Second Turnback This Week Due to Unruly Pax

[ATLcrew]

And absolutely nothing will. But the flaw in your argument is that this is not about personal freedoms, it is about the things we must share and rely upon, such as hospitals and medical resources. So your behavior affects my outcome and vice versa. There is a larger word for this: civilization. In history texts, the word is too often preceeded by 'downfall of'.

If this civilization gets brought down by the lack of masks on airplanes, then this civilization had no business existing in the first place.

[Gabriel]

But I also know how democracies are supposed to work. They are—as you pointed out—supposed to align with the will of the majority.
The majority wants masking mandates on public transportation to continue a bit longer.
In a democracy, when the ruling contradicts the will of the majority, it contradicts democracy, and is therefore undemocratic.
You're cool with that?

Democracy and Republic are actually ambiguous terms with multiple definitions and wide interpretations. To the point that you have a lot of Democratic Republics that are/were neither democratic nor republicans.

In the western interpretation and implementation, no, in a democracy the majority doesn't rule. Not that simply at least.

The elected officials rule, and their power to rule is limited by the constitutions and laws (federal and by state).
There are aslo checks and balances in place to ensure that the minorities have representation too.
And protecting the rights of everybody (including and specially of the minorities) is a central function of the government (all branches).

The type of democracy that you mention is where the majority of wolves vote to have sheep for dinner.

[Gabriel]

in the US, the 3 branches of government are meant to be separate and to act as a system of checks and balances. the US supreme court has the final say on everything. presidents are regularly told they have exceeded their authority. many laws are found to be unconstitutional. so it doesnt quite work the same way as in argie.

Except that, replace US by Argentina in that paragraph, and the paragraph still holds true. I mentioned 3 specific examples of how the executive branch can, in some cases, have a say on what are the powers of an agency (attributions that the constitution gives to executive branch, agencies created by the congress where the congress mandates the Executive defines the details, and voluntary delegation of attributions from the congress to the executive which by the way its constitutionality is being challenged by the court). That doesn't mean that the 3 branches are not separated, that there are no check and balances, that the Arg Supreme Court doesn't have the last say or that they don't call out presidents for exciding their authority or find laws to be unconstitutional.

Since you said:

ALL (meaning every effin one no matter how big or small important or useless, no matter if there is a pandemic or war) govt agencies get their power from congress. not the president

... I was wondering if the aforementioned "exceptions" (to call them somehow) didn't exist in the USA (and note that the last 2 examples, agencies created by law where the law itself gives attributions to the executive in defining the details of the authority of the agency, and laws passed by congress delegating congress attributions to the executive) are not even real counterexamples since it is the congress who is deciding to open the door to the executive.

But I suppose that I have gone WAAAAAYYYYYYY off topic, so better ignore me.

[Gabriel]

I expect that everybody realizes that, although we are "o'er the land of the free", living in an organized society / civilization implies giving up freedoms in the name of organization and some peace of mind, under the expectation of abiding by some rules (i.e. giving up our freedom to do whatever we want) we will be pursuing the "common good" and that common good will imply a better individual experience at least for the vast majority.

[TeeVee]

Yes it was, but not originally. The original temporary moratorium was imposed by Congress (as part of the CARES Act) but it lapsed in July 2020. The CDC then felt it necessary to step in... for the purpose of controlling disease.The fundamental tenets of Covid containment under the CDC were social distancing, lockdowns and quarantine, none of which can be accomplished by people living on the street or being crowded into shelters or the homes of others. Therefore, in order for these CDC directives to remain tenable, people had to remain tenants. The Supreme Court then struck down the CDC moratorium extension in an astonishlingly cynical summary ruling, voting, of course, right down party lines:


And there you have it. American dysfunction at one of its most vile and reprehensible moments. Look away... Look away...

first of all, congress also put up money to pay for that bullshit, so landlords weren't completely screwed. even so, i wonder if that would have passed constitutional muster since landlord-tenant law is pretty much 100% state law. that is definitely way over your head.

in evan's world, the cdc clearly has limitless power over all aspects of life. you know, because they are scientists. damn the laws, suspend the constitution. dissolve govt.

[Evan]

Oh, come on, it's easy. If the majority wanted the masks to stay in place, then it would
stand to reason that the majority of the guests on my flights since the order was lifted would be wearing masks, correct? Or else, where is this "majority"?

Polls use a sophisticated design to gauge public opinion of entire populations from a modest sample group. They are a science in themselves. The polls show a majority but not a vast majority favor masks. That can result in the majority of people not wearing masks in your experience. But this local margin of error is why so much thought has gone into the science of polling national populations.

Anyway, I only brought in the poll data to refute TeeVee’s unfounded claim that the majority supported ending the mask mandate. And his waffling insistence that the majority rules (until it doesn’t go his way).

it’s not the lack of masks on airplanes that could bring society down. It’s panic, chaos and violence over confusion and scarce resources. We saw a bit of that during the pandemic. Without the measures put into place by the CDC, we might very well have seen a critical breakdown of civic order.

cause —-> effect

[ATLcrew]

Polls use a sophisticated design to gauge public opinion of entire populations from a modest sample group. They are a science in themselves. The polls show a majority but not a vast majority favor masks. That can result in the majority of people not wearing masks in your experience. But this local margin of error is why so much thought has gone into the science of polling national populations.

