What's your COVID-19 gameplan?

thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
Thats the whole crux of it for me. Sorry to edit out the bulk of your post, it was a very good rebuttal with many excellent points (Im being genuine, sorry if this sounds ~unintentionally~ condescending!)

Most of us ARE complying, for good reason. I disagree with those who dont comply, and I disagree with the defence of them not complying.
I am complying, I disagree with those who don't comply, and there is no defense for them not to comply...hopefully like HIT4ME said peer pressure will be enough to prevent further church congregational gatherings...I just want constitutional rights to be protected until violating those rights is the only means of compliance.

I truly appreciate your side, I always try with the best of my ability to be on the side of what is best for the AMERICAN people.
 
Nac

Nac

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
People with weakened immune systems are always at risk of dying from any infection. Should we protect those people indefinitely by maintaining the shelter in place order until we have cured them? Or rather force them to stay home to protect them from everyone else? Grey lines.

Before the crisis they were dying from the flu other healthy people were giving them. Should those healthy people be charged with a crime? Because they got someone sick and died?
Yip, sure, of course there are grey lines: nature doesnt follow our "human, all too human" categorisations. As I already said, our human philosophies and ideals and such are ultimately arbitrary. But thats why we have discourse that is reasonable and rational. We as a community can agree that, whilst not perfect, our codes of conduct etc are practical works in progress.
 

stimtron

Member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
Yip, sure, of course there are grey lines: nature doesnt follow our "human, all too human" categorisations. As I already said, our human philosophies and ideals and such are ultimately arbitrary. But thats why we have discourse that is reasonable and rational. We as a community can agree that, whilst not perfect, our codes of conduct etc are practical works in progress.
Doesn't answer my questions. After this crisis those with weakened immune systems are still at risk of dying from colds and flus. How we we address a. Preventing either them from getting sick or preventing otherwise healthy people from infecting them with their disease? b. Do we hold those who got them sick accountable especially if they die? Is it murder? It is a crime?
 

stimtron

Member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
Im neither a fatalist nor a defeatist. Normally. Plus I have a wife and kids.

We are all in the same boat. A highly contagious virus gives no fux about our ultimately arbitrary human philosophies and ideals. But I certainly give a fuk when people are blatantly disregarding sh1t that puts the rest of us unnecessarily at risk.
If you are staying at home how are others putting you at risk exactly? I can respect social distancing as a pragmatic solution for those who go out in public and especially public services like buses, trains, airports, etc. However what adults chose to do willfully and consentably with each other in private is another matter altogether.
 

stimtron

Member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
guns and religious freedom are both protected by the constitution, if we are willing to start giving away our constitutional rights where will we draw the line?
Can't draw the line if the gov is the only one with pencils.
 
justhere4comm

justhere4comm

Banned
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
If you are staying at home how are others putting you at risk exactly? I can respect social distancing as a pragmatic solution for those who go out in public and especially public services like buses, trains, airports, etc. However what adults chose to do willfully and consentably with each other in private is another matter altogether.
They are putting other people in jeopardy that could need a ventilator that normally would not if they just stayed at home. What if a percentage of them get sick? Need a ventilator, and then my wife who's in healthcare gets sick and for some reason can't? How do you think the thought of that makes me feel about people going to church?

You don't seem to get the selfishness or seriousness in this.
 
Nac

Nac

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
If you are staying at home how are others putting you at risk exactly? I can respect social distancing as a pragmatic solution for those who go out in public and especially public services like buses, trains, airports, etc. However what adults chose to do willfully and consentably with each other in private is another matter altogether.
Both my wife and I are essential workers. Plus, we still have to frequent public places that others frequent, to purchase life-sustaining produce.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
They are putting other people in jeopardy that could need a ventilator that normally would not if they just stayed at home. What if a percentage of them get sick? Need a ventilator, and then my wife who's in healthcare gets sick and for some reason can't? How do you think the thought of that makes me feel about people going to church?

You don't seem to get the selfishness or seriousness in this.
WALMART???

