Discussion on the Effectiveness of Wearing Masks

Part of diet and fitness is your overall health.  With so much hoopla about COVID and Face-masks, we want to know, supported by reliable data driven experts, if wearing a face-mask works, or does not work, or risks more harm or less harm; and how that can help you plan your safe, lower risk, workouts and going to the gym.

Wearing a Mask

“If properly worn, surgical masks block large-particle droplets, splashes, sprays or splatters that may contain germs like viruses and prevent them from reaching your mouth and nose, according to the FDA.” [1]  So, according to the government agency, this mask protects YOU from OTHERS.  But is it really protecting you, if you’re continually re-injecting viruses and bacteria from your own body?  After all, sneezing and coughing is your body ejecting unwanted things.

“Because surgical masks fit loosely rather than having a tight seal, they don’t provide an absolute barrier or complete protection against tiny particles in the air that may be released by coughs or sneezes.”[1]  And these “tiny particles” also known as “aerosol particles” are so small, they even go through all cloth masks.  So, again, what’s the point?

Oddly, and “currently, the CDC does not recommend that healthy people wear a face mask to protect themselves from COVID-19 (or other respiratory illnesses).  According to W.H.O., masks are only effective when a person also frequently washes their hands with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water.” [1] Now that’s an interesting point.  Is it the mask that helps or washing your hands?

If “aerosol particles” go through the mask but washing your hands can wash off and kill viruses in the particles, wouldn’t washing your hands be the thing to do?

*UPDATE*

The CDC reversed, again, their recommendations and are now recommending all people to wear masks.  The idea is that it blocks the larger particles from spreading.  But if health people are wearing masks, what COVID laced particles are they spreading?  None.  So then the benefit for healthy people to wear the mask is to prevent breathing in the large particles from sick people who aren’t wearing masks.  Makes sense.  BUT, have you ever smelt a fart or walked somewhere where you could smell food or weird bathroom smells?  The answer is yes.  Have you wondered how large those particles are?  Well, they are larger than a virus.  Now, granted the virus does not travel in the area by its self, alone.  When someone infected sneezes, they shoot out all sort of sized aerosol particles, not just those big scary nasty droplets.  Studies suggest the virus can be in the air for hours, depending on the size of the particles.  Knowing smaller aerosol particles get ejected and can linger in the air, are smaller than fecal and food particles, this still brings us back to the starting point.

The basic scenario of some infected person walking down the isle of Walmart, sneezing while wearing a mask still ejects small aerosol particles in the air, that smaller kind that can linger.  Then, you walk down that same isle 10 minutes later.  You breath in and out smelling all the food smells… and  inhale those very small aerosol particles, through your mask… Then, as the bigger heavier particles fall and rest on something on the isle, that you may touch and buy and take home… all of this while the both of you are wearing masks… What did wearing the mask accomplish?

A simple test is Tobacco Smoke.  Can you smell it wearing your masking?   The particle size of tobacco smoke is around 0.05 and 0.01 [18].  What about a virus attached to aerosol droplets that size?  Well, it’s still a possibility according to this 2010 study, studying the H1N1 virus (same family of virus as COVID) [19].  A good visual is using a chain-link fence to block mosquitoes.

How many strangers, in public, sneeze in your face?  How many strangers breath heavily in your face?  None.  No one really does that.  It’s common knowledge that it’s rude and gross.  So if heavier droplets fall on objects you touch and small aerosol particles linger in air as your walking around… all while wearing a mask, yet, smaller than the fibers of 99% of masks the public uses, what has been prevented?  Still doesn’t change the premise of this article.

There are a couple of states that never went on lockdown [20].  Why don’t they have higher infections rates and deaths? [21]  Some countries didn’t impose such harsh restrictions either, why are they not more hard hit?  It’s logic, the more testing and data collection, the higher the numbers.  Not necessarily because the virus is spreading but because of the amount of testing being conducted.  Some states have even been busted inflating the numbers! [22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28… and we can keep going].  Even the bias left-wing VOX admits to this [25].  And what happened to the seasonal flu?  What happened to those numbers?  There are a whole host of influenza viruses out there, where are those numbers?  Why do states to certain political ideologies seem to have worse numbers?  Notice how they try to avoid talking about the deadliness (or lack of) of the virus, because, it’s not as deadly as they want you to think.  Some even come up with arguments against considering the mortality rate.  What is worse than death?  See, there is more data manipulation and politics at play here than COVID itself.

*END OF UPDATE*

Why Wear A Mask If You Touch Things?

“As a lay person, using a cloth face mask, or continually wearing a surgical face mask whenever you leave your home, poses practical problems. “If you think about a bandanna or something that’s papery, it’s going to get wet through the day and be uncomfortable, and potentially you’re going to touch it more,” says Dr. Colleen Kraft, associate chief medical officer at Emory University Hospital and an associate professor at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta.  That reduces the mask’s effectiveness and actually could expose you to possible virus on its outer surface.” [1]  This seems to place the greater importance in washing your hands than wearing a cloth/paper mask.

Mask or no mask, avoid touching the mucosal surfaces of your face – your mouth, nose and eyes.  “Surgical masks will not prevent your acquiring diseases,” said Dr. William Schaffner, a professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, and the medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.  Rather, he explained, surgical masks are typically used by surgeons to protect their patients from their mouth-borne germs — but “those masks don’t work to prevent inhaling diseases,” said Schaffner.  As for more preventative measures, Schaffner recommends “abundant hand-washing” [6]  Again, “abundant hand-washing” is prescribed.

Face masks can play a role in preventing the infection, but that role is limited.  A healthy individual in a normal situation does not need to wear a mask.  A face mask is not the ideal solution for protection from the new coronavirus for the following reasons:  A surgical mask does not fit tightly over the nose and mouth (which allows particles in and out); It is not possible to prevent airborne virus infection (some particles are so small they just go through the mask anyway); When you touch the mask, you lose the protection and must replace the mask, and dispose of it safely. [10]

Who Should Wear The Mask?

