[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Gorefest, on 21 April 2022 - 09:12 AM, said:

To be fair, mask wearing on public transport in the UK (and to the best of my knowledge most of mainland Europe) has practically evaporated. I still do it as I am used to it from work, but I often find myself alone on a crowded bus of masklessness these days.

Hmm, this page claims it was updated April 13th 2022....

'Most mainland European countries require masks to be worn on public transport including trains and ferries. Some countries specify FFP2 masks rather than just any old face covering.

Face coverings are mandatory on public transport in many countries (for example on Eurostar and in France, Belgium, Germany, Italy and Switzerland) and recommended in others. Some countries such as Germany require FFP2 masks'

Coronavirus update for train travel in Europe | By country (seat61.com)

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 21 April 2022 - 02:36 PM

[Maark Abbott]

Aptorian, on 21 April 2022 - 02:09 PM, said:

It's running rampant the way influenza or the cold does.

Somehow I don't think those are generally considerations throughout the entire year. And given how much it slapped me and my wife about, I certainly don't accept that it's comparable to flu or a cold - it's been two weeks and the fatigue is still making day to day function a struggle.

[QuickTidal]

Maark Abbott, on 21 April 2022 - 03:09 PM, said:

Aptorian, on 21 April 2022 - 02:09 PM, said:

It's running rampant the way influenza or the cold does.

Somehow I don't think those are generally considerations throughout the entire year. And given how much it slapped me and my wife about, I certainly don't accept that it's comparable to flu or a cold - it's been two weeks and the fatigue is still making day to day function a struggle.

This.

I've had lost of colds and flu's in my life, and this has left a much more indelible mark on me after the fact. It was at least two weeks of actively feeling crappy, and this third week has been a little better, but it comes and goes in waves.

[Gorefest]

Azath Vitr (D, on 21 April 2022 - 02:36 PM, said:

Hmm, this page claims it was updated April 13th 2022....

'Most mainland European countries require masks to be worn on public transport including trains and ferries. Some countries specify FFP2 masks rather than just any old face covering.

Face coverings are mandatory on public transport in many countries (for example on Eurostar and in France, Belgium, Germany, Italy and Switzerland) and recommended in others. Some countries such as Germany require FFP2 masks'

Coronavirus update for train travel in Europe | By country (seat61.com)

Yeah, don't believe everything you read. Not a single one of these countries is actually actively enforcing or mandating this. I just got home from work by bus, like I have been doing almost every day since the start of the pandemic. Non mask wearers have been outnumbering mask wearers since about April last year and since around February this year you'll be hard pressed to find 1 in 5 people wearing masks on public transport. Regardless of what you are quoting, in practice it doesn't happen at all and nobody does anything about it. I was on the train last weekend. No masks worn, by anyone. That includes the train and bus staff.

This post has been edited by Gorefest: 21 April 2022 - 06:19 PM

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Gorefest, on 21 April 2022 - 06:18 PM, said:

Azath Vitr (D, on 21 April 2022 - 02:36 PM, said:

Hmm, this page claims it was updated April 13th 2022....

'Most mainland European countries require masks to be worn on public transport including trains and ferries. Some countries specify FFP2 masks rather than just any old face covering.

Face coverings are mandatory on public transport in many countries (for example on Eurostar and in France, Belgium, Germany, Italy and Switzerland) and recommended in others. Some countries such as Germany require FFP2 masks'

Coronavirus update for train travel in Europe | By country (seat61.com)

Yeah, don't believe everything you read. Not a single one of these countries is actually actively enforcing or mandating this. I just got home from work by bus, like I have been doing almost every day since the start of the pandemic. Non mask wearers have been outnumbering mask wearers since about April last year and since around February this year you'll be hard pressed to find 1 in 5 people wearing masks on public transport. Regardless of what you are quoting, in practice it doesn't happen at all and nobody does anything about it. I was on the train last weekend. No masks worn, by anyone. That includes the train and bus staff.

Assuming you haven't been actively traveling through most of those countries recently... any source for the generalization?

[QuickTidal]

Gorefest, on 21 April 2022 - 06:18 PM, said:

Non mask wearers have been outnumbering mask wearers since about April last year and since around February this year you'll be hard pressed to find 1 in 5 people wearing masks on public transport. Regardless of what you are quoting, in practice it doesn't happen at all and nobody does anything about it. I was on the train last weekend. No masks worn, by anyone. That includes the train and bus staff.

This is so weird to me. In Canada, Ontario especially masks have only JUST been un-mandated from most places a few weeks back and still like 75% of people are wearing them anyways, and on the transit (where it is still technically mandated) it's like 90% masked up still.

