Fear Is Deadlier Than Viruses

[peter_speckhard]

https://www.foxnews.com/health/new-covid-variant-southern-africa-nations-travel-ban

CDC is warning against knee jerk reactions and wants more data, but several countries are taking no chances. Another example of stopping the transmission not being the only important consideration. THere is danger in not shutting down air travel to southern Africa immediately. There is also danger in doing so, stranding many people, causing panic, or making people give up on vaccines altogether if they prove ineffective against variants. Right now it seems the EU, UK, and Israel have already acted, but we're adopting a wait and see approach. I wonder which side is going by "the science."

[Charles Austin]

"Science" evolves, changes as knowledge expands, Peter.
But you are mixing that truth with the clear idiocies of those with wacko conspiracy theories, Internet-espoused "remedies," and denial of what are basic facts - the effectiveness of the vaccine, the number of deaths, the difference between infections and the deadly aspect of the virus, the politicizing of every mitigation.
So some little kids might be traumatized or miss out on some school lessons because of the shutdown? Parents, wake up and deal with the trauma. Schools, find ways to make it up. It's better than spreading the illness. And if the shutdown was unnecessary, so what?
So businesses suffer because of vaccine requirement? Well, you can't sell food without meeting health standards, so businesses will just have to adapt.
And as for the Evil Of All Evils - that is, "the government is over-reaching and telling me to do something I don't want to do" - grow up. I don't want to wear a seat belt or have to take a test to drive a car.

[peter_speckhard]

"Science" evolves, changes as knowledge expands, Peter.
But you are mixing that truth with the clear idiocies of those with wacko conspiracy theories, Internet-espoused "remedies," and denial of what are basic facts - the effectiveness of the vaccine, the number of deaths, the difference between infections and the deadly aspect of the virus, the politicizing of every mitigation.
So some little kids might be traumatized or miss out on some school lessons because of the shutdown? Parents, wake up and deal with the trauma. Schools, find ways to make it up. It's better than spreading the illness. And if the shutdown was unnecessary, so what?
So businesses suffer because of vaccine requirement? Well, you can't sell food without meeting health standards, so businesses will just have to adapt.
And as for the Evil Of All Evils - that is, "the government is over-reaching and telling me to do something I don't want to do" - grow up. I don't want to wear a seat belt or have to take a test to drive a car.

To the bolded part, no, it isn't better. That isn't a matter of data or science, that is a philosophical difference. I would much rather fewer children be traumatized and fewer businesses be bankrupted than fewer people get Covid. I think everyone will eventually get Covid regardless of their immunization status, and trying to outrun it or hide from it is a mistake. 

As for you admonition to parents and businesses, charming as ever, and quite typical of progressives. But I think parents are already waking up and doing something about it. They're voting in better school boards, for one, or abandoning public schools in droves for two.     

[Charles Austin]

Am I clear on this? You would rather people get Covid than have businesses shut down? You would rather have people get Covid than go through the difficulties of schools being closed? Did I get that right?

[D. Engebretson]

This all brings up an interesting situation.  Is it possible that we will all end up with some version/variation of COVID at some point? It seems to mutate again and again. They have found a mutated strain in South Africa that our vaccines may not even offer protection from, but it's way too soon to tell. I think it's now clear that most people will end up with some relatively mild reaction from exposure to some form of the COVID virus.  As with even the seasonal flu it will be much more severe for others.  The hope in the beginning was that we would largely eradicate the virus.  But that's not going to happen. Repeated outbreaks keep occurring both in this country and around the world. So the question is: What do we ultimately hope to accomplish with extreme measures?  Postponement of the inevitable? And I am not here arguing against vaccines and other usual mitigating measures.  I'm talking about how we reacted last spring.  Total lock downs, schools going completely remote, etc.

We will have to learn to live with this virus.  But I think Peter is right: "trying to outrun it or hide from it is a mistake."

[peter_speckhard]

Am I clear on this? You would rather people get Covid than have businesses shut down? You would rather have people get Covid than go through the difficulties of schools being closed? Did I get that right?

