Coronavirus news

[Steven W Bohler]

The move against Dr. Fauci began when, despite his diplomacy and attempt to keep out of the fray, it became evident that he was not on the side of The Ex with regard to the response to the pandemic. He did not look up with adoring eyes when the then president was speaking, and it became evident in his interviews, that he did not fully agree with what was being said from that august podium.
Then the attacks on him and his advice and even his standing in the job he had held for decades began.
And BTW, every medical doctor is not equal to every other medical doctor. Some medical doctors, it is possible, may not to be considered equal to the nurses that work alongside of them.
Lineup careers, reputations in the field of immunology and virology, standings in the larger community of medical science and then decide who you want to trust. You got somebody better than Dr. Fauci? Let me see their CV. Let me see to what extent their views are slanted by political or social alignments.
And I’ll say it one more time. Science evolves. If a scientist says one thing in April and then has a different take on the matter in November, it is because new things have been learned between April and November. It is not that they lied in April.

You say basically: "Science evolves.  A scientist says one thing this month, and another the following month.  And it's all good."  So, tell me why again I should believe the scientist this month?  You just said that he very well may say something different (even the opposite?) next month.  Why should I believe him NOW?  Why should I believe THAT scientist when THIS scientist (with the same credentials and training) says something else?  And why do you think that YOUR preferred scientist (and his preferred opinion today) is required for everyone else?

[peter_speckhard]

The move against Dr. Fauci began when, despite his diplomacy and attempt to keep out of the fray, it became evident that he was not on the side of The Ex with regard to the response to the pandemic. He did not look up with adoring eyes when the then president was speaking, and it became evident in his interviews, that he did not fully agree with what was being said from that august podium.
Then the attacks on him and his advice and even his standing in the job he had held for decades began.
And BTW, every medical doctor is not equal to every other medical doctor. Some medical doctors, it is possible, may not to be considered equal to the nurses that work alongside of them.
Lineup careers, reputations in the field of immunology and virology, standings in the larger community of medical science and then decide who you want to trust. You got somebody better than Dr. Fauci? Let me see their CV. Let me see to what extent their views are slanted by political or social alignments.
And I’ll say it one more time. Science evolves. If a scientist says one thing in April and then has a different take on the matter in November, it is because new things have been learned between April and November. It is not that they lied in April.

This isn't about science evolving, it is about Dr. Fauci's story of his/our involvement in the Wuhan lab research evolving depending upon whether he is under oath or not, in public or not, etc. And again, not everything is about Trump. You really need to get over your fixation. The point of what I posted goes beyond Fauci to the whole issue of how people use the label "anti-Science" to silence criticism, which erodes trust in experts by making people think of them more as mere elitists. When Fauci saus criticism of him is criticism of science, he is blowing smoke, pure and simple.

[Charles Austin]

Frankly, Pastor Bohler, I don’t care if you personally believe as science words from the guy at your hardware store. But if you try to bring the advice of the nails, nuts and bolts and screws and lumber guy into public policy, I’ll say that you are nuts and out of line.
And if you take his advice on how wearing seatbelts is unnecessary, your local police might find occasion to levy a hefty fine on how you drive.

[Donald_Kirchner]

And if you take his advice on how wearing seatbelts is unnecessary, your local police might find occasion to levy a hefty fine on how you drive.

Missed it again, [Charles]

But you keep touting the same false analogy. Isn't that a corollary to the popular definition of insanity? That "Ex" brain worm in your head is seriously affecting your posts,  Charles.

[Steven W Bohler]

Frankly, Pastor Bohler, I don’t care if you personally believe as science words from the guy at your hardware store. But if you try to bring the advice of the nails, nuts and bolts and screws and lumber guy into public policy, I’ll say that you are nuts and out of line.
And if you take his advice on how wearing seatbelts is unnecessary, your local police might find occasion to levy a hefty fine on how you drive.

