Jump to content

BlueDreams

Contributor
  • Posts

    5,626
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BlueDreams

  1. So I really got a pet peeve on how “choice” and “agency” are being used lately. We believe in the ideas, yes, but not in this new rendition of how I’ve seen it used. The choice and agency in scriptures is usually very contextualized into choose between good and evil or the path of life or of death. These parameters are set up by god. Which leaves us to choose wisely, through careful study and checking our own responses and info to be sure we’re being led by god not just our own sentiments. It’s not just the freedom to choose whatever we feel is right for us. I feel like when I hear “agency” used in this term it’s usually confused with a more cultural individualistic variation of agency, not what is actually taught in scripture. end peeve with luv, BD
  2. I will come clean and confess that I laughed a little when I watched the bit. I have a part of me that really enjoys dark humor. Dark irony, karma, people getting hurt in outrageous ways, etc will all make me laugh to some degree. The pandemic and the level of "I can't believe this is where we're at right now" has definitely moved that up a notch. I assume it's a coping mechanism (laugh or cry or get enraged....probs should choose the first option) For the record, I would have a huge problem if hospitals started to take comedians and public opinion into account of who they should treat first. with luv, BD
  3. 1.) they're still working, even if their effectiveness wares a little over time and most governments implementing a booster are doing so in part because of that and in part for a sense of trying to stay ahead of the variants. 2.) most of us would be having a very different conversation if there wasn't a solid minority of people who refuse vaccination and there was widespread vaccination across the world and children under 12 were also able to be vaccinated. It's no longer primarily the aged. It's now primarily those between the ages of 18-49. The average age has been creeping down for 2 reasons. 1) delta has more of a serious effect than alpha on younger cohorts. 2) most older cohorts are vaccinated. You can google this. It shows on varying state sites and news articles like these ones: https://www.healthline.com/health-news/young-people-make-up-biggest-group-of-newly-hospitalized-covid-19-patients https://ctmirror.org/2021/08/10/covid-hospitalizations-skew-younger-as-delta-variant-spreads-in-ct/ https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/coronavirus/2021/08/23/covid-19-attack-rates-by-vaccination-status-and-age/ The first one also notes this: "Experts say that initially a person’s age and underlying conditions were the biggest factors for if a person would need to be hospitalized, but now it’s vaccine status." On resistance, I can't answer pogi on this, but I'll answer for myself. I have 2 reasons to "resistance" to treatments. 1. Do you know that HIV at this point has become a pretty manageable disease that with treatment can be managed for years. If a vaccine for HIV was presented though, I would start really pushing and promoting that, particularly in at risk communities or regions with high HIV rates. Why? I would assume it would be obvious: it's better to never contract the disease than to have a regime to manage it. We currently have regimes to reduce the death rate in hospitals for covid. It's far less effective than the HIV example I gave you (meaning it leaves a lot of people still dead and/or with long term illness...like my step father who now has diabete from covid and can't smell 8 months after getting it). But it also runs into other problems like access, capacity to implement, access to earlier interventions, etc And in our current state where it's farrrr more communicable than HIV, it can quickly strain hospital staffs (yes, i saw your earlier numbers with UT....UT is not as strained as say ID and it also is still starting to stretch staff, if the nurse I talked to during a recent mild hospital stay I had is any indication...as well as plenty other medical staff saying likewise). In which case access and capacity decreases and the death rate raises from a preventable disease not just for those who have it but for those whose treatments for other ailments are delayed due to staff and bed shortages (this is happening/happened recently in several especially hit states). In no world is treatment better than vaccinating/prevention for any known disease....and that goes ESPECIALLY for viruses where our treatments usually focus managing symptoms. 2.) ivermectin is not on the list of effective treatments for covid because the research on it is not showing promise and it sure as heck shouldn't be personally administered without a prescription. With luv, BD
