Jump to content

Menu

PSA: Quarantines infringe rights, but they're still legal


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

So do you refer to this as SARS in general conversation, or do you refer to it as COVID-19? 

I think she referred to it as "a SARS virus" not "The SARS virus". Perhaps confusing, but not wrong. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

So do you refer to this as SARS in general conversation, or do you refer to it as COVID-19? 

 

Depends on the context, but typically I call it SARS-CoV-2  or CV2 or Covid-19 or the pandemic.  Since most of the people I discuss it with are doctors and nurses I say SARS-CoV-2 most often, and I've linked a few videos from doctors that do the same over the past month.  If it didn't cause Severe Acute Respiratory Distress for two-three weeks in many people who acquire it we wouldn't need to have any sort of social distancing, and the medical field would be treating this like any other virus.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

Quarantine and the Federal Role in Epidemics, SMU Law Review: https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4728&context=smulr

cited by

The Regulatory Review, Addressing the Constitutionality of Federal Quarantine Rules

https://www.theregreview.org/2019/04/16/barsky-constitutionality-federal-quarantine-rules/

That's probably enough for the night. But goes to show that people legitimately asking questions, and not blindly following along like sheep DO EXIST. And there is a lot of precedent to question restrictions within the US because THEY ARE OFTEN ABUSED.

Countries outside of the US- y'all are your own situation and no one is advocating what you do or how you do it from what i see on these thread.

However, for the US folk, the fact that any time anyone here questions a single thing to do with rights and due process they are pounced on by the hysteria posse goes to show the limited thinking, ignorance and concern about people's rights in general. Super glad those of you in the mob aren't the ones actually making the case law. And again- funny how you're one minute screaming about #Resisting and the next minute just bending over out of fear. Fair weather resisters I guess. 

It's detailing that there is a set process that has been well outlined. And that there is a process of appeal, which people here seem to think should be illegal. 

But hey- y'all hand over the rights. Go ahead. And then cry when you see what they do to people and it's too late. Anyone bothered to ask about the due process for the migrants in detention on the border about all of this lately? No? I guess they ceased to exist the minute shit got real, huh? 

For the latter of course not because both issues are decided by groupthink 

Not that I'm saying groupthink is bad,  on the contrary I think it's generally societally preservative 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

I think y'all jumped that ship many threads ago with veiled references to the various powers that be, along with singing the criticisms and praises of various governors along with references to the leaders of various countries. If you want to report me for crossing a boundary, feel free and the mods can delete it I'm sure. 


Pretty sure the Governors who got praises were of ALL stripes. Govs. DeWine and Cuomo among the most prominent.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

Fair enough on the dry cleaners. 

You guys keep hammering on churches like they are the only faiths effected. This isn't a Christian only issue, and it's not only Christians who are pushing back. DeBlasio threatened to permanently shut down churches, synagogues and mosques who did not comply. Not temporarily. Permanently. How is that ok? Are you guys who are okay with the Churches shutting down okay with forcing the shut down of the Mosques and Synagogues as well? 

Yup. 

And any other faith practice that threatens the very lives of others during a pandemic. But, none of my Jewish friends seem to have a problem with this. I don't have any friends to ask who currently attend a Mosque. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

From a religious perspective my bible says something along the lines of whenever two or three are gathered together in my name there I am also.  We don’t need mega churches operating.  
 

from a rights perspective I’m mostly glad I don’t live in the US times like this.  Not that I don’t love you guys mostly but most Aussies seem to be a bit more no fuss.  The guns rights activists are upset a bit.  
 

as far as alcohol and drugs apparently there were suicides in India after liquor stores were shut in one area.  While I don’t think of alcohol or drugs as essential exactly I’m not sure society wants to deal with the consequences of forcing addicts to go cold turkey right now.  I have info from local source that lower risk prisoners are being moved into motels or home detention wherever possible already and police are kind of stretched.  Keeping order is going to be challenging enough.  

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

I think y'all jumped that ship many threads ago with veiled references to the various powers that be, along with singing the criticisms and praises of various governors along with references to the leaders of various countries. If you want to report me for crossing a boundary, feel free and the mods can delete it I'm sure. 

 

You didn't cross a political boundary, you simply pointed out perceived bias.  I don't think most of us are thinking about this in political terms whatsoever, excepting liking Dr Fauci, who is hopefully not a political figure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Secondly as far as rights go all of these measures have end dates as far as I know. If we were talking a ban with no end date I’d be way more concerned.  Yes the dates may be renewed or modified.  But it shows the intention is for this to be a temporary measure.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

I didn't say they weren't. But you're still naming individual Governors and commenting on policies and approvals, which I would think would = politics? 

 


Yah, no. I have my political affinity and it doesn’t include BOTH. The point being this is a bipartisan, human, issue not a partisan one. 

