Coronavirus news

[Charles Austin]

I will say it again. If masks are not necessary, all we experience with some minor annoyance and minor discomfort. If they do help and we ignore wearing them, we do serious and potentially fatal damage to ourselves and to others.
Those who are wary of the vaccinations are not thinking straight if they ignore the risk/benefit calculation. The risks of the vaccines are far far far less than the benefits.
Personally, I'm not inclined to "respect" the views of those who base their opinion on highly highly questionable sources or on a rigidly held bias or political fervor. I would neither conduct or attend a worship service where wearing a mask is optional just to "respect" the opinions of those who don't wear masks. I do not consider that a responsible action.

[peter_speckhard]

I talked to two people recently who had terrible reactions to the vaccine, and one person this morning whose spouse had to be hospitalized and still is not in the clear. But I guess it is just plain stupid for anyone to possibly have reservations. As one who got vaccinated as soon as I could, I still tend to have some patience for people who are skeptical, and I don't go out of my way to change their minds other than by example. I certainly don't condemn them for being ignorant or loveless, since I know with certainty that in the cases I know they are neither.

The same is true of masks. I wear one only when required. I know many people who sometimes refuse to go places where they are required. Some are people who are smarter and better educated than 99% of the people on this board, including holding high-up, scientific positions in the medical community. But I also know people who still are uncomfortable coming out of their homes at all. In neither case am I called to write off one or the other as ignorant or loveless. 

[Dan Fienen]

I will say it again. If masks are not necessary, all we experience with some minor annoyance and minor discomfort. If they do help and we ignore wearing them, we do serious and potentially fatal damage to ourselves and to others.
Those who are wary of the vaccinations are not thinking straight if they ignore the risk/benefit calculation. The risks of the vaccines are far far far less than the benefits.
Personally, I'm not inclined to "respect" the views of those who base their opinion on highly highly questionable sources or on a rigidly held bias or political fervor. I would neither conduct or attend a worship service where wearing a mask is optional just to "respect" the opinions of those who don't wear masks. I do not consider that a responsible action.

I have been fully vaccinated, availed myself of the vaccine as soon as it was made available to me. I wear a mask when indicated, in stores, into restaurants, etc. I have recommended vaccination to the members of my congregation and most of them have been vaccinated and mask wearing is the accepted practice at our church. We are looking forward to being able to dispense with masks, commune together at the rail, and [size=78%]As for "respecting" the opinions or views of those who object to mask wearing, being vaccinated, and the rest, I have a different perspective than one who holds very rigid opinions and dismisses out of hand contrary views as unworthy of respect. [/size]


I am not so arrogant as to assume that I have reached the only reasonable or sensible conclusions concerning these health issues and that anyone who is not as confident in the accepted positions being presented and imposed is an ignorant kook. Nor do I assume that anyone who makes a decision concerning their own health that is different than what I think that I would decide are incompetent to make health decisions or are basing their decisions on disreputable sources.


I am unclear as to just what Charles means by "respect" views. I do not agree with those who reject evidence concerning vaccines or masks because of fringe conspiracy blather from the internet. If "respect" means "agree" I do not "respect" (i.e. agree) with those positions. I will still respect them as people, albeit perhaps foolish in this regard. I also respect their right to make their own medical decisions even if they are different decisions than I would make. I also respect the right of others in our society to make restrictions on where people may go and what they do depending on their masking and vaccination status.


I also recognize that I may not know as much about their medical issues as they do and they may have reasons to decide as they do that I am not aware of.


I also have come to realize that reasoning with people and helping them work through issues, such as the risk (real even if slight) of vaccination works better if I don't start by treating them with scorn and assuring them that until they come around to the position that I have come too they are ignorant fools who do not care about other people. I also do not assume that I know everything about an issue and assume that anyone with other data are simply fools who believe anything on the internet.

[peter_speckhard]

https://www.foxnews.com/health/mit-study-covid-social-distancing

If only those MIT types would follow the science.

[Charles Austin]

"Foolish" might be the right word. Both Intelligent and stupid people can do foolish things.  I am not, at least not in every case, calling people "ignorant" or "loveless", Peter, but "foolish"  might do.
Furthermore, I do not have to let their foolishness impinge on my life. If I am out with a friend, he the driver, and he drinks, I either drive home or do not get in the car. And any passenger in my car either wears a seatbelt or I don't turn on the engine. Their foolish decisions "concerning their own health" sometimes have influence beyond their own bodies.

