The Covid19 thread

[Skydiver]

I would bet she's serious. How many other instances of people being the targets of harassment or worse because they don't subscribe to whatever the currently popular "groupthink" position is on an issue?

I am serious. While it has not personally happened to me there have been videos of people wearing masks being verbally harassed by those that think they should not be wearing them.

[Annoyed]

I am serious. While it has not personally happened to me there have been videos of people wearing masks being verbally harassed by those that think they should not be wearing them.

We as a society have forgotten 2 very important principles for getting along.

1: Mind your own business.
2 Telling someone who has forgotten #1 to mind their own business, with appropriate emphasis if needed.

[Falcon Horus]

I hope you folks don't have a resurgence.. that bit about sharing desks worries me. Latest felgercarb from the CDC aside, we've been told this lives for days on surfaces..

My upstairs neighbor's a microbiologist and when we went to her flat last week to make sure she and the kids knew that we had no issue with their noises, we briefly talked about them not having been outside for over 2 months now.

The last month was Ramadan so they would put the kids to bed in the afternoon so they could stay awake later in the evening, but still... they have not been outside. And she pretty much said that she knows what the virus is, can do and that she's too afraid to go out. They also have a wee lass of 3 months old right now so it is quite understandable.

I told her that I was delaying going back to office because I just don't trust people to keep their distance or keep the etiquette in mind. She told me that I should hold off as long as possible. If I felt like it wouldn't be safe, she said I should wait just a little longer.

Also, the kids made a drawing for us and gave us snickerbars.
And when we went upstairs we good an incredibly delicious sugary goodness presented... I was still licking my fingers an hour later. Almost snuck upstairs yesterday too as they were celebrating Eid-El-Fitr.

I have absolutely zero sympathy for the commercial passenger airline industry. At least in the US, they have mistreated and abused their customers to the point where I don't give a rats rear end if they go out of business or not. I know it will be a cold day in you-know-where before I get on another one of the damned things.

The companies perhaps, but there are a lot of people who work for these companies, and it's just not the airline companies. My sister works for the airport company and by extension they too are affected by what goes on there. They have already had to let approx. 200 consultants go, and they are clear running out of consultants to fire. Next up are the employees and my sister has been fearing for her job.

Just read an article that they are thinking about starting up flying again after the 15th of June, should the government of course let us out of the country that is. So far, our borders are still closed -- in a manner of speaking.

Think about it. Say you sneeze glitter. Someone sneezes 3 feet away from you and you’re covered with glitter. Good luck getting rid of it. May even get some on your lips, in your nose or your eyes.

Here you go...

Glitter_corona.png

So those that think ‘it’ll all get back to normal next week’ are fooling themselves. Some will run out yes. And we will likely have a second wave. But there will be others that stay away, stay home and work to protect themselves until there is a vaccine

Yeah, reopening business is all fine and dandy, but customers might have a different opinion about all that "reopen" business and not show up.

While I agree with you it seems the main criteria for opening - gotta do what they can to boost those second quarter numbers and placate the share holders.

It should also be pointed out that it's an election year... ...a lot is at stake.

You can rebuild a human BODY, but the functioning brain part is one obstacle we just haven’t been able to overcome.

Since so many don't seem to be using their brains these days, I don't think that's much of an obstacle.

How often do we see this? "One set of rules for thee, another set for me"

It broke the Political Discussion Thread.

[Annoyed]

The companies perhaps, but there are a lot of people who work for these companies, and it's just not the airline companies. My sister works for the airport company and by extension they too are affected by what goes on there. They have already had to let approx. 200 consultants go, and they are clear running out of consultants to fire. Next up are the employees and my sister has been fearing for her job.

It is regrettable that many folks in non-management positions and associated businesses are going to pay the piper for this. But it usually does work out so that the peons pay the piper when management screws the pooch. I know that's how it worked out with my former employer.

Just read an article that they are thinking about starting up flying again after the 15th of June, should the government of course let us out of the country that is. So far, our borders are still closed -- in a manner of speaking.

Oh, you guys still haven't heard about that secret meeting? The rest of the world had a meeting and decided that you guys are just too weird, and the best solution was to not let you back out again. Ever.

Yeah, reopening business is all fine and dandy, but customers might have a different opinion about all that "reopen" business and not show up.

A good possibility is that people just won't put up with all the social distancing crap that we are being subjected to and won't return to brick & mortar stores unless there is no other choice. I know that I've decided to order things online far more than usual since all that stuff started.