KROGERS???
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
Both my wife and I are essential workers. Plus, we still have to frequent public places that others frequent, to purchase life-sustaining produce.
Walmart/krogers must be scary places for you...I see people not practicing social distancing all over in those places. way more than 10 people gathered at any time, my bet is that if I do get coronaviris it will be from one of those two places.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
They are putting other people in jeopardy that could need a ventilator that normally would not if they just stayed at home. What if a percentage of them get sick? Need a ventilator, and then my wife who's in healthcare gets sick and for some reason can't? How do you think the thought of that makes me feel about people going to church?

You don't seem to get the selfishness or seriousness in this.
while I agree with you...in all honesty I don't think you were a big fan of church going to start with.
 

stimtron

Member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
They are putting other people in jeopardy that could need a ventilator that normally would not if they just stayed at home. What if a percentage of them get sick? Need a ventilator, and then my wife who's in healthcare gets sick and for some reason can't? How do you think the thought of that makes me feel about people going to church?

You don't seem to get the selfishness or seriousness in this.
If you're staying home how exactly are you going to catch this virus from others? You can't. That's why those concerned are staying home.

If people are not staying home they are aware there's a risk in getting sick especially if not following social distancing and basic protective care (mask). Essential workers know this and do it anyway. Are you blaming essential workers for going to work? Are they not jeopardizing everyone they come in contact in your view?

Many landlords are kicking out people who are essential workers because they don't want to get sick. It's a type of precrime concern and comes down to giving into fear over people's rights not to be discriminated solely on their job position. Do you believe this is right?

I get this is personal to you and defines how you feel towards it. I'm simply discussing it rationally so we can examine the situation, our viewpoints, and see where the lines fall.

As far as church goes yes there's obviously a concern people who go could get sick and make others sick who come in close contact with them. I would not socialize with anyone who's been to church for that reason. Equally I would not socialize with healthcare workers since they are dealing with COVID-19 patients. Is your wife putting you at risk because she's an essential worker? Yes. How are you dealing with that risk?
 
Last edited:

stimtron

Member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
Both my wife and I are essential workers. Plus, we still have to frequent public places that others frequent, to purchase life-sustaining produce.
Why not order online? By going out you are not only putting yourselves at risk but others are you not?
 
Last edited:

stimtron

Member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
Walmart/krogers must be scary places for you...I see people not practicing social distancing all over in those places. way more than 10 people gathered at any time, my bet is that if I do get coronaviris it will be from one of those two places.
Pretty much. If you see people not practicing social distancing you have the right to distance yourself from them. I've seen busses that were too full to practice social distancing. So why would I get on the bus? I rather walk so I can choose to avoid people with risking myself or others. Equally if I see a bunch of people outside a restaurant doing a pickup I cross the street. People have to accept to a degree their own responsibility for avoiding situations in which they can get sick within reason.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
mosques across the country have sent bulletins to their members, urging worshipers to employ best practices when attending 'congregational' prayers.

@justhere4comm
 
Nac

Nac

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Why not order online? By going out you are not only putting yourselves at risk but others are you not?
Online grocery ordering has been inundated where I live to the point where it is now reserved exclusively for those who are considered medically most at risk, which I am totally cool with.

By going out yes, I am increasing my risk factor. But common sense would say this action is on a different point of the sliding scale than congregating at a church.
 
Nac

Nac

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Walmart/krogers must be scary places for you...I see people not practicing social distancing all over in those places. way more than 10 people gathered at any time, my bet is that if I do get coronaviris it will be from one of those two places.
Where I live, grocery stores limit customer numbers in-store to minimise crowding.
 

stimtron

Member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
Online grocery ordering has been inundated where I live to the point where it is now reserved exclusively for those who are considered medically most at risk, which I am totally cool with.

By going out yes, I am increasing my risk factor. But common sense would say this action is on a different point of the sliding scale than congregating at a church.
I've never heard that. Is there a news report or something? If true how do would they even confirm who is at risk? I can't imagine grocery stores are asking people who order to provide medical records. Is it going on the honor system?

