Open letter from a Texas county judge about his Covid mask order(kfdm.com)
kfdm.com
Open letter from a Texas county judge about his Covid mask order
https://kfdm.com/news/local/judge-branick-writes-letter-to-citizens-explaining-mask-order
56 comments
The entire point of civil society is to allow people to exist with one another. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that wearing a yellow shirt in public instantly kills 5% of the population. I think that anyone would agree that it would be a good law to make it illegal for someone to wear yellow shirts. In fact we would probably make it just as illegal as pointing a gun at someone and shooting them in cold blood. Because, well, that's what you would be doing wearing a yellow shirt (except even more people would die from the shirt).
So if society's main goal is to make it so that we can live peacefully amongst each other. Then by golly we should have the ability to make it illegal to walk around with a yellow shirt on. In fact it would be so insane to put on a yellow shirt we should have no fear in telling cops (the ones that survive the yellow shirt murderer) to arrest, incarcerate for life said person.
Now, I get that society is hard to change. In this so called Yellow Shirt Means Death world, the meaning and outcome of wearing a yellow shirt has existed forever. So it would be ingrained in everyone. Yellow shirts = fucking bad news.
So let's alter this and present a challenge: Yellow shirts didn't start causing this problem until March of 2020. And to make it even stranger, the death happens 30 days after being in the presence of a yellow shirt. But still 5% die. And now you have all sorts of wacko people that don't fucking care and put on yellow shirts anyway.
Some percentage of society has never seen one of these people die, so they don't believe the yellow shirt causes it. Some of them wearing yellow shirts may have killed people but the person that died 30 days later so it has no effect on them. They don't even know they killed someone.
Anyway, if you didn't read between the lines, I'm saying arrest and jail those that don't wear a mask - because at this point, everyone knows what happens.
So if society's main goal is to make it so that we can live peacefully amongst each other. Then by golly we should have the ability to make it illegal to walk around with a yellow shirt on. In fact it would be so insane to put on a yellow shirt we should have no fear in telling cops (the ones that survive the yellow shirt murderer) to arrest, incarcerate for life said person.
Now, I get that society is hard to change. In this so called Yellow Shirt Means Death world, the meaning and outcome of wearing a yellow shirt has existed forever. So it would be ingrained in everyone. Yellow shirts = fucking bad news.
So let's alter this and present a challenge: Yellow shirts didn't start causing this problem until March of 2020. And to make it even stranger, the death happens 30 days after being in the presence of a yellow shirt. But still 5% die. And now you have all sorts of wacko people that don't fucking care and put on yellow shirts anyway.
Some percentage of society has never seen one of these people die, so they don't believe the yellow shirt causes it. Some of them wearing yellow shirts may have killed people but the person that died 30 days later so it has no effect on them. They don't even know they killed someone.
Anyway, if you didn't read between the lines, I'm saying arrest and jail those that don't wear a mask - because at this point, everyone knows what happens.
I don't like the analogy or the oversimplification of 5% @ 30 days, but I absolutely agree with the general notion. A person could be forgiven for not wearing a mask under innocent circumstances, but if somebody is willfully not wearing a mask due to identity politics, then not only are they are willfully endangering people, they're also doing it for incredibly petty, hateful reasons. There's not much worse behavior than that in civilization.
There is an important distinction to be made between 'should' and 'must'. A lot of laws are written around what people should do, then have unintended consequences because laws aren't advisory, they are requirements.
So in this case; I totally agree on what should happen. Everyone should be wearing a mask until there isn't a risk of hospitals being overrun. But it is extremely reasonable to push back when something transitions from "should do" to "must do". Particularly when the decision is precisely that the government is telling people how to dress.
And your analogy isn't a particularly good one, because the risks there are all substantially higher than the risks surrounding COVID-19.
So in this case; I totally agree on what should happen. Everyone should be wearing a mask until there isn't a risk of hospitals being overrun. But it is extremely reasonable to push back when something transitions from "should do" to "must do". Particularly when the decision is precisely that the government is telling people how to dress.
And your analogy isn't a particularly good one, because the risks there are all substantially higher than the risks surrounding COVID-19.
It's more like 0.5% if everyone gets infected and a large chunk of them will die anyway. Might as well arrest everyone who drives a car. The virus really isn't that deadly.
