All things political. Coronavirus Edition. (2 Viewers)

[Maxp]

I fear we are really going to be in a bad place due to the obvious cuts to the federal agencies that deal with infectious disease, but also the negative effect the Affordable Care act has had on non urban hospitals. Our front line defenses are ineffectual and our ability to treat the populous is probably at an all time low. Factor in the cost of healthcare and I can see our system crashing. What do you think about the politics of this virus?

 

[DaveXA]

I have had a chance to read this decision.

I don’t think it was wrong.

I haven't read it yet. I'll probably check it out in the next couple of days.

Just first blush from looking through the tweet thread, I'm trying to recall a case where they seem to all be writing differing dissenting and concurring opinions. I know there often will be separate written opinions, but there's at least 2 on each side. That seems unusual to me. Just feels like this isn't an obvious this is that situation.

 

[SystemShock]

They don't need to pass the plate. A lot of churches take online donations and PayPal and other services.

Sure, a lot of them, but not all. And the older the congregation gets... if it were that simple, you wouldn't have nut jobs like Kenneth Copeland demanding people go to churches to tithe. Anyway...

I don't expect to be kind to people about prayer and faith, so your sarcastic comment isn't surprising.

Actually, I have mixed feelings about it.

In any case, don't you pray? Have you ever prayed asking for strength to do something or get through something?

 

[Saint by the Bay]

I have had a chance to read this decision.

I don’t think it was wrong.

I've said before the reason I think the government should not be stopping protests due to Covid is that it is one of this nation's most fundamental rights.

I feel the same about the right to worship. I don't think packing into a church is wise. I also don't think it should be disallowed.

 

[superchuck500]

I've said before the reason I think the government should not be stopping protests due to Covid is that it is one of this nation's most fundamental rights.

I feel the same about the right to worship. I don't think packing into a church is wise. I also don't think it should be disallowed.

I support the policy objective if the science is there to back it up - but regardless of that, they have to do it in a way that passes the scrutiny. This seems to have been pretty arbitrary and sloppy in how it was written.

 

[superchuck500]

Also note it isn’t a full decision. It’s an injunction pending resolution in the 2nd Circuit (or writ to the Court). It’s “relief pending appellate review”, not a disposition. Not to suggest a full decision wouldn’t follow suit, just to point out the posture.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[DaveXA]

Sure, a lot of them, but not all. And the older the congregation gets... if it were that simple, you wouldn't have nut jobs like Kenneth Copeland demanding people go to churches to tithe. Anyway...



Actually, I have mixed feelings about it.

In any case, don't you pray? Have you ever prayed asking for strength to do something or get through something?

Yeah, I do pray. Not as often as maybe I'd like. But I do believe there's something more to all of this than just us, so I do pray. If others don't, that's ok too. Ultimately everyone has to find their own way.

And fair enough on the church donations issue. Some churches are still behind the times. Probably more the smaller ones. But televangelists, megachurches and most modern churches have myriad ways to contribute. I haven't dropped a donation in the plate in probably 12-13 years. I've been donating via other means for a long time now. I guess it surprises me these days when a church doesn't do that.

 

[DaveXA]

I've said before the reason I think the government should not be stopping protests due to Covid is that it is one of this nation's most fundamental rights.

I feel the same about the right to worship. I don't think packing into a church is wise. I also don't think it should be disallowed.

Yeah, that's pretty much my sentiments as well.

 

[DaveXA]

Also note it isn’t a full decision. It’s an injunction pending resolution in the 2nd Circuit (or writ to the Court). It’s “relief pending appellate review”, not a disposition. Not to suggest a full decision wouldn’t follow suit, just to point out the posture.

So are we now waiting for that "appellate review" to know what the next step is? It seems like in the media they're making it sound like NY can't force attendance limitations on the 2 churches. Does those restriction limitations apply nationwide?

 

[superchuck500]

So are we now waiting for that "appellate review" to know what the next step is? It seems like in the media they're making it sound like NY can't force attendance limitations on the 2 churches. Does those restriction limitations apply nationwide?

Yes the state rule on religious gatherings has been enjoined. It’s unenforceable.

 

[superchuck500]

Vietnam refused to let a US Diplomat’s flight crew stay in Vietnam. They were right to be cautious.

 

[DaveXA]

Vietnam refused to let a US Diplomat’s flight crew stay in Vietnam. They were right to be cautious.

Just embarrassing. It's like we're running a ship of fools.

 

[Lapaz]

I've said before the reason I think the government should not be stopping protests due to Covid is that it is one of this nation's most fundamental rights.

I feel the same about the right to worship. I don't think packing into a church is wise. I also don't think it should be disallowed.

Are churches restricted from meetings regardless of precautions? Both protests and churches should be required to take precautions to prevent the spread, or be disallowed. If protesters are reckless, then they are creating a hazard for all of the rest of us. At least most protests are outdoors. Churches should at least limit attendance.

 

[DaveXA]

Are churches restricted from meetings regardless of precautions? Both protests and churches should be required to take precautions to prevent the spread, or be disallowed. If protesters are reckless, then they are creating a hazard for all of the rest of us. At least most protests are outdoors. Churches should at least limit attendance.

