Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

gardenmom5

wuhan - coronavirus

Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, Happymomof1 said:

I guess I feel like that would that would be letting the best be the enemy of the good. Yes, on Facebook he has explained the reason MULTIPLE times.  He has from the pulpit.  He has from email.  If he cancels service he would be fired. If he is fired or resigned, where is he supposed to work?  He is 5-10  years or so from retirement with children in college. This isn't our church this is our state.  Our town in is two counties and when one of those counties nearly doubled total numbers yesterday by going up 104 in one day. The governor of the state said don't worry it's only the jail.  His parents and his wife's parents are getting frail. They need to be by them. No church in Texas, especially our denomination would have him with that kind of attitude that you want him to take. Nor the state next to us where some of his parents are.

We had a horrible 10 years before he came here.  Two pastors that only sowed divisiveness. ( One pastor was arrested for prostitution after he left here.) 4 years of interim. ( Not at the same time off and on.  This pastor is humble, puts others before himself, has worked since he came here for racial unity having joint services alternating between the African American church and ours. We are working with the poor in Honduras, establishing a separate non-profit.  He mobilizes our church to serve the community multiple ways.  He is the epitome of the humble servant. 

So yeah, I want him to stay because if he does what you suggest, our church will be in chaos. Go to another church you say?  They will be exactly like mine or worse as far as masks and not nearly as good at serving others. 

Oh and sshh he isn't for the person holding the rally in a neighboring state while most of our congregation is.  So if it is ok for him to have a rally, indoors with no social distancing then why in the heck does our pastor want us to wear masks and do it in church?? (Yes, I know you don't have to tell me.  I'm telling you what the congregation would say.) Yet he has continued to advocate for it.  Social distancing we are doing in that every other row is roped off.

I don't think I was clear. I was saying if he can't get ANYONE to wear masks or social distance, like the church in the article, than yeah, he has a huge leadership problem and needs to cancel services. 

If he is doing his best, explaining why this is a "serve your neighbor" matter not a "protect yourself" matter, and a few people just don't get it, that is different. Jesus himself couldn't convince everyone, lol. 

I do think maybe he needs to open EVERY service (and every pastor needs to) with a brief into about how he knows everyone is tired of masks and social distancing, but let this sacrifice of ours bring us closer to Jesus, who sacrificed so much more. Maybe have a moment of silence for all who are ill, etc. 

I do have to wonder, in these congregations who hate masking..what would they do if their pastor was higher risk? Tell him to suck it, they are doing to breathe on him anyway? Jesus was a healer! He didnt' say "well...the physical body doesn't matter, just let 'em die." He healed the body because the body does matter. Sigh.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Ic. 

I do have to wonder, in these congregations who hate masking..what would they do if their pastor was higher risk? Tell him to suck it, they are doing to breathe on him anyway? Jesus was a healer! He didnt' say "well...the physical body doesn't matter, just let 'em die." He healed the body because the body does matter. Sigh.  

 He does start every service the way you suggested with the exception of the moment of silence.

Didn't you read that our associate pastor who is in his 70's with 12 or more stints isn't masking.  I think a lot of the confusion comes from what the State of Texas says.  It says you should only mask if you cannot social distance.  If you can social distance, it isn't necessary.  And people are social distancing for the most part, people are.  A few give each other hugs, but who knows if they are seeing each other outside.  But there is social distancing in the service.  Many people come in with masks, but then take them off when the service begins and put them back on when it is over.   We are following the protocols outlines by the state of Texas:


Individuals should, to the extent possible, minimize in-person contact with others not in the individual’s household. Minimizing in-person contact includes maintaining 6 feet separation from individuals. When maintaining 6 feet separation is not feasible, other methods should be utilized to slow the spread of COVID-19, such as wearing a face covering or mask, washing or sanitizing hand frequently, and avoiding sharing utensils or other common objects.  Keep at least two empty seats (or six feet separation) between parties in any row, except as follows: - Two or more members of the same household can sit adjacent to one another, with two seats (or six feet separation) empty on either side. - Two individuals who are not members of the same household but who are attending together can sit adjacent to one another, with two seats (or six feet separation) empty on either side

So how is our pastor supposed to say everyone wear a mask when the government says it is ok not to as long as you maintain social distancing?

Edited by Happymomof1
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worldwide cases appear to have jumped today but India reclassified a lot of deaths from March and April as covid meaning they reported over 2000 covid deaths in one day.  Germany also seems to have had a bit of an outbreak in an abattoir with 400 of 500 workers testing positive.  

  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, prairiewindmomma said:

Fundamentally, it comes down to selfish behavior and a lack of empathy for others, not "personal freedom". They are personally free to not wear their masks when by themselves, but their not wearing it in public affects others. They are essentially taking away others freedom to choose to safely participate in activities. 

I agree with you. This article about school reopenings in other countries describes this sentiment well. In Taiwan, mask-wearing is done any time someone is sick, not just during covid times. It's considered common courtesy. Now, especially, wearing a mask is done out of respect and consideration for the community as a whole.  https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2020/06/11/how-schools-in-other-countries-have-reopened.html

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, kbutton said:

Some fairly recent Ohio analysis: https://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/2020/06/mapping-ohios-41576-coronavirus-cases-updates-on-the-latest-case-death-trends.html

While deaths are higher in the older age brackets, the distribution of infection in the 50+ crowd is pretty even across age groups.