Perhaps you did not read my post carefully enough.  I did not say hardware store clerks; I said scientists with the same credentials and training (like PhD's and MD's in the field of virology and such).  By the way, here is the expert opinion of a Noble-Prize winner, who literally invented the PCR technique, who worked with Dr. Fauci, on his competence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aISPlTLbJo

[DeHall1]

The move against Dr. Fauci began when, despite his diplomacy and attempt to keep out of the fray, it became evident that he was not on the side of The Ex with regard to the response to the pandemic. He did not look up with adoring eyes when the then president was speaking, and it became evident in his interviews, that he did not fully agree with what was being said from that august podium.
Then the attacks on him and his advice and even his standing in the job he had held for decades began.
And BTW, every medical doctor is not equal to every other medical doctor. Some medical doctors, it is possible, may not to be considered equal to the nurses that work alongside of them.
Lineup careers, reputations in the field of immunology and virology, standings in the larger community of medical science and then decide who you want to trust. You got somebody better than Dr. Fauci? Let me see their CV. Let me see to what extent their views are slanted by political or social alignments.
And I’ll say it one more time. Science evolves. If a scientist says one thing in April and then has a different take on the matter in November, it is because new things have been learned between April and November. It is not that they lied in April.

How about About Steven Quay, M.D., Ph.D., who has 360+ published contributions to medicine and has been cited over 10,000 times, placing him in the top 1% of scientists worldwide.  He published a study early this year ("A Bayesian analysis concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that SARS-CoV-2 is not a natural zoonosis but instead is laboratory derived." ) that concluded that there is a greater than 99% probability SARS-CoV-2 came from a laboratory.

This in opposition to Dr. Fauci's comments in National Geographic that he is "...very, very strongly leaning toward this could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated” and that all signs indicate the virus “evolved in nature and then jumped species.”

Would you trust Dr. Quay or Dr. Fauci?

[peter_speckhard]

The move against Dr. Fauci began when, despite his diplomacy and attempt to keep out of the fray, it became evident that he was not on the side of The Ex with regard to the response to the pandemic. He did not look up with adoring eyes when the then president was speaking, and it became evident in his interviews, that he did not fully agree with what was being said from that august podium.
Then the attacks on him and his advice and even his standing in the job he had held for decades began.
And BTW, every medical doctor is not equal to every other medical doctor. Some medical doctors, it is possible, may not to be considered equal to the nurses that work alongside of them.
Lineup careers, reputations in the field of immunology and virology, standings in the larger community of medical science and then decide who you want to trust. You got somebody better than Dr. Fauci? Let me see their CV. Let me see to what extent their views are slanted by political or social alignments.
And I’ll say it one more time. Science evolves. If a scientist says one thing in April and then has a different take on the matter in November, it is because new things have been learned between April and November. It is not that they lied in April.

How about About Steven Quay, M.D., Ph.D., who has 360+ published contributions to medicine and has been cited over 10,000 times, placing him in the top 1% of scientists worldwide.  He published a study early this year ("A Bayesian analysis concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that SARS-CoV-2 is not a natural zoonosis but instead is laboratory derived." ) that concluded that there is a greater than 99% probability SARS-CoV-2 came from a laboratory.

This in opposition to Dr. Fauci's comments in National Geographic that he is "...very, very strongly leaning toward this could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated” and that all signs indicate the virus “evolved in nature and then jumped species.”

Would you trust Dr. Quay or Dr. Fauci?

Answering that question does not require knowledge of science. It requires knowing human nature and having common sense. Dr. Quay has no motive to make anything up. Dr. Fauci does. And we know for a fact that Dr. Fauci is willing to say what he wants people to believe rather than the truth. So I have no reason to trust or not trust Dr. Quay, but I have some reasons to hold Dr. Fauci up to a higher degree of suspicion.

[D. Engebretson]

From the Christian Post today:

Greece requiring negative COVID-19 tests, proof of vaccination to attend church services
By Michael Gryboski, Christian Post Reporter

The government of Greece has recently enacted measures aimed at requiring churchgoers to present proof that they do not have the coronavirus to attend worship following an uptick in COVID-19 infections in the European country.

Greece announced on Nov. 18 that churchgoers must provide proof of a negative COVID-19 test, proof of vaccination or proof of a previous infection to attend worship, according to the European news outlet Euractive. The rule took effect on Sunday.

Reuters further reports that unvaccinated individuals will be barred from indoor spaces, such as restaurants, movie theaters, museums and gyms.