[peter_speckhard]

https://www.foxnews.com/health/fauci-outdoor-covid-transmission-low-updated-mask-guidance

Saying the chances of outdoor transmission are "miniscule," Fauci says the CDC will likely be updating its mask guidelines as a matter of common sense. I think that shows the difference between panic and going by the science. Common sense has always said that the chances of outdoor transmission were miniscule. Going by the science would mean waiting for some evidence that common sense was wrong. But in this case we went by panic rather than common sense and we simply presumed common sense was wrong, waiting for scientific evidence that the common sense wasn't wrong before belatedly deciding to go by common sense after all.

Defaulting to panic rather than common sense is not a harmless difference. I know people whose mental health has deteriorated to the point of needing anxiety medication and professional help over fear of contagion. When we hype the dangers so constantly and persistently, when every face is masked because it is a presumed source of deadly virus, some people are bound to lose all perspective. Children especially are likely to be permanently scarred by this experience.

[Donald_Kirchner]

If I am out with a friend, he the driver, and he drinks, I either drive home or do not get in the car. And any passenger in my car either wears a seatbelt or I don't turn on the engine.

I also respect the right of others in our society to make restrictions on where people may go and what they do depending on their masking and vaccination status.

Looks like an agreement.

[Charles Austin]

"Common sense" In a matter like this is a wrong-brain way of making decisions. What in the name of Aunt Gertie's Goat does common sense know about how aerosol droplets disperse or survive or reach another person?

[Brian Stoffregen]

https://www.foxnews.com/health/fauci-outdoor-covid-transmission-low-updated-mask-guidance

Saying the chances of outdoor transmission are "miniscule," Fauci says the CDC will likely be updating its mask guidelines as a matter of common sense. I think that shows the difference between panic and going by the science. Common sense has always said that the chances of outdoor transmission were miniscule. Going by the science would mean waiting for some evidence that common sense was wrong. But in this case we went by panic rather than common sense and we simply presumed common sense was wrong, waiting for scientific evidence that the common sense wasn't wrong before belatedly deciding to go by common sense after all.

Defaulting to panic rather than common sense is not a harmless difference. I know people whose mental health has deteriorated to the point of needing anxiety medication and professional help over fear of contagion. When we hype the dangers so constantly and persistently, when every face is masked because it is a presumed source of deadly virus, some people are bound to lose all perspective. Children especially are likely to be permanently scarred by this experience.

Where was the "panic"? "Abundance of caution" was the phrase I often heard. "Better safe than sorry" is an old adage. Neither represents panic.

[Rob Morris]

"Foolish" might be the right word. Both Intelligent and stupid people can do foolish things.  I am not, at least not in every case, calling people "ignorant" or "loveless", Peter, but "foolish"  might do. [snip]

I am fully vaccinated - went for the shot as soon as I could sign up. So you can evaluate where I am personally with this. But...

In my own small-ish congregation, I have two members who had to go to the ER after adverse vaccination reactions. Granted, they both had known immune issues, so they were prepared for this possibility (and wanted the vaccine regardless) but without medical intervention, the reactions would have been life-threatening. I have multiple other members - CoVid survivors - for whom the reaction to the vaccination has been severe, though not life-threatening. So, maybe you could chill with the accusation that only "foolishness" would cause any vaccination hesitancy. Would that be okay?

[Dan Fienen]

Don't forget, Charles has made his judgment known. Heaven forfend that he could be in the slightest way wrong. Nothing could provide the slightest suggestion that his attitude towards those whose opinion or actions deviate in the slightest from what he has deemed correct could be in anyway excessive.

[Jeremy_Loesch]

I have nothing to say about vaccinations but thought this was somewhat coronavirus related.

For the time we have been worshiping in person (June 2020) we have altered our worship services to minimize the amount of time the people were in one space. We still sang hymns, but only 3 instead of 4 or 5. And we cut down the verses. We spoke the ordinaries. It hasn't been bad.

But today while I was putting on my robes, going over sermon notes, looking through the bulletin, this struck me...in our three hymns today we sang all the verses of the hymns: The Lord's My Shepherd I'll Not Want, The King of Love My Shepherd Is, I Am Jesus' Little Lamb.

I don't know if that says anything about the future, about pur services, or anything at all, but it was nice to see.

Jeremy

[J. Thomas Shelley]

Vaccination and masking require finding balance between "an abundance of caution" and what special-needs educators term the "least restrictive environment'.

The mask issue became all or nothing "thanks" to Dr. Levine, former PA Secretary of Health now elevated  to undersecretary of health at the Federal HHS.

