Coronavirus news

[peter_speckhard]

https://thefederalist.com/2020/04/01/were-following-a-one-size-fits-all-coronavirus-strategy-right-into-a-great-depression/

The writer wants to make America "great" again by putting money before the lives of people. I'm for listening to doctors and scientists rather than The Federalist.

The article wasn't about how to treat or cure the coronavirus, which is what doctors would know about. The topic of the article was the way to bring a society back from a time of pandemic in ways that don't lead to chaos, which is hardly the stuff of medical school. As for scientists, which scientists? In what fields? People calling themselves scientists have all kinds of positions on public policy as it relates to bringing the country back. There is no consensus because this is unprecedented. Therefore, nobody has any relevant data to work with, again, the topic being which public policies are likely to get the nation through this and beyond without a total collapse of our society. The author has an opinion. "Science" in the abstract has no opinion, and doctors trained to work with patients have opinions that are no more relevant than anyone else's when the topic is social, political, and economic in nature rather than biological and medicinal.

 

[Dave Benke]

This disconnect amazes and perplexes me.  I can't "feel" it because we're here dead smack in the middle of this pandemic.  So if folks in other areas feel cooped up for no good reason and are also feeling the economic pinch, then
a) they can "blame" in some way the highly affected areas for affecting them
b) describe an alternate reality in which they could stop being cooped up

What this does in effect is to undermine the health, medical, and epidemiology communities' efforts to stem the tide from the tip of the spear all the way to the end.  My personal assessment is that the total number of deaths in this first wave of the virus could be held below 100,000 if there was a true national effort to do all the mitigation tasks.  Even though that would extend the economic impact.  And even though what would most likely result is something that ends up looking like the WPA from the days of FDR in the Infrastructure Rebuilding bill(s) that will be coming forth.  All of this is bigger government, way bigger government, than the ideologues want. 

But most of it is exactly what is needed to stem the spread and then to rebuild after the cooped-up time and the economic distress that is directly ahead of us.  This is how we survive.
Watching the old-timey stuff on the history channel now it's intriguing to see the force of the isolationist position that existed during the Great Depression, and the animosity that was felt toward FDR, the WPA, and entrance into WWII.  I feel as though we're reliving some of that, although the enemy is no larger than an efficient microbe.  But it's a microbe army.  And to survive it must be held off until it can be eradicated.

Dave Benke

There certainly is a disconnect, but it strikes me as not nearly as great as you are sensing it now in New York.  I have rural relatives in the midwest.  One of my nieces there is recovering from COVID-19.  They and others across that region aren't blaming anyone (except perhaps China) and are taking self-isolation every bit as seriously as we city dwellers are.


For good and ill, the media will highlight the irresponsible nut jobs holding crowded worship services or partying at the beach.  I believe that the vast majority are together in this fight and are taking it seriously.

This is good to hear.  Really everyone is the beneficiary of nationwide self-isolation mitigation.

Dave Benke

[Steven W Bohler]

Steve,

The author must be in a place where the nearest positive case is 250 miles away. Or, he's related to this guy:

https://www.foxnews.com/health/pennsylvania-pastor-slams-coronavirus-precautions-plans-woodstock-like-easter-gathering?fbclid=IwAR2MsiGY9qQRG6oNJO5k8YrP4d3mMAtlxnpEW5oqm3IMyu69ViPRGyyQ-_4

No, I don't think either of those is true. And -- even if they were true -- how would that rebut any of his arguments?  "No, you're wrong because you live 250 miles from a positive case"?  Or, "No, you are wrong because you are related to Jonathan Shuttlesworth"?  Isn't there some sort of logical fallacy there you can tell us about?