Yes. The spread of the disease it not good, but it is going to happen and in the vast majority of cases does no harm. The key to mitigation is to flatten the curve so not everybody gets it at once, not to avoid it altogether, unless you are highly vulnerable and need to limit all contact. You can pooh-pooh the trauma being done to children all you want and treat the livelihoods being lost with sarcastic derision until the cows come home, but fewer and fewer people are going to stop living their lives so that you can feel a tad safer. Yes, we wear seatbelts, but we don't stop driving cars. We drive even though we know that doing so risks fatal accidents to ourselves and others that wouldn't happen if everyone stayed home. We'd rather live our lives with some risk than not live our lives, which is why normal people still drive places. And still go to work. And send the kids to school. And hold church services. The idea that nothing could be worse than the risk caused by the potential of spreading of the disease makes no sense to me. But you do you. 

You wrote: So some little kids might be traumatized or miss out on some school lessons because of the shutdown? Parents, wake up and deal with the trauma. Schools, find ways to make it up. It's better than spreading the illness. And if the shutdown was unnecessary, so what?
So businesses suffer because of vaccine requirement? Well, you can't sell food without meeting health standards, so businesses will just have to adapt.
And as for the Evil Of All Evils - that is, "the government is over-reaching and telling me to do something I don't want to do" - grow up.  I find that sentiment and reasoning wrongheaded and the attitude obscene. Think what you like. Many of us think differently and are going to act on our own values, not yours.   

[James S. Rustad]

For heaven sake's, Mr. Rustad. I'm not speaking to any of those people here. Furthermore, I'm not trying to convince them of anything. Most of the time, arguing with a fool, while it can be amusing, doesn't change anyone's mind.
And I stick with my previous conclusion. Someone links up for a movement or follows a person on one item, and after a time that person is "all in" and has a cultist's warped sense of "right" or "truth" or "loyalty." I'm not saying that has happened to everyone here. I'm just saying that certain things can take hold of an otherwise "wise" being.

When you call people a fool or cultist in person, you reach a very limited audience.

When you call people fools or cultists here, you reach a larger audience.

You say that you're "not speaking to any of those people here".  How do you know that?

Keep calling people fools and cultists if you want, but own it.  I just hope that "those people" read enough of your screeds to realize just how little credence they should give them.

[James S. Rustad]

In case I haven't already made it clear, I don't believe in screaming at individuals, yelling "you're a fool! You're selfish! You don't care about others!"
I'm all for gentle persuasion. I'm also for society as a whole making that persuasion as effective as possible, and sometimes that means leaving the gentle part behind.
Repeat: you won't hear me yelling at individuals. But you will hear me talking about the various segments of our population that refuse the vaccine, spread erroneous information about the vaccine, and otherwise impede the expansion of the protection the vaccine certainly provides.

And yet you continue to ridicule those who disagree with you.

[Dan Fienen]

Am I clear on this? You would rather people get Covid than have businesses shut down? You would rather have people get Covid than go through the difficulties of schools being closed? Did I get that right?

As in much else in life, it is a question of cost/benefit. You downplay the costs of the kinds of mitigation efforts that you recommend as though shutting down businesses, schools, churches were minor inconveniences, easily compensated for. That is like calling the burning down of a police precinct building in a riot throwing a few rocks at a window. Talk to parents who have seen the deleterious effects on their children that the school closures brought. Oh wait, you don't talk to people because they might carry Covid.


Over 38,000 people died in traffic accidents during 2020. Many of those deaths could have been prevented if there were a national 30 mph speed limit on all roads and highways. Wouldn't it be worth it to have everybody slow down to 30 mph if it would save lives?


Climate change is a major concern. One contributor to climate change is travel. If it would help mitigate climate change, would it be worth it to ban all nonessential airplane travel if it would help with climate change, especially banning overseas air travel for vacation or pleasure? A major contributor to greenhouse gasses is the manufacture of cement, it accounts for between 5% and 8% of world-wide CO₂ emissions.  Perhaps we should ban the manufacture of cement (and thus concrete) to save the planet. While we are about it, automobiles are a major contributor. Ban personal automobiles?


