Measles In Clemson and upstate

[dpic73]

Social distance, right? 6' will stop the spread or so I was told. People are only contagious for 8 days apparently. Let's just have an 8-day snow break and this will all be taken care of. The Ukrainians are a cold natured people so we will need to keep any eye on them to make sure they don't go outside.

6 ft. isn't far enough for measles

"Measles spreads through the air via infected coughs and sneezes, remaining viable for up to two hours, and can infect up to 90% of unvaccinated people nearby, even from casual contact, not just within a specific distance like 6 feet, as the virus lingers in shared spaces long after the person leaves. One infected person can infect 12-18 others, highlighting its extreme contagiousness. "

Google Search

 

[kidmike41]

6 ft. isn't far enough for measles

"Measles spreads through the air via infected coughs and sneezes, remaining viable for up to two hours, and can infect up to 90% of unvaccinated people nearby, even from casual contact, not just within a specific distance like 6 feet, as the virus lingers in shared spaces long after the person leaves. One infected person can infect 12-18 others, highlighting its extreme contagiousness. "

Google Search

The 6' was a covid joke, but I did google the infection time period and it is 4 days before the rash and 4 days after. So 8 days total. It seems like you could get a handle on this thing pretty quickly with a cycle like that.

 

[dpic73]

The 6' was a covid joke, but I did google the infection time period and it is 4 days before the rash and 4 days after. So 8 days total. It seems like you could get a handle on this thing pretty quickly with a cycle like that.

I knew it was ;-)

 

[yoshi121374]

The 6' was a covid joke, but I did google the infection time period and it is 4 days before the rash and 4 days after. So 8 days total. It seems like you could get a handle on this thing pretty quickly with a cycle like that.

The challenge is how incredibly infectious it is. The Measles were bad because they have lots of side effects, that while somewhat rare, the disease hit so many that many people had side effects.

My Mother in Law had the measles as a kid and was extremely sick, very high fever, and they got into her eyes and damaged her eyesight for the rest of her life.

It's just all so unnecessary.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

The 6' was a covid joke, but I did google the infection time period and it is 4 days before the rash and 4 days after. So 8 days total. It seems like you could get a handle on this thing pretty quickly with a cycle like that.

It'd be really nice if there were some easy way to get a handle on it before it even spreads. Perhaps preventative.

 

[FLaw47]

It'd be really nice if there were some easy way to get a handle on it before it even spreads. Perhaps preventative.

You're talking about prayer or no gay marriage, right?

 

[tigres88]

You're talking about prayer or no gay marriage, right?

No, the preventative is being able to say 'Merry Christmas!' again

 

[kidmike41]

It'd be really nice if there were some easy way to get a handle on it before it even spreads. Perhaps preventative.

Makes sense.

 

[FLaw47]

No, the preventative is being able to say 'Merry Christmas!' again

Damnit, I was close!

 

[kidmike41]

You're talking about prayer or no gay marriage, right?

Let’s give it a try just to make sure. Leave no stone unturned.

 

[FLaw47]

Let’s give it a try just to make sure. Leave no stone unturned.

Careful, we wouldn't want you to be casting any of those stones now.

 

[kidmike41]

Careful, we wouldn't want you to be casting any of those stones now.

Good point

 

[Unifex]

don't they offer free vaccines in spartanburg? All of these folks with measles are anti vaxxers? What's wrong with people there...no doctors, dumb parents, shortage of vaccines?

Misinformed parents.

 

[Moogy]

There are no laws on the books requiring vaccinations. We saw how well that worked with the military forcing service members to do it. It’s a hypothetical and I would be against it. No doubt training/screening is an issue for ICE. Should ICE be better yes. Should sanctuary cities enforce the laws yes.

Should sanctuary cities enforce WHICH specific laws?

 

[Moogy]

Unlawful search and seizure is terrible and should be punished. We have immigration laws on the books. Blue states should enforce them. Covid was a bunch of mandate nonsense and should have never been enforced.