[Dave Benke]

Steve,

The author must be in a place where the nearest positive case is 250 miles away. Or, he's related to this guy:

https://www.foxnews.com/health/pennsylvania-pastor-slams-coronavirus-precautions-plans-woodstock-like-easter-gathering?fbclid=IwAR2MsiGY9qQRG6oNJO5k8YrP4d3mMAtlxnpEW5oqm3IMyu69ViPRGyyQ-_4

No, I don't think either of those is true. And -- even if they were true -- how would that rebut any of his arguments?  "No, you're wrong because you live 250 miles from a positive case"?  Or, "No, you are wrong because you are related to Jonathan Shuttlesworth"?  Isn't there some sort of logical fallacy there you can tell us about?

I'm not a "follower" of the Federalist Editor, who wrote this.  I have a twitter account that I seldom use, but it sends me emails with updates.  One of them, forwarded by a Missouri Synod Federalist employee (so that's how it came to my email), was a tweet from the same person who wrote the article you sent, that editor.  It was a tweet about a pastor who held church services (actually, in an area of fast-rising infection).  And the editor made a comment indicating the appropriate behavior for pastors and congregations is to continue to meet. 
I remember reading that comment and thinking - what the heck?  Why would this guy be in favor of putting people at risk? 

So the same man who has a thought process about next steps also has a bad comment about social distancing in churches.  All that does is make me leery of his other commentary.  His thoughts (which in some ways connect to mine and Andrew Cuomo's) get mired, at least to me, in his attempt to connect what we're going through to a loss of what he wants to consider religious freedom.

Dave Benke

[Steven W Bohler]

Steve,

The author must be in a place where the nearest positive case is 250 miles away. Or, he's related to this guy:

https://www.foxnews.com/health/pennsylvania-pastor-slams-coronavirus-precautions-plans-woodstock-like-easter-gathering?fbclid=IwAR2MsiGY9qQRG6oNJO5k8YrP4d3mMAtlxnpEW5oqm3IMyu69ViPRGyyQ-_4

No, I don't think either of those is true. And -- even if they were true -- how would that rebut any of his arguments?  "No, you're wrong because you live 250 miles from a positive case"?  Or, "No, you are wrong because you are related to Jonathan Shuttlesworth"?  Isn't there some sort of logical fallacy there you can tell us about?

I'm not a "follower" of the Federalist Editor, who wrote this.  I have a twitter account that I seldom use, but it sends me emails with updates.  One of them, forwarded by a Missouri Synod Federalist employee (so that's how it came to my email), was a tweet from the same person who wrote the article you sent, that editor.  It was a tweet about a pastor who held church services (actually, in an area of fast-rising infection).  And the editor made a comment indicating the appropriate behavior for pastors and congregations is to continue to meet. 
I remember reading that comment and thinking - what the heck?  Why would this guy be in favor of putting people at risk? 

So the same man who has a thought process about next steps also has a bad comment about social distancing in churches.  All that does is make me leery of his other commentary.  His thoughts (which in some ways connect to mine and Andrew Cuomo's) get mired, at least to me, in his attempt to connect what we're going through to a loss of what he wants to consider religious freedom.

Dave Benke

I know nothing about the tweets you mention from this person.  I was merely answering Rev. Kirchner's post, in which he appears to dismiss the author's points solely based upon his possible distance from any known infected person, or supposed relation to a particular pastor.  Which, to me, is not helpful.  If the man's ideas are wrong/bad/unworkable then show why the ideas have these failings.  To attack the ideas simply because they come from a certain individual is not really constructive.  Or logical.  Something which Rev. Kirchner has often reminded us in the past.

[Donald_Kirchner]

Your false assumption, Steve, is that my comments were an attempt to rebut the author's comments.

[James_Gale]

Steve,

The author must be in a place where the nearest positive case is 250 miles away. Or, he's related to this guy:

https://www.foxnews.com/health/pennsylvania-pastor-slams-coronavirus-precautions-plans-woodstock-like-easter-gathering?fbclid=IwAR2MsiGY9qQRG6oNJO5k8YrP4d3mMAtlxnpEW5oqm3IMyu69ViPRGyyQ-_4

No, I don't think either of those is true. And -- even if they were true -- how would that rebut any of his arguments?  "No, you're wrong because you live 250 miles from a positive case"?  Or, "No, you are wrong because you are related to Jonathan Shuttlesworth"?  Isn't there some sort of logical fallacy there you can tell us about?

