Strictly speaking, the things you mention are all in the realm of personal health.
As traditionally apprehended, public health involves those health matters which touch upon public spaces. Thus, apprising the public of hospitalization rates and capacities is a public health function. Establishing protocols to mitigate the community spread…
Strictly speaking, the things you mention are all in the realm of personal health.
As traditionally apprehended, public health involves those health matters which touch upon public spaces. Thus, apprising the public of hospitalization rates and capacities is a public health function. Establishing protocols to mitigate the community spread of disease in and through public spaces and infrastructures is a public health function.
The limitations on what may be legally done in furtherance of the public health are the constitutional limitations on government authority. Even if things like mask mandates were scientifically supported, the legal foundation for a coercive mandate is limited at best even under a state's general police power.
Remember, the limits of what may be done in furtherance of the public health are defined by the constitutional limits on government authority.
Which means NO ONE has lawful constitutional authority to override personal health choices in furtherance of the public health. To do violates at a minimum the first, fourth, and fourteenth amendments to the constitution.
Strictly speaking, the things you mention are all in the realm of personal health.
As traditionally apprehended, public health involves those health matters which touch upon public spaces. Thus, apprising the public of hospitalization rates and capacities is a public health function. Establishing protocols to mitigate the community spread of disease in and through public spaces and infrastructures is a public health function.
The limitations on what may be legally done in furtherance of the public health are the constitutional limitations on government authority. Even if things like mask mandates were scientifically supported, the legal foundation for a coercive mandate is limited at best even under a state's general police power.
True enough, thanks for explaining the distinction. That leaves me with two points:
1. Who decides how much the sphere of public health gets to overrule personal health and how can we remove them?
2. To my mind public health is a nonsense if its overriding personal health rather than working in harmony with it.
Remember, the limits of what may be done in furtherance of the public health are defined by the constitutional limits on government authority.
Which means NO ONE has lawful constitutional authority to override personal health choices in furtherance of the public health. To do violates at a minimum the first, fourth, and fourteenth amendments to the constitution.