  4. Probably more accurate to say since/then. If infers a hypothetical. Covid is a life and death situation so it's not hypothetically concerning. I've been watching this from afar and not fully engaging with this line of debate. I get to a degree both ends of people's arguments and where they're coming from. I get the idea of promoting the best protocols and equipment. But I also live in a low mask use area where at this point I would just accept anyone doing anything to limit the spread. I would love if everyone would generally wear masks that are on the high end of effectiveness. But at this point I would also take just about any measure of protection being used on their face en masse....since any form of measure would be better than what i currently witness on the daily. I think it's similar to say nutrition. Malnutrition problems are a definite problem and ideally it would "follow the science" and the best protocols would be promoted....this is generally a diverse plant based diet with minimal meat that is more likely fish or chicken or like items minimally processed and preferrably home cooked. But that's not likely to be followed if that's all that was promoted because there's social factors that strongly reduce adherence. Likewise with masks, if it was simply a problem of best preventative treatment measures, there would be no doubt that promoting they higher quality end masks would be best. But several social circumstances present warrant, IMHO, the flexibility of promoting any properly worn somewhat effective covering. And figuring out how to dislodge people on their general anti-mask stances that keep them from using any form of protection in public spaces. With luv, BD
  5. So by this I think you mean more biological distinctions (hair color, face/body shape, skin tone, etc) as opposed to cultural/social distinctions (which is closer to ethnicity). I'd break this down to 2 parts: Will we have distinctive features from each other? This I would assume is a solid yes. I base this on the fact that nature and this earth is a reflection of God. Creation in essence reflects God's will. And creation is inherently diverse and interconnected. So I don't view being "perfected" to mean being the same in looks but rather having ourselves be made into the perfect manifestation of the light we were given. Will we place the same meaning on said distinctive features? This I would assume the answer is no. I base this on the fact that our assumptions about who we are based on what we look like aren't God's interpretation of us, but the world's. Race is literally our social interpretation on physical features that we deem important. Being mixed is an odd window into just how transient those markers are. They are contextual and based on their social assumptions around race. These can be fairly innocuous, like assuming a cultural affinity i don't have (usually varying countries/ethnicities I don't have even a remote connection to because I'm speaking spanish, my married name, or because of my spouse), assuming I would be "good" at things I'm not, or would feel a sense of connection to things that assume all "xyz" people like. Some are more limiting or uncomfortable and in the wrong context could limit my choices based on split assumptions about capacity or risk. I have watched people flip scripts in their heads to better match what they assume about me as they've gained new info about me. This meaning isn't of God...it's what we put on ourselves and others. So I can't see how those will fully stay or maintain the same significance we hold now. Culturally I don't think there is a perfect or even "more perfect" culture on this earth right now. We will all go through a transition and this will likely change both how we see ourselves but also how we see and understand others. With luv, BD
  6. What do you mean by ethnicity?
  7. I would assume obviously dry. I can't think of a time I wore a "wet" mask. Including times I've worn them for several hours. With luv, BD
  8. I meant that more of an expression of generally differing “sides” openly disagreeing with something said by church leadership. but it reminds me of another thing I’ve been learning this year: the limits of empathy/understanding. That’s one of my go-to tools when it comes to interacting with people in general. But the pandemic is another beast. you mentioned this earlier to pogi: I’ve done this with at least one of these cousins I mentioned above. When I got vaxxed, I was one of the first in my family/friends to do so. So I made a public post about it and left it open to anyone who wanted to talk to me about it to do so with no shame or judgment involved. I was desperate just to reach those around me as best I could to gently encourage vaccination. I practiced what I preached and kindly answered every concern after listening and empathizing with them. During this Said cuz wanted to dm me and talk privately. So we did, she shared her concerns, I told her mine and my experience with the vaccine as well as what I knew. She was appreciative and there was no offense or a negative experience she took from the convo. The next day she posted another critical anti-vax oriented meme. I’ve had a few vax hesitant or waiting people in my life that I had more direct contact with besides her. One was my step-mom the other was my other cousin. Both got vaxxed. What did work for them? For my step-mom, boundaries on seeing the grandbaby. As in we’ll be coming by and you can have face-to-face time with grandchild once you’re vaxxed. Same was given to all the family as a qualification to all my close relatives. (To be fair, her hesitation was more