Mask wearing in my part of the state is still kind of low, but I am seeing more than I was at first. My DH has done most of the shopping, but I have been able to go out a time or two, and it's not been swamped. There is a distinct pattern of mask wearers being careful about distancing and non-mask wearers tending to not really social distance either (so much for, "We don't need masks if we're social distancing" that I hear locally).

Yesterday I went to a store for the first time in three months. Your description is exactly what I saw. People wearing masks were also making an effort to stay away from others as much as possible. People not wearing masks appeared to be completely unaware of the pandemic.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

I'd say that while a Pastor can't control everything his parishoners do, he certainly can mandate mask wearing and social distancing, and use his influence to explain the reasoning. And if he can't get the majority of people on board, he can cancel services. Or resign. 

In the example you have where it was one old lady wanting to move, that is very different than the situation linked, where the congregation was making NO attempt at social distancing, no masks, etc. 

In your church, has the pastor reached out to the congregation to explain the theological reasons - indeed the scriptural reasons - for mask wearing at church? Has he framed it to everyone, in writing and verbally, as a matter of obeying the great commandment to love our neighbor? Or that it is our duty to serve the least of these, and that the care and respect we show others in the church and community is EXACTLY the care we show Jesus? 

If he has not done that, he is neglecting his duty as a leader. If he has, and some are being jerks about it, that is different. This is a chance though to truly lead and guide the people he has charge over, and they all need to step up. Will there be pushback? Yes. Will it be hard? Yes. Will their potentially be negative consequences? Yes. Does that excuse him from doing the right thing? No. A pastor that calls his flock to make hard choices but won't do that himself is not leading. 

And to Pen's comment...yeah, somehow the VERY bad theology - dare I say heresy - that the physical body doesn't matter has become widespread. If God didn't care about physical things, he wouldn't have made them! 

 

In our church the pastor cannot mandate anything. He is one elder on a board of elders. He is a servant of the body of Christ who happens to also be trained and examined to be qualified to teach the Word at services. He isn't able to mandate mask wearing. He can speak to the importance of it, and if he disagrees with the other elders and feels very strongly about it he can certainly leave the church, but he is not a dictator over the physical bodies of the members of the church. The elder board as a whole makes these decisions.

I'm not against mask wearing, but your idea of what pastors should be allowed to dictate to their congregation is a little bit off, I think. Leadership, in any case, in church, isn't reflected by taking the bull by the horns and forcing everyone to go along, with mask wearing or anything else. At least, that's not how any healthy church I've ever attended has operated.

Again, just for the record, I'm pro-mask wearing, especially in church.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read they tested 500 employees at Orlando International Airport and over half tested positive! 😳 Yikes!

  • Sad 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Joker said:

Just read they tested 500 employees at Orlando International Airport and over half tested positive! 😳 Yikes!

Were they tested for active infection or antibodies?  Active infection would be yikes.  Antibodies wouldn't be. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Joker said:

Just read they tested 500 employees at Orlando International Airport and over half tested positive! 😳 Yikes!

If most were asymptomatic remember that’s actually really good news.  Wide spread and low hospitalization or death is a positive for the overall deadliness of the virus and how we will have to live with it.  I remind myself that a place of employment with everyone infected or showing antibodies but nobody with more than a sniffle is a lot better than only scattered positives but a very high complication and death rate.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Happymomof1 said:

 He does start every service the way you suggested with the exception of the moment of silence.

Didn't you read that our associate pastor who is in his 70's with 12 or more stints isn't masking.  I think a lot of the confusion comes from what the State of Texas says.  It says you should only mask if you cannot social distance.  If you can social distance, it isn't necessary.  And people are social distancing for the most part, people are.  A few give each other hugs, but who knows if they are seeing each other outside.  But there is social distancing in the service.  Many people come in with masks, but then take them off when the service begins and put them back on when it is over.   We are following the protocols outlines by the state of Texas:


Individuals should, to the extent possible, minimize in-person contact with others not in the individual’s household. Minimizing in-person contact includes maintaining 6 feet separation from individuals. When maintaining 6 feet separation is not feasible, other methods should be utilized to slow the spread of COVID-19, such as wearing a face covering or mask, washing or sanitizing hand frequently, and avoiding sharing utensils or other common objects.  Keep at least two empty seats (or six feet separation) between parties in any row, except as follows: - Two or more members of the same household can sit adjacent to one another, with two seats (or six feet separation) empty on either side. - Two individuals who are not members of the same household but who are attending together can sit adjacent to one another, with two seats (or six feet separation) empty on either side

So how is our pastor supposed to say everyone wear a mask when the government says it is ok not to as long as you maintain social distancing?

I'd like to think the guy in his 70s would realize masking isn't about protecting him, but about protecting the other people in the congregation. 

And it sounds like your church isn't like the one I was responding to - where they were meeting against the law, and packed in shoulder to shoulder in the pews, no social distancing, and no masks. If he is wearing one himself, encouraging others to do so strongly, mandating social distancing by marking pews or whatever, and  they are following the health guidelines of the area, that is totally different than the situation where I said the guy should resign or be fired. I'm not trying to conflate the two. Nor is it the same as the situation where masks are required by law, but the pastor won't wear one, nor encourage others to, even though it is the law. 

It sounds like if you had things change in your area, your pastor would reevaluate? I do think the health department is being unwise in not getting their messaging across better - it has been shown over and over that social distancing of 6 feet doesn't work in enclosed spaces for long periods of time, but you are right, that's not being made clear. 

But again, following the guidelines issues, wearing a mask himself, encouraging others to do so with scriptural guidelines, setting up social distancing markers, etc is very different than just kind of giving up. Whcih yes, some are doing. 