At what point do we end up destroying lives to save them?

[Brian Stoffregen]

You can't say it is foolish in any particular circumstance unless you know the pros and cons and the values of the person involved. If someone you know to be wise makes a deliberate, considered decision that you think foolish, that should give you pause. Maybe the decision isn't foolish. And even if you maintain your position that he decided wrongly, you should at least now know that reasonable people can disagree simply because you've seen it happen. Not everyone is in the same position or values the same things or fears the same things.

Take a grocery store clerk in spring of 2020. Should they continue working or stay home? Certainly staying home reduced the risk of getting or transmitting Covid. But working in the store also served the neighbor and possibly fulfilled central vocations by providing for a family. People might make either choice in all wisdom and faithfulness depending upon their circumstances and assessment of the pros and cons. Why not let people make their own choices given that only they know all the factors weighing into their decisions? That is especially true of someone's most personal and intimate health decisions. Unless they're deliberately harming someone, they should make their own choices.

I know that the unvaccinated are more likely to be infected, suffer greater symptoms, more likely to be hospitalized, more likely to die, and more likely to infect others than those who are vaccinated. Unless the unvaccinated have no contact with any other person, they are putting others at risk, not just possibly harming themselves.


I'm still waiting to hear an argument how refusing to be vaccinated is an act of loving one's neighbor. It's clear to me that being vaccinated is an act of loving self and neighbor. I'm willing to listen to biblical arguments that support refusing to be vaccinated.

[David Garner]

You can't say it is foolish in any particular circumstance unless you know the pros and cons and the values of the person involved. If someone you know to be wise makes a deliberate, considered decision that you think foolish, that should give you pause. Maybe the decision isn't foolish. And even if you maintain your position that he decided wrongly, you should at least now know that reasonable people can disagree simply because you've seen it happen. Not everyone is in the same position or values the same things or fears the same things.

Take a grocery store clerk in spring of 2020. Should they continue working or stay home? Certainly staying home reduced the risk of getting or transmitting Covid. But working in the store also served the neighbor and possibly fulfilled central vocations by providing for a family. People might make either choice in all wisdom and faithfulness depending upon their circumstances and assessment of the pros and cons. Why not let people make their own choices given that only they know all the factors weighing into their decisions? That is especially true of someone's most personal and intimate health decisions. Unless they're deliberately harming someone, they should make their own choices.

I know that the unvaccinated are more likely to be infected, suffer greater symptoms, more likely to be hospitalized, more likely to die, and more likely to infect others than those who are vaccinated. Unless the unvaccinated have no contact with any other person, they are putting others at risk, not just possibly harming themselves.


I'm still waiting to hear an argument how refusing to be vaccinated is an act of loving one's neighbor. It's clear to me that being vaccinated is an act of loving self and neighbor. I'm willing to listen to biblical arguments that support refusing to be vaccinated.

It would honestly be a waste of time.  You've made your judgment.

[Brian Stoffregen]

This all brings up an interesting situation.  Is it possible that we will all end up with some version/variation of COVID at some point? It seems to mutate again and again. They have found a mutated strain in South Africa that our vaccines may not even offer protection from, but it's way too soon to tell. I think it's now clear that most people will end up with some relatively mild reaction from exposure to some form of the COVID virus.  As with even the seasonal flu it will be much more severe for others.  The hope in the beginning was that we would largely eradicate the virus.  But that's not going to happen. Repeated outbreaks keep occurring both in this country and around the world. So the question is: What do we ultimately hope to accomplish with extreme measures?  Postponement of the inevitable? And I am not here arguing against vaccines and other usual mitigating measures.  I'm talking about how we reacted last spring.  Total lock downs, schools going completely remote, etc.

We will have to learn to live with this virus.  But I think Peter is right: "trying to outrun it or hide from it is a mistake."

