Wisconsin bars packed after court lifts stay-at-home order; people not concerned about virus

[ArmenianJohn]

Wisconsin bars packed after court lifts stay-at-home order

This serves as proof positive to me that most of the people who don't want to abide by public safety policies initiated by state and local governments really believe that there is no threat to them of contracting the coronavirus.

They have argued that opening up would be about re-starting the economy, helping businesses and getting people back to their jobs. But by showing up and not keeping safe distances, not wearing masks, and generally crowding in with each other while talking/yelling/laughing to spray their spittle onto each other it's clear that they just truly believe there is no threat of catching the virus.

If they just wanted the economy to re-open but were cautious about the virus they wouldn't be acting the way they are. They might still go to the bars and restaurants but they'd be displaying cautious behavior. They are not.

And that's why it's dangerous to be re-opening bars, restaurants, stores, etc. at this time. There are far too many people who, given the chance, will behave in ways that show zero consideration for the pandemic.

Bars. Because alcohol is so essential and vital to people's lives that it's worth risking catching and spreading COVID-19? Wow.

 

[Sabertooth]

I don't do bars, anyway, but we're still staying in. (Near Rhinelander)

Corona Extra

The "Corona Extra" sign in the background of the photo is funny!

 

[Subduction Zone]

The good news is with declining infection rates there is unlikely to be massive reinfection by this event. I am betting that we see a spike in infections in people that went to specific bars. And this is insanity hopefully will not last. The limited spikes will hopefully serve as a warning to the population as a whole that this is far from over.

 

[Tanj]

The good news is with declining infection rates there is unlikely to be massive reinfection by this event. I am betting that we see a spike in infections in people that went to specific bars. And this is insanity hopefully will not last. The limited spikes will hopefully serve as a warning to the population as a whole that this is far from over.

That's waaaaayyy to optimistic, and missing how this virus spreads. Have you seen the 1200 people South Korea is contact tracing because of 1 guy that went club hopping in one night?

The "Corona Extra" sign in the background of the photo is funny! ​

​

So close to greatness. If only you had photoshopped it so the sign read "Extra Corona".

 

[GaveMeJoy]

Wisconsin bars packed after court lifts stay-at-home order

This serves as proof positive to me that most of the people who don't want to abide by public safety policies initiated by state and local governments really believe that there is no threat to them of contracting the coronavirus.

They have argued that opening up would be about re-starting the economy, helping businesses and getting people back to their jobs. But by showing up and not keeping safe distances, not wearing masks, and generally crowding in with each other while talking/yelling/laughing to spray their spittle onto each other it's clear that they just truly believe there is no threat of catching the virus.

If they just wanted the economy to re-open but were cautious about the virus they wouldn't be acting the way they are. They might still go to the bars and restaurants but they'd be displaying cautious behavior. They are not.

And that's why it's dangerous to be re-opening bars, restaurants, stores, etc. at this time. There are far too many people who, given the chance, will behave in ways that show zero consideration for the pandemic.

Bars. Because alcohol is so essential and vital to people's lives that it's worth risking catching and spreading COVID-19? Wow.

The reason they do it is because the death rate of the virus is <2% and they think it’s “not as bad” as everyone says. So instead of doing the smart thing they are gonna go get wasted, and end up killing their parents, grandparents, and immunocompromised friends/families before they even know they have it.

Because they are idiots. Unfortunately this is like drinking and driving: the people who will die for their stupidity are usually innocent people and not the guilty.

 

[High Fidelity]

Here's to hoping stupidity, ignorance, selfishness and arrogance are all underlying health conditions.

 

[TLSITD]

Wisconsin bars packed after court lifts stay-at-home order

This serves as proof positive to me that most of the people who don't want to abide by public safety policies initiated by state and local governments really believe that there is no threat to them of contracting the coronavirus.

