Places of worship 'may not be safe' for some, Birx says

  
Via:  Nerm_L  •  one month ago  •  150 comments

By:   ELEANOR MUELLER - POLITICO

Places of worship 'may not be safe' for some, Birx says
Dr. Birx's comments came on the first Sunday after Trump labeled the nation's churches, temples and other places of worship "essential" and demanded that they reopen nationwide.

Sponsored by group News Viners

News Viners


People with pre-existing conditions are at higher risk.  Period.

Any interaction with people pose a higher risk to those with pre-existing conditions.  A grocery store, quick shop, post office, beach, hiking trail, or park isn't safer than a church for those with pre-existing conditions.  The type of activity where those interpersonal interactions occur doesn't matter.  Wherever there are people, those with pre-existing conditions are at higher risk.

The news media isn't trying to protect people; the news media is trying to profit from controversy.  Granted politicians are responsible for creating the controversy.  But the news media is all too happy to seize the opportunity for making money.  The news media is selling clickbait.


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Places of worship "may not be safe for those with preexisting conditions" despite orders from President Donald Trump that they be allowed to reopen immediately, White House coronavirus coordinator Deborah Birx said Sunday.

"Although it may be safe for some to go to churches and social distance, it may not be safe for those with pre-existing conditions," Birx told Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday. "That's why in 'phase one' and 'phase two,' we've asked for those individuals with vulnerabilities to really ensure that they are protected and sheltering in place while we open up America."

Birx's comments came on the first Sunday after Trump labeled the nation's churches, temples and other places of worship "essential" and demanded that they reopen nationwide despite still-rising coronavirus cases and several reports of the illness spreading among congregants.

Trump on Friday emphasized he was instructing governors to allow places of worship to resume operations "right now," and warned that "if there's any question, they're going to have to call me — but they are not going to be successful in that call."

Asked about the wisdom of such a move in the face of warnings from public health experts, Birx pointed to the CDC guidance that directed faith leaders how to "reopen safely."

"Before the president made that announcement, he asked the CDC to get their guidance to churches up, so that churches could reopen safely, so that guidance is up there and available to all churches and congregants to understand how to worship together safely," Birx said on ABC's "This Week" Sunday. "Certainly worshiping outside, maintaining social distancing, and you know, honestly not having physical contact with each other and that's — I know that's difficult."

"But the guidance was up before the churches were asked to reopen, and I think that's really important."

Republicans have seized on Trump's call to reopen shuttered places of worship.

"We have a right to worship," Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union" as he repeatedly invoked the Bill of Rights. "Absolutely do I feel comfortable going to church."

Asked on "Fox News Sunday" about reports of Memorial Day weekend crowds, Birx replied that she is "very concerned when people go out and don't maintain social distancing."

"And out of respect for each other, as Americans that care for each other, we need to be wearing masks in public when we cannot social distance," she said.

Asked whether Trump should wear a mask when he himself is unable to social distance, Birx responded: "The president did wear a mask when he was less than six feet." There have been several reports of the president declining to cover his face when visiting states and hosting leaders.

POLITICO


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Nerm_L
1  seeder  Nerm_L    one month ago

The business model for news organizations is to sell controversy as clickbait.  The precautions Dr. Birx is trying to explain takes a back seat to clickbait controversy.  As a result everyone is less safe.  

The news media is making the pandemic worse just to make money.

 
 
 
Krishna
1.1  Krishna  replied to  Nerm_L @1    one month ago
The news media is making the pandemic worse just to make money.

And here all along I though all of our problems with the pandemic were caused by ....China!

But now you're telling us it is all the fault of...the media!

 
 
 
It Is ME
2  It Is ME    one month ago

How is a "Major" store, safer than a "Teeny Tiny private business" huddled in a strip mall.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.1  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  It Is ME @2    one month ago
How is a "Major" store, safer than a "Teeny Tiny private business" huddled in a strip mall.

Wherever two or more are gathered, those with pre-existing conditions are at higher risk.

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1    one month ago

100 or so are safer ! jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

I hear "The Elderly" are being "pushed to the limit", by Big Gov..

"Elderly care Residence" ..... time to revolt !

 
 
 
Krishna
2.2  Krishna  replied to  It Is ME @2    one month ago
How is a "Major" store, safer than a "Teeny Tiny private business" huddled in a strip mall.

And what about a barber shop-- or a Tattoo parlour?

 
 
 
Ender
2.2.1  Ender  replied to  Krishna @2.2    one month ago

Think about the strippers !

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.2.2  It Is ME  replied to  Krishna @2.2    one month ago
And what about a barber shop-- or a Tattoo parlour?

There always "PACKED" full of folks ! jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.2.3  It Is ME  replied to  Ender @2.2.1    one month ago
Think about the strippers !

I know I do !!!! jrSmiley_25_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2.2.4  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Ender @2.2.1    one month ago

I saw a sign for a strip club - WE ARE CLOTHED FOR NOW.

 
 
 
Ender
2.2.5  Ender  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @2.2.4    one month ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.3  Tacos!  replied to  It Is ME @2    one month ago
How is a "Major" store, safer than a "Teeny Tiny private business" huddled in a strip mall.

So many of these restrictions are arbitrary. There's no science, of course, that says this activity is safer than that. What matters is the details that are actually relevant to spreading the disease. 

Or at least, that's what should matter to policy makers. Instead we have panic. A family can't go to the park or the beach, but strangers can mingle at the liquor store. It's not rational, and it sure as hell isn't based on science.

And that's not even a slam on science. There hasn't been time to scientifically test this specific virus in all the specific scenarios possible. What I hate is that people make rash policy decisions and insist you obey "because science demands it!" It's bullshit.

We should be trying to do as much normal stuff as we can, but as safely as is reasonably possible. By way of analogy, you don't stop boating because people drown. You put life jackets in boats and go back to boating.

Right now, too many policy makers seem to have the attitude of shutting down as much as possible and waiting until there is zero chance of death to resume normal activities. That is an unreasonable standard.

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.3.1  It Is ME  replied to  Tacos! @2.3    one month ago
There hasn't been time to scientifically test this specific virus in all the specific scenarios possible. What I hate is that people make rash policy decisions and insist you obey "because science demands it!" It's bullshit.

Hit the nail on the head with that comment.

They don't much about this......but "You Will" Comply with their order ! jrSmiley_50_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
3  TᵢG    one month ago

Social distancing is the single most effective precaution we can take.    It does not matter where people are, if they are inside of a building —any building— they need to stay 6' from each other.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @3    one month ago

Social distancing and wearing masks too, especially when distance is reduced for whatever reason. 

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2  Dulay  replied to  TᵢG @3    one month ago

I saw a trace study that clearly showed that air circulation effected infection. That is why LARGE buildings with constant air exchange are safer than small establishments with poor air circulation. One of my good friends is a hair stylist and he put a new Hepa system in at his shop while waiting for Indiana to open up. He also eliminated 2 out of 6 chairs. 

 
 
 
squiggy
3.2.1  squiggy  replied to  Dulay @3.2    one month ago

I don't trust the exchange rate argument - that's just the virus' speed. United tries to fly that argument, but the air still has to flow from 31C to somewhere - screw B and A.

 
 
 
Kathleen
4  Kathleen    one month ago

I don’t know how they are going to manage that.  You can pray at home or anywhere actually.  I think it’s too much of a risk.  Church is very social, so I think they should wait on that.  A lot of elderly go to church, they are at most risk.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1  TᵢG  replied to  Kathleen @4    one month ago

Plus everyone is touching the pews, the hymnals, etc.   They would need to take measures such as leaving half the church empty (every other pew is empty) to keep the social distancing in place.   Of course horizontal distancing cuts the number of persons in a pew down to about ¼ of normal capacity.  So this means ½ the pews with ¼ capacity each.  On top of that, when the entire congregation is singing or (to a lesser degree) praying they are all injecting whatever they may have into the shared air space.

Certainly is doable, but I wonder how many churches will take the necessary measures.

 
 
 
Kathleen
4.1.1  Kathleen  replied to  TᵢG @4.1    one month ago

Those things would help, they can give it a shot but I would still not chance it.

The pool is open at my vacation condo. We are not stepping foot in it.  I was surprised.

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
4.1.2  Colour Me Free  replied to  TᵢG @4.1    one month ago
Certainly is doable, but I wonder how many churches will take the necessary measures.

I am not a church goer .. but all the friends I have 'that churches have opened' .. [those are key words .. the Mormon church, Catholic church and several others have not opened] ..... every other pew is blocked off.. only families can sit together …. masks and social distancing is a must for the churches that have opened in my area…

Not all churches are like the idiot 'pastors' seen in the news... but it is up to the people of said church to step up and demand their own safety - if things are not safe .................................... blah blah yada yada -   Personally, I take care of me - by doing so I take care of others ... I have not seen my youngest son since this all began - I am asthmatic and a cancer survivor .. but I have not shut my life down .. I died and went to heaven during house arrest - I could actually go out and shop!  No crowds, no nasty perfume and cologne in the air .. my beloved trees were digging the shutdown as well!

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Colour Me Free @4.1.2    one month ago
every other pew is blocked off.. only families can sit together …. masks and social distancing is a must for the churches that have opened in my area…

Pretty much what I would expect. 

Not all churches are like the idiot 'pastors' seen in the news...

I would expect that the super majority are not.   The irrational churches that would ignore precautions thinking that God will protect them are, in my mind, a slim minority.   There are, however, a lot of irrational people.

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
4.1.4  Colour Me Free  replied to  Kathleen @4.1.1    one month ago
The pool is open at my vacation condo. We are not stepping foot in it.

Hey B .. good to see you...!  Given what you and your husband have both been through .. I do not blame you, I am very particular about my surroundings as well .. Take care you my friend .. you stay healthy and those close to you have a better chance … : )

Hugs!

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
4.1.5  Colour Me Free  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.3    one month ago
  There are, however, a lot of irrational people.

Flat fuck'n ignorant people live among 'us' ...……. my good friend is making masks - we went to get more fabric .. this lady comes up wanting to be where we were, I told her just a moment I am looking for the purple fabric that will brighten my dear friends day that is struggling with all things COVID - she proceeds to inform me how to make masks, she has made a thousand ...………………… she pulled a mask out of her purse to show me .. but oddly enough Ms. 'got all the information' was not wearing a mask ...

I had to walk away before I said something that might make sense ! 

Those that have blind faith will follow anyone over the cliff that has charisma … there is no helping them!

