IS IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO FORCE HEALTHY PEOPLE TO QUARANTINE AND/OR WEAR MASKS?
We begin our analysis with the observation of the truism that freedom is the default position.
The language of the Declaration of Independence, as well as various amendments in the Bill of Rights, unambiguously reflects the views that those who wrote, ratified and amended the U.S. Constitution recognized that our rights — to think, speak, publish, worship, defend ourselves, travel, own property, be left alone — are natural to our humanity.
These rights pre-existed the government. Their source is our humanity. Government does not grant these rights.
Rather, its primary purpose — as stated in the Declaration of Independence, its sole purpose — is to protect these rights.
Though the courts have interpreted the Constitution to possess lamentable exceptions, the framers and ratifiers arguably accepted the non-aggression principle — articulated in the modern era by the late Professor Murray Rothbard — which declares that all aggression against persons and property even by government is immoral.
In the case of the federal government, it is one of limited, delegated powers.
Of course, 230 years of legislation and litigation have blown its powers outside the confines of the Constitution and, invariably, in the direction of expanding federal power at the expense of personal liberty and the states.
The states formed the federal government and not the other way around. Yet today, the feds stay in power by bribing the states with cash grants, the rich with bailouts, the middle class with tax breaks and the poor with transfer payments. Notwithstanding all this, the courts continue to recognize the concept of personal liberty in a free society.
All this is background to the issue lurking beneath the headlines this week.
Can the government quarantine people without proof of contagion and imminent assault?
The short answer is no.
We know that, under the Fifth Amendment, if any government — state or federal — wants to impair the life, liberty or property of any person, it must follow due process.
The short answer is no.
We know that, under the Fifth Amendment, if any government — state or federal — wants to impair the life, liberty or property of any person, it must follow due process.
Due process has two components — substantive and procedural. The substantive component asks if the impairment of liberty is proper to the government that seeks the impairment, and the procedural component asks if the impairment has come about fairly.
Now back to what the feds can do and what the states can do in a public health crisis. There are no emergency provisions or triggers in the Constitution; yet, Congress gave itself the power to regulate public health and safety under various pretexts. The pretexts exist because the nanny state urge of members of Congress to regulate is confronted by the reservation in the Tenth Amendment of health and safety to the states. Those pretexts are regulating commerce and all that affects commerce, and paying the states to do Congress’ will.
Stated differently, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that both the federal government and the states can confine a person who has not committed a crime, or one who has but has served one’s full sentence, in order to protect society from the person’s intentional or uncontrollable harmful tendencies.
It is contrary to the plain meaning of the Constitution for Congress to give itself powers that were not delegated to it by the Constitution, but the courts have permitted this.
Yet, even in the case of a lunatic who has committed a crime and served his full sentence but remains dangerous, the courts have recognized constitutional safeguards to protect his natural rights.
Now back to our question of whether the government — state or federal — can confine persons against their will in order to protect public health.
The short answer is yes, BUT the Constitution requires procedural due process.
The Constitution gives you the right not to be denied liberty without due process of law.
OR, UNTIL YOU PROVE YOU DO NOT HAVE THE DISEASE OR HAVE HAD THE DISEASE AND NOW HAVE IMMUNITY TO THAT DISEASE AND CANNOT INFECT OTHERS.
Given the risk of constitutional violations posed by the quarantine regulations, the federal government should only exert its quarantine powers in cases where disease transmission risks are high and life-threatening, argue Boston University’s Michael R. Ulrich and Wendy K. Mariner.
SETTING PRECEDENT AT LAST
The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Quarantine Ruling
The decision found the order by Democratic governor Tony Evers, his “safer-at-home” emergency order, issued by his designee for secretary of the Department of Health Services (“DHS”), Andrea Palm, to be "immediately unenforceable".
The court found emphatically that the “order” was in fact a rule and therefore it should have gone through the rule-making process, or at least the emergency rule-making process.
The Court employed the “constitutional doubt” principle — it disfavored statutory interpretations that unnecessarily raise serious constitutional questions about the statute under review.