“CDC also advises the use of simple cloth face coverings to slow the spread of the virus and help people who may have the virus and do not know it from transmitting it to others.”[2]  It’s odd the CDC still recommends “simple cloth face coverings” even though viruses to so small they fit right through them.  It also seems that the mask “works” best for people who are already infected to prevent and reduce the risk of them spreading it from saliva and or coughing through droplets and expelling larger particles.  But that still doesn’t address the smaller particles and the virus itself…

“But those who work around confirmed infected people, a mask may reduce the risk of inhaling the virus from the infected person’s cough (except if they particles are small).  W.H.O. says, “If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19“…The WHO recommends masks for those who are symptomatic or known to have COVID-19, and those exposed to people who are sick, but not for the healthy out in public.”[2]  Sounds a little contradictory.

“A cloth face mask won’t totally block the coronavirus. But it’s an added layer of protection for you and the people around you when you use it along with regular handwashing and social distancing measures like staying 6 feet away from others.”[7] Soooo it’s hand-washing and distancing that is better, since the virus can travel through the mask?

“The public does not need to wear face masks most of the time, said Dr. Otto Yang, a professor in the Department of Medicine and the Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Molecular Genetics at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.” [8]  It seems that way.

Major health agencies, including the World Health Organization, the CDC, and others, have offered confusing and sometimes contradictory guidelines (as noted above).  Most healthcare professionals have concluded that, at the very worst, a mask can’t hurt, even if it may provide a false sense of safety.   Three large, randomized controlled trials were conducted in the 1980s to determine once and for all if surgical masks actually did prevent surgical wound infection.  Here, where bacteria were the major concern in wound infection, the enemy targets were larger and might not require the fine filtration necessary to keep a respiratory virus away, researchers theorized.  But the trials “showed absolutely no efficacy” for that original purpose.  “Really, the surgeon might as well wear nothing on their face,” C. Raina MacIntyre, MBBS, PhD, of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia said.  Mask wearing “is so inculcated into the practice of medicine that it’s going to be very hard to change,” said John G. Bartlett, MD, former chief of infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins. [11].  It’s as if wearing a mask is to make you feel better and a tradition and not something that actually prevents anything.

Wearing a face mask purportedly helps in two ways. First, you get to keep your own germs to yourself.  (But is that something good for you and something you want?)  [13]  But, why would I want to continually keep re-inhaling a virus?  They’re meant to be disposable and worn only once.  If they get wet, they become useless and should be thrown away.  So if you keep wearing the same mask, you keep re-introducing virus stuck on the mask into your body, over and over.  You wash your hands, then touch your mask, washing your hands was pointless…

What Do Studies Say?

“A study involved four subjects with COVID-19 coughing with several mask types, and without any mask, onto petri dishes. The masks themselves were also swabbed after coughing.  They found the masks did not prevent spread of the virus through coughing (for every mask type, some virus still made it onto the petri dishes). They also found virus on the outside of the masks but not the inside, which is a bit counterintuitive.  They speculate that airflow around the mask may be depositing the virus on the outside.” [3]

So are some masks better than others at reducing the risk, even though there is still a risk with all masks?

A recent study found that surgical masks (which are much less effective than the N95 masks) are somewhat effective at slightly reducing the risk. [4]

In a recent systematic review of 19 trials, they concluded that in “the community, masks appeared to be more effective than hand hygiene alone, and both together are more protective.  Randomized controlled trials in health care workers showed that respirators, if worn continually during a shift, were effective but not if worn intermittently.  Medical masks were not effective, and cloth masks even less effective.” [5]

A March 17 study in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) [9] seemed to justify the fear of airborne spread, showing that the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 could survive in the air for up to 3 hours as an aerosol.  The new study showed that the virus was viable as an aerosol in a lab, but not in real life.  In the study, the researchers “took extremely concentrated virus, much more concentrated than a person makes, they used an artificial aerosol machine [a nebulizer], which probably generates way more aerosol than a normal person does So their conclusions were in this system.  The researchers of that study looked at SARS-CoV-1 (the original SARS from the 2003 outbreak) and SARS-CoV-2 and found that both could be aerosols. “But we already know that the original SARS virus was not transmitted that way,” in the general public, so that makes their model “not very believable (Dr. Otto Yang, a professor in the Department of Medicine and the Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Molecular Genetics at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.) [8]

The only high-level evidence for efficacy of masks in the community was a trial from Hong Kong — published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine — involving flu patients who were randomized to hand hygiene alone or in combination with surgical masks.  when these interventions were initiated within 36 hours of symptom onset, face masks plus hand hygiene reduced risk of transmission by a very significant 67%.  Although the entire benefit can’t be attributed to face masks, the results suggest masks may make a difference. [12]  Compared with controls, employing hand hygiene alone or with face masks tended to reduce transmission of the flu to those living in the same house, but not significantly so [11].

A “2009 Canadian study of 446 nurses who were working with influenza patients concluded that face masks provided protection almost equivalent to that provided by respirators.  Unfortunately, that turns out to be mixed news.  Of the nurses wearing surgical face masks, 23.6 percent contracted the flu, versus 22.9 percent of those wearing N95 respirators.  Ironically, that same year, an Australian study of 2000 Chinese healthcare workers had quite different results. According to the report from that study, “Consistent use of N95 respirators prevented 75% of respiratory infections (about the same as the Canadian study), while consistent surgical mask use was no better than low use for prevention of clinical respiratory illness (6.7% versus 9.2%, P=0.159) or of influenza-like illness (0.6% versus 1.3%, P=0.336).” In other words, surgical masks were nearly useless in preventing infection, but respirators were highly effective.” [14]

The Real Problem

The real problem with all this is that aerosol particles aren’t really stopped by masks and can remain in the air for hours, even settle on objects that we touch a thousand times a day.  They go through and around masks, even stick to masks, on the outside; as the studies indicate.  Since aerosol particles can travel and linger in the air, experts recommend that you stay at least six feet away from contagious people.  But what difference does that make if they can linger in the air for hours as you walk around and pass by people and touch things they touched? 

