Coronavirus prep

Options
1…237238240242243…747

Replies

  • corinasue1143
    corinasue1143 Posts: 7,467 Member
    Options
    Another interesting article. Thank you both for sharing.
  • spiriteagle99
    spiriteagle99 Posts: 3,675 Member
    Options
    In PA, the Governor is partially opening up parts of the state, a little bit at a time. He originally said what was necessary to reopen, but then changed the rules, so certain counties that met the requirements are still not allowed to open. The result is open rebellion from county leaders. AT least four counties have said that they will open, Governor's orders or not. There are prosecuters who say they will refuse to prosecute and sheriffs who will refuse to fine people who open businesses despite the shutdown. Our local congressman said that our county was not going to remain shut, even though our cases are still increasing at a pretty good rate. Even with the partial reopening, there is a limit to which businesses are allowed to open - i.e. no hair salons, gyms, etc. so going from red to yellow won't affect most of the small businesses, just the factories and workshops, but it is interesting to see the open defiance from local leadership. Response has been mixed, from what I've seein on FB. Two months is as long as people were willing to go along with the rules - and even then, I've seen work going on against orders. Some people are happy at the open defiance, but a lot are really upset.
  • jenilla1
    jenilla1 Posts: 11,118 Member
    Options
    Sounds like anarchy...
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    edited May 2020
    Options
    paperpudding wrote: »
    RE: Churches. A lot of people are upset that in guidance, it is "churches" or "churches and synagogues" - the word "mosque" is never used. They should either say "religious gatherings" or name them all. It gives the impression that some religions are allowed to continue their services and others are not. I don't think that is the point of the ruling, but it gives that impression to a lot of people. Some governors have said they will shut down churches permanently if they break guidelines. This isn't applied to businesses, so it feels they are singling out churches.

    Our state government has put up "guidance" for religious groups, and "directives" for all other groups. He said he understands that the government should not be governing how people worship, but the state does have authority and power over all the other industries. I respect that.


    Yes i think they should use a general all encompassing term like Religious gatherings, in a secular country.

    I'm not trying to be political here, but to respond to the claim that somehow Christian services are the only ones here affected and non Christian religions are allowed to have gatherings (or exempted from the orders). I think that's flatly false, so if people are being told that, we should examine the sources.

    WRT your statement about how orders should use broadly inclusive terms -- yes, of course they should, but one problem in the US is biased media, and I wonder to what extent states are not (1) in fact actually using general all encompassing terms (as Ann and I noted, in our states they absolutely did and I have no reason to think our states are unusual in that respect -- did CA or NY exempt non Christian religions?); or (2) failing to do so (in some less diverse states) because they didn't think about the existence of non Christian (or non Christian and Jewish) religions vs. -- as claimed by certain biased media, I suspect -- supposedly giving other religions free range to have large gatherings (i.e., regular religious gatherings), and thus supposedly treating them with more favoritism than Christians.

    The suggestion that ANYONE is saying it's fine to have such gatherings if one is not Christian (again, as suggested), so it's a particular persecution of Christians (as the post in question seems to suggest has been reported in some media and some believe) is completely absurd and non credible. My state (which as noted doesn't call out religious gatherings at all) has a Dem dominated gov't (i.e., the one claimed by the right to be unfair to Christians) and Ann's has a higher percentage of Muslims than most. (And again I say this because I get frustrated at people in other countries being given a wrong or distorted idea of what is happening in the US.) It's also contrary to the fact that some of the groups getting called out for violating the order have been ultra orthodox Jews (an issue in both Chicago and NYC, I know), so clearly there's 0 reason to think it's Christian specific. (I'm not aware of Muslims here violating, but they would be called out too. And it's also true I've been trying to follow the news less obsessively, since it was bad for my state of mind over the past month or so.)

