[zaroth]

I can agree with: "These aren't ipso facto constitutional rights violations."

Totally disagree with: "By definition, these aren't constitutional rights violations."

So I think we do probably violently agree, and I probably misinterpreted your: "These aren't constitutional rights violations by definition." statement.

Another way to think about it is that they obviously do violate Constitutional rights, but this is actually allowed only under very specific and limited circumstances, of which COVID may in fact be one of, but such a thing has never been tested in front of the Supreme Court as far as I'm aware.

[krapp]

I think so, the first statement is what I meant. Today doesn't seem to be my day for getting points across.