There are several ways pathogens can reach the respiratory system.  First, if a sick person coughs or sneezes they may expel “splashes,” which are large particles (greater than 100 μm in diameter) that drop to the ground fast.  Those are the things we touch.  Then, we touch our phones, masks, wallets, purses, car searing wheels, door handles and so on.  A mask doesn’t protect against this.  The masks usually can protect against the coughing and projecting “splashes”.

Droplets are a smaller version of splashes, between 5 μm and 100 μm.  Then there are small, lightweight aerosol particles of less than 5 μm that remain suspended in the air, travel over distance, and easily penetrate the respiratory system.

Aerosol particles can come from sneezes, coughs, or just exhalations of the sick person. In fact, the air around an infected person is usually loaded with aerosol particles containing viruses or bacteria.  Of which, can go around and through cloth/paper masks…

The US standard is the N95 respirator, which is certified to block 95 percent of particles as small as 0.3 μm (millionths of a meter), which is about the same size as a single virus.  This seems to be the only mask that can offer some kind of protection against Aerosol particles.

So, if your not wearing an N95 respirator (mask) but some sort of cloth or paper mask you may as well not be wearing a mask at all.

It seems that washing your hands and wearing a N95 respirator is the only way to really, actually, and scientifically, reduce the risk of virus loaded Aerosol particles.

If someone tells you that you need to be wearing a mask, any mask, they are weak minded ignorant sheep of a system that just wants to make the populous feel better and feel like the government is doing everything it can, and that it’s the people’s fault for the continued spread…

Sorry, your cloth/paper mask is nothing more than your self-soothing, self-righteous, virtual signaling and that your “saving lives.”  When, in fact, your cloth/paper mask can’t even stop the virus, in small coughed/expelled particles, that is so small it can go between the fibers of your mask, linger in the air and rest on anything and everything you touch…

Wash your damn hands.

And if you want to live in fear of a flu virus with a 0.26% mortality rate over all, and a 0.05% for people 49 years old and under [15, 16, 17], than at least wear a N95 respirator.

Sources

1. https://health.usnews.com/conditions/articles/do-face-masks-work-types-and-effectiveness.  Dr. Colleen Kraft, associate chief medical officer at Emory University Hospital and an associate professor at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta.
2. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/do-masks-work/
3. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342
4. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2
5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191274/
6. https://www.foxnews.com/health/do-surgical-masks-protect-against-coronavirus.  Dr. William Schaffner, a professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, and the medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.
7. https://www.webmd.com/lung/coronavirus-face-masks#1
8. https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-do-face-masks-work.html.  Dr. Otto Yang, a professor in the Department of Medicine and the Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Molecular Genetics at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.
9. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.09.20033217v2.article-info
10. https://www.medicinenet.com/do_face_masks_protect_you_from_the_new_coronavirus/article.htm
11. https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/infectioncontrol/16278.  C. Raina MacIntyre, MBBS, PhD, of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia
12. flu-related papers published online Aug. 3 by the Annals of Internal Medicine. Benjamin J. Cowling, BSc, PhD, of the University of Hong Kong
13. https://www.jonbarron.org/colds-flus-infectious-diseases/do-face-masks-really-help
14. https://www.jonbarron.org/colds-flus-infectious-diseases/do-face-masks-really-help
15. https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/280793
16. https://boston.cbslocal.com/2020/05/22/coronavirus-cdc-symptoms-asymptomatic-mortality-rate/
17. https://fox59.com/news/cdc-estimated-35-of-coronavirus-patients-dont-have-symptoms/
18. https://www.coloradoci.com/bin-pdf/5270/ParticleSize.pdf
19. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2994911/
20. https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/13/politics/asa-hutchison-arkansas-coronavirus/index.html
21. https://www.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/index.html#cases
22. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-07-02/error-led-to-overcount-of-coronavirus-testing-in-orange-county
23. https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/welcome-ad?toURL=/clinical-care/texas-doctor-goes-viral-saying-covid-19-numbers-are-inflated-rgv-doctors-disagree
24. https://www.abc4.com/coronavirus/utahs-thursday-coronavirus-numbers-inflated-from-data-backlog/
25. https://www.vox.com/2020/5/22/21266382/coronavirus-testing-accuracy-covid-data-manipulation
26. https://luetkemeyer.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=400389
27. https://abc7.com/orange-county-oc-false-mistake/6292928/
28. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/21/cdcs-coronavirus-report-includes-data-that-could-artificially-inflate-testing.html

THE CONSTITUTIONALITY AND ETHICAL ISSUES OF ‘STAY-AT-HOME’ ORDERS

Emotions aside, we examine the recent “Stay at Home” orders issued by Governors and county Judges nation wide.  Do they even have the power to order you to do so?  Are they constitutional?  Are they even ethical and moral? 

First, let’s look at what the constitution says.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Immediately we see that there are some direct, explicit constitutional issues with Stay at Home orders.  The prohibition of religious rituals and gatherings is a big, clear, violation.  The next obvious violation is completely taking away the right of the people to peacefully assemble.  Making these “stay at home” orders an actual large scale violation of the rights of every single person they are imposed on.

If taken to court, no doubt, it will go up to the Supreme Court.

Due to the impact and drastic nature of the order, the Supreme Court would use their “Strict Scrutiny” test to determine if it is even Constitutional.

1. is necessary to a “compelling state interest”;
2. that the law is “narrowly tailored” to achieving this compelling purpose;
3. and that the law uses the “least restrictive means” to achieve the purpose.

The first prong of the test is that It must be justified by a “compelling governmental interest.” While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of a large number of individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

Does the government have a compelling governmental interest that would require explicitly violating large number of individuals constitutional protections?

The obvious justification would be the Coronavirus and the national emergency declaration; and the need to “lower the curve” and “save lives” by being forced to “stay home.”  But what happens when the actual data is argued in court and that it is on record, legally, that this virus is just a newer and nasty flu?  Is a nasty flu compelling governmental interest to explicitly violating large number of individuals constitutional protections?  The judicial answer to this question COULD set a VERY scary precedent.