 
 
 
Krishna
4.1.6  Krishna  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.3    one month ago
The irrational churches that would ignore precautions thinking that God will protect them are, in my mind, a slim minority. 

And there's a good chance God will punish them for their stupidity.....

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Krishna @4.1.6    one month ago

Punny?

 
 
 
Kathleen
4.1.8  Kathleen  replied to  Colour Me Free @4.1.4    one month ago

Hi there!

We’ve been taking walks on the beach up near Delaware and away from the boardwalk. Yep, we are going to try to stay healthy as long as we can. 

I hope you and the boys are doing well... I bet your garden is looking real good.

Take care too my friend.  : )

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.1.9  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Colour Me Free @4.1.2    one month ago

It would not bother me one iota if the grifter churches stayed permanently closed.  Those that run them will have to settle for driving last year's luxury cars.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
4.2  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Kathleen @4    one month ago
I don’t know how they are going to manage that.  You can pray at home or anywhere actually.  I think it’s too much of a risk.  Church is very social, so I think they should wait on that.  A lot of elderly go to church, they are at most risk.

Mass transit is more social than church services.

One option I haven't seen discussed is to offer more services.  That places a greater burden on ministers because they would need to conduct services more often.  And those church services don't need to be limited to Sundays.

A church could provide services four times a day, five days a week to avoid large gatherings.  But that would make ministerial services a full-time job.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @4.2    one month ago

Plus churches could engage in Zoom.   My son has been teaching Karate via Zoom.   If that can be done, one can certainly conduct church services the same way.

 
 
 
Kathleen
4.2.2  Kathleen  replied to  Nerm_L @4.2    one month ago

Having more services can help. It spreads out the congregations.  May have to pay the person of the cloth more money though.

 
 
 
Krishna
4.2.3  Krishna  replied to  Nerm_L @4.2    one month ago
One option I haven't seen discussed is to offer more services.  That places a greater burden on ministers because they would need to conduct services more often.  And those church services don't need to be limited to Sundays. A church could provide services four times a day, five days a week to avoid large gatherings.  But that would make ministerial services a full-time job.

Excellent point!

Churches must remain open. (As I'm sure you're aware, God doesn't hrar prayers delivered from your home or office-- He only hears prayers delivered from a house of worship).

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
4.2.4  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Krishna @4.2.3    one month ago
(As I'm sure you're aware, God doesn't hrar prayers delivered from your home or office-- He only hears prayers delivered from a house of worship).

apparently not.

seems god answered prayers made at home to deem churches essential. "again"

churches are not just for praying but are a huge part of our communities. 

which is why the left wants them closed.

there is no virus deadly enough to kill the first amendment.  <..... write that down.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
4.2.5  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Krishna @4.2.3    one month ago
Churches must remain open. (As I'm sure you're aware, God doesn't hrar prayers delivered from your home or office-- He only hears prayers delivered from a house of worship).

And people can drink booze at home, watch music videos on TV, see tourist attractions over the internet, and cook their own meals in their own kitchens.

Why do people need to go to bars, restaurants, concerts, plays, rallies, parks, ball games, or Disneyland?  

If the point is to completely miss the point, then well done.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
4.2.6  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Nerm_L @4.2.5    one month ago
Why do people need to go to bars, restaurants, concerts, plays, rallies, parks, ball games, or Disneyland?  

that weird thing called liberty.  aka "we don't want to stay home.

simple enough?

does the left actually believe this virus is going to have some long term effect on our culture?   

if so?          I got some bad news... LOL

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.2.7  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Nerm_L @4.2.5    one month ago

Also, they can sit around in their underwear while praying.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.2.8  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Kathleen @4.2.2    one month ago

Instead of having a choir, maybe a soloist instead.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.2.9  TᵢG  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4.2.8    one month ago

Recorded music is certainly an option.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5  Tacos!    one month ago

Wear a mask. Wash your hands when you get home. Going to church really isn't any more dangerous than any place else. There certainly isn't much evidence that there is.

Churches have been closed for two months, right? If churches were some kind of significant contributor to disease spread, wouldn't infection numbers have plummeted immediately (or within two weeks)?

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @5    one month ago
Going to church really isn't any more dangerous than any place else.

Yes,  when the proper precautions are used.   Churches (as with office buildings, salons, transportation services, bars, concerts, restaurants, sporting events, ...) are inherently designed for close human proximity.   So of course a church can be made reasonably safe by taking the same kind of precautions other close-proximity venues take.

Contrast this with large stores with capacity limitations where the purpose is not inherently close-proximity.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @5.1    one month ago
close-proximity

Close-proximity in and of itself has not been shown to be a transmitter of disease. A medium of transport for the virus is necessary. Proximity alone doesn’t do that. The virus appears to be spread through transport in bodily fluids, such as exit the mouth. I haven’t seen any studies or guidance that simply sitting next to someone spreads the disease.

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.2  Kathleen  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.1    one month ago

So then a mask a must. Even just talking near a person without a mask could spread it if they have it.

 
 
 
Gordy327
5.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.1    one month ago
Close-proximity in and of itself has not been shown to be a transmitter of disease.

Close proximity only makes it easier for a transmission vector to reach and infect others. Being in close proximity is probably almost as dangerous and stupid as not wearing a mask.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.1    one month ago
I haven’t seen any studies or guidance that simply sitting next to someone spreads the disease.

The number one recommended precaution is social distancing.   This is a lesson learned from the Spanish Flu in 1918 where social distancing was a critical factor in controlling the pandemic.

I would be interested in how you came to the conclusion that close-proximity has not been shown to be a transmitter of disease and thus (by implication) social distancing need not be taken as a serious precaution .  

Note the recommendations from the CDC:

now how it spreads

  • There is currently no vaccine to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
  • The best way to prevent illness is to avoid being exposed to this virus.
  • The virus is thought to spread mainly from person-to-person .
    • Between people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet).
    • Through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes or talks.
    • These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs .
    • Some recent studies have suggested that COVID-19 may be spread by people who are not showing symptoms.

The World Health Organization issues the following recommendations:

Protecting yourself and others from the spread COVID-19

You can reduce your chances of being infected or spreading COVID-19 by taking some simple precautions:

  • Regularly and thoroughly clean your hands with an alcohol-based hand rub or wash them with soap and water. Why? Washing your hands with soap and water or using alcohol-based hand rub kills viruses that may be on your hands.
  • Maintain at least 1 metre (3 feet) distance between yourself and others. Why? When someone coughs, sneezes, or speaks they spray small liquid droplets from their nose or mouth which may contain virus. If you are too close, you can breathe in the droplets, including the COVID-19 virus if the person has the disease.
  • Avoid going to crowded places. Why? Where people come together in crowds, you are more likely to come into close contact with someone that has COIVD-19 and it is more difficult to maintain physical distance of 1 metre (3 feet).
  • Avoid touching eyes, nose and mouth. Why? Hands touch many surfaces and can pick up viruses. Once contaminated, hands can transfer the virus to your eyes, nose or mouth. From there, the virus can enter your body and infect you.
  • Make sure you, and the people around you, follow good respiratory hygiene. This means covering your mouth and nose with your bent elbow or tissue when you cough or sneeze. Then dispose of the used tissue immediately and wash your hands. Why? Droplets spread virus. By following good respiratory hygiene, you protect the people around you from viruses such as cold, flu and COVID-19.
  • Stay home and self-isolate even with minor symptoms such as cough, headache, mild fever, until you recover. Have someone bring you supplies. If you need to leave your house, wear a mask to avoid infecting others. Why? Avoiding contact with others will protect them from possible COVID-19 and other viruses.
  • If you have a fever, cough and difficulty breathing, seek medical attention, but call by telephone in advance if possible and follow the directions of your local health authority. Why? National and local authorities will have the most up to date information on the situation in your area. Calling in advance will allow your health care provider to quickly direct you to the right health facility. This will also protect you and help prevent spread of viruses and other infections.
  • Keep up to date on the latest information from trusted sources, such as WHO or your local and national health authorities. Why? Local and national authorities are best placed to advise on what people in your area should be doing to protect themselves.

While it is clear that science has much to learn about coronavirus, I would not dismiss the published recommendations of the CDC and the WHO.  To me the reasons offered seem quite reasonable.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.5  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.4    one month ago
The number one recommended precaution is social distancing.

Yes, but there is a specific and limited reason for that. The virus doesn't spread because of gravity, bioelectrical fields, magnetism, or static electricity (forces that might be a factor due to mere proximity) - at least according to the available science.

Mere proximity, as I said, in and of itself, is not the issue. If you can defeat the problem by wearing a mask and washing your hands, then the distance between people becomes far less important.

Note the recommendations from the CDC:

The same people who said there was no benefit to wearing a mask and then recommended it? The same people who said the virus was on surfaces and then listed surfaces as a poor way to transmit the disease? Don't make the mistake of relying on authority as the basis for an argument.

Unlike some people, I don't invest blind faith in someone just because they are wearing a lab coat and have PhD after their name. Especially when they have proven to be wrong about so many important things.

But since we are talking about the CDC, they currently say this (and I will bold the critical parts so you don't have to sift through irrelevancies:

The virus is thought to spread mainly from person-to-person.
  • Between people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet).
  • Through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks.
  • These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs.
  • COVID-19 may be spread by people who are not showing symptoms.

That is why the distance between people matters. The droplets . Mere proximity is not the point. Droplets tend to be less of an issue if people wear masks and wash up after touching surfaces other people may have touched.

Secondarily the virus may   possibly spread through contact on surfaces.

It may be possible that a person can get COVID-19 by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose, or possibly their eyes. This is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads, but we are still learning more about how this virus spreads.

That is why my initial comment started with 1) "wear a mask" and 2) "wash your hands." Because those are the primary precautions that are believed to have the greatest impact on the spread of the virus.

There is nothing here that says sitting next to someone - BY ITSELF - will spread the virus. So, there is no reason to tell people they can't sit in church if they wear a mask and wash their hand before touching their face.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.6  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.3    one month ago
Close proximity only makes it easier for a transmission vector to reach and infect others.

Yes, and if you wear a mask and wash your hands, then you don't need worry so much about transmission vectors because they are blocked.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.5    one month ago
Unlike some people, I don't invest blind faith in someone just because they are wearing a lab coat and have PhD after their name. Especially when they have proven to be wrong about so many important things.

Nor should you have blind faith.  But the reasons put forth behind these precautions are sensible.   It is not blind faith to read the reasons for social distancing and be persuaded that it is an excellent precaution.

