Coronavirus news

[John_Hannah]

If you bothered to read any actual conservatives or libertarians, you’d see them to be especially interested in science. Be it space exploration, nuclear power, GMOs, and hard science stuff or “soft science” about human behavior, gender studies, etc, it is usually the left cherry-picking what counts as “science” by defining the leftist position as the osiruon of science. There are people who think biological sex is a construct. They are all anti-science, and they are all on the left. Same with the biology of life’s origins. The pro-choice position is anti-science. The whole reputation of the right being anti science stems mainly from the global warming debate.

I understand the political sympathies and the preference for conservative and Republican views. I don't understand the denials of plain facts. But I guess we have to live with it. (I don't know what theological value belongs to either end of the debate. Seems to me to be none whatsoever.)

Peace, JOHN

[peter_speckhard]

If you bothered to read any actual conservatives or libertarians, you’d see them to be especially interested in science. Be it space exploration, nuclear power, GMOs, and hard science stuff or “soft science” about human behavior, gender studies, etc, it is usually the left cherry-picking what counts as “science” by defining the leftist position as the osiruon of science. There are people who think biological sex is a construct. They are all anti-science, and they are all on the left. Same with the biology of life’s origins. The pro-choice position is anti-science. The whole reputation of the right being anti science stems mainly from the global warming debate.

I understand the political sympathies and the preference for conservative and Republican views. I don't understand the denials of plain facts. But I guess we have to live with it. (I don't know what theological value belongs to either end of the debate. Seems to me to be none whatsoever.)

Peace, JOHN

Plain facts: human life begins at conception. Biological sex is a matter of objective reality, not a construct. The standard NYT shtick that the GOP is anti-science is really just a matter of trusting the establishment. Rand Paul is a better scientist than Fauci. He regularly points out the real science that contradicts Fauci's propaganda. Sen. Paul is not anti-science, he is anti-Fauci's BS. But for readers of the NYT, to gainsay Fauci is to be anti-science. 

[peter_speckhard]

https://pjmedia.com/columns/stacey-lennox/2021/09/24/yet-another-dr-fauci-deception-for-those-of-you-keeping-track-n1481099

This is an example from today. As part of a vaccine-encouragement campaign, Dr. Fauci told a pop star who had recovered that she should get vaccinated anyway because "we know" that the vaccine works better than the natural immunity. The problem was that he was telling her to go against the advice of her own doctor and in fact he didn't know any such thing, nor did anyone else. He wanted to control her behavior, so he told her things that are/were flagrantly false in the name of science.

[Steven W Bohler]

Vaccine mandates are ready to take affect in NY today.  They are already preparing for widespread staff shortages.  As noted by one news outlet: "Governor Kathy Hochul said a state emergency declaration and other options, including calling in health care workers from the National Guard, are on the table to address any potential hospital staffing shortages."

I understand the reasoning behind the mandates, but am struggling with whether these mandates will not create crises equal to the one they are trying to solve.  Healthcare is already woefully understaffed across the nation.  And there are looming mandates in the federal sector, including the military. Gov. Hochul may utilize the National Guard, but what if they are mandated (and they may be), and many leave the service rather than be forced to take the shot?  As one who works in a volunteer fire department I can assure you that if we were mandated we would lose personnel, men we cannot replace.  We, too, are understaffed.

I think that as mandates are rolled out across the nation are going to see other issues arise, and the government may eventually need to backtrack on this to retain much needed frontline workers. 


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ny-prepares-for-possible-staff-shortages-as-covid-vaccine-mandate-nears/ar-AAOOVvt

What are the reasons given by the folks you work alongside in the volunteer fire dept. for not receiving the vaccine, given the emergency service nature of the responsibility?

Dave Benke

You know, many of those who are not vaccinated take offense at being asked "why".  This is one of those consequences (unintended or otherwise) of COVID: the loss of privacy, specifically our own medical decisions.  It is no one's right to ask "why" someone has not been vaccinated.  And yet here we are, where everyone seems to think it is their business and right to pry into another's personal affairs. 