The action is different as the risk may be higher where more people are present yes. But the risk you may get others sick being essential workers may be higher than average. I admit I avoid essential workers as best I can since they present the greatest threat to everyone especially those who work in the hospital.
 
justhere4comm

justhere4comm

Banned
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
My wife has asthma, and underlying health conditions that would put her in a more dangerous position. What's worse beyond that, if she gets Covid-19, I would not be enabled to visit or be with her bedside.

Imagine with me for a moment: Your love of your life is in a bed on a ventilator, and the prognosis is not that good then. Now think about people purposefully gathering when most others are not for the sake of those at risk. How important is going to church now? Is that really essential?

Or, maybe do you suppose people could pray while attending mass remotely?
Wouldn't that be the more responsible thing to do?

Most churches near us have elected to not open their doors, but one near our two girls had a gathering just the other night down the street from them. Here's a photo. Irresponsible and moronic.

192716
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Ron DeSantis deems religious services ‘essential’ — allows them to continue amid coronavirus outbreak..
I'm going to say, this is not a victimless crime and he should be prosecuted for this reckless endangerment of public safety.

You want to pray? Pray at home. Apparently God is everywhere and requires no 'place' to be worshiped.
Oh, and churches should be taxed starting now.
I would assume, hopefully, I’ll even go so far as to say I’ll pray, that the previous mandates of no more than 10 people per gathering or whatever still apply, and that any local/county/city level restrictions that are more restrictive still apply. I know I’m in South Florida, and, for example, the Town of Palm Beach had more restrictive limits than Palm Beach County did, so within the Town of PB, the County laws had to be followed, and the more restrictive Town laws also. So to use the crazy Tampa church as an example, even if the State exempts them as “essential,” the Hillsborough County laws (that’s where they are) still place a limit of 10 people per gathering, so the Church would have to have no more than 10 people per service, or they can still be in big trouble.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
People with weakened immune systems are always at risk of dying from any infection. Should we protect those people indefinitely by maintaining the shelter in place order until we have cured them? Or rather force them to stay home to protect them from everyone else? Grey lines.

Before the crisis they were dying from the flu other healthy people were giving them. Should those healthy people be charged with a crime? Because they got someone sick and died? How would you even begin to hold people accountable for that?
This is FAR worse than the flu. By orders of magnitude worse. More infectious and more deadly.

We have natural immunities to rhinoviruses and the flu; we dont have any for this coronavirus. Because we can fight off the flu, a very small percentage of people end up with complications requiring hospital treatment. At present, coronavirus is pushing 20% of total infected getting severe symptoms. Sure, the vulnerable have a higher chance of dying, but even the people in the healthy bracket are being hospitalized and taking up resources. Just because they dont die, doesnt mean they dont have fluid leaking into their lungs and are not being treated in the ER.

If we start hitting flu-like numbers for total infected, expect to see hospitals overwhelmed and far more people dying. Even those outside the vulnerable bracket.
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Believers ain't scared of the Rona dawg.... And trying to tell people they can't go to church would be like telling people they can't own guns. Government getting a little bit too involved and how to control people. Understandably Is it wise probably not but yet all the same people going to go to church cuz Faith. That's something people either get it or they don't. Either way all the same different strokes for different folks
No, it’s not “different strokes for different folks,” it’s if you get 500 people all going to one service, they can expose tens of thousands of people...

They can go to Church, but still have to follow the limits on gathering sizes, be it 10 or 50 or whatever the state/municipality says. You don’t have a “right” to disobey assembly size orders because it’s “freedom of assembly” or “separation of church and state” and more than a church has the right to ignore building/fire codes that establish maximum occupancy limits.
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Believers ain't scared of the Rona dawg.... And trying to tell people they can't go to church would be like telling people they can't own guns. Government getting a little bit too involved and how to control people. Understandably Is it wise probably not but yet all the same people going to go to church cuz Faith. That's something people either get it or they don't. Either way all the same different strokes for different folks
No, it’s not “different strokes for different folks,” it’s if you get 500 people all going to one service, they can expose tens of thousands of people...