Immigration law is a federal concern. The federal government cannot force States to enforce federal law on their behalf, and there should be no expectation that States should do what they're Constitutionally protected from being forced to do. This Reich has destroyed the Constitution enough. already ... no need to pile on.

 

[kidmike41]

Immigration law is a federal concern. The federal government cannot force States to enforce federal law on their behalf, and there should be no expectation that States should do what they're Constitutionally protected from being forced to do. This Reich has destroyed the Constitution enough. already ... no need to pile on.

States cannot pass laws that contradict federal law and judges must apply federal law when relevant. To do otherwise is nullification. It was customary as far back in the ancient days of Barack Obama that local law enforcement would report encounters with illegals to ICE. ICE would then come and deport them. I don’t know why this is even an issue? Immigration laws have changed throughout the history of this country but as they currently stand you can’t just walk across the border and setup shop. It doesn’t matter that you are a nice person and have been here for a long time. You’ve got to go. Congress can change the law at any time.

 

[kidmike41]

Should sanctuary cities enforce WHICH specific laws?

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952

 

[Moogy]

States cannot pass laws that contradict federal law and judges must apply federal law when relevant. To do otherwise is nullification. It was customary as far back in the ancient days of Barack Obama that local law enforcement would report encounters with illegals to ICE. ICE would then come and deport them. I don’t know why this is even an issue? Immigration laws have changed throughout the history of this country but as they currently stand you can’t just walk across the border and setup shop. It doesn’t matter that you are a nice person and have been here for a long time. You’ve got to go. Congress can change the law at any time.

I'm not discussing actively hindering enforcement, whether it be by conflicting legislation, or other means. States and other municipal governments aren't allowed to do that, of course. But there should be NO expectation that states or municipalities should help federal authorities enforce exclusively federal law. That's an Unconstitutional expectation. Can they? Sure. Should they be expected to? No. And can they be coerced or forced to do so? Not if you believe in the Constitution.

 

[Moogy]

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952

No. I respect the Constitution, therefore there should be absolutely no expectation of enforcement of this law by state or municipal authorities. Maybe you're the other guy. If so, there's a spot in this Administration/Reich for you.

 

[kidmike41]

I'm not discussing actively hindering enforcement, whether it be by conflicting legislation, or other means. States and other municipal governments aren't allowed to do that, of course. But there should be NO expectation that states or municipalities should help federal authorities enforce exclusively federal law. That's an Unconstitutional expectation. Can they? Sure. Should they be expected to? No. And can they be coerced or forced to do so? Not if you believe in the Constitution.

There are multiple parts of the constitution that require state enforcement of federal law regardless of opinion. The fugitive slave clause for one. This is not some fascist takeover. It is established precedent.

 

[FLaw47]

There are multiple parts of the constitution that require state enforcement of federal law regardless of opinion. The fugitive slave act for one. This is not some fascist takeover. It is established precedent.

The fugitive slave act that's clearly not part of the Constitution, as evidenced by it being an "act" and not an "amendment"? The one whose Supreme Court ruling is widely regarded as one of the most grotesque rulings they ever made?

 

[kidmike41]

The fugitive slave act that's clearly not part of the Constitution, as evidenced by it being an "act" and not an "amendment"? The one whose Supreme Court ruling is widely regarded as one of the most grotesque rulings they ever made?

Fugitive Slave Clause (Article IV, §2, Clause 3). Clause not act. It doesn’t matter the opinion it was in the constitution.

In the bill of rights not an amendment

 

[Moogy]

There are multiple parts of the constitution that require state enforcement of federal law regardless of opinion. The fugitive slave act for one. This is not some fascist takeover. It is established precedent.

No, scoobs. That was an issue involving a subject matter that was the purview of both federal and state governance, and it was a circumstance where the Supremacy Clause worked to invalidate conflicting state legislation.

This is not that. Immigration is wholly a federal matter. As such, it is entirely the responsibility of federal authorities to legislate and enforce. They cannot compel state or municipal governments to actively assist, but states and municipal governments cannot actively impede federal authorities in their enforcement, either.

I was quite clear on this the first time. I shouldn't have had to repeat it.