 

57 minutes ago, EmseB said:

In our church the pastor cannot mandate anything. He is one elder on a board of elders. He is a servant of the body of Christ who happens to also be trained and examined to be qualified to teach the Word at services. He isn't able to mandate mask wearing. He can speak to the importance of it, and if he disagrees with the other elders and feels very strongly about it he can certainly leave the church, but he is not a dictator over the physical bodies of the members of the church. The elder board as a whole makes these decisions.

I'm not against mask wearing, but your idea of what pastors should be allowed to dictate to their congregation is a little bit off, I think. Leadership, in any case, in church, isn't reflected by taking the bull by the horns and forcing everyone to go along, with mask wearing or anything else. At least, that's not how any healthy church I've ever attended has operated.

Again, just for the record, I'm pro-mask wearing, especially in church.

I should say that in what I was referring to, "pastor" shoudl substitute for "church leadership". Whatever form that takes. 

And pastors do force certain things...like how communion is handled, or who is allowed to preach, or if smoking is allowed in the building, etc etc. We just as a society haven't put mask wearing in the same category as refraining from smoking..yet. 

6 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

If most were asymptomatic remember that’s actually really good news.  Wide spread and low hospitalization or death is a positive for the overall deadliness of the virus and how we will have to live with it.  I remind myself that a place of employment with everyone infected or showing antibodies but nobody with more than a sniffle is a lot better than only scattered positives but a very high complication and death rate.

Well, our hospital rates in Orlando are going up, significantly, so even if those workers were not symptomatic, the people they likely spread it to may be. We don't know about deaths yet, due to how they are reported. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Pen said:

On the FB Feed No masks thing, @kbutton or anyone who can answer:  I don’t do FB— does something being on feed mean from a known person? Of like an ad? Or from FB itself? 

 

We don’t have FB either, but when I showed this to DH he immediately declared “ Well, we're not going out that day!” followed by “sounds the work of a Russian troll “. It’s the kind of thing they seem to put out, in an effort to froth up a certain type of person. Sadly, despite the obviousness, it works on too many. 😞 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting tidbit on how numbers are reported, who gets tested, etc...

A friend wanted the antibody test, as she was sick back in March, very badly, with lung issues and spread to the rest of the house. She decided to go to the free testing site in our county. It was at the convention center. It was over 3 HOURS waiting in the car, in a line. Then when she finally got to the testing itself, they told her they couldn't do just an antibody test - she had to do an antigen rapid test as well. She explained that she was there because she was ill months ago - there was no way an antigen test was what she needed. They insisted she had to do it if she wanted the other. So she did, and both were negative. But here is the thing - that antigen test she didn't want or need will now be part of the percent positive calculation. 

And of course, someone who is very sick is not going to want to wait in line for 3 hours. 

And then add in that all blood donations are screened for antibodies, and those are also part of the percent positive calculation done each week for my area. So antibody tests done on healthy people who are not sick are included in the same calculation as antigen tests given to sick people. 

Im not saying both are not important info, but they really should be kept separate in the calculations. It's messy. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, MEmama said:

We don’t have FB either, but when I showed this to DH he immediately declared “ Well, we're not going out that day!” followed by “sounds the work of a Russian troll “. It’s the kind of thing they seem to put out, in an effort to froth up a certain type of person. Sadly, despite the obviousness, it works on too many. 😞 

 

Whether domestic or from elsewhere, it certainly does sound like the kind of thing done to froth people up is right!

 

I wonder though if a reply that says what your husband said would be useful for @kbutton to try to chill out the friend...  Maybe if people thought such a thing was a Russian or whatever troll they would be less likely to forward it to their friends?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pen said:

 

Whether domestic or from elsewhere, it certainly does sound like the kind of thing done to froth people up is right!

 

I wonder though if a reply that says what your husband said would be useful for @kbutton to try to chill out the friend...  Maybe if people thought such a thing was a Russian or whatever troll they would be less likely to forward it to their friends?

Interesting idea, but that thread is already heated, and this person is definitely feeling a bit of "because I don't agree with you, you think I'm stupid" kind of things from the several people who are engaging him with factual information.

I do post information about the trolls and bots and their prevalence from time to time when I see a good article, but not in response to specific posts.

I'll try to remember that I could post this as a question in the right context though!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mom2scouts said:

Yesterday I went to a store for the first time in three months. Your description is exactly what I saw. People wearing masks were also making an effort to stay away from others as much as possible. People not wearing masks appeared to be completely unaware of the pandemic.

Now that I've posted that about people with masks not distancing, my husband reports that during his outing yesterday, even people who weren't wearing masks were going out of their way to distance. Lol! 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

I'd like to think the guy in his 70s would realize masking isn't about protecting him, but about protecting the other people in the congregation. 

And it sounds like your church isn't like the one I was responding to - where they were meeting against the law, and packed in shoulder to shoulder in the pews, no social distancing, and no masks. If he is wearing one himself, encouraging others to do so strongly, mandating social distancing by marking pews or whatever, and  they are following the health guidelines of the area, that is totally different than the situation where I said the guy should resign or be fired. I'm not trying to conflate the two. Nor is it the same as the situation where masks are required by law, but the pastor won't wear one, nor encourage others to, even though it is the law. 

It sounds like if you had things change in your area, your pastor would reevaluate? I do think the health department is being unwise in not getting their messaging across better - it has been shown over and over that social distancing of 6 feet doesn't work in enclosed spaces for long periods of time, but you are right, that's not being made clear. 