Do people just think the pandemic is over because they will it to be?

[Abyss]

QuickTidal, on 21 April 2022 - 07:00 PM, said:

Gorefest, on 21 April 2022 - 06:18 PM, said:

Non mask wearers have been outnumbering mask wearers since about April last year and since around February this year you'll be hard pressed to find 1 in 5 people wearing masks on public transport. Regardless of what you are quoting, in practice it doesn't happen at all and nobody does anything about it. I was on the train last weekend. No masks worn, by anyone. That includes the train and bus staff.

This is so weird to me. In Canada, Ontario especially masks have only JUST been un-mandated from most places a few weeks back and still like 75% of people are wearing them anyways, and on the transit (where it is still technically mandated) it's like 90% masked up still.

Do people just think the pandemic is over because they will it to be?

"It's time to move on with life."

"We just have to live with it, like the flu."

"I had it and i was fine, barely noticed."

"Old, immune compromised, and vulnerable people can just die, preferably where i do not have to see or hear about them."

"Hardly any children under vax age have just died and i'm ok with the ones who do as long as they aren't mine or related to me or anyone i know."

[Gorefest]

Azath Vitr (D, on 21 April 2022 - 06:37 PM, said:

Assuming you haven't been actively traveling through most of those countries recently... any source for the generalization?

I am Dutch and I live in the UK. So that is two countries covered. Apt already gave you the view from Denmark a few posts up. Germany is one of the few countries still trying to stick to mask wearing, according to a friend of mine who lives there, but it is tenuous. Possibly Spain as well. But overwhelmingly Europeans seem to have given up on it. The feeling has been very much: we've got the vaccines, let's get on with life already. Incidentally, covid is sky rocketing all over the place but cases are mostly mild and the weather is turning sunny, so people don't really care anymore. There is a war on in Ukraine, that's the new big thing. Officially there is still an 'advice' or 'instructions' to wear masks in public spaces and on public transport, but not a single police officer anywhere will take anyone up on it. Not a single bus driver will stop you entering the vehicle without a mask (this was already true back in early 2021 in the UK, to my great shagrin). Not a single shop owner will refuse you entry. And most of them dont wear masks themselves anyway. Haven't seen more than a handful of bus drivers with a mask on in many months on my daily commutes, and that includes many non-glasses wearers (whixh is the only acceptable excuse that I can give). No generalisations; personal observations by myself, family and friends.

This post has been edited by Gorefest: 21 April 2022 - 10:14 PM

[Gwynn ap Nudd]

Whether mask wearing is still required/justified is really not the point of the articles IMO. It is the judicial activism by republican judges and application of their made up doctrines of "major questions" and "non-delegation" to gut the mandates of federal agencies and hobble government when Democrats are in power. You should expect to see more legislating from the bench than from congress at this point.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

'"Your child's gender reassignment surgery has been booked": GOP lawmaker caught sending fake texts to voters

[...]

"CONFIRMED, your child's gender reassignment surgery has been booked."

"If you have any issues with this operation, please view the objectives of Biden's National Transgender Strategy here," [...] with a link to a Republican fundraising site.

"STOP BIDEN FROM DOING THIS TO OUR KIDS!"

"President Biden is forcing 5-year-olds to learn about gender reassignment surgeries, gender identities, and other radical ideas. Every American needs to step up TODAY and stop this sick and twisted ideology from poisoning our children. If we fail, our children are doomed."

[...]

"Radical Democrats opposing Tom are fighting DIRTY. [...]
KEEP THIS [recurring donation] BOX CHECKED to keep Tom in the fight and help the truth prevail -->"

[...]

It is unknown if they violate any state or federal laws.

[...] "Barrett's original fundraising appeal came via text and appeared to be an appointment confirmation for 'Your Child' to receive 'Gender Reassignment Surgery Tomorrow at 9 AM.' It then asks, 'If you would like to CANCEL this appointment because you do not believe in teaching young children about dangerous transgender ideologies, please sign your name NOW.'"'

'Your child's gender reassignment surgery has been booked': GOP lawmaker caught sending fake texts to voters - Alternet.org

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Gwynn ap Nudd, on 22 April 2022 - 01:23 AM, said:

Whether mask wearing is still required/justified is really not the point of the articles IMO. It is the judicial activism by republican judges and application of their made up doctrines of "major questions" and "non-delegation" to gut the mandates of federal agencies and hobble government when Democrats are in power. You should expect to see more legislating from the bench than from congress at this point.