They can go to Church, but still have to follow the limits on gathering sizes, be it 10 or 50 or whatever the state/municipality says. You don’t have a “right” to disobey assembly size orders because it’s “freedom of assembly” or “separation of church and state” and more than a church has the right to ignore building/fire codes that establish maximum occupancy limits.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
US total reported infected: 240,000
US total reported dead: 5800

Mortality: 2.41%

That number is climbing daily.
 

stimtron

Member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
My wife has asthma, and underlying health conditions that would put her in a more dangerous position. What's worse beyond that, if she gets Covid-19, I would not be enabled to visit or be with her bedside.

Imagine with me for a moment: Your love of your life is in a bed on a ventilator, and the prognosis is not that good then. Now think about people purposefully gathering when most others are not for the sake of those at risk. How important is going to church now? Is that really essential?

Or, maybe do you suppose people could pray while attending mass remotely?
Wouldn't that be the more responsible thing to do?

Most churches near us have elected to not open their doors, but one near our two girls had a gathering just the other night down the street from them. Here's a photo. Irresponsible and moronic.
You are very focused on what could happen to your wife and I while do respect your concern for her well being. Does your wife plan to meet up with anyone who's been to church recently? How do their actions directly affect or indirectly your wife? This is the connection I'm just not seeing. It's like you're converting your fear of your wife getting sick while staying at home into anger for those going to church because you feel they could get someones wife or somehow yours sick.

While I certainly would not recommend going to church or having a party. For some people the church is their only family and to be told you have to not be with your family especially those with depression or other mental issues the risk of their mental health may not be properly considered. It is somewhat in parallel with undocumented workers who are separated from their kids or only family they have ever known. The psychological impacts are real, potentially long term, and not easily resolved. How will the gov address those issues.
 
Nac

Nac

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
People with weakened immune systems are always at risk of dying from any infection. Should we protect those people indefinitely by maintaining the shelter in place order until we have cured them? Or rather force them to stay home to protect them from everyone else? Grey lines.

Before the crisis they were dying from the flu other healthy people were giving them. Should those healthy people be charged with a crime? Because they got someone sick and died? How would you even begin to hold people accountable for that?
Just because we as a society cannot eliminate all of lifes risks, doesnt then mean we just throw up our hands and say "fuk it, lets not bother reducing ANY, all bets off!!"

I think we as a group decide, either implicitly or explicitly, that we are prepared to live with certain risks.
 

stimtron

Member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
This is FAR worse than the flu. By orders of magnitude worse. More infectious and more deadly.

We have natural immunities to rhinoviruses and the flu; we dont have any for this coronavirus. Because we can fight off the flu, a very small percentage of people end up with complications requiring hospital treatment. At present, coronavirus is pushing 20% of total infected getting severe symptoms. Sure, the vulnerable have a higher chance of dying, but even the people in the healthy bracket are being hospitalized and taking up resources. Just because they dont die, doesnt mean they dont have fluid leaking into their lungs and are not being treated in the ER.

If we start hitting flu-like numbers for total infected, expect to see hospitals overwhelmed and far more people dying. Even those outside the vulnerable bracket.
That I don't at all disagree with. My comment was focused on those who the flu or cold present as much as a risk as COVID-19. Hence weakened immune systems. Or do we only aim to protect the majority of healthy people from contagious viral death and only hold people who get them sick with COVID-19 accountable?
 

stimtron

Member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
No, it’s not “different strokes for different folks,” it’s if you get 500 people all going to one service, they can expose tens of thousands of people...

They can go to Church, but still have to follow the limits on gathering sizes, be it 10 or 50 or whatever the state/municipality says. You don’t have a “right” to disobey assembly size orders because it’s “freedom of assembly” or “separation of church and state” and more than a church has the right to ignore building/fire codes that establish maximum occupancy limits.
It's funny in the past people listened to religious leaders unquestioningly by divine right. Now we listen to leaders who cite experts unquestioningly to avoid social scrutiny. It's a fine line between control and risk. It does not have to be black and white.

