Elrich: We will have fewer activities open @ beginning of this summer than last summer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elrich - Missing the point that in a free society, the government should be least restrictive as possible, not the most. Rates are back to October and only headed downward with vaccines, but restrictions have not gone back to October levels.

Yes, but during a pandemic when individuals cannot take personal responsibility, we need the government to step in.

We obviously feel differently. But I think you're wrong. You may disagree with my risk threshold. But its still wrong to impose your risk threshold on me against my will

But then you are imposing your risk on other people.

In some ways, yes, every action anyone does may have an impact on anyone else in the community. Nothing we do happens in a vacuum.

But the difference between the two is that when I exercise my rights, you still have a choice in how you want to mitigate the risk and how you want to live according to your own personal risk threshold.

In the reverse, I have no choice, and your risk threshold is imposed on me.

There's a difference. If I was a saying 'yes, you must go to a gym. you must go to a restaurant. and you prohibited from wearing a mask', then that would be the opposite end of this spectrum.

DP. You don't even realize how self-centered your views are. You are rationalizing your less reponsible decisions by talking about risk mitigating - do you realize that the more risks YOU take, the more careful someone else has to be?
For example, if you insist on going somewhere without a mask, that means that the person who is higher-risk and takes things seriously won't be able to go out at all. Many people would just like to go for a masked walk in the park or go to their socially distant farmers market, but if you insist on going out unmasked and bringing your crowds stomping around everywhere and breathing all over the place, then you spoil it for the people who want to go out in public responsibly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elrich - Missing the point that in a free society, the government should be least restrictive as possible, not the most. Rates are back to October and only headed downward with vaccines, but restrictions have not gone back to October levels.

Yes, but during a pandemic when individuals cannot take personal responsibility, we need the government to step in.

I don't disagree, but the threat has to be SO GREAT, to allow the government to strip you of your rights. I know COVID was dangerous. And I know, over 1,000 people died in our county.

But still, that does not reach an appropriate level for us to allow the government to restrict us as they did.

At the end of this, we will have probably around 1500 dead from our county. And if we hadn't had the restrictions, maybe it would have been 2,000. or even 2,500. Even though that is sad, it does not warrant the overreach in response from the county government

We have never been stripped of our rights. You are being overly dramatic and unreasonable. We also had minimal restrictions. We were temporarily asked to stay home. Some businesses were closed or for restaurants carry out. If you cannot behave accordingly during a pandemic and need government to step in, it speaks volumes of who you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elrich - Missing the point that in a free society, the government should be least restrictive as possible, not the most. Rates are back to October and only headed downward with vaccines, but restrictions have not gone back to October levels.

Yes, but during a pandemic when individuals cannot take personal responsibility, we need the government to step in.

We obviously feel differently. But I think you're wrong. You may disagree with my risk threshold. But its still wrong to impose your risk threshold on me against my will

But then you are imposing your risk on other people.

In some ways, yes, every action anyone does may have an impact on anyone else in the community. Nothing we do happens in a vacuum.

But the difference between the two is that when I exercise my rights, you still have a choice in how you want to mitigate the risk and how you want to live according to your own personal risk threshold.

In the reverse, I have no choice, and your risk threshold is imposed on me.

There's a difference. If I was a saying 'yes, you must go to a gym. you must go to a restaurant. and you prohibited from wearing a mask', then that would be the opposite end of this spectrum.

The problem is most people don't care. They are the same ones in years past complaining about others selfish behavior and don't see that this is how kids who then become adults and have no sense of community responsibility. They don't care that their actions can greatly impact someone else's. So, COVID will continue thanks to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What activities. I only care about the pool, camps, and butlers orchard.

How to tell someone is from downcounty...

Lol I just moved here a few years ago. Tell me about “down county” is it an insult (genuinely curious). Am I like a city slicker?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elrich - Missing the point that in a free society, the government should be least restrictive as possible, not the most. Rates are back to October and only headed downward with vaccines, but restrictions have not gone back to October levels.

Yes, but during a pandemic when individuals cannot take personal responsibility, we need the government to step in.

I don't disagree, but the threat has to be SO GREAT, to allow the government to strip you of your rights. I know COVID was dangerous. And I know, over 1,000 people died in our county.