This decision continues a clear trend, both in Wisconsin and elsewhere throughout the country, of courts reasserting the prerogatives of both the judiciary to review the legality and constitutionality of administrative actions and the legislature to employ robust tools for reining in administrative agencies that have flexed too much policy-making muscle.
The court found that the issuance of criminal penalties can attach only to rules, and that therefore DHS was in error for attaching criminal penalties to an order that bypassed the administrative rule-making process.
It has long been the law in Wisconsin that in order for the violation of an administrative agency’s directive to constitute a crime, the directive must have been properly promulgated as a rule.
Is it constitutional for an unelected and unconfirmed secretary to essentially have limitless authority, with no legislative oversight, while the popularly elected governor can only issue an order that runs for 60 days?
Fact Check: A Blanket National Quarantine Is Likely Not Legal
During the yellow fever epidemic in the late 19th century, some areas imposed a "shotgun quarantine," Price says, with states, local governments and counties "basically barricading themselves against people coming from infected places."
Trains were stopped in some locations. The government set up refugee camps for people "trying to flee Pensacola and Mobile and New Orleans," but who couldn't go anywhere because places farther north wouldn't let them in. In Arkansas, she says, armed guards prevented people trying to cross the Mississippi River from Memphis.
"That's what fear will do to you," Price says.
Under the Constitution, individuals have rights in quarantine and isolation conditions.
Under the Court’s current understanding of the Commerce Clause, Congress’s power to protect the physical safety of people who are NOT engaged in interstate or international travel is very limited.
Now back to what the feds can do and what the states can do in a public health crisis. There are no emergency provisions or triggers in the Constitution; yet, Congress gave itself the power to regulate public health and safety under various pretexts. The pretexts exist because the nanny state urge of members of Congress to regulate is confronted by the reservation in the Tenth Amendment of health and safety to the states. Those pretexts are regulating commerce and all that affects commerce, and paying the states to do Congress’ will.
Stated differently, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that both the federal government and the states can confine a person who has not committed a crime, or one who has but has served one’s full sentence, in order to protect society from the person’s intentional or uncontrollable harmful tendencies.
It is contrary to the plain meaning of the Constitution for Congress to give itself powers that were not delegated to it by the Constitution, but the courts have permitted this.
Yet, even in the case of a lunatic who has committed a crime and served his full sentence but remains dangerous, the courts have recognized constitutional safeguards to protect his natural rights.
Now back to our question of whether the government — state or federal — can confine persons against their will in order to protect public health.
The short answer is yes, BUT the Constitution requires procedural due process.
That means a trial for every person confined.
Thus, a government-ordered quarantine of all persons in a city block or a postal ZIP Code or a telephone area code would be an egregious violation of due process, both substantive and procedural.
Substantively, no government in America has the lawful power to curtail natural rights by decree.
Procedurally, notwithstanding the fear of disease contagion, the states and feds may only quarantine those who are actively contagious and will infect others imminently. And it must present evidence of both at a trial at which it bears the burden of proof.
That means a trial before any quarantine, no matter the public danger, and a fair trial, not one animated by mass hysteria or government-generated fear."
PROVING MASS EXPOSURE IS NOT POSSIBLE
If you are ordered to "quarantine," that means you have been exposed to an infectious disease and thus must isolate yourself from other people until you are no longer contagious.
HOW CAN ANYONE PROVE UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT ANY OR ALL OF A POPULATION HAS DEFINITELY EACH BEEN PERSONALLY EXPOSED TO CV-19?
Thus, a government-ordered quarantine of all persons in a city block or a postal ZIP Code or a telephone area code would be an egregious violation of due process, both substantive and procedural.
Substantively, no government in America has the lawful power to curtail natural rights by decree.
Procedurally, notwithstanding the fear of disease contagion, the states and feds may only quarantine those who are actively contagious and will infect others imminently. And it must present evidence of both at a trial at which it bears the burden of proof.
That means a trial before any quarantine, no matter the public danger, and a fair trial, not one animated by mass hysteria or government-generated fear."
