Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Medicine United States

Washington State and San Francisco Are Banning Large Gatherings As Coronavirus Spreads (theverge.com) 94

Posted by BeauHD from the hide-yo-kids-hide-yo-wife dept.
Washington state and San Francisco are banning large gatherings to help reduce the spread of the novel coronavirus. The bans are a way to create social distancing, which may help people avoid coming into contact with others who might be sick. The Verge reports: Gatherings of more than 250 people in the Seattle area are prohibited through the end of March, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee announced. Gatherings of more than 1,000 people will be banned in San Francisco for two weeks, according to the office of San Francisco Mayor London Breed. "This order applies to gatherings for social, spiritual and recreational activities," said Inslee's announcement about Washington's ban. "These include but are not limited to: community, civic, public, leisure, faith-based, or sporting events; parades; concerts; festivals; conventions; fundraisers and similar activities."

Washington's ban covers Seattle and its surrounding areas: King, Snohomish, and Pierce counties. Washington currently has more than 260 confirmed cases of the novel coronavirus, which is the highest number in the US, and of the 24 confirmed deaths, many of them have been in or near Seattle. It's "very highly likely" that the ban will be extended beyond March, Inslee said in a news conference. San Francisco's ban also affects sporting events like Golden State Warriors games. The team announced that it will play upcoming home games without fans. Events scheduled through March 21st at the Chase Center, the stadium where the Warriors play, have been postponed or moved to a new location. Santa Clara County, home to many tech companies like Apple and Google, banned gatherings of 1,000 people or more on Monday.

The Washington, DC Department of Health recommended today that "non-essential" mass gatherings of 1,000 or more be postponed or canceled. Meanwhile, New York created a "containment area" for New Rochelle, a city in New York where a cluster of coronavirus cases have been reported. Schools, churches, and synagogues will be closed, and large indoor gatherings will be banned.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Washington State and San Francisco Are Banning Large Gatherings As Coronavirus Spreads More

Washington State and San Francisco Are Banning Large Gatherings As Coronavirus Spreads

Comments Filter:

  • They legally can't do that (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It's unconstitutional outside of martial law.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It's unconstitutional outside of martial law.

      Let's organize a mass street protest against this illegal power grab.

      • I'm going to a Trump rally!

        • Your pussy hat will protect you.

    • And... "you're not the boss of me!" contingent has now been heard from.

      Same as the family under "informal" quarantine... So he took his daughter to a Father/Daughter event at the school. Now the school is closed and EVERYONE there is now exposed.

      • If he had been under a formal quarantine, he could have been imprisoned. There is a difference between a quarantine and a gathering of protestors during a time of elections.

        • There was a time when the CDC was the only agency with the right to suspend constitutional protections without martial law. Bush Jr., "I call him shrub, you can choose to hate the name or not," and congress decided to roll the CDC into the unholy behemoth called the "Department of Homeland Security". Whether other departments in "Homeland" can use former CDC authority to suspend constitutional protections without martial law has been inconsistently applied by different judges across different parts of the

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *
      They can ban events. Anything you require a permit for implies that one day they can say "no". Well today they're saying no. Of course that doesn't stop people from assembling in a large crowd in public, but then the police will come with batons, water cannons and tear gas to deal with that.
      • If they're spraying large crowds with water cannons, does that increase or decrease the infection among the crowd? I'm not really sure, lol.

        • Just shoot them and be safe!

        • If they're spraying large crowds with water cannons, does that increase or decrease the infection among the crowd? I'm not really sure, lol.

          Maybe if the water is hot enough.

        • Depends, temperature of the water (of course, hot enough to clear a viral infection with just hot water would boil your skin off. Maybe if they were shooting out 70-80% ethyl alcohol. Of course, than the crowd would be drunk... win, win.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by AHuxley ( 892839 )
        Re "large crowd in public".. everyone tracked after that gets a visit from state/ciy health officials..
        Thats a lot of work that would not be needed if the "large crowd in public" did not happen.

        • But if they are all shot, then there is no need to track anyone down, so what is the problem? Just shoot them dead and burn the bodies. Problem solved. Dunno why they would want to use water cannons. Sounds totally ineffective against infected organisms. Best to kill quick while still can.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by lgw ( 121541 )

        They can ban events. Anything you require a permit for implies that one day they can say "no". Well today they're saying no.

