Jump to content

Mr_Bond

Economic Conditions - Nashville, TN, U.S., Global

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, satalac said:

I've honestly been surprised at how low the death rate is in TN compared to other states. We've always scored poorly on overall health, which pre-existing health issues seem to be a big factor in death from COVID. I wonder if that has to do with the quality of hospitals in the state. 

I honestly don't know how TN does it, but I've heard in some states they keep the numbers low by saying a person already dying of disease "x", that COVID may have hastened, is not listed as a COVID death. That may be "fake news" though.

Edited by Nash_12South

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


On 6/15/2020 at 5:18 PM, titanhog said:

I think what you are saying is mostly subjective...I do not believe it would hold up in the Supreme Court to prohibit churches, mosques, synagogues, etc from their 1st Amendment rights.  It's one thing to ask religious organizations to take into consideration the virus and the possibility of spreading it...but that same thing can be said for protestors.    I think many churches would decide on their own to do something to protect their members...but to police them and threaten to arrest anyone who worships at a church (which they did in some states)...while allowing protests, stores (grocers, Walmart, Home Depot), gun sellers, abortion clinics, etc) to be open is wrong. .  Most religious groups are still prohibited from 100% allowance...even with masks.

It's purely a choice of governments to make this decision...and I believe it would not hold up in the Supreme Court.

You're right that this is somewhat subjective, but it's not my subjectivity that I'm trying to apply here.  The law is certainly supposed to be objective, but all LEOs, prosecutors, legislators, and judges inevitably bring some personal subjectivity to any issue they encounter (as do we all). But in order to limit the amount of subjectivity that can influence any given case, there are rules, standards, tests, and various criteria that are developed by judges over time to make the rule of law as consistently applied as possible, which is what I'm referring to here when I talk about a government's compelling interest and how narrowly the law is tailored, etc. This is how common law is established and applied generally - not by me specifically.

The main point that I was trying to convey is that the government absolutely has the right to infringe on people's First Amendment rights, including the free exercise of religion. This has been repeatedly established throughout the history of the Supreme Court.  There's an important distinction here between religious belief, for which there are no restrictions  (meaning the government cannot stop you from believing in whatever you want), and religious conduct (meaning actions taken in accordance with your religious belief) for which the government can certainly make laws that prohibit certain types of religious conduct as long as there is a compelling interest on the part of the government to make those laws and as long as those laws are narrowly tailored to minimize the restriction to whatever degree possible. You'll note that these laws would have to be subjectively evaluated by courts as I mentioned above, but that's been done over centuries of time to lead us to where we are today, and we have some pretty good guidelines and standards about how to get it done.

As examples, think about Mormonism and polygamy.  Having multiple wives is a core belief of traditional Mormon doctrine (as I understand it) and yet polygamy is against the law in the US. While our government is not allowed to outlaw the belief that polygamy is righteous, it is very much allowed to outlaw the practice of polygamy itself.  The same goes for some tribal religions who use peyote as a part of their religious ceremonies: the government can not restrict the belief that peyote's use in religious ceremonies is a good thing, but it can still make the use of peyote illegal generally (as an illegal drug).

This is some pretty complicated stuff so I can understand the confusion, but the government is one hundred percent allowed to ban gatherings over a certain size (which happens to include gatherings at churches) without limiting the ability of religious people to pray, whether alone or on zoom or with a televangelist.  There are technological solutions that make worshipping remotely possible, while you can't eat food or get an abortion or bear arms through your TV (which are also all constitutionally protected actions).  These things are not the same and are justifiably treated differently.

On 6/15/2020 at 6:46 PM, SoundScan said:

A bit of recency bias here. Governments are certainly not the exclusive target of protest in this country. As well, public protest carries the same imminent threat restrictions--I disagree that there is a "heightened standard" versus other forms of protected speech. The government can and has legally regulated protests and can impose reasonable restrictions on the place, time, and manner of protest. Could governments substantiate a claim that gatherings of tens or hundreds of churchgoers presents an imminent threat to public safety but a gathering of hundreds or thousands in the streets does not? I don't think so.

Regarding restrictions being applied fairly or evenly, perhaps they were in Tennessee, but this is certainly not the case in many states or municipalities. In California, restaurants, shopping centers, offices, and other non-essential gathering places were allowed to open, but not churches--even when agreeing to follow the same social distancing requirements. In Mississippi, they banned drive-in religious services but not drive-in restaurants. In New Mexico, a court held up restrictions against religious institutions, saying "the public's interest in limiting the COVID-19 outbreak in the state, a compelling interest, outweighs the right to gather"--a compelling interest that apparently did not extend to other non-essential services in the state. There are plenty of others, and I think one could easily argue that these restrictions were discriminatory.

I can't say I'd be as confident in the "slam dunk case" assumption.

This is a fantastic post, thanks!! You clearly know what you're talking about here. 

To clarify - you're right that not all protests are about government action, but protests against the government is what I was referring to given the current context of what we're dealing with in the situation at hand.