As I've said a few times now, I now think that we shouldn't be re-opening until such time as we discard all of the social distancing requirements. If it's hazardous enough to put shoppers through the wringer, it's hazardous enough to place workers at risk too. Since that risk can be fatal for some....

It should also be pointed out that it's an election year... ...a lot is at stake.

An awful lot of what is being done in response to CV is directly caused or influenced by politics. Probably more than you are aware of, as you see only what is presented in the media, which is quite biased. But that's not unusual here. These days, everything has political ramifications, regardless of what it is. It's quite impossible to separate politics out of just about anything.

Since so many don't seem to be using their brains these days, I don't think that's much of an obstacle.

See comment directly above this.

It broke the Political Discussion Thread.

No comment. What's the first rule of the political discussion threads? "You don't talk about the political discussion threads."

[Womble]

if you come across people who refuse to wear a mask, there is an easy way to see how committed they are to their beliefs ask them to follow you or ask them to get in to your car and then take them to a hospital and then ask them to go inside without a mask and see if they still believe that a mask isn't a good idea, you can do the same thing to those who think all this covid thing doesn't exist or it is just a way to take away our freedoms, let's see just how committed they REALLY are.

Problem is, the primary reason behind the demand to wear masks is not so much to protect you from others as it is to protect OTHER people from YOU. That's where the "freedom" argument becomes problematic, because despite the spelling, there really is no "I" in pandemic.

[Gatefan1976]

Problem is, the primary reason behind the demand to wear masks is not so much to protect you from others as it is to protect OTHER people from YOU. That's where the "freedom" argument becomes problematic, because despite the spelling, there really is no "I" in pandemic.

Of course it is.
The question really is, freedom VS responsibility. Neither is entirely correct, and neither is completely wrong. I Err on the side of freedom, yet we need to understand responsibility.

[mad_gater]

Problem is, the primary reason behind the demand to wear masks is not so much to protect you from others as it is to protect OTHER people from YOU. That's where the "freedom" argument becomes problematic, because despite the spelling, there really is no "I" in pandemic.

*sees very clearly an "I" in the word*....actually....yes there is

if normally public spaces wish to do things so that people shopping or eating out can have more personal space (for example at Whole Foods our cashier pods which normally can contain 2 cashiers...we're only putting one cashier in each pod during these times) then that's one thing

my beef is how all these liquor stores and other places got deemed "essential" and churches did not...IMO that demonstrates a very clear anti-religious bias in the determination of what's "essential" and what's not

for example...the Catholic parish I go to is fairly large, large enough that we could hold, if necessary, up to 3 concurrent Sunday/Holy Day Masses at 7, 9, and 11 AM...during each time frame one Mass, with people appropriately spaced with enough distance, could be held in the main sanctuary, another could be held in the Don Miller Hall, and another could be held in the school cafeteria...heck we also have a large yard area we call the "Back 40" and in nice weather could hold yet another concurrent Mass in a tent in that yard area

[Falcon Horus]

Oh, you guys still haven't heard about that secret meeting? The rest of the world had a meeting and decided that you guys are just too weird, and the best solution was to not let you back out again. Ever.

Well... I wouldn't blame 'em.

No comment. What's the first rule of the political discussion threads? "You don't talk about the political discussion threads."

Oh, the "fight club" rule... right...

Problem is, the primary reason behind the demand to wear masks is not so much to protect you from others as it is to protect OTHER people from YOU. That's where the "freedom" argument becomes problematic, because despite the spelling, there really is no "I" in pandemic.

I see them use those protestors pull out this phrase a lot: "Give me liberty, or give me death!"

Spoken by Patrick Henry on the 20th of March, 1775.

He presented resolutions to raise and establish a militia, and to put Virginia in a posture of defense. Henry's opponents urged caution and patience until the crown replied to Congress' latest petition for reconciliation.

On the 23rd, Henry presented a proposal to organize a volunteer company of cavalry or infantry in every Virginia county. By custom, Henry addressed himself to the Convention's president, Peyton Randolph of Williamsburg. Henry's words were not transcribed, but no one who heard them forgot their eloquence, or Henry's closing words.

The entire speech can be fount here.