[D. Engebretson]

Vaccine mandates are ready to take affect in NY today.  They are already preparing for widespread staff shortages.  As noted by one news outlet: "Governor Kathy Hochul said a state emergency declaration and other options, including calling in health care workers from the National Guard, are on the table to address any potential hospital staffing shortages."

I understand the reasoning behind the mandates, but am struggling with whether these mandates will not create crises equal to the one they are trying to solve.  Healthcare is already woefully understaffed across the nation.  And there are looming mandates in the federal sector, including the military. Gov. Hochul may utilize the National Guard, but what if they are mandated (and they may be), and many leave the service rather than be forced to take the shot?  As one who works in a volunteer fire department I can assure you that if we were mandated we would lose personnel, men we cannot replace.  We, too, are understaffed.

I think that as mandates are rolled out across the nation are going to see other issues arise, and the government may eventually need to backtrack on this to retain much needed frontline workers. 


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ny-prepares-for-possible-staff-shortages-as-covid-vaccine-mandate-nears/ar-AAOOVvt

What are the reasons given by the folks you work alongside in the volunteer fire dept. for not receiving the vaccine, given the emergency service nature of the responsibility?

Dave Benke

I have not asked them.  It is a sensitive topic with many, and can be rather divisive in many settings. Even in my church I know of some who have not been vaccinated, and that includes at least one healthcare worker. I suspect, however, that it probably stems from the same general distrust we see in others: feeling the vaccine was 'rushed,' that it will have unintended side-effects that have not been anticipated, etc. I am not sure how many got the vaccine from my department and how many did not.  It was optional from the beginning.  My chief and I did get it, and I know that because we received our shots the same day. 

[John_Hannah]

If you bothered to read any actual conservatives or libertarians, you’d see them to be especially interested in science. Be it space exploration, nuclear power, GMOs, and hard science stuff or “soft science” about human behavior, gender studies, etc, it is usually the left cherry-picking what counts as “science” by defining the leftist position as the osiruon of science. There are people who think biological sex is a construct. They are all anti-science, and they are all on the left. Same with the biology of life’s origins. The pro-choice position is anti-science. The whole reputation of the right being anti science stems mainly from the global warming debate.

I understand the political sympathies and the preference for conservative and Republican views. I don't understand the denials of plain facts. But I guess we have to live with it. (I don't know what theological value belongs to either end of the debate. Seems to me to be none whatsoever.)

Peace, JOHN

Plain facts: human life begins at conception. Biological sex is a matter of objective reality, not a construct. The standard NYT shtick that the GOP is anti-science is really just a matter of trusting the establishment. Rand Paul is a better scientist than Fauci. He regularly points out the real science that contradicts Fauci's propaganda. Sen. Paul is not anti-science, he is anti-Fauci's BS. But for readers of the NYT, to gainsay Fauci is to be anti-science.

Agreed on conception.

Not agreed otherwise. Senator Paul's view is not shared by 99% of physicians.

Still, neither understanding has anything to do with church, theology, Lutheran, or the purpose of this Forum.

Peace, JOHN

[Steven W Bohler]

If you bothered to read any actual conservatives or libertarians, you’d see them to be especially interested in science. Be it space exploration, nuclear power, GMOs, and hard science stuff or “soft science” about human behavior, gender studies, etc, it is usually the left cherry-picking what counts as “science” by defining the leftist position as the osiruon of science. There are people who think biological sex is a construct. They are all anti-science, and they are all on the left. Same with the biology of life’s origins. The pro-choice position is anti-science. The whole reputation of the right being anti science stems mainly from the global warming debate.

I understand the political sympathies and the preference for conservative and Republican views. I don't understand the denials of plain facts. But I guess we have to live with it. (I don't know what theological value belongs to either end of the debate. Seems to me to be none whatsoever.)

