It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Priest: Mr. President, we don't need to open churches to practice our faith

page: 10
11
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2020 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


No criminal record. For one thing.

So house arrest without a criminal act. Got it. I assume that also answers my other question... no trial either, right?

TheRedneck




posted on May, 25 2020 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Yes, and presumably if we allow people to go to church, they will somehow behave with less decorum and personal restraint and inhibition than those who are now allowed to go to those open bars.



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

They forget to put an ankle bracelet on you and basically trust you to stay home??
Quite frankly, they are sending not only possible covid patients home to their families but also those who test positive, or at least they were...
So. I dont know what good it is doing. If they do have it, well more than likely the rest of the family will get it and someone in the household will have to go out sooner or later on a store run..
So, your guess is as good as mine on that one..



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 08:51 PM
link   
re you wearing an ankle bracelet and under house arrest for attending that mass gathering at Walmart (or whatever other "necessary" retail and grocery you frequent; Walmart is simply an easy target being everywhere).

Let's be clear, you are mixing with the same size crowds there that someone would be at a socially distanced church service.



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Okay, I mispoke.. it should have been all those out there frolicking around ignoring the CDC guidance...



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

But alchohol is a great disinfectant???



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




re you wearing an ankle bracelet and under house arrest for attending that mass gathering at Walmart

No ankle bracelet. But you might find yourself in jail if you violate isolation. If you're smart you won't post it on Instagram though.
www.foxnews.com...

edit on 5/25/2020 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

From some of the pictures I've seen. I doubt if they could be less restrained...



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: ketsuko

From some of the pictures I've seen. I doubt if they could be less restrained...


3 Words - People of Walmart.



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Missouri has no restrictions? Isn't that what you said?
So it's left to personal discretion?


edit on 5/25/2020 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Then this information is incorrect?

5/23 - 5
5/24 - 5
5/25 - 4

covidtimeseries.com...

I believe the source data is here:
covidtracking.com...


Data sets are only as good as the reporting sources and criteria. Each state and city can have their own threshholds. Wasn't it New York City that admitted they added 4000ish that weren't actually COVID? Didn't Colorado reduced their numbers by 20% over the weekend?



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ketsuko

Missouri has no restrictions? Isn't that what you said?
So it's left to personal discretion?



I'm the one who mentioned Missouri, and I said our stores were not as paranoid as what you described in Hawaii. That doesn't mean we don't have markers on the ground, social distancing reminders at the front doors and people who disinfect shopping carts.



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

That wasn't my question. But yes, corrections are made. But mostly retroactively as more data is acquired.


Wasn't it New York City that admitted they added 4000ish that weren't actually COVID?
I don't know. Was it?


Didn't Colorado reduced their numbers by 20% over the weekend?
Did they? Which numbers?

Was it something like this?

The Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services announced Saturday that it had combined antibody and viral coronavirus testing data, creating an artificially lower percentage of positive tests in the state.
www.kansascity.com...



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ketsuko




re you wearing an ankle bracelet and under house arrest for attending that mass gathering at Walmart

No ankle bracelet. But you might find yourself in jail if you violate isolation. If you're smart you won't post it on Instagram though.
www.foxnews.com...


Ironic isn't it that they let real crooks out of jail for fear of infection ... presumably so they can jail people for fear of infection.



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu



I'm the one who mentioned Missouri, and I said our stores were not as paranoid as what you described in Hawaii.

How's that expression go?
"Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me."

No, not paranoid. It's a very friendly and cooperative like thing. I think living on an island helps people understand that what they do has effects on others and can very well come around to bite one on the ass at some point.



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

There's a difference between jail and prison. But I get your point.



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Well, you know, everyone could be very friendly in working to paddle the boat toward a waterfall too, but it wouldn't change the fact that in the end you're all going the wrong way.


edit on 25-5-2020 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Truthfully, I don't like Alex Jones and never listened to the man, but the name of his show Prison Planet rings a bell right now.

They threaten to lock you up if you won't lock yourself up. So there isn't much voluntary about it all is there? We're supposed to welcome our prisons because they're our homes. But we're being forcibly kept under house arrest and we're supposed to feel grateful for the little rope they allow us.

Study the data on this disease, and it doesn't merit the extreme measures. Yes, it's dangerous to a certain portion of the population, and they should be protected, but not like treating everyone in the world like they belong to those populations.

And if herd immunity is what you're after, then you have to let the people most likely to survive this disease actually go out and get it and spread it because that is actually most of us.



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Boadicea

There are levels of risk. It's a matter of probabilities.