I'm not a "follower" of the Federalist Editor, who wrote this.  I have a twitter account that I seldom use, but it sends me emails with updates.  One of them, forwarded by a Missouri Synod Federalist employee (so that's how it came to my email), was a tweet from the same person who wrote the article you sent, that editor.  It was a tweet about a pastor who held church services (actually, in an area of fast-rising infection).  And the editor made a comment indicating the appropriate behavior for pastors and congregations is to continue to meet. 
I remember reading that comment and thinking - what the heck?  Why would this guy be in favor of putting people at risk? 

So the same man who has a thought process about next steps also has a bad comment about social distancing in churches.  All that does is make me leery of his other commentary.  His thoughts (which in some ways connect to mine and Andrew Cuomo's) get mired, at least to me, in his attempt to connect what we're going through to a loss of what he wants to consider religious freedom.

Dave Benke

Ben Domenech runs (and founded?) the Federalist, which a news outlet with a conservative perspective.  Mollie Hemingway, among others,  writes for that outlet.  For what little it's worth, Domenech is John McCain's son-in-law.  He has a bias, which he does not hide.  However, that bias is not anything like what you'd find at, say, Breitbart.


I don't know what Domenech wrote in the tweet that you saw.  I'd be interested in seeing it, both to know the specific content and the timing of it.  (Timing matters.  In late February, President Trump said that we had this under control and Speaker Pelosi was encouraging people to patronize businesses in San Francisco's Chinatown.  On March 10, Mayor DeBlasio still was encouraging New Yorkers to attend public events.  We all know better now.)  I know that he was very critical of Mayor DeBlasio for threatening to close permanently any church or synagogue that defied that defied the city's directives.  You could criticize this position as well, although it is different from actually encouraging religious groups to meet.


All that aside, in the article cited by Pr. Bohler, Domenech does not make these arguments.  Instead, he relies strongly on people like Dr. Scott Gottlieb who very much favors for now social distancing as more and more areas see ballooning numbers of cases.  It ultimately doesn't matter much whether any of us reads what particular editorialists write.  I do think, though, that it's worth considering the AEI blueprint that Domenech cited and that I've linked above.  That doesn't detract even a little from the need now for distancing.  Rather, it emphasizes the urgent need to plan for our path out of the current situation.

[Pasgolf]

https://journal.praxislabs.org/leading-beyond-the-blizzard-why-every-organization-is-now-a-startup-b7f32fb278ff
 

[Charles Austin]

This Thomas Friedman column documents the administration's rejection - again and again - of advice from scientists because - guess why? - solutions or acknowledgment would, in the money-oriented minds of administration officials badly affect "the economy."
Peter seem to mistrust all scientists, thinking, apparently that just because opinions aren't unanimous, none of them are any good or equally possible.
No. Evolution is not a theory. It is science.
The progress of a virus is not a theory. It is a science.
The pollution of air and water is not a theory. It is science and even a kid can test to see it.
Some paragraphs from the Friedman column:

"We have a president who is enamored with markets but ignorant of Mother Nature, and we have paid a steep, steep price for that — and will pay an even bigger price when it comes to climate change, if Trump remains in charge.
"How so? I believe that the most powerful force on the planet is Mother Nature and the second most powerful force is Father Greed, i.e., the markets. The coronavirus spread in America because Trump looked at the problem through the lens of the markets first and the science of natural systems second, if at all.
Early on, Trump clearly spent his days watching the markets and downplaying the virus’s potential for rapid spread. If the markets were doing well for investors, Trump thought it meant that he was doing well containing Mother Nature’s Covid-19 disease — one of many Darwinian engines she employs to mercilessly sort out the weak from the fit.
"Trump thought that closing off flights from China was enough to stem this growing epidemic and calm the markets — without the mass testing, surveillance and quarantines of the infected that South Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore employed to great success. You could hear that in the reckless, premature assurances by Kudlow, Kellyanne Conway and Trump himself that the virus had been contained."
"Trump even believed he could manipulate markets … . That for him was the true indicator of his performance against Mother Nature.
"It was his deadly mistake."

