Places of worship 'may not be safe' for some, Birx says
By: ELEANOR MUELLER - POLITICO
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
Who is online
86 visitors
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.
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!
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.
100 or so are safer !
I hear "The Elderly" are being "pushed to the limit", by Big Gov..
"Elderly care Residence" ..... time to revolt !
And what about a barber shop-- or a Tattoo parlour?
Think about the strippers !
There always "PACKED" full of folks !
I know I do !!!!
I saw a sign for a strip club - WE ARE CLOTHED FOR NOW.
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.
Hit the nail on the head with that comment.
They don't much about this......but "You Will" Comply with their order !
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.
Social distancing and wearing masks too, especially when distance is reduced for whatever reason.
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.
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.
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)?
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.
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.
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.
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:
The World Health Organization issues the following recommendations:
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
' 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.
May possibly?
Masks vary in effectiveness. But if you are 6' away, the droplets (even without masks) cannot reach the other person.
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.
Then no one should ever leave the house. That is an unacceptable option.
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.
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.
How is it useless? You simply wash your hands again.
Yep. That's the wording the CDC uses.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, that's just not true.
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.
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.
(see above)
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.
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).
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.
Hard to say without analyzing a lot of numbers. Are you hypothesizing that washing hands, masks and social distancing are ineffective?
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?
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.
Yes it makes sense that we should see less infectious diseases with current precautions. Is this leading to a point?
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.
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.
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.
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 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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Close proximity and breathing has . Sitting and conversing can lead to infection in 5 minutes.
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.
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.
You demand facts but then you want to proceed based on what you think my statement implies. See the problem?
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.
As you can see, I didn't.
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.
You're the only one making this personal.
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:
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.
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.
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:
You are dismissing social distancing ("that should be enough") which is a primary precaution made by CDC, WHO, et. al. My question is:
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?
I never said they were.
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.
Put in front of your eyes yet again:
Your position
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.
Again:
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 ':
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.
I can't hear over the crickets.
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.
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.
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.
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.
People have lives. Have you considered they might not be on the internet 24/7 and your comment might be fucking rude?
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:
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 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.
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 '.
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 will again point you to my opening comment where I almost entirely agreed with you:
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.
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.
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.
This
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:
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.
Yes, Tacos!, I have watched you try to change the debate throughout. Why you still try that crap with me is a mystery.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So are repeated attempts to wiggle out of having said what one said, but here we are.
( 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:
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).
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:
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?
It is fascinating to me that you declare this with no data. You
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):
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).
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.
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:
See the claim? I have been asking you to back that up all along.
On what basis do you deem social distancing to be no more effective than a third parachute?
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.
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.
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 ".
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.)
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?
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.)
On what basis do you think masks are not that important with social distancing. Do you know what happens if an infected person sneezes?
There have been outbreaks at some churches who defied the order and deaths occurred.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
Seems to me like she's judging. I'm pretty sure there's something in the Bible about that.
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.
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!)
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.
Some will-- some won't. As the olde saying goes:
There's no cure for "Stuck on Stupid".
[deleted]
Well, at least he's being considerate of other people by trying to be considerate and wearing a mask.
[[Off topic and of no value]]
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.
"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.
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 !
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".
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 !
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" ?
35 MILLION unemployed and loosing their " LIVE "lyhoods acceptable to you ?
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.
With NO end in sight, As the Unemployed numbers GROW !
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" !
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.
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.
I would say that's to be expected, considering how new this virus is.
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.
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.
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,
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.
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?
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?
Indeed.
Where do you find someone stating that scientific understanding is absolute?
Of course it is appropriate to question scientific information. Again, who has suggested otherwise??
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 ":
You are dismissing social distancing (" that should be enough ") which is a primary precaution made by CDC, WHO, et. al. My question is:
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.
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 "?
You stated that the changes may be ineffective. Whether isolation is effective in spreading infectious diseases is not in question.
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.
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.
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:
And for clarity I chose a single quote (one of several) from you to illustrate the purpose of the question:
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.
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.
I gave you facts. I gave something like 10 examples of scientists getting it wrong. That forms all the justification I need for skepticism.
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.
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.
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
That's nice. Prove it!
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.
You know this how?
Why not? you have prayer to deal with the virus, right?
Go nuts.
No, this is what you said.
All of those "sweeping changes" have been based on isolation, Tacos. Closures, furloughs, working from home - all aimed at minimizing contact between humans.
Fascinating
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.
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)?
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.
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?