That is why the distance between people matters. The droplets . Mere proximity is not the point. Droplets tend to be less of an issue if people wear masks and wash up after touching surfaces other people may have touched.

jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg    I emphasized ( boldface ) the droplets in my comment.   Of course it is not mere proximity.   The reason for social distancing is that proximity enables the droplets to reach the other person and thus be potentially inhaled.   Just being close to another person would be fine if both did not breathe.   The CDC and WHO are making the assumption that people are exhaling and sometimes exhaling with force to propel infected droplets .

There is nothing here that says sitting next to someone - BY ITSELF - will spread the virus. So, there is no reason to tell people they can't sit in church if they wear a mask and wash their hand before touching their face.

' By itself ' is not what they are talking about.   Let's be clear, the CDC and the WHO are not suggesting that mere proximity will spread the virus.   It is proximity WHILE BREATHING.    Given we are all breathing, proximity is indeed an issue.   Nobody has ever suggested that the virus magically leaps from one human being to another.   It is all based on the fact that the virus is airborne and can travel in aspirated droplets a few feet.

Sitting next to each other in a pew is unwise.   Masks are imperfect (considerably so, by the way).   Not everyone has the discipline (and opportunity) to keep their hands clean and not touching things is a very difficult habit to break.  (Masks need to be clean too by the way.)

Thus the smart move is to wear masks, stay clean and always maintain a buffer of air via social distancing.   And note, if everyone were to maintain social distancing that measure alone mitigates the airborne spread of the virus.


Super summary:  The CDC and WHO are talking about proximity while breathing .   The 'while breathing' (i.e. exchanging droplets) implicit qualifier makes all the difference in the world.  You cannot ignore that part.

 
 
 
Krishna
5.1.8  Krishna  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.5    one month ago
Secondarily the virus may   possibly spread through contact on surfaces.

May possibly?

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.6    one month ago
Yes, and if you wear a mask and wash your hands, then you don't need worry so much about transmission vectors because they are blocked.

Masks vary in effectiveness.   But if you are 6' away, the droplets (even without masks) cannot reach the other person.

 
 
 
Gordy327
5.1.10  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.6    one month ago

Vectors are reduced, not eliminated. Masks and proper distancing help reduce the risk of vector yransmission. And hand washing is great, but useless if one touches a contaminated surface. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.11  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.7    one month ago
Just being close to another person would be fine if both did not breathe.

Then no one should ever leave the house. That is an unacceptable option.

Masks are imperfect

Perfect is not attainable, so "imperfect" should not be the driver of policy. Vaccines - if/when they arrive - will not be perfect either. It is never going to be perfect. Masks do a lot. So does washing hands.

One of the big problems with this virus is how many people can be infected by one infected person. That rate of spread is higher than with the cold or the flu, for which we never masks.

Wearing masks should bring the spread of Covid-19 down to a manageable level. "Manageable" was the stated goal. Not "perfection." 

Right now, we don't have the feared shortage of ventilators. Masks are available for all. Hospital beds are empty. The virus is being managed.

I have not seen proof that it is further necessary to keep people out of churches specifically as opposed to any other particular place, like stores or parks, where people congregate. And as I said at the very beginning of my very first comment, as long as they wear masks and wash hands, that should be enough.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.12  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.10    one month ago
Vectors are reduced, not eliminated.

You'll never eliminate them. If that is your goal, I don't know where you got the idea that was possible. We are not going to make this virus disappear. It is going to spread and we are going to manage how fast it spreads so we can treat the sick. 

Wearing masks - even imperfect ones - significantly reduces the ability of the virus to spread.

And hand washing is great, but useless if one touches a contaminated surface. 

How is it useless? You simply wash your hands again. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.13  Tacos!  replied to  Krishna @5.1.8    one month ago
May possibly?

Yep. That's the wording the CDC uses.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.11    one month ago
Then no one should ever leave the house. That is an unacceptable option.

Not sure how you got such an extreme position given what I wrote.   My statement was an emphasis to you that social distancing is a mitigating mechanism given the fact that human beings all breathe and thus all aspire droplets that might be infected and thus be inhaled by a fellow breathing person.

Perfect is not attainable, so "imperfect" should not be the driver of policy.

My note that masks are imperfect was in reaction to your recommendation that social distancing is not so important (thus people could sit next to each other in pews) if they are all wearing masks and wash their hands.

Wearing masks should bring the spread of Covid-19 down to a manageable level. "Manageable" was the stated goal. Not "perfection." 

Given you are repeating this 'perfection' stuff this is now a strawman argument.  Thus I respond.  I never stated a goal of perfection.   I used the word 'imperfect' to connote that masks still allow the virus to infect people in close proximity.   

And as I said at the very beginning of my very first comment, as long as they wear masks and wash hands, that should be enough.

Repeating your comment does not make it any more correct.   Based on what information do you conclude that the WHO and the CDC, et. al. are wrong about social distancing?   You realize that droplets can travel even when people are wearing masks so how do you conclude that wearing masks 'should be enough' to allow church attendees to sit next to each other in pews?


Regarding infection due to airborne droplets:

A mask is like an imperfect condom (leaks)

Social distancing is like abstinence:  the airborne virus cannot span a distance of more than a few feet.

 
 
 
Gordy327
5.1.15  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.12    one month ago

I never said we can completely eliminate the virus. Only that we can reduce the risk of transmission and/or infection.

As for hand washing, washing them again will work as long as one doesn't touch their face or other objects beforehand. If you wash your hands, then touch a contaminated surface, then your hands are contaminated again.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.16  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.9    one month ago
But if you are 6' away, the droplets (even without masks) cannot reach the other person.

The 6 feet recommendation isn't perfect other. Droplets can travel 8.5 feet. Maybe more under the right conditions.

Furthermore, droplets aren't the only way the virus can spread. "Droplet" is an amount of water in a specific size, which readily succumbs to the force of gravity. Droplets vary widely in size. Both their size and the distance they travel are impacted by ambient humidity and temperature.

However, certain types of breathing (e.g. talking, coughing, sneezing, singing), or even forcing breath through a mask, can turn those droplets into an aerosol. The virus can be transported in aerosol form. An aerosol is much smaller particles and those can remain suspended in the air for hours. That's how a whole ship full - or nursing home full - of people can get infected in a short time.

So you're just never going to get to "perfect." Shutting everything down in vain anticipation of "perfect" is going to destroy society. Expectations need to managed, just like this virus.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.17  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.14    one month ago
Based on what information do you conclude that the WHO and the CDC, et. al. are wrong about social distancing?  

I never said they were wrong. I said there was a reason behind the social distancing. The reason is prevent the spread of the virus in droplets that exist the nose and mouth. I have seen no evidence that they come from anywhere else, so if you can do something significant to reduce the flow of virus from nose and mouth, I would say you are doing a lot. In fact, I would say that's probably enough.

Social distancing is like abstinence:

Not entirely. There's nothing magical about 6 feet, and people living in the same building who never get anywhere near each other can get sick thanks to central air.

the airborne virus cannot span a distance of more than a few feet

Yeah, that's just not true.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.18  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.15    one month ago
Only that we can reduce the risk of transmission and/or infection.

And that's all I'm asking for. Let people go to church so long as they take these basic steps of mask wearing and hand washing. They can even sit a little further apart than they might normally.

But there is zero reason to say they can't go to church at all.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.19  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.16    one month ago
The 6 feet recommendation isn't perfect other.

Nothing is perfect Tacos!    If someone coughs or sneezes in the right angle towards you they can pass 6'.   But in normal interactions the virus will not span over a few feet (best we can tell of course).   Again, we are talking about BREATHING and talking.

In contrast, normal talking and breathing with close proximity even with masks risks infection.

There's nothing magical about 6 feet, ...

(see above)

... and people living in the same building who never get anywhere near each other can get sick thanks to central air.

The coronavirus (which we are discussing) is airborne within droplets of moisture.   These droplets quickly lose momentum and fall to the ground.   One would have to cough/sneeze/... into the intake to get the droplets into the system where they must somehow survive and be expelled into another room and then be inhaled before they lose momentum and fall to the ground.

If you have discovered some scenario where this is viable with the coronavirus then I will read your link.   But even if your hypothesis is true, it does not change the fact that social distancing is not an optional precaution.    It is one of the most effective precautions we have.

Yeah, that's just not true.

Under normal conditions (not direct sneezing at the right angle or some other propulsion mechanism) it is commonly held that the virus will not span more than a few feet distance.  Two people 6' apart talking (or simply breathing) are considered safe from infection.   In contrast, two people in close proximity wearing masks are only as safe as the efficacy of their masks.   Most people do not have the gear worn by hospital staff.

But, as I noted upfront, science is still learning about coronoavirus and how it spreads.   Given more research we might find that 6' is not sufficiently safe but maybe 8' gives 98.5% confidence of no infection risk.   Or maybe 10' gives 99.7%.    Right now, 6' is the current consensus based on the information.   Given the reasoning of droplets, it seems reasonable to me that social distancing is a smart move and 6' seems logical (3' in contrast would not be logical).

 
 
 
bccrane
5.1.20  bccrane  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.19    one month ago

With all this social distancing, wearing masks, and washing hands you would think that not just corvid19 cases, but also influenza and other contagious diseases would also drop.  I checked the CDC tracking of influenza and it seems to be following the same trajectory as previous years, so how can that be?  Note the CDC site did say corvid19 might skew the numbers.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.21  TᵢG  replied to  bccrane @5.1.20    one month ago

Hard to say without analyzing a lot of numbers.    Are you hypothesizing that washing hands, masks and social distancing are ineffective?

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.22  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.17    one month ago
I have seen no evidence that they come from anywhere else, so if you can do something significant to reduce the flow of virus from nose and mouth, I would say you are doing a lot. In fact, I would say that's probably enough.

Your logic is implicitly based on the efficacy of the average mask vs efficacy of social distancing.   Your hypothesis is that masks alone are sufficient protection and that social distancing would not significantly improve the efficacy.    What is this based on?

 
 
 
bccrane
5.1.23  bccrane  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.21    one month ago

With all that we are doing to mitigate corvid19, shouldn't it stand to reason that it would be effective against other contagions?  For instance cases of measles seems to have dropped.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.24  TᵢG  replied to  bccrane @5.1.23    one month ago

Yes it makes sense that we should see less infectious diseases with current precautions.    Is this leading to a point?

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.25  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.19    one month ago
In contrast, normal talking and breathing with close proximity even with masks risks infection

How much risk? More than zero, I expect. But enough to tell people they shouldn't go to church? I haven't seen evidence supporting that.

It is one of the most effective precautions we have.