They have argued that opening up would be about re-starting the economy, helping businesses and getting people back to their jobs. But by showing up and not keeping safe distances, not wearing masks, and generally crowding in with each other while talking/yelling/laughing to spray their spittle onto each other it's clear that they just truly believe there is no threat of catching the virus.

If they just wanted the economy to re-open but were cautious about the virus they wouldn't be acting the way they are. They might still go to the bars and restaurants but they'd be displaying cautious behavior. They are not.

And that's why it's dangerous to be re-opening bars, restaurants, stores, etc. at this time. There are far too many people who, given the chance, will behave in ways that show zero consideration for the pandemic.

Bars. Because alcohol is so essential and vital to people's lives that it's worth risking catching and spreading COVID-19? Wow.

It's dangerous to reopen because people have free will to do as they choose. That's the nature of a free society at any time. The alternative is to live in a place like North Korea, where every thing and everyone is regulated by the government to make sure society functions the way the government wants it to---ostensibly for the good of the people. That's tyranny.

Benevolent tyranny is still tyranny.

I doubt that the people cramming themselves into the bars are the most health conscious people even under ordinary circumstances. Everyone isn't doing that, and everyone won't do that. But what each individual chooses to do or not do with his or her freedom is his or her right to decide. And living with risk to one's own personal safety on account of the choices and behaviors of others is a part of life in a free society.

Drunk drivers, thieves, murderers, rapists, terrorists, professionals who don't do their jobs thoroughly, people who drive while distracted, people who don't wash their hands after going to the bathroom or cover their mouths and noses when they cough or sneeze; all of these people create risk to the health and safety of others.

We accept the risk of living with our neighbors' freedom in order to participate in a society where people have freedom to make their own choices, whether good or bad. There are consequences (personal and legal) for making bad choices, but we still have the freedom to make them.

As lockdowns are lifted, each of us can take whatever measures of personal protection we desire and deem necessary. We cannot, however, control the behavior of our neighbors in order to make ourselves safer or feel safer.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

We cannot, however, control the behavior of our neighbors in order to make ourselves safer or feel safer.

So why have any laws at all then? If laws can't make us safer or even feel safer, why have any? Just let people do whatever they want. If a guy walks naked into your house and pees on your dinner, just let it happen - no law will ever prevent him or make you feel safer from it happening, right?

 

[TLSITD]

So why have any laws at all then? If laws can't make us safer or even feel safer, why have any? Just let people do whatever they want. If a guy walks naked into your house and pees on your dinner, just let it happen - no law will ever prevent him or make you feel safer from it happening, right?

We have laws and we have a constitution to protect the people from each other and from the government. You can't violate the constitutional rights of others in order to make yourself safer or more comfortable unless you want others to be able to do the same to you. That's not a road you want this country to go down, I guarantee it.

If you're scared, protect yourself. You have control over your own body and your own movements. You don't have control over your neighbors'.

Gathering in a bar is not illegal, and no one is infringing on your constitutional rights by doing so.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I would surmise that much of it is a reaction to being cooped up for all that time...

If you told a pizza-lover they weren't allowed to have pizza for 2 months, and then lifted the pizza-ban, what's the first thing they're going to do?
<Picks of up phone: "Hello, I'd like to place an order">

However, finding some isolated pockets of people actively impulsively is neither a justification or refutation of any states' policies with regards to Covid.

I know what the point is of people trying to highlight cases like this...it's to justify the narrative of "we just need to stay locked down forever".

That was never a practical or pragmatic policy, and certainly leaders have to understand the pendulum swing effect that will take place after implementing such a strict rule.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So why have any laws at all then? If laws can't make us safer or even feel safer, why have any? Just let people do whatever they want. If a guy walks naked into your house and pees on your dinner, just let it happen - no law will ever prevent him or make you feel safer from it happening, right?

Well, I think one has to take into account the uniqueness of these types of laws in particular and how this situation is being handled compared to every other policy.