Peace, JOHN

Plain facts: human life begins at conception. Biological sex is a matter of objective reality, not a construct. The standard NYT shtick that the GOP is anti-science is really just a matter of trusting the establishment. Rand Paul is a better scientist than Fauci. He regularly points out the real science that contradicts Fauci's propaganda. Sen. Paul is not anti-science, he is anti-Fauci's BS. But for readers of the NYT, to gainsay Fauci is to be anti-science.

Agreed on conception.

Not agreed otherwise. Senator Paul's view is not shared by 99% of physicians.

Still, neither understanding has anything to do with church, theology, Lutheran, or the purpose of this Forum.

Peace, JOHN

99% of physicians?  Can you point me to that survey/study?  And what exactly do those 99% of physicians disagree with Sen. Paul about?

[Jim Butler]

If you bothered to read any actual conservatives or libertarians, you’d see them to be especially interested in science. Be it space exploration, nuclear power, GMOs, and hard science stuff or “soft science” about human behavior, gender studies, etc, it is usually the left cherry-picking what counts as “science” by defining the leftist position as the osiruon of science. There are people who think biological sex is a construct. They are all anti-science, and they are all on the left. Same with the biology of life’s origins. The pro-choice position is anti-science. The whole reputation of the right being anti science stems mainly from the global warming debate.

I understand the political sympathies and the preference for conservative and Republican views. I don't understand the denials of plain facts. But I guess we have to live with it.

The problem with HC Austin's post is that it argues that conservatives/Republicans are uniquely "anti-science." Are there some anti-science people on the conservative side? Of course. But there are also many anti-science (or, in this case, anti-vax) liberals/progressives/Democrats as well. (One only needs to remember the "Don't trust the Trump vaccine!" slogans of last fall.)

I don't know why people don't like plain facts either, but there are those who will not see past their viewpoint--and I've met them on both sides.

(I don't know what theological value belongs to either end of the debate. Seems to me to be none whatsoever.)

There wasn't any, John. The Humble Correspondent posted his article from the Times for one reason: to upset people. He wanted to start an argument. He knew how Peter and others would react to what he was posting. There is nothing theological in the article he posted, it was just an accusation that Republicans/conservatives are anti-science.

The question is what are you, as part of the ALBP Board, going to do about it? Late last year we were told posts had to be theological and no more flaming. Yet, when the HC, posts this article...crickets. Even though Peter is a moderator, he can't really do anything; there is too much personal animosity between them. This is where board members need to step in and say, "You knew the rules. You broke them. You're suspended from posting for a month. You do it again, and you're banned permanently."

Is the board going to insist that the rules be followed or not?

[David Garner]

If you bothered to read any actual conservatives or libertarians, you’d see them to be especially interested in science. Be it space exploration, nuclear power, GMOs, and hard science stuff or “soft science” about human behavior, gender studies, etc, it is usually the left cherry-picking what counts as “science” by defining the leftist position as the osiruon of science. There are people who think biological sex is a construct. They are all anti-science, and they are all on the left. Same with the biology of life’s origins. The pro-choice position is anti-science. The whole reputation of the right being anti science stems mainly from the global warming debate.

I understand the political sympathies and the preference for conservative and Republican views. I don't understand the denials of plain facts. But I guess we have to live with it.

The problem with HC Austin's post is that it argues that conservatives/Republicans are uniquely "anti-science." Are there some anti-science people on the conservative side? Of course. But there are also many anti-science (or, in this case, anti-vax) liberals/progressives/Democrats as well. (One only needs to remember the "Don't trust the Trump vaccine!" slogans of last fall.)

I don't know why people don't like plain facts either, but there are those who will not see past their viewpoint--and I've met them on both sides.

(I don't know what theological value belongs to either end of the debate. Seems to me to be none whatsoever.)

