Supreme Court's scientifically illiterate decision will cost lives

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

(CNN)Last month, I wrote that Amy Coney Barrett would help to usher in a new post-truth jurisprudence on the Supreme Court. While I had cited her anti-science statements on climate change, her arrival on the court has created a new 5-4 majority against public-health science at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic.

When it ruled this week against New York state's decision to limit religious gatherings in a few high-incidence parts of New York City, the court proved the dangers of scientifically illiterate judges overturning government decisions that were based on scientific evidence.

The immediate effect on New York City is moot because the state had already lifted the particular orders under review. The grave, imminent danger lies in the rest of the country, where public health authorities will feel hamstrung to restrict religious gatherings even when the virus is spreading out of control.

The two cases under review were brought by two religious bodies: the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Agudath Israel of America, an Orthodox Jewish group. Both objected to stringent limits on religious gatherings in particularly hard-hit neighborhoods in Brooklyn. The court's five conservative justices, a new majority with Barrett now on the bench, argued that the state's limits on religious gatherings violated "the minimum requirement of neutrality" to religion under the First Amendment.

The court majority characterized the violation of neutrality this way:

"In a red zone, while a synagogue or church may not admit more than 10 persons, businesses categorized as 'essential' may admit as many people as they wish. And the list of 'essential' businesses includes things such as acupuncture facilities, camp grounds, garages, as well as many whose services are not limited to those that can be regarded as essential, such as all plants manufacturing chemicals and microelectronics and all transportation facilities."

...
...

The problem is that the apparently scientifically illiterate majority on the court missed the entire point of the restriction on religious services. Gorsuch mistakenly claims that New York state deems laundry and liquor as essential but religious services as not essential. That is false. Kavanaugh mistakenly claims that New York state failed to justify why houses of worship are excluded from the "favored class" of businesses with lesser restrictions. This too is false.

...

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/27/opin...terate-scotus-covid-decision-sachs/index.html

Check out the full article. It is worth it to read how the conservatives get destroyed, but on the other hand it just makes our situation sadder.

 

[Bomb#20]

(CNN)Last month, I wrote that Amy Coney Barrett would help to usher in a new post-truth jurisprudence on the Supreme Court. While I had cited her anti-science statements on climate change, her arrival on the court has created a new 5-4 majority against public-health science at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. ...

The immediate effect on New York City is moot because the state had already lifted the particular orders under review.

I.e., the decision will not cost any lives. CNN headline writers, take note.

The grave, imminent danger lies in the rest of the country, where public health authorities will feel hamstrung to restrict religious gatherings even when the virus is spreading out of control.

Um, is there any explanation of a mechanism by which the decision will cause public health authorities in the rest of the country to feel hamstrung to restrict religious gatherings even when the virus is spreading out of control, that does not take for granted that said public health authorities suffer Barrett Derangement Syndrome to the same degree as the staff of CNN?

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...-public-safety&p=850917&viewfull=1#post850917

According to crazyfingers and the Boston Globe, "The administration believes the Supreme Court decision is consistent with the way Massachusetts is working with our houses of worship during the pandemic". Massachusetts at least is evidently not hamstrung about restricting religious gatherings.

With regard to CNN's allegation of a "new 5-4 majority against public-health science", can you quote a public-health scientist who claims the public health necessitates that a 1000-seat church operate at no more than 1% capacity? Or is that a figure Governor Cuomo pulled out of his ass?

 

[Elixir]

Nothing to look at here - the vast majority of Americans hold their superstitious beliefs above the findings of science. It has ever been so.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I.e., the decision will not cost any lives. CNN headline writers, take note.

The grave, imminent danger lies in the rest of the country, where public health authorities will feel hamstrung to restrict religious gatherings even when the virus is spreading out of control.

Um, is there any explanation of a mechanism by which the decision will cause public health authorities in the rest of the country to feel hamstrung to restrict religious gatherings even when the virus is spreading out of control, that does not take for granted that said public health authorities suffer Barrett Derangement Syndrome to the same degree as the staff of CNN?

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...-public-safety&p=850917&viewfull=1#post850917

According to crazyfingers and the Boston Globe, "The administration believes the Supreme Court decision is consistent with the way Massachusetts is working with our houses of worship during the pandemic". Massachusetts at least is evidently not hamstrung about restricting religious gatherings.

With regard to CNN's allegation of a "new 5-4 majority against public-health science", can you quote a public-health scientist who claims the public health necessitates that a 1000-seat church operate at no more than 1% capacity? Or is that a figure Governor Cuomo pulled out of his ass?

What percent capacity do you think science supports instead and why?

Also...I do feel like your objection may be far too narrow and not the objection of the Court.

 

[Bomb#20]

What percent capacity do you think science supports instead and why?

How the heck would I know? I'm not a public health scientist; and I'm not the one who chose to pontificate about how the court was rejecting science in spite of not actually having any science to back up my claim. You want to accuse the majority of being against public-health science, the burden is on you to produce some science. Good try though.