In every other policy, people are completely willing to acknowledge benefit/risk trade-offs. IE: Cars provide a tremendous service, a great convenience, and are an economic engine (pun intended). We know that giving people access to them means 40,000 deaths and 800,000 hospitalizations per year, but we're willing to take the risk.

This one is unique in that it's being presented as some sort of false binary, in which one side is claiming "there's no benefit to locking down", and the other side is just as vehemently insisting "there's no benefit to opening up".


For a virus that's far more transmissible than the flu, and more deadly, I'd agree it doesn't make sense to say "let's all pack into venues for a concert or sporting event tomorrow...and then throw a make-out party next week"...however, on the flip side, people need to be willing to admit that it's not feasible to shut down 1/4 of the economy, put 20 million people out of work, and take on crippling amounts of debt either.

Both sides have their political reasons for gravitating toward the extremes. On the far right, you have the "liberty (as a platitude)" types that just want to be rebellious to any government measure in the name of "m'freedom!", as well as wanting a strong economy as that's Trump's major selling point for getting elected (it's certainly not his character).

The other side seems to want extended lockdowns so that they can make their "wishlist" items (that they've wanted for years) seem more appealing to a wider audience. (expanding entitlements/unemployment/welfare to unsustainable levels...pushing for UBI...etc). Let's be frank, if you get a bunch of people who are out of work, behind on their bills, etc... the "you should get $1200/month even if you're not going to work" starts to sound a lot better to a lot of folks.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

We have laws and we have a constitution to protect the people from each other and from the government.

First you said, "We cannot, however, control the behavior of our neighbors in order to make ourselves safer or feel safer." Now you're saying that laws and the constitution "protect the people from each other and the government".

Which is it? Do laws and the constitution protect us (i.e. make us safer) or do they not make us safer (i.e. protect us)???

You're contradicting yourself.

You can't violate the constitutional rights of others in order to make yourself safer or more comfortable unless you want others to be able to do the same to you. That's not a road you want this country to go down, I guarantee it.

Again, you're contradicting yourself. Earlier, you said we live in a society where "...people have freedom to make their own choices, whether good or bad. There are consequences (personal and legal) for making bad choices, but we still have the freedom to make them."

Now, you're saying, "You can't violate the constitutional rights of others in order to make yourself safer or more comfortable unless you want others to be able to do the same to you."

Which is it? Do we have the freedom to make our own choices, whether good or bad, with consequences? Or we CAN'T violate the constitutional rights of others, with consequences? Which is it?

If you're scared, protect yourself. You have control over your own body and your own movements. You don't have control over your neighbors'.

Sure, and if you're scared of drunk drivers, thieves, murderers, rapists, the government, etc. then you should protect yourself - why do we need laws or a constitution? You say in one breath laws and government protect us and in the next breath you're saying we have to protect ourselves because nothing else protects us. Which is it?

Gathering in a bar is not illegal, and no one is infringing on your constitutional rights by doing so.

Gathering in a bar IS illegal where I live, but nobody is infringing on my constitutional rights, either.

I can't seem to have a discussion with you because you are on both sides of the argument, flip-flopping from one side to the other when it suits what you want to say.

So first, please make your position clear:
A. Nothing can protect us so laws and constitution are not necessary since they don't protect us (because "nothing" can protect us).
OR
B. Laws and constitution protect us therefore we should have the Constitution and laws in place to protect us, even if they don't fully protect us, because they mostly protect us.

Which is your position? A or B? You can't hold 2 diametrically opposed positions.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

I would surmise that much of it is a reaction to being cooped up for all that time...

Obviously.

If you told a pizza-lover they weren't allowed to have pizza for 2 months, and then lifted the pizza-ban, what's the first thing they're going to do?
<Picks of up phone: "Hello, I'd like to place an order">

Not necessarily. If you told a pizza lover that there is a ban on pizza because random pizzas contain high amounts of human feces and crushed glass, then you told the same pizza lover the ban is over but there are still some random pizzas containing feces and crushed glass, do you think any and every pizza lover is going to pick up the phone: "Hello, I'd like to place an order"??? As a pizza lover (and someone who lives where the best pizza in the world is) I can assure you I would not. So much for your theory. Some of the more ignorant ones would be ordering, though.