Dr. Levine coined the ditty:

"My mask protects you,
Your mask protects me"

And from the moment that went viral there was could be no continuum of masking behaviors.

In a sane world we would recognize a continuum something like this:

"I believe masks work--everyone must wear a mask"
"I believe masks work, I will wear a mask, you do what you want"
"I don't believe masks work, I will wear a mask, you do what you want"
"I don't believe masks work, I won't wear a mask, you do what you want"
"I don't believe masks work, I won't wear a mask, and you shouldn't either"
"I don't believe in masks--nobody should wear a mask".

"Thanks" to Dr. Levine only the first position is permitted in public discourse.

So much for fabled liberal tolerance and diversity. 

You don't find people who disbelieve in masks going "Karan" on those wearing masks or demanding via business signage, executive order, or legislation, that nobody be allowed to wear a mask.

Now in this crazy pandemic paranoia it is the conservatives who are proving the more tolerant.

[D. Engebretson]

And in this "crazy pandemic paranoia," as you coined it, we have, for some, a significant drop in any sense of risk tolerance.  In an "all or nothing" world there are some who believe that unless all are masked and all are vaccinated then real interaction in a public setting cannot take place. Too dangerous.  Too much risk. I believe the experts will agree that this virus is going to be with us for a long time.  It will not exist in massive outbreaks, but like any infectious contagion it will continue to live in the population, rising periodically and then seeming to disappear for a time.  In a world that has become smaller because of international travel diseases that might have been more restricted to one part of the globe have the ability to migrate far and wide with no respect to boarders.  At some point we will have to accept that the risk is tolerable.  For many it already is. The rates of infection are much lower than months before, and the country is becoming increasingly protected via vaccination. 

Despite the predictions from government that we can look forward to small intimate gatherings around the 4th of July if conditions do not considerably worsen and all participants are fully vaccinated, in many places life has largely resumed much of its normal and regular rhythm. Of course there are still precautions and protective measures, but not anywhere to the degree that they were a year ago. 

I have lived with a risk that was higher than many during the pandemic due to the necessities of a public ministry.  I realized that my chances of becoming infected were higher than they would be if I lived in a constant quarantine.  But I couldn't.  Yet I also had to decide whether I would live with that risk and live with it in a sense of constant dread and fear, or whether I could live with it in a more functional way.  I chose the latter.  Did I potentially place other people at risk?  Maybe.  It was hard to always know when you must interact with the public out of necessity, such as in ministering to the dying and the grieving, or responding to emergency pages.  But it was a mitigated risk, not a careless one.  I believe that is where I still am, albeit with a bit more freedom than a year previous.     

[Brian Stoffregen]

Vaccination and masking require finding balance between "an abundance of caution" and what special-needs educators term the "least restrictive environment'.

The mask issue became all or nothing "thanks" to Dr. Levine, former PA Secretary of Health now elevated  to undersecretary of health at the Federal HHS.

Dr. Levine coined the ditty:

"My mask protects you,
Your mask protects me"

And from the moment that went viral there was could be no continuum of masking behaviors.

There are times when decisions should not be put up for a vote. I would not expect the pilot of a commercial airline to take a vote of the passengers about what he should do in an emergency. We trust that the pilots' training will inform them to make the best decision for the good of everyone on the plane.

In a sane world we would recognize a continuum something like this:

"I believe masks work--everyone must wear a mask"
"I believe masks work, I will wear a mask, you do what you want"
"I don't believe masks work, I will wear a mask, you do what you want"
"I don't believe masks work, I won't wear a mask, you do what you want"
"I don't believe masks work, I won't wear a mask, and you shouldn't either"
"I don't believe in masks--nobody should wear a mask".

In a sane world, we would trust the experts.


At least where we had the vaccines, they had EMTs in the large post-shot waiting area should anyone have adverse reactions. We saw none with the 100 or so people each time we had the shots.

"Thanks" to Dr. Levine only the first position is permitted in public discourse.

And the airline pilots are the only ones permitted to make decisions about flying the plane. Do you have a problem with that?

So much for fabled liberal tolerance and diversity. 

I don't care what gender or color the airline pilot is. I just want them well-trained and able to take charge should their expertise be needed in emergencies dealing with the area of their expertise.

You don't find people who disbelieve in masks going "Karan" on those wearing masks or demanding via business signage, executive order, or legislation, that nobody be allowed to wear a mask.

Now in this crazy pandemic paranoia it is the conservatives who are proving the more tolerant.