There wasn't any, John. The Humble Correspondent posted his article from the Times for one reason: to upset people. He wanted to start an argument. He knew how Peter and others would react to what he was posting. There is nothing theological in the article he posted, it was just an accusation that Republicans/conservatives are anti-science.

The question is what are you, as part of the ALBP Board, going to do about it? Late last year we were told posts had to be theological and no more flaming. Yet, when the HC, posts this article...crickets. Even though Peter is a moderator, he can't really do anything; there is too much personal animosity between them. This is where board members need to step in and say, "You knew the rules. You broke them. You're suspended from posting for a month. You do it again, and you're banned permanently."

Is the board going to insist that the rules be followed or not?

I will simply endeavor (and likely fail) to ignore Pastor Austin from henceforth.  If most people simply did that, it would solve the problem organically.

[DeHall1]

If you bothered to read any actual conservatives or libertarians, you’d see them to be especially interested in science. Be it space exploration, nuclear power, GMOs, and hard science stuff or “soft science” about human behavior, gender studies, etc, it is usually the left cherry-picking what counts as “science” by defining the leftist position as the osiruon of science. There are people who think biological sex is a construct. They are all anti-science, and they are all on the left. Same with the biology of life’s origins. The pro-choice position is anti-science. The whole reputation of the right being anti science stems mainly from the global warming debate.

I understand the political sympathies and the preference for conservative and Republican views. I don't understand the denials of plain facts. But I guess we have to live with it. (I don't know what theological value belongs to either end of the debate. Seems to me to be none whatsoever.)

Peace, JOHN

Plain facts: human life begins at conception. Biological sex is a matter of objective reality, not a construct. The standard NYT shtick that the GOP is anti-science is really just a matter of trusting the establishment. Rand Paul is a better scientist than Fauci. He regularly points out the real science that contradicts Fauci's propaganda. Sen. Paul is not anti-science, he is anti-Fauci's BS. But for readers of the NYT, to gainsay Fauci is to be anti-science.

Agreed on conception.

Not agreed otherwise. Senator Paul's view is not shared by 99% of physicians.

Still, neither understanding has anything to do with church, theology, Lutheran, or the purpose of this Forum.

Peace, JOHN

I'm not sure about physicians, but based on a University of Chicago study, 95% of biologists agree that life begins at fertilization:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703

As the document points out, the operative question is when the fetus deserves legal consideration.  IMO, this question was answered in the the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Monday-from the Times morning report newsletter
   The political divide over vaccinations is so large that almost every reliably blue state now has a higher vaccination rate than almost every reliably red state.
   Because the vaccines are so effective at preventing serious illness, Covid deaths are also showing a partisan pattern. Covid is still a national crisis, but the worst forms of it are increasingly concentrated in red America.
   Some of the vaccination gap stems from the libertarian instincts of many Republicans. “They understand freedom as being left alone to make their own choices, and they resent being told what to do,” William Galston has written in The Wall Street Journal.
   But philosophy is only a partial explanation. In much of the rest of the world, vaccine attitudes do not break down along right-left lines, and some conservative leaders have responded effectively to Covid. So have a few Republican governors in the U.S. “It didn’t have to be this way,” German Lopez of Vox has written.
   What distinguishes the U.S. is a conservative party — the Republican Party — that has grown hostile to science and empirical evidence in recent decades. A conservative media complex, including Fox News, Sinclair Broadcast Group and various online outlets, echoes and amplifies this hostility. Trump took the conspiratorial thinking to a new level, but he did not create it.
   “With very little resistance from party leaders,” my colleague Lisa Lerer wrote this summer, many Republicans “have elevated falsehoods and doubts about vaccinations from the fringes of American life to the center of our political conversation.”
   With the death count rising, at least a few Republicans appear to be worried about what their party and its allies have sown.
   In an article this month for Breitbart, the right-wing website formerly run by Steve Bannon, John Nolte argued that the partisan gap in vaccination rates was part of a liberal plot. Liberals like Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Anthony Fauci and Howard Stern have tried so hard to persuade people to get vaccinated, because they know that Republican voters will do the opposite of whatever they say, Nolte wrote.
   His argument is certainly bizarre, given that Democratic politicians have been imploring all Americans to get vaccinated and many Republican politicians have not. But Nolte did offer a glimpse at a creeping political fear among some Republicans. “Right now, a countless number of Trump supporters believe they are owning the left by refusing to take a lifesaving vaccine,” Nolte wrote. “In a country where elections are decided on razor-thin margins, does it not benefit one side if their opponents simply drop dead?”