Personally if people want to go to church I think the churches should test everyone prior to admittance. This way the risk of anyone getting or giving the virus is mute.
 
justhere4comm

justhere4comm

Banned
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Reported infected. We know actual infected is much higher, which in turn reduces the mortality percentage.
True and the unreported deaths not attributed as well. The cdc is removing people from the list and I question their veracity.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
That I don't at all disagree with. My comment was focused on those who the flu or cold present as much as a risk as COVID-19. Hence weakened immune systems. Or do we only aim to protect the majority of healthy people from contagious viral death and only hold people who get them sick with COVID-19 accountable?
There is no comparison. It's not "the same risk" as the flu, it is orders of magnitudes more of a risk.

People with high blood pressure, diabetes and other heart diseases are in the vulnerable category. That would account for a significant chunk of the US, right? Its not just immunocompromised people from genetic disorders, theres a whole array of people who are consider vulnerable that probably dont consider themselves vulnerable.
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
You are very focused on what could happen to your wife and I while do respect your concern for her well being. Does your wife plan to meet up with anyone who's been to church recently? How do their actions directly affect or indirectly your wife? This is the connection I'm just not seeing. It's like you're converting your fear of your wife getting sick while staying at home into anger for those going to church because you feel they could get someones wife or somehow yours sick.

While I certainly would not recommend going to church or having a party. For some people the church is their only family and to be told you have to not be with your family especially those with depression or other mental issues the risk of their mental health may not be properly considered. It is somewhat in parallel with undocumented workers who are separated from their kids or only family they have ever known. The psychological impacts are real, potentially long term, and not easily resolved. How will the gov address those issues.
You are either very shortsighted, or just being disingenuous here. I’ll let you take your pick which you find preferable. Even if his wife isn’t going out at all, having people gather in hundreds in very close proximity in a church potentially exposes hundreds of people at one time, and those people go to essential services like grocery stores and pharmacies, where they will come in contact with thousands of other people who don’t go to church, such as the husband of the wife who may not even be leaving the house. And sometimes even people who have existing conditions have to go out to the store if they don’t have someone else to go for them, and they can be exposed to people, including the idiots who go to a church where they’re brushing shoulders with hundreds of people in one room...
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
That I don't at all disagree with. My comment was focused on those who the flu or cold present as much as a risk as COVID-19. Hence weakened immune systems. Or do we only aim to protect the majority of healthy people from contagious viral death and only hold people who get them sick with COVID-19 accountable?
That’s no one...

People with existing conditions who are extra vulnerable to the cold and flu are even MORE vulnerable to COVID; they all present more risk that they do to the average person, but COVID’s risk to them is greater than the colds...

Not to mention that if the hospitals become overwhelmed with cases, many people, especially vulnerable ones, will not have access to proper treatment equipment they need, which was never an issue with being hospitalized for the cold or flu.

So again, you’re either being very ignorant or disingenuous...
 
Nac

Nac

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Doesn't answer my questions. After this crisis those with weakened immune systems are still at risk of dying from colds and flus. How we we address a. Preventing either them from getting sick or preventing otherwise healthy people from infecting them with their disease? b. Do we hold those who got them sick accountable especially if they die? Is it murder? It is a crime?
I suspect you already know my answers...

A) we revert back to our way of life before this current sh1tstorm, generally speaking

B) No

Neither of my responses are inconsistent with nor contradict the ethical practice of a society continuing to care (in the widest sense of the term) for the vulnerable.
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
It's funny in the past people listened to religious leaders unquestioningly by divine right. Now we listen to leaders who cite experts unquestioningly to avoid social scrutiny. It's a fine line between control and risk. It does not have to be black and white.

Personally if people want to go to church I think the churches should test everyone prior to admittance. This way the risk of anyone getting or giving the virus is mute.
Oh, yes, because clearly we have 500 tests for every single church every service. Perfect allocation of resources when we have a limited supply of tests available...
 
Nac

Nac

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
^exactly, Im reading lots of abstract ideals put forward here, but no real practical and immediate way of implementing them that doesnt have undesireable impacts on other areas.

Why indulge these people (congregators) who refuse to follow the directions others see the sense in?
 

stimtron

Member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
There is no comparison. It's not "the same risk" as the flu, it is orders of magnitudes more of a risk.