PROVING MASS EXPOSURE IS NOT POSSIBLE
If you are ordered to "quarantine," that means you have been exposed to an infectious disease and thus must isolate yourself from other people until you are no longer contagious.
HOW CAN ANYONE PROVE UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT ANY OR ALL OF A POPULATION HAS DEFINITELY EACH BEEN PERSONALLY EXPOSED TO CV-19?
CASE-BY-CASE, THAT WOULD TAKE YEARS, DECADES.
The Constitution gives you the right not to be denied liberty without due process of law.
OR, UNTIL YOU PROVE YOU DO NOT HAVE THE DISEASE OR HAVE HAD THE DISEASE AND NOW HAVE IMMUNITY TO THAT DISEASE AND CANNOT INFECT OTHERS.
Given the risk of constitutional violations posed by the quarantine regulations, the federal government should only exert its quarantine powers in cases where disease transmission risks are high and life-threatening, argue Boston University’s Michael R. Ulrich and Wendy K. Mariner.
Instead, they say the federal government should implement initiatives that empower Americans to make preventive health decisions on their own, without fear of coercive government action.
Once U.S. officials place a person under quarantine, the regulations require HHS and the CDC to appoint a medical expert charged with examining whether or not the person has an infectious disease.
Yet, under the regulations, the allegedly infected person may wait for an indefinite period of time before interacting with a medical professional, claim Ulrich and Mariner.
Once U.S. officials place a person under quarantine, the regulations require HHS and the CDC to appoint a medical expert charged with examining whether or not the person has an infectious disease.
Yet, under the regulations, the allegedly infected person may wait for an indefinite period of time before interacting with a medical professional, claim Ulrich and Mariner.
Assuming HHS and the CDC do complete the prescribed medical review, the agencies have no deadline by which they must decide whether to keep people quarantined or release them back into the community.
According to Ulrich and Mariner, the regulations fail to meet constitutional due process standards.
These constitutional standards would require the federal government to substantiate decisions to quarantine people involuntarily by making “prompt” and “periodic” assessments of the infectious disease risks they pose, maintain Ulrich and Mariner. But, by bypassing these standards, the regulations leave room for the unjustified—and unconstitutional—quarantining of Americans.
According to Ulrich and Mariner, the regulations fail to meet constitutional due process standards.
These constitutional standards would require the federal government to substantiate decisions to quarantine people involuntarily by making “prompt” and “periodic” assessments of the infectious disease risks they pose, maintain Ulrich and Mariner. But, by bypassing these standards, the regulations leave room for the unjustified—and unconstitutional—quarantining of Americans.
SETTING PRECEDENT AT LAST
The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Quarantine Ruling
The decision found the order by Democratic governor Tony Evers, his “safer-at-home” emergency order, issued by his designee for secretary of the Department of Health Services (“DHS”), Andrea Palm, to be "immediately unenforceable".
The court found emphatically that the “order” was in fact a rule and therefore it should have gone through the rule-making process, or at least the emergency rule-making process.
The Court employed the “constitutional doubt” principle — it disfavored statutory interpretations that unnecessarily raise serious constitutional questions about the statute under review.
This decision continues a clear trend, both in Wisconsin and elsewhere throughout the country, of courts reasserting the prerogatives of both the judiciary to review the legality and constitutionality of administrative actions and the legislature to employ robust tools for reining in administrative agencies that have flexed too much policy-making muscle.
The court found that the issuance of criminal penalties can attach only to rules, and that therefore DHS was in error for attaching criminal penalties to an order that bypassed the administrative rule-making process.
It has long been the law in Wisconsin that in order for the violation of an administrative agency’s directive to constitute a crime, the directive must have been properly promulgated as a rule.
Is it constitutional for an unelected and unconfirmed secretary to essentially have limitless authority, with no legislative oversight, while the popularly elected governor can only issue an order that runs for 60 days?
It turns out the DHS secretary does not possess as much authority as she thinks.