An article I read indicated that the same was true in blue and red counties, e.g., in Wyoming. Counties that were more Democrat in their votes had a higher rate of vaccinations and lower rates of infections, hospitalizations, and deaths compared to those that were more Republican in their votes.

[Brian Stoffregen]

If you bothered to read any actual conservatives or libertarians, you’d see them to be especially interested in science. Be it space exploration, nuclear power, GMOs, and hard science stuff or “soft science” about human behavior, gender studies, etc, it is usually the left cherry-picking what counts as “science” by defining the leftist position as the osiruon of science. There are people who think biological sex is a construct. They are all anti-science, and they are all on the left. Same with the biology of life’s origins. The pro-choice position is anti-science. The whole reputation of the right being anti science stems mainly from the global warming debate.

I understand the political sympathies and the preference for conservative and Republican views. I don't understand the denials of plain facts. But I guess we have to live with it. (I don't know what theological value belongs to either end of the debate. Seems to me to be none whatsoever.)

Peace, JOHN

Plain facts: human life begins at conception. Biological sex is a matter of objective reality, not a construct. The standard NYT shtick that the GOP is anti-science is really just a matter of trusting the establishment. Rand Paul is a better scientist than Fauci. He regularly points out the real science that contradicts Fauci's propaganda. Sen. Paul is not anti-science, he is anti-Fauci's BS. But for readers of the NYT, to gainsay Fauci is to be anti-science.

Agreed on conception.

Not agreed otherwise. Senator Paul's view is not shared by 99% of physicians.

Still, neither understanding has anything to do with church, theology, Lutheran, or the purpose of this Forum.

Peace, JOHN

I'm not sure about physicians, but based on a University of Chicago study, 95% of biologists agree that life begins at fertilization:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703

As the document points out, the operative question is when the fetus deserves legal consideration.  IMO, this question was answered in the the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Nope. Both the sperm and the egg have to be living for there to be fertilization. That is, "life" has to exist before fertilization. Biblically, and somewhat through history,  "life" was thought to begin when the beings were given "the breath of life." Even today, "viability" is somewhat defined as when fetuses are able to breath on their own outside the womb.

[Donald_Kirchner]

Pastor Fienen:
That would get them out of your hair and no longer troubling your well regulated society.

Me:
Some really mean people have suggested that very thing, and wondered if God is culling the herd. I do not agree  with those mean people.

Charles,

It can be reckless to disagree with one’s spouse and call her mean.  🙄

For you told us she wondered if this was God’s way of culling the herd.

And you relayed that suggestion to ALPB without disagreement. That’s mean, isn’t it?

Glad to see you’ve changed your mind.

Oh right… whimsy.

[David Garner]

If you bothered to read any actual conservatives or libertarians, you’d see them to be especially interested in science. Be it space exploration, nuclear power, GMOs, and hard science stuff or “soft science” about human behavior, gender studies, etc, it is usually the left cherry-picking what counts as “science” by defining the leftist position as the osiruon of science. There are people who think biological sex is a construct. They are all anti-science, and they are all on the left. Same with the biology of life’s origins. The pro-choice position is anti-science. The whole reputation of the right being anti science stems mainly from the global warming debate.