Big government lovers, mommy daddy government dependents, socialists, and closet communist would all say that “yes, there is a compelling governmental interest to protect the welfare of the the people, the common good, from a flu virus”  So, we could only speculate how the court would rule based on their view and philosophy of government, federal system and a confederation of individual states held together by a constitution that elect persons to represent that state nationally; a constitutional republic. So, let’s look at the known rulings and characteristics of the current supreme court justices.

The Supreme Court Justices

John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice.  He is a wild card.  Hailed as a ‘conservative’ he has not been one according to his rulings.  He, however, does not seem to vote based on his personal ideology.  In Department of Commerce v. New York, he shot down government information gathering about the people.  A win for the people.  In Rucho v. Common Cause; Lamone v. Benisek he ruled to take away federal judicial power.  That is a reduction in federalism.  Kisor v. Wilkie, he upheld allowing government agencies to have the power to interpret ambiguous regulations.  Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, agreed with the majority that private businesses records are confidential and private.  Flowers v. Mississippi, he joined the majority in granting a new trial due to a potentially racial discriminatory jury selection.   American Legion v. American Humanist Association, he favored religious freedom over imposed secularism.  Apple Inc v. Pepper, he, dissented against the liberal majority ruling against private companies.  Nielsen v. Preap, sided with the majority that the federal government can detain noncitizens with criminal records anytime.

Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice, is a stout moralist.  He is conservative in his world views and interpretations and is very methodical in his opinions.  In Department of Commerce v. New York, he supported the government information gathering about the people so that the government could better estimate its immigration data.  Oddly supported a more nosy government.  In Rucho v. Common Cause; Lamone v. Benisek he ruled to take away federal judicial power.  That is a reduction in federalism.  Kisor v. Wilkie, he dissented in allowing government agencies to have the power to interpret ambiguous regulations.  Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, agreed with the majority that private businesses records are confidential and private.  Flowers v. Mississippi, he dissented in an interesting manner in granting a new trial due to a potentially racial discriminatory jury selection.  I irony is that he, the only African American on the court, dissented, leaving an all non-African judges to rule that an all non-African jury may be bias.   American Legion v. American Humanist Association, he favored religious freedom over imposed secularism.  Apple Inc v. Pepper, he, dissented against the liberal majority ruling against private companies.  Nielsen v. Preap, sided with the majority that the federal government can detain noncitizens with criminal records anytime.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice, she is extremely close to retirement and his most likely holding on until after the next election (I’m sure she is hoping that Trump does not get re-elected).  She is as liberal as they come.  Like most liberal judges, she rules based on her emotions and ideology, then digs for legal justifications to support her preconceived liberalism.  In Department of Commerce v. New York, she shot down government information gathering about the people.  A win for the people. But, not for the same reasons Justice Roberts did.  She hates Trump and is liberal in her immigration views.  In Rucho v. Common Cause; Lamone v. Benisek she disagreed with the majority court and wanted to keep or expand federal judicial power. Kisor v. Wilkie, she upheld allowing government agencies to have the power to interpret ambiguous regulations.    Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, she dissented in her opinion against private businesses and their records.  Flowers v. Mississippi, she joined the majority in granting a new trial due to a potentially racial discriminatory jury selection.   American Legion v. American Humanist Association, favored imposing state secularism over the free exercise of religion.  Apple Inc v. Pepper, she joined the liberal majority ruling against private companies.  Nielsen v. Preap, dissented from the majority that the federal government can detain noncitizens with criminal records anytime.

Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice, has been on the more liberal side of things.  Though, not as extreme as Ginsburg, Sotomayor, or Kagan, he has those sort of left leaning judicial ideals.  He interprets the constitutions, looking for “purpose and consequences” not just literal textual criticism.  And he seems to be more supportive of government authority and action over the people.  In Department of Commerce v. New York, he shot down government information gathering about the people.  A win for the people. But, not for the same reasons Justice Roberts did.  He is liberal in his immigration views.  In Rucho v. Common Cause; Lamone v. Benisek he disagreed with the majority court and wanted to keep or expand federal judicial power.  Kisor v. Wilkie, he upheld allowing government agencies to have the power to interpret ambiguous regulations.  Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, he dissented in her opinion against private businesses and their records. Flowers v. Mississippi, he joined the majority in granting a new trial due to a potentially racial discriminatory jury selection.    American Legion v. American Humanist Association, he favored religious freedom over imposed secularism.  Apple Inc v. Pepper, he joined the liberal majority ruling against private companies.  Nielsen v. Preap, dissented from the majority that the federal government can detain noncitizens with criminal records anytime.

Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice, has been on the more conservative side of things.  He is a Roman Catholic and his faith is not benched in his world view.  He is a literal originalist in his interpretations of the constitution.  In Department of Commerce v. New York, he supported the government information gathering about the people so that the government could better estimate its immigration data.  It was interesting that he supported a more nosy government.  In Rucho v. Common Cause; Lamone v. Benisek he ruled to take away federal judicial power.  That is a reduction in federalism.  Kisor v. Wilkie, he dissented in allowing government agencies to have the power to interpret ambiguous regulations.  Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, agreed with the majority that private businesses records are confidential and private. Flowers v. Mississippi, he joined the majority in granting a new trial due to a potentially racial discriminatory jury selection.   American Legion v. American Humanist Association, he favored religious freedom over imposed secularism.  Nielsen v. Preap, sided with the majority that the federal government can detain noncitizens with criminal records anytime.

Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice, is most definitely a liberal when it comes to constitutional interpretation and the role of government in a society.  In Department of Commerce v. New York, she shot down government information gathering about the people.  A win for the people. But, not for the same reasons Justice Roberts did.  She is a liberal in her immigration views.  In Rucho v. Common Cause; Lamone v. Benisek she disagreed with the majority court and wanted to keep or expand federal judicial power. Kisor v. Wilkie, she upheld allowing government agencies to have the power to interpret ambiguous regulations.  Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, she dissented in her opinion against private businesses and their records.  Flowers v. Mississippi, she joined the majority in granting a new trial due to a potentially racial discriminatory jury selection.    American Legion v. American Humanist Association, favored imposing secularism over the free exercise of religion.  Apple Inc v. Pepper, she joined the liberal majority ruling against private companies.  Nielsen v. Preap, dissented from the majority that the federal government can detain noncitizens with criminal records anytime.

