I don't see why this would be a problem. Just arrest anyone you find violating the orders. If I walked down to the local beach I would be arrested. I don't see why you would treat luxury goods retailers differently.
Does logic / science no longer apply in public health?
So yes, logic does apply.
Seriously - I have always been a law and order person - but seeing acres and acres wide open space, that is totally uncrowded at all times (even weekends before covid) now off limits because of some bogus risk evaluation is ridiculous.
And no - I do not go grocery shopping AT ALL in two months. I ordered online very early, leave the food outside for 3 days after delivery, wash packages etc.
The govt has absolutely lost its mind with this horrendous logic. The reality - we have to believe there is some basis in the closure of things (clearly clubs / bars / social gatherings make sense) or people are going to stop putting up with 100% stupidity.
Shutting down huge outdoor spaces within walking distances of folks houses is the dumbest thing I've heard. Now we are all crowded on sidewalks.
And no - I cannot go and get tested even if I'm willing to pay because I can't certify I have the severity level of systems needed and a doctors order, and oh, the FDA and CDC blocked everyone from doing tests for a long time.
Let me give govt some suggestions.
Allow people to pay, out of pocket, with no doctors order for testing if they want to. Do free testing for folks who have a doctors order and meet your severe symptoms criteria.
Where is the contact tracing?
Focus the lockdown on high risk activities - not shutting down beaches. You are seriously going to lose the trust of folks with this stupidity.
It does not, it has become a political issue and the dominant people/politics of today are so stupid that they simply align as for or against something largely driven to oppose the other side.
In Czechia, there was stay-at-home order since half of march, but one of few exceptions was movement in parks or nature. But with face masks, no socializing and keeping 2m distance from others.
I don't want to live in a police state where local authorities can arbitrarily wield such broad powers.
People cheer for fascism when it aligns with their own ideas.
You can think that shutting most things down is a good idea and that it's a good idea for your government not to have that power at the same time. Not too many people do though.
You have to be aware that people are going to pick on this line.
If you think locking down during exceptional circumstances to save lives (and the economy) is Fascism then I have bridge to sell you.
Globally, politicians are not out to get you, frankly my prime minister was dead set against locking down (for economic reasons) but when the forecasts came in he relented very viscerally. You have to understand on some level that nearly every government (with the notable exception of Sweden) has reacted similarly to this pandemic.
The Economic impact of the increased deaths of this magnitude (and second factors such as normally preventable deaths which are not handled due to an over-capacity health system) would cause such economic upheaval that society might break down.
From the most self-serving politician to the most charitable; one thing they will agree on is to maintain the status quo in some form and that is put at risk if we reach 1918 levels of deaths (or higher).
I highly recommend the Dark Winter study by Johns Hopkins[0], it's exceptionally well researched and goes into detail about how fragile we've built the world to be.
For example: "Just-in-time" is the latest incarnation of capitalist efficiency that leaves very little capacity to function if there is a large disruption.
The test largely focused on an intentional outbreak of smallpox, but they wrote extensively about variable mortality and the r-naught value and how the effects work when you slide those scales.
I truly resent being told I’m cheering for fascism because I don’t want my friends or family, or myself, to die from a highly contagious disease. I can only imagine that the same people calling this collective effort against community transmission of this virus fascism would have also called the orientation of all industries to the war effort during WWII fascism.
Fascism to me is sending people to work during a pandemic because the bottom line is being affected. “We’re all in this together,” and the workers aren’t pulling their weight.
The power to deny an businessowner from forcing their employees to produce luxury cars during a pandemic is a reasonable government power that's far from fascism.
What about the current pandemic seems arbitrary? Things can be bad in one context and okay in another. Like freedom of speech, which is a fundamental right (except for things putting people in danger like falsely screaming fire in a crowded theater).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
> The original wording used in Holmes's opinion ("falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic") highlights that speech that is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true.
> The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
The atlantic has a decent write up https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim... or the ACLU https://www.aclu.org/other/speech-campus under the "Q: But isn't it true you can't shout fire in a crowded theater?" header.
The the advocation against war was deigned on the fact that you're "in danger". The fight against the government was about the sliding scale of the remit, not about the original statement being "legal" or not.
Incitement is a real crime, if you knowingly falsely shout "fire" or "he's got a gun" then you're guilty of inciting panic[0].
It is unequivocolly not legal to _knowingly_ and _falsely_ incite panic.
Though, proving that might be difficult, and it appears to be a misdemeanour charge, if it leads to death you can be sure you will be tried for manslaughter.
> Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.
The point is that freedom of speech isn't universal and context matters.
The state putting the safety of their workers before its own strength, misguided as one may think it is, is one of the furthest things from fascism.
2. Putting them in jail is actually worse for their health than almost any other activity.
3. IANAL but I doubt many of the local orders would hold up in a higher court.
Management should be held responsible--not the workers.
This is instead on private property and probably protected under free assembly.
The free assembly clause is specifically to allow you to assemble in protest against your government.
It would be a bit of a stretch to call going to work a protest against your government.
In this case, if it were to go toward the interpretation as protest, it might actually not be that unreasonable. Musk in many ways views it as protest afaict.
All this said, IANAL.
Instead, cite them for the $1000 violation. Frequently.
I see across the street from me many people in a park daily despite signs everywhere saying 'Closed due to COVID.' The selfishness is maddening.