How effective? How much more effective than just masks and hand washing? What is the difference in likelihood of being infected? The truth is you don't know. Nobody knows. And you don't have a right to scare people into staying home - or worse: force them under penalty of law - if the difference is miniscule, when you don't have any idea what the difference is.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.26  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.22    one month ago

Church isn't the only place we come close to other people. People are already going to the market. They're at the gas station. Many are working. Some are not. I see more people than ever out walking. I have a hard time believing that with reasonable precautions, church makes the risk appreciably worse to a degree more than all that other social non-distancing.

Of course any added activity increases risk. The point is that this one other activity increases the risk by such a small amount that it's probably not worth worrying about.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.27  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.25    one month ago
How much risk? More than zero, I expect. But enough to tell people they shouldn't go to church? I haven't seen evidence supporting that.

Nowhere in our discussion have I suggested that people should not go to church.   I have, actually, suggested that social distancing should be followed in church.    I have yet to see you deliver anything factual as to why the congregation should not abide by social distancing.  Your feelings do not count as fact.

The truth is you don't know. Nobody knows.

The truth is that we are in a worldwide pandemic and social distancing is recommended by the CDC, WHO, et.al. to mitigate the spread.   Their reasoning seems sound to me so I am inclined to accept their recommendations of social distancing pending future evidence.   Your claim that nobody knows implies that these scientific/medical based organizations are clueless.   Hardly.   Not knowing everything is not the same as 'nobody knows'.   Don't make an argument based on ignorance, it is a logical fallacy (and thus immediately wrong).

And you don't have a right to scare people into staying home...

I am talking about sensible precautions.  Don't make this personal and do not accuse me of things that are not even remotely close to what I have written.

... if the difference is miniscule, when you don't have any idea what the difference is.

I am not in charge of the CDC, WHO and all other worldwide organization recommending social distancing.    How is it that this discussion is about me now?   Well, it is not.   If you have any facts that show these worldwide organizations wrong then bring it.   Your presumption that social distancing is insignificant is, as of yet, based on zero facts.   So since you are claiming these organizations are wrong, let's see your supporting facts.

So, what facts do you wish to offer?   Illustrate how these worldwide scientific/medical organizations are wrong and Tacos! is right.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.28  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.26    one month ago
I have a hard time believing that with reasonable precautions, church makes the risk appreciably worse to a degree more than all that other social non-distancing.

Who says that churches with reasonable precautions are riskier than other organizations?   I have suggested that churches should employ the same social distancing practices as other organizations.   Look at my first sentence of my opening comment in this thread: TiG @5.1    Stick with the point of debate:  social distancing.

Of course any added activity increases risk. The point is that this one other activity increases the risk by such a small amount that it's probably not worth worrying about.

I have not suggested that churches should not be opened.   The point of debate is that you think social distancing need not be employed in churches because clean hands and the average mask is good enough.

Demonstrate why.   Deliver evidence.   Your 'feelings' are not fact.

And if you have no supporting evidence then you have no argument.

 
 
 
Thomas
5.1.29  Thomas  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.1    one month ago
I haven’t seen any studies or guidance that simply sitting next to someone spreads the disease.

Close proximity and breathing has . Sitting and conversing can lead to infection in 5 minutes.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.30  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.27    one month ago
Nowhere in our discussion have I suggested that people should not go to church.

The seed is about that. I made a comment about the seed. Not about you. Ever since, you have been picking at my comment and my position, which is fine. The story is that going to church in general is dangerous for some people. Existing policy in many places is that churches shouldn't be open at all. My comments are a response to that.

Your feelings do not count as fact.

Spare me your platitudes and condescending attacks. You are going to need to focus on the actual topic if you don't want to have a problem with me.

Your claim that nobody knows implies that these scientific/medical based organizations are clueless.

You demand facts but then you want to proceed based on what you think my statement implies. See the problem?

Not knowing everything is not the same as 'nobody knows'.

I didn't say they had to know everything. I said they didn't know this specific thing:

The specific thing they do not know is for mask wearing people who are sitting side-by-side for an hour in church, not touching, and mostly just listening to someone talk: precisely how much the risk of infection changes for them if 1) they are completely forbidden to go to church or 2) they go and are forced to be 6 feet from people in all directions or 3) they go, sit at normal distances, but wear masks and wash their hands afterward.

They can't know because that study has not been done.

This matters because they want to set policy based on a risk they cannot quantify. Decisions are being made with a lack of key information.

Don't make an argument based on ignorance

As you can see, I didn't.

I am talking about sensible precautions.

Sensible is in the eye of the beholder and should also be based on something approaching real data. Someone's gut feeling that a thing is necessary isn't good enough.

Don't make this personal and do not accuse me of things that are not even remotely close to what I have written.

You're the only one making this personal.

How is it that this discussion is about me now? 

It's not, but you keep claiming it is. There might be some discussion about your point of view, as expressed here, but I have not said anything about you.

If you have any facts that show these worldwide organizations wrong then bring it.

Gladly. They have been wrong in several ways:

  • They said for weeks it wasn't a pandemic when lots of reporters could see it clearly was. Then they changed their minds. They were wrong. 
  • They said masks were ineffective. Then they said everyone should wear them. So they were wrong. 
  • They said the disease was not spread from person-to-person. Then they said it was. They were wrong.
  • They said the virus spread easily on surfaces. Now they say it's hard to spread that way.
  • They said the mortality rate was about 10 times higher than they and several other scientific studies say it is now.
  • They said there would be a shortage of ventilators and hospital beds. That has not been the case.
  • They said the first case appeared in Washington. Later, it turned out it had been in California before that.
  • They recommended that elective medical procedures be postponed. Now (last week, in fact) they have changed that.

I'm sure there are more I haven't thought of right at this moment.

It's not enough to say Activity A is more risky than Activity B and then set life-changing policies based on that. You need to say how much more risky it is. I am demanding facts before setting policy. I would have thought you could support that approach.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.31  Tacos!  replied to  Thomas @5.1.29    one month ago
Sitting and conversing can lead to infection in 5 minutes.

Right. That's about the breathing, not about just sitting near someone. That's important to me because if masks are genuinely effective, then maybe it means people don't need to worry so much about proximity.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.32  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.30    one month ago
Gladly. They have been wrong in several ways:

I asked you to deliver facts where they [CDC,WHO,et.al.] are wrong on social distancing being an important precaution.

Your comment @5.1.11 succinctly states your position on social distancing so let's focus on that:

Tacos! @5.1.11 ☞ And as I said at the very beginning of my very first comment, as long as they wear masks and wash hands, that should be enough.

You are dismissing social distancing ("that should be enough") which is a primary precaution made by CDC, WHO, et. al.   My question is:

What facts do you have that show these worldwide scientific/medical organizations are wrong on social distancing and that masks and clean hands "should be enough"?

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.33  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.31    one month ago
if masks are genuinely effective, then maybe it means people don't need to worry so much about proximity

Sure, 'if'.  That 'if' needs some support.

So where do you find supporting evidence that masks (the average masks worn by the public) are so effective that social distancing is not really important?

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.34  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.32    one month ago
I asked you to deliver facts where they [CDC,WHO,et.al.] are wrong on social distancing being an important precaution.

I never said they were.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.35  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.33    one month ago
So where do you find supporting evidence that masks (the average masks worn by the public) are so effective that social distancing is not really important?

I didn't make that claim. I have asked repeatedly for evidence on exactly how much more effective masks plus social distancing is versus masks alone. If you want me to do both, you should be prepared to show that.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.36  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.34    one month ago
I never said they were [ wrong on social distancing being an important precaution ]

Put in front of your eyes yet again:

Tacos! @ 5.1.11 ☞ And as I said at the very beginning of my very first comment, as long as they wear masks and wash hands, that should be enough .

Your position jrSmiley_115_smiley_image.png contradicts the worldwide recommendations of these organizations who state that social distancing is one of the most effective precautions we can take.   Since you are downplaying this recommendation (to the point of dismissal) I have asked you for the facts that justify your position.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.37  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.35    one month ago
I didn't make that claim [that average masks worn by the public are so effective that social distancing is not really important]

Again:

Tacos! @ 5.1.11 ☞ And as I said at the very beginning of my very first comment, as long as they wear masks and wash hands, that should be enough .
 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.38  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.35    one month ago
I have asked repeatedly for evidence on exactly how much more effective masks plus social distancing is versus masks alone. If you want me to do both, you should be prepared to show that.

If you want evidence for a recommendation made by the CDC, WHO, et. al. then you are perfectly capable of doing the research.   Upfront I provided you the opening summary positions of these two organizations along with links.   Since I am not making the recommendations (they are) I am not going to do research to argue their case.   You can do that on your own.

You, in contrast, are making a counter claim that masks and clean hands ' should be enough ':

Tacos! @ 5.1.11 ☞ And as I said at the very beginning of my very first comment, as long as they wear masks and wash hands, that should be enough .

You disagree with their recommendations and hold that social-distancing is likely not adding much.   Thus it is up to you to provide supporting facts that show why you disagree with the recommendations of the CDC, WHO, et. al.


Note:  you can always simply claim that social distancing does not seem so important in your opinion and that this is just a gut feeling that is not based on hard evidence .   But then I would note that it is wiser to go by recommendations of substantial scientific/medical organizations working full time on this problem than by one's unsupported gut feeling.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.39  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.38    one month ago

I can't hear over the crickets.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.40  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.36    one month ago
I have asked you for the facts that justify your position

I don't have a position requiring facts to justify it. Scientists want people to stay home from church. I am asking for the facts to support that. That is where the burden lies. It does not lie with my skepticism. However, to the extent that it might, I supplied you with several examples of scientists getting things wrong regarding their guidance on the virus. So skepticism is warranted.

So, I have asked you for the scientific research demonstrating the difference in infection rates for people who spend part of their day in church wearing masks versus not going to church at all. Keep in mind - and I have pointed this out before - church is not the only opportunity they have to come near other people. I am asking for a scientific analysis that shows that even wearing masks, and taking into account all the other activities people have, that we need to tell them to avoid church.

I am not saying - and have not said - there is no value in social distancing. I have not even said definitively that people absolutely should go to church in their normal numbers.

I already know there is risk out there. I want the scientifically derived additional risk factor in attending church while wearing masks and washing hands.`That would be relevant data that would help us decide whether or not to open churches.

I have explained this multiple times now and I won't make the effort again.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.41  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.38    one month ago
If you want evidence for a recommendation made by the CDC, WHO, et. al. then you are perfectly capable of doing the research.