Before callously assuming the victims will die regardless of the virus, consider that many more may have permanent lung damage for life.
I've already heard that rumor. Numbers would be more interesting.
Well, don't know what we don't know. We DO know that 10M people have had it, and 500K have died. That's 5%. We're still guessing everything else.
> We DO know that 10M people have had it, and 500K have died. That's 5%. We're still guessing everything else.
No, the only thing we know is that 500K have died. At least 10M people have had it. 10M is the lower bound. The upper bound could be 30M+. How many cases are asymptomatic, or otherwise just untested/unreported? 5% is the upper bound for the mortality rate. Actual mortality rate is going to be significantly lower, perhaps even <1%.
No, the only thing we know is that 500K have died. At least 10M people have had it. 10M is the lower bound. The upper bound could be 30M+. How many cases are asymptomatic, or otherwise just untested/unreported? 5% is the upper bound for the mortality rate. Actual mortality rate is going to be significantly lower, perhaps even <1%.
This is nonsense. There have been multiple studies where everyone in a place was tested to eliminate the dark figure.
[deleted]
Your premise is flawed. Yellow shirts don't kill people. Not wearing a mask does not kill people. Letting a TSA officer fondle your groin doesn't save people's lives. It's all security theater.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
>"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Whether or not you think masks help, this is wildly over-dramatic thing to say about an order to wear a mask in public temporarily. I'd even say it disrespects the quote.
Whether or not you think masks help, this is wildly over-dramatic thing to say about an order to wear a mask in public temporarily. I'd even say it disrespects the quote.
Your response is flawed. Not wearing a mask is not an essential liberty.
And yes, if large numbers of Americans don't wear masks, that will kill more people than would die if we all wore our masks. It's not theater.
And yes, if large numbers of Americans don't wear masks, that will kill more people than would die if we all wore our masks. It's not theater.
>> Not wearing a mask does not kill people.
This is demonstrably false, as we now know for a fact that wearing a mask does reduce the risk of both catching the virus yourself and transmitting it to other people. Even if you don't care about your own well-being, common courtesy dictates you should care about the well-being of others. Failing to do so may indeed get them killed.
This is demonstrably false, as we now know for a fact that wearing a mask does reduce the risk of both catching the virus yourself and transmitting it to other people. Even if you don't care about your own well-being, common courtesy dictates you should care about the well-being of others. Failing to do so may indeed get them killed.
arzel(1)
For many outside of it, even from 'cousin colonies' (I'm in Australia) there is much about the USA that is simply bewildering.
I can recommend Kurt Andersen's book 'Fantasyland', published around the time of Trump's ascension, to help you make some small sense of it all.
He writes persuasively, and describes a history full of (perceived) persecution and exceptionalism-inspiring events that, almost ineluctably, led them here.
"America was the dreamworld creation of fantasists, some religious and some out to get rich quick, all with a freakish appetite for the amazing. Beyond our passionate beliefs in various kinds of magic and destiny, our particular religious DNA, supercharged, was the source of other defining American habits of mind as well, such as the craving for the mysterious to be literal, and the hair-trigger sensitivity to persecution by elites. In addition to being the first designed-built Protestant nation, America was also the first designed-built Enlightenment nation. The two fed each other—and sometimes became toxic in combination."
[0] https://www.kurtandersen.com/fantasyland
I can recommend Kurt Andersen's book 'Fantasyland', published around the time of Trump's ascension, to help you make some small sense of it all.
He writes persuasively, and describes a history full of (perceived) persecution and exceptionalism-inspiring events that, almost ineluctably, led them here.
"America was the dreamworld creation of fantasists, some religious and some out to get rich quick, all with a freakish appetite for the amazing. Beyond our passionate beliefs in various kinds of magic and destiny, our particular religious DNA, supercharged, was the source of other defining American habits of mind as well, such as the craving for the mysterious to be literal, and the hair-trigger sensitivity to persecution by elites. In addition to being the first designed-built Protestant nation, America was also the first designed-built Enlightenment nation. The two fed each other—and sometimes became toxic in combination."
[0] https://www.kurtandersen.com/fantasyland
Lawyers are good at writing.
Not all judges are lawyers. Most are, but in the US it is not always a prerequisite.
Haven't we established that ~1/3 of covid cases are asymptomatic and that overall mortality rate is likely <1%? If so, why are we continuing the mask charade?