 

[kidmike41]

No, scoobs. That was an issue involving a subject matter that was the purview of both federal and state governance, and it was a circumstance where the Supremacy Clause worked to invalidate conflicting state legislation.

This is not that. Immigration is wholly a federal matter. As such, it is entirely the responsibility of federal authorities to legislate and enforce. They cannot compel states of municipal governments to actively assist, but states and municipal governments cannot actively impede federal authorities in their enforcement, either.

I was quite clear on this the first time. I shouldn't have had to repeat it again.

How is immigration not a state issue in Minnesota? They have a border with Canada. They don’t have any state laws around immigration or interstate commerce?It seems that they are impeding federal enforcement. Sorry you felt the need to repeat. So under Obama they are compelled to assist, but under Trump it is fascism?

and to continue my point. You seem to agree that in order to enforce the law we need federal agents in Minnesota

 

[FLaw47]

Fugitive Slave Clause (Article IV, §2, Clause 3). Clause not act. It doesn’t matter the opinion it was in the constitution.

In the bill of rights not an amendment

Good call out, thank you.

Edit: One could argue that, since this one thing about states sort of enforcing federal law was called out in a very narrow and specific way, that it should NOT be inferred that states typically have this obligation.

 

[Moogy]

How is immigration not a state issue in Minnesota? They have a border with Canada. They don’t have any state laws around immigration or interstate commerce?It seems that they are impeding federal enforcement. Sorry you felt the need to repeat. So under Obama they are compelled to assist, but under Trump it is fascism?

and to continue my point. You seem to agree that in order to enforce the law we need federal agents in Minnesota

How are folks this ignorant of our Constitution? Saying immigration is a federal matter means that it is exclusively the federal government's responsibility to legislate, and enforce said legislation. Does immigration law, and its enforcement, have an effect on Minnesota? And every other state, for that matter? Yes. Of course.

That has nothing to do with what I stated, nor what the Constitution dictates and prohibits.

No, under Obama they were not compelled to assist.

Under Trump, it is clearly one facet of his fascist regime's policies, yes.

 

[kidmike41]

How are folks this ignorant of our Constitution? Saying immigration is a federal matter means that it is exclusively the federal government's responsibility to legislate, and enforce said legislation. Does immigration law, and its enforcement, have an effect on Minnesota? And every other state, for that matter? Yes. Of course.

That has nothing to do with what I stated, nor what the Constitution dictates and prohibits.

No, under Obama they were not compelled to assist.

Under Trump, it is clearly one facet of his fascist regime's policies, yes.

Ok so it’s purely a federal matter. Trump has surged ICE agents in to enforce the law. So on the surface you have no issues with this because how else would the law be enforced. Right?

 

[Moogy]

Good call out, thank you.

Edit: One could argue that, since this one thing about states sort of enforcing federal law was called out in a very narrow and specific way, that it should NOT be inferred that states typically have this obligation.

No. The lines are clearly delineated ... it's more involved than this, of course, but as a general rule ... areas where federal and state/municipal have concurrent jurisdiction, if a state/municipal law conflicts with a federal law, the federal law "wins." In areas where federal government has exclusive jurisdiction, and responsibility to legislate and enforce said legislation, the federal government cannot compel state/local authorities to ... essentially, do their work for them.

It's one example of where "State's Rights!" Republicans suddenly decided State's rights aren't that important, nor Constitutionally protected.

 

[Moogy]

Ok so it’s purely a federal matter. Trump has surged ICE agents in to enforce the law. So on the surface you have no issues with this because how else would the law be enforced. Right?

I'm not getting into that debate with you. I was just here to correct your mistaken understanding of the Constitution re the matter of state/local authorities' rights and responsibilities re immigration law enforcement.

 

[MTTiger19]

It'd be really nice if there were some easy way to get a handle on it before it even spreads. Perhaps preventative.

Now surely you’re referring to measles and not covid correct?