to do with a fear of needles than anything else and for other parts of my family it was just making time for it). For the other cuz, it was more info that filled in some of her questions. I’ve worked to understand my people and moreso the the issues around this general. I agree that info wars especially aren’t super effective. People will find info to back their opinion no matter what. But I’ve found empathy also has its limits in this too. It allows people to believe that my opinion is as equally valid as their’s and it’s all just a matter of perspective and differing priorities. Which isn’t true. But the other problem I’ve seen is that for many most adament or set not vaxxing is they also don’t have an off ramp to manage being wrong. Be wrong or pointing out huge gaping problems in their assertions, even when it is done without shaming language, Is often still taken as shaming or judging them or some such response that allows them to remain the victim or underdog of simply having “different conclusions” or “concerns”. Meanwhile, ironically, I’ve yet to see a post against vaccination that doesn’t throw judging language or demeaning terms to describe the vaccine and/or those insisting it’s needed. My main question at this point is how do we get people to earnestly acknowledge and accept they may be wrong? How do we really “reach” those who seem to be made of Teflon when it comes to more accurate information, accounts of covid death and suffering, kind corrections from friends or family, and religious counsel? Cuz i got nothing for those most earnestly choosing this hill to (sometime literally) die on. But it does make me think that we may have a spiritual deficit in learning how to confront that we will be wrong and gracefully take accountability and repent. with luv, BD
  9. Thanks. The cloth masks in this study still have a filtration amount that I've seen rated for most cloth masks that are more than a bandana or other shoddy single layer masks (not what I've seen sold at any store, BTW, actually sold as a face mask). Though they were manufactured in bangladesh, I don't see them as drastically different than what we have one market. The door to door is definitely different, but I would note having endorsements on what to do with a mask and varying forms of announcements on masks in the US aren't. Access in the US to both masks and info are going to differ than what one would expect or need from a bangladeshi villlage. Some of what was mentioned though with monitors in the community reminds me a lot of what happened at the height of mask wearing in the US, when mandates were more common and stores started to seriously jump on board/encourage it. there were people at the beginning of the store that would hand out masks and depending the store I went to, many workers would remind customers to wear them properly. Something similar happened when I went to CO recently to both a museum and a national park. Yes, it was not equally implemented.....some places were more adamant than others in compliance and easier to monitor for as much. But it did drastically increase how many were effectively wearing masks. Obviously there were still chin-strappers and nasal drippers running around. There were still a handful of people who chose the least effective masking (neck garters or bandanas) to wear. But there were far more wearing a relatively more effective mask consistently. Note I label anything that is a fairly solid cloth mask that generally fits properly and any form above that as "effective." With luv, BD
  10. I definitely get more from that study. For one I'm not seeing any part where it says they made masks (the closest was a line saying cloth masks could be more customizable, not that they were in this study) for them and the training was made specifically to be replicable to any country. As in it was general and simply entailed distributing/assuring access to info from the WHO and their national leaders. I also now wear a kn95 type mask in large part because of delta and my area's really low adherence to masking. I didn't for most of the pandemic. I went with cloth masks I made for reasons of both access and the ability to make sure it fit my face. I have on bought one that is actually a solid fit that I know use for quick garden excursions on smokey days (super smoke sensitive). My husband wears a surgical and is unopposed to wearing his shop respirator if needed (though his public time is super limited anyways). My daughter will likely have a cloth one for now due to her small face...since she's super young it's largely for practice right now. For many places and demographics, what masks they can have will be limited by cost (any 95 is pricier than most other options), access, and size. This study indicates that even with that, it's worth wearing what you having properly (ie covering mouth and nose and with a decent fit) than it is to do nothing. And that's extremely important for maintaining or making policies to promote public health, particularly in nations that need the most cost effective ways to reduce spread till vaccinations can be made more available. With luv, BD