Also...I do feel like your objection may be far too narrow and not the objection of the Court.

And you form your opinion of what the objection of the Court is the same way you form your opinion of what public health science says: by how you feel? I already posted the link to the Court's actual ruling in two of the other Covid threads. Read it and weep.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

What percent capacity do you think science supports instead and why?

How the heck would I know? I'm not a public health scientist; and I'm not the one who chose to pontificate about how the court was rejecting science in spite of not actually having any science to back up my claim. You want to accuse the majority of being against public-health science, the burden is on you to produce some science. Good try though.

You are making a claim that 1% capacity of 1000 seats for a church is being pulled from Cuomo's ass. So, tell us what the percent should be instead. If you didn't actually know what the percent should be and just had a feeling it was wrong, you could use less extremist language.

Also...I do feel like your objection may be far too narrow and not the objection of the Court.

And you form your opinion of what the objection of the Court is the same way you form your opinion of what public health science says: by how you feel? I already posted the link to the Court's actual ruling in two of the other Covid threads. Read it and weep.

Your objection was too narrow and not the objection of the Court being pointed to in the article.

 

[Bomb#20]

You are making a claim that 1% capacity of 1000 seats for a church is being pulled from Cuomo's ass. So, tell us what the percent should be instead.

Translation: "Reversing burden-of-proof isn't a fallacy when I do it, because I really want to."

If you didn't actually know what the percent should be and just had a feeling it was wrong, you could use less extremist language.

You really aren't good at this. I didn't say the 1% figure is wrong; whether it's right or wrong is immaterial to the issue at hand. The point is that you, Sachs and Cuomo produced no scientific evidence that it's right. It isn't extremist language to say a number was pulled out of his ass when it's plain that Cuomo gave less thought to whether 1% capacity was an appropriate limit than the SCOTUS majority gave:

"Among other things, the maximum attendance at a religious service could be tied to the size of the church or synagogue."​

Cuomo imposed the same limit -- 10 people -- on churches with 1000 seats as he imposed on churches with 10 seats. There may possibly be a church size for which "10 people" is not a number pulled out of Cuomo's ass. For all other church sizes, he pulled it out of his ass.

Your objection was too narrow and not the objection of the Court being pointed to in the article.

Excuse me? The article didn't point to an objection of the Court; it pointed to objections in two justices' concurring opinions. Even if Gorsuch and Kavanaugh got the science wrong, they do not constitute "a new 5-4 majority against public-health science", Mr. "you could use less extremist language". But perhaps you were referring to this passage from the article:

The court majority characterized the violation of neutrality this way:
"In a red zone, while a synagogue or church may not admit more than 10 persons, businesses categorized as 'essential' may admit as many people as they wish. And the list of 'essential' businesses includes things such as acupuncture facilities, camp grounds, garages, as well as many whose services are not limited to those that can be regarded as essential, such as all plants manufacturing chemicals and microelectronics and all transportation facilities."​

That's not the court's objection; that's an out-of-context fragment taken from the background information the court supplied to explain which legal standard is applicable. The actual objection is on the next page:

"it is hard to see how the challenged regulations can be regarded as “narrowly tailored.” They are far more restrictive than any COVID–related regulations that have previously come before the Court, much tighter than those adopted by many other jurisdictions hard-hit by the pandemic, and far more severe than has been shown to be required to prevent the spread of the virus at the applicants’ services."​

On what planet does that qualify as "The problem is that the apparently scientifically illiterate majority on the court missed the entire point of the restriction on religious services."? Get a grip.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Translation: "Reversing burden-of-proof isn't a fallacy when I do it, because I really want to."


You really aren't good at this. I didn't say the 1% figure is wrong; whether it's right or wrong is immaterial to the issue at hand. The point is that you, Sachs and Cuomo produced no scientific evidence that it's right. It isn't extremist language to say a number was pulled out of his ass when it's plain that Cuomo gave less thought to whether 1% capacity was an appropriate limit than the SCOTUS majority gave:

Covid-19 is novel, meaning new. We do know it is highly contagious especially because it seems to spread even from asymptomatic people. Especially among those indoors, closely packed, and singing for a period of time greater than 15 minutes.

Currently we lack the studies to be able to say X will work or Y won't work... so there is a factor of safety involved.

It isn't "scientific" because we simply haven't had the time, so precautions are added to the precautions for policies on social GATHERINGS to inhibit further spread of a disease that has the capacity to overwhelm our health care system, as has already happened in a handful of cities, including New York City, a city that was so impacted, that it shut down... and nothing had shut down NYC before, not even 9/11. And this is the stupidity of the SCOTUS decision as it cited policies on things that weren't gatherings and comparing them to policies on events that were gatherings.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Translation: "Reversing burden-of-proof isn't a fallacy when I do it, because I really want to."


