Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wonder if the devotee's donation to the church would go up or down if the church were to practice remote services. Wonder if this aspect has anything to do with some churches' insisting that in-person church attendance is the "religious" way to practice your faith.
True ..... somewhat. One size or one explanation does not fit all. Therefore, one has to be analytical, intelligent, knowledgeable, rational, ...... to be able to evaluate, judge and conclude EACH situation specifically and act or behave accordingly. Having said the above, sad to say that there always will be some percentage of people (maybe 20-30%?) that will be fail the "test". And of course, they can cite nice sounding reasons for justifications. Just watch the reasons some of "leaders" are spewing.
Wonder if the devotee's donation to the church would go up or down if the church were to practice remote services. Wonder if this aspect has anything to do with some churches' insisting that in-person church attendance is the "religious" way to practice your faith.
Follow the money. Afraid of lost revenue when the collection plate isn't going around. My favorite church is thousands of miles away so I've been "attending" online for years. I can fast-forward through the bad music, lol.
I wonder about Mexico not having that many cases? Or even India. Crowded poverty conditions...
It might take longer than a month, because we don’t know how long a recovered person continues to shed live virus. But yes, if we could somehow put every infected person into a quarantine until they wren no longer contagious, that would be the end of COVID-19. The virus would die out (at least in the human population; it might still exist in a bat or two somewhere).
And in the past when most people lived in small villages or tribal bands and rarely had contact with other groups, that is exactly what happened, repeatedly. Some goatherd who got infected with a mutated animal virus would go back to the village, and the virus would sweep through the villagers until it ran out of people to infect, and then the epidemic would be over. (Assuming the virus can’t live permanently in the human body, like chicken pox can. Then things get more complicated.)
What caused the Plague of Athens, or the Sweating Sickness that swept through England in the 1600s? We’ll never know for sure, but they could have been epidemics caused by novel viruses that burned out and so aren’t around today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sassybluesy
Because we live in a time where we have relatively cheap and plentiful international flights. Because we have many international businesses, and executives fly from here to there, and points beyond. When sick people travel, they're going to spread the virus.
You both make a good point about why now and not since 1918? One thing different now is people go all over the world like it's nothing, making it easy to spread like wildfire geographically. I'd be frightened to think what the 14th century (and lesser 17th century) bubonic plague pandemic would be like today (assuming it was new, I know we have treatments and a vaccine for it now).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ikari_Warrior_Danju
EXACTLY. Keeping people under lockdown is absolutely ridiculous and worthless at this point. Look at China, they're going BACK into lockdown in Wuhan and Harbin. For what? To go back into lockdown again?
The virus has to run its course while those whom are susceptible need to take whatever measures it is to ensure their safety or just stay home. We didn't do all this for the Swine flu back in 2009 and the swine flu was VERY bad.
The difference is swine flu was nowhere near as contagious, you did not have asymptomatic "carriers" who transmitted it, and there sort of was a vaccine for it.
But I think by being slow and draconian now, we can avoid having to do this twice which would be a huge catastrophic mistake to do (go through this twice)
It would spread anyway, because you cannot realistically isolate 100% of the population 100% of the time, even for a month. Food must be produced, processed, delivered. Gas and electricity must be kept online. Mobile people will spread it.
When everyone came outside in a month, from their Soviet-style incarceration, many will still be carriers.
Watch the infection/death curves of Sweden vs. Norway and Finland.
Sweden is allowing the disease to take its natural course. Norway and Finland are operating on the idea that a flattened curve will stay flattened. It won't. Sweden will have a bell-shaped curve, Norway and Finland will have waves. Time will tell who was smarter.
Unlawfully restricting freedom of movement and freedom of speech and freedom to practice religion, for "good causes," is a slippery slope, and not unintentional I believe. These are dangerous times, and covid is not the biggest danger.
What does the bolded mean? Just wondering. Did you think people in the Soviet bloc were required to live in isolation?
Sweden is actually practicing social distancing, to the extent of observing the 6 feet of distance rule. I'm not sure if everyone's wearing masks when they go out, though.
Anyway, time will tell how this little lab experiment going on in Scandinavia plays out.
EXACTLY. Keeping people under lockdown is absolutely ridiculous and worthless at this point. Look at China, they're going BACK into lockdown in Wuhan and Harbin. For what? To go back into lockdown again?
The virus has to run its course while those whom are susceptible need to take whatever measures it is to ensure their safety or just stay home. We didn't do all this for the Swine flu back in 2009 and the swine flu was VERY bad.
But remember though, some of the "experts" and ESPECIALLY the government, will NEVER admit that they were wrong.
Of course we're going to see an emergence in infections rates when states and countries open up.
And just like China, we will see places forced to close down again too, (and I assume the restrictions this time around will be much tougher).
Status:
"YAY! Trump guity! Hang Him!"
(set 6 days ago)
Location: Log "cabin" west of Bangor
7,064 posts, read 9,130,262 times
Reputation: 15660
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62
Well, the problem with explaining that is, every time liberties WERE taken away thru out history...it was ALWAYS done under the disguise of being in the best interest of the people!
Even when the Nazis took peoples liberties away, they still tried to make them believe it was being done in their best interest, to protect them from some threat, etc. of course, we know today, that was all a big lie, (thats why people are hesitant to trust Govts when they claim to be doing things for the peoples safety or for their own benefit), and you cannot really blame them.
