater-good sense.
People can’t just say “it’s worth it if we save just one life”. Bullshit. Everything requires context, and being under lockdown has its own severe consequences. Including the loss of life.
(EDIT: also from what I’ve seen it is entirely possible that infection results in long term reduction in health like lung capacity. That’s super fucked if we infect everyone in that case!)
Hospitals are mostly empty in the US.
Antibody testing is showing that herd immunity is rapidly growing.
Persons who could be severely infected by COVID are generally not in the workforce.
Friday and Saturday saw the highest single day totals of new cases.
==ludicrously low infection and death rates==
Nobody knows these rates because we can’t test enough people to know infection rates. People are dying at home so it will be a while until we know actual death rates.
==speedy development of herd immunity==
You and your family should jump to the front line and help build this immunity. I’ll protect my 2 year-old and pregnant wife in our home.
All we have to do is look to the 1918 flu to see the danger of opening up too soon. Making up strawman quotes from your “opposition” doesn’t change the data on this virus or the history of past viruses.
This is exactly how the pandemic should have been handled. Personal risk should have been allowed to be determined by the individual, not the state, at the expense of personal rights.
This also can’t be done without significant testing which still isn’t available 9 weeks after declaring a public health emergency.
Welcome to civilized society, sorry it's such an inconvenience.
>The Patriot Act violates my personal right to secrecy. Stop lights violate my personal right to cross intersections as I please. And on and on.
You don't have those right because you fail to successfully fight and defend it
Thats why elon musk is making the tweet, to fight and defend his rights.
Welcome to society, sorry it work that way.
Yes by allowing people to go outside, work and do their normal activity. It builds their and other people immune system. Prolong lockdown will cause immune system to go down.
Either you are immunodepressed or you are not. Well, actually you can have an hyperactive immune system, that's what Dr house call a lupus, or a cykotine storm.
Really fast and with no details : You can boost your protective response going out and interacting with other people/kids but this will not boost your immune system. I understand this is an easy confusion as the protective response is caused by the immune system but i assure you, this is not the same thing.
Prolong lockdown will reduce your immune system as well.
The solution is to risk even more lives by sending people back to work? Again, I’d like to see the data behind that calculation.
If you’re interested in people’s lives, maybe we can work on universal healthcare, increasing minimum wages, or guaranteeing sick-leave?
The thing about not working is that we have government mechanisms to help those people. We can beef up social security, unemployment benefits, or direct payments. Then people can go back to work afterwards. Work will always exist. It exists even now with a “closed” economy.
The thing about dying is that it’s pretty final.
If you give people money for not working, who are going to work then ? Money will become meaningless if you can't use to buy stuff.
I don't follow this line of thought. We already give people money for not working (examples are social security and unemployment benefits). None of that has made money obsolete. Why would a temporary measure in the midst of a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic?
Why don't I see people make this same argument about businesses getting money from the government? Will money become meaningless for businesses? Do people stop trying to earn money once they reach a certain level? Elon Musk certainly hasn't.
And yes, it is forcing. Amazon, a fantastic example right now, is removing the ability for warehouse workers to stay at home, unless they take unpaid leave. No pay, no healthcare benefits, unless you go into a warehouse and risk your lives.
Because I can show you lots of coffins from people in NY and Italy who went to work whilst the pandemic was raging.
So show us the model (we still do that right?) when the death by virus numbers are less than the death by poverty numbers.
But you can't becuase you didn't. You just "feel" its time.
So, when you help us all out with the model of deaths-by-lockdown that informed your decision, we can all benefit from it by comparing it against the latest, updated death-by-covid-19 models and making an informed choice about the degree (if any) of lockdown to pursue.
The lesser evil.
But of course no such model exists. Its all just emoting. Happy to be wrong.
Following, "We're working on ventilators, even though I think there will not be a shortage by the time we can make enough to matter"
I haven't checked recently, but I believe the vast majority of hospitals are not overwhelmed nor short of ventilators -- but is there any source of data on bed shortages or ventilator shortages? (That was the point of flattening the curve)
This would allow people their freedom to assemble.
Unfortunately, most governors made it a crime to not stay home.
Edit: No pun intended.