[Dave Benke]

Steve,

The author must be in a place where the nearest positive case is 250 miles away. Or, he's related to this guy:

https://www.foxnews.com/health/pennsylvania-pastor-slams-coronavirus-precautions-plans-woodstock-like-easter-gathering?fbclid=IwAR2MsiGY9qQRG6oNJO5k8YrP4d3mMAtlxnpEW5oqm3IMyu69ViPRGyyQ-_4

No, I don't think either of those is true. And -- even if they were true -- how would that rebut any of his arguments?  "No, you're wrong because you live 250 miles from a positive case"?  Or, "No, you are wrong because you are related to Jonathan Shuttlesworth"?  Isn't there some sort of logical fallacy there you can tell us about?

I'm not a "follower" of the Federalist Editor, who wrote this.  I have a twitter account that I seldom use, but it sends me emails with updates.  One of them, forwarded by a Missouri Synod Federalist employee (so that's how it came to my email), was a tweet from the same person who wrote the article you sent, that editor.  It was a tweet about a pastor who held church services (actually, in an area of fast-rising infection).  And the editor made a comment indicating the appropriate behavior for pastors and congregations is to continue to meet. 
I remember reading that comment and thinking - what the heck?  Why would this guy be in favor of putting people at risk? 

So the same man who has a thought process about next steps also has a bad comment about social distancing in churches.  All that does is make me leery of his other commentary.  His thoughts (which in some ways connect to mine and Andrew Cuomo's) get mired, at least to me, in his attempt to connect what we're going through to a loss of what he wants to consider religious freedom.

Dave Benke

Ben Domenech runs (and founded?) the Federalist, which a news outlet with a conservative perspective.  Mollie Hemingway, among others,  writes for that outlet.  For what little it's worth, Domenech is John McCain's son-in-law.  He has a bias, which he does not hide.  However, that bias is not anything like what you'd find at, say, Breitbart.


I don't know what Domenech wrote in the tweet that you saw.  I'd be interested in seeing it, both to know the specific content and the timing of it.  (Timing matters.  In late February, President Trump said that we had this under control and Speaker Pelosi was encouraging people to patronize businesses in San Francisco's Chinatown.  On March 10, Mayor DeBlasio still was encouraging New Yorkers to attend public events.  We all know better now.)  I know that he was very critical of Mayor DeBlasio for threatening to close permanently any church or synagogue that defied that defied the city's directives.  You could criticize this position as well, although it is different from actually encouraging religious groups to meet.


All that aside, in the article cited by Pr. Bohler, Domenech does not make these arguments.  Instead, he relies strongly on people like Dr. Scott Gottlieb who very much favors for now social distancing as more and more areas see ballooning numbers of cases.  It ultimately doesn't matter much whether any of us reads what particular editorialists write.  I do think, though, that it's worth considering the AEI blueprint that Domenech cited and that I've linked above.  That doesn't detract even a little from the need now for distancing.  Rather, it emphasizes the urgent need to plan for our path out of the current situation.

We get the daily feed from Governor Cuomo here in NY; maybe that's nationwide since it's the epicenter state.  Anyway, he continues to offer "next step" questions at his press conferences, which kind of remind me of the way his dad would speak and interact, more philosophically.  Today he said that the national solution being offered right now is to print money.  And he said, you know at some point there have to be some services rendered for money printing to work - some exchange of value.  I think that takes a whack at the whacky solution of just paying everyone $1000 a month ($2000?) to stay home for a year.  At some point along the way, $1000 will be worth about ten cents.

 I had elderly parish shut-ins who had emigrated from Germany back in the 20s, and the husband loved to tell me every time I visited that he needed a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread.  Politically, some solutions masking as truly democratic are really a direct lead-in to dictatorship.