But again, following the guidelines issues, wearing a mask himself, encouraging others to do so with scriptural guidelines, setting up social distancing markers, etc is very different than just kind of giving up. Whcih yes, some are doing. 

 

I should say that in what I was referring to, "pastor" shoudl substitute for "church leadership". Whatever form that takes. 

And pastors do force certain things...like how communion is handled, or who is allowed to preach, or if smoking is allowed in the building, etc etc. We just as a society haven't put mask wearing in the same category as refraining from smoking..yet. 

Well, our hospital rates in Orlando are going up, significantly, so even if those workers were not symptomatic, the people they likely spread it to may be. We don't know about deaths yet, due to how they are reported. 

Pastors don't enforce no smoking laws in buildings...that is civil law in most any place I've been, enforced by police or city officials. An elder or a deacon may ask someone who is smoking to leave the building but they don't hold any special power of enforcement in that regard over any other member of the congregation. Certainly pastors can influence congregants towards civil disobedience in any sphere, from mask wearing to protesting. But pastors or church leadership do not and cannot institute or enforce civil law themselves. They certainly make decisions about the well being of the flock, as you point out with how to administer communion, but they don't force anyone to partake. They don't force women to wear head coverings, even if some choose to. They could not, in my church, force anyone to wear a mask because, for starters, they have no authority to ask about disabilities that would prohibit mask wearing.

I'm not saying they don't have influence. But this idea that they should prohibit people from coming to worship (cancelling services or kicking them out as if they are smokers) seems to misunderstand the actual role and responsibility they have in the church.

Also wanted to ask...When people talk about hospital beds being filled are they talking about general capacity that is going up now that hospitals are opening up again for other procedures or hospitalized covid patients? And are these rates in context of what normal bed usage would be?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, kbutton said:

. My DH has done most of the shopping, but I have been able to go out a time or two, and it's not been swamped. There is a distinct pattern of mask wearers being careful about distancing and non-mask wearers tending to not really social distance either (so much for, "We don't need masks if we're social distancing" that I hear locally).

Mask is still compulsory when going into a store so everyone is masked inside stores but not social distancing. Stores use the PA system to remind people about social distancing. I won’t expect staff to remind people as I don’t want them to get hit by any “aggressive” customer. One of my late uncle had anger management issues (and DV) and I won’t want staff hurt by someone like him.

Some wear their mask on their chin once they are inside the store. It’s easier to get proper compliance at smaller stores like Trader Joe’s and Daiso where you can scan almost the entire store and all the customers in a sweeping glance quite easily. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, EmseB said:

 

Also wanted to ask...When people talk about hospital beds being filled are they talking about general capacity that is going up now that hospitals are opening up again for other procedures or hospitalized covid patients? And are these rates in context of what normal bed usage would be?

My county has a hospital utilization dashboard with hospital utilization tables, charts and trend lines which are quite clear. https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pages/dashboard.aspx#hospital

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Joker said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.kxan.com/news/coronavirus/texas-woman-tests-positive-for-covid-19-a-second-time/amp/

This woman in Texas seems to have tested positive twice and been sick twice. Article says in between she even donated plasma.

 

Interesting!  They seemed to think that was happening in South Korea too, but not widespread.  I wonder if their genome and biology can give us some good insight into why some people are catching it again and others aren’t.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Pastors don't enforce no smoking laws in buildings...that is civil law in most any place I've been, enforced by police or city officials. An elder or a deacon may ask someone who is smoking to leave the building but they don't hold any special power of enforcement in that regard over any other member of the congregation. Certainly pastors can influence congregants towards civil disobedience in any sphere, from mask wearing to protesting. But pastors or church leadership do not and cannot institute or enforce civil law themselves. They certainly make decisions about the well being of the flock, as you point out with how to administer communion, but they don't force anyone to partake. They don't force women to wear head coverings, even if some choose to. They could not, in my church, force anyone to wear a mask because, for starters, they have no authority to ask about disabilities that would prohibit mask wearing.

I'm not saying they don't have influence. But this idea that they should prohibit people from coming to worship (cancelling services or kicking them out as if they are smokers) seems to misunderstand the actual role and responsibility they have in the church.

Also wanted to ask...When people talk about hospital beds being filled are they talking about general capacity that is going up now that hospitals are opening up again for other procedures or hospitalized covid patients? And are these rates in context of what normal bed usage would be?

I guess I don't see how the local running store can say, you have to wear a mask,but not the local church? Or that churches can't go beyond what is required by law?

As for hospital beds, we have a newspaper tracking of utilization,but our dashboard shows visits to the ER for flu like symptoms and for Covid symptoms, on a weekly graph, and it is going up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

I guess I don't see how the local running store can say, you have to wear a mask,but not the local church? Or that churches can't go beyond what is required by law?

As for hospital beds, we have a newspaper tracking of utilization,but our dashboard shows visits to the ER for flu like symptoms and for Covid symptoms, on a weekly graph, and it is going up. 

1)Churches surely can, within certain parameters. But a manager or owner of a store is very different than a pastor or elder board. That is how a local running store can much more easily institute a storewide policy than an elder board or pastor. Pastors and church leadership aren't owners or bosses.