They aren't constitutional rights violations by definition. Congress (and, explicitly, as written, only Congress as a body) is prevented from passing laws at a national level forcing states to violate their citizens' right to speech and assembly, but states have the right to do so of their own accord (as states by default claim all powers not given to the Federal government), and precedent has allowed it under exigent circumstances, such as 9/11 and prior pandemics.
One could argue that the lockdown orders are unnecessary, but I think that would only be apparent in hindsight, and even then it would turn out to be a misuse of power that states legitimately have, but not abuse or an unlawful exercise of power, unless certain conspiracy theories about "globalist elites" turned out to be true (spoiler: they won't.)
IANAL, but pretty sure that’s not how it works. Articles incorporated against the State prevent the State from passing laws that violate the Article.
The Attorney General specifically has told the DOJ to be on the lookout for over-reach by the States in these lockdown orders.
IANAL either, but here are examples of legal decisions and opinions by the various courts including the Supreme Court which appear to disagree with you[0-2], as well as some articles [3-4] which provide a basis for a legal argument that states have the right to restrict the movements of citizens in the name of public safety, including the imposition of quarantine measures, and that these powers are not a violation of the constitution. What is not constitutional is a national quarantine enacted by Congress.
>The Attorney General specifically has told the DOJ to be on the lookout for over-reach by the States in these lockdown orders.
Indeed, here's an article on that[5] with the following quoted from a memo by AG Barr himself:
"If a state or local ordinance crosses the line from an appropriate
exercise of authority to stop the spread of COVID-19 into an overbearing
infringement of constitutional and statutory protections, the Department
of Justice may have an obligation to address that overreach
in federal court."
[0]https://casetext.com/case/best-v-st-vincents-hospital
[1]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=538811625763396...
[2]https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/441/418/
[3]https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/yes-all-coronavirus-c...
[4]https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/2020/04/19/protes...
[5]https://nypost.com/2020/04/28/barr-tells-prosecutors-to-look...
You can certainly make an argument that these measures satisfy "strict scrutiny" as being both necessary, as well as the least restrictive means possible to accomplish the goal. I merely hope we can agree on the correct framework for evaluating whether State and Local quarantine measures are constitutional or not.
To be clear, I believe any State or Local regulation limiting freedom of assembly (which necessarily involves freedom to assemble publicly) whether it be for health reasons or otherwise, has to pass "strict scrutiny" which is the legal term for how high the bar is set to prove the measure is Constitutional. In these cases it is incumbent on the government to prove the measure should be deemed Constitutional, which is flipped from how it normally is.
To quote Wikipedia;
1. that the law is necessary to a "compelling state interest";
2. that the law is "narrowly tailored" to achieving this compelling purpose;
3. that the law uses the "least restrictive means" to achieve the purpose.
The legal cases you link to are specific actions taken against individuals. An executive order ordering the quarantine of a single person. A mental health examination of a single person. None of them involve blanket orders against large populations.
The news articles are editorials, including the following quotes;
> "Pandemic is not a magic word that instantly negates all individual constitutional rights," said Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University. "A pandemic gives states a compelling state purpose in the imposition of restrictions. But when the state denies or restricts constitutional rights, it must satisfy a balancing test." The orders can be challenged on the basis that they're overly broad, he said, or that they don't properly weigh the individual restrictions against public health threats. Turley pointed to Michigan, a state he thinks has an order broad enough that it could be challenged.
I used the latter as a means of criticizing the former - if these measures were unconstitutional by definition, it would be impossible for them to survive strict scrutiny even in theory. Even AG Barr's memo concedes their legality, while warning about the potential of abuse.
Otherwise I think we're in violent agreement.
Totally disagree with: "By definition, these aren't constitutional rights violations."
So I think we do probably violently agree, and I probably misinterpreted your: "These aren't constitutional rights violations by definition." statement.
Another way to think about it is that they obviously do violate Constitutional rights, but this is actually allowed only under very specific and limited circumstances, of which COVID may in fact be one of, but such a thing has never been tested in front of the Supreme Court as far as I'm aware.
An example would be how children aren't allowed in establishments whose sole purpose is to sell adult restricted items like alcohol or pornography.