    As a possible comparison, my dad (who consumes a lot of a certain kind of media) was given the impression that people here (Chicago) were being prosecuted merely for having some family members over, and that the city was devoting significant police resources to such things (which is also absurd). While I think even smaller parties are unwise in the current times, what was actually happening was crack downs on, and the mayor slamming, those who are having huge -- as in advertised in the media -- house parties and trying to shut those down by towing cars and imposing large fines. Luckily such things are not happening in my neighborhood, but they appear to be an issue in some others. And I think her actions wrt those make total sense, especially in that we are a hotspot and they are often happening in the biggest hotspot areas.
  • TonyB0588
    TonyB0588 Posts: 9,520 Member
    Options
    gradchica27 wrote: »
    Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    I just wanted to be clear, too, that when someone in the US (TN, I think) is surprised that churches opening and having in-person services isn't a big deal in AU, and says that it is one of the biggest deals here, it should be clear that's not true throughout the US. Because for most of us in many places the churches (or vast majority of them) aren't demanding that in-person services should be held and voluntarily chose to stop them for safety reasons -- probably similar to what happened in AU. When Trump was talking about opening churches for Easter, the Archdiocese here had already canceled Easter mass (and again same with all the mainline Protestant churches I know, although many of them aren't as centralized). So the idea that it's a huge issue with churches demanding to open is regional or local (or somewhat sectarian and politicized), IMO.

    Across the world, church services and other religious gatherings have been the source of a number of super-spreading events, unfortunately, and I think responsible churches are well aware of and concerned about that.

    I have to admit I have no idea why religious leaders want to take these risks, other than it is easier to pass a collection plate onsite.

    I work at home and communicate with people from all across the country constantly and have productive meetings. A number of churches do this as well. A forward-thinking pastor streaming his sermon and posting a link to a pay app can keep the church solvent for a few months while protecting his congregation's health. If yours is not innovative and is careless with your health then maybe you should reevaluate your church?

    I have been very supportive of our bishop suspending public Masses, I haven’t tried to find “underground” Masses in different dioceses/states, or anything like that, and have waited patiently for a resumption of public Masses, which will happen here next weekend (presenting my Bona fides as a person concerned for the health of others, and as my non-membership in the vocal minority of fringe “keep your government hands off my church service!” groups).

    So, that being said, there are legitimate reasons besides $ that churches want to open. I can only speak for members of my own Church, obviously, but for Catholics, we believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. So being in church = physically being in the presence of Christ. That is not something you can get on live-stream. Receiving the Eucharist is physically receiving Him—again, not something you can live-stream. I’m not trying to hijack this thread to debate religion, and I get that others might not understand why this is so important, but I do want to point out that many many Catholics I know, myself included, are truly longing for that which we can’t get through a screen. Mass is not a meeting, it’s a sacrifice, and productivity has nothing to do with it. Comparing it to a Zoomed business meeting is...well, kinda demeaning, actually.

    Honestly, we’ve been live-streaming Masses from some gorgeous churches around the country (including Chicago :smile: ) with better music, more beautiful art, and more inspiring homilies than our home parish. We can get that via live-stream, but none of those things are “the point” of Mass, none of that is “enough.” So that’s why we want to go back.

    Our churches are roping off pews, opening different spaces (gyms, large fellowship halls) to hold several Masses at one time to give people space, smaller ones are asking parishioners to call ahead to reserve a pew, since fewer will be available, they are encouraging us to wear masks, and encouraging older/vulnerable people to stay home. So precautions are being taken and people are free to stay home, it’s not a matter of pastors being insensitive, careless , or money hungry.

    Very well said. In my country, Anglican priests have had a massive salary cut and some laid off. Not enough money coming in apparently. In my church where we do NOT have paid clergy, there has been no decline in the money coming in, and that will go towards the usual maintenance and expenses. Meanwhile we're meeting by Zoom until the government allows otherwise.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 8,995 Member
    Options
    @ lemurcat - since you quoted my post - so are you saying the previous post which I responded to was incorrect??
    - ie the actual regulations DO say a general term like Religious gatherings (as our Aus guidelines do and I was saying should be the case) but sections of the media are whipping up some non existent Christian are being picked on/ Other religions are being favouritised paranoia?
  • TonyB0588
    TonyB0588 Posts: 9,520 Member
    Options
    T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »
    This news article has an interesting graphic to show Covid-19 daily deaths compared to other leading causes of death.

    https://www.ketv.com/article/coronavirus-leading-causes-of-death-in-the-united-states/32380058?fbclid=IwAR0e55H7_PtwjICSDBgP8kIkVB0FmHF8AtAOTnxLNIi6DX761rHWe2KNJK4#

    Very interesting!! So the numbers only sound high, while being very much in line with the other top leading causes of death. This will soon be so ordinary it won't even be news.