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

So in my area- that wouldn't be allowed, as it's "non-essential". The churches are shuttered except for personnel allowed to be there in numbers under 10. 

No.  There’s nothing to say they have to be gathered in a church.  Biblically it says “wherever”.  If two people can get together then we can still have a service.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Yup. 

And any other faith practice that threatens the very lives of others during a pandemic. But, none of my Jewish friends seem to have a problem with this. I don't have any friends to ask who currently attend a Mosque. 

There have been issues here with Orthodox Jews I think.

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

From a religious perspective my bible says something along the lines of whenever two or three are gathered together in my name there I am also.  We don’t need mega churches operating.  
 

from a rights perspective I’m mostly glad I don’t live in the US times like this.  Not that I don’t love you guys mostly but most Aussies seem to be a bit more no fuss.  The guns rights activists are upset a bit.  
 

as far as alcohol and drugs apparently there were suicides in India after liquor stores were shut in one area.  While I don’t think of alcohol or drugs as essential exactly I’m not sure society wants to deal with the consequences of forcing addicts to go cold turkey right now.  I have info from local source that lower risk prisoners are being moved into motels or home detention wherever possible already and police are kind of stretched.  Keeping order is going to be challenging enough.  

 

As someone who got attacked by a patient in alcohol withdrawal during the Swine Flu epidemic I agree keeping liquor stores open is necessary, even if I don't think addictive drinking is something that should be encouraged.

1 minute ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

I didn't say they weren't. But you're still naming individual Governors and commenting on policies and approvals, which I would think would = politics? 

 

 

Policies with regard to fighting a pandemic aren't political.  Some politicians are doing a lot, others aren't.  The few times someone got a comment deleted that I'm aware of it was more of a personal attack - IE clearly he is lying because he's him nature rather than a discussion of policies.  I think policy discussion is allowed, personal attacks on an individual or anyone who defends them are not.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Katy said:

 

As someone who got attacked by a patient in alcohol withdrawal during the Swine Flu epidemic I agree keeping liquor stores open is necessary, even if I don't think addictive drinking is something that should be encouraged.

 

Policies with regard to fighting a pandemic aren't political.  Some politicians are doing a lot, others aren't.  The few times someone got a comment deleted that I'm aware of it was more of a personal attack - IE clearly he is lying because he's him nature rather than a discussion of policies.  I think policy discussion is allowed, personal attacks on an individual or anyone who defends them are not.

Also in Iran there were deaths due to the rumour that alcohol was a cure and people making bad batches of bootleg.  Another thing we really don’t want to deal with right now.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

Yeah I'm clear on that. But why did the states sit around and wait on the federal government? And it's not like states don't overstep civil rights. They do it all the time! 

Because the feds control testing and shut down early tests in states like WA. without the most important tool in their toolbox, public health officials were stymied by the feds. New Rochelle was brought under control fairly quickly with few hospitalizations and no deaths because they had all the testing they needed.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

So then the question is, how long do you put up with the incompetence and the blunt instrument. Because incompetency can linger for a very long time- and like I said- election year. Sort of a huge deal, whichever side of the aisle you are on. If they're going to change the election system that sort of needs to be underway NOW. But no one is even talking about it. I'm hearing some estimates that this is going to go into June or July, and then the possible see-sawing shut downs. There is no way that's not going to affect US elections. 

You put up with it until people come to their senses and value it. It’s not like the handwriting wasn’t in the wall back in 2016. People chose this because they valued other things more.

My senator has been advocating for national vote by mail for sometime and is pushing it again in light if recent events.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

So in my area- that wouldn't be allowed, as it's "non-essential". The churches are shuttered except for personnel allowed to be there in numbers under 10. 

I can call my mom and pray with her on the phone. I can stand on my side of the street and my neighbor on the other and pray together. I can pray with my family, thankfully. And of course, the Bible doesn't say ONLY when where are 2 or more. I can't imagine anyone thinks that God abandons people on their own, and only shows up if there is at least two believers. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ausmumof3 said:

There have been issues here with Orthodox Jews I think.

there have been problems with some groups of Hasidic jews in NY/NJ. (seems to depend upon their particular rabbi)  but from my reading over the years (and watching of documentaries) - they're pretty separatist and consider themselves a law unto themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

Just because the media you are consuming isn't playing them doesn't mean they aren't there. They ARE there. You just aren't looking in the right places. Fox News or whatever isn't probably the best place. Perhaps try the journals- that's where most of this gets argued out outside of the court room in the moment. 

And I'm sorry, but your bolded is proving the point. "Responding in ways not supported by science is never the right thing to do." Quarantines  as noted by THREE PREEMINENT PUBLIC HEALTH EXPERTS say "either completely ineffective or only potentially marginally effective". 