Also, there is a heightened standard of strict scrutiny for political speech (which includes protesting) that goes beyond the standard that is applied to all forms of protected speech. Restrictions on religious speech are of course subject to strict scrutiny as well, but we're really talking about religious conduct here with the church closings. In any case, we're kind of splitting hairs and I assume you're aware of this distinction based on the considerable knowledge on display throughout the rest of your post.

Further, to be clear, I was primarily referring to the restrictions as they've been applied in Tennessee to keep the focus on the issue at hand.  That said, in line with what I mentioned to Titanhog above, I don't really see any issue with banning drive-in religious services but not drive-in restaurants given that in-person food acquisition is going to trump in-person prayer on the hierarchy of necessity, but you're right that's a much stickier issue. I also don't know anything about if/why California shopping centers are treated differently than churches as you noted, so I can't speak to that, but it's certainly possible the legislature has outlined what they believe to be a compelling interest in doing so, and it's also possible that it's a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause - we'd have to get a lot more into the weeds to parse that out.

All that to say, my point about the "slam dunk" is that the government unquestionably has the ability to limit the free exercise of religion in many cases, which was the point I was trying to drive home for anyone with less knowledge about these issues who thinks that the Bill of Rights is more rigid in application than it actually is. Of course, as I also noted above, judges bring their own subjectivity to these cases and you never know how any given court is going to rule on any given issue, precedent or not.

In any case, great post - thanks again!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, DDIG said:

I'm not anti-protest, but you are short selling the other side. Yes the Broadway bars are the loudest, but it goes much deeper than that. Stifling businesses reduces  jobs to all people of all colors, reduces tax revenue that funds schools and social programs, impacts mental health of the larger community, etc. 

Anyway - here's what I'm buying folks. New positive cases today are not equal to new positive cases weeks or a month ago. The hospitalization numbers are backing that up.

A month ago, the only people getting tests were people sick, seeking it out, or people in the hospital with symptoms or other conditions. Most every testing positive was symptomatic resulting in more cases that will potentially escalate.

Now we chase. We test manufacturing facilities, prisons, nursing homes, every person getting a procedure that had been delayed, etc. That results in finding more cases, but we know for a fact a large percentage of people go asymptomatic, so with those larger numbers comes new cases that are significantly less sick as a percentage than previous new case loads.

 

 

I would be careful before trusting this person's 'data crafting' without applying some skepticism to their assessments, as well.  The Ethical Skeptic is definitely posting some encouraging numbers and a positive way of looking at the data, but the last tweet you posted from them was incredibly misleading in that it showed the national hospitalization rate dropping pretty dramatically and consistently over the last couple of months, which is certainly good news and way better than a rising rate of hospitalization on a national scale. That said, it took me all of 5 minutes to check on the New York and New Jersey hospitalization rates over the time period in question, which (as it turns out) those two states alone accounted for 81% of the national decline that the tweet was promoting.  Throw in a few more hotspots where there was an earlier peak in the first wave, and what that data really shows is that more populated areas where COVID spread earliest have dramatically declining hospitalization rates, while less populated areas where COVID hit later have climbing hospitalization rates.

Also, the Ethical Skeptic repeatedly references "Covidiots" in previous tweets, so they're not exactly attempting to present data from an unbiased viewpoint, for whatever that's worth.

Edited by ruraljuror
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, ruraljuror said:

 

I would be careful before trusting this person's 'data crafting' without applying some skepticism to their assessments, as well.  The Ethical Skeptic is definitely posting some encouraging numbers and a positive way of looking at the data, but the last tweet you posted from them was incredibly misleading in that it showed the national hospitalization rate dropping pretty dramatically and consistently over the last couple of months, which is certainly good news and way better than a rising rate of hospitalization on a national scale. That said, it took me all of 5 minutes to check on the New York and New Jersey hospitalization rates over the time period in question, which (as it turns out) those two states alone accounted for 81% of the national decline that the tweet was promoting.  Throw in a few more hotspots where there was an earlier peak in the first wave, and what that data really shows is that more populated areas where COVID spread earliest have dramatically declining hospitalization rates, while less populated areas where COVID hit later have climbing hospitalization rates.

Also, the Ethical Skeptic repeatedly references "Covidiots" in previous tweets, so they're not exactly attempting to present data from an unbiased viewpoint, for whatever that's worth.

He's definitely open about his belief that there's a lot of ambiguity like AB testing integrating, hotspot chasing, backlogs, etc. .skewing the reality of the numbers but I hadn't seen him go juvenile and call people covidiots or anything like that. Do you have link to tweet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, DDIG said:

He's definitely open about his belief that there's a lot of ambiguity like AB testing integrating, hotspot chasing, backlogs, etc. .skewing the reality of the numbers but I hadn't seen him go juvenile and call people covidiots or anything like that. Do you have link to tweet?

 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

Also, the Ethical Skeptic repeatedly references "Covidiots" in previous tweets, so they're not exactly attempting to present data from an unbiased viewpoint, for whatever that's worth.

Welcome to Twitter.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phase 3 to start on Monday June 22.  The biggest part of this phase is the reopening at 50% of bars, however unsuccessful keeping them at 50% will be. Restaurants with bars will be able to put back 50% of those seats. A big help for them too. Sorry the image is so big. 