        If more than 1000 people regularly attend a church, it's not like that church needs a permit for each meeting. And of course the government banning people from attending church is blatantly unconstitutional, if any judges still remember we have on of those.

        People will be idiots, It's the nature of man. The CDC had its chance to contain this when it was just a few people, but they didn't have a plan to do that, so they failed. Disaster planning is all about being able to react very quickly, with very lim

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *

          The CDC had its chance to contain this when it was just a few people

          It can't be contained. By the time you identified the first case there are already new cases incubating. Politicians are going to seem stupid playing whack-a-mole with this virus. Even if they successfully manage to quarantine their entire population for a few weeks, the rest of the world is a reservoir and the vulnerable population will still be able to get infected. I wonder how long they plan on keeping up this charade. Economies and supply chains are starting to get seriously fucked now.

          Around 60% (ac

          • One result of the virus will be a massive die-off of the most vulnerable part of the public. A lot of the people who require expensive long term care will be among those who die. It may give the pols the greatly reduced healthcare cost they claim they can deliver.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rtb61 ( 674572 )

          The reality, the number one locus of infection, cutting aside all the bullshit, the supermarket and you absolutely can not escape it by having groceries delivered because the grocery pickers and packers, and the grocery deliverer.

          Why the US panic, public health services have been gutted to feed tax cuts and they all bragged about cutting services to the bone, added to that crony capitalism contracts with a whole lot is paid for very little results, just used as routes to corruption and now you have a dead s

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mark-t ( 151149 )

      You can carry on believing that.

      You might even discover just how far it gets you if you press hard enough.

      Good luck.

    • It's unconstitutional outside of martial law.

      Martial law is unconstitutional.

      The US Military can establish martial law in occupied territories, but not in the incorporated territory of the United States.

       

      • Perhaps Trump will declare Martian Law intead.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DaHat ( 247651 )

        Abraham Lincoln would disagree... let's not forget that he arrested members of the Maryland's legislature to prevent them from voting on succession: http://teaching.msa.maryland.g... [maryland.gov]

        And that before he was granted the ability to do so by the congress a couple of years later.

        Yes, SCOTUS eventually shot it down... but where is their army to enforce their rulings?

        "I am the President of the United States - CLOTHED in IMMENSE power! " - A. Lincoln.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by spitzig ( 73300 )

          Your link does not say that Lincoln did this. The closest things to what you say:

          "One of the few things the General Assembly did agree upon was a resolution sent to President Lincoln protesting the Union occupation of Maryland."
          "However, on that day Federal troops and Baltimore police officers arrived in Frederick with orders to arrest the pro-Confederate members of the General Assembly."

          It does not say who sent the troops.

        • The short answer to whether Martial Law is legal in the United States is decided by the hundreds of thousands of soldiers with guns, and their commanding officers. They decide whether any particular order of Martial Law is legal. The answer is who they point their guns at! Everybody else is just able to whine about it! Whether is the congress, president or you! Trump would likely have a hard time getting the armed forces to point guns at the public or congress, despite his bravado. Eisenhower, no one

      • It's unconstitutional outside of martial law.

        Martial law is unconstitutional.

        The US Military can establish martial law in occupied territories, but not in the incorporated territory of the United States.

        Isn't that what the national guard is for? So the US can legally do military shit in its own yard because waahhhh thats unconstitunional.

        • The difference between the National Guard and the rest of the US Armed Forces is one major thing. All US Armed Forces, except the National Guard, are officially under the command of The President of the United States (there's a reason he's called "commander and chief!") and the National Guards (yes, plural), are under the commands of the Governors of their States. As a state entity, not federal, they have the right, officially, to deploy of US Sovereign Soil whereas the rest officially don't. Of course,

      • Martial law is unconstitutional.

        Try telling that to the thousands of look-alike people with guns!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kaoshin ( 110328 )

      It's unconstitutional outside of martial law.