Similar to decisions such as Tetra Tech, the 2011 landmark legislation reset the relationship between state agencies and the legislature.
Similar to decisions such as Tetra Tech, the 2011 landmark legislation reset the relationship between state agencies and the legislature.
Gone are the days of implied authority.
As Justice Kelly observed in Tetra Tech (a decision that would seem to carry even more weight following yesterday’s decision), “We must be assiduous in patrolling the borders between the branches. This is not just a practical matter of efficient and effective government. We maintain this separation because it provides structural protection against depredations on our liberties. The Framers of the United States Constitution understood that ‘[t]he accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.’”
As Justice Kelly observed in Tetra Tech (a decision that would seem to carry even more weight following yesterday’s decision), “We must be assiduous in patrolling the borders between the branches. This is not just a practical matter of efficient and effective government. We maintain this separation because it provides structural protection against depredations on our liberties. The Framers of the United States Constitution understood that ‘[t]he accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.’”
NATIONAL QUARANTINE IS NOT LEGAL
FROM NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO: Fact Check: A Blanket National Quarantine Is Likely Not Legal
Could the president order a national lockdown or place states under quarantine?
Legal experts say not really.
Polly J. Price, a professor of law and public health at Emory University, tells NPR: "If you're talking about quarantine in terms of encouraging people to stay home or closing businesses — and that's what public health folks talk about as social distancing measures, really — I think from the White House that can be advisory only and that those are exclusively state powers."
She says though that the federal government does have other tools at its disposal to limit people from traveling between states, including controlling who can fly.
And, as was done after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, the Federal Aviation Administration can ground air travel altogether.
President Trump has used his authority to require foreign nationals arriving from China to be quarantined and has prevented foreign nationals from Europe from flying into the U.S., as well as limiting border crossings from Canada and Mexico.
Options limited
But there's not much more he can do within the country, says Bradley Moss, a Washington attorney specializing in national security issues.
"It is unclear, absent congressional approval or every state in the union collectively agreeing to it, how any president would have the authority to impose a federal or national quarantine," Moss says.
The federal law on this, he says, "is clearly aimed at individuals or specifically identified groups, not the entire country writ large."
Moss says the president would have to "either personally determine, or get the CDC director to state in writing, that the entire country is reasonably believed to have been exposed to the coronavirus," which Moss says would be "politically treacherous" and "turn the federal law on its head."
The only Supreme Court ruling on the issue, Price says, came a century ago, and that involved whether states could limit travel during a yellow fever epidemic.
She says the court suggested that states can do so and can impose quarantines on incoming travelers, "so long as it's for a valid public health measure."
INCOMING TRAVELERS, NOT LEGAL, RESIDENT CITIZENS.
Legal experts say not really.
Polly J. Price, a professor of law and public health at Emory University, tells NPR: "If you're talking about quarantine in terms of encouraging people to stay home or closing businesses — and that's what public health folks talk about as social distancing measures, really — I think from the White House that can be advisory only and that those are exclusively state powers."
She says though that the federal government does have other tools at its disposal to limit people from traveling between states, including controlling who can fly.
And, as was done after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, the Federal Aviation Administration can ground air travel altogether.
President Trump has used his authority to require foreign nationals arriving from China to be quarantined and has prevented foreign nationals from Europe from flying into the U.S., as well as limiting border crossings from Canada and Mexico.
Options limited
But there's not much more he can do within the country, says Bradley Moss, a Washington attorney specializing in national security issues.
"It is unclear, absent congressional approval or every state in the union collectively agreeing to it, how any president would have the authority to impose a federal or national quarantine," Moss says.
The federal law on this, he says, "is clearly aimed at individuals or specifically identified groups, not the entire country writ large."
Moss says the president would have to "either personally determine, or get the CDC director to state in writing, that the entire country is reasonably believed to have been exposed to the coronavirus," which Moss says would be "politically treacherous" and "turn the federal law on its head."
The only Supreme Court ruling on the issue, Price says, came a century ago, and that involved whether states could limit travel during a yellow fever epidemic.