Dave Benke

[RDPreus]

This Thomas Friedman column documents the administration's rejection - again and again - of advice from scientists because - guess why? - solutions or acknowledgment would, in the money-oriented minds of administration officials badly affect "the economy."
Peter seem to mistrust all scientists, thinking, apparently that just because opinions aren't unanimous, none of them are any good or equally possible.
No. Evolution is not a theory. It is science.
The progress of a virus is not a theory. It is a science.
The pollution of air and water is not a theory. It is science and even a kid can test to see it.
Some paragraphs from the Friedman column:

"We have a president who is enamored with markets but ignorant of Mother Nature, and we have paid a steep, steep price for that — and will pay an even bigger price when it comes to climate change, if Trump remains in charge.
"How so? I believe that the most powerful force on the planet is Mother Nature and the second most powerful force is Father Greed, i.e., the markets. The coronavirus spread in America because Trump looked at the problem through the lens of the markets first and the science of natural systems second, if at all.
Early on, Trump clearly spent his days watching the markets and downplaying the virus’s potential for rapid spread. If the markets were doing well for investors, Trump thought it meant that he was doing well containing Mother Nature’s Covid-19 disease — one of many Darwinian engines she employs to mercilessly sort out the weak from the fit.
"Trump thought that closing off flights from China was enough to stem this growing epidemic and calm the markets — without the mass testing, surveillance and quarantines of the infected that South Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore employed to great success. You could hear that in the reckless, premature assurances by Kudlow, Kellyanne Conway and Trump himself that the virus had been contained."
"Trump even believed he could manipulate markets … . That for him was the true indicator of his performance against Mother Nature.
"It was his deadly mistake."

When you assert that evolution is science you discredit everything else you say.  The notion that the human being evolved over billions of years from a microscopic single celled organism is not science.  It is a myth invented by men seeking freedom from the God who reveals himself in his creation.  It serves the dogma of the secularist left that would teach us to put our trust in an almighty and omnicompetent government to save us from all evil.  "Science" is the word used, but it's no more scientific than the man in the moon. 

[Charles Austin]

Pastor Preus writes re evolution (inevitably, I suppose):
It is a myth invented by men seeking freedom from the God who reveals himself in his creation.  It serves the dogma of the secularist left that would teach us to put our trust in an almighty and omnicompetent government to save us from all evil.  "Science" is the word used, but it's no more scientific than the man in the moon.
I comment:
This is not the place for that discussion, but I gotta say you have just maligned the thousands and thousands of faithful, Christian scientists, who do indeed desire trust in a God who is revealed in creation. Forget the "secularist left," whatever that is. Consider the "Christian left" and those of us who believe that the majesty and power of God is revealed through astrophysics and evolution in ways that are more grand, more inspiring and more credible than the idea of the Almighty making a Mud Man by some riverbank. But this is not the place.
Unless you want to disregard the advice of any scientist who does not subscribe to your cosmology.

[Steven W Bohler]

Your false assumption, Steve, is that my comments were an attempt to rebut the author's comments.

Ah, thanks for correcting that false assumption.  Of course, then I have no idea of what was your point in posting as you did, unless it was a gratuitous swipe at either the author of the article or me.  Or, as Rev. Austin would put it, a "wry poke".  But, anyway, I know now that it was wrong of me to assume that you were trying to rebut his ideas.  Do you have anything to say about those ideas, either in agreement or disagreement? 

[John H]

Consider the "Christian left" and those of us who believe that the majesty and power of God is revealed through astrophysics and evolution in ways that are more grand, more inspiring and more credible than the idea of the Almighty making a Mud Man by some riverbank.

HEY!
That Mud Man is my relative not some slime ball or a monkey!
 