 

[FLaw47]

No. The lines are clearly delineated ... it's more involved than this, of course, but as a general rule ... areas where federal and state/municipal have concurrent jurisdiction, if a state/municipal law conflicts with a federal law, the federal law "wins." In areas where federal government has exclusive jurisdiction, and responsibility to legislate and enforce said legislation, the federal government cannot compel state/local authorities to ... essentially, do their work for them.

It's one example of where "State's Rights!" Republicans suddenly decided State's rights aren't that important, nor Constitutionally protected.

I came down pretty hard on him when there was at least a constitutional call-out of relevance. I felt that deserved acknowledgement.

 

[MTTiger19]

 

[MTTiger19]

I came down pretty hard on him when there was at least a constitutional call-out of relevance. I felt that deserved acknowledgement.

What’s the constitution say about not enforcing laws that are on the books? Anything. You’re clearly the smartest person in all of the interwebs. Please tell me what American law says to do when a representative of the elected government doesn’t enforce the laws of the land they were elected to lead. What do they call that?

 

[FLaw47]

What’s the constitution say about not enforcing laws that are on the books? Anything. You’re clearly the smartest person in all of the interwebs. Please tell me what American law says to do when a representative of the elected government doesn’t enforce the laws of the land they were elected to lead. What do they call that?

We have an extremely storied history of States not enforcing the law so I'm not sure what you're looking for here. What's happened previously is US Marshalls or the national guard have had to enforce the law. It's interesting to me that when that happened during desegregation that they weren't kidnapping or killing people.

 

[MTTiger19]

We have an extremely storied history of States not enforcing the law so I'm not sure what you're looking for here. What's happened previously is US Marshalls or the national guard have had to enforce the law. It's interesting to me that when that happened during desegregation that they weren't kidnapping or killing people.

I want to know what it’s called when the sitting president and administration completely ignore immigration laws for four consecutive years. What’s that called and what is the appropriate action to be taken? Or is it just one of those things we have to deal with? It seems as if you want one party to be punished for the same thing (allegedly taking the law into their own hands) you’re excusing the other for. Laws are laws no? How can you be mad at one for not following the law but not the other?

Also to piggyback on the comment that we have a long history of states not following laws - what about the federal government going in and removing the border that Texas erected. That was well within the rights of Texas to protect Texans, but Joe decided to unilaterally go in with the military and remove it. Did you protest then??

 

[FLaw47]

I want to know what it’s called when the sitting president and administration completely ignore immigration laws for four consecutive years. What’s that called and what is the appropriate action to be taken? Or is it just one of those things we have to deal with? It seems as if you want one party to be punished for the same thing (allegedly taking the law into their own hands) you’re excusing the other for. Laws are laws no? How can you be mad at one for not following the law but not the other?

Oh that's easy, that's called BS, fantasy, or fever dream. That didn't happen.

 

[MTTiger19]

Oh that's easy, that's called BS, fantasy, or fever dream. That didn't happen.

Also to piggyback on the comment that we have a long history of states not following laws - what about the federal government going in and removing the border that Texas erected. That was well within the rights of Texas to protect Texans, but Joe decided to unilaterally go in with the military and remove it. Did you protest then??

 

[MTTiger19]

Oh that's easy, that's called BS, fantasy, or fever dream. That didn't happen.

This is why there’s no point in even trying to discuss things with any of you people. What idiots. Positions so weak and terrible they can be wrecked in two sentences.

 

[MTTiger19]

Oh that's easy, that's called BS, fantasy, or fever dream. That didn't happen.

Ask Laken Riley’s family if it was BS. Or any of the other innocent people that have been murdered so you can feel good about your virtue.

 

[FLaw47]

Also to piggyback on the comment that we have a long history of states not following laws - what about the federal government going in and removing the border that Texas erected. That was well within the rights of Texas to protect Texans, but Joe decided to unilaterally go in with the military and remove it. Did you protest then??

I'd need to see some documentation for this. But I, like every person I've ever known or witnessed on a message board, am supportive of non-enforcement of laws I think are stupid and supportive of enforcement of laws I find important. Every bit of data I've seen suggests that Sanctuary Cities do more good than harm. I think ICE should still be able to carry out legal deportations.