The fact that most of you think that localities don't regularly use quarantines on certain populations and for certain issues just shows the ignorance about the general usage. Just because it's typically in populations you find distasteful and don't care about doesn't mean they don't have rights and that it's not an ongoing constant see-saw of give and take- it's simply that the people it's pulled on usually have no agency. 

I’ve been reading lots of public health experts, and the vast majority disagree with you 🤷‍♀️
 

The last part about “Just because it's typically in populations you find distasteful and don't care about” — what are you talking about?

4 hours ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

Speaking of Govenor Cuomo, transcript quotation of one of his speeches earlier last week.

Agree completely it has to be smart, it can't be reactive and it can't be emotional. 

Unfortunately my quote doesn’t include the part of Cuomo’s transcript that you quoted. You took him out of context though to imply he thought he’d done the wrong thing by closing schools. Here’s what he says later in the interview:

Governor Cuomo: Because I'm your brother, that's why. The best decision was closing everything down. which politically may have terrible consequences, but so what, it was the right thing to do. That's what pop taught us, you do the right thing, closing everything down was the right decision. The worst decision, which is a lousy question by you, is probably coming on your show, frankly.”

 

3 hours ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

So what if the models are off? And then what if the "next big thing" which there will be, they decide that they want even more stringent measures? Do you just say okay, and take their word for it? Why don't people think it is okay to question things? Why suddenly, of all the crap y'all have freaked about with Donald Trump for the last four years, is THIS the thing no one is questioning? I am sincerely asking because it makes no sense to me that a man, who the vast majority of you guys have been gleefully waiting to be impeached for the last four years for numerous reasons, are suddenly 👍with the whole scenario without even asking a single question to push back. What is making you take this at face value when previous decisions weren't? Explaining that would go a long way for me to understand where many of y'all are coming from. 

I think this was covered by others. If the president was saying this, and the epidemiologists and public health experts were disagreeing with him, it would be a different story. This isn’t what the president wanted to do. He reluctantly agreed, very late in the game, on the advice of the experts. 

This seems like a good thread to drop some of the encouraging news today that their are several indications  that all this social distancing is having a positive effect. By several measures, the places that are doing the most social distancing are seeing a good trend in the new data coming out:

https://www.seattleweekly.com/northwest/new-report-indicates-positive-impact-in-king-county-of-social-distancing-on-covid-19-epidemic/

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/30/health/coronavirus-restrictions-fevers.html

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

From a religious perspective my bible says something along the lines of whenever two or three are gathered together in my name there I am also.  We don’t need mega churches operating.  
 

from a rights perspective I’m mostly glad I don’t live in the US times like this.  Not that I don’t love you guys mostly but most Aussies seem to be a bit more no fuss.  The guns rights activists are upset a bit.  
 

as far as alcohol and drugs apparently there were suicides in India after liquor stores were shut in one area.  While I don’t think of alcohol or drugs as essential exactly I’m not sure society wants to deal with the consequences of forcing addicts to go cold turkey right now.  I have info from local source that lower risk prisoners are being moved into motels or home detention wherever possible already and police are kind of stretched.  Keeping order is going to be challenging enough.  

not all. I know some who are pro-quarantine.  My dd has a CC permit, but she also works in a hospital and has to strip as she walks in the door, and go immediately to a shower.  her dh is working from home.  They only go out as absolutely necessary.  Incidentally - they live in Texas.     

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

Yup. 

And any other faith practice that threatens the very lives of others during a pandemic. But, none of my Jewish friends seem to have a problem with this. I don't have any friends to ask who currently attend a Mosque. 

I live in a Muslim country and mosques have been closed indefinitely.  The call to prayer has been changed to tell people to pray in their homes.  This is a change that has been made in the past in times of war or disease.

Honestly, I think it’s a pretty myopic view to think that not being able to attend church for a short time is worthy of all this attention. There have been multiple times throughout history that people have not been able to worship together, and it’s still pretty common today all over the world, separate from the pandemic.  Sometimes the reasons are completely oppressive, and other times they’re practical. But government policy and disease don’t control my religious practice, even when I have lived in countries where my typical religious expression was very limited.  I’ve spent years having church at home when I couldn’t meet with others.  There is no question that religious community is important to me, but supporting that community in large gatherings isn’t appropriate right now.  Why is that so terrible, really, during a pandemic?  I don’t think this is setting a precedent in any way for something more sinister.

  • Like 12
  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Terabith said:

I've been wondering about Sweden, too.  I do wonder if their population density, which is significantly less than the United States's, is a protective factor?  Of course, both Sweden and the US are not even in their population density and have areas of essentially no people per square mile and areas with much higher density.  

I also have no idea if that's a relevant factor.   