She says the court suggested that states can do so and can impose quarantines on incoming travelers, "so long as it's for a valid public health measure."
INCOMING TRAVELERS, NOT LEGAL, RESIDENT CITIZENS.
During the yellow fever epidemic in the late 19th century, some areas imposed a "shotgun quarantine," Price says, with states, local governments and counties "basically barricading themselves against people coming from infected places."
Trains were stopped in some locations. The government set up refugee camps for people "trying to flee Pensacola and Mobile and New Orleans," but who couldn't go anywhere because places farther north wouldn't let them in. In Arkansas, she says, armed guards prevented people trying to cross the Mississippi River from Memphis.
"That's what fear will do to you," Price says.
Under the Constitution, individuals have rights in quarantine and isolation conditions.
Under the 5th and 14th Amendment’s rights of Due Process and Equal Protection, public health regulations used to impose such conditions can’t be “arbitrary, oppressive and unreasonable.”
There are precedents where courts have ruled that states or local governments didn’t meet a burden of proof to justify a quarantine.
There are precedents where courts have ruled that states or local governments didn’t meet a burden of proof to justify a quarantine.
And accordingly, federal law does not provide for quarantines of individuals who remain within a single state.
THIS IS ALSO WHERE MANY QUESTION WHY WE DON'T SEE THE CDC AND THE WHO OFFERING FREE ANTIBODY TESTS.
THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR ALL TO CONSIDER.
I RECENTLY LEARNED OF THIS FIRST-HAND BECAUSE OF MY OWN FRAGILE HEALTH AND AFTER BEING TESTED REPEATEDLY FOR THE CORONAVIRUS.
AFTER SEVERAL NEGATIVE "SWAB TESTS", I ASKED FOR AND GOT AN ANTIBODY TEST, A SEROLOGICAL TEST THAT PROVED THAT I HAD AT ONE TIME HAD "COVID-19".
AT 70-PLUS YEARS OLD, DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER, CONGESTIVE HEART FAILURE AND COPD, I HAD THE VIRUS BUT WAS COMPLETELY ASYMPTOMATIC.
I RECALL A BRIEF PERIOD THAT I ASSUMED POLLEN WAS MAKING ME SNEEZE AND COUGH, BUT THAT PASSED QUICKLY AND I NEVER HAD A FEVER.
WITH A SECOND ANTIBODY TEST, ALSO STRONGLY POSITIVE, AND A FINAL 'SWAB TEST', AGAIN NEGATIVE, LIFE CHANGED DRAMATICALLY.
NOW, I KNOW AND CAN PROVE THAT I HAVE AN IMMUNITY TO CV-19.
I CANNOT SPREAD THE VIRUS, CANNOT BE INFECTED BY SOMEONE WITH THE VIRUS.
BEFORE, I HAD TO CLAIM MY RIGHT TO NOT WEAR A MASK UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT.
NOW, I MERELY STATE MY IMMUNITY.
I AM A DANGER TO NO ONE.
I AM ALSO EXEMPT FROM ANY MANDATORY CV-19 VACCINE.
IN FACT, I HAVE BEEN INVITED BY TWO MAJOR MEDICAL CLINICS TO DONATE MY PLASMA FOR TREATMENT OF PATIENTS WITH CV-19...UNTIL THEY LEARNED OF MY CANCER DIAGNOSIS.
AND, AS HAMLET SAID, "THERE'S THE RUB."
IF ALL OF US HAD PROOF THAT WE ARE IMMUNE BY WAY OF A RECOVERY FROM CV-19, IF WE WERE NO LONGER A DANGER TO OTHERS, NO LONGER HAD TO 'FEAR' BEING INFECTED BY THIS OVER-HYPED VIRUS, NO LONGER WERE TARGETS FOR MANDATORY VACCINES, THEN THIS FEAR-MONGERED BULLS**T WOULD COME TO A GRINDING HALT.