However, finding some isolated pockets of people actively impulsively is neither a justification or refutation of any states' policies with regards to Covid.

It absolutely is. That behavior justifies my state's policies with regards to COVID. Seeing that is proof that our governor is doing the right thing by banning that activity since the result is people acting impulsively and continuing to endanger society. I'm grateful that Wisconsin is the guinea pig and not my state.

I know what the point is of people trying to highlight cases like this...it's to justify the narrative of "we just need to stay locked down forever".

Can you show me someone who has the narrative of "we just need to stay locked down forever"? That's certainly not my narrative, and far from it. I have never heard anyone say that. I'm 100% sure you can't show me someone who has said that. Feel free to prove me wrong (but you can't).

That was never a practical or pragmatic policy, and certainly leaders have to understand the pendulum swing effect that will take place after implementing such a strict rule.

​

It's true that staying locked down forever was never a practical or pragmatic policy, and that's why no leaders have advocated for it nor implemented it. Also, even if someone did implement it, and locked down a state FOREVER, there is no pendulum swing effect because a forever rule doesn't become undone at any point.

 

[TLSITD]

First you said, "We cannot, however, control the behavior of our neighbors in order to make ourselves safer or feel safer." Now you're saying that laws and the constitution "protect the people from each other and the government".

Which is it? Do laws and the constitution protect us (i.e. make us safer) or do they not make us safer (i.e. protect us)???

You're contradicting yourself.


Again, you're contradicting yourself. Earlier, you said we live in a society where "...people have freedom to make their own choices, whether good or bad. There are consequences (personal and legal) for making bad choices, but we still have the freedom to make them."

Now, you're saying, "You can't violate the constitutional rights of others in order to make yourself safer or more comfortable unless you want others to be able to do the same to you."

Which is it? Do we have the freedom to make our own choices, whether good or bad, with consequences? Or we CAN'T violate the constitutional rights of others, with consequences? Which is it?


Sure, and if you're scared of drunk drivers, thieves, murderers, rapists, the government, etc. then you should protect yourself - why do we need laws or a constitution? You say in one breath laws and government protect us and in the next breath you're saying we have to protect ourselves because nothing else protects us. Which is it?


Gathering in a bar IS illegal where I live, but nobody is infringing on my constitutional rights, either.

I can't seem to have a discussion with you because you are on both sides of the argument, flip-flopping from one side to the other when it suits what you want to say.

So first, please make your position clear:
A. Nothing can protect us so laws and constitution are not necessary since they don't protect us (because "nothing" can protect us).
OR
B. Laws and constitution protect us therefore we should have the Constitution and laws in place to protect us, even if they don't fully protect us, because they mostly protect us.

Which is your position? A or B? You can't hold 2 diametrically opposed positions.

I think you're trying to make what I said seem more confusing and contradictory than it is because you don't like my position.

Every country needs laws, obviously, to maintain order, and we sacrifice some of our own personal liberty to do whatever we please for the sake of protection from those who would do us wrong with their own free will, in order to have a harmonious and healthy society.

Anarchy doesn't make for a healthy society; neither does totalitarianism. Most people recognize this and desire neither.

The limits of the laws enacted by our goverment are set by our constitution. If people decide that they no longer like the constitution of this country, they have two options: Petition the government to amend the constitution, or find a country whose laws and constitution they like better.

What they don't have the right to do---according to our government, which they agree to obey as a condition of their citizenship and its rights and benefits---is break the law or infringe on the constitutional rights of their fellow citizens.