“[This is] to safeguard ourselves, and the people,” Father Christos, a priest at the Ayios Spiridon Church in Piraeus was quoted as saying. “It might be a bit difficult, but we will persist. We are obliged to comply with everything.”

Despite supporting the government’s intentions, leaders within the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece expressed concern that churches won’t have the capacity to enforce the new rules and can’t guarantee that churchgoers will comply.

“[Workers or volunteer staff] have neither capabilities, guard authority, nor public [e.g. police] powers,” the Holy Synod said in a statement as quoted by the daily newspaper Kathimerini.

Of four churches visited by Reuters on Sunday, only one volunteer carried out checks. 

In early November, the Holy Synod recommended in a directive to all parishes that churches should encourage members to attend services with vaccination or negative test documentation, The Associated Press reported at the time.

The Greek Orthodox Church has worked with the government to encourage vaccination.

The New York Times reported that church leadership released a circular to priests earlier this year contending that getting vaccinated against COVID-19 was “the greatest act of responsibility toward one’s fellow human being.”

The latest measures come amid a significant increase in COVID-19 cases in Greece in recent weeks, with many pointing fingers at the country’s vaccination rate. At 62%, Greece’s vaccination rate is below the European Union average of 66%.

“This is indeed a pandemic of the unvaccinated,” Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis said, as quoted by Politico. “Greece is mourning unnecessary losses because it simply does not have the vaccination rates of other EU countries.”

In the United States, some churches have required their staff members to be vaccinated and worshipers to show either proof of vaccination or a negative COVID-19 test to attend services.

For example, Bishop Lawrence C. Provenzano of the Episcopal Diocese of Long Island issued a letter in August requiring all staff and clergy had to be vaccinated by Sept. 15, with an exemption given to those with medical conditions that might prevent them from doing so.

“Those individuals who cannot receive the vaccine will have to agree to wearing a mask at all indoor gatherings, meetings, and liturgies and agree to be tested every ten days until such time as the COVID-19 virus is no longer a threat to the health and safety of the people we are called to serve,” wrote Provenzano.

“Sisters and brothers, no one seeks to prolong the tremendous agony that exists today in our world. No one seeks to make life more complicated in the midst of the turmoil of the last eighteen months. Each of us, as members of the Body of Christ, must now do our part to help end this crisis.”

In September, the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention announced hat its missionaries must be fully vaccinated and recommended that their children 12 years old and over also be vaccinated.

In the announcement, the IMB stated that the agency had previously issued vaccine mandates for missionaries for other diseases, going back at least the 1980s.

“We must make every wise decision, even when a decision is exceptionally difficult, that maintains our team members’ access to the growing number of unreached peoples and places around the world where vaccines are required for entry,” IMB President Paul Chitwood said in a statement.

“We also want to do all we can to undergird our team members’ spiritual and physical health to maximize our effectiveness as we serve Southern Baptists in our global gospel endeavors.”


https://www.christianpost.com/news/greece-requiring-churchgoers-to-be-covid-free-to-attend-worship.html?uid=bfafe1b062&utm_source=The+Christian+Post+List&utm_campaign=CP-Newsletter&utm_medium=email

[Dave Benke]

Thanks for your post from the Christian Post, Don.  Does the Christian Post simply report on this or does it have an editorial position as well?
I read this with interest:
The New York Times reported that church leadership released a circular to priests earlier this year contending that getting vaccinated against COVID-19 was “the greatest act of responsibility toward one’s fellow human being.”

That seems to me to be a theological statement worthy of respect.  I agree with it. Is that a theological perspective shared here? 

Dave Benke

[peter_speckhard]

Thanks for your post from the Christian Post, Don.  Does the Christian Post simply report on this or does it have an editorial position as well?
I read this with interest:
The New York Times reported that church leadership released a circular to priests earlier this year contending that getting vaccinated against COVID-19 was “the greatest act of responsibility toward one’s fellow human being.”

That seems to me to be a theological statement worthy of respect.  I agree with it. Is that a theological perspective shared here? 

