Coronavirus news

[Charles Austin]

But it was Celeborn - an elf - speaking.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Celeborn to Boromir: "Do not despise the lore that has come down from distant years; for oft it may chance that old wives keep in memory word of things that once were needful for the wise to know."

If the wisdom of the old wives is true, it can be tested and confirmed by experts. It wasn't folk remedies that eliminated polio or malaria or small pox.

[J. Eriksson]

The experts think men can breastfeed. Nobody with common sense does. The experts are wrong.

Please, this is too good to ignore: give us your source for that claim!

Peace,
Michael

Couldnt resist this but if I recall correctly irrc there is one brief spot in 1 of the Icelandic sagas where a man on the death of his wife on board a ship with no other source of milk tried to suckle his son on blood cut from his breast.  the child survived but its been over 40 years since I read this. 
best to all
james

[James S. Rustad]

If the wisdom of the old wives is true, it can be tested and confirmed by experts. It wasn't folk remedies that eliminated polio or malaria or small pox.

Of course, until the experts have found that the old wives' tale is true, they generally ridicule it.  'Course, not every old wives' tale is true, just like not every medical treatment (tested and approved by experts) is effective.

English physician who investigated the old wives' tale that anyone who caught cowpox would be immune to smallpox. In his experiment, he took the blister fluid of Sarah Nelmes, a milkmaid with cowpox, and injecting it into a boy named James Phipps. After the boy recovered from cowpox, Jenner injected him with smallpox. Luckily, the experiment proved a success, and the boy proved to be immune from smallpox. After repeating the demonstration, Jenner published his results and vaccination (from the Latin words "vacca" for cow and "vaccinia" for cowpox) quickly became a widespread practice.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending its regulations to revise the list of drugs that have been withdrawn or removed from the market because the drugs or components of these drugs have been found to be unsafe or ineffective.

[D. Engebretson]

I am certainly not against listening to those considered 'experts' in their field.  And as a rule I'm inclined to listen and follow their advice.  But I also do not think that I am unequipped to think critically for myself and I resist following any advice without actually reasoning it through.

Similar to what I posted earlier, "thinking critically for oneself," includes knowing what I don't know; and when I need to seek the advice of those who do know.


There have been times in discussions on Facebook, where what was quoted against the "expert" advice from the CDC, came from a radio talk show host. He might be quoting other doctors, but often they do not have the background or training in infectious diseases as the CDC experts.

And when one disagrees with an 'established expert' it does not automatically mean that those I am listening to are "discredited."  You use the example of pastors as "seminary trained theologians" and how we would be equally distrustful of "untrained people" coming to conclusions that differ.  Dr. C.F.W. Walther, first president of our St. Louis Seminary once said in a sermon:
Christ says in his sermon on the mount, where not only disciples, but also a great multitude were present, "Beware of false prophets ... Ye shall know them by their fruits." This admonition by the Son of God shows us plainly how entirely false the principle is that the preachers should teach and the hearers only listen, that the shepherds should lead and the sheep only follow, that the clergy should resolve and the congregation only acquiesce. No, when Christ calls upon his hearers to beware of false prophets and to know the true and the false by their fruits, Christ thereby seats all hearers upon the seat of judgment, placed the balance scale of truth in their hands, and bids them confidently execute judgment on their teachers.

So, in keeping with Walther's advice, I sincerely hope those in the pew are listening closely and in a discerning fashion and will call me to account - the "expert" - if I deviate from the clear word of scripture.

Scientists are well trained and educated people.  We would not take their advice lightly.  But we all know that well-meaning scientists can disagree, men and women with equal credentials and expertise in the same field.  So faced with such a difference we would do well to weigh the advice and make an informed decision in favor of one or the other.  How many times have we been told with doctors to "get a second opinion"?  One competent doctor tells us that we have cancer and there is no cure.  Yet another tells us there is a therapy and medicines that can yet be tried.  It happens.

I think that intelligent and informed citizens have a duty to "get a second opinion" and weigh the evidence provided.

And Luther believed that by putting German-language Bibles into the hands of the people, the Holy Spirit would guide them into the Truth. He was wrong. It just led to multiple theologies and multiple denominations all believing that they were led into the truth by the Spirit.


There is something to be said by the ancient tradition that at least three bishops had to certify that a new bishop had orthodox beliefs; and that bishops had to certify that every new pastor had orthodox beliefs. The "experts" made the determination. It was not letting every candidate think for themselves. There are limits to what we can think and remain within the Christian and Lutheran boundaries.

So let's test this last theory on "experts."  I suspect that your "bishops" and my "bishops" would disagree on exactly what constitutes "orthodoxy."  All of our bishops are theologically trained.  In fact, I'm pretty sure they would end up contradicting each other on key points.  So who is the "expert" to be trusted?  Or are you simply going to trust your experts because they are your experts?