Elena Kagan, Associate Justice, just like Justice Sotomayor, she is liberal when it comes to constitutional interpretation and the role of government in a society and stout Democrat given her political employment backgrounds.  In Department of Commerce v. New York, she shot down government information gathering about the people.  A win for the people. But, not for the same reasons Justice Roberts did.  She is a liberal in her immigration views.  In Rucho v. Common Cause; Lamone v. Benisek she disagreed with the majority court and wanted to keep or expand federal judicial power. Kisor v. Wilkie, she upheld allowing government agencies to have the power to interpret ambiguous regulations.  Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, she, oddly, agreed with the majority in her opinion against private businesses and their records.  Flowers v. Mississippi, she joined the majority in granting a new trial due to a potentially racial discriminatory jury selection.    American Legion v. American Humanist Association, she favored religious freedom over imposed secularism.  Apple Inc v. Pepper, she joined the liberal majority ruling against private companies.  Nielsen v. Preap, dissented from the majority that the federal government can detain noncitizens with criminal records anytime.

Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice, is a texutalist and originalist in his interpretations of the Constitution.  He is without a doubt, conservative in his world view and a government minimalist.  In Department of Commerce v. New York, he supported the government information gathering about the people so that the government could better estimate its immigration data.  It was interesting that he supported a more nosy government.  In Rucho v. Common Cause; Lamone v. Benisek he ruled to take away federal judicial power.  That is a reduction in federalism.  Kisor v. Wilkie, he dissented in allowing government agencies to have the power to interpret ambiguous regulations.  Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, agreed with the majority that private businesses records are confidential and private. Flowers v. Mississippi, he joined Justice Thomas in the dissent opinion in granting a new trial due to a potentially racial discriminatory jury selection.    American Legion v. American Humanist Association, he favored religious freedom over imposed secularism.  Apple Inc v. Pepper, he, dissented against the liberal majority ruling against private companies.  Nielsen v. Preap, sided with the majority that the federal government can detain noncitizens with criminal records anytime.

Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice, much like Justice Gorsuch, is a texutalist and originalist in his interpretations of the Constitution.  He is conservative in his world view and seems to be more libertarian in his government philosophies.  In Department of Commerce v. New York, he supported the government information gathering about the people so that the government could better estimate its immigration data.  It was interesting that he supported a more nosy government.  In Rucho v. Common Cause; Lamone v. Benisek he ruled to take away federal judicial power.  That is a reduction in federalism.  Kisor v. Wilkie, he dissented in allowing government agencies to have the power to interpret ambiguous regulations.  Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, agreed with the majority that private businesses records are confidential and private. Flowers v. Mississippi, he joined the majority opinion in granting a new trial due to a potentially racial discriminatory jury selection.  American Legion v. American Humanist Association, he favored religious freedom over imposed secularism.  Apple Inc v. Pepper, he, oddly, joined the liberal majority ruling against private companies.  Nielsen v. Preap, sided with the majority that the federal government can detain noncitizens with criminal records anytime.

So, given their ideologies and most recent 2019 rulings, we can have some idea about how they could view Stay at home orders.

Liberals would put more weight into the concept and principle of mandatory, government imposed stay at home for the greater good.  Conservatives would put more weight in the individual freedoms and personal decision making of the people for their own good.

In general, it would seem like a split court with Justice Roberts as the wild card.  It seems like he would be against closing down private businesses, given his rulings for private companies.  He also seems to favor traditional religious expressions, so forcing churches to close on Sunday, specially Easter Sunday, sounds like something he would disagree with as well.  It almost seems he would be 55% against Stay-at-home orders and 45% for.  This would swing the court to a 5-4 decision against Stay at home orders.

Is the violation of rights from a flu like virus a compelling government interest?  It seems the court would go either 5-4 or even 6-3 on this one.

The second prong is that the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

A broad stroke of declaring entire aspects of a society “non-essential” would not sit well with a majority of these justices.  Forcing the closure of entire industries wouldn’t sit well either.  It seems that the court would rule that these actions and orders are NOT narrowly tailored and encompasses way too much;  7-2, 6-3 court, easily.

The third prong is that The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest: there must not be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this “least restrictive means” requirement part of being narrowly tailored, but the Court generally evaluates it separately.

Now this is almost laughable.  There are millions and hundreds of other, least restrictive means to “flatten the curve.”  But, given some of the ideologies of the court, the failure of this test may not be so clear.  5-4 ruling on this prong is a reasonable guess.

Only a totalitarian authoritarian tyrannical oppressive Court would rule “Stay at home” orders constitutional.  The same kind of supreme courts that agreed with slavery and internment camps.

Now, lets apply our Liberty Test to dig deeper in this issue.

1. Is it supportive of the most related right?
   1. OR does it create hardships and difficulties in exercising such right?
2. Does it expand the most related right, and or loosen them around that right?
   1. OR does it create or tighten them, increased limitation and contracting that right?
3. Is it equally levied on all people?
   1. OR do some people receive special treatment or are targeted unequally?
4. Does it address a extremely specific issue?
   1. OR is it too vast, broad, vague, and subjective?

First prong; No, it does not support ANY constitutional rights.  One may argue, it supports the right to life and pursuit of happiness but… this virus isn’t any more deadly than a peek flu season AND there are WORSE things that KILL MORE people.  And the “pursuit of happiness” is not protected as quarantine and unemployment will cause an increase in poverty and suicide… With that said, we can see that it will create hardships that didn’t exist prior.  Most defiantly NOT supportive of any of our rights.

Second prong; No, it does not expand any rights, nor does it loosen any government regulations or laws around any rights.  In fact, it does exactly the opposite.  As the secondary prong explores, it creates, increases, and tightens limitations and restrictions around just about all rights.  We can conclude that this is the most hateful act towards human rights.

Third prong; No, the simple fact that the government can just deem whomever it pleases as essential while others non-essential is the same as picking favorites and showing bias and partiality in a society that claims to be defenders of equality.  It is NOT levied equally on all people.  Some people are given special treatment through being deemed essential and others are targeted unequally by being deemed non-essential and ordered to close and stay home.  This is the opposite of equality and freedom for all.