Yes, but the factual question may be relevant to the appeal: while she argued that the CDC never has legal authority to institute mask mandates, she also argued that even if that's not true, the situation wasn't 'urgent' enough to do so without giving time for public comment:

'the case turns in part on whether the C.D.C. was justified in enacting the mandate as an emergency measure that offered no room for public notice or comment, it is notable that the administration appealed the ruling while not seeking an immediate stay. The failure to try to keep the mask order in place could undercut the government's argument that there was an urgent need for the requirement; otherwise it would have tried to keep it in place, legal specialists say.

If the government really wanted to fight its appeal all the way to a decision on whether to overturn[...] "then they totally botched this, because it's Thursday and the ruling was on Monday and they haven't done anything about it yet."

But [...] the failure to seek a stay may make sense if the Biden legal team was instead trying to protect the C.D.C.'s power with no real intention of trying to get a higher court to reinstate the mask mandate.

[...] if a case is on appeal when the dispute becomes moot for reasons unrelated to the litigation, an appeals court can remand it to the district court with instructions not only to dismiss the case but to vacate the district court's ruling — meaning wipe it from the books[...]

[...] after the mandate's planned expiration on May 3.

Both she and a majority of the appeals court that oversees her court were appointed by [...] Trump, whose legal advisers openly promoted their search for potential judges who would be skeptical of the power of regulatory agencies.

[...] standards for winning a request to stay a judicial order can be even higher than for an appeal. Fighting for one and losing it, she said, would raise particular risks of an appeals court decision that could take a similarly narrow view of what the C.D.C. may do in a public health crisis — and that, unlike a district court ruling, would also be a binding precedent.

[...] the administration has been deliberately moving away from masking as an essential pandemic tool for weeks.'

Why Hasn't the U.S. Asked for a Stay in the Mask Mandate Case? - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

PO(tu)S Biden is probably going for a quick concentrated surge so he can go back to claiming it's over for the summer, in hopes a resurgence of spending on the service sector will bring down demand for goods enough to reduce inflation (and mitigate the perceived need for interest rate increases that could plunge the economy into a recession)... but that's almost certainly going to get wiped out by new variants before the midterms, unless there's a more effective vaccine---especially against transmission---or more effective treatments that also greatly reduce the risk of long covid.


'Legal experts slam the judge who axed the mask mandate

The Biden administration argues that masks are categorized as a form of "sanitation," according to the law, but [...] she's opted "for a much narrower definition of the term that would exclude measures like face coverings;" an interpretation legal experts strongly disagree with.

[...] "Specifically, the law says that if the government is trying to prevent the spread of communicable diseases, it can 'provide for such inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, [...] and other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary.'"

[...] "It reads like someone who had decided the case and then tried to dress it up as legal reasoning without actually doing the legal reasoning," [...]

[...] "substituted her own definition of 'sanitation'" while "brushing aside a legal norm known as 'agency deference' that compels judges to yield to the interpretation of federal agencies when a law's language is unclear."

[...] "Even if we're skeptical about agencies or even about Congress's ability to make good judgments in this ... time," [...] "we certainly do not want these decisions to be in the hands of a single unelected judge."'

Legal experts slam the judge who axed the mask mandate - Alternet.org

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 22 April 2022 - 04:05 PM

[Vengeance]

Another driving factor of that case is two years after the law was passed.The Great Influenza sweeper the US. Everyone was required to wear masks. There was no issues. The legislatures who passed the law didn't suddenly say that masks were not preventive.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Vengeance, on 23 April 2022 - 04:53 AM, said:

Another driving factor of that case is two years after the law was passed.The Great Influenza sweeper the US. Everyone was required to wear masks. There was no issues. The legislatures who passed the law didn't suddenly say that masks were not preventive.

Yeah, but those who want to do away with regulations get around that by endorsing 'textualism' and 'originalism'---'intent doesn't matter, just the "public meaning" of the words back then---if the dictionaries from back then don't say it explicitly it doesn't count!'

The intersection with Christian fundamentalism probably has something to do with it too. (The Constitution was divinely inspired!... minus some of those pesky amendments.)

'[...] time and again, during her testimony before the Senate [...] Jackson endorsed conservative theories like originalism and textualism, rejecting the "living Constitution" in favor of history and tradition. Her embrace of the conservative legal movement's prized judicial philosophies delighted many commentators on the right, who cheered [... the] "thoroughgoing rout for progressive theories of law."

These commentators are correct that Jackson's rhetoric signals the triumph of originalism and textualism, which are now firmly established as the default mode of judging. [...]