Oh my God that is stupid.

That is not what I asked. That is not even the plain language of what you just quoted. I will quote myself. I don't know why this needs to be hard.

I have asked repeatedly for evidence on exactly how much more effective masks plus social distancing is versus masks alone.

EVIDENCE. See the word? Not "evidence of a recommendation." I KNOW the recommendation exists. The seed is ABOUT the recommendation. Why the FUCK would I ask for evidence of a recommendation? Let me type this in all caps so you can understand it:

I WANT EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE RECOMMENDATION'S MERIT AND SUPPORTING POLICIES THAT COME WITH CRIMINAL CONSEQUENCES.

I WANT QUANTIFIABLE RISK MEASUREMENTS.

Thus it is up to you to provide supporting facts that show why you disagree with the recommendations of the CDC, WHO, et. al.

NO!

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! 

That is not how it fucking works. You don't come to society as a scientist with a recommendation and then demand lay people believe you or prove you wrong. The burden is on the scientist to prove the recommendation has merit. To do that, you must be able to quantify relative risk factors.

If you tell people they are likely to die if they go to church, then you scare them into staying home. You scare the governor into making it a crime to go to church.

But considering everything else people do during the week, and all the people they come across, it might very well be (though no one can say yet precisely) that attending church for an hour on Sunday while wearing a mask might only increase your chance of death by some small percentage like 0.0000004%. In that case, the restriction on church attendance will likely be seen as going too far.

Is my 0.0000004% a made up number? Absolutely! But the scientists have given us NO numbers supporting the alleged need to close churches. The burden is on them to provide some because they want me to engage in specific behavior.

I have said these things multiple times. I will not be sidetracked with bullshit anymore. Good fucking day.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.42  Tacos!  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.39    one month ago
I can't hear over the crickets

People have lives. Have you considered they might not be on the internet 24/7 and your comment might be fucking rude?

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.43  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.40    one month ago
I am not saying - and have not said - there is no value in social distancing.

Indeed, you did not write the literal words ' no value '.   That is why I have repeatedly quoted you rather than simply paraphrase; to mitigate this ' I did not say that ' tactic.   What you wrote this:

Tacos! @ 5.1.11 ☞ And as I said at the very beginning of my very first comment, as long as they wear masks and wash hands, that should be enough .

That reads as though social distancing is not very important.   In direct contrast to the CDC, WHO, et. al. who deem it to be a key factor in mitigating infection.   The literal phrase ' no value ' is not the issue, it is the 'low value ' sentiment of your words.    I have asked you repeatedly to show what facts you have to take a contradictory position to these world scientific/medical organizations.   You deflect.

Scientists want people to stay home from church. I am asking for the facts to support that.

Scientists do??   Not politicians?   Given I have not argued that people should stay home from church (but rather that they take the recommended precautions) I will repeat that this is your question to research. 

That is where the burden lies. It does not lie with my skepticism. However, to the extent that it might, I supplied you with several examples of scientists getting things wrong regarding their guidance on the virus. So skepticism is warranted.

The fact that the scientific community is learning about coronavirus as they go should be recognized as normal progress.  The world has gone from zero knowledge to the level we have now and clearly there is more to learn.  That should not be a surprise.   So, the practical individual would use the current information and make sensible plans.  With a worldwide pandemic one would think the plans would err on the side of caution rather than ' oh well, questions remain on social distancing so let's not assume it is all that necessary '.

So, I have asked you for the scientific research demonstrating the difference in infection rates for people who spend part of their day in church wearing masks versus not going to church at all.

Why are you asking me?   Ask whoever made that claim to defend it;  I did not make that claim.   Asking me to provide evidence for a claim I did not make is either confusion on your part or deflection.  

I am asking for a scientific analysis that shows that even wearing masks, and taking into account all the other activities people have, that we need to tell them to avoid church.

I will again point you to my opening comment where I almost entirely agreed with you:

Tacos @ 5 ☞ Going to church really isn't any more dangerous than any place else.
TiG @ 5.1 ☞ Yes,  when the proper precautions are used.   Churches (as with office buildings, salons, transportation services, bars, concerts, restaurants, sporting events, ...) are inherently designed for close human proximity.   So of course a church can be made reasonably safe by taking the same kind of precautions other close-proximity venues take.   Contrast this with large stores with capacity limitations where the purpose is not inherently close-proximity.

That seems pretty clear yet here you are still asking me to defend why people should not go to church when my very first reply to you is that going to church is not any more dangerous than any place else when the proper precautions are used .   Not sure I could have been clearer.

I want the scientifically derived additional risk factor in attending church while wearing masks and washing hands.`That would be relevant data that would help us decide whether or not to open churches.

And I have suggested that since this is your interest, go do the research.   Asking people on a social forum to do your research when they have not made a claim warranting they provide this research is silly.

I have explained this multiple times now and I won't make the effort again.

And every single time I have given you the answer I just provided.   I agree, do not make the effort again because clearly you do not acknowledge the answer.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.44  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.41    one month ago
That is not how it fucking works. You don't come to society as a scientist with a recommendation and then demand lay people believe you or prove you wrong. The burden is on the scientist to prove the recommendation has merit. To do that, you must be able to quantify relative risk factors.

This  jrSmiley_115_smiley_image.png is one quote from your emotional comment.   You are in full strawman mode as the above is not even close to what I have written.   The burden, by the way, is indeed on science (and politicians) to justify the recommendations.   No doubt about it.   And, importantly, I have never suggested otherwise. 

Given the emotive nature (and yet another layer of tactics) I am going to ignore this comment.

You claim:

Tacos! @ 5.1.11 ☞ And as I said at the very beginning of my very first comment, as long as they wear masks and wash hands, that should be enough .

That is the focus.   Instead of backing up your claim (" that should be enough ") you have asked me to defend claims I have not made.  I have provided what the CDC and WHO recommend.   If you think they are full of shit then follow my links and dig down as far as you wish.   As I noted, I find their reasoning to be sensible.

I have said these things multiple times.

Yes, Tacos!, I have watched you try to change the debate throughout.   Why you still try that crap with me is a mystery.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.45  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.44    one month ago
from your emotional comment.

Judge me on my emotions, eh? 

You were the very first person in this exchange to complain about me making things personal. I said there was no such thing and I assume you accepted that since you didn't push that argument anymore.

It would show massive amounts of class, though, if you would admit to or concede mistakes like that once in a while. You might find people less emotional after the umpteenth exchange with you. Not for winning or losing, but just to show that you're actually paying attention to what people are trying to communicate. That's just my two cents.

(and yet another layer of tactics)

Bullshit. You are the ONLY one who even gives a shit about "Tactics." And "layers" even? Please stop with the debate club conspiracy theories. Your comments are thick with your concern for them. This is not a contest. There are no winners. I'm just here to have a fucking conversation. I don't give two shits about tactics. Stick to what's important, not what your suspicions lead you into thinking the worst about the person you're talking to.

Instead of backing up your claim (" that should be enough ")

The CDC and their lot told us masks did nothing. Now they tell us they're essential. That alone makes their pronouncements suspect as hell.

If the masks are essential, and we can do a long list of activities so long as we are wearing the masks (which is the case now) then it stands to reason that the simple matter of sitting 3 feet, 6 feet, or 10 feet apart - when side by mother fuckin side - isn't all that important so long as we're wearing masks.

It's not data (and why should I supply any when the CDC doesn't, eh?) and it's not a double blind study. It's just my personal process of logic.

Think of it like parachuting. Jumping out of an airplane is generally fatal. Doing so with a parachute mitigates that danger a lot, but it's not perfect, so jumpers usually have a reserve chute. But almost no one carries a third chute, right? Or a fourth. There comes a point were you could keep piling on protections, but the change to risk odds just isn't worth the trouble. 

But understand something: I'm not saying unequivocally and with certainty that I think everyone should go to church and snuggle up next to each other. I want the conflict in guidance explained. Why is it I can do all the things I do all week long so long as I wear a mask, but I can't go to church?

And I don't want hear some vague bullshit about X number of viruses might possibly maybe if the conditions are just so sneak out of my mask and slaughter millions. I want to hear the real odds. For the millionth time, I want to know what the scientifically arrived at figure is for increase in risk of death. It's pretty straightforward if you just let it be.

Or to return to my analogy, why do I NEED three parachutes?

Until we can get something from scientists that actually looks more like science than freakout panic mode, people need to stop telling me that I'm a bad person or a moron because I don't readily follow everything scientists tell me to do.

I'm tired of feeling like I'm being scared into house arrest over bullshit. They have gotten too much wrong. It's time we start demanding they prove up their claims.

It's time some of the scientists grew a fucking pair and learned to admit when they don't know something. I, for one, would trust them more.

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.1.46  Heartland American  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.41    one month ago

There is no need to close churches.  Religious services are essential and the haters soon won’t have laws backing up their prejudices against believers.  I differ from you in that I use most precautions and social distancing.  Not much into masks 🎭 because of social distances.  I’m grateful to the President for declaring what we do as essential and that governments can’t discriminate against believers while having different standards for secular gatherings.  California’s new rules are not satisfactory.  The 25% capacity is fine but the cap on total numbers at 100 is bogus. If a church seats over 400 then their capacity allowed is under 25%.  My church can seat 600 but is fire and insurance capped at 499.  We could easily get 200 in it and properly social distance between the main level and the balcony.  Holding below the 25% cap at 100 instead of 125 is ridiculous.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.1.47  Heartland American  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.42    one month ago

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.1.48  Heartland American  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.44    one month ago

jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_12_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.49  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.42    one month ago
People have lives. Have you considered they might not be on the internet 24/7 and your comment might be fucking rude?

So are repeated attempts to wiggle out of having said what one said, but here we are.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.50  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.45    one month ago

( ignoring your rant )

I have responded to all of your points multiple times yet you complain otherwise.   No matter what I write, you will engage in tactics that you ' don't give two shits about '.   But you will clearly NOT address the point of disagreement:  the importance of social distancing .

What has taken place here is typical.   I have focused on the key point of disagreement (efficacy of social distancing) while you have attempted to deflect using, most frequently, strawman arguments.   For example, look below at what you have stated:

The CDC and their lot told us masks did nothing. Now they tell us they're essential. That alone makes their pronouncements suspect as hell.

