The bailey - absolute central government control, is threatened.
So they retreat into the motte to weather the attack. The motte in this case being “locality”. As soon as it has been weathered, back to the bailey.
I see you @Jezcoe I know this manipulation and not having it.
Same exact thing with CRT:
They got caught. Back to the motte (obscure, post graduate legal theory! Just law!)
As soon as it dies down - 2nd grade social studies “The US is inherently racist and you white boy, are unconsciously biased in about 9 different ways”.
I did that to some extent in my OP. I’ll post what I said again:
If someone doesn’t have COVID they can’t spread the virus.
In this inquiry I would like to focus on number 3 first. I looked at the national numbers and took the day with the largest number of daily cases and multiplied that by 14 (since that’s the generally agreed upon days for one to recover). Divided that by the total population and that gave me a number of 1.3% as a general daily infection rate (until we go through another year with the Delta variant + vaccines, that could change). In other words in any given sociological setting only one or two people out of 100 would potentially have COVID (assuming there’s a relatively low number of people who are infected but asymptomatic). So one could make the case that >98% of mask wearing is doing nothing to prevent the spread of the virus.
The unknown as I’ve been pointing out is how effective is a mask at containing COVID when an infected person is wearing it for 8 to 10 hours straight? Sure a mask could very well be effective if you’re in a room with an infected person for 5 minutes, but what if you are in a room with an infected person for 3 hours? What percent of the virus is contained in the particular mask and for how long?
I could absolutely make the case that 99% (or more) is ineffective because the studies on the efficacy of masks does not account for the numerous variables one experiences in uncontrolled large public settings.
Yes they do. They can either wear a mask themselves, or quit. You know, like the employees that refuse an employer mandated vaccine. Actually in NJ it’s better to be fired than quit. They get unemployment.
Because in moments of lucidity things like what is posted above happen.
All of this arguing against the effectiveness of masks or vaccines… it is done knowing that it is nonsense.
This is all an exercise… some play acting really.
Right now in Orlando there they are begging people to cut back on water usage because they are running out of oxygen. That is a real world consequence that could have been avoided.
Viruses don’t give a ■■■■ about any of this.
No one gives a crap about your "motte and baily’ rhetoric. It is all for play.
Failure to follow the employers safety protocols would fall under a misconduct discharge v. a gross misconduct discharge. Under a misconduct discharge the EE wouldn’t be eligible for unemployment for 5 weeks after termination.
At that point they are eligible for benefits up to 60% of the wages to a maximum of $713 (which may be slightly higher now). On top of that the additional $600 in federal unemployment expires the first week in September.
So no income for 5 weeks and income reduced to 60% (or a little over $700 a week) and on top of that loss of benefits? Not a smart move.
I know this manipulation and not having it.