[Annoyed]

*sees very clearly an "I" in the word*....actually....yes there is

if normally public spaces wish to do things so that people shopping or eating out can have more personal space (for example at Whole Foods our cashier pods which normally can contain 2 cashiers...we're only putting one cashier in each pod during these times) then that's one thing

my beef is how all these liquor stores and other places got deemed "essential" and churches did not...IMO that demonstrates a very clear anti-religious bias in the determination of what's "essential" and what's not

for example...the Catholic parish I go to is fairly large, large enough that we could hold, if necessary, up to 3 concurrent Sunday/Holy Day Masses at 7, 9, and 11 AM...during each time frame one Mass, with people appropriately spaced with enough distance, could be held in the main sanctuary, another could be held in the Don Miller Hall, and another could be held in the school cafeteria...heck we also have a large yard area we call the "Back 40" and in nice weather could hold yet another concurrent Mass in a tent in that yard area

Liquor stores have been deemed "essential", and I'm sure that part of that was that the same practices used to make us think that supermarkets, home improvement and other essential services are safe; useless masks, 6 ft apart and all that can be applied to liquor stores equally well. But a church service is a different animal. You have a bunch of people going into a building and sitting there for an hour or more, depending on how long winded the preacher is. And isn't there a traditional collection plate that gets passed?

The risks presented by one operation can be completely different based on what the operation of the business or whatever entails. This is why hair salons, for example, shouldn't even be thinking of opening yet. Sitting in the chair with the stylist hovering about you at close range for 20 minutes? No thanks.

But that isn't to say that some state dictators haven't abused their authority to discriminate against religion. About a month ago, some local churches had what I consider a very good idea - Hold their services in drive-ins. Allows them to hold services, while at the same time, maintaining effective social distancing. But some petty state level bureaucraps said no, you can't do that. If I was the church, I'd be looking to hang those bureaucraps by their necks in the courts. First Amendment and all that rot, don't ya know.

[Gatefan1976]

*sees very clearly an "I" in the word*....actually....yes there is

if normally public spaces wish to do things so that people shopping or eating out can have more personal space (for example at Whole Foods our cashier pods which normally can contain 2 cashiers...we're only putting one cashier in each pod during these times) then that's one thing

my beef is how all these liquor stores and other places got deemed "essential" and churches did not...IMO that demonstrates a very clear anti-religious bias in the determination of what's "essential" and what's not

for example...the Catholic parish I go to is fairly large, large enough that we could hold, if necessary, up to 3 concurrent Sunday/Holy Day Masses at 7, 9, and 11 AM...during each time frame one Mass, with people appropriately spaced with enough distance, could be held in the main sanctuary, another could be held in the Don Miller Hall, and another could be held in the school cafeteria...heck we also have a large yard area we call the "Back 40" and in nice weather could hold yet another concurrent Mass in a tent in that yard area

Do you need a church to pray to God?
If a church can figure out a way to maintain the social distancing laws and make a good case for it, then go for it.

[Gatefan1976]

Liquor stores have been deemed "essential", and I'm sure that part of that was that the same practices used to make us think that supermarkets, home improvement and other essential services are safe; useless masks, 6 ft apart and all that can be applied to liquor stores equally well. But a church service is a different animal. You have a bunch of people going into a building and sitting there for an hour or more, depending on how long winded the preacher is. And isn't there a traditional collection plate that gets passed?

The risks presented by one operation can be completely different based on what the operation of the business or whatever entails. This is why hair salons, for example, shouldn't even be thinking of opening yet. Sitting in the chair with the stylist hovering about you at close range for 20 minutes? No thanks.

But that isn't to say that some state dictators haven't abused their authority to discriminate against religion. About a month ago, some local churches had what I consider a very good idea - Hold their services in drive-ins. Allows them to hold services, while at the same time, maintaining effective social distancing. But some petty state level bureaucraps said no, you can't do that. If I was the church, I'd be looking to hang those bureaucraps by their necks in the courts. First Amendment and all that rot, don't ya know.

The first amendment applies to the government, not private organizations.

[Annoyed]

The first amendment applies to the government, not private organizations.

The lack of discussions around here is dulling your edge.

It was the government that was ordering the churches to stay closed, even at the drive-ins, therefore not allowing folks to worship as they wanted to,

[Gatefan1976]

The lack of discussions around here is dulling your edge.

It was the government that was ordering the churches to stay closed, even at the drive-ins, therefore not allowing folks to worship as they wanted to,

See my response to MG.

Do you need a church to pray?