2) tangent, but a good jumping off point: in case there is a thought that I'm asking these questions in an effort to minimize what's going on wrt covid, that is not the case. I want numbers in context to be meaningful and not just, "hospital beds are full to 80%". Surely people realize that statistic be itself means nothing. I've been in a position in pre-covid times waiting hours for a bed to be freed up for an ER admit. The larger point is that statistics can be used in isolation to try to paint a picture that isn't accurate. I don't buy the conspiracy theories around fudging reporting numbers simply because it's an extremely complicated process to begin with. I have found it very difficult for these reasons to know how bad or good things are, and it seems there are always various interests at play to make things look worse or better than they are. Like, if contact tracing is good, you get a lot of asymptomatic positives that you wouldn't otherwise discover. So we want that to be happening. If hospitals open up for procedures and remain at 90-95% beds utilized (what I understand to be "normal"), then that is a good thing. But these are things that can sound bad minus any context. So if I ask clarifying questions, it is not in an interest to argue or be dismissive.

Edited by EmseB
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/16/2020 at 9:30 AM, prairiewindmomma said:

Oregon has an outbreak tied to a small, rural county. A church there began holding meetings. Facebook photos show the congregation sitting shoulder to shoulder, unmasked. The same church hosted a testing date. Under 400 tests done, 100ish positive so far, not all processed. 

Previously known cases in county was 22.

Details and firm numbers here: https://www.oregonlive.com/coronavirus/2020/06/99-new-coronavirus-cases-reported-in-union-county.html

Now up to 236 positive tests and related hospitalizations have started. Besides holding large indoor services without social distancing and including singing, they also had a wedding and a graduation. It is the largest outbreak in the state to date. This is a very rural area of the state.

https://www.oregonlive.com/coronavirus/2020/06/coronavirus-outbreak-linked-to-eastern-oregon-church-surpasses-200-cases.html
 

Edited by Frances
  • Sad 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Frances said:

Now up to 236 positive tests and related hospitalizations have started. Besides holding large indoor services without social distancing and including singing, they also had a wedding and a graduation. It is the largest outbreak in the state to date. This is a very rural area of the state.

https://www.oregonlive.com/coronavirus/2020/06/coronavirus-outbreak-linked-to-eastern-oregon-church-surpasses-200-cases.html
 

 

They might have thought that either being rural and with low numbers they’d be safe.  Similar to what I’m hearing from TX and similar.

Or maybe they expected the laying on of hands etc to be protective.

 

I listened to audiobook of Spillover: Animal Infections and the Next Human Pandemic recently.  It is easy to hear how Africans were thinking a religious practice might save them from Ebola or Marburg or similar situations and think modern western countries know better—but that’s not necessarily true.  We all are subject to surrounding belief systems. 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Frances said:

Now up to 236 positive tests and related hospitalizations have started. Besides holding large indoor services without social distancing and including singing, they also had a wedding and a graduation. It is the largest outbreak in the state to date. This is a very rural area of the state.

https://www.oregonlive.com/coronavirus/2020/06/coronavirus-outbreak-linked-to-eastern-oregon-church-surpasses-200-cases.html
 

I really wish OHA would be more disclosive on the details of the event. Were most people feeling symptomatic? Asymptomatic? What are the age ranges of the Union County distribution (is it mostly an old or young congregation)? And when they contact trace, are they testing everybody? I really worry about greater spread into the community. La Grande only has about 13,000 people, so if you're talking about 400 tested, 236 positive.....that's concerning.  If everyone there was surprised they had it, asymptomatic spread/mild strain is fantastic....but the hospitalization numbers suggest that hasn't been true for everyone.

I saw an interesting article somewhere yesterday....ABC news? CNN? somewhere....where they were mapping disease activity over the interstate system. It's kind of a chicken/egg problem in that most major cities are intersected by an interstate....but it plotted disease activity along I-10, I-5, and I-85 and the map kind of made sense of some of the clusters. There's not much to LaGrande, but it does have a large Flying J gas station that a lot of truckers use to fill up at since gas stations in the Dalles are hard to get to and there is much along I-84 between the Dalles and Boise.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

I really wish OHA would be more disclosive on the details of the event. Were most people feeling symptomatic? Asymptomatic? What are the age ranges of the Union County distribution (is it mostly an old or young congregation)? And when they contact trace, are they testing everybody? I really worry about greater spread into the community. La Grande only has about 13,000 people, so if you're talking about 400 tested, 236 positive.....that's concerning.  If everyone there was surprised they had it, asymptomatic spread/mild strain is fantastic....but the hospitalization numbers suggest that hasn't been true for everyone.

I saw an interesting article somewhere yesterday....ABC news? CNN? somewhere....where they were mapping disease activity over the interstate system. It's kind of a chicken/egg problem in that most major cities are intersected by an interstate....but it plotted disease activity along I-10, I-5, and I-85 and the map kind of made sense of some of the clusters. There's not much to LaGrande, but it does have a large Flying J gas station that a lot of truckers use to fill up at since gas stations in the Dalles are hard to get to and there is much along I-84 between the Dalles and Boise.

 

The church was in a smaller town, though probably people go to and from La Grande and there was also a non distanced BLM ally type protest in the county   

https://www.lagrandeobserver.com/coronavirus/covid-19-explosion/article_feb41198-af5c-11ea-b466-9bb49be5644c.html

I think this more local paper has overlapping coverage, but maybe a little extra detail

I gather testing happened due to some people having symptoms 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Arctic Mama said:

If most were asymptomatic remember that’s actually really good news.  Wide spread and low hospitalization or death is a positive for the overall deadliness of the virus and how we will have to live with it.  I remind myself that a place of employment with everyone infected or showing antibodies but nobody with more than a sniffle is a lot better than only scattered positives but a very high complication and death rate.

I used to think this but some scans show around half of people who are asymptomatic have some level of lung damage.  The long term consequences of that are unknown.  