Well, to be sure, many churches that I'm familiar with here in the area are still meeting via zoom or similar. They're not all gathering. A few are being obnoxious about Covid. It's stupid and dangerous, but they have to make their own choices. Some are doing outdoor gatherings. A few are doing indoors, and that's something I wouldn't do. I mean, I'm even hesitant to do outside services. I'd just rather stay at home and be safe.

The ones being obnoxious don't speak for the rest. Most do a good job being safe.

That said, placing restrictions aimed at the church and not at other groups singles them out. Treat them all like they do with businesses or don't regulate them.

 

[Lapaz]

Well, to be sure, many churches that I'm familiar with here in the area are still meeting via zoom or similar. They're not all gathering. A few are being obnoxious about Covid. It's stupid and dangerous, but they have to make their own choices. Some are doing outdoor gatherings. A few are doing indoors, and that's something I wouldn't do. I mean, I'm even hesitant to do outside services. I'd just rather stay at home and be safe.

The ones being obnoxious don't speak for the rest. Most do a good job being safe.

That said, placing restrictions aimed at the church and not at other groups singles them out. Treat them all like they do with businesses or don't regulate them.

The problem with allowing all to make their own choices is that their choices are endangering everyone, not just themselves. This isn't like something that only harms them. I agree that standards need to be consistent across all organizations, UNLESS an organization is critical to survival such as grocery stores. Critical infrastructure has to be allowed some leeway. I hear people say that churches are critical, but that is frankly nonsense. Anyone can pray from anywhere, so you don't need to meet in person to survive. I know the constitutional freedom of religion is thrown out, but churches are restricted from some actions, like human sacrifices. I know that seems extreme, but holding superspreader church gatherings is almost tantamount to human sacrifices.

Standards should be placed on occupancy per square foot unless other special precautions are implemented such as schools do with plastic separators between students and limiting their movement. Other measures like filtration systems may allow safer gathering.

 

[DaveXA]

The problem with allowing all to make their own choices is that their choices are endangering everyone, not just themselves. This isn't like something that only harms them. I agree that standards need to be consistent across all organizations, UNLESS an organization is critical to survival such as grocery stores. Critical infrastructure has to be allowed some leeway. I hear people say that churches are critical, but that is frankly nonsense. Anyone can pray from anywhere, so you don't need to meet in person to survive. I know the constitutional freedom of religion is thrown out, but churches are restricted from some actions, like human sacrifices. I know that seems extreme, but holding superspreader church gatherings is almost tantamount to human sacrifices.

Standards should be placed on occupancy per square foot unless other special precautions are implemented such as schools do with plastic separators between students and limiting their movement. Other measures like filtration systems may allow safer gathering.

Yeah, but (as an example) limiting churches to gatherings of 10 people or fewer in a 10,000 sf facility is is an unreasonable limitation. If the limitation was something like 10 per 100 sf, I could maybe understand that. But there is still disagreement, even among experts what reasonably safe numbers are. I don't think there's a simple answer.

Also, not all churches are the same. Some have filtration systems that work really well while others don't have anything at all. Most who gather in person require masks/distancing. But the several churches I'm familiar with in my area are all still meeting virtually for most events. There are tens of thousands of churches all over the country and they all have to be allowed some ability to make their own decisions based on where they live and what the situation is on the ground in their areas. A one size fits all approach is shortsighted and I think fails to allow churches to make decisions based on their individual circumstances.

 

[J-DONK]

Yeah, but (as an example) limiting churches to gatherings of 10 people or fewer in a 10,000 sf facility is is an unreasonable limitation. If the limitation was something like 10 per 100 sf, I could maybe understand that. But there is still disagreement, even among experts what reasonably safe numbers are. I don't think there's a simple answer.

Also, not all churches are the same. Some have filtration systems that work really well while others don't have anything at all. Most who gather in person require masks/distancing. But the several churches I'm familiar with in my area are all still meeting virtually for most events. There are tens of thousands of churches all over the country and they all have to be allowed some ability to make their own decisions based on where they live and what the situation is on the ground in their areas. A one size fits all approach is shortsighted and I think fails to allow churches to make decisions based on their individual circumstances.

I don't live in New York, and don't know the situation. I know hadistic jews have been super spreaders, and they have been singled out for that reason. Are these limitations higher then what is placed on bars, and restaurants? I come down on both should have the same limitations. I don't consider church, or drinking vital to your continued existence.

Didn't the catholic church who is apart of lawsuit take in 1.4 billion in PPP loans? No big government except when I need a check.......

 

[DaveXA]

I don't live in New York, and don't know the situation. I know hadistic jews have been super spreaders, and they have been singled out for that reason. Are these limitations higher then what is placed on bars, and restaurants? I come down on both should have the same limitations. I don't consider church, or drinking vital to your continued existence.

Didn't the catholic church who is apart of lawsuit take in 1.4 billion in PPP loans? No big government except when I need a check.......

Did they? I don't know, I haven't seen that reported. But yeah, I would say if it's not a critical function, then the organization should be subject to the same regulations as everyone else. It's just that in some situations, the limitations placed seemed arbitrary and targeted churches specifically. I'm more about the rules being applied fairly. The problem is that all of the states are doing their own thing, so determining equal application of the law becomes tricky.