      Perhaps to an uneducated potato. Assembly that is a threat to public safety isn't guaranteed under the first amendment. https://www.loc.gov/law/help/p... [loc.gov]

    • Freedom to lawfully assemble, as guaranteed under the 1st amendment. These city/state places are doing this, just as a test to see if they can get away with it. This corona virus is a deep state globalist "new world order" wet dream!

      • Freedom to lawfully assemble

        If you're denied a permit, is the assembly still lawful? ;-)

      • There is NO authority for any level of government in the U.S. to ban religious gatherings. It's not an enumerated power, it's specifically outlawed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, it would set an awful precedent, some will oppose it by force (as is their right IMO, though I won't be among them), and I could not possibly care less what courts have ruled because their authority is subservient to that of the Constitution.

        Having said that, they can and should ask churches and similar organizations to v

        • Having said that, they can and should ask churches and similar organizations to voluntarily move to online-only services for the next month or two, to slow the spread of COVID-19.

          Churches are changing the way they perform services. Here is one article about it from NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/03/07/812998643/keep-the-faith-lose-the-germs-clergy-rethink-customs-in-the-age-of-coronavirus/ [npr.org]

          I did see an article about Churches are streaming their services instead of live services. BU

          • Online services were already becoming more popular long before this crisis, partly due to the many people (including myself) who are unable to attend in-person services without difficulty, or unable to attend at all. No one says they are ideal. But they certainly are better than nothing at all.

        • Home groups of small numbers of non-vulnerable people could be a useful substitute until larger gatherings return to being wise. Pastors can live stream services from their own homes or from a relatively empty church.

          • That would be one thought. The problem is that COVID-19 has an unusual ability to spread via people who may not show visible symptoms yet (or at all). This may be one of those thankfully rare times in history when it really does make sense to avoid in-person human contact, for at least as long as necessary to minimize the impact to those at high risk for complications.

            Our home group unfortunately consists largely of people at risk. We're considering not going until things calm down, mainly for their sake

        • How exactly will this help? Coronavirus is spread by Internet too, and if your computer gets it and you touch your computer or keyboard or a phone, then you have it too. Antivirus products are not effective -- there is no shot you can get for this. It is God's will that you should die, part of his wonderful plan for you. Rejoice and be Merry!

    • A libertarian lawyer thinks otherwise:
      https://reason.com/2020/03/11/... [reason.com]

      It sounds like there's some room for argument, so hearing what your sources are would be valuable.

    • Granted, the summary is terrible, but if you actually read the order, the ban is in place only at government-owned facilities. And they most certainly can do that legally.

  • Disneyland? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by battingly ( 5065477 ) on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:43PM (#59819810)
    Why on earth is Disneyland still open? Tens of thousands of people in a confined space, all touching the same surfaces, then going home to spread it further.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Why on earth is Disneyland still open?

      Mickey and Minnie, Goofy, Donald Duck, Pluto, Thumper, Tigger, Eeyore, Piglet, Iago, Genie, Flower, Bambi, Scrooge McDuck, Jiminy Cricket, Grumpy, Flounder and Tinker Bell are completely immune to COVID-19.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • SHUT IT DOWN! It's going to be shut down for months and months, and this will cost Disney billions, lol.

    • Re:Disneyland? (Score:5, Funny)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @09:06PM (#59820138)
      Same reason that beach in Jaws didn't close.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        But it wasn't a real shark.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by ebvwfbw ( 864834 )

          And this isn't any more of a threat than the seasonal flu.

          People are acting like if you get it you're sure to die and that's not reality.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by PPH ( 736903 )

            About 10x the mortality rate of the seasonal flu. And a longer asymptomatic incubation period. So more opportunity to go out in public and breathe on people.

            Sure, I'm not in the at-risk population and likely to die. But I work around people that might. Back when I used to work for Boeing, they funded a free flue shot program. Because young people like me might come in to work with the sniffles and kill off half of the engineering department.

      • Larry Vaughn was still mayor in Jaws 2, so don't tell me that wasn't a winning strategy.

    • Ahh....
      Because Disneyland is not in San Francisco or King/Pierce county in Washington?