  11. I think it’s a bit of incredulity on my end. Though I don’t think i‘Ve directly made the analogy, I know I’ve up scored it or at least smiled a little when I’ve seen it. It’s a little mind bending to watch people who general are more strict around prophetic counsel or at least more outwardly “in line” with what’s been said over the pulpit that are more cultural lines that have little effect outside oneself if your follow them or not. Earrings and tattoos would fall under that category. Some I know have been extremely judgy of those who don’t or at least appear like they don’t (such as some of the accounts from Al Fox on people’s reactions to her tats in the church). But with something that can literally save lives and protect others, that to me seems like a moral no-brainer, many who fell in the above camp are using messages and reasonings they’ve rarely if ever used in their life to continue going as they are. And it appears to me they’ve done so with barely a missed step. I have two cousins that fall into this category. Both have a trail of online posts that talk about medical freedom, their choice, some quasi-victim posts about how others are seeing them for not getting vaxxed, etc. They’re also both openly religious and have posted at least at points to indicate being active in the church (things like temple pics). Sometimes they have posts that intermingle their political/social stance with religious undertones. When the first Presidency statement came out and without missing a beat they reposted something from a woman who basically said she wasn’t sweating the statement and believed in her own answers. Later in the responses the said author of this post can be seen stating misinformation, several interactions talked about ivermectin as an appropriate counter to vaccines, and some general fear mongering around the vaccine as a whole ensued as reasons for their choices. Which leaves me dumbfounded and, well, incredulous. It’s not necessarily that they disagree or are moving counter to prophetic counsel. It’s that they tend not to and have likely questioned at times others who do. That they’re using mottos and trumpets to proclaim their position that they previously opposed And even sneered at. Until it’s them on that other side of the fence. It makes me question what is the “spirit” to them? Are they used to it moreso being a source of self-validation than a guidepost to deep and meaningful change? How does one get to trusting political and social talking points over one’s usual religious stances? For the record I don’t have more than one piercing and I don’t have tattoos, so your parallel on that one fell a little short for me. But I have definitely had moments of disagreement with statements or talks from prophets and apostles and general church leaders. I’m not one who believes that “follow the prophet” mean do every last tip they suggest for our lives with little questioning. What this and also the Holland talk controversy brought out of me though is questioning how I disagree. Do I take time to read it through? Do I look fully into “their side” per se on this or that concern? Why am I disagreeing, sometimes reactively…what’s my emotions behind it? And lastly being willing to step back and proverbially ask “is it I?” As in is it me that’s wrong or overextending my knowledge base and am I sure? Am I really open to the idea or potential that I could be wrong? With luv, BD
  12. I’m kinda surprised this research hasn’t made the rounds yet: https://www.poverty-action.org/study/impact-mask-distribution-and-promotion-mask-uptake-and-covid-19-bangladesh To note: it is currently pre peer-review. But the study the first (or at least one of the very few) to hit the gold standard in the medical research community. Meaning it’s a randomized trial, held in real world settings, and is large scale (~300k participants). The study focused on a few things: mask v no mask, cloth v surgical masks, and means to get adherence to proper mask wearing in lower income countries as well as how these effected social distancing. They were able to up the numbers of proper mask wearing from 14% to 43% in targeted villages. This increase (which note, isn’t even fully half the pop) showed decrease in symptomatic covid with masking. It was slight for cloth (5%) but significant for surgical (12, I believe) it supports the basic idea that mask is better than nothing, and better threaded masking (like surgical ones) are better overall. With luv, BD
  13. So my brother recently converted to what I think is a conservative non-denom oriented religion/family. The dad of said family spent hours trying to convince him of the trinity, to little effect. It didn't make sense to him, even from the bible passages they pulled out...even from his limited understanding of our own religion. What did work was what you describe as "boundary maintenance." I call it stacking the cards in their favor. As in, make continuing his relationship with their daughter contingent on studying their religion (and strongly inferring conversion = keeps first love and their family while he's still figuring out how to adult). That one was likely extremely unique to his circumstance. Other's were less so. Like the dad realizing he would need to throw some heavy doubt about my brother's religion he was raised in, to leave him more