MANDATORY QUARANTINE, LOCKDOWN, ECONOMIC RUIN, SCREAMS TO WEAR MASKS AND SOCIAL DISTANCE OR FACE FINES AND/OR JAIL WOULD EVAPORATE.
CHURCHES, BUSINESSES, SCHOOLS COULD ALL SAFELY REOPEN TO ALL WHO WERE IMMUNE AND AMERICANS COULD GET BACK TO WORK AND TO LIFE.
COVID BE DAMNED!
POLITICAL WRANGLING BE DAMNED!
THREATS BE DAMNED!
MASS HYSTERIA BE DAMNED!
WE'D BE FREED!
BENEATH ONE OF THE ARTICLES CITED ABOVE, SOMEONE LEFT THE FOLLOWING COMMENT:
"Yet every day there's another person on the news in handcuffs, WELL (HEALTHY) CITIZENS, WITHOUT ANY DISEASE OR ILLNESS WHATSOEVER, who is dragged away in front of their kids for playing on the playground, hitting baseballs at parks, [using] public facilities which THEY PAID FOR!
If not legal, which obviously it IS NOT, then how do they keep getting away with it? QUARANTINE IS FOR SICK PEOPLE, NOT WELL PEOPLE!
WE LIVE IN AMERICA, THE GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO WORK FOR NOT AGAINST US!
WHY DO WE CONTINUE TO STAND BY & WATCH THIS OBVIOUS ILLEGAL BEHAVIOR - FROM GOVERNMENT, POLITICIANS & PUBLIC SERVANTS - AND DO NOTHING?
Doesn't ANYONE care?
Why isn't ANYONE QUESTIONING?
Why does the MEDIA KEEP REPORTING ON, WITHOUT ANY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT WHATSOEVER OF THE OBVIOUS, FREQUENT VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AND FEDERAL LAW?
"STAY HOME, OR BE ARRESTED/GET FINED?" QUARANTINES ARE FOR SICK PEOPLE! REFUSE TO SUBMIT!"
I AGREE.
THIS HAS ALL LED TO INFRINGEMENTS OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
WE HAVE BEEN UNCONSTITUTIONALLY CONTROLLED.
ONCE OUR POLITICIANS HAVE HAD A GOOD TASTE OF THEIR IMAGINED NEW POWERS OVER US, THEY WILL NOT GIVE UP SUCH FINE NEW POWERS.
WE CAN ROLL OVER, BELLY-UP AND BE HERDED AND CONTROLLED LIKE SHEEP OR WE CAN POINT TO THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THIS DAMNABLE THING AND REFUSE TO SUBMIT TO IT ANOTHER DAY.
ONE WAY TO DO THIS IS TO HAVE PROOF THAT WE ARE A HEALTH HAZARD, A DANGER TO NO ONE.
WE CAN DO THIS BY BEING TESTED IN THE OFFICES OF OUR PRIVATE PHYSICIANS AND HAVING THAT PROOF TO REFUSE TO BE HERDED AND CONFINED AND SUBJUGATED ANYMORE.
THIS IS WHERE TESTING BECOMES OF CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE.
THIS IS ALSO WHERE MANY QUESTION WHY WE DON'T SEE THE CDC AND THE WHO OFFERING FREE ANTIBODY TESTS.
THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR ALL TO CONSIDER.
I RECENTLY LEARNED OF THIS FIRST-HAND BECAUSE OF MY OWN FRAGILE HEALTH AND AFTER BEING TESTED REPEATEDLY FOR THE CORONAVIRUS.
AFTER SEVERAL NEGATIVE "SWAB TESTS", I ASKED FOR AND GOT AN ANTIBODY TEST, A SEROLOGICAL TEST THAT PROVED THAT I HAD AT ONE TIME HAD "COVID-19".
AT 70-PLUS YEARS OLD, DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER, CONGESTIVE HEART FAILURE AND COPD, I HAD THE VIRUS BUT WAS COMPLETELY ASYMPTOMATIC.
I RECALL A BRIEF PERIOD THAT I ASSUMED POLLEN WAS MAKING ME SNEEZE AND COUGH, BUT THAT PASSED QUICKLY AND I NEVER HAD A FEVER.