Fourth prong; No, it does not.  The issue is so broad in that the issue encompasses the entire planet.  The issue is a virus.  There are hundreds of viruses, all over the place, all the time, every year, everywhere.  The broadness, vagueness, vastness, and subjective nature opens the door wide open for governmental abuse and large scale control and oppression; justified by a virus.

With the Constitutionality of the orders in question and doubted, and its massive failure for freedom and liberty, it then makes us question the moral and ethical nature of these sorts of orders.

The statistics to support the claim of how dangerous the virus is, are skewed and heavily flawed.  At this point, with the sheer number of people that have possibly been infected, even with the CDC guided inflated death count; there is a reasonable argument that it is just another, new, flu strand; with a fairly similar mortality rate of the seasonal flu.  This can not be discounted.  But it exposes the flawed proclamation of the scariness and dangerous-ness of the virus; leans more toward propaganda.

The orders are justified with the idea of “safety, for the common good… a little sacrifice for the community” and “security from a common enemy, the virus”  The ethical problem is that those are the same justifications used for Japanese Internment Camps and a host of other unethical government oppression… so to use them, would also require you to justify Internment Camps to remain consistent and prevent being a logical hypocrite.  The Supreme Court also upheld Japanese Internment Camps too…  So that is the ethical question:

Is targeting a certain group and forcing them to do something against their will and in violation of their rights; moral and ethical?

This question answers both “Stay at home” orders and Japanese Internment Camps because they both depend on the same logic and justifications.  Let’s go through the logical similarities and elements:

1. “Non-essentials” are identified and targeted.
2.  Religious groups were targeted with “stay at home” assembly prohibitions.
   1. Japanese Americans were identified and targeted.
3. The Stay at home orders force “Non-essentials” and Religious groups, to do something against their will (stay at home, can’t go to work, etc.)
   1. Japanese Americans were forced to do something against their will and couldn’t go to work.
4. The Stay at home orders violate the 1st Amendment rights of “Non-essentials” even “essentials”
   1. Japanese Americans 1st Amendment rights were violated.
5. The Stay at home orders are needed for “safety and security” during a government declared serious event (national emergency)
   1. Japanese Internment Camps were for “safety and security” during during a government declared serious event (war time)

Logic proves there that if you justify one, it justifies the other.  So the real question you have to ask is:

Were Japanese Internment Camps unethical and immoral?

You can’t say Japanese Internment Camps were immoral but Stay at Home orders are not; because, again, as logically proven above, they follow the exact same logical expression.

If you defend “Stay at Home” orders, you then must defend Japanese Internment Camps, to remain logical and rationally consistent.  If not, you are illogical, irrational, and hypocritical.

We can even evaluate Jim Crow laws, using the same line of logic and rational thought.  We know that Jim Crow laws and Japanese Internment Camps ARE UNETHICAL and IMMORAL; therefore, we can conclude that Stay at Home orders that depend on the very same logical must then be unethical and immoral as well.

Though, we should NOT solely depend on The Supreme Court to determine our ethical and moral grounds.  They too defended Jim Crow laws (the “separate but equal” ruling, Plessy v. Ferguson) and Japanese Internment Camps (Korematsu v. United States).  And let us not forget the host of other court rulings throughout history that WERE and ARE and forever will be unethical and immoral (Historic American Government Oppression). Ethics and Morality transcends the Supreme Court.  They did not invent it or define it.  They either agree with it and defend it, or violate it.

Those who defend “Stay at Home” orders, would have also defended Japanese Internment Camps and Jim Crow laws in those times.  They may say that they wouldn’t have but their thinking and cultural emotions is of the present.  But their logic is timeless.  And the logic, if applied in that era, within that era’s thinking and cultural emotions, would have led them to the same conclusion; the justification of taking away rights for the common good.

STAY AT HOME, FOLLOW ORDERS, OBEY, COMPLY, FOR THE COMMON GOOD

It is amazing to see the sheer amount of people demanding that OTHER people forfeit, suspend, neglect, and give up their freedoms because of a fearful feeling imposed by unreliable stats and unconstitutional government orders.  Even vilifying people who exercise their constitutional rights.   What is the rationale behind this?  Are their  concerns legitimize? 

The reality of the situation

Yes, a lot of people have tested positive for the Coronavirus.  But as we have extensively researched, we don’t really know how many because the ideological agendas.  If we do basic math, using various data centers we can conclude that the average mortality rate of the virus is 0.793% (see below).

Here come all the sheeple saying:

“bUt yOuR noT a ViruOloGisT!”

Your right, which is why we depend on data and statistics of the experts;  see below.  So, with that pathetic argument out of the way, let’s continue to look at the expert data.

Not even 1% mortality rate overall and under 60 years old, which is 92% of the world’s population.  If, only *66,722,200 world wide are infected, that means, 0.85% of the world is infected… not even 1%  And of that 0.85% infected, only 0.793% of that 0.85% population may, statistically, die; we can estimate that 0.0068% of the world’s population, under 60, may die.  That is 6 THOUSANDTHS OF A PERCENT… roughly 529,107 people, world wide, under 60 years would will die.  Sounds bad right?

Heart disease killed 7 million people in 2000; 7,000,000 deaths world wide! Ischaemic heart disease and stroke are the world’s biggest killers, accounting for a combined 17 million deaths in 2016. These diseases have remained the leading causes of death globally in the last 15 years [8].  29x more deadly than COVID-19!

Did you give up your rights to fight Ischaemic heart disease and stroke?  Why not?  It’s worse than COVID-19!

But there’s more:

Half of these will kill more people world wide than COVID-19.  And most of these numbers can’t be inflated or statistically manipulated.

Now, the numbers for the population that are over 60 years old is more scary, anywhere between 5-9% mortality rate… but they only make up 8% of the world population.  And due to their reduce chance of mobility and travel, they are less likely to become infected as they are more likely to remain at home or be more stationary.

Now, using logic, reasoning, and math; we can remove the emotionalistic indoctrination of fear and worry and see that this really isn’t as bad as governments, government puppets, and government employees make it out to be.  We can see through the propaganda and manipulation.

