I realize these restrictions were already eased but... I don't see how any locale can restrict religious service if it has indoor dining or bars open. If anything, the former can be done with masks. That said, it should be noted that singing/choir indoors is especially high-risk.https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1331838731893043201 …
-
Show this thread
-
Yes, restricting certain liberties and mandating certain precautions can be necessary for public health during a pandemic. But it is a high price and has to be narrowly-tailored and scientifically solid. Otherwise, we lose legitimacy, plus it doesn't work. And that's what we did.
4 replies 14 retweets 222 likesShow this thread -
I'm not making a legal comment! Regardless of legal basis: restrictions must target activity by risk type. Any place that has indoor dining, bars and gyms open but tries to limit other, often lower-risk activities, is losing legitimacy and not targeting the pandemic properly.
10 replies 34 retweets 271 likesShow this thread -
zeynep tufekci Retweeted Carly
Indoor dining: unmasked. Again, not making a legal comment. Our hierarchy of closures should have started with indoor dining/bars/gyms—instead, most places kept/keep those open. Worship can be high risk (singing/unmasked) or lower risk (outdoors, masked).https://twitter.com/stagzr/status/1332004718848081920 …
zeynep tufekci added,
6 replies 6 retweets 85 likesShow this thread -
zeynep tufekci Retweeted Colm
I'm commenting on the legitimacy aspect, not legal basis. Restricting religious services requires a lot of legitimacy and many states have bars, gyms, casinos open. I am not commenting on whatever SCOTUS judges are claiming. I'm pointing out where we are.https://twitter.com/ilikenewspapers/status/1332006038774669312 …
zeynep tufekci added,
8 replies 5 retweets 70 likesShow this thread -
For all I know, the SCOTUS opinion is nonsense. No idea! Not commenting on that. I'm just pointing out that we have a legitimacy crisis. The restrictions don't seem to apply to leaders (Congress wants a banquet for newcomers etc.) or be narrowly-targeted by risk. So here we are.
14 replies 16 retweets 173 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @zeynep
Zeynep, you may be a scientist but you still have an obligation as a citizen to understand the courts. This should enlighten you.https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/11/29/religious-rights-trump-covid-illness-deaths-supreme-court-column/6436196002/ …
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.