WITH A SECOND ANTIBODY TEST, ALSO STRONGLY POSITIVE, AND A FINAL 'SWAB TEST', AGAIN NEGATIVE, LIFE CHANGED DRAMATICALLY.
NOW, I KNOW AND CAN PROVE THAT I HAVE AN IMMUNITY TO CV-19.
I CANNOT SPREAD THE VIRUS, CANNOT BE INFECTED BY SOMEONE WITH THE VIRUS.
BEFORE, I HAD TO CLAIM MY RIGHT TO NOT WEAR A MASK UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT.
NOW, I MERELY STATE MY IMMUNITY.
I AM A DANGER TO NO ONE.
I AM ALSO EXEMPT FROM ANY MANDATORY CV-19 VACCINE.
IN FACT, I HAVE BEEN INVITED BY TWO MAJOR MEDICAL CLINICS TO DONATE MY PLASMA FOR TREATMENT OF PATIENTS WITH CV-19...UNTIL THEY LEARNED OF MY CANCER DIAGNOSIS.
AND, AS HAMLET SAID, "THERE'S THE RUB."
IF ALL OF US HAD PROOF THAT WE ARE IMMUNE BY WAY OF A RECOVERY FROM CV-19, IF WE WERE NO LONGER A DANGER TO OTHERS, NO LONGER HAD TO 'FEAR' BEING INFECTED BY THIS OVER-HYPED VIRUS, NO LONGER WERE TARGETS FOR MANDATORY VACCINES, THEN THIS FEAR-MONGERED BULLS**T WOULD COME TO A GRINDING HALT.
MANDATORY QUARANTINE, LOCKDOWN, ECONOMIC RUIN, SCREAMS TO WEAR MASKS AND SOCIAL DISTANCE OR FACE FINES AND/OR JAIL WOULD EVAPORATE.
CHURCHES, BUSINESSES, SCHOOLS COULD ALL SAFELY REOPEN TO ALL WHO WERE IMMUNE AND AMERICANS COULD GET BACK TO WORK AND TO LIFE.
COVID BE DAMNED!
POLITICAL WRANGLING BE DAMNED!
THREATS BE DAMNED!
MASS HYSTERIA BE DAMNED!
WE'D BE FREED!
BENEATH ONE OF THE ARTICLES CITED ABOVE, SOMEONE LEFT THE FOLLOWING COMMENT:
"Yet every day there's another person on the news in handcuffs, WELL (HEALTHY) CITIZENS, WITHOUT ANY DISEASE OR ILLNESS WHATSOEVER, who is dragged away in front of their kids for playing on the playground, hitting baseballs at parks, [using] public facilities which THEY PAID FOR!
If not legal, which obviously it IS NOT, then how do they keep getting away with it? QUARANTINE IS FOR SICK PEOPLE, NOT WELL PEOPLE!
WE LIVE IN AMERICA, THE GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO WORK FOR NOT AGAINST US!
WHY DO WE CONTINUE TO STAND BY & WATCH THIS OBVIOUS ILLEGAL BEHAVIOR - FROM GOVERNMENT, POLITICIANS & PUBLIC SERVANTS - AND DO NOTHING?
Doesn't ANYONE care?
Why isn't ANYONE QUESTIONING?
Why does the MEDIA KEEP REPORTING ON, WITHOUT ANY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT WHATSOEVER OF THE OBVIOUS, FREQUENT VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AND FEDERAL LAW?
"STAY HOME, OR BE ARRESTED/GET FINED?" QUARANTINES ARE FOR SICK PEOPLE! REFUSE TO SUBMIT!"
I AGREE.
THIS HAS ALL LED TO INFRINGEMENTS OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
WE HAVE BEEN UNCONSTITUTIONALLY CONTROLLED.
ONCE OUR POLITICIANS HAVE HAD A GOOD TASTE OF THEIR IMAGINED NEW POWERS OVER US, THEY WILL NOT GIVE UP SUCH FINE NEW POWERS.