But still, that does not reach an appropriate level for us to allow the government to restrict us as they did.

At the end of this, we will have probably around 1500 dead from our county. And if we hadn't had the restrictions, maybe it would have been 2,000. or even 2,500. Even though that is sad, it does not warrant the overreach in response from the county government

We have never been stripped of our rights. You are being overly dramatic and unreasonable. We also had minimal restrictions. We were temporarily asked to stay home. Some businesses were closed or for restaurants carry out. If you cannot behave accordingly during a pandemic and need government to step in, it speaks volumes of who you are.

Well, as a small business owner who went from "thinking of expanding in the next 12 months" to going out of business. Yes, I had my rights taken away.

Also, just your friendly reminder, that the definition of pandemic does not include severity of the disease, and that pandemic only means that a contagious virus has crossed international borders. It's not a magic word that means we are all going to die

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What activities. I only care about the pool, camps, and butlers orchard.

How to tell someone is from downcounty...

Lol I just moved here a few years ago. Tell me about “down county” is it an insult (genuinely curious). Am I like a city slicker?

Lol. There is upcounty and downcounty. Downcounty is really two parts: SS/Takoma and the rich folks in Bethesda & Chevy Chase. Upcounty are the rednecks in Damascus (I'm obviously poking fun at people).

But I honestly didn't think anyone from MD even went to butlers; that its just DC plates in the parking lot. that's because its kind of a scam. They charge twice as much as the other local family owned farms and then the stuff in the store is the same stuff you can buy anywhere else.

There are some great farms only a few minutes further away. Farms that we frequent on an almost weekly basis to get fresh produce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elrich - Missing the point that in a free society, the government should be least restrictive as possible, not the most. Rates are back to October and only headed downward with vaccines, but restrictions have not gone back to October levels.

Yes, but during a pandemic when individuals cannot take personal responsibility, we need the government to step in.

We obviously feel differently. But I think you're wrong. You may disagree with my risk threshold. But its still wrong to impose your risk threshold on me against my will

But then you are imposing your risk on other people.

In some ways, yes, every action anyone does may have an impact on anyone else in the community. Nothing we do happens in a vacuum.

But the difference between the two is that when I exercise my rights, you still have a choice in how you want to mitigate the risk and how you want to live according to your own personal risk threshold.

In the reverse, I have no choice, and your risk threshold is imposed on me.

There's a difference. If I was a saying 'yes, you must go to a gym. you must go to a restaurant. and you prohibited from wearing a mask', then that would be the opposite end of this spectrum.

The problem is most people don't care. They are the same ones in years past complaining about others selfish behavior and don't see that this is how kids who then become adults and have no sense of community responsibility. They don't care that their actions can greatly impact someone else's. So, COVID will continue thanks to them.

Selfishness goes both ways, PP. The pandemic has forced us to make the least bad choices. Avoiding all sickness is not the only concern when creating public policy. Assessment of risk and balancing competing interests will change over time depending on community spread and the duration of the pandemic. The longer this goes on, unreasonable restrictions are going to bring about more irresponsible behavior rather than reducing the spread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What activities. I only care about the pool, camps, and butlers orchard.

How to tell someone is from downcounty...

Lol I just moved here a few years ago. Tell me about “down county” is it an insult (genuinely curious). Am I like a city slicker?

Sort of. I guess 'city slicker' is a good way to look at it.

As someone that loves our MD farms, in Moco & Frederick & Howard counties, I see it a little differently than 'city slicker'

It's like someone that wants to visit a local farm and goes to Butler is like the person that visits NYC and eats at Bubba Gump in Times Square. Eye rolls from the locals, ya know?

[Anonymous]

With the CDC today saying that vaccinated people can gather together with other vaccinated people indoors without masks, that is going to really put a damper on Elrich’s power trip when we get to the point (likely before the summer) when the majority of people are vaccinated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elrich - Missing the point that in a free society, the government should be least restrictive as possible, not the most. Rates are back to October and only headed downward with vaccines, but restrictions have not gone back to October levels.

Yes, but during a pandemic when individuals cannot take personal responsibility, we need the government to step in.