Yes, Tacos!, these organizations have been making recommendations as they learn.   And, as I have stated repeatedly , we (the planet) started with zero information and have been learning on the fly.   You seem to think that the natural mistakes made while learning means that all scientific recommendations are bullshit.   But then, inexplicably, you accept their mask recommendations and diminish their social distancing recommendation.   Your proclivity to dismiss CDC/WHO recommendations on nothing but your personal feelings moves me to my single concern:  your downplaying of social distancing if people are all wearing average masks and have clean hands .   This was our first point of disagreement and I have focused you on that ever since (while you dance around with deflections).

Why is it I can do all the things I do all week long so long as I wear a mask, but I can't go to church?

Yet again you are off on a point that I agreed with in my very first comment .   You complain that I am not paying attention yet, and I have pointed this out many times now, you operate as if you do not understand even the basics of my position.   How can this be?   Again, my very first comment to you:

Tacos @ 5 ☞ Going to church really isn't any more dangerous than any place else.
TiG @ 5.1 ☞ Yes,  when the proper precautions are used.   Churches (as with office buildings, salons, transportation services, bars, concerts, restaurants, sporting events, ...) are inherently designed for close human proximity.   So of course a church can be made reasonably safe by taking the same kind of precautions other close-proximity venues take.   Contrast this with large stores with capacity limitations where the purpose is not inherently close-proximity.

You stated that going to church is no more dangerous than any other place.    My response was 'Yes'.   That means I agreed with you.   But I added the qualification:  "when the proper precautions are used".    I would have expected you to nod your head in agreement.   I went on to note that churches (like other venues) are inherently close proximity so they should take the precautions used by similar venues.    Right?   Logical?   You should be in full agreement with that.  

So why is it that one of your recurring themes with me is the posit that you should be able to go to church when I clearly agreed with that position on my very first reply t o you?    Strange behavior by you, right?  Short of repeating this endlessly and providing links, what is a person supposed to do to get this into your head?  

Doing so with a parachute mitigates that danger a lot, but it's not perfect, so jumpers usually have a reserve chute. But almost no one carries a third chute, right? Or a fourth. There comes a point were you could keep piling on protections, but the change to risk odds just isn't worth the trouble. 

It is fascinating to me that you declare this with no data.   You jrSmiley_115_smiley_image.png declare that social distancing is like having a third parachute.   Based on what, exactly?   Where is the data that causes you to deem social distancing largely redundant (third parachute) if one already has parachute one (an average mask) and parachute two (clean hands)?

In other words (as I have repeated throughout):

What facts do you have that show these worldwide scientific/medical organizations are wrong on social distancing  and that masks and clean hands " should be enough?

Obviously you have no facts.   Yet you refuse to acknowledge my question and instead accuse me of what you continue to do (in this case, projection).

But understand something: I'm not saying unequivocally and with certainty that I think everyone should go to church and snuggle up next to each other. I want the conflict in guidance explained. Why is it I can do all the things I do all week long so long as I wear a mask, but I can't go to church?

I have never suggested that you made such a claim.   Yet again, you ask me why you cannot go to church even though we have been in agreement on this since the beginning .   You repeatedly illustrate that it is you who is not paying attention.  

And I don't want hear some vague bullshit about X number of viruses  might possibly maybe if the conditions are just so  sneak out of my mask and slaughter millions. I want to hear the  real  odds. For the millionth time, I want to know what the scientifically arrived at figure is for increase in risk of death. It's pretty straightforward if you just let it be.

Yet again you ask me to deliver scientific evidence underlying the CDC/WHO recommendations and pretend that I have been unresponsive (another tactic).   As I have explained to you repeatedly, I have not made any claims about the relative efficacy of these recommendations.   Rather, I have quoted the CDC and WHO, provided links to my sources and have suggested that if you want more information then do the research.  I informed you that their recommendations make sense to me; that is all.   

To wit, you keep asking me to defend claims that I have not made while you refuse to back up a claim that you did indeed make:

Tacos! @ 5.1.11 ☞ And as I said at the very beginning of my very first comment, as long as they wear masks and wash hands, that should be enough .

See the claim?   I have been asking you to back that up all along.  

Or to return to my analogy, why do I NEED three parachutes?

On what basis do you deem social distancing to be no more effective than a third parachute?   

Until we can get something from scientists that actually looks more like science than freakout panic mode, people need to stop telling me that I'm a bad person or a moron because I don't readily follow everything scientists tell me to do.

Go to the CDC and WHO websites and start researching.   If you are not satisfied by their explanations and want more information then go get it.   Badgering me on a social venue to do your research on a claim that I have not made is not the way to go.   

I'm tired of feeling like I'm being scared into house arrest over bullshit. They have gotten too much wrong. It's time we start demanding they prove up their claims.

Maybe too much feeling and too little analysis.   If you think the recommendations are bullshit then why do you think a mask alone is going to protect you?   On what basis do you cherry-pick recommendations.   By your logic, since these organizations have made mistakes along the way we should presume they do not know what they are talking about.   Well, okay, then why even wear a mask?   Just come up with a home-remedy that you think works and run with it.   Yeah, I am illustrating your irrational reasoning with absurdity.

It's time some of the scientists grew a fucking pair and learned to admit when they don't know something. I, for one, would trust them more.

Good grief man, that reads as if you do not have even a basic understanding of science.    It is science that publicly states what it does not know and qualifies that which it does know.   Further, one is not supposed to trust science.   What one does is consider the scientific reasoning and facts.   If one is persuaded then go with it.   If not, dig deeper.   The cool thing about science is that you can keep digging to lower levels of research.   What you are doing, instead, is inexplicably dismissing one of the recommendations (social distancing) and then flat out refusing to do any further research.   Instead you simply complain about scientists and cherry-pick (with ZERO data) the practices that you 'feel' " should be enough ".   

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.51  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @5.1.46    one month ago
There is no need to close churches.  

Here is a test for you.   Do you think I have argued that people should not go to their churches?   What is my position on this?   (I have repeated it multiple times.)

Religious services are essential and the haters soon won’t have laws backing up their prejudices against believers.  

You think that precautions against close-proximity gatherings are simply a tactic by 'haters' to keep you from going to church?   What do you think should be done to allow safe church services?

I differ from you in that I use most precautions and social distancing.  

Oh shit, that means you agree with my position on this matter.   (You likely have no idea since you almost certainly have not read anything I have written.)

Not much into masks because of social distances.

On what basis do you think masks are not that important with social distancing.   Do you know what happens if an infected person sneezes?

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5.1.52  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.26    one month ago

There have been outbreaks at some churches who defied the order and deaths occurred.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
6  sandy-2021492    one month ago

My mom attended church service for the first time in 2 months this morning.  There were only about 20 in attendance, whie capacity is probably about 175 if all the pews are full.  Every other pew was blocked off.  Usually, there is a lot of handshaking and hugging, but none this morning.  Everyone wore masks at potentially crowded areas, such as near the front door. 

Everyone except one woman, that is.  She said God wouldn't allow a Christian to get sick.  When Mom pointed out that there were pastors and choir members from various churches who had contracted the virus, the woman replied that they must not have been good Christian.

She's one reason why it's not safe for the rest.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6    one month ago
She said God wouldn't allow a Christian to get sick. 

We know she is not alone in that way of thinking.   It does not take much for a religious figure of authority to cause followers to be lax in following precautionary practices.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
6.1.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @6.1    one month ago

Fortunately, the pastor was on board with social distancing.  He usually hugs the entire congregation, but announced that hugs and handshakes were out for a while.

The county where my parents live has held steady at 135 cases for weeks now, and almost all in nursing homes rather than in the community at large, so I'm pretty comfortable with Mom attending services, so long as she's careful.  I wish everyone in her church took care, though.

 
 
 
Kathleen
6.1.2  Kathleen  replied to  TᵢG @6.1    one month ago

Religious figures have great influence over many people. In a sense it’s their duty to make sure their congregation is safe. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Kathleen @6.1.2    one month ago

Absolutely.   In many cases, the religious authority can make claims that are simply accepted by the congregation.   Unquestioned acceptance of 'truth' from a religious authority is the backbone of religious organizations.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
6.1.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kathleen @6.1.2    one month ago

Agreed.  Unfortunately, many consider themselves to be responsible for their congregations' souls, and some inexplicably equate that with encouraging them to neglect or endanger their bodies.  They seem to have forgotten Jesus's response to Satan when Satan urged him to throw himself off the temple and trust God to save him - "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."

 
 
 
Ender
6.2  Ender  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6    one month ago

That is just stupidity. What gives her the authority? People like that make me relish in telling them they are going to hell for being an asshole. Would love to tell them to shove it up their ass along with their misrepresentations of any and all scripture.

I sometimes wonder if people like that think they can walk into oncoming traffic and God will protect them. Whatever happened to God will help those who help themselves.

I am really thinking people just use God as an excuse for any and all behavior.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
6.2.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Ender @6.2    one month ago

Seems to me like she's judging.  I'm pretty sure there's something in the Bible about that.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
6.3  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6    one month ago
She's one reason why it's not safe for the rest.

She reminds me of  Adam Burdick , the choir director that informed the members of Skagit Valley Chorale in an email that in spite of the “stress and strain of concerns about the virus,” practice would proceed as scheduled at Mount Vernon Presbyterian Church.

“I’m planning on being there this Tuesday March 10, and hoping many of you will be, too,” he wrote.

Nearly three weeks later, 45 choir members were diagnosed with  COVID-19  or ill with  the symptoms , at least three were hospitalized, and two were dead.

 
 
 
Krishna
6.4  Krishna  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6    one month ago
When Mom pointed out that there were pastors and choir members from various churches who had contracted the virus, the woman replied that they must not have been good Christian. She's one reason why it's not safe for the rest.

She sound like the type of person who believes we should test all women by tying them up and throwing them in a river. If they float-- they are a witch and must be burned at the stake.

(However if they don't float but rather drown-- that's proof they are not Witches!

(Excellent test-- works every time!)

 
 
 
Sparty On
7  Sparty On    one month ago

Government needs to let people be responsible for themselves sooner or later.    It’s been two plus months of everyone getting hammered on proper sanitary practices, etc.    Some of which like proper hand washing we learned way back when we were kids.

Its well past time imo.    If people aren’t going to follow a good hygiene regime after what we’ve gone through for the last 8+ weeks they ain’t never gonna.

That said imo the single most important thing all of us can do is practice good hand sanitation and when you can’t, practice  good hygiene by concentrating on not touching any of your eyes, nose, mouth etc.

Personally I think masks give some a false sense of security.     I’m watching people in masks regularly reach under and rub their nose or eyes.    Clearly missing the point in places where people are touching everything like grocery stores.

Open it up.    We can either thin the herd of the stupid people who won’t ever comply or everyone is going to be on government cheese.    I know some in government would like to see that but I don’t really care for cheese that much or for government overreach for that matter.