    Hope you all heard the sarcasm in my voice.
  • T1DCarnivoreRunner
    T1DCarnivoreRunner Posts: 11,502 Member
    Options
    Interesting take on how the pandemic ends... the author notes there is a difference between the medical pandemic and the societal / fear pandemic. Their ends are likely not the same:

    How Pandemics End https://nyti.ms/3fCdRJ1
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    Options
    TonyB0588 wrote: »
    gradchica27 wrote: »
    Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    I just wanted to be clear, too, that when someone in the US (TN, I think) is surprised that churches opening and having in-person services isn't a big deal in AU, and says that it is one of the biggest deals here, it should be clear that's not true throughout the US. Because for most of us in many places the churches (or vast majority of them) aren't demanding that in-person services should be held and voluntarily chose to stop them for safety reasons -- probably similar to what happened in AU. When Trump was talking about opening churches for Easter, the Archdiocese here had already canceled Easter mass (and again same with all the mainline Protestant churches I know, although many of them aren't as centralized). So the idea that it's a huge issue with churches demanding to open is regional or local (or somewhat sectarian and politicized), IMO.

    Across the world, church services and other religious gatherings have been the source of a number of super-spreading events, unfortunately, and I think responsible churches are well aware of and concerned about that.

    I have to admit I have no idea why religious leaders want to take these risks, other than it is easier to pass a collection plate onsite.

    I work at home and communicate with people from all across the country constantly and have productive meetings. A number of churches do this as well. A forward-thinking pastor streaming his sermon and posting a link to a pay app can keep the church solvent for a few months while protecting his congregation's health. If yours is not innovative and is careless with your health then maybe you should reevaluate your church?

    I have been very supportive of our bishop suspending public Masses, I haven’t tried to find “underground” Masses in different dioceses/states, or anything like that, and have waited patiently for a resumption of public Masses, which will happen here next weekend (presenting my Bona fides as a person concerned for the health of others, and as my non-membership in the vocal minority of fringe “keep your government hands off my church service!” groups).

    So, that being said, there are legitimate reasons besides $ that churches want to open. I can only speak for members of my own Church, obviously, but for Catholics, we believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. So being in church = physically being in the presence of Christ. That is not something you can get on live-stream. Receiving the Eucharist is physically receiving Him—again, not something you can live-stream. I’m not trying to hijack this thread to debate religion, and I get that others might not understand why this is so important, but I do want to point out that many many Catholics I know, myself included, are truly longing for that which we can’t get through a screen. Mass is not a meeting, it’s a sacrifice, and productivity has nothing to do with it. Comparing it to a Zoomed business meeting is...well, kinda demeaning, actually.

    Honestly, we’ve been live-streaming Masses from some gorgeous churches around the country (including Chicago :smile: ) with better music, more beautiful art, and more inspiring homilies than our home parish. We can get that via live-stream, but none of those things are “the point” of Mass, none of that is “enough.” So that’s why we want to go back.

    Our churches are roping off pews, opening different spaces (gyms, large fellowship halls) to hold several Masses at one time to give people space, smaller ones are asking parishioners to call ahead to reserve a pew, since fewer will be available, they are encouraging us to wear masks, and encouraging older/vulnerable people to stay home. So precautions are being taken and people are free to stay home, it’s not a matter of pastors being insensitive, careless , or money hungry.

    Very well said. In my country, Anglican priests have had a massive salary cut and some laid off. Not enough money coming in apparently. In my church where we do NOT have paid clergy, there has been no decline in the money coming in, and that will go towards the usual maintenance and expenses. Meanwhile we're meeting by Zoom until the government allows otherwise.

