I am not sure what a social issue means so I probably use the wrong word.
Yeah that is a very serious issue.
I hope that that is the case.
I wish I could share your optimism. I might be guilty of an anchoring bias here where my thoughts are too influenced by how the original article I shared was presented to me. I have only seen people seemingly care about these issues in the context of reopening the country immediately. I shared an article on my social media page about the Arkansas Church case study and I got some pushback with the OP’s article. I shared the NYT 1,000 person tribute and a prayer that this would not be 200,000 by August and people shot back again but what about suicide, alcoholism and domestic abuse.
You know, at the beginning of this thing, I thought liberties were being trampled on and certain people were gleeful in their power over others (I do still think some overstepped their bounds and don’t always follow the “logic” of why some things are essential and not others). However, especially after seeing the masses this weekend, I am more and more coming to see that it may need to be something more than encouragement. But don’t quote me on that. I go back and forth.
I don’t see any way of knowing this about others. Before this, I never thought about trying to raise awareness for hunger or doing anything physically. I donated, but that was it, and never advertised that. This is anecdotal, but I can only imagine that there are a ton of people who never really realized how badly certain “social issues” were before, etc. It is in all of our faces now. However, I am equally sure that some are using this to further their own agendas.
Anyway, the original point was that we need more nuanced discussion about these things. And it seems like 600 doctors are being dismissed because they are associated with one political party or “could be” like those two doctors in CA a couple of weeks ago.
Thank you for that. It encouraged me to keep trying.
I sympathize with this sentiment, but I wonder how you feel about trusting people after seeing the masses out this weekend? We don’t know how many they endangered with their freedom.
I am thankful they were free to make their own decisions.
I hope they don’t immediately go back to see grandparents with underlying health conditions, but the grandparents are often free to decline to see them.
Ok, I can understand that you were happy they were free. So now I am curious if you, personally, even though you are glad they are free, thought their actions were reckless and possibly endangered the lives of others?
It’s encouraging that this is primarily being discussed rationally! Thanks all.
There are trade-offs and focusing on a single perspective will guarantee a bad response. Should we avoid all deaths every way possible? No. Should we pretend nothing has happened and open up completely? No. Have governments gotten it 100% right? No. Can they? No.
Per @Mervin_Bitikofer’s comments, we need a team from different disciplines that weighs all the impacts of various approaches. Back in Obamacare days some spoke of “death panels” and kinda burned that bridge, but frankly, that’s what we need - an honest discussion of how much we can do to save lives without destroying others, including third world lives (for every life we have “saved” here by lock downs, we have probably killed 10 - 100 in the third world). But we cannot and will not completely stop covid-19, so that’s an unreasonable goal. We’ve gone way beyond “flattening the curve” and the consequences are devastating. I think we need to be more surgical and less chemo.
Acting locally, as Christians we can love our neighbor by wearing a mask when out shopping or any place where we could infect others, in case we are infected and asymptomatic. If enough people do that alone, we probably keep this disease manageable by dropping its R0.
That’s a hard question to raise … and yet it is forced on societies even in good times, and is only brought up to the publicly exposed surface for debate in times like these. It’s not the kind of discussion that coexists well (or at all really) with the activity of “weeping with those who are weeping”. But I guess just as we don’t wait until we ourselves are in the throes of death before we start trying to frantically scratch out a will, in the same way a society needs to have reasonable, free, and ethically-governed minds helping to set policy that we can democratically contribute input toward, and feel enough investment in that each of us is willing to take a hit in our own turn when specific details and outcomes of that policy don’t always go in our favor. Such large-scale buy-in is extremely hard to achieve if there is not enough cohesive overall unity beyond our immediate tribal units. And that’s just speaking of our need to even just rise toward a level of mere patriotism or nationalism from our currently even more fractured states. Which is a sad shortfall, since that less-than-lofty goal (any form of healthy nationalism) falls short in its own turn as we’ve seen, of getting to the broader international unity (or at least cooperation) needed to help get through challenges like these.
I understand the point you are trying to make. However, this is different from a car ride to the beach, for many different reasons that were hashed out in another thread so I digress here. I am curious about your stance, though, because you said you hoped they don’t immediately go visit grandparents, which indicates that you do take it somewhat seriously. My question is below.
What information do you think they need to have? If the information says that COVID is easily spread and that masks help, yet we want everyone to have the freedom to make their own decision, then how do you propose to encourage them to listen? For example, Christy posted an article that said almost 47% of people would not accept a COVID vaccine if it was developed. This is largely connected to the group that spouts conspiracy theories, which is largely connected to the group is protesting social distancing measures, etc. (I am not trying to be offensive. I’m trying to say this in a way that doesn’t bring up politics, or implicate one group over another, but this is difficult since COVID has become a political weapon, for BOTH sides.) How can we, from this side of things, affect change while maintaining individual liberties? I think everyone on this forum wants people to be as free as possible, but it seems like it is backfiring, which is why there is talk of mandating masks, etc.
I think there is plenty of information available; all people have to do is look. We can’t make people look.
Maybe 47% of the people won’t take the vaccine. That is their right. The 53% that take it will largely be protected. Some of the 47% will get the disease and likely become immune. I watched a report on CNN today that said once about 65% of the people are immune, society has herd immunity. So 53% vaccinated and some immune from sickness may be plenty.
For most people, the disease is mild. 30% of people may be asymptomatic.
So if the elderly and those with underlying conditions get the vaccine, the deaths largely go away.
Young otherwise healthy people have almost no problems with the disease.
This link (see the table) has an estimate of herd immunity for Covid-19:
The more people who don’t take the vaccine, the more there will be for those that want it and need it. I would be more than happy to be part of a trial if a vaccine shows promise.
Addiction recovery folks are definitely suffering without their communities. and I would probably also say the other two as well. But I don’t know that the answer is just to let everyone be free again. I saw something that said, “This is the first month there haven’t been any school shootings because schools weren’t open.” Schools aren’t the problem in the scenario, you know? Kind of echoes what @Christy said:
I don’t have an answer. But definitely lots of things to consider both ways.
This was not my point at all… I"m saying “schools” aren’t the problem in the “school shooting” problem, just as social distancing isn’t making people more likely to abuse someone in their household. Anyway, it was an example, anyway, that wasn’t relevant to the topic at hand.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the Christian ethic is do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This a question of rights, but of responsibilities. Yes, I do understand people do not like being told what to do, but it is more important to protect myself and family and others from serious disease by wearing a mask, by keeping my distance, and by getting vaccination.
The point I am trying to make is that the Church which I take to mean God’s People needs to play it role in crises like these. Usually the role is to encourage people, all people to work together.
The problem today is that our elected leader does not encourage people to work together. The problem today is that the Church is reluctant to criticize the POTUS and some important church leaders support the POTUS even though he does not demonstrate Christian leadership. Those christians who support anti-Christian leadership bring discredit to themselves and their organizations.
“A House divided against itself cannot stand.” Mt 12:25 Change is going to come, one way or another. We need to bring people together in Christian community, or the unholy disaster based on lies, distrust, and ridicule will get worse .
The People of God need to tell and show everyone that God wants them to love one another.