Because when the cost is essentially zero it's okay to be a little overzealous with our prevention efforts.
And your numbers are still very much up for debate. Some localities are already above 1% without having infected the entire population.
And your numbers are still very much up for debate. Some localities are already above 1% without having infected the entire population.
> Because when the cost is essentially zero it's okay to be a little overzealous with our prevention efforts.
We can impose all sort of inconveniences on society in the name of saving lives. Why not just wear masks 24/7/365 since it's "free"? Think of all the public health issues that would solve.
I for one am sick of having foggy glasses any time I'm inside a store.
We can impose all sort of inconveniences on society in the name of saving lives. Why not just wear masks 24/7/365 since it's "free"? Think of all the public health issues that would solve.
I for one am sick of having foggy glasses any time I'm inside a store.
What is your threshold of acceptable mortality before you will accept nonzero inconvenience?
1% mortality rate is my threshold. Anything less isn't worth halting society over. To be clear, I think people that are sick should wear masks no matter what. That's just common courtesy for people around you.
We were talking about masks, not halting society.
Thanks for explaining the reasoning behind the mask order.
Sick people (according to your own words about 1/3 of them) may not know That they are sick.
So if the sick should wear masks this can only be ensured if everyone wears a mask.
Sick people (according to your own words about 1/3 of them) may not know That they are sick.
So if the sick should wear masks this can only be ensured if everyone wears a mask.
> I think people that are sick should wear masks no matter what.
That would seem to be a conundrum, since you said earlier that you think there may be a 1/3 asymptomatic rate.
That would seem to be a conundrum, since you said earlier that you think there may be a 1/3 asymptomatic rate.
It has to do with the hospitals filling up with Covid patients, as they are in Texas, Arizona, and Florida now (easily findable headlines, I won’t bother citing). If hospitals fill up and people can’t be treated (for Covid or other ailments) more people die.
The other part is masks reduce transmission of Covid by “up to 85%” according to the WHO. So you put those two together and it’s a good public health policy.
The other part is masks reduce transmission of Covid by “up to 85%” according to the WHO. So you put those two together and it’s a good public health policy.
Because people are irrational panicky animals.
Historically speaking perceived government overreach is followed by backlash of some sort. In life, we’re all playing the long game. I question the wisdom of some of the health orders in the long run.
Interesting. There are cases where witnesses have been specifically banned from using masks to hide themselves. Americans have a right to see the face of their accuser, and to have the jury see it too. I'm all for covid masks but let us not allow this to become an excuse for an evil witness to hide thier face.
> Americans have a right to see the face of their accuser, and to have the jury see it too.
Americans have the right to face their accuser in court not to literally see the face of their accuser in its entirety.
If the latter were an actual thing, all plaintiffs would be required to go into court clean-shaven, so as not to obscure their face with a beard.
Americans have the right to face their accuser in court not to literally see the face of their accuser in its entirety.
If the latter were an actual thing, all plaintiffs would be required to go into court clean-shaven, so as not to obscure their face with a beard.
No. I meant literal. This issue come up when a witness wants to appear by phone. There is a cultural assumption that by looking someone in the eye we can tell if they are lying. So phone is not good enough. It has to be phone+video. It has also been an issue where witnesses, mostly women, want to were veils while on the stand.
This principal hasn't gotten to scotus, but is well recognized.
And procedures for child witnesses appearing outside the courtroom. A speaker on the stand is not good enough. Someone, at least the lawyers, has to see the witness. That has gone to a few higher courts.
And special agents who don't want to reveal thier identities.. and and and. There isn't much new when it comes to witnesses.
This principal hasn't gotten to scotus, but is well recognized.
And procedures for child witnesses appearing outside the courtroom. A speaker on the stand is not good enough. Someone, at least the lawyers, has to see the witness. That has gone to a few higher courts.
And special agents who don't want to reveal thier identities.. and and and. There isn't much new when it comes to witnesses.
> There is a cultural assumption that by looking someone in the eye we can tell if they are lying. So phone is not good enough. It has to be phone+video.
I only had to Google for a minute to find plenty of instances where courts will allow testimony over the phone (no video) and even by letter, and nowhere did I see "cultural assumptions" like determining truth by being able to look into someone's eyes mentioned as relevant.