    Odd. I'm Catholic and our clergy is paid (in that it's their job, as well as of course vocation, and one doesn't want people to focus on money-making), but none is being "laid off" due to coronavirus or the lack of in person masses to my knowledge.

    I donate on line and have not changed my donation.
  • Athijade
    Athijade Posts: 3,246 Member
    Options
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    paperpudding wrote: »
    @ lemurcat - since you quoted my post - so are you saying the previous post which I responded to was incorrect??
    - ie the actual regulations DO say a general term like Religious gatherings (as our Aus guidelines do and I was saying should be the case) but sections of the media are whipping up some non existent Christian are being picked on/ Other religions are being favouritised paranoia?

    The guidelines are at state levels, in the US, and sometimes there's further guidance at more local levels (city, county, whatever). Lemur and I reported on 2 states. I'm not going to speak for her, but I personally wouldn't volunteer to research the other 48 states to see how they phrased their orders.

    I can report on Indiana. Below is the section in the governor's order:

    14. Religious Entities and Places of Worship

    a. Virtual Services Preferred: Places of worship and faith communities are encouraged to continue livestream services or otherwise provide virtual services to safely serve their communities, or alternatively, conduct drive-in services.

    b. In either Stage 1 or 2: On or after May 8, 2020, religious services, including wedding ceremonies and funeral services, may continue and will no longer be subject to limits on social gatherings. However, social distancing and other sanitation measures outlined in will continue to apply. Wedding receptions and visitations before or after funerals remain subject to the limitations and restrictions for social gatherings

    So our orders are including all. Yet I will say in the media I have heard more about "Churches being closed" then "Places of Worship". Maybe it is because we have a very large Catholic population over others, but, at least where i am specifically, we also have a decent sized Muslim population. So who knows.
  • T1DCarnivoreRunner
    T1DCarnivoreRunner Posts: 11,502 Member
    Options
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    paperpudding wrote: »
    @ lemurcat - since you quoted my post - so are you saying the previous post which I responded to was incorrect??
    - ie the actual regulations DO say a general term like Religious gatherings (as our Aus guidelines do and I was saying should be the case) but sections of the media are whipping up some non existent Christian are being picked on/ Other religions are being favouritised paranoia?

    Yes, I think that's true -- in my state and Ann's (which were the only two quoted) they were NOT religiously specific at all, and I'm positive no one is enforcing it in a religiously specific manner. In that there are 50 states, I have not read all (or even most), but I've heard absolutely nothing suggesting any state is differentiating between religions and non would preference non Christian religions -- although that seems to be the rumor the other post was suggesting people bought into. (And oddly enough I suspect this concern is more prominent in states that are MORE likely to be vastly majority Christian (and with a higher percentage of Christian denominations that have not, like most here (including, as noted, the Archdiocese and mainline Protestants), been voluntarily been responding responsibly to COVID, and LESS likely to have any meaningful number of non Christians, which makes it extra weird.)

    Also, in US law, (1) most orders restrict gatherings above 10 people, unless exempted, so the lack of reference to non Christian religions would not matter; and (2) in the law "church" gets interpreted broadly to mean "religion" so the argument makes no sense anyway.

    Murdoch media may well be stirring people up otherwise (I think so, but I dunno, I don't consume it), but presumably AU can't blame the US 100% for that, no? Pretty sure Murdoch is from AU.

    Even here in the "Bible Belt" (Tennessee), the executive order (expired Apr. 30) listed this as an exemption:
    Religious and Ceremonial Functions. This includes, but is not limited to: religious facilities, entities, groups, personnel, services, rites, and gatherings, including weddings and funerals, provided that the Health Guidelines set forth in Executive Order No. 22 are followed to the greatest extent practicable;

    As you can see, no specific religion was named despite that protestant Christians are in the majority here. If there is some state that specifies one religion that is exempted while others are not, I am unaware of that.

    As an atheist myself, I still could have gotten married (this is on the list of things that will never happen) or gone to a funeral here in TN.

Categories