People gathering in a bar are not breaking the law or infringing on your constitutional rights. So, if you don't like their personal choices, you can choose to do differently yourself and protect your own person and property from what you feel is a threat to your health and safety from other people who are doing what they choose to do with the same rights that you enjoy and would not want taken away.

 

[revanneosl]

All the legislation in the world can't fix stupid.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

I think you're trying to make what I said seem more confusing and contradictory than it is because you don't like my position.

Well first, you made the contradictory statements. I quoted them and they are clearly contradictory and they are your own words. Beyond that, the words you choose to use are hyperbolic and extreme which only makes your self-contradictions that much more stark. You can't blame me for your own words so you shouldn't be trying to blame me.

Every country needs laws, obviously, to maintain order, and we sacrifice some of our own personal liberty to do whatever we please for the sake of protection from those who would do us wrong with their own free will, in order to have a harmonious and healthy society.

Here you're saying people have limited personal liberties (i.e. freedom) but earlier you said "people have freedom to make their own choices, whether good or bad. There are consequences (personal and legal) for making bad choices, but we still have the freedom to make them."

So you're contradicting yourself again. We have freedom to make any choice or we sacrificed some of those freedoms to not be able to make that choice?

Anarchy doesn't make for a healthy society; neither does totalitarianism. Most people recognize this and desire neither.

The limits of the laws enacted by our goverment are set by our constitution. If people decide that they no longer like the constitution of this country, they have two options: Petition the government to amend the constitution, or find a country whose laws and constitution they like better.

So now you're mixing your two earlier contradictory statements and saying there is a mix of freedom and limits on freedom. With that, I agree. So it's a matter of what those limits should or shouldn't be.

What they don't have the right to do---according to our government, which they agree to obey as a condition of their citizenship and its rights and benefits---is break the law or infringe on the constitutional rights of their fellow citizens.

Correct. That's why laws prohibiting gathering in places like bars and restaurants are Constitutional - they protect the rights of the general population to not become infected. I'm glad you agree with that.

People gathering in a bar are not breaking the law or infringing on your constitutional rights. So, if you don't like their personal choices, you can choose to do differently yourself and protect your own person and property from what you feel is a threat to your health and safety from other people who are doing what they choose to do with the same rights that you enjoy and would not want taken away.

In Wisconsin they're not. In my state they would be breaking the law. In both cases, though, they're infringing on my Constitutional rights. I don't like their personal choices but I can't avoid infected people when I don't know who they are, and they won't tell me that they went to a bar and got infected, so there has to be law and order to protect those of us who are not reckless. It's no different from a drunk driver - they can argue that their drinking and driving doesn't affect me but the possibility that it COULD affect me and even kill me is why we have laws against it. Same with gathering the way these people are in a bar - that action could end up affecting me and many others, and even killing us.

 

[pitabread]

It's dangerous to reopen because people have free will to do as they choose. That's the nature of a free society at any time. The alternative is to live in a place like North Korea

Of fer the love of... Things are not *that* binary. Yeesh.

 

[pitabread]

If you're scared, protect yourself. You have control over your own body and your own movements. You don't have control over your neighbors'.

This sounds all well and good except when you are dealing with a highly transmissible virus during a pandemic. At which point irresponsible behavior of certain individuals can and do have an impact on other individuals.

People don't live in perfect isolation from one another. That's simply not how a society works.

(On a related note, I assume you must be fine with things like legalized drugs and gay marriage, yes? Since we don't want to control our neighbors' bodies 'n stuff.)

 

[keith99]

Fortunately all milk products in the store I shop at are reasonably local.

People have not been allowed to urinate and defecate wherever they please for centuries. Over 20 of them if one bothers to check the Bible.

Personally I don't go to bars much. I have better stuff at home if I want to drink and I have enough to last out a multi year true lockdown. Clearly going to a bar is not a protected right as they are illegal aside from recent events in many places. Sort of a bummer going on a distillery tour and only being able to drink lemonade.

 

[expos4ever]

deleted own post.