I'm certain that the hope is that COVID, like 14 other diseases will be eradicated by vaccines.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/diseases/forgot-14-diseases.html


For those not taking the time to click on the link, the 14 listed are:
Polio
Tetanus
Flu
Hepatitis B
Hepatitis A
Rubella
Hib
Measles
Whooping Cough
Rotavirus
Mumps
Chickenpox
Diphtheria

[Brian Stoffregen]

You can't say it is foolish in any particular circumstance unless you know the pros and cons and the values of the person involved. If someone you know to be wise makes a deliberate, considered decision that you think foolish, that should give you pause. Maybe the decision isn't foolish. And even if you maintain your position that he decided wrongly, you should at least now know that reasonable people can disagree simply because you've seen it happen. Not everyone is in the same position or values the same things or fears the same things.

Take a grocery store clerk in spring of 2020. Should they continue working or stay home? Certainly staying home reduced the risk of getting or transmitting Covid. But working in the store also served the neighbor and possibly fulfilled central vocations by providing for a family. People might make either choice in all wisdom and faithfulness depending upon their circumstances and assessment of the pros and cons. Why not let people make their own choices given that only they know all the factors weighing into their decisions? That is especially true of someone's most personal and intimate health decisions. Unless they're deliberately harming someone, they should make their own choices.

I know that the unvaccinated are more likely to be infected, suffer greater symptoms, more likely to be hospitalized, more likely to die, and more likely to infect others than those who are vaccinated. Unless the unvaccinated have no contact with any other person, they are putting others at risk, not just possibly harming themselves.


I'm still waiting to hear an argument how refusing to be vaccinated is an act of loving one's neighbor. It's clear to me that being vaccinated is an act of loving self and neighbor. I'm willing to listen to biblical arguments that support refusing to be vaccinated.

It would honestly be a waste of time.  You've made your judgment.

The reluctance to give arguments against the vaccines might indicate that there are no good arguments. You just pound the table and yell louder.


Even though I have my opinion, it doesn't mean I'm not interested in hearing other views.

[David Garner]

The reluctance to give arguments against the vaccines might indicate that there are no good arguments. You just pound the table and yell louder.

That judgment is also noted.

Even though I have my opinion, it doesn't mean I'm not interested in hearing other views.

I am now being lazy and assuming when people cannot think of any justification for something millions of their neighbors are doing, such a person is not, in fact, interested in hearing other views, but rather in sniffing their own farts.  If you seriously cannot come up with an example of why someone refusing to get a vaccine is loving his neighbor, then you and your unjustifiably high opinion of your own opinions are the problem.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Am I clear on this? You would rather people get Covid than have businesses shut down? You would rather have people get Covid than go through the difficulties of schools being closed? Did I get that right?

Yes. The spread of the disease it not good, but it is going to happen and in the vast majority of cases does no harm. The key to mitigation is to flatten the curve so not everybody gets it at once, not to avoid it altogether, unless you are highly vulnerable and need to limit all contact. You can pooh-pooh the trauma being done to children all you want and treat the livelihoods being lost with sarcastic derision until the cows come home, but fewer and fewer people are going to stop living their lives so that you can feel a tad safer. Yes, we wear seatbelts, but we don't stop driving cars. We drive even though we know that doing so risks fatal accidents to ourselves and others that wouldn't happen if everyone stayed home. We'd rather live our lives with some risk than not live our lives, which is why normal people still drive places. And still go to work. And send the kids to school. And hold church services. The idea that nothing could be worse than the risk caused by the potential of spreading of the disease makes no sense to me. But you do you. 

You wrote: So some little kids might be traumatized or miss out on some school lessons because of the shutdown? Parents, wake up and deal with the trauma. Schools, find ways to make it up. It's better than spreading the illness. And if the shutdown was unnecessary, so what?
So businesses suffer because of vaccine requirement? Well, you can't sell food without meeting health standards, so businesses will just have to adapt.
And as for the Evil Of All Evils - that is, "the government is over-reaching and telling me to do something I don't want to do" - grow up.  I find that sentiment and reasoning wrongheaded and the attitude obscene. Think what you like. Many of us think differently and are going to act on our own values, not yours.

To the boldface: that's precisely the basic problem, which is the original sin: Self-centeredness. Again I ask, how is the value of refusing the vaccination in line with the values God has given us through Jesus? Namely, how does it show love for self, neighbor, and God?