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just looking at a HCW Covid FB page and there were a lot of nurses from Houston and San Antonio saying their hospitals were getting busy, I think Austin too, and some from Dallas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I used to think this but some scans show around half of people who are asymptomatic have some level of lung damage.  The long term consequences of that are unknown.  

Well, and those asymptomatic people may work or interact with people who are very vulnerable. We keep talking about nursing homes, but they are not an island. Workers go in and out. That idea that none of that 200 plus people have any interaction with potentially vulnerable people is unlikely. Same with the Orlando airport workers, or the bar patrons, etc. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there are plenty of vulnerable people not in nursing homes.  It just combines vulnerable plus close quarters living circumstances...

Plenty of vulnerable people live alone, or are a single parent, and have to go places that other people go to.  

I have no idea what Union County has for delivery services, but my area of rural Oregon just got it in the last couple of weeks.

 

My mother’s rural area still hasn’t got any . 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Well, and those asymptomatic people may work or interact with people who are very vulnerable. We keep talking about nursing homes, but they are not an island. Workers go in and out. That idea that none of that 200 plus people have any interaction with potentially vulnerable people is unlikely. Same with the Orlando airport workers, or the bar patrons, etc. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pen said:

 

The church was in a smaller town, though probably people go to and from La Grande and there was also a non distanced BLM ally type protest in the county   

https://www.lagrandeobserver.com/coronavirus/covid-19-explosion/article_feb41198-af5c-11ea-b466-9bb49be5644c.html

I think this more local paper has overlapping coverage, but maybe a little extra detail

I gather testing happened due to some people having symptoms 

Island City, fwiw, seems to have no buffer between it and LaGrande if you look on google maps.  WalMart is considered to be in Island City borders, but the Taco Bell next door is in La Grande. *shoulder shrug* 

Thanks for the additional article!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pen said:

 

The church was in a smaller town, though probably people go to and from La Grande and there was also a non distanced BLM ally type protest in the county   

https://www.lagrandeobserver.com/coronavirus/covid-19-explosion/article_feb41198-af5c-11ea-b466-9bb49be5644c.html

I think this more local paper has overlapping coverage, but maybe a little extra detail

I gather testing happened due to some people having symptoms 

It sounds like they were holding their services outside though. That seems worrying. I thought they had been inside until I read this article.

  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Increasing community transmission in Vic

“Community transmission of coronavirus in Victoria remains, with 18 new cases recorded taking the state’s total to 1780.

Of the 18 new cases, six are return travellers are in hotel quarantine.

Of the remaining cases, one is linked to a known outbreak, eight to community testing and three under investigation.”

  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.24.20110346v2.full.pdf
 

Another preprint study that appears to show that although there’s lots of virus on surfaces they don’t seem to be able to be cultured meaning most likely not infectious.   Feeling better about relaxing disinfection protocols somewhat.

Good news, but isn't it hard to culture some viruses to start with? Like, aren't there issues with doing that in general compared to actual human transmission? not sure if that is the case here, but that makes me hesitant. 

This was their conclusion, making me think that not being able to culture it doesn't mean what we think it does? Because if they are saying that neither the air nor the surfaces contained live virus, then how is it spreading and why would they warn of the risk and the importance of PPE, distance, hand hygiene? It must mean something I'm not understanding. Conclusions: Our findings of extensive viral RNA contamination of surfaces and air across 55 a range of acute healthcare settings in the absence of cultured virus underlines the potential risk from environmental contamination in managing COVID-19, and the need for effective 57 use of PPE, physical distancing, and hand/surface hygiene

Edited by Ktgrok
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been thinking about the big political rally that is to take place. I hope what I'm saying isn't political. I think it's just about virus transmission, but I'll delete it if not. I read that those attending have to sign a waver releasing the organizers from liability if they get sick. If you are holding a rally I would assume you would think it wasn't risky and if so why the need for a waiver. I think it will be risky so good idea about the waiver, but then why would you hold it and cause the risk? Also, it seems like many of those that would go may not perceive risk to themselves, so may not have been taking precautions, and may therefore be much higher risk for having and spreading the virus. If a huge outbreak were to occur from this, would that not be detrimental to the cause of the organizer?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TCB said:

I've been thinking about the big political rally that is to take place. I hope what I'm saying isn't political. I think it's just about virus transmission, but I'll delete it if not. I read that those attending have to sign a waver releasing the organizers from liability if they get sick. If you are holding a rally I would assume you would think it wasn't risky and if so why the need for a waiver. I think it will be risky so good idea about the waiver, but then why would you hold it and cause the risk? Also, it seems like many of those that would go may not perceive risk to themselves, so may not have been taking precautions, and may therefore be much higher risk for having and spreading the virus. If a huge outbreak were to occur from this, would that not be detrimental to the cause of the organizer?

They will jsut say that the person got it somewhere else, I'm sure. 

And I'm sure the waiver is a "hey, just a formality, our lawyers made us do this...you know how lawyers are" type thing. I mean, people sign waivers all the time for stuff they think is unlikely to actually happen. If I take my kid to the local pumpkin patch at a church and they want to go in the bounce house I have to sign a waiver not to sue if they get hurt in the bounce house. People are used to waivers. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if they can just say they got it somewhere else then again why the waiver? Not trying to be argumentative but it just doesn't make sense to me.

Edited by TCB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

They will jsut say that the person got it somewhere else, I'm sure. 

And I'm sure the waiver is a "hey, just a formality, our lawyers made us do this...you know how lawyers are" type thing. I mean, people sign waivers all the time for stuff they think is unlikely to actually happen. If I take my kid to the local pumpkin patch at a church and they want to go in the bounce house I have to sign a waiver not to sue if they get hurt in the bounce house. People are used to waivers. 