Here comes another sheeple argument:

“bUt DonT YoU cAre AbOuT peOPle?

I’m glad sheeple bring up this point.  Let’s look at it:

195 MILLION jobs have been wiped out, world wide, and “More than four fifths of workers globally live in countries affected by full or partial lockdown measures… Workers in the informal sector – who account for 61% of the global workforce or 2 billion people – will need income support just to survive and feed their families if their jobs disappear” [9, 11].  The Australians report, “We calculate that between 17% and 28% of Australian workers – 2.2 million to 3.6 million people – could be out of work in the coming weeks as a direct result of the spatial distancing measures now in place. If they are not already,”[10]

The government(s) did this, not the virus.

In America, the “Gross domestic product will plummet an annualized 25% from April through June after a smaller setback in the first quarter and the jobless rate will hit 12.6%, the highest since the 1940s, according to the median forecasts in Bloomberg’s monthly survey of 69 economists… “Even if the economy starts to re-open in mid-May, more than 20 million Americans will have lost their job with the economy likely having contracted around 13% peak-to-trough, more than three times deeper than the global financial crisis,”  The Bloomberg survey was conducted April 3 through Thursday, when a report showed another 6.6 million Americans applied for unemployment benefits, suggesting the jobless rate is already approaching 15%.” [12]

The virus didn’t do this, America did.

And it could be even worse, up to 47 million jobs lost and an unemployment rate of 32% [13]

Entire industries, small businesses, mom and pop shops that provide a living for entire families; deemed non-essential by government.  Ending the services that family depended on, as essential, for paying bills and putting food on the table.

The government did that, not the virus.

Even Forbes noticed it; “A disturbing trend noticed during the outbreak was the heavy-handed nature of the government. Whether you agree or disagree with the closing of businesses and orders to stay home, it smacks of “Big Brother,” 1984 Orwellian stuff. Government officials telling citizens to “rat” on their fellow Americans seems scarily like something you’d expect under an authoritarian regime.” [14]

Then, as everyone is hurting for money, cities and police departments started going around and issuing citations and fines for not obeying Orwellian orders [20]!

And those who preach “care about others, stay in side” clearly don’t care that a majority of people who will be suffering from these government actions; far worse than the virus.  Suicide rates are expected to rise because of all this!  [15, 17]  And this is caring for others?  Substance abuse is on the rise [16].  Might have something to do with the government declaring alcohol sales as essential and church not.

The Indoctrinated Sheeple Say The Darnedest Things:

This propaganda hit piece in the LA Times about a small protest in LA quotes an “expert” as saying this:

“This blows me away,” she said. “People are dying — and at an alarming rate!”

The healthcare worker said she had seen a friend from her Huntington Beach church moments earlier. “He said he is tired of his rights being taken away,” the woman said.

“This has nothing to do with politics … It’s science!” she added. “This is a mob mentality,” she said, noting the police presence but lack of action [19].

Actually, math says that random “expert” is wrong.  In fact, in LA the mortality rate is dropping at an alarming rate as they test more, discover more, more recover, and less die… But why does that person think that?  Because they were told so…

LOL “its science”  She would be the kind of person, in the 14th century, that would have believed the earth was flat, simply because of the leading science said so, without question.

And, secondly, her friends rights ARE being taken away.  Do we need to do another Bill of Rights lesson?  Sure:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof… or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

LOL the government is doing exactly that.  Enforcing laws/orders that ARE prohibiting the free exercise of religion AND the right of peaceful assembly.  This healthcare worker, is a moron, indoctrinated tool.

Then, in San Diego,  a woman has been notified she’s facing a $1,000 fine or jail time for organizing a “freedom rally” against COVID-19 orders [20, 21].  Naomi Soria, 27, on Wednesday confirmed she was facing penalties for the downtown protest that drew hundreds. Later, she announced another rally this Sunday in Pacific Beach.  The San Diego Police Department confirmed it has contacted the City Attorney’s Office “requesting their review to issue charges against the protest organizer for violating the county health order by organizing a gathering,”

The county health order supersedes her Constitutional right to peacefully assemble?!

The Center for American Liberty should take this trash all the way to the supreme court, win, and then she should sue the shit out of the city.

Do we care about our community?

I care so much about people, that I am willing to fight and die for their freedom and liberty from oppression, for their life, liberty, and their pursuit of happiness.  Even if they don’t.  Even if you don’t.

And you clearly don’t.  You support that which is going to cause more harm than the actual virus.

And, they clearly don’t.  They are more than willing to follow orders and comply to something that will harm their community long term and worse than the virus.

• Americans want the government to tell them what to do; COVID-19 proved this.
• Americans want the government to provide for them; COVID-19 proved this.
• Americans want to depend on the government; COVID-19 proved this.
• Americans obey and comply with unconstitutional orders instead of resist them; COVID-19 proved this.
• Americans blindly believe the fearmongering of the government and big government puppets; COVID-19 proved this.  China spits out some trash data, the World Health Organization regurgitates it, and dumb gullible American tools eat it up with out question.

Police departments declare that “protesting is a non-essential activity“ .  (The same shitty police departrment that shot someone as they were running away [18]).  PROTESTING IS A HUMAN RIGHT!

local governments dictate where and when you can an can’t go with essential/non-essential declarations and curfews.  LIBERTY IS A HUMAN RIGHT!

Governments declare alcohol and abortion clinics [23] are essential and can remain open but churches and Christians can’t worship on their holiest of days (Easter).  THEN even force church services to stop and fine people… people who may be out of work and in financial trouble… FREEDOM TO WORSHIP AND ASSEMBLE IS A HUMAN RIGHT!

Facebook and Twitter are banning free speech and free press about all the problematic data [24, 25].  This article may even, eventually, get banned (even though I quote all the sources they deem as reliable).

EVERY SINGLE RIGHT, IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS, HAS BEEN VIOLATED!

For what?

Over fear of a virus with a 0.79% mortality rate…

If you believe that is justifiable, you are a damn indoctrinated government tool and you deserve to have your rights taken away.