Image

Edited by Nash_12South
  • Like 4
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ongoing health concerns and continued unknowns created by the coronavirus pandemic have led to the cancellation of all Heritage Foundation live festivals and events for the remainder of 2020, including Main Street Festival, the Heritage Ball, Pumpkinfest and Dickens of a Christmas. 

In addition, the Foundation will postpone all further programming at the Franklin Theatre effective Thursday with the exception of two previously scheduled concerts in July.

More here:

https://www.williamsonhomepage.com/brentwood/heritage-foundation-cancels-all-festivals-events-movies-for-remainder-of-2020/article_6b4dff36-b0e2-11ea-a0ea-9b8573e679d3.html

 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/16/2020 at 2:25 PM, DDIG said:

That would be a painful double whammy if you are asked to give your money back and can't get that job (or a similar one) back.

That's exactly what's going to happen if they get caught. Hopefully they wont have spent all the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Nash_12South said:

Hopefully the suspension will span a weekend.

Agreed.  Whatever it takes to ratchet-up the animosity between the City and Lower Broadway establishments, I'm in favor of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tennessee had its highest amount of new Covid-19 cases today at 1,188.  Numbers have been on a gradual rise for the past 6 weeks.  This exceeds the previous high from early May. 

More at the Nashville Post here:

https://www.nashvillepost.com/business/health-care/article/21137868/covid19-update-1188-new-cases

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phase 3 starts today. 75% Restaurants, 50% bars. The morning briefing noted that Metro will stay at Phase 3 for a minimum of 28 days, meaning July 20th is the earliest for Phase 4. They want time for 2-14 day virus cycles to occur. The bars will not be pleased.

Edited by Nash_12South
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bonnaroo 2020, which had originally been postponed from mid-June to September, has now been cancelled altogether due to Covid-19.

More at NBJ here:

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2020/06/25/bonnaroo-cancels-2020-festival-covid-19.html?iana=hpmvp_nsh_news_headline

GM laying-off 680 third shift workers at Spring Hill plant due to Covid-19:

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2020/06/25/gm-laying-off-hundreds-in-spring-hill.html?iana=hpmvp_nsh_news_headline

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Metro Board of Health on Friday directed health officials to order Nashville residents to wear face coverings in public as the city sees an increase in COVID-19 cases and its death toll nears 100.

The board unanimously issued the mandate during an emergency meeting Friday afternoon.

The state also had its highest amount of new cases in one day today with 1,410.
 

More at The Nashville Post here:

https://www.nashvillepost.com/business/health-care/article/21138614/health-board-orders-mask-mandate-in-nashville

https://www.nashvillepost.com/business/health-care/article/21138592/covid19-update-1410-new-cases-statewide


And The Tennessean here:

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2020/06/26/nashville-require-face-masks-public-coroanvirus-spreads/3266522001/?for-guid=1eea646d-632b-4c47-87eb-062bb676cd8f&utm_source=tennessean-Daily Briefing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily_briefing&utm_term=hero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Effective today (in Davidson County), masks and other face coverings must be worn in indoor and outdoor public spaces with few exceptions. Metro Health will begin enforcing the new mandate on July 3 through civil and criminal penalties up to a Class C Misdemeanor.

People and places exempt from the order are as followed:

• Any child age 12 and younger
• Anyone who cannot medically tolerate wearing a face covering
• At outdoor public spaces where 6-foot social distancing is feasible
• During outdoor work or recreation, such as swimming, walking, hiking, bicycling or running, where 6-foot social distancing is feasible
• Within a motor vehicle provided it is not being used for transportation services
• Within all educational institutions
• While eating or drinking
• While in a place of worship
• While in a building or indoor space owned, managed or leased by the State of Tennessee or federal government


More at Nashville Post here:

https://www.nashvillepost.com/business/health-care/article/21138654/nashvilles-new-mask-mandate-takes-effect

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hotel industry data crunching/analysis company STR has released a report showing that Nashville's short-term rental industry is starting to rebound.  Of the 5,600 active short-term rental properties across Davidson County it appears occupancy rose to 50% in May after a dismal April.

Average daily rates, though, trended the opposite direction. They were $64.79 in May for short-term rentals, an 18% decline from April. For hotels, that average rate moved higher.

STR's sample includes units in multifamily buildings, such as apartment or condo complexes, as well as single-family rentals. The majority of the sample is in "close proximity" to downtown, East Nashville and the West End Avenue corridor.


More behind the NBJ paywall here:

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2020/06/30/str-hotel-data-rental-occupancy-rates-tourism.html?iana=hpmvp_nsh_news_headline
 

Screen Shot 2020-06-30 at 8.31.23 AM.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The number of active Covid-19 cases in Tennessee has risen 37 percent in the past week. On Wednesday, the state reported another all-time high of 16,423 residents currently infected with the virus. 

More at Nashville Post here:

https://www.nashvillepost.com/business/health-care/article/21139001/covid19-update-1850-new-cases

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.