Hopefully people have learned their lessons.    All but the most susceptible need to get back to work, play and worship.    A health crisis is looming with all the normal physical and mental health care being missed.    People are gonna start croaking that don’t need to if this goes on endlessly.

 
 
 
Krishna
7.1  Krishna  replied to  Sparty On @7    one month ago
Hopefully people have learned their lessons.

Some will-- some won't. As the olde saying goes:

There's no cure for "Stuck on Stupid".

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
8  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Krishna
8.1  Krishna  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @8    one month ago

Well, at least he's being considerate of other people by trying to be considerate and wearing a mask.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
8.1.1  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Krishna @8.1    one month ago

[[Off topic and of no value]]

 
 
 
Kathleen
9  Kathleen    one month ago

I have even ran into people not wearing them in the 7 Eleven.  I felt like kicking them in the butt.

They are stupid, arrogant and inconsiderate.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
10  sandy-2021492    one month ago

There are some hints from our governor that masks may soon be mandatory in public places.  I think that's a good idea, as we are reopening nonessential businesses, and compliance with masks and social distancing has been a problem since this started.  I think people don't consider that if those who are back to work become infected, they will have to miss more work.  That's counterproductive to the economic benefit reopening was supposed to provide.

We all want to reopen, but we need to do so intelligently.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
10.1  XDm9mm  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10    one month ago
but we need to do so intelligently.

Said another way;   but we need to do so like good sheep incapable of thinking for ourselves.   

No need to thank me for the correction.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
10.1.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  XDm9mm @10.1    one month ago

Putting words in others' mouths is dishonest.

 
 
 
TᵢG
10.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  XDm9mm @10.1    one month ago
Said another way;   but we need to do so like good sheep incapable of thinking for ourselves.   

Thinking critically (not being a sheep) is excellent.   In this case one must consider the scientific facts regarding the spread of infection.   If one does the research and finds that coronavirus infection is contacted via airborne particles and through surfaces then one would naturally seek methods to mitigate the transmission.   Research would also show that an infected person could be asymptomatic for days.   Thus, thinking critically, we should all assume that we might be infected.

Assuming you might be infected, when you choose to enter a public space, should you be wearing an effective face mask to catch many of the particles that you exhale into shared air space?  

Knowing that most infected airborne particles travel at low velocities and drop to the ground within a few feet, would you use social distancing to reduce the likelihood of airborne infection?

Knowing that the virus can linger on some surfaces for many hours in an infectious state, would you avoid touching surface, keep your hands clean and resist touching your face (especially eyes and nose) to mitigate infection?

Finally, given the certain fact that this virus has, in spite of worldwide efforts, reached a worldwide pandemic level, would you determine it wise to commingle with others in close proximity such as in a bar, restaurant, gym, church, etc.?

What precautions, given what is known about coronavirus, would a non-sheep, critical thinker take?

 
 
 
It Is ME
10.1.3  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.2    one month ago
Finally, given the certain fact that this virus has, in spite of worldwide efforts, reached a worldwide pandemic level, would you determine it wise to commingle with others in close proximity such as in a bar, restaurant, gym, church, etc.?

But....We've been "Self Hibernating at home" for months, and the count STILL keeps Growing according to the media !

Since that's the case, logic would tell one..... "Get outside" ! What's it gonna hurt !

 
 
 
Nerm_L
10.1.4  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  XDm9mm @10.1    one month ago
Said another way;   but we need to do so like good sheep incapable of thinking for ourselves.    No need to thank me for the correction.

Marines pride themselves on following orders.  Marines do what they are ordered to do, no matter how impossible.

Semper fi doesn't mean 'I am a sheep'.

We can reopen stupidly and simply accept whatever casualties may result.  But that doesn't prepare for the next phase of the war.  Or we can focus on mission, stay on task, and achieve the objective intelligently so we live to fight the next battle.

Reopening is not the end of the war.  Our mission is to return to normal; that's how we win the war.  We can win a battle by reopening stupidly and still lose the war.  Winning a battle stupidly can mean we lose the war.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
10.1.5  sandy-2021492  replied to  It Is ME @10.1.3    one month ago
But....We've been "Self Hibernating at home" for months,

Except that many of us haven't been.  There is no grocery delivery here, so I have to go to Walmart or Food Lion to get groceries.  Every time I go, less than half of the people there are wearing masks.  At checkout, I've had to ask people to back up while I was paying with my debit card, because they were much closer than the 6 feet distance they were supposed to maintain, sometimes less than a foot (seriously, did we forget that it's rude to stand that close to someone using a debit card?).  Once, a cashier told the woman behind me to back up, as I hadn't seen her getting close behind me while I was loading my groceries into my cart.  I regularly see parents with kids, groups of teenagers, toddlers running around touching everything and even one little tyke trying to drink from the drinking fountain.

BTW, nobody ever said you couldn't go outside.  I've been outside every day that the weather has permitted.  It has actually been recommended that we go outside - with precautions.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.1.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.1.1    one month ago

and rude

 
 
 
It Is ME
10.2  It Is ME  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10    one month ago
We all want to reopen, but we need to do so intelligently.

"Intelligently" seems to "change", the longer this is dragged on. Now the CDC says that Hard Surface infecting isn't as strong as they originally Told us it was.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
10.2.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  It Is ME @10.2    one month ago

Welcome to science, which responds to new information as it is acquired.

 
 
 
It Is ME
10.2.2  It Is ME  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.2.1    one month ago
Welcome to science, which responds to new information as it is acquired.

We "welcomed" Dr. Fauci's (Feb. 29, 2020) science in the beginning  : "No behavior needs to be changed" . Look where we're at now ! jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif after at least a dozen changes in scientific thought process's on Covid-19. 35 million and counting, unemployed. Kinda makes that "less than" 100,000 deaths look really "Small".

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
10.2.3  sandy-2021492  replied to  It Is ME @10.2.2    one month ago

So, do you only want science that does not correct itself and agrees with what you want to be true?

 
 
 
It Is ME
10.2.4  It Is ME  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.2.3    one month ago
So, do you only want science that does not correct itself and agrees with what you want to be true?

I want "Science" to be "Finite" if it's gonna Force folks to hunker down and go broke !

This "Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda, Maybe" Crap is "Killing" folks lives, in greater numbers than the "Deaths' are !

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
10.2.5  sandy-2021492  replied to  It Is ME @10.2.4    one month ago
I want "Science" to be "Finite"

Then you don't really want science.

 
 
 
It Is ME
10.2.6  It Is ME  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.2.5    one month ago
Then you don't really want science.

aaaahhhhhh…..The "Pick and Chose" pieces of an entire comment response.

Any "Response" to ..... "The rest of my Comment/story" ? jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

35 MILLION unemployed and loosing their " LIVE "lyhoods acceptable to you ?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
10.2.7  sandy-2021492  replied to  It Is ME @10.2.6    one month ago

Science continues to compile information, including that which corrects previous information, regardless of impatience with social isolation measures.  You want it to have an end point based on your feelings.  Science doesn't work that way.

 
 
 
It Is ME
10.2.8  It Is ME  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.2.7    one month ago
Science continues to compile information

With NO end in sight, As the Unemployed numbers GROW !

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
10.2.9  sandy-2021492  replied to  It Is ME @10.2.8    one month ago

Do you want science to lie to suit your feelings?

 
 
 
It Is ME
10.2.10  It Is ME  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.2.9    one month ago
Do you want science to lie to suit your feelings?

I want "Science" to …… KNOW...… before creating and continuing chaos !

Is 35 MILLION more acceptable than Less than 100,000 ?

Haven't heard much of anything about our normal "Influenza" caused deaths this year, have you. Seems its "Covid, Covid, Covid" all the time.

Weird how Influenza just seemed to have ….. gone away.

But :Influenza" caused deaths is so "Passe" !

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
10.2.11  sandy-2021492  replied to  It Is ME @10.2.10    one month ago

Science does know how to prevent the spread of most viruses and bacteria - by preventing contact with infected people (or animal hosts, as the case may be).  Methods of preventing contact do not vary from one pathogen to the next.  Isolation, either by physical distance or barriers when distance cannot be achieved, are effective against the spread of all pathogens.

What science cannot always ascertain quickly is to what degree such isolation must be maintained to control spread.  This is due to many factors - incubation period, number of asymptomatic carriers, route of spread, and existence or lack of cures for the infection.  Coronavirus is more infectious than many viruses, and has a longer prodromal period and high number of asymptomatic carriers.  That makes it easy to spread.  Unlike many bacterial infections, or even the flu, there is no treatment shown repeatedly to cure or shorten the course of the disease - no "take this antibiotic and go back to work after 2 days."  So science indicates that this is a disease for which a high degree of isolation, either by distance or by barriers, is necessary. 

And it is not science's job to make people happy with the information it discovers.  Science doesn't sugarcoat.

Of course, experts can make recommendations based on science, such as wearing masks in public places, but those listening to them tend to get labeled as "sheep" by those who would rather rely on feelings than science, as seen above.

You are trying to equate 35 million jobs lost with 35 million deaths, in order to make an apples-to-oranges comparison with actual deaths.  Not gonna fly.

Influenza is generally pretty inactive in late May.  That's hardly new.

 
 
 
Tacos!
10.2.12  Tacos!  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.2.3    one month ago
So, do you only want science that does not correct itself and agrees with what you want to be true?

I don't want that, but consider how frequently "science" has had to be corrected during this crisis.

It therefore seems a little inappropriately sanctimonious to insist we "follow the science" or "listen to scientists" when making policy decisions that radically impact the lives of people.

It especially seems unjust to arrest or fine people for not obeying brand new regulations based on science that has a good chance of being corrected in a few weeks.

We should also consider that not all scientists agree on what the best practices are. It is inappropriate to speak of "the science" as some monolith.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
10.2.13  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tacos! @10.2.12    one month ago
consider how frequently "science" has had to be corrected during this crisis.

I would say that's to be expected, considering how new this virus is.

 
 
 
TᵢG
10.2.14  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @10.2.12    one month ago

Science (worldwide) is of course still learning about this virus.  Obviously as they learn they will revise their positions.   That is what science does and that is what we would want, right?

Your comment reads as though we should downplay the current level of knowledge on the virus because science clearly has more to learn.

... consider how frequently "science" has had to be corrected during this crisis ...

Science has been correcting itself: the learning process; the scientific method.  You make it sound as if there is some other body that is correcting an errant scientific community.