Dave Benke

I don't think it is a theological perspective or statement at all. It is a considered assessment of the pros and cons of getting vaccinated. That one should respect one's fellow human beings and be a responsible steward of one's own life-- those are theological statements, and I think everyone almost agrees with them. Fwiw, I haven't heard much of anyone having theological problems with the vaccines except for people in the news worried about Revelation. Some have concerned about fetal harvesting, but even that is an issue with a particular vaccine, not with getting vaccinated generally. Most of the vaccine resistance I encounter (and I don't encounter much because I don't make a point of knowing people's vaccination status) has to do with disagreement with these church leaders in their considered assessment of the pros and cons. In other words, they aren't objecting to the idea that they should pursue the greatest act of responsibility for their fellow human beings, they're disagreeing that getting vaccinated accomplishes that. They may be right or wrong about how safe and effective these vaccines are, but they aren't staking out a place of theological opposition. 

[peter_speckhard]

More official nonsense re:Rittenhouse.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-verdict-levi-strauss

[D. Engebretson]

A few days ago when I came out of the woods after hunting I met another man coming out at the same time.  We talked and I discovered he was in the Army National Guard here in Wisconsin.  In fact, he was among those called up by our governor after the Rittenhouse verdict.  But what really caught my attention was when I asked him how long he had been in.  Over 20 years. So, he must be close to retirement, I asked.  He wasn't retiring. He was leaving.  Why? Vaccine mandate.  Mandates in the active services have already come, but those for state reserves are still to arrive.  It will be interesting to see what the final numbers look like after the unvaccinated are forced to resign. Will it amount to thousands?  How will this impact our overall readiness?

The mandates are also impacting hospitals in a very big way.  I just read the below linked article in The Federalist that indicated a hospital in the Waukesha area struggled to treat those injured in the parade incident. They simply didn't have enough personnel. There are shortages in the healthcare field, and many reasons for these shortages, but the mandates are causing an unwelcome one at present.  A hospital may boast 90% compliance, but that means 10% of your workforce is not and will no doubt be terminated.  Replacing 10% of any workforce is a real uphill struggle these days.  Everyone is in need of workers, but hospitals are truly critical areas. 

I realize we are of varying opinions on whether the COVID vaccine should be mandated.  But when it impacts our own personal healthcare, or other areas of health and safety, we may be reevaluating how we think. 

Hospital Struggles To Treat 18 Waukesha Parade Victims Because Of Vaccine Mandate
A high-ranking official said the hospital currently has hundreds of open positions and attributes much of the staffing shortage to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/29/hospital-struggling-to-treat-18-waukesha-parade-victims-because-of-vaccine-mandate/?fbclid=IwAR3WrggFuVFFnvRp_yCTwwIEzzxdfeWDcA7DkzurwyugmYNDVlobhsxq5Ns#.YaVHnlPQplM.facebook

[J. Thomas Shelley]

The Federalist[/i] that indicated a hospital in the Waukesha area struggled to treat those injured in the parade incident. They simply didn't have enough personnel. There are shortages in the healthcare field, and many reasons for these shortages, but the mandates are causing an unwelcome one at present.  A hospital may boast 90% compliance, but that means 10% of your workforce is not and will no doubt be terminated.  Replacing 10% of any workforce is a real uphill struggle these days.  Everyone is in need of workers, but hospitals are truly critical areas. 

I realize we are of varying opinions on whether the COVID vaccine should be mandated.  But when it impacts our own personal healthcare, or other areas of health and safety, we may be reevaluating how we think. 

Hospital Struggles To Treat 18 Waukesha Parade Victims Because Of Vaccine Mandate
A high-ranking official said the hospital currently has hundreds of open positions and attributes much of the staffing shortage to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/29/hospital-struggling-to-treat-18-waukesha-parade-victims-because-of-vaccine-mandate/?fbclid=IwAR3WrggFuVFFnvRp_yCTwwIEzzxdfeWDcA7DkzurwyugmYNDVlobhsxq5Ns#.YaVHnlPQplM.facebook

Wasn't the whole point of "15 days to flatten the curve" at the Ides of March, 2020, to "prevent overwhelming the health care system"?

And now the health care system is being overwhelmed due to attrition from mandatory vaccination.