I understand the political sympathies and the preference for conservative and Republican views. I don't understand the denials of plain facts. But I guess we have to live with it. (I don't know what theological value belongs to either end of the debate. Seems to me to be none whatsoever.)

Peace, JOHN

Plain facts: human life begins at conception. Biological sex is a matter of objective reality, not a construct. The standard NYT shtick that the GOP is anti-science is really just a matter of trusting the establishment. Rand Paul is a better scientist than Fauci. He regularly points out the real science that contradicts Fauci's propaganda. Sen. Paul is not anti-science, he is anti-Fauci's BS. But for readers of the NYT, to gainsay Fauci is to be anti-science.

Agreed on conception.

Not agreed otherwise. Senator Paul's view is not shared by 99% of physicians.

Still, neither understanding has anything to do with church, theology, Lutheran, or the purpose of this Forum.

Peace, JOHN

I'm not sure about physicians, but based on a University of Chicago study, 95% of biologists agree that life begins at fertilization:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703

As the document points out, the operative question is when the fetus deserves legal consideration.  IMO, this question was answered in the the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Nope. Both the sperm and the egg have to be living for there to be fertilization. That is, "life" has to exist before fertilization. Biblically, and somewhat through history,  "life" was thought to begin when the beings were given "the breath of life." Even today, "viability" is somewhat defined as when fetuses are able to breath on their own outside the womb.

At conception, a separate, whole and distinct human person is brought into existence.  Shorthand that how you will, it happens well before the baby is able to breathe on its own outside the womb.

[Brian Stoffregen]

If you bothered to read any actual conservatives or libertarians, you’d see them to be especially interested in science. Be it space exploration, nuclear power, GMOs, and hard science stuff or “soft science” about human behavior, gender studies, etc, it is usually the left cherry-picking what counts as “science” by defining the leftist position as the osiruon of science. There are people who think biological sex is a construct. They are all anti-science, and they are all on the left. Same with the biology of life’s origins. The pro-choice position is anti-science. The whole reputation of the right being anti science stems mainly from the global warming debate.

I understand the political sympathies and the preference for conservative and Republican views. I don't understand the denials of plain facts. But I guess we have to live with it. (I don't know what theological value belongs to either end of the debate. Seems to me to be none whatsoever.)

Peace, JOHN

Plain facts: human life begins at conception. Biological sex is a matter of objective reality, not a construct. The standard NYT shtick that the GOP is anti-science is really just a matter of trusting the establishment. Rand Paul is a better scientist than Fauci. He regularly points out the real science that contradicts Fauci's propaganda. Sen. Paul is not anti-science, he is anti-Fauci's BS. But for readers of the NYT, to gainsay Fauci is to be anti-science.

Agreed on conception.

Not agreed otherwise. Senator Paul's view is not shared by 99% of physicians.

Still, neither understanding has anything to do with church, theology, Lutheran, or the purpose of this Forum.

Peace, JOHN

I'm not sure about physicians, but based on a University of Chicago study, 95% of biologists agree that life begins at fertilization:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703

As the document points out, the operative question is when the fetus deserves legal consideration.  IMO, this question was answered in the the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Nope. Both the sperm and the egg have to be living for there to be fertilization. That is, "life" has to exist before fertilization. Biblically, and somewhat through history,  "life" was thought to begin when the beings were given "the breath of life." Even today, "viability" is somewhat defined as when fetuses are able to breath on their own outside the womb.

At conception, a separate, whole and distinct human person is brought into existence.  Shorthand that how you will, it happens well before the baby is able to breathe on its own outside the womb.

Yes, at conception, a separate, whole and distinct human DNA is created. (It can even happen in a petri dish!) However, unless it is implanted properly in a woman's womb, it will not survive. If it is implanted and the mother (another separate, whole and distinct human) dies, so will the child. It is not a viable human being. It cannot live on its own. If the fetus dies and is not removed, the decaying body can poison and kill the mother. For about nine months, it shares a life with the mother. It is not a separate life.