My position is that we take the best knowledge we have on this virus and make policy that errs on the side of precaution.   Dismissing a sensible precaution such as social distancing seems grossly irresponsible.

 
 
 
Tacos!
10.2.15  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @10.2.14    one month ago
Your comment reads as though we should downplay the current level of knowledge on the virus because science clearly has more to learn.

Then you have not understood what I wrote. I said two things about it. First, it is inappropriate to act as if the current scientific understanding is absolute and it is wrong to question it or wait for more information.

Second, drastic policy changes with criminal consequence should not be implemented based on understanding that is likely to change soon. this especially true, since, as you say,

Science (worldwide) is of course still learning about this virus.  Obviously as they learn they will revise their positions. You make it sound as if there is some other body that is correcting an errant scientific community.

If this imperfection is obvious and expected, we shouldn't rush to act on it. Nor should we get righteous about how the best thing to do is respect it.

There is. Other scientists. You make it sound as if all scientists agree on the details of this virus. They don't. There has always been disagreement, but sometimes dissenting voices are censored.
 
 
 
Tacos!
10.2.16  Tacos!  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.2.13    one month ago
I would say that's to be expected, considering how new this virus is.

And since it is to be expected, how foolhardy is it to rush ahead with sweeping changes that either may be ineffective or even do more harm than good?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
10.2.17  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tacos! @10.2.16    one month ago

As I've said above, isolation, either by physical distance or by barrier, is always an effective measure to prevent the spread of contagion.  The real question was how extensive did that isolation need to be?

 
 
 
Tacos!
10.2.18  Tacos!  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.2.17    one month ago
The real question was how extensive did that isolation need to be?

Indeed.

 
 
 
TᵢG
10.2.19  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @10.2.15    one month ago
First, it is inappropriate to act as if the current scientific understanding is absolute ...

Where do you find someone stating that scientific understanding is absolute?

... and it is wrong to question it ...

Of course it is appropriate to question scientific information.  Again, who has suggested otherwise??

... or wait for more information.

This, however, is interesting.   Your comments in this article clearly express your position that social distancing should not be taken so seriously because " as long as they wear masks and wash hands, that should be enough ":

Tacos! @ 5.1.11 ☞ And as I said at the very beginning of my very first comment, as long as they wear masks and wash hands, that should be enough .

You are dismissing social distancing (" that should be enough ") which is a primary precaution made by CDC, WHO, et. al.   My question is:

What facts do you have that show these worldwide scientific/medical organizations are wrong on social distancing and that masks and clean hands " should be enough "?
Second, drastic policy changes with criminal consequence should not be implemented based on understanding that is likely to change soon. this especially true, since, as you say:

What do you consider to be a drastic policy change?   The stay-at-home order?   Social distancing?    Your comment is too vague for comment.   But in general, we necessarily must make the best decisions based on the current state of information.   Waiting for better information is an endless game.   One must have a pragmatic method to be cautious and back off on restrictions commensurate with our ever-increasing knowledge.  

If this imperfection is obvious and expected, we shouldn't rush to act on it. Nor should we get righteous about how the best thing to do is respect it.

Human beings always operate with imperfect data.   The 'rush' if you will is a reaction to a demonstrably highly contagious virus.   Again, in spite of all the efforts worldwide we are living through a worldwide pandemic.   This is serious business.   Of course one does not stupidly introduce precautions based on feelings, but by the same token one should not be anxious to ignore precautions such as social distancing because the science is not yet 'perfect' (and it is inconvenient).


What facts do you have that show these worldwide scientific/medical organizations are wrong on social distancing and that masks and clean hands " should be enough "?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
10.2.20  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tacos! @10.2.18    one month ago

You stated that the changes may be ineffective.  Whether isolation is effective in spreading infectious diseases is not in question.

 
 
 
Tacos!
10.2.21  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @10.2.19    one month ago

You are ignoring all of my questions, points and demands in favor of mistaking my position or attacking it generally as "vague." If you actually respond to something I actually said and the point I'm making instead of trying to split hairs, I'll respond. Try to focus your approach and stay on the topic. Thank you.

 
 
 
Tacos!
10.2.22  Tacos!  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.2.20    one month ago

I don't think I have said isolation is ineffective. The point is that we don't know if simply wearing masks and washing hands may be enough for the activity of going to church. I really do think I have described the question enough times by now.

 
 
 
TᵢG
10.2.23  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @10.2.21    one month ago

While fully responding to your comments, I have also focused on a single point;  that is what I do when people play deflection games.   The question of focus is this:

What facts do you have that show these worldwide scientific/medical organizations are wrong on social distancing and that masks and clean hands " should be enough "?

And for clarity I chose a single quote (one of several) from you to illustrate the purpose of the question:

Tacos! @ 5.1.11 ☞ And as I said at the very beginning of my very first comment, as long as they wear masks and wash hands, that should be enough .

Given you will not even acknowledge this question, it is clear that you do not have any facts to support your view that the CDC, WHO, et. al. recommendation for social distancing should not be taken seriously as long as one wears a mask and has clean hands.

 
 
 
Tacos!
10.2.24  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @10.2.23    one month ago
The question of focus is this:
What facts do you have that show these worldwide scientific/medical organizations are wrong on social distancing and that masks and clean hands " should be enough "?

No that's YOUR focus. YOU are the one deflecting. When you reply to me, you talk about what YOU want to talk about, and not what I am talking about. My comment was the original, so I don't need you to dictate to me what my focus is.

Given you will not even acknowledge this question, it is clear that you do not have any facts to support your view that the CDC, WHO, et. al. recommendation for social distancing should not be taken seriously as long as one wears a mask and has clean hands.

I gave you facts. I gave something like 10 examples of scientists getting it wrong. That forms all the justification I need for skepticism.

 
 
 
TᵢG
10.2.25  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @10.2.24    one month ago
When you reply to me, you talk about what YOU want to talk about, and not what I am talking about.

What I continue to remind you is our very first point of disagreement.   Instead of dealing with that you have deflected.   As a rule, my approach is to fight deflection by sticking to the point that is being avoided.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
10.2.26  Heartland American  replied to  Tacos! @10.2.12    one month ago

It’s all a part of the pro science mythology designed to make people bow down and scrape before them as they call any competing or opposing viewpoints conspiracy theories and pseudo science in an effort to shame us into accepting their world view and silence the heretics.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
10.2.27  Heartland American  replied to  TᵢG @10.2.25    one month ago

Oh, by the way, God is real.  He is the creator.  Prayer 🙏 is effective as one means of dealing with the virus and it’s effects in our lives.  God will guide doctors in hospitals and labs in vanquishing the virus.  This does not mean that we become presumptuous of God and not use social distancing and precautions as needed.  We will go to church now regardless of what governors and mayors and secularists say about it

 
 
 
Gordy327
10.2.28  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @10.2.27    one month ago
Oh, by the way, God is real.  He is the creator.

That's nice. Prove it!

 Prayer 🙏 is effective as one means of dealing with the virus and it’s effects in our lives.

Is that why over a million and a half have become infected and nearly 100,000 people have died from it so far in this country alone? Based on that, prayer seems quite ineffective in dealing with the virus.

 God will guide doctors in hospitals and labs in vanquishing the virus.  

You know this how?

This does not mean that we become presumptuous of God and not use social distancing and precautions as needed.

Why not? you have prayer to deal with the virus, right?

 We will go to church now regardless of what governors and mayors and secularists say about it

Go nuts. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
10.2.29  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tacos! @10.2.22    one month ago
I don't think I have said isolation is ineffective.

No, this is what you said.

how foolhardy is it to rush ahead with sweeping changes that either may be ineffective or even do more harm than good?

All of those "sweeping changes" have been based on isolation, Tacos.  Closures, furloughs, working from home - all aimed at minimizing contact between humans.

 
 
 
TᵢG
10.2.30  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @10.2.26    one month ago
It’s all a part of the pro science mythology designed to make people bow down and scrape before them as they call any competing or opposing viewpoints conspiracy theories and pseudo science in an effort to shame us into accepting their world view and silence the heretics.

Fascinating

 
 
 
TᵢG
10.2.31  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @10.2.27    one month ago
Oh, by the way, God is real.  He is the creator.  Prayer 🙏 is effective as one means of dealing with the virus and it’s effects in our lives.  God will guide doctors in hospitals and labs in vanquishing the virus.  

Is there a reason why you have injected these unsupported claims here?   They have nothing whatsoever to do with what Tacos! and I have been discussing.

This does not mean that we become presumptuous of God and not use social distancing and precautions as needed.  We will go to church now regardless of what governors and mayors and secularists say about it

Do you realize that Tacos! position is that ordinary masks and clean hands should be enough and that social distancing is not going to make much of a difference (like a third parachute)?    

 
 
 
TᵢG
10.2.32  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.2.29    one month ago

Apparently Tacos! is comfortable picking and choosing the precautions he prefers.   He complains that the scientific and medical communities (worldwide) have made mistakes along the way as they have collectively learned of coronavirus while simultaneously trying to contain a pandemic.   Based on these mistakes he argues that the CDC, WHO, et. al. cannot be 'trusted'.

So .... with this inability to trust, Tacos! inexplicably has concluded that an ordinary mask and clean hands is sufficient and that the use of social distancing is like having a third parachute.   No data supporting this, but Tacos! demands that others are for some reason supposed to deliver evidence that social distancing is effective when he is the one making the claim —contradicting worldwide health organizations (and common sense)— that it is not that important.

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif     

 
 
 
TᵢG
10.2.33  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @10.2.24    one month ago
I gave you facts. I gave something like 10 examples of scientists getting it wrong. That forms all the justification I need for skepticism.

You present this as if I have denied the mistakes that have been made.   You also pretend that I have argued you have no justification for being skeptical.   Yet again, even when I agree it does not register with you.    

Yes the scientific / medical community has made mistakes as it learned about coronavirus while simultaneously dealing with a worldwide pandemic.   I do not believe anyone in this seed has argued to the contrary.   And yes, repeating myself, you should be skeptical of recommendations.   But the skepticism should be consistent and measured.   If you disregard recommendations because the recommending body has been wrong in the past then you will wind up disregarding all recommendations from all bodies.

So sure, be skeptical.   But your position is irrational: you inexplicably consider an ordinary mask and clean hands to be largely sufficient and consider social-distancing akin to having a third parachute.

On what basis do you come to this remarkable conclusion?

Skepticism would have you diminishing clean hands and masks too.   Why are these precautions sufficient?   

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Texan1211
ThereAreFourLights
bugsy
Heartland American


32 visitors