That's fair enough and true enough. And I would only there are many probabilities involved, and all have to be weighed and balanced. Things like the probability of developing serious complications, and the probability of mortality, if one does become infected. Or how many other illnesses and diseases and conditions will worsen, and perhaps prove fatal, if those patients are not receiving their scheduled treatments? How many people will lose their jobs, and therefore their income, their health insurance, their home, their everything? How many elderly will be self-isolated to their death because no one was there to take care of them when they couldn't take care of themselves?


The fewer infected people we encounter, the lower the chances are of becoming ourselves infected. The fewer infected people are out and about (and the less we are out and about), the fewer we will encounter. The larger a group of people, the greater the chances that one (or more) is infected and will infect others. If you partake in activities which involve large groups of people and then go out in the general public, you increase the chances that a member of the general public will become infected.


Again, true enough... but not fair enough. And let me preface my response by stating that if someone is symptomatic, then they need to stay home. Period. If they absolutely must go somewhere and do something in public, then take a cold symptom reliever and wear a mask, do what ya gotta do, then get the hell home and stay there.

As for asymptomatic people, of course minimum exposure to minimum people poses minimal risk. But keep in mind, our stated purpose is to slow the spread, not stop the spread. We choose the pace at which we do so, hopefully wisely. And then we get back to probabilities. Including the probability -- almost certainty -- that we will all become infected sooner or later. Because the probability of a vaccine being developed is slim to none. But there is also the strong probability that most of us will recover just fine.

Healthwise, summer seems to be the best time to let the virus spread more naturally, when it will be weakest, and people will be stronger thanks to the increased sunlight and warmth. (Now would also be a good time for people to fortify their bodies with quality supplements, like Vitamin D3 and liposomal Vitamin C, and some good probiotics...) Let the young and healthy and strong and anyone who thinks they're up to the challenge take the risks now, while conditions favor people over the virus. We can allow people to take whatever precautions they deem appropriate and necessary for their circumstances and needs, and still make a living and conduct their business.

At the same time, we can make maximum effort to provide maximum protections for those most at risk, those most vulnerable, those most afraid who just want to shield.


There are mandates regarding the exercise of our right to vote. Are you in favor of these?


Not all. And at times through our history, some were downright vile and had no place in the law.


...do you think that the religious community lacks the expertise to do that sort of thing without government assistance? It's not really that hard to do.


Yes, I do think many small community churches and temples do lack the resources, the expertise, the equipment, and perhaps the motivation (until now) to do so. Many will be operating on a shoestring budget, with a small local congregation, and have minimal computer/internet presence. They may not have felt a need for it until now, or it might be something on their to-do list, or even their wish list -- but for the future. Not now!

I've wondered if the same isn't true of small private schools, or charter schools. I would expect it was much easier for a large school district to switch to online learning than for smaller schools.


I hear drive-in movies are making a comeback, within social distancing measures. A good example of what you may be talking about.[/quote]

Yes! We've got some really clever and creative and innovative people among us, give them half a chance and they'll find new and improved ways to do the things we do. But that won't happen as easily or as quickly if their hands are tied by mandatory lockdowns.


There is always give and take. That's what a society is. But when it comes to public health, it is indeed in the interest of all the people. Even those who would flout it.


At the same time though, every society needs to maintain at least some operations and functions. And that means there will never be a real "shutdown" because there will always be people needed to work. Both for the sake of society as a whole, and individuals/families who also need to work and make a living and conduct their business.

I would consider large public gatherings of hundreds and thousands -- such as concerts, conventions, fairs, etc. -- a public health threat, because just one event can potentially overwhelm a community's resources, putting everyone at risk in various ways. The same for large corporate headquarters with hundreds or thousands of employees. Such situations should be restricted -- by mandate -- in the interest of public health. But by all means allow, encourage, and promote safer alternatives with minimal personal contact.

Retail businesses, supermarkets, and restaurants have been pretty flexible and creative in finding ways to serve their customers with minimal contact, from delivery and curbside pickup to designated days/hours for the vulnerable to shop and conduct their business. Some have done better than others, but it's not like anyone saw this coming.

We're all on a learning curve here, eh?



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Teikiatsu



I'm the one who mentioned Missouri, and I said our stores were not as paranoid as what you described in Hawaii.

How's that expression go?
"Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me."

No, not paranoid. It's a very friendly and cooperative like thing. I think living on an island helps people understand that what they do has effects on others and can very well come around to bite one on the ass at some point.



And that's Hawaii's purview on how to handle things. What works for one state isn't another's cup of tea. State sovereignty, political laboratories, federalism, etc.




top topics



 
11
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join