 

Sorry forgot the quote in my post above so you'd know what I was talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Good news, but isn't it hard to culture some viruses to start with? Like, aren't there issues with doing that in general compared to actual human transmission? not sure if that is the case here, but that makes me hesitant. 

This was their conclusion, making me think that not being able to culture it doesn't mean what we think it does? Because if they are saying that neither the air nor the surfaces contained live virus, then how is it spreading and why would they warn of the risk and the importance of PPE, distance, hand hygiene? It must mean something I'm not understanding. Conclusions: Our findings of extensive viral RNA contamination of surfaces and air across 55 a range of acute healthcare settings in the absence of cultured virus underlines the potential risk from environmental contamination in managing COVID-19, and the need for effective 57 use of PPE, physical distancing, and hand/surface hygiene

I don’t know - you probably know more from your vet studies?  I did see some epidemiologists saying something along the lines of this being an issue.  

they did say this 

“We did not identify viable virus on any surface or air sample. Few studies have attempted to culture SAR-CoV-2 from healthcare environments, and no viable virus was detected.[10, 14] Our laboratory study of the viability of virus dried on surfaces helps to qualify our findings and the findings of others, suggesting that Ct values of >30 are unlikely to be culturable. Bearing in mind that the viral RNA detected in the hospital setting might have been deposited more than two hours previously, we cannot differentiate whether our inability to culture virus from the samples is explained by the low RNA levels or the length of time since deposition or both. It is also possible that virus was infectious but not culturable in the laboratory.”

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ausmumof3 said:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.24.20110346v2.full.pdf
 

Another preprint study that appears to show that although there’s lots of virus on surfaces they don’t seem to be able to be cultured meaning most likely not infectious.   Feeling better about relaxing disinfection protocols somewhat.

 

I think you might be able to feel better about it based on (apparently)  low numbers of infected people in your part of Australia. But I don’t think this study is grounds for concluding that viruses on surfaces aren’t infectious. And that disinfection of surfaces is not needed. That certainly wasn’t the conclusion given in the study.  They instead suggest areas to disinfect more, like the alcohol gel dispensers themselves. 

 

1) the surfaces they were sampling from had considerable disinfection,

 


All inpatient wards were fully occupied by patients with COVID-19 at the time of sampling, apart from the Emergency Department. In the part of the Emergency Department dedicated for patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19, two of the cubicles were occupied and one patient was in the ambulatory wait area at the time of sampling. These areas were disinfected daily using a combined chlorine-based detergent/disinfectant (Actichlor Plus, Ecolab), with an additional twice daily disinfection of high touch surfaces using the same detergent/disinfectant.

(Bold added—probably more frequent, extensive, and stronger disinfectants than most of us use at home.) 

 

2) there’s no way to know if the sampled virus was from before or after the last disinfection 

3) even if the viral RNA, or some of it, arrived after the last disinfection and before sampling,  it may be that the frequent disinfection not only inactivated virus already present, but perhaps also inactivated virus that arrives on it after disinfection (I don’t think tests have been done on this, but I think it’s possible that residual chlorine etc might have some effect still) 

 

“We did not identify viable virus on any surface or air sample. Few studies have attempted to culture SAR-CoV-2 from healthcare environments, and no viable virus was detected.[10, 14] Our laboratory study of the viability of virus dried on surfaces helps to qualify our findings and the findings of others, suggesting that Ct values of >30 are unlikely to be culturable. Bearing in mind that the viral RNA detected in the hospital setting might have been deposited more than two hours previously, we cannot differentiate whether our inability to culture virus from the samples is explained by the low RNA levels or the length of time since deposition or both. It is also possible that virus was infectious but not culturable in the laboratory.”

 

If there were actually no viable virus on surfaces nor in air, it would not be spreading as it is, afaik. 

 ETA- I’d take the study to indicate that the hospital’s disinfection procedures already in place were doing a fairly good job and should continue, plus additional areas to pay attention to...

Edited by Pen
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, TCB said:

I've been thinking about the big political rally that is to take place. I hope what I'm saying isn't political. I think it's just about virus transmission, but I'll delete it if not. I read that those attending have to sign a waver releasing the organizers from liability if they get sick. If you are holding a rally I would assume you would think it wasn't risky and if so why the need for a waiver. I think it will be risky so good idea about the waiver, but then why would you hold it and cause the risk? Also, it seems like many of those that would go may not perceive risk to themselves, so may not have been taking precautions, and may therefore be much higher risk for having and spreading the virus. If a huge outbreak were to occur from this, would that not be detrimental to the cause of the organizer?

Because they don’t care? Because their incredible insatiable need to feed their ego makes all reason go out the window?
 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TCB said:

I've been thinking about the big political rally that is to take place. I hope what I'm saying isn't political. I think it's just about virus transmission, but I'll delete it if not. I read that those attending have to sign a waver releasing the organizers from liability if they get sick. If you are holding a rally I would assume you would think it wasn't risky and if so why the need for a waiver. I think it will be risky so good idea about the waiver, but then why would you hold it and cause the risk? Also, it seems like many of those that would go may not perceive risk to themselves, so may not have been taking precautions, and may therefore be much higher risk for having and spreading the virus. If a huge outbreak were to occur from this, would that not be detrimental to the cause of the organizer?

 

I don’t think it is at all a good idea with regard to virus transmission, unless maybe everyone gets a rapid test (alas reliability is an issue, but it would help) before being allowed to attend, and wears a mask too for helping control false negatives. 

