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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What activities. I only care about the pool, camps, and butlers orchard.
How to tell someone is from downcounty...
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.
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
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.