A primer: Originalism and textualism are two related theories meant to restrain judicial interpretation of the law. Originalism requires judges to enforce the "original public meaning" of a constitutional provision—that is, how it was understood at the time of ratification. Textualism requires judges to apply the actual words of a statute rather than, say, legislative history. Conservative lawyers promoted these theories partly in response to the Supreme Court's liberal rulings [...]

It was a bit surprising, then, when Jackson placed originalism and textualism at the heart of her judicial philosophy[...] when interpreting the Constitution, "I am focusing on original public meaning because I'm constrained to interpret the text." This "adherence to the text," she explained, "is a constraint on my authority."

[...] "The Supreme Court now very clearly has determined that, in order to interpret provisions of the Constitution, we look to the time of the founding and we ascertain based on what the original public meaning of the words of the Constitution were at the time."

[...]

Jackson's rhetorical turn to the right pleased many of her Republican critics. [...] she sounded "almost like a conservative's dream nominee," adding: "Even liberals are now arguing within parameters set by jurists" like Scalia. [...] The upshot is that Jackson's testimony signals a victory for the conservative legal movement—proof that even liberal judges must play by conservatives' rules.

[...] But progressive jurists [...] understand that originalism and textualism are genuinely useful tools that can frequently result in a liberal outcome.

[...] A rigidly textualist reading of the Civil Rights Act, for example, protects LGBTQ employees, while a looser analysis that factors in congressional intent does not. [...] originalism is quite easy to manipulate: Judges can frame original meaning at a high level of generality or cherry-pick historical texts to reach a desired result. Oftentimes, the original meaning of a constitutional provision is simply unknowable, forcing judges to look elsewhere when elucidating its meaning. Because these methodologies have proved just as flexible as "living constitutionalism," judges across the ideological spectrum freely deploy them.

[...] Justice Elena Kagan—who famously quipped that "we're all textualists now"—is especially adept at following statutory text to a progressive outcome. It would be foolish for Jackson not to endorse these theories now that they are squarely in the mainstream and favored by countless liberals. [...]

[...] Jackson is a deft enough politician to know that there is no downside to telling Republican senators exactly what they want to hear.'

Why Ketanji Brown Jackson's testimony makes her sound like an originalist. (slate.com)

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

'Man Who Set Himself on Fire at Supreme Court Dies

[...] set himself ablaze Friday evening on the steps of the United States Supreme Court'

Man Who Set Himself on Fire at Supreme Court Dies (thedailybeast.com)


'[...] Man Arrested for [...] Threats to "Shoot Up" Merriam-Webster [dictionary company ...]

[...] issuing death and bomb threats against Merriam-Webster for its definitions of "woman" and "girl."

[...] "There is no such thing as 'gender identity.' [...]" [...]

[...] the credibility of the threats forced Merriam-Webster to shutter offices in New York and Springfield.'

California Man Arrested for Alleged Threats to 'Shoot Up' Merriam-Webster for Defining 'Woman' (thedailybeast.com)

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

'A lot of legal commentators, from both the left and the right, have made essentially the same point that Judge Mizelle's definition of sanitation would preclude the CDC from having, just for example, rules that kept people from urinating on an airplane, because that's also not "cleaning" [...] it sweeps out [...] much of what we consider public health. [...] selecting the most tortured dictionary definition of "sanitation."

[... "] traditionally, if you look at conservatism, stopping the spread of infectious diseases was always the exception to liberty.

[...] nobody has the liberty of transmitting a potentially lethal infectious disease to another person. That's never been the understanding of liberty since John Stuart Mill. I know of no intellectual position that would say that a person has the right to take measures that are likely to transmit an infection to others that could potentially kill them.["]

That's Jacobson v. Massachusetts[...] That's simply your liberty interests end when you are spreading smallpox around.

[..."] decreasing deference to agencies and using this 'major questions doctrine' to say that, 'If it's a big deal, as indeed masks are, then Congress has to speak specifically.'

[..."] The major questions doctrine is really insidious because basically it says that an agency can't do anything that is important. [...] when Congress authorizes an agency to act, it understands [...] that Congress itself doesn't have the expertise. That the expertise lies in career scientists and others in federal agencies.

But it also recognizes that Congress can't possibly anticipate all of the harms that would come to the American public in the future. [...]

[...] I've spent quite a bit of time talking to the White House about this [decision to appeal] and the Justice Department. [...] I [...] suspect the Supreme Court would uphold the mask mandate because it's so central to the prevention of the interstate transmission of disease. But they would nonetheless significantly narrow the Public Health Service Act and get to the edge of declaring a major questions doctrine.