Another very important factor is that *half* the population lives alone which equates to a lot of "social distancing" automatically......

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, gardenmom5 said:

not all. I know some who are pro-quarantine.  My dd has a CC permit, but she also works in a hospital and has to strip as she walks in the door, and go immediately to a shower.  her dh is working from home.  They only go out as absolutely necessary.  Incidentally - they live in Texas.     

Sorry I should be specific - the ones here in Aus are.  Qld and Vic government actually shut down firearm and ammo sales completely.  In Tas they deemed hunting and fishing exercise so they’ve stayed open under the exercise laws.  Vic were pretty open about the fact that the reason they shut them down was because they were receiving double the usual applications for firearms permits.  I’m pretty pro gun control but it was fairly clear that it was a security concern not a quarantine thing.  I think they are going to change it to make an exception for primary producers, pest control and maybe law enforcement (although not sure why they’d be buying privately so I might have the last bit wrong. There was definitely a third)

im generally an advocate of gun control but leaving fishing and sports shops open while closing gun shops specifically because of quarantine is a double standard.  

Edited by Ausmumof3
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Frances said:

So why haven’t we tried that? I all for it and have been advocating for people to advocate for it wherever they can, including my mom’s senior complex and my husband’s place of work. 
 

Germany has implemented rapid antibody testing and is putting people back to work after they are certified. Lots we could learn from other countries, but I have no faith the feds will do it.

Has Germany actually implemented this?  The report I saw said that antibody tests were being developed and if they were approved, this might be done.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Amira said:

I live in a Muslim country and mosques have been closed indefinitely.  The call to prayer has been changed to tell people to pray in their homes.  This is a change that has been made in the past in times of war or disease.

Honestly, I think it’s a pretty myopic view to think that not being able to attend church for a short time is worthy of all this attention. There have been multiple times throughout history that people have not been able to worship together, and it’s still pretty common today all over the world, separate from the pandemic.  Sometimes the reasons are completely oppressive, and other times they’re practical. But government policy and disease don’t control my religious practice, even when I have lived in countries where my typical religious expression was very limited.  I’ve spent years having church at home when I couldn’t meet with others.  There is no question that religious community is important to me, but supporting that community in large gatherings isn’t appropriate right now.  Why is that so terrible, really, during a pandemic?  I don’t think this is setting a precedent in any way for something more sinister.

 that is biblical - during old testament times, there were times people had to pray and worship in their own homes and couldn't gather together at all.    So I don't get the demands that they have to worship in a group, right now, during a pandemic.

 

3 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Sorry I should be specific - the ones here in Aus are.  Qld and Vic government actually shut down firearm and ammo sales completely.  In Tas they deemed hunting and fishing exercise so they’ve stayed open under the exercise laws.  Vic were pretty open about the fact that the reason they shut them down was because they were receiving double the usual applications for firearms permits.  I’m pretty pro gun control but it was fairly clear that it was a security concern not a quarantine thing.  I think they are going to change it to make an exception for primary producers, pest control and maybe law enforcement (although not sure why they’d be buying privately so I might have the last bit wrong. There was definitely a third)

im generally an advocate of gun control but leaving fishing and sports shops open while closing gun shops specifically because of quarantine is a double standard.  

here - some states closed gun stores, others left them open. I haven't kept track of which state does/doesn't.  my state closed them.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

 that is biblical - during old testament times, there were times people had to pray and worship in their own homes and couldn't gather together at all.    So I don't get the demands that they have to worship in a group, right now, during a pandemic.

I think the point is more this:

If you're going to leave the subway open because it is essential (and please look at some of the videos from the subway from the last week or so) there is no point in closing churches forcibly or arresting people for holding services.

If you're going to leave the subway open and target other groups (any other group, doesn't have to be religious), then the claim that you (general) are doing this to slow the spread of disease is at best lacking awareness of how disease spreads. At worst it looks like certain groups are being targeted. 

I am not demanding to go to church. But what disturbs me is the mental leaps one has to make to rationalize that church is beyond the pale but alcoholics must be able to get booze at any cost. Church is dangerous but the subway is an acceptable risk. The fact that people so willingly accept that and carry water for it is what is more than a but scary.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I think the point is more this:

If you're going to leave the subway open because it is essential (and please look at some of the videos from the subway from the last week or so) there is no point in closing churches forcibly or arresting people for holding services.

If you're going to leave the subway open and target other groups (any other group, doesn't have to be religious), then the claim that you (general) are doing this to slow the spread of disease is at best lacking awareness of how disease spreads. At worst it looks like certain groups are being targeted. 

I am not demanding to go to church. But what disturbs me is the mental leaps one has to make to rationalize that church is beyond the pale but alcoholics must be able to get booze at any cost. Church is dangerous but the subway is an acceptable risk. The fact that people so willingly accept that and carry water for it is what is more than a but scary.