[aretood2]

*sees very clearly an "I" in the word*....actually....yes there is

if normally public spaces wish to do things so that people shopping or eating out can have more personal space (for example at Whole Foods our cashier pods which normally can contain 2 cashiers...we're only putting one cashier in each pod during these times) then that's one thing

my beef is how all these liquor stores and other places got deemed "essential" and churches did not...IMO that demonstrates a very clear anti-religious bias in the determination of what's "essential" and what's not

for example...the Catholic parish I go to is fairly large, large enough that we could hold, if necessary, up to 3 concurrent Sunday/Holy Day Masses at 7, 9, and 11 AM...during each time frame one Mass, with people appropriately spaced with enough distance, could be held in the main sanctuary, another could be held in the Don Miller Hall, and another could be held in the school cafeteria...heck we also have a large yard area we call the "Back 40" and in nice weather could hold yet another concurrent Mass in a tent in that yard area

That would just discriminate against small churches.

Gathering in a church is a public gathering. Buying food is a biological necessity. Churches need to be closed for the same reasons schools need to be closed. Prolonged exposure to anyone who is infected is what really leads to spread of the virus. Being in a classroom for 90 minutes or in the church benches for equal amount of time or in a theater is asking for disaster. Beer being essential, I don't really understand that myself, but going into a beer place to buy beer is much more limited exposure than being in a church for a prolonged amount of time. Churches aren't being closed because they are churches, but because like schools they represent a significant vector for viral spread. It's basically no different than preventing the Aztec Church from sacrificing people to Quetzalcoatl. That would not be protected by the 1st amendment.

On a related note, I do find people who go to Church anyway because they are "covered by the blood of Christ" to be naive at best. It is illuminating on how little people are able to apply what is written and I honestly think that a lot of the people who are attending church services in a church are more motivated by political beliefs or by biblical illiteracy than by faith in God. Just to see what I mean about biblical illiteracy I'll just drop a small sample below:

"Go, my people, enter your rooms and shut your doors behind you. Hide yourselves a little while until the wrath has passed."-Isaiah 26:20
"The prudent see danger and take cover; but the simple keep going and pay the penalty."-Proverbs 27:12
"A wise man fears and turns from evil, but a fool is careless and reckless."-Proverbs 14:16
"And Jesus answered and said to him, "It is said, 'YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.'"-Luke 4:12

See my response to MG.

Do you need a church to pray?

That looks like the beginning of a very bad argument. What would you do if he said "yes"?

[mad_gater]

That would just discriminate against small churches.

Gathering in a church is a public gathering. Buying food is a biological necessity. Churches need to be closed for the same reasons schools need to be closed. Prolonged exposure to anyone who is infected is what really leads to spread of the virus. Being in a classroom for 90 minutes or in the church benches for equal amount of time or in a theater is asking for disaster. Beer being essential, I don't really understand that myself, but going into a beer place to buy beer is much more limited exposure than being in a church for a prolonged amount of time. Churches aren't being closed because they are churches, but because like schools they represent a significant vector for viral spread. It's basically no different than preventing the Aztec Church from sacrificing people to Quetzalcoatl. That would not be protected by the 1st amendment.

On a related note, I do find people who go to Church anyway because they are "covered by the blood of Christ" to be naive at best. It is illuminating on how little people are able to apply what is written and I honestly think that a lot of the people who are attending church services in a church are more motivated by political beliefs or by biblical illiteracy than by faith in God. Just to see what I mean about biblical illiteracy I'll just drop a small sample below:

"Go, my people, enter your rooms and shut your doors behind you. Hide yourselves a little while until the wrath has passed."-Isaiah 26:20
"The prudent see danger and take cover; but the simple keep going and pay the penalty."-Proverbs 27:12
"A wise man fears and turns from evil, but a fool is careless and reckless."-Proverbs 14:16
"And Jesus answered and said to him, "It is said, 'YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.'"-Luke 4:12




That looks like the beginning of a very bad argument. What would you do if he said "yes"?

not necessarily...if a particular parish is very small then there's nothing stopping parishoners from attending Mass at larger parishes...and if some parishoners are old, disabled, or otherwise cannot get there under their own power I imagine some other parishoners could get together and form up an impromptu shuttle service (i.e., shuttle such people to church out of the goodness of their hearts)

and as Annoyed said...there was an idea to hold Masses and other church services as a drive-in but Commie Cuomo of the People's Republic of NYS nixed that idea :/