[...] The America we live in is just do it, no matter what the cost. In this case, the cost is death. But you just stand by your guns and you make your political point. If we can't come together in a once in a lifetime health crisis, I don't know when we can….'

The danger of the right's redefinition of personal freedom in the COVID era (slate.com)

[Cause]

Madison cawthorne:

Man has twice in one year tried to bring a loaded handgun into an airplane.

Man has been caught two or is it three times driving without a licence after it was suspended.

I mean clearly those in power have a separate set of rules. This is known. However how blatant does it need to be before he faces some punishment

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

'the current Supreme Court seems to be working its way toward [...] a "tiered" system of constitutional rights, one that would[...] almost unerringly privilege religious liberty over every other right or interest, whether it was public health, or LGBTQ dignitary interests, or reproductive freedom. [...] because religion is explicitly named in the Constitution and those other freedoms or values are not, religion will win every time.

[...] as a result of decadeslong efforts to privatize social welfare, justice, and health care, and with religious entities rushing in to fill those spaces, even the remaining structures of the public sector will always appear to be anemic, anonymized, and collective.

[...] we have delegated to the private sector—largely religious or faith-based organizations—the job of thinking morally, and now all government is there for, all the public sector is there for, is a coordination function." [...] "when you have the thick morality of religion up against a thin administrative state that doesn't have any commitment to a good society, the public sector will always lose."

That "thin" public morality is now responsible for the daily business of keeping us healthy, educating our children, and keeping the public safe. But when it clashes with a good story about a lone actor attempting to live their moral and spiritual life, it is persistently set aside as unimportant—a faceless, pointless bureaucracy.

[...] individual moral actors, particularly religious adherents, will always prove to be a better vehicle for the kind of moral storytelling required to prevail in a court, and that the interests of an impersonal civil rights infrastructure, or a public health regime, will always feel less ethically urgent. [...] "that's why we lost the COVID court cases: Religion is so much more important than whatever kind of collective morality we might be able to muster around protecting public health. Religion has captured so much of what we even might think of as secular public health values."

This is hardly new. The quest for sympathetic plaintiffs is a storied part of what Supreme Court litigators do. What feels new is that—as is the case with the conservative legal movement and its larger war on the administrative state and regulatory agencies—all of those anonymous, faceless bureaucrats are actually working toward something that is bigger than amoral, faceless bureaucracy. Those "thin" systems are tasked with keeping us healthy, protecting the environment, or licensing gun ownership. Yet all are easily lampooned at an oral argument. It's always easier [for the Supreme Court majority] to empathize with someone who wishes to pray.'

How religious adherents became SCOTUS's most sympathetic plaintiffs. (slate.com)

[Tsundoku]

Welcome to Gilead.

I've never understood how in a modern society people's invisible imaginary best friends that somehow need all your money and tax-exempt status could ever be prioritised ahead of ... you know ... actual real things.
Let alone things that are important. Like public health, not flooding the country with automatic weapons etc.

Apologies to our peeps with a religious bent. You most excellent guys are the glaring exceptions to the rule I have discovered about those being religious are a lot of the time also those who are the biggest fucking arseholes to their fellow humans and the planet. Then again it's also probably a variant of squeaky wheel syndrome, with them being the noisiest and therefore getting all the press.

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 29 April 2022 - 03:21 PM

[Gorefest]

I'm confused now. Wasn't the US Constitution deliberately written to be secular, i.e. with all religious influences stripped out? You know, to ensure that people would be free from religious prosecution and such? I'm sure I've recently read up on that. I imagine there'll be some founding fathers turning in their graves now.

[Tiste Simeon]

Tsundoku, on 29 April 2022 - 02:13 PM, said:

Welcome to Gilead.

I've never understood how in a modern society people's invisible imaginary best friends that somehow need all your money and tax-exempt status could ever be prioritised ahead of ... you know ... actual real things.
Let alone things that are important. Like public health, not flooding the country with automatic weapons etc.

Apologies to our peeps with a religious bent. You most excellent guys are the glaring exceptions to the rule I have discovered about those being religious are a lot of the time also those who are the biggest fucking arseholes to their fellow humans and the planet. Then again it's also probably a variant of squeaky wheel syndrome, with them being the noisiest and therefore getting all the press.

I read a thing once that was basically saying the differences between conservative evangelicals and other branches of Christianity is so vast now they might as well be different religions. Which is a simplification of course and the thing was American-centric but it made a good point.

My faith and belief doesn't appear to have much in common with those who so loudly proclaiming to be Christians whilst espousing so much that is very out of kilter with what Jesus actually said.