You really aren't good at this. I didn't say the 1% figure is wrong; whether it's right or wrong is immaterial to the issue at hand. The point is that you, Sachs and Cuomo produced no scientific evidence that it's right. It isn't extremist language to say a number was pulled out of his ass when it's plain that Cuomo gave less thought to whether 1% capacity was an appropriate limit than the SCOTUS majority gave:

Covid-19 is novel, meaning new. We do know it is highly contagious especially because it seems to spread even from asymptomatic people. Especially among those indoors, closely packed, and singing for a period of time greater than 15 minutes.

Currently we lack the studies to be able to say X will work or Y won't work... so there is a factor of safety involved.

It isn't "scientific" because we simply haven't had the time, so precautions are added to the precautions for policies on social GATHERINGS to inhibit further spread of a disease that has the capacity to overwhelm our health care system, as has already happened in a handful of cities, including New York City, a city that was so impacted, that it shut down... and nothing had shut down NYC before, not even 9/11. And this is the stupidity of the SCOTUS decision as it cited policies on things that weren't gatherings and comparing them to policies on events that were gatherings.

Some things ARE scientific and to different degrees from speculation with supporting data to well-supported by preliminary research to submitted to a journal to peer reviewed. It's a spectrum. Most findings are preliminary at this point but remain scientific. Here is a decent article on some of the subject matter:
https://www.npr.org/2020/08/10/8889...the-era-of-coronavirus-not-really-experts-say

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Additionally...

I have also already posted a link previously to another covid thread in the forum of scientific work done by a researcher at MIT in doing fluid dynamics work. She has published peer-reviewed papers. Her work shows sneezing can move droplets up to 27 to 28 feet. As an aside, she also comments a lot on how the 6 feet rule is outdated in her published paper as those limits are derived from wrong thinking from the 1930's.

Here is a related article:
https://scitechdaily.com/social-dis...ction-how-to-detect-covid-19-super-spreaders/

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Back before hand washing became the norm, some people - not mentioning any names here - insisted that it was proper to do a pelvic exam for a pregnancy immediately after dragging their paws out of a cadaver - without washing! Today's scientifically literate people find that disappointing but not necessarily surprising, even considering the fact that at the time disease transmission and mortality were significantly reduced in wards where hand washing was practiced.

The lesson is that scientific illiteracy will always be among us, likely due to the reality of obvious cognitive differences within our species.

Horse ... drag ... water ...

 

[Trausti]

"Scientist" said that we must social distance and not gather in groups; unless you're protesting for the latest liberal cause celebre, then everything is good. The politicization of science has caused a lot of damage.

 

[TomC]

"Scientist" said that we must social distance and not gather in groups; unless you're protesting for the latest liberal cause celebre, then everything is good. The politicization of science has caused a lot of damage.

What scientists said this?
Tom

 

[Trausti]

"Scientist" said that we must social distance and not gather in groups; unless you're protesting for the latest liberal cause celebre, then everything is good. The politicization of science has caused a lot of damage.

What scientists said this?
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"Scientist" said that we must social distance and not gather in groups; unless you're protesting for the latest liberal cause celebre, then everything is good. The politicization of science has caused a lot of damage.

What scientists said this?
Tom

As a reminder, the heavily masked protests after the latest police killing, saw no uptick in Covid-19 cases in the north. Several outbreaks tied to churches have been reported.

 

[Trausti]

"Scientist" said that we must social distance and not gather in groups; unless you're protesting for the latest liberal cause celebre, then everything is good. The politicization of science has caused a lot of damage.

What scientists said this?
Tom

As a reminder, the heavily masked protests after the latest police killing, saw no uptick in Covid-19 cases in the north. Several outbreaks tied to churches have been reported.

De Blasio Tells Covid Contract Tracers Not to Ask Positive Cases If They’ve Attended BLM Protests

New York City’s coronavirus contact-tracing force are not asking those who test positive for COVID-19 whether they recently attended a Black Lives Matter demonstration, a city spokesperson confirmed.

Coronavirus Cases Spike In Los Angeles County Linked Protests

This week, the top public health official of Los Angeles County claimed that the protests could have been the reason why the county has witnessed a recent spike in COVID-19 cases.

In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles County Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer said that it is “highly likely” that the rallies on police brutality and racial injustice could have led to the significant increase in coronavirus cases in the area.

 

[TomC]

"Scientist" said that we must social distance and not gather in groups; unless you're protesting for the latest liberal cause celebre, then everything is good. The politicization of science has caused a lot of damage.

What scientists said this?
Tom

I asked about scientists.
I notice that you couldn't come up with any.
Tom

 

[Trausti]

I asked about scientists.
I notice that you couldn't come up with any.
Tom

So doctors and health professionals are not scientists. Um, okay.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I asked about scientists.
I notice that you couldn't come up with any.
Tom

You're not supposed to notice that.

Also, if several "scientists" exercise poor judgement in a situation, we obviously need to condemn all of science and all "scientists," and not the human condition.

 

[Shadowy Man]

So doctors and health professionals are not scientists. Um, okay.

Um yes. Doctors and health professionals are not necessarily scientists. Most medical doctors are not and “health professional” is a vague term and may or may not include scientists.