open to his own. Forget whether the stuff was actually accurate. I cannot emphasize how painfully true the bold has become to me. Particularly after said brother who I helped through some of his hardest moments stated clearly that he believed I was going to hell because of my beliefs. I could also believe that the trinity and contingent beliefs are maybe a stance of "overthinking it." But here's the things, while my bro was parroting what he was taught and explaining why he believed I would go to hell if I continued as I was, he didn't mention anything about my saved status (at least at first). His assumption of my heathen hell-bound destination if I died tomorrow was tied heavily to doctrinal assertions. Ie. my disbelief of the trinity, beliefs of JS as a prophet, etc. It was only after I pointed to the scripture in galatians about the gifts of the spirit and he noted that he'd seen all of those traits in me that he even mentioned something about being saved (summarizing) and one of those is still tied to a theological boundary (whether I believe in that all I need to do is believe in Jesus to be saved...again summarizing). At least from I've seen to presentations to "the mormons," pointing to these areas of theological boundaries is really important to evangelizing to us. It likely isn't how it's presented to everyone, but it is definitely how I've seen it presented to me and others like me in areas heavily populated with evangelicals. With luv, BD
  14. This draws a bit of a false equivalency. Along with people who leaned hard on “literalism” there’s been a solid core that haven’t. I would assume that at this point is the majority of LDS folk. And being “saved” even on a more literal variant is still more nuanced and universalist leaning than what I’ve seen from the vast majority of evangelicals, non-denoms, and many other branches of what would be deemed orthodox Christianity. with luv, BD
  15. It you look at the maps and compare county vaccination rate and county hotspots (as in high case rate per 100k people) there is an obviously correlation between vaccination and spread. Multnomah is no exception. Their covid cases are steadier than most the rural counties I clicked on (as in there’s no drastic surging happening there) and per capita, their rate is on the lower end for Oregon. this is with a big thing going against it: it has a far greater population density. Which means it’s harder to socially distance and reduce contact with others. It gives huge credence to the final step to reducing covid transmission: vaccinations. Without it, it can dash previous efforts to slow the spread in the face of delta. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/oregon-covid-cases.html With luv, BD
  16. Idaho is on the edge of needing to implement crisis standards of care: https://apnews.com/article/business-health-coronavirus-pandemic-idaho-09941b507483a5c7b0183dcbf03a8254
  17. Marital rape/sexual coercion is very different. It’s more a play of mental health or cultural factors around sex that lead to a singular or series of bad decisions. On the singular accounts of marital rape, I honestly can’t think of a solid way victims could have avoided it. It wasn’t their decision. On the series, it’s either a pattern of abuse, most often emotion, that may likely entail pressure or emotional forms of punishment to get sex. These can be as lightweight as stonewalling and getting excessively angry/emotional whenever she says she isn’t in the mood. This slowly erodes “no” as an option in the relationship around sex. The woman will agree to sex, but more and more so she can avoid the fight or problems for if she doesn’t and less because she wants to. Often this pattern, for the “good guys” in the relationship isn’t recognized as a problem till it’s laid bare in therapy and they’re usually horrified. Some times they still continue to act like spoiled idiots and continue to vent about their “needs,” as if they’ll die without sex. The only thing a woman could have done was to speak up about the emotional cost of what’s happening to her. But usually this is a cultural dance that has to be broken. If it’s unintentionally emotional coercion I can usually be broken by the man learning to listen and taking accountability for managing his sexual desires, becoming less entitled to her body. I work to support the woman being open and a little more assertive as to how she’s actually feeling and what she needs. That’s usually the opposite of what both of them learned growing up. If the abusive behavior is a common emotional response by the husband who doesn’t think it’s a problem, we’ve got a bigger problem. It may continue, it may take a lot of work for him to accept and maintain acceptance that he’s been abusive, and it may be best for them to end up divorcing in the end if his pattern seems fixed. When it’s single people dating. Most women already practice trying to avoid certain relationships for this exact reason. That’s why we get advice on clipping this or that behavior, wearing this or that outfit, doing this or that activity etc. Many carry things like bear mace or keys while walking. Other try to look busy on the phone. but most often it’s acquaintances, such as a date of a friend of