 

It's not a mental leap at all.  It's basic exponential math. More exposures = more infections = more overwhelm in the hospitals.

Essential people who must go to work must still go to work, even if they live in the city and don't own a car.  It is not essential to gather in huge churches and spread contagion.

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I think the point is more this:

If you're going to leave the subway open because it is essential (and please look at some of the videos from the subway from the last week or so) there is no point in closing churches forcibly or arresting people for holding services.

If you're going to leave the subway open and target other groups (any other group, doesn't have to be religious), then the claim that you (general) are doing this to slow the spread of disease is at best lacking awareness of how disease spreads. At worst it looks like certain groups are being targeted. 

I am not demanding to go to church. But what disturbs me is the mental leaps one has to make to rationalize that church is beyond the pale but alcoholics must be able to get booze at any cost. Church is dangerous but the subway is an acceptable risk. The fact that people so willingly accept that and carry water for it is what is more than a but scary.

It’s clear that meeting in groups is helping to spread the virus, even when care is taken. My take on this is that as a Christian I want to do everything in my power to protect others and not make them sick. In my opinion we should be setting a good example. Yes other things are open that shouldn’t be, but that’s no justification for continuing to be part of the problem. My Mom always told us 2 wrongs don’t make a right and that is true in this situation too. Older people are often part of the church population and it is our Christian duty to protect them as much as possible. 
I can’t control everyone else but I have control over myself and I can do the right thing. The right thing to do right now is to not meet in groups. Churches should be doing the right thing now whether they are legally compelled to or not.

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Katy said:

 

It's not a mental leap at all.  It's basic exponential math. More exposures = more infections = more overwhelm in the hospitals.

Essential people who must go to work must still go to work, even if they live in the city and don't own a car.  It is not essential to gather in huge churches and spread contagion.

You are missing my point entirely. Or making it for me, I guess. Yes, it is basic math.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, EmseB said:

You are missing my point entirely. Or making it for me, I guess. Yes, it is basic math.

 

Exposures in a subway or grocery store or emergency room cannot be avoided.  Exposures in churches can.

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TCB said:

It’s clear that meeting in groups is helping to spread the virus, even when care is taken. My take on this is that as a Christian I want to do everything in my power to protect others and not make them sick. In my opinion we should be setting a good example. Yes other things are open that shouldn’t be, but that’s no justification for continuing to be part of the problem. My Mom always told us 2 wrongs don’t make a right and that is true in this situation too. Older people are often part of the church population and it is our Christian duty to protect them as much as possible. 
I can’t control everyone else but I have control over myself and I can do the right thing. The right thing to do right now is to not meet in groups. Churches should be doing the right thing now whether they are legally compelled to or not.

I don't disagree with much if any of this.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I think the point is more this:

If you're going to leave the subway open because it is essential (and please look at some of the videos from the subway from the last week or so) there is no point in closing churches forcibly or arresting people for holding services.

If you're going to leave the subway open and target other groups (any other group, doesn't have to be religious), then the claim that you (general) are doing this to slow the spread of disease is at best lacking awareness of how disease spreads. At worst it looks like certain groups are being targeted. 

I am not demanding to go to church. But what disturbs me is the mental leaps one has to make to rationalize that church is beyond the pale but alcoholics must be able to get booze at any cost. Church is dangerous but the subway is an acceptable risk. The fact that people so willingly accept that and carry water for it is what is more than a but scary.

the subway is about transportation.  there are places people dont' drive, those same places don't have abundant parking - and people dont' own cars.  there are people who are still working who need to get to places.  like hospitals.  or to keep the electric grid up and running, etc.   

you're comparing apples and oranges.

I agree about the crowding - for pete's sake, new Yorkers went out to watch the USN Mercy come into new York harbor!   I don't have a lot of sympathy for new Yorkers right now.   or spring breakers, etc.  I cheer on the dad who told his son to NOT go to the beaches in texas for spring break.  the kid had a great time, then he and his friends headed to his house before going back to school in Massachusetts.  dad refused to pick them up at the airport.  dad came outside as the uber arrived to drop them off and told them (his son and his friends) - they weren't welcome. he pointed to a car, said there are groceries in the back and an envelope with some money on the seat.  the dad choose protecting the rest of the family from a possible exposure by a son and his friends who just went and hung out with a very large group. (and spring breakers in places are now getting sick.) 

because of how ill I was - I wasn't in church for most of January, and it wasn't until the middle of February before I started back.  Then, we started social distancing here (I'm near the original cases in the US), and church was closed.  I miss being able to take the sacrament, I miss being part of a religious congregation - that doesn't mean I think it's wrong that this shelter-in-place order was imposed.   they're not singling out churches.  

a nearby county didn't enact the social distancing rules until the state enacted them.  they had no cases, they don't have the population density of the impacted areas. they thought they were safe.   at that time, rules were "groups no larger than 50" for the impacted areas.  well - they had a group of 60. they followed the "distancing rules".  no one who was sick was allowed.   well, one person was carrying, but asymptomatic.  now - 45 of the group of 60 - have it.  two people are dead.