And I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Luther here.  Unless we believe that the Word of God is too deep and too obscure and too technical for our people in the pew to grasp? If so every pastor would have to make sure they fully explain and expound on each reading for the day lest the poor person in the pew was led far astray. Now I'm not against well trained clergy, versed in the original languages and theology.  But we both know that such trained clergy have themselves been led astray over the history of the church.  And we, along with Luther, know that "councils and popes" can err.

I am still hoping that my sheep will keep this undershepherd honest by thinking critically and reflectively as they hear the Word proclaimed.   

[peter_speckhard]

Experts have an agenda just like anyone else. Experts takes both sides of most debates. If they didn't, there wouldn't be a debate. Scalia and Ginsburg were both top experts. Agree with either and you are with the experts. Agree with neither and you are probably also in the company of experts.

There are fields where only experts could really know. But even then they are not immune to being used. Think of how often nutritional advice changes. Are eggs good for you? What about dairy? Every expert in your life taught you a food group pyramid about nutrition. (Mine was "Four, four, three, two-- that's the formula for me and you!") but was that pyramid made with your health in mind or with the needs and of agricultural industry in mind? Who knows? I can find experts to say kids should not be drinking milk. Others will say anything with processed grains (most bread) is terribly unhealthy. What do "the experts" say?

Does lowering taxes raise total tax revenue? Does affirmative action help minorities? Do gun control laws reduce crime? Does homeschooling hurt children? I can find experts to take both sides of all of those questions.

[D. Engebretson]

There have been times in discussions on Facebook, where what was quoted against the "expert" advice from the CDC, came from a radio talk show host. He might be quoting other doctors, but often they do not have the background or training in infectious diseases as the CDC experts.

Okay, but what if there are experts who do have background and training in infectious diseases that are not on the CDC?  Can we trust them or compare and contrast what they say with findings of the CDC, or is the CDC the only and final word on this? 

[MaddogLutheran]

Peter, you have been heading down your road for some time. No surprises there. But I'm concerned that you may have kidnapped Pastor Weedon, who now offers advice from a fictional elf.

I don't understand a proud English major concern trolling about someone else quoting fictional literature to make a point...except perhaps it's more bad faith argumentation.

Harry Potter:  "Tell me one last thing, is this real? Or has this been happening inside my head?"
Albus Dumbledore: "Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?"

- J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

[Charles Austin]

It's just, Mr. Spatz, that Pastor Weedon is eloquent in quoting the fathers of the faith, Luther, and his favorite theologians, all of whom were living people.
As for "experts," Peter strains to diminish their import and point out their presumed errors or inconsistencies or disagreements. OK
As for me and my house, we will stand with the science - a sometimes changing and flexible matter - and with the epidemiologists with the "highest" ranking. If others pick those of lesser experience, lesser acceptance in the science community, more linkages to political and ideological creatures, well, ....  And some apparently take Tucker Carlson, the Mouth of Fox, as their chief guide. Oh my. 
I ask again, if the masks are unnecessary, we suffer a minor inconvenience. If they are necessary and helpful and we don't wear them, we suffer something else. (Beloved Spouse suggests that the anti-mask, anti vaccine mania that exists among some on the far right or in the loony conspiracy lane may be God's way of culling the herd. )

[MaddogLutheran]

It's just, Mr. Spatz, that Pastor Weedon is eloquent in quoting the fathers of the faith, Luther, and his favorite theologians, all of whom were living people.

That's a gaslighting non-sequitor, which failed to address my critique of why an English major would challenge someone else quoting literature that that person clearly appreciates.  Why do you claim authority to say what Pastor Weedon can reference?  But as for the rest of your previous (which I did not quote), your arrogance at declaring what inconvenience others should suffer is exactly why your participation on this forum is objectionable.  I'm not telling you which science you should accept.  Maybe you should do the same and stop ridiculing others for their differing judgments.

[peter_speckhard]

It's just, Mr. Spatz, that Pastor Weedon is eloquent in quoting the fathers of the faith, Luther, and his favorite theologians, all of whom were living people.
As for "experts," Peter strains to diminish their import and point out their presumed errors or inconsistencies or disagreements. OK
As for me and my house, we will stand with the science - a sometimes changing and flexible matter - and with the epidemiologists with the "highest" ranking. If others pick those of lesser experience, lesser acceptance in the science community, more linkages to political and ideological creatures, well, ....  And some apparently take Tucker Carlson, the Mouth of Fox, as their chief guide. Oh my. 
I ask again, if the masks are unnecessary, we suffer a minor inconvenience. If they are necessary and helpful and we don't wear them, we suffer something else. (Beloved Spouse suggests that the anti-mask, anti vaccine mania that exists among some on the far right or in the loony conspiracy lane may be God's way of culling the herd. )

Of course, the Will's quotation speaks not for an aged fictional elf but for Tolkien and his circle of friends, including C.S. Lewis, who would all (and in longer, more detailed ways all did) gladly offer the same advice.