YOU are allowing this!  the prosecution of whistleblowers, free speech, and free press through Julian Assange [6b] and Edward Snowden [7b]; which exposed the governments involvement in illegally spying on citizens and murder of civilians; police targeting Christians who worshiped on their holiest day when the local governments ordered them not to, 2020 [1b].  Raleighn Police Department and in San Diego acting against peaceful protests in 2020 [2b, 20].  Virginia Governor declares a state of emergency prior to peaceful protests in 2019 [3b].

Yes, Freedom and Liberty is more important than the Coronavirus.

Time To Get Organized

1.  Mortality Rate calculations:
   1. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
      1. Accessed: 4/23/2020
      2. Cases: 2,668,889 (confirmed)
      3. Deaths: 186,324
         1. Includes “probable deaths” per CDC guidelines.
            * Which means the total deaths may be inflated.
      4. (deaths) / (cases) = 0.06981 or 6%
      5. Does not include “probable cases”
         1. Antibody test finds up to 55x more cases [1].
         2. LA county reported 7,994 cases.
         3. Antibody estimates 221,000 to 442,000 cases.
         4. Only 4% of the infected are being confirmed.  96% of infected are not being confirmed.
            1. (confirmed cases) / 4 = 667,222 is 1% of est. confirmed cases of the total estimated infected world wide.
            2. (Est. 1% Cases) * 100 = 66,722,200, est. world wide cases.
            3. (deaths) / (Est. cases w/ antibody test) = 0.00279 or 0.2%
   2. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html
      1. Accessed: 4/23/2020
      2. Confirmed Cases: 802,583
         1. Does not included “probable cases”
            * Which means numbers may actually be higher
      3. Deaths: 44,575
         1. Does include “probable deaths”
            * Which means numbers may be inflated
      4. (Deaths, 44575) / (Cases, 802583) = 0.055 or 5%
      5. Considering the LA antibody test finds 96% more infected:
         1. (Confirmed cases, 802583) / 4 = 200,645 or 1% of estimated infected.
         2. (Est. 1% Cases, 200645) * 100 = 20,064, 575 estimated actual cases w/ antibody test.
         3. (deaths) / (Est. cases w/ antibody test, 20,064,575) = 0.00222 or 0.2%
   3. *Both conclusions are conservative estimates of the lower end of the antibody testing estimations.
      
   4. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext
      1. A study that studied all known data accounting for censoring and ascertainment biases.
      2. Ages 1-49, est less than 0.161% mortality rate.
      3. Ages 50-59, est 0.595% mortality rate.
      4. Ages 60-69, est 1.93% mortality rate.
      5. Ages 70-79, est 4.28% mortality rate.
      6. Ages 80+, est 7.8% mortality rate.
      7. Overall est mortality rate: 0.657%
      8. 60 years old or under, est. mortality rate: 0.145%
   5. Germany death rate: 0.59% [5]
   6. Switzerland death rate: 1.64% [5]
   7. Austria death rate: 0.57% [5]
   8. Australia death rate: 0.33% [5]
   9. South Korea death rate: 1.49% [5]
   10. China’s corrected death rate: 1.38% [4]
2. Combine and average the death rates of 60 years or younger (92% of the worlds population[6]), world wide, that include probable cases along with probable deaths and accounting for censoring and ascertainment biases:
   0.793%

• World Population:  7,779,751,100 [7]
• Wold Population, under 60 years old:  7,157,371,012
• Est. World Cases: *66,722,200

1. Est World Infected: (Est World Cases) / (World Pop) =  0.00857 or 0.857%
2. Est. World Mortality Rate of those Infected: (66,722,200) * 0.00739 = 493,077 (est deaths world wide, <60yo)
3. Percentage of the world mortality, under 60 years old:  (Est. Word Wide deaths, <60yo) / (World Pop, <60yo) = 0.0000688 or 0.0068%

Sources:

1. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/20/coronavirus-antibody-testing-shows-la-county-outbreak-is-up-to-55-times-bigger-than-reported-cases.html
2. https://disrn.com/news/antibody-testing-reveals-la-county-outbreak-55-times-bigger-than-reported-cases
3. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html
4. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext
5. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8159841/What-REAL-death-rate-coronavirus.html
6. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.65UP.TO.ZS
7. https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
8. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death
9. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/covid-19-expected-to-to-wipe-out-67-of-worlds-working-hours
10. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/20/lower-income-earners-more-likely-to-lose-jobs-due-to-coronavirus
11. https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/04/1061322
12. https://time.com/5819080/unemployment-coronavirus/
13. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/30/coronavirus-job-losses-could-total-47-million-unemployment-rate-of-32percent-fed-says.html
14. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2020/04/09/the-aftermath-of-covid-19-will-cause-alarming-changes-to-our-careers-and-lives/#2589ee114e52
15. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/covid-19-is-likely-to-lead-to-an-increase-in-suicides/
16. https://www.kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/the-implications-of-covid-19-for-mental-health-and-substance-use/
17. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/unemployment-isolation-covid-19s-mental-health-impact/story?id=69939700
18. https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/11/us/raleigh-police-shooting-protests/index.html
19. https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/story/2020-04-17/for-protesters-in-huntington-beach-ongoing-social-and-economic-restrictions-are-political-covid-19-a-hoax
20. https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2020/04/22/san-diego-woman-facing-fine-jailing-over-covid-19-protest-plans-2nd-rally/
21. https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/04/17/coronavirus-covid-protest-shutdown-oc-huntington-beach/
22. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michigan-protest-gretchen-whitmer-operation-gridlock-lansing/
23. https://time.com/5812891/texas-alabama-ohio-judges-block-abortion-ban/
24. https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-blocking-coronavirus-articles-bug-2020-3
25. https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/17/facebook-link-spam-filter-coronavirus/

Is there something wrong with Vaccinations?

This Article will analyze the Anti-vaxxer’s arguments and justifications for refusing to get themselves and their children vaccinated.  Do they have a rational, logical, and justified reason?  Should they have the freedom to refuse vaccinations?  What does REAL science and studies have to say about vaccinations?