I can worship at home.  I can study my scriptures with the study guides my church has put out.  I can listen to talks online by my church leaders.  And most importantly - I can pray to my Heavenly Father - who hears me even when I'm at home.    On sunday - we had a skype family "church" with three different locations together.   

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Katy said:

 

Exposures in a subway or grocery store or emergency room cannot be avoided.  Exposures in churches can.

Well, I would say they can be avoided in all of those places. See: China. It just depends on what the government tells you where you must avoid exposure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think everyone piling on to tell me how essential the subway is compared to whatever right to assemble is making the point they think they are. And please stop focusing on Christian churches. If it helps, think of your right to assemble to hold a protest.

People are willing to make trade offs. That is the point. We are going to open up society again while covid is still around. People might even meet in churches again before it's all over.

I stopped going to church before our church stopped holding services because we traveled through a high risk area in early March and many members of our church are very old. My kids are the ONLY kids in our clump of houses that aren't playing outside with everyone else. You're not talking with someone who doesn't understand how this works.

The reality is that people get very angry when you disagree with current measures being taken by the government that may seem nonsensical. They will leap to defending whatever the government says is the right way to do things or justify the businesses and facilities left open. We have to keep people placated and docile with their alcohol and pot, but religion doesn't have any place there. It's almost funny. And: "You can assemble to hold your protest against these measures when the government says it's safe to do so."

What I really fear is that this pandemic is drawing a line between those who are allowed to keep their paychecks because they are essential and those who are not. In the name of protecting the vulnerable.

But I have to go psych myself up to go to the endodontist. Luckily we don't have subways here or I'd be much more reluctant to go.

Edited by EmseB
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the church equivalent of a bottle shop or grocery would be a drop in type thing.  There have been really significant spread events from church services.  There is a health issue that’s there with mass gatherings.  There should be no issue with someone dropping in to talk to priest/pastor for pastoral care.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm normally very wary of the slippery slope, but from what I've been able to gather an overwhelming majority of the positive cases in my immediate area have been traced back to a revival meeting at a local Baptist church. So it's hard for me to feel much of anything but anger about that. I'm sure they didn't do it intentionally, but really -- this is to me a golden opportunity (pun fully intended) for Christians to practice "doing unto others." And too many of them are massively failing.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am angry at the church goers because what is so special about them that they get to do that and the rest of us don't. It is lent. Almost all of us would love to go to church. This religious showing off as more righteous, having more faith grandstanding is pissing me off. I am angrier at this than the partying spring breakers. That was ignorance, this is hubris. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well since we can't get over the mental leap of hostility toward Christian church services which may or may not be happening in any given location, most of this discussion seems kind of pointless.

As a tangent, If you think the spring breakers weren't operating on hubris, I'd encourage you to watch some of the news videos where they insist that they know they are putting themselves and others at risk but felt entitled to their vacation. But it's largely beside the point of this thread. It's just very telling that one might make you angrier than another.

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

Well since we can't get over the mental leap of hostility toward Christian church services which may or may not be happening in any given location, most of this discussion seems kind of pointless.

As a tangent, If you think the spring breakers weren't operating on hubris, I'd encourage you to watch some of the news videos where they insist that they know they are putting themselves and others at risk but felt entitled to their vacation. But it's largely beside the point of this thread. It's just very telling that one might make you angrier than another.

I’m equally angry at anyone not following the guidelines. But I would guess that some might be more angry at religious people who break the rules in the name of religion because it would seem to go against what they profess to believe and practice.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparing large church gatherings to people buying alcohol or cannabis makes no sense. That argument basically boils down to "If people are allowed to purchase and consume substances that I don't approve of in the privacy of their own homes, then people should be allowed to gather in large groups and engage in virus-spreading activities that I do approve of." If people were allowed to consume alcohol in large groups while churches were closed, that would be unfair, but that's not happening — bars and restaurants are closed for the exact same reason that churches are closed. If hundreds and even thousands of people should be allowed to gather in churches, where they engage in activities that are exceptionally conducive to viral spread (singing and praying in close proximity to others, shaking hands, etc.), then there is no logical argument for closing any other venues or prohibiting any other activities.

I also don't understand the subway argument. If you don't close the only form of transportation that many people have (preventing many essential workers from getting to work and leaving others with no means of obtaining food or going to the doctor), then there's no point in restricting any nonessential activities either? If you can't shut down everything, don't shut down anything? Or is the argument that it's OK to shut down some things, just not the things that I want to do (church, basketball courts, state parks)? 