I find it charming that Charles and beloved spouse think their chosen experts are not advancing a partisan agenda but are simply stating what "the science" says. If masks work, they probably work for any contagion. Love for your neighbor requires you to wear a mask in flu season every year, flu being contagious, deadly to some, and generally nasty for all who get it. Masking up is a minor inconvenience. And flu isn't the only contagion out there. So if you ever go out without a mask again for the rest of your life, I'll know you either don't go by the science or don't love your neighbor. Or you've come around to common sense. There is zero evidence that people who've had covid or had the vaccine are in any significant danger or any significant threat to anyone. Insisting that they wear masks is not going by the science.   

[Charles Austin]

Whimsy fails again, Mr. Spatz.  Sorry that I even tried.
And if C. S. Lewis would've given the same advice, I guess I certainly should rethink my reaction.

[Brian Stoffregen]

If the wisdom of the old wives is true, it can be tested and confirmed by experts. It wasn't folk remedies that eliminated polio or malaria or small pox.

Of course, until the experts have found that the old wives' tale is true, they generally ridicule it.  'Course, not every old wives' tale is true, just like not every medical treatment (tested and approved by experts) is effective.

And because of the variety of differences among humans, what is effective for many, may not be effective for some others. Even as we age, our bodies go through changes. We don't remain the same throughout our lives. One reason the vaccine was not administered to children at the beginning, or pregnant women. Experts weren't sure that it would work the same in those populations ... at least, not until sufficient testing had been done.

English physician who investigated the old wives' tale that anyone who caught cowpox would be immune to smallpox. In his experiment, he took the blister fluid of Sarah Nelmes, a milkmaid with cowpox, and injecting it into a boy named James Phipps. After the boy recovered from cowpox, Jenner injected him with smallpox. Luckily, the experiment proved a success, and the boy proved to be immune from smallpox. After repeating the demonstration, Jenner published his results and vaccination (from the Latin words "vacca" for cow and "vaccinia" for cowpox) quickly became a widespread practice.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending its regulations to revise the list of drugs that have been withdrawn or removed from the market because the drugs or components of these drugs have been found to be unsafe or ineffective.

And in Jesus' day, diseases were caused by demons or as punishment from God for one's sins. Thus, it was imperative for Jesus to also heal the paralytic to show that he was no longer being punished for the sin(s) that had been forgiven. We no longer have quite the same view. Although, we know that some behaviors can directly lead to suffering.


Experts continue to learn. Most experiments do not prove something 100%, but 95-99% accuracy is close enough for an experiment to "prove" a truth ... until another experiment shows something different.

[Brian Stoffregen]

There have been times in discussions on Facebook, where what was quoted against the "expert" advice from the CDC, came from a radio talk show host. He might be quoting other doctors, but often they do not have the background or training in infectious diseases as the CDC experts.

Okay, but what if there are experts who do have background and training in infectious diseases that are not on the CDC?  Can we trust them or compare and contrast what they say with findings of the CDC, or is the CDC the only and final word on this?

I can't recall hearing from any experts on infectious diseases that disagreed with the CDC. (Those I have heard about, were not experts in that field.) Perhaps it's because the news sources I listen to only interview those in agreement with the CDC. In addition, when the CDC issues a statement, it isn't from one expert, but their team of experts who come to an agreement (or perhaps, majority rule?) about what statements they will make. If someone outside of the CDC makes a statement, it's usually their own opinion.

[Brian Stoffregen]

So let's test this last theory on "experts."  I suspect that your "bishops" and my "bishops" would disagree on exactly what constitutes "orthodoxy."  All of our bishops are theologically trained.  In fact, I'm pretty sure they would end up contradicting each other on key points.  So who is the "expert" to be trusted?  Or are you simply going to trust your experts because they are your experts?

And that's a result of not having archbishops and a "pope" who oversees all the bishops under them. Without the hierarch of authority, like in Rome or Orthodox, each denomination and each church leader can proclaim their own version of the "truth."

And I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Luther here.  Unless we believe that the Word of God is too deep and too obscure and too technical for our people in the pew to grasp? If so every pastor would have to make sure they fully explain and expound on each reading for the day lest the poor person in the pew was led far astray. Now I'm not against well trained clergy, versed in the original languages and theology.  But we both know that such trained clergy have themselves been led astray over the history of the church.  And we, along with Luther, know that "councils and popes" can err.

Certainly "councils and popes" can err, but that doesn't mean that the less-well-trained folks won't also err just as often, or even moreso.

I am still hoping that my sheep will keep this undershepherd honest by thinking critically and reflectively as they hear the Word proclaimed.   

And when they challenge you with ideas that are not correct? Some I've encountered over the years: "We can't have communion once a week. That's too Catholic." (Or, "That's not Lutheran.") "Crossing yourself is wrong." "I really like this tract that tells us the four steps we need to take to become Christian." And so on.