Show me actual case law to the contrary or I'm calling BS on your claims.
I only had to Google for a minute to find plenty of instances where courts will allow testimony over the phone (no video) and even by letter, and nowhere did I see "cultural assumptions" like determining truth by being able to look into someone's eyes mentioned as relevant.
Show me actual case law to the contrary or I'm calling BS on your claims.
https://attorneyatlawmagazine.com/telephonic-testimony-when-...
Too many little rules and exemptions to cite any one case. Look to the rules in each jurisdiction.
>> The Tennessee Supreme Court has addressed the reasons why live, in-person testimony is more desirable than remote testimony. Kelly v. Kelly, 445 SW3d 685 (2014) explains this preference: “(1) It assists the trier of fact in evaluating the witness’ credibility by allowing his or her demeanor to be observed firsthand; (2) It helps establish the identity of the witness; (3) It impresses upon the witness the seriousness of the occasion; (4) It assures that the witness is not being coerced during testimony; (5) It assures that the witness is not referring to documents improperly; and (6) In cases where required, it provides for the right of confrontation of witnesses.
Note: in SOME cases in-person testimony is REQUIRED. That means in those cases remote testimony is disallowed.
Too many little rules and exemptions to cite any one case. Look to the rules in each jurisdiction.
>> The Tennessee Supreme Court has addressed the reasons why live, in-person testimony is more desirable than remote testimony. Kelly v. Kelly, 445 SW3d 685 (2014) explains this preference: “(1) It assists the trier of fact in evaluating the witness’ credibility by allowing his or her demeanor to be observed firsthand; (2) It helps establish the identity of the witness; (3) It impresses upon the witness the seriousness of the occasion; (4) It assures that the witness is not being coerced during testimony; (5) It assures that the witness is not referring to documents improperly; and (6) In cases where required, it provides for the right of confrontation of witnesses.
Note: in SOME cases in-person testimony is REQUIRED. That means in those cases remote testimony is disallowed.
One court considering in person testimony to be more desirable is not in any way equivalent to a decision that doing otherwise is a violation of anyone's rights. You haven't proven that a right exists, nor does the article defend that claim. You've proven that it's an administrative matter that different jurisdictions handle differently depending on circumstances, but still perfectly legal.
Certainly you haven't proven your original assertion that wearing a mask according to COVID-19 guidelines is a violation of Americans' Sixth Amendment rights (the "right to face their accuser") because that argument depends on a blatant misinterpretation of what the wording of that Amendment means.
Certainly you haven't proven your original assertion that wearing a mask according to COVID-19 guidelines is a violation of Americans' Sixth Amendment rights (the "right to face their accuser") because that argument depends on a blatant misinterpretation of what the wording of that Amendment means.
This all seems irrelevant. Suppose, at a trial, a defendant made a motion to compel a plaintiff’s witness to remove their mask. This would not necessarily be a problem: the witness could appear by closed circuit video, behind glass, or merely a respectable distance from everyone else. There is no reason that seeing a witness’ face should involve any material risk of COVID-19 transmission.
On the flip side, you certainly have no right to see anyone’s face in public. If you go somewhere very cold, many people will wear scarves or other face coverings to stay warm. This does not result in any sort of breakdown of social order.
On the flip side, you certainly have no right to see anyone’s face in public. If you go somewhere very cold, many people will wear scarves or other face coverings to stay warm. This does not result in any sort of breakdown of social order.
Witnesses wear hijabs etc. sometimes.
edit: I think I’m wrong in the conclusion I drew here.
edit: I think I’m wrong in the conclusion I drew here.
Some do. Some don't. It is an area where the judge and accused have some latitude depending on the nature of the testimony. If the arguement is made that the hijab is being used to conceal something, a judge will order it removed.
The point is that if it happens sometimes, there’s no constitutional prohibition against it happening.
No. The right exists in narrow circumstances and, if asserted by the accused, will be respected. Just because someone has a right to something doesn't meant it must always happen. Rights can be asserted or not. Waived or not.
You may be right.
When our society abandoned values in favor of individuals simply valuing themselves. Our world and the incentive and reward systems we have in place have made us selfish loners.
Roger Scruton argues something similar but from an art / aesthetics perspective in Why Beauty Matters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHw4MMEnmpc
Sadly the only link I can find is with Portuguese subtitles, so hope you don't mind