Both of those arguments basically come down to either "shut-downs that inconvenience other people are ok, but the ones that inconvenience me are not" or "we should just let the virus run its course without shutting anything down, even if that results in hundreds of thousands more deaths."  At least the latter is logically consistent.

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, EmseB said:

Well, I would say they can be avoided in all of those places. See: China. It just depends on what the government tells you where you must avoid exposure.

 

I would say China is lying.  Everyone who sneaks out evidence to the contrary of the official claims get murdered.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, EmseB said:

I think the point is more this:

If you're going to leave the subway open because it is essential (and please look at some of the videos from the subway from the last week or so) there is no point in closing churches forcibly or arresting people for holding services.

 

Yes, there is! You are at least keeping it from spreading at those services! Would it help even more if we could close all public transportation? sure. But then the workers have no way to get to work, peopel can't get to buy food, people can't get to the hospitals to keep them running, etc etc. 

So we shut down where we can. Because we don't want perfect to be the enemy of the good. 

 

10 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

 

I also don't understand the subway argument. If you don't close the only form of transportation that many people have (preventing many essential workers from getting to work and leaving others with no means of obtaining food or going to the doctor), then there's no point in restricting any nonessential activities either? If you can't shut down everything, don't shut down anything?

 

That does seem to be the argument. Which again, makes no sense. If people are being exposed at the grocery store and on the bus, all the more reason NOT to have those same people at the church, infecting those who didn't ride the bus or go to the store!

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It must vary by state whether churches and other religious bodies are considered essential or not. In Ohio, they are. 
https://www.cleveland19.com/2020/03/23/here-is-list-what-is-considered-essential-under-ohios-stay-home-order-can-remain-open/

Which means we get this:

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2020/03/30/solid-rock-church-held-services-sunday-amid-coronavirus-pandemic/5089596002/

 

Edited by livetoread
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Katy said:

 

It's not a mental leap at all.  It's basic exponential math. More exposures = more infections = more overwhelm in the hospitals.

Essential people who must go to work must still go to work, even if they live in the city and don't own a car.  It is not essential to gather in huge churches and spread contagion.

Yes, my dd must have public transportation in order to get to her very essential health-care job in a hotspot. As do most, if not all, of her co-workers.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Well since we can't get over the mental leap of hostility toward Christian church services which may or may not be happening in any given location, most of this discussion seems kind of pointless.

As a tangent, If you think the spring breakers weren't operating on hubris, I'd encourage you to watch some of the news videos where they insist that they know they are putting themselves and others at risk but felt entitled to their vacation. But it's largely beside the point of this thread. It's just very telling that one might make you angrier than another.

Selfish people have done whatever they wanted throughout history when the world burns around them.  The current spring breakers are like Nero to me in that respect. Except anger at not social distancing and concern for law enforcement and medical personnel who have to treat these idiots and resource shortage because of deliberate actions I do not care about them. They are like the toilet lickers to me.

But anger against the church is more because there is no reason for church to be held in a mass congregation. I can say a lot in words about it, but I will use the words of the Lord himself to describe them. To me their actions make them "White washed tombs". That is the reason I am angrier than the stupid spring breakers and toilet lickers.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Our family is completely staying at home except for work (DH in ag and DS in designing automated equipment for transportation and distribution companies - both essential), groceries, handing out food at our local food pantry, and outside walks by ourselves. So obviously I fully support doing what we can to flatten the curve and I'm ok with being fairly significantly inconvenienced to accomplish that. I'll also admit to being annoyed by people like my MIL and SIL who got together for dinner the other night. I think it's ok to ask people to pull together and give up some of their rights for the greater good (although it's also ok to ask probing questions about that process).

BUT ... I am honestly pretty disturbed by the idea expressed more than once in this thread that people who are not social distancing should basically suck it up and die alone at home without medical treatment if they had the selfishness/audacity/stupidity not to follow guidelines.

Ummmm... what????

Since when is it ok - and seemingly even considered morally superior by some in this thread - to want to deny medical treatment to anyone? Even stupid and/or selfish people? Exactly how much selfishness or ignorance determines whether a person is entitled to seek treatment or not? And who measures it?

Christians who chose to go to church despite guidelines saying not to are being called hypocrites because their actions are not loving and not putting others first. I would actually totally agree with that statement. But it's also pretty hypocritical to claim the moral high ground and then turn around and tell those "other" hypocrites to stay home and die if they get sick in a pandemic.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Momto6inIN said:

Our family is completely staying at home except for work (DH in ag and DS in designing automated equipment for transportation and distribution companies - both essential), groceries, handing out food at our local food pantry, and outside walks by ourselves. So obviously I fully support doing what we can to flatten the curve and I'm ok with being fairly significantly inconvenienced to accomplish that. I'll also admit to being annoyed by people like my MIL and SIL who got together for dinner the other night. I think it's ok to ask people to pull together and give up some of their rights for the greater good (although it's also ok to ask probing questions about that process).