I am a dedicated proponent of individual liberty, so much so that I am even further to the right than the Libertarians and 'Tea Party' movement...just barely falling short of anarchy.
But, I am also educated and I understand the progression of a disease like this. Common sense applied with that knowledge tells me that staying away from other people is the wisest course of action in a case where people who may not be visibly ill can be distributing an infection that is potentially lethal to a significant percentage of the population.
It's bad enough trying to stay away from people that you can *tell* are sick and spreading disease...but when any given person you may be talking to is a potential 'Typhoid Mary' with no outward signs, that's a complete game-changer.
I didn't *need* the 'government' to tell me to stay home, nor should anyone else. I took a lay-off a week before my governor gave the 'stay at home' order. The *official* 'order' has a dual purpose- firstly, it is the most sensible action/response to a disease of this nature, secondly, the official order kicks in the the monetary 'insurance' benefits that make it *feasible* to stay at home and minimize the risk of becoming infected. Look at the massive rates of infection at the meat processing facilities where people continued to go to work- so many that the plants had to shut down anyway. That alone should be enough to tell the most brain-damaged moron that being around other people is a Really Bad Idea right now.
But no, we still have idiots getting together in large groups to 'protest'. I look at them on the TV and think "Sheesh, how stupid can these people be?" 'Thick as a brick' doesn't come anywhere near to covering it. Frankly, I'd like to say "I hope every last one of them gets it and croaks", but they'd probably each spread it to dozens of others and survive while many of their unsuspecting victims die.
I'm glad I no longer live in a large metro area. Where I moved from, there have been almost 15,000 new cases over the last 7 days. No way Jose, I am *more* than happy to sit my butt at home in my house in the woods where I can't even see another person other than my wife. I have enough supplies on-hand that I don't need to go anywhere for months, enough land that I can grow more veggies than we could eat and plenty of delicious game for meat, anything else I need can be ordered and delivered (a big case of TP came just yesterday, along with about 150lbs of dog and cat food), and more than enough money to pay my mortgage for at least the next two years.
Stay home? You bet your sweet bippy. I ain't going *anywhere* if I can help it, and I don't need the governor or the president or anybody else to tell me it's the smart thing to do. Speaking of presidents...I liked The Donald up 'til now, but he is becoming embarrassing, I wish he would shut the [bleep] up and pay attention to what his expert medical advisors are saying. Isn't that what we pay them for?
If nobody saw anyone, the virus wouldn’t spread. Yet we have states ready to open. That undoes all the social distancing we have been doing.
Let’s say the world followed the strictest guidelines. No grocery shopping. You have to have groceries delivered. Or stock up for a month.
If we all did what we were supposed to do, then would the virus still be here?
I even think that people going to beaches and breaking rules should suffer the most dire consequences.
If everyone got delivery, then a significant fraction of the total population would have to become delivery drivers, which are people that you pay to go shopping for you. So lots of people would still be shopping, in effect. Or unloading from a larger vehicle or storage site, which, with multiple people doing it, would be effectively just like a grocery store all over again. You have re-invented the wheel, you have not replaced it with anything else.
Also, during this 30-day period you would still have intra-family spread. You get it on day 1, develop symptoms on day 10, then pass it on day 15 to your spouse, who then develops symptoms on day 25 and is still contagious on day 30.
Its not a matter of the religion itself, its gathering in order to observe it that is the problem. Some paranoid religious practitioners are screaming that stay-at-home orders are simply government's latest attempt to persecute them for their beliefs. Many businesses and public agencies have figured out how to function remotely. Religious congregations can do this too and many have. But oh no, some refuse because they would lose their newest excuse to feel martyred. 100, 200 or more devotees gathering in the same crowded building multiple times a week for a service doesn't seem like such a great idea right now. AFAIK it is entirely possible to practice the tenets of your religion individually at home for a while.
"where two or more are gathered in my name. . . ".
You both make a good point about why now and not since 1918? One thing different now is people go all over the world like it's nothing, making it easy to spread like wildfire geographically. I'd be frightened to think what the 14th century (and lesser 17th century) bubonic plague pandemic would be like today (assuming it was new, I know we have treatments and a vaccine for it now).
The difference is swine flu was nowhere near as contagious, you did not have asymptomatic "carriers" who transmitted it, and there sort of was a vaccine for it.
But I think by being slow and draconian now, we can avoid having to do this twice which would be a huge catastrophic mistake to do (go through this twice)
That's true, swine flu wasn't as contagious but the death toll was still very high and just like this virus, there was a second wave of it.
Going through this twice will result in major of civil unrest, I don't see how that will work. You'll definitely have the "Quarantine Gestapo" who will cheer lead it on but there's no way the government can keep printing money, coming out with stimulus packages then at the end expect people to fit the bill for the national debt. NO WAY. A second lockdown will make people realize how much of a farce this all is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62
And just like China, we will see places forced to close down again too, (and I assume the restrictions this time around will be much tougher).
Well, I can bet people will be much more defiant this time around. There's no way that the government can once again shut down small businesses and people from working without a massive pushback.
A second rise in infections doesn't mean that the death toll is going to supersede the people recover.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