I don’t think the waiver part is all that relevant. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TCB said:

So if they can just say they got it somewhere else then again why the waiver? Not trying to be argumentative but it just doesn't make sense to me.

To avoid the cost of lawsuits. They (those suing) would be unlikely to win, but the expense and time of that many lawsuits could be a big PIA. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

To avoid the cost of lawsuits. They (those suing) would be unlikely to win, but the expense and time of that many lawsuits could be a big PIA. 

 

I agree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TCB said:

I've been thinking about the big political rally that is to take place. I hope what I'm saying isn't political. I think it's just about virus transmission, but I'll delete it if not. I read that those attending have to sign a waver releasing the organizers from liability if they get sick. If you are holding a rally I would assume you would think it wasn't risky and if so why the need for a waiver. I think it will be risky so good idea about the waiver, but then why would you hold it and cause the risk? Also, it seems like many of those that would go may not perceive risk to themselves, so may not have been taking precautions, and may therefore be much higher risk for having and spreading the virus. If a huge outbreak were to occur from this, would that not be detrimental to the cause of the organizer?

I had to sign a waiver when I took my son to the orthodontist yesterday.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pen said:

 

I think you might be able to feel better about it based on (apparently)  low numbers of infected people in your part of Australia. But I don’t think this study is grounds for concluding that viruses on surfaces aren’t infectious. And that disinfection of surfaces is not needed. That certainly wasn’t the conclusion given in the study.  They instead suggest areas to disinfect more, like the alcohol gel dispensers themselves. 

 

1) the surfaces they were sampling from had considerable disinfection,

 


All inpatient wards were fully occupied by patients with COVID-19 at the time of sampling, apart from the Emergency Department. In the part of the Emergency Department dedicated for patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19, two of the cubicles were occupied and one patient was in the ambulatory wait area at the time of sampling. These areas were disinfected daily using a combined chlorine-based detergent/disinfectant (Actichlor Plus, Ecolab), with an additional twice daily disinfection of high touch surfaces using the same detergent/disinfectant.

(Bold added—probably more frequent, extensive, and stronger disinfectants than most of us use at home.) 

 

2) there’s no way to know if the sampled virus was from before or after the last disinfection 

3) even if the viral RNA, or some of it, arrived after the last disinfection and before sampling,  it may be that the frequent disinfection not only inactivated virus already present, but perhaps also inactivated virus that arrives on it after disinfection (I don’t think tests have been done on this, but I think it’s possible that residual chlorine etc might have some effect still) 

 

“We did not identify viable virus on any surface or air sample. Few studies have attempted to culture SAR-CoV-2 from healthcare environments, and no viable virus was detected.[10, 14] Our laboratory study of the viability of virus dried on surfaces helps to qualify our findings and the findings of others, suggesting that Ct values of >30 are unlikely to be culturable. Bearing in mind that the viral RNA detected in the hospital setting might have been deposited more than two hours previously, we cannot differentiate whether our inability to culture virus from the samples is explained by the low RNA levels or the length of time since deposition or both. It is also possible that virus was infectious but not culturable in the laboratory.”

 

If there were actually no viable virus on surfaces nor in air, it would not be spreading as it is, afaik. 

 ETA- I’d take the study to indicate that the hospital’s disinfection procedures already in place were doing a fairly good job and should continue, plus additional areas to pay attention to...

Ok thank you.  I will put disinfect surfaces back on my list of to dos if we get active cases again.  To be honest part of the reason I tend to believe it’s not surface related is because almost every case here seems to have been able to be linked to close contact with an active case but we haven’t had many so we may just have been lucky. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought a few of you might find this interesting-  I took DS to his yearly specialist appointment.  The office staff was discussing the difficulty of getting some of their disinfectants that they use.  Since the office was shut down and didn’t order regularly like they normally do, they can’t get new orders.  Other small practices are having issues too as the suppliers are fulfilling hospital/large practice orders first and what is left ( if any) goes to small practices.  

  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Ok thank you.  I will put disinfect surfaces back on my list of to dos if we get active cases again.  To be honest part of the reason I tend to believe it’s not surface related is because almost every case here seems to have been able to be linked to close contact with an active case but we haven’t had many so we may just have been lucky. 

 

I think the initial belief that it came from ? Bat ? Animal? From wet market led us astray as to primary routes of infection,  (I presume no one was thought to have been in a cuddly face to face extended respiratory sharing situation with a food bat.) as presumption was  that it was gotten by handling or eating the infected animal.  Which is possible. But it’s seeming now that handling as long as skin is intact and thoroughly washed after, and even possibly eating the virus is much less risky than breathing it. 

I think if we presume it to be initially from a lab and basically a virus primarily transmitted by droplets and /or aerosol but also possibly from surfaces, fecal matter, etc etc as additional possible ways that we are on a better track. 

So many viruses are able to be transmitted via surfaces that I would not assume it isn’t one unless proven that it isn’t.  But I think apparently less high risk plus low local cases, you could ease off some on disinfecting everything. 

Edited by Pen
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to rising cases, masks will now be required in some Oregon counties. Previously, they were only required for employees in customer facing businesses and for everyone on public transportation. The most populated county will also be allowed to enter Phase 1, the last to do so. It will be interesting to see the level of compliance.
 

https://www.oregonlive.com/coronavirus/2020/06/oregon-gov-kate-brown-requires-masks-in-indoor-public-places-in-7-counties-as-of-june-24.html

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...