People with high blood pressure, diabetes and other heart diseases are in the vulnerable category. That would account for a significant chunk of the US, right? Its not just immunocompromised people from genetic disorders, theres a whole array of people who are consider vulnerable that probably dont consider themselves vulnerable.
To those with weaken immune systems a flu, cold, covid-19 all pose a serious risk. It is those people who are the ones who die of the flu. If you gave someone who is immunocompromised the flu and they died should you be charged with murder or a crime yes or no? Most people I believe would say if someone gave someone COVID-19 and they died they should solely on the basis it's more dangerous than the flu to the majority of people. Majority rules are for the majority.
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
To those with weaken immune systems a flu, cold, covid-19 all pose a serious risk. It is those people who are the ones who die of the flu. If you gave someone who is immunocompromised the flu and they died should you be charged with murder or a crime yes or no? Most people I believe would say if someone gave someone COVID-19 and they died they should solely on the basis it's more dangerous than the flu to the majority of people. Majority rules are for the majority.
Again, you’re oversimplifying things. Yes, the flu and cold pose a serious risk to people with weakened immune systems, but COVID poses a GREATER risk. Not all “serious” risks are equally serious you absolute dolt. Not to mention that this has the potential to overwhelm hospitals and lead to a shortage of lifesaving ventilators, which doesn’t happen with the annual flu, which could mean more deaths, for normal and vulnerable people alike.
 

stimtron

Member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
You are either very shortsighted, or just being disingenuous here. I’ll let you take your pick which you find preferable. Even if his wife isn’t going out at all, having people gather in hundreds in very close proximity in a church potentially exposes hundreds of people at one time, and those people go to essential services like grocery stores and pharmacies, where they will come in contact with thousands of other people who don’t go to church, such as the husband of the wife who may not even be leaving the house. And sometimes even people who have existing conditions have to go out to the store if they don’t have someone else to go for them, and they can be exposed to people, including the idiots who go to a church where they’re brushing shoulders with hundreds of people in one room...
Is there potential for them to get covid-19 yes. Is there potential for them to then get others sick who don't practice social distracting or who come in unprotected contact with essential workers yes. Is there potential just the same for essential workers to get everyone who goes to the store, bus, train, hospital, jail, police station sick yes. The only way to not get sick is to stay home or practicing social distancing while wearing a mask and taking proper measures.

Who is at greater risk someone who goes to church and is exposed to dozens of people at once for an hour or so. Or an essential worker who comes into contact with dozens of people over the course of 8-10 hours? Now that is a good question.
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Is there potential for them to get covid-19 yes. Is there potential for them to then get others sick who don't practice social distracting or who come in unprotected contact with essential workers yes. Is there potential just the same for essential workers to get everyone who goes to the store, bus, train, hospital, jail, police station sick yes. The only way to not get sick is to stay home or practicing social distancing while wearing a mask and taking proper measures.

Who is at greater risk someone who goes to church and is exposed to dozens of people at once for an hour or so. Or an essential worker who comes into contact with dozens of people over the course of 8-10 hours? Now that is a good question.
Every time you go out you risk exposure. That’s why we limit things to “essential” services, and, even then, try to practice social distancing via having separation in lines, not having dine-in at restaurants, etc.

So, having church services where you have hundreds of people all in very close proximity for an extended period of time, you create a hotspot of potential exposure.

“Now that is a good question.” Lol, no it’s not. The essential worker who is exposed to people for 8-10 hours a day has to work to keep society functioning. No cashier at Publix, no food. No food, you die. The mechanic has to fix the nurse’s car, because no car for nurse, no nurse for COVID patient. No nurse for patient, and you have dead patient.

So, now, with your carte blanche verdict on unrestricted church gatherings, these essential employees now come in contact with, and potentially expose, hundreds of people in a single room, who can then go on to expose thousands more people.

All to worship a God that is within us all at all times, when online services are offered everywhere, and when a core tenant of God/Jesus’ teachings is to love others, and to put others needs before our own. How is having to get our weekly church-kick at the potential expense of vulnerable people a Godly thing to do?
 

stimtron

Member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
I suspect you already know my answers...