Anyway, I only brought in the poll data to refute TeeVee’s unfounded claim that the majority supported ending the mask mandate. And his waffling insistence that the majority rules (until it doesn’t go his way).

it’s not the lack of masks on airplanes that could bring society down. It’s panic, chaos and violence over confusion and scarce resources. We saw a bit of that during the pandemic. Without the measures put into place by the CDC, we might very well have seen a critical breakdown of civic order.

cause —-> effect

At the very best, the majority of THOSE WHO WERE POLLED support masks (I'm not even sure that's true but I'm willing to stipulate). As for THOSE WHO ARE ACTUALLY FLYING, mask support appears to hover right around 5% based on observation of ACTUAL BEHAVIOR.

In general, I've never placed much faith in what people say, in polls or otherwise. I find what people actually do to be FAR more indicative.

[Evan]

At the very best, the majority of THOSE WHO WERE POLLED support masks (I'm not even sure that's true but I'm willing to stipulate). As for THOSE WHO ARE ACTUALLY FLYING, mask support appears to hover right around 5% based on observation of ACTUAL BEHAVIOR.

In general, I've never placed much faith in what people say, in polls or otherwise. I find what people actually do to be FAR more indicative.

You know... I'm seeing the misunderstanding here.

Indeed, it is very possible, even very likely that the majority of people who are flying, especially frequent flyers, oppose the mask requirement. I won't even bother to contest that assumption. That would explain what you are seeing as an airline pilot.

However, this isn't just about them. the consequences affect all people in society. Most significantly, they could further prolong the pandemic or even give rise to new waves, new lockdowns, the whole neverending story.

Allowing people who fly to decide whether to impose a mask mandate on airplanes is like allowing people who drive to decide the speed limit on residential streets.

Can't you understand that? The majority of the total population support extending the mask mandate on airplanes a bit longer. Because it affects everybody.

Any legal ruling should consider and respect that majority will as well as the medical resources of the nation.

[ATLcrew]

Noted.

[3WE]

https://youtu.be/ig446isvXlI

[TeeVee]

You know... I'm seeing the misunderstanding here.

Indeed, it is very possible, even very likely that the majority of people who are flying, especially frequent flyers, oppose the mask requirement. I won't even bother to contest that assumption. That would explain what you are seeing as an airline pilot.

However, this isn't just about them. the consequences affect all people in society. Most significantly, they could further prolong the pandemic or even give rise to new waves, new lockdowns, the whole neverending story.

Allowing people who fly to decide whether to impose a mask mandate on airplanes is like allowing people who drive to decide the speed limit on residential streets.

Can't you understand that? The majority of the total population support extending the mask mandate on airplanes a bit longer. Because it affects everybody.

Any legal ruling should consider and respect that majority will as well as the medical resources of the nation.

yeah, you're right. a lot of science goes into polling, especially the poll you cited. you know, the one by the company that pays its respondents to respond? yeah, the science behind that is how little do we have to pay these losers before they refuse to respond.

you give the polled WAAAAAAYY too much credit.

and YOU are the one whining about how the law should change based on opinion and what YOU believe to be the best interests of everyone. all hail king evan! instead of wasting your time trying to convince strangers (you're all near and dear to me anyway), you should be putting your efforts into a grassroots movement to have the law changed. THAT, my friend is how our democracy works.

but while we are on the topic, let's talk about how screwed up the cdc is and how they cannot seem to get their message straight.

https://www.aaha.org/publications/newstat/articles/2020-03/cdc-an-about-face-on-face-masks/

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/cdc-indoor-masking-no-longer-necessary-us-rcna17686

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertpearl/2021/08/10/what-the-cdc-isnt-telling-you-about-masks-is-terrifying/?sh=6062ceea33d2

the last post is very interesting....

mind you, i do not subscribe to everything written in the above articles. my point is, the cdc is inept. i don't believe any judge should bend over backwards to uphold an illegal rule put in place by sch an inept group of people.

[Evan]

but while we are on the topic, let's talk about how screwed up the cdc is and how they cannot seem to get their message straight.

https://www.aaha.org/publications/ne...on-face-masks/

Did you even read that? It tells about how the CDC director was revisiting the mask ADVICE due to NEW INFORMATION coming from the Chinese CDC about asymptomatic transmission. That is not ineptitude but quite the opposite: that is vigilance and adaptation.

You seem to forget that this is a NOVEL coronavirus. That means it is a brand new threat that we haven’t encountered before. Health agencies can only react based on knowledge as it evolves. And that is exactly what the CDC did.

Remember the Republican mantra of ‘flip-flopping’? They would launch this spear at anyone who ever reconsidered their position on anything. The conservative opinion was that, once one has formed a position, no amount of evolution or new information should ever alter that position. This is very telling. ‘Flip-flopping’ is part of the intellectual and scientific process whereas ‘Stay the Course’ is stubborn adherence to past ignorance.

So let us express our gratitude to the CDC for ‘flip-flopping’ as our understanding of the virus evolved. They saved countless lives by doing so.

i don't believe any judge should bend over backwards to uphold an illegal rule put in place by sch an inept group of people.

But you do believe a judge should bend over forwards to strike down a health protection measure by the Center for Disease Control during the most deadly pandemic in living history involving a virus we are still struggling to understand.

The mind reels…

[3WE]

NOVEL

Not really. Microbes (and weed seed and roaches). Numbers.

[BoeingBobby]

Hey Admin, how about just shut this thread down.

[3WE]

How about not.

FWIW, the plexiglass “walls” have disappeared from the grocery store.

Also, FWIW: I’m worried that we are recoiling psychologically, and too much, from being TOLD what to do.

Should the grocery checker, or flight attendants still wear masks since they face LOTS of microbe-spewing public?

Should FAs and Pilots say that the CDC, Evan, Bobby, and Gabriel strongly recommend mask usage?

As stated 14 times, the Japanese wore masks long before CoVid-8-236a

But, also, as stated, too many times, there was too much marketing and politics involved…from day 1. We had an election to win!