[James_Gale]

Steve,

The author must be in a place where the nearest positive case is 250 miles away. Or, he's related to this guy:

https://www.foxnews.com/health/pennsylvania-pastor-slams-coronavirus-precautions-plans-woodstock-like-easter-gathering?fbclid=IwAR2MsiGY9qQRG6oNJO5k8YrP4d3mMAtlxnpEW5oqm3IMyu69ViPRGyyQ-_4

No, I don't think either of those is true. And -- even if they were true -- how would that rebut any of his arguments?  "No, you're wrong because you live 250 miles from a positive case"?  Or, "No, you are wrong because you are related to Jonathan Shuttlesworth"?  Isn't there some sort of logical fallacy there you can tell us about?

I'm not a "follower" of the Federalist Editor, who wrote this.  I have a twitter account that I seldom use, but it sends me emails with updates.  One of them, forwarded by a Missouri Synod Federalist employee (so that's how it came to my email), was a tweet from the same person who wrote the article you sent, that editor.  It was a tweet about a pastor who held church services (actually, in an area of fast-rising infection).  And the editor made a comment indicating the appropriate behavior for pastors and congregations is to continue to meet. 
I remember reading that comment and thinking - what the heck?  Why would this guy be in favor of putting people at risk? 

So the same man who has a thought process about next steps also has a bad comment about social distancing in churches.  All that does is make me leery of his other commentary.  His thoughts (which in some ways connect to mine and Andrew Cuomo's) get mired, at least to me, in his attempt to connect what we're going through to a loss of what he wants to consider religious freedom.

Dave Benke

Ben Domenech runs (and founded?) the Federalist, which a news outlet with a conservative perspective.  Mollie Hemingway, among others,  writes for that outlet.  For what little it's worth, Domenech is John McCain's son-in-law.  He has a bias, which he does not hide.  However, that bias is not anything like what you'd find at, say, Breitbart.


I don't know what Domenech wrote in the tweet that you saw.  I'd be interested in seeing it, both to know the specific content and the timing of it.  (Timing matters.  In late February, President Trump said that we had this under control and Speaker Pelosi was encouraging people to patronize businesses in San Francisco's Chinatown.  On March 10, Mayor DeBlasio still was encouraging New Yorkers to attend public events.  We all know better now.)  I know that he was very critical of Mayor DeBlasio for threatening to close permanently any church or synagogue that defied that defied the city's directives.  You could criticize this position as well, although it is different from actually encouraging religious groups to meet.


All that aside, in the article cited by Pr. Bohler, Domenech does not make these arguments.  Instead, he relies strongly on people like Dr. Scott Gottlieb who very much favors for now social distancing as more and more areas see ballooning numbers of cases.  It ultimately doesn't matter much whether any of us reads what particular editorialists write.  I do think, though, that it's worth considering the AEI blueprint that Domenech cited and that I've linked above.  That doesn't detract even a little from the need now for distancing.  Rather, it emphasizes the urgent need to plan for our path out of the current situation.

We get the daily feed from Governor Cuomo here in NY; maybe that's nationwide since it's the epicenter state.  Anyway, he continues to offer "next step" questions at his press conferences, which kind of remind me of the way his dad would speak and interact, more philosophically.  Today he said that the national solution being offered right now is to print money.  And he said, you know at some point there have to be some services rendered for money printing to work - some exchange of value.  I think that takes a whack at the whacky solution of just paying everyone $1000 a month ($2000?) to stay home for a year.  At some point along the way, $1000 will be worth about ten cents.

 I had elderly parish shut-ins who had emigrated from Germany back in the 20s, and the husband loved to tell me every time I visited that he needed a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread.  Politically, some solutions masking as truly democratic are really a direct lead-in to dictatorship.

Dave Benke

I agree completely with Governor Cuomo on this.  The national debt already was frighteningly high.  The recently passed bill will just exacerbate that problem.  We certainly can't fix the debt problem during this time of crisis.  Tragically, neither party seems inclined even during the good times to take the debt seriously.  The bill will come due eventually, almost certainly at the most inopportune time.  We as a nation will then pay dearly, although by then those of us who participate here may have shuffled off this mortal coil, leaving the mess to future generations.