If there was any real concern that requiring masks, social distancing, and lockdowns were in violation of some rights guaranteed by the constitution, the issue would have been considered by the Supreme Court by now. If there were any cases, I didn't hear about them.
— frank

Thanks frank, that's interesting. — bert1

@frank does appear to have his own problems. A little accuracy here. The US Supreme Court considers nothing whatsoever* until and unless a case has been brought and settled in a lower court, and then usually appealed to a higher court. These things having occurred, a defendant can still appeal to the Supreme Court and they will elect to hear the case usually only if there is some constitutional issue involved. Or in other words, problems come to them only after following a difficult path; they themselves don't go out looking for them.

*An exception being when the court is itself the court of original jurisdiction, e.g., in cases between states.

Non-sequitur. And either you know it or you do not. Neither way is flattering to you
— tim wood

You're the mirror image of Nos.

Except he's more civil. — frank

Thank you, frank. Another non-sequitur, I see. Do you know what a non-sequitur is?

As to @NOS4A2, near as I can tell he just plays bad games, although why I have no idea. And news flash, there are some posts of his - not very many - that I agree with and admire, though I'd still ban him in a minute were it my choice, But I, on the other hand, try to deal substance. The which I observe you do not.

But I, on the other hand, try to deal substance — tim wood

I really haven't found that to be the case. You seem to spend more time fine-tuning your insults.

Try a little substance yourself and find put what a nice guy I can be.

Uh huh.

While anyone can get infected, there is more than a thousand-fold difference in the risk of death between the old and the young. The failure to properly exploit this fact has led to many unnecessary deaths and the biggest public health fiasco in history.