Are we in Alice in Wonderland?

[Dave Benke]

Thanks for your post from the Christian Post, Don.  Does the Christian Post simply report on this or does it have an editorial position as well?
I read this with interest:
The New York Times reported that church leadership released a circular to priests earlier this year contending that getting vaccinated against COVID-19 was “the greatest act of responsibility toward one’s fellow human being.”

That seems to me to be a theological statement worthy of respect.  I agree with it. Is that a theological perspective shared here? 

Dave Benke

I don't think it is a theological perspective or statement at all. It is a considered assessment of the pros and cons of getting vaccinated. That one should respect one's fellow human beings and be a responsible steward of one's own life-- those are theological statements, and I think everyone almost agrees with them. Fwiw, I haven't heard much of anyone having theological problems with the vaccines except for people in the news worried about Revelation. Some have concerned about fetal harvesting, but even that is an issue with a particular vaccine, not with getting vaccinated generally. Most of the vaccine resistance I encounter (and I don't encounter much because I don't make a point of knowing people's vaccination status) has to do with disagreement with these church leaders in their considered assessment of the pros and cons. In other words, they aren't objecting to the idea that they should pursue the greatest act of responsibility for their fellow human beings, they're disagreeing that getting vaccinated accomplishes that. They may be right or wrong about how safe and effective these vaccines are, but they aren't staking out a place of theological opposition.

It's a statement issued in a hierarchical faith community from the higher level of Church to the priests.   I think it might be important to ask someone in the Orthodox community whether that statement has theological underpinnings and/or would be seen as such by priests and laity in the Orthodox tradition.  Jesus certainly had a few things to say about love for the brother/other, as did the early Church.

Secondly, if that is true in that tradition, then opposition would be considered a violation of the "act of responsibility," ie sinful.  Are there anti-vaxx or anti COVID vaccination Orthodox priests and bishops?  I don't have that answer.

Dave Benke

Dave Benke

[peter_speckhard]

Thanks for your post from the Christian Post, Don.  Does the Christian Post simply report on this or does it have an editorial position as well?
I read this with interest:
The New York Times reported that church leadership released a circular to priests earlier this year contending that getting vaccinated against COVID-19 was “the greatest act of responsibility toward one’s fellow human being.”

That seems to me to be a theological statement worthy of respect.  I agree with it. Is that a theological perspective shared here? 

Dave Benke

I don't think it is a theological perspective or statement at all. It is a considered assessment of the pros and cons of getting vaccinated. That one should respect one's fellow human beings and be a responsible steward of one's own life-- those are theological statements, and I think everyone almost agrees with them. Fwiw, I haven't heard much of anyone having theological problems with the vaccines except for people in the news worried about Revelation. Some have concerned about fetal harvesting, but even that is an issue with a particular vaccine, not with getting vaccinated generally. Most of the vaccine resistance I encounter (and I don't encounter much because I don't make a point of knowing people's vaccination status) has to do with disagreement with these church leaders in their considered assessment of the pros and cons. In other words, they aren't objecting to the idea that they should pursue the greatest act of responsibility for their fellow human beings, they're disagreeing that getting vaccinated accomplishes that. They may be right or wrong about how safe and effective these vaccines are, but they aren't staking out a place of theological opposition.

It's a statement issued in a hierarchical faith community from the higher level of Church to the priests.   I think it might be important to ask someone in the Orthodox community whether that statement has theological underpinnings and/or would be seen as such by priests and laity in the Orthodox tradition.  Jesus certainly had a few things to say about love for the brother/other, as did the early Church.

Secondly, if that is true in that tradition, then opposition would be considered a violation of the "act of responsibility," ie sinful.  Are there anti-vaxx or anti COVID vaccination Orthodox priests and bishops?  I don't have that answer.

Dave Benke

Dave Benke

Fair enough. In an Orthodox setting, a directive from the higher ups carries with it teaching authority and an obligation of obedience. In a Lutheran setting, where the obligation of obedience only applies to when the pastor deals with us according to God’s Word, it would be different. God’s Word does not declare this vaccine safe and effective. Which is not to say that it isn’t, but only that a similar statement from a DP would not be theologically the same thing.