WE CAN ROLL OVER, BELLY-UP AND BE HERDED AND CONTROLLED LIKE SHEEP OR WE CAN POINT TO THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THIS DAMNABLE THING AND REFUSE TO SUBMIT TO IT ANOTHER DAY.
ONE WAY TO DO THIS IS TO HAVE PROOF THAT WE ARE A HEALTH HAZARD, A DANGER TO NO ONE.
WE CAN DO THIS BY BEING TESTED IN THE OFFICES OF OUR PRIVATE PHYSICIANS AND HAVING THAT PROOF TO REFUSE TO BE HERDED AND CONFINED AND SUBJUGATED ANYMORE.
WE CAN HAVE NEGATIVE "SWAB TESTS" EVERY BLOODY DAY AND STILL BE SUBJECT TO QUARANTINE, BUT POSITIVE ANTIBODIES PROVING OUR IMMUNE SYSTEM FOUGHT AND WON AGAINST THE "KILLER VIRUS" ENDS THAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL SUBJUGATION.
EACH OF US CAN EXTEND OUR CONSTITUTION AND OUR POSITIVE ANTIBODY TEST RESULTS LIKE A BIG MIDDLE FINGER TO THESE POWER-MAD CONTROL FREAKS AND END THIS INSANITY IN OUR OWN INDIVIDUAL 'INDEPENDENCE DAY'.
THIS IS AMERICA.
AMERICANS WANT TO BE FREE.
//WW
THIS IS AMERICA.
AMERICANS WANT TO BE FREE.
//WW
"Masks offer only partial protection from the virus that causes COVID-19"
ReplyDeletehttps://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/masks-offer-only-partial-protection-from-the-virus-that-causes-covid-19-but-their-effectiveness-can-be-enhanced-with-other-measures-like-physical-distancing/
“Either masks work or they don’t”; “I don’t understand the safety concern with voting in person. Your mask works, right?”
The claim that masks “either work or don’t work” fails to acknowledge the reality that face masks are extremely effective in reducing the spread of COVID-19 even though they provide only partial protection from the virus that causes it. In order to be optimally effective, masks must be combined with other measures like physical distancing and proper hand hygiene.
"Even though face masks do not confer 100% protection to the wearer or to others, scientific evidence has demonstrated that face masks reduce the transmission of viral respiratory infections like COVID-19 to some degree."
WHAT DEGREE?
50%?
25%?
WHAT ABOUT GROCERY STORES?
WE CAN DO THE SAME SOCIAL DISTANCING AT POLLS AS WE DO IN CHECKOUT LINES!
THE BULLS**T CONTINUES.
Most people don’t use face masks correctly, says a Johns Hopkins public health expert.
ReplyDeleteThough health officials have warned Americans to prepare for the spread of the novel coronavirus in the U.S., people shouldn’t wear face masks to prevent the spread of the infectious illness, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. surgeon general.
But that’s not the only reason Americans may want to think twice about using masks, one expert told MarketWatch.
Most people don’t know how to use face masks correctly, and a rush to buy masks could prevent the people who need them most — health care providers — from getting them, said Dr. Amesh Adalja, a scholar at the Center for Health Security at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
In fact the U.S. surgeon general recently urged the public to “STOP BUYING MASKS!” “They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!,” wrote Surgeon General Jerome Adams on Twitter.
AND THEN WHEN TRUMP SAID MASKS WERE NEEDLESS...ALL OF A SUDDEN, MASKS WERE MANDATED.
IF TRUMP SAID TODAY THAT OXYGEN IS NECESSARY TO SURVIVE COVID-19, AT LEAST 70% OF DEMOCRATS AND MORE THAN A FEW TRUMP-HATING RINO REPUBLICANS WOULD BE DEAD FROM HOLDING THEIR BREATH.
THE RABID, INSANE HATE RUNS THAT DEEP.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-cdc-says-americans-dont-have-to-wear-facemasks-because-of-coronavirus-2020-01-30