      Anything else captain obvious?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by antdude ( 79039 )

      What about other amusement parks? :P

    • Because people spend lots and lots of money there and money>lives. Are you simple?
    • I could answer this with a single character, but /.'s filters won't let me so I'm typing filler and then: $

  • My wife, myself, and my brother's girlfriend, all of us 67 or older, bought expen$ive tickets to Sting's "The Last Ship." When we got the word that people over 65 were being strongly advised NOT to attend gatherings involving large numbers of people, it took a fair amount of effort just to apply for a refund, including my having to supply "... a short written/typed note from your Doctor (signed and on headed paper) which excludes you from attending the booked event due to being a high risk patient."

    I doubt

  • Because if they were really serious about controlling opportunities for contagion, it seems to me that would be a good place to begin.

    It wouldn't surprise me, however, if Trump passes an executive order within the next few hours banning peaceful gatherings of any size at a civic or statewide level without martial law being employed.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      The results from Communist China shows what happens when a nation fails to consider that question of transport use.
      Spread in a bus like area was unexpected.

      • > Spread in a bus like area was unexpected.

        How could that possibly have been unexpected? Have bureaucrats never ridden the bus?

        Sorry, the answer is obvious. Never mind.

    • For real, Obama created the free speech zones. Your side is literally worse than their side.

      • For real, Obama created the free speech zones. Your side is literally worse than their side.

        Then how come I remember free speech zones during the George W. Bush administration?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mark-t ( 151149 )
      Wow. I reread what I wrote and I typed exactly the opposite of what I meant. I meant to say that I expect he would ban the prohibiting of gatherings, to make the impression that he is trying to respect American freedom.
    • SF hasn't shut down mass transit, but it's empty.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • So 249 and 999 are still safe? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AHuxley ( 892839 ) on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @07:25PM (#59819920) Journal
    Look at the results in Italy and the wide open EU.
    Look at South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore..
    Stop random meetings... slow the spread... give the health system time to get ready...
  • CMU and Pitt are canceling classes to rework them to be on line. Even churches and temples are canceling sunday schools.

  • We have cyberspace for safe gatherings with a much lower carbon footprint. The desire for meatspace mobs is old but that doesn't make it smart. This is good practice for when a much more dangerous pandemic hits. Likewise we don't need frivolities like cruises which pollute the oceans, have huge carbon footprints, and spread disease.

  • All this talk of cancelling things like sports matches, concerts and other things, why aren't things like political rallies (including those for Trump) being restricted as well?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      He'll hold those on Twitter.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • This Coronavirus is spread by Internet Contact. Please turn off your computer and disconnect from the Internet in order to avoid catching it. Current Antivirus software will not prevent you from catching it as there is no vaccine available yet.

      • Bernie canceled because he is out of the race so no reason.
        Biden cancel because his people don't want him in front of a crowd and he does have the strength to stand and think for more than 30 mins at time. I guess he will get his seat at the next debates now.
        Trump had already canceled rallies back on Wednesday march 11, a day before you posted this. Which makes it seem you are just talking hate and ignorance; so I guess that makes you an example of the liberals voting.

    • All this talk of cancelling things like sports matches, concerts and other things, why aren't things like political rallies (including those for Trump) being restricted as well?

      I think we should keep Trump rallies going. It'd be good for the voting population overall.

  • ... and now Oregon as well. https://www.oregonlive.com/cor... [oregonlive.com]
  • Gatherings of more than 250 people in the Seattle area are prohibited through the end of March, Hell that's enough to spread the damage further

  • Jump up and down and throw a temper tantrum?

    I would suggest suspending all travel by all methods other than walking on own two foots and that any violator be shot it head and then incinerated.

    In particular, please keep you Americans in America. Nobody else wants you now. (Not that we ever did).

    If you all die the world will be a much better place.

  • FYI: Oregon just announced a similar ban.

    I have to wonder about homeless encampments. There are several in the greater Portland area, which are both large and dense and at least some must exceed the limit. I've read about similar encampments in the Salem, Seattle and San Francisco areas. These people are, I think, less likely to have access to medical facilities.

    I've scanned TFAs and didn't see any mention of the homeless. I'm wondering, do they actually have a plan, or are these people just on their o

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

Slashdot Top Deals

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce

Close