BUT ... I am honestly pretty disturbed by the idea expressed more than once in this thread that people who are not social distancing should basically suck it up and die alone at home without medical treatment if they had the selfishness/audacity/stupidity not to follow guidelines.

Ummmm... what????

Since when is it ok - and seemingly even considered morally superior by some in this thread - to want to deny medical treatment to anyone? Even stupid and/or selfish people? Exactly how much selfishness or ignorance determines whether a person is entitled to seek treatment or not? And who measures it?

Christians who chose to go to church despite guidelines saying not to are being called hypocrites because their actions are not loving and not putting others first. I would actually totally agree with that statement. But it's also pretty hypocritical to claim the moral high ground and then turn around and tell those "other" hypocrites to stay home and die if they get sick in a pandemic.

 

I said something like stay home, I didn't say someone should be denied treatment. Basically, reap what you're choosing to sew.  Would I deny someone care?  No.  But if I die due to saving the lives of those too selfish to stay home because "it's just the flu" or "that only happens to old people" or "my right to attend supersedes your right to not die," they are morally culpable for not only my life, but for all those lost because I wasn't there to save someone else. This sounds extreme because it is an extreme situation. If you look at what's been happening in Italy, where literally people were sent home to die because there aren't enough doctors and nurses, or where dead bodies were left in homes for days...  I'm not saying reap what you sew because I lack compassion.  I'm saying reap what you sew as a warning to stop sewing death.

I don't think telling someone to stay home now or stay home to die when they get sick is all that different than preparing for a hurricane.  Emergency workers warn people on the coast for days that a hurricane is coming and they need to prepare. They issue evacuation orders in flood and coastal zones.  And finally they say write your name and social security number on your body with a sharpie so we can try to get your body back to your relatives. They warn they aren't going to respond to 911 calls during the middle of the storm.  We'll send a search party after you when the winds dip below 45 mph.  Why do they say this?  Because for years people ignored the advice, and first responders lost their lives trying to rescue the stubbornly stupid.

There is a difference when someone chooses to risk their life because they are serving others.  Whether it's shopping for an elderly neighbor, performing resuscitation on someone in respiratory distress, going to work as a cashier at the grocery store, or picking up waste as a garbage man...  Those are the risks that are worth it. Risking your life because you want what you want and you want it now is something else entirely.  I hope that people realize if they get sick because they are selfish and someone dies trying to save them that death is their fault.  It's not unlike drunk driving.  You probably won't kill someone but if you do it will be your fault.

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Katy said:

 

I said something like stay home, I didn't say someone should be denied treatment. Basically, reap what you're choosing to sew.  Would I deny someone care?  No.  But if I die due to saving the lives of those too selfish to stay home because "it's just the flu" or "that only happens to old people" or "my right to attend supersedes your right to not die," they are morally culpable for not only my life, but for all those lost because I wasn't there to save someone else. This sounds extreme because it is an extreme situation. If you look at what's been happening in Italy, where literally people were sent home to die because there aren't enough doctors and nurses, or where dead bodies were left in homes for days...  I'm not saying reap what you sew because I lack compassion.  I'm saying reap what you sew as a warning to stop sewing death.

I don't think telling someone to stay home now or stay home to die when they get sick is all that different than preparing for a hurricane.  Emergency workers warn people on the coast for days that a hurricane is coming and they need to prepare. They issue evacuation orders in flood and coastal zones.  And finally they say write your name and social security number on your body with a sharpie so we can try to get your body back to your relatives. They warn they aren't going to respond to 911 calls during the middle of the storm.  We'll send a search party after you when the winds dip below 45 mph.  Why do they say this?  Because for years people ignored the advice, and first responders lost their lives trying to rescue the stubbornly stupid.

There is a difference when someone chooses to risk their life because they are serving others.  Whether it's shopping for an elderly neighbor, performing resuscitation on someone in respiratory distress, going to work as a cashier at the grocery store, or picking up waste as a garbage man...  Those are the risks that are worth it. Risking your life because you want what you want and you want it now is something else entirely.  I hope that people realize if they get sick because they are selfish and someone dies trying to save them that death is their fault.  It's not unlike drunk driving.  You probably won't kill someone but if you do it will be your fault.

 

There's a difference between saying, "If you die or someone else dies because you didn't stay home, then it's your fault." (which is true and I agree with) and saying, "Because it's your own fault, I also hope you choose to stay home and die alone."

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...