No. There are lots of ways that people do not take personal responsibility and we should not ask government to step in to prevent every bad outcome. Some of you really to do a check on the form of government that we have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With the CDC today saying that vaccinated people can gather together with other vaccinated people indoors without masks, that is going to really put a damper on Elrich’s power trip when we get to the point (likely before the summer) when the majority of people are vaccinated.

Plenty of people were hanging out with friends, indoors, unmasked, during this pandemic. Our friends had a dinner party last week in Chevy Chase with about 20 people. And Elrich couldn’t do anything about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elrich - Missing the point that in a free society, the government should be least restrictive as possible, not the most. Rates are back to October and only headed downward with vaccines, but restrictions have not gone back to October levels.

Yes, but during a pandemic when individuals cannot take personal responsibility, we need the government to step in.

We obviously feel differently. But I think you're wrong. You may disagree with my risk threshold. But its still wrong to impose your risk threshold on me against my will

But then you are imposing your risk on other people.

In some ways, yes, every action anyone does may have an impact on anyone else in the community. Nothing we do happens in a vacuum.

But the difference between the two is that when I exercise my rights, you still have a choice in how you want to mitigate the risk and how you want to live according to your own personal risk threshold.

In the reverse, I have no choice, and your risk threshold is imposed on me.

There's a difference. If I was a saying 'yes, you must go to a gym. you must go to a restaurant. and you prohibited from wearing a mask', then that would be the opposite end of this spectrum.

DP. You don't even realize how self-centered your views are. You are rationalizing your less reponsible decisions by talking about risk mitigating - do you realize that the more risks YOU take, the more careful someone else has to be?
For example, if you insist on going somewhere without a mask, that means that the person who is higher-risk and takes things seriously won't be able to go out at all. Many people would just like to go for a masked walk in the park or go to their socially distant farmers market, but if you insist on going out unmasked and bringing your crowds stomping around everywhere and breathing all over the place, then you spoil it for the people who want to go out in public responsibly.

NP - There is a big difference between asking people to mask, and shutting down their employment, schools, or right to assemble in their homes or churches. I can get behind masks, but not closures. This type of quarantining the healthy has never occurred before COVID. Even during the Spanish Flu, places of business were not shut down, except a few entertainment venues.

Second, your assessment of risk is not grounded in science if you are reluctant to take an outdoor walk without a mask, even if you are high risk. So, you are asking people to give up their civil liberties in response to your anxiety. - MPH

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With the CDC today saying that vaccinated people can gather together with other vaccinated people indoors without masks, that is going to really put a damper on Elrich’s power trip when we get to the point (likely before the summer) when the majority of people are vaccinated.

Plenty of people were hanging out with friends, indoors, unmasked, during this pandemic. Our friends had a dinner party last week in Chevy Chase with about 20 people. And Elrich couldn’t do anything about it.

Obviously I know he can’t police private parties and gatherings, but whatever he was vaguely intimating about keeping restricted and/or closed this summer is probably no longer going to be possible with the current CDC guidance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elrich - Missing the point that in a free society, the government should be least restrictive as possible, not the most. Rates are back to October and only headed downward with vaccines, but restrictions have not gone back to October levels.

Yes, but during a pandemic when individuals cannot take personal responsibility, we need the government to step in.

I don't disagree, but the threat has to be SO GREAT, to allow the government to strip you of your rights. I know COVID was dangerous. And I know, over 1,000 people died in our county.

But still, that does not reach an appropriate level for us to allow the government to restrict us as they did.

At the end of this, we will have probably around 1500 dead from our county. And if we hadn't had the restrictions, maybe it would have been 2,000. or even 2,500. Even though that is sad, it does not warrant the overreach in response from the county government

We have never been stripped of our rights. You are being overly dramatic and unreasonable. We also had minimal restrictions. We were temporarily asked to stay home. Some businesses were closed or for restaurants carry out. If you cannot behave accordingly during a pandemic and need government to step in, it speaks volumes of who you are.

Of course we have been stripped of our rights. What is your understanding of civil liberties if you don't think so? Our Bill of Rights has no "emergency clause" for government. Those rights are not granted at the pleasure of elected leaders. If I want to hold a political meeting (or a worship service or a Thanksgiving dinner) in my living room with 25 people, I shouldn't be arrested or fined.

[Anonymous]

I live in TkPK and hate elrich so much.