A) we revert back to our way of life before this current sh1tstorm, generally speaking

B) No

Neither of my responses are inconsistent with nor contradict the ethical practice of a society continuing to care (in the widest sense of the term) for the vulnerable.
Thank you for answering.

So if you got someone sick and they died you feel you are not at fault only because most people don't die of the flu or because they were immunocompromised and that's on them?

These are important questions moreso because they focus us to think how we weight considerations for not just ourselves but others. If the majority considers it commonplace then I guess **** the minorities.
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Is there potential for them to get covid-19 yes. Is there potential for them to then get others sick who don't practice social distracting or who come in unprotected contact with essential workers yes. Is there potential just the same for essential workers to get everyone who goes to the store, bus, train, hospital, jail, police station sick yes. The only way to not get sick is to stay home or practicing social distancing while wearing a mask and taking proper measures.

Who is at greater risk someone who goes to church and is exposed to dozens of people at once for an hour or so. Or an essential worker who comes into contact with dozens of people over the course of 8-10 hours? Now that is a good question.
Every time you go out you risk exposure. That’s why we limit things to “essential” services, and, even then, try to practice social distancing via having separation in lines, not having dine-in at restaurants, etc.

So, having church services where you have hundreds of people all in very close proximity for an extended period of time, you create a hotspot of potential exposure.

“Now that is a good question.” Lol, no it’s not. The essential worker who is exposed to people for 8-10 hours a day has to work to keep society functioning. No cashier at Publix, no food. No food, you die. The mechanic has to fix the nurse’s car, because no car for nurse, no nurse for COVID patient. No nurse for patient, and you have dead patient.

So, now, with your carte blanche verdict on unrestricted church gatherings, these essential employees now come in contact with, and potentially expose, hundreds of people in a single room, who can then go on to expose thousands more people.

All to worship a God that is within us all at all times, when online services are offered everywhere, and when a core tenant of God/Jesus’ teachings is to love others, and to put others needs before our own. How is having to get our weekly church-kick at the potential expense of vulnerable people a Godly thing to do?
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
I know the Olympics are delayed, but fear not, because there is some Olympic-level mental gymnastics going on ITT!

Edit: Examples:

-Immune-compromised people are vulnerable to the cold and flu, therefore they must be no more vulnerable to COVID, because apparently all increased vulnerability is inherently equal

-Since essential workers, who without which society collapses and people die, are exposed to a large number of people daily, any activity that exposes people less than these vital workers must be allowed, since it poses less risks, even if said activity can be done entirely online via online services (see Church)
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
I know the Olympics are delayed, but fear not, because there is some Olympic-level mental gymnastics going on ITT!
 
DA_MOSS

DA_MOSS

New member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
True and the unreported deaths not attributed as well. The cdc is removing people from the list and I question their veracity.
You going to respond about your video you claimed Fox News was upset in, or you just going to overlook that?

Really. That's all you got after watching the video from Fox News?

Rush Limbaugh: February 24: "Folks, this coronavirus thing, I want to try to put this in perspective for you. It looks like the coronavirus is being weaponized as yet another element to bring down Donald Trump. Now, the truth, ... “The coronavirus is the common cold, folks."

Rush Limbaugh; Feb. 25: “They’re trying to lay it at Trump’s feet & make him responsible for it and they're doing irresponsible news reports claiming that the coronavirus is gonna destroy the US economy by when? November! Isn't it magical? The coronavirus is the new Russians..."

Rush Limbaugh: March 11: "This coronavirus, all of this panic isn’t warranted. This, I’m telling you, when I tell you — when I’ve told you that this virus is the common cold. When I said that, it was based on the number of cases. It’s also based on the kind of virus this is.”
All of that was brought up in the video? or did he bring up some of the downfalls so far , she thanked him and thats all...?
Are you sure you posted the right video? What premises? It is basically one statement from the Fox anchor and then him responding - she says, "What we hear is that there are millions of tests available, and yet we don't have that 15 minute finger prick test".

And the Dr. CONFIRMS this and says, yes - great question. He talks about how we do, now, have the FDA approved test as of the past week, but we needed this months ago and it's still not good enough because it is only one test at a time, not the large volume testing they need. He didn't disagree with anything - he confirmed and then took the case even further. Of course, maybe there is something before the clip that was cut off?

But from here it looks like a case of someone putting up a fox news clip and saying it states something, and then people watch it (or don't even watch it) and just believe it says whatever we were led to believe it said on instagram or twitter.
 

stimtron

Member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
Again, you’re oversimplifying things. Yes, the flu and cold pose a serious risk to people with weakened immune systems, but COVID poses a GREATER risk. Not all “serious” risks are equally serious you absolute dolt. Not to mention that this has the potential to overwhelm hospitals and lead to a shortage of lifesaving ventilators, which doesn’t happen with the annual flu, which could mean more deaths, for normal and vulnerable people alike.
I'm asking you to look at this from a viewpoint from those immunocompromised. You seem incapable of that.

COVID is a greater risk and I haven't stated otherwise both to those immunocompromised and the "healthy" who's immune systems are unable to fight it off.

Most people here I presume consider themselves healthy and are not concerned about how the flu or cold affects the immunocompromised which is a bit ironic as many who get covid-19 and have mild symptoms have immune systems strong enough to overcome it. Others without as strong of a immune system can not. It's all about degrees.

Also potentials as you said but what more can be done? Martial law? No going out for any reason. You want to blame church goers because you feel they are risking the potential to overwhelm hospitals because of their beliefs. Would you equally blame essential workers for doing the same? Or is this a game of blaming those who do something because of religion vs their job? There's potentials for many things in life and short of martial law you are not going to stop people from living their lives the way they want to because you feel they could get you or someone you know sick.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
You are either very shortsighted, or just being disingenuous here. I’ll let you take your pick which you find preferable. Even if his wife isn’t going out at all, having people gather in hundreds in very close proximity in a church potentially exposes hundreds of people at one time, and those people go to essential services like grocery stores and pharmacies, where they will come in contact with thousands of other people who don’t go to church, such as the husband of the wife who may not even be leaving the house. And sometimes even people who have existing conditions have to go out to the store if they don’t have someone else to go for them, and they can be exposed to people, including the idiots who go to a church where they’re brushing shoulders with hundreds of people in one room...
This is exactly it.
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
I'm asking you to look at this from a viewpoint from those immunocompromised. You seem incapable of that.

COVID is a greater risk and I haven't stated otherwise both to those immunocompromised and the "healthy" who's immune systems are unable to fight it off.

Most people here I presume consider themselves healthy and are not concerned about how the flu or cold affects the immunocompromised which is a bit ironic as many who get covid-19 and have mild symptoms have immune systems strong enough to overcome it. Others without as strong of a immune system can not. It's all about degrees.

Also potentials as you said but what more can be done? Martial law? No going out for any reason. You want to blame church goers because you feel they are risking the potential to overwhelm hospitals because of their beliefs. Would you equally blame essential workers for doing the same? Or is this a game of blaming those who do something because of religion vs their job? There's potentials for many things in life and short of martial law you are not going to stop people from living their lives the way they want to because you feel they could get you or someone you know sick.
I am immunocompromised. You know what they say about assuming...

And yes, without grocery stores and mechanics, society collapses and people literally die, within weeks, days even if it means doctors and nurses can’t get to work to help crucially ill patients.

If you don’t get to a physical Church for a few months, no one dies. You still have online services, you still have your Bible, you still have God within you, the Holy Spirit, that you can call upon literally any time anywhere.

If you want services with 10-50 people, all spaces 6 feet apart, whatever the local/state guidelines are, ok; I’m talking these whitewashed tomb, Christian in name only morons who gather in groups of hundreds shoulder-to-shoulder at services during this time.

I don’t blame the nurse who goes to work to save lives. I don’t blame the Publix cashier who goes to work. Without nurses and without grocery stores, PEOPLE WILL DIE. You don’t die without church for a month or two. So yes, I blame you infinitely more if you go to church with 500 people than if you go to work as an essential worker.

Does your a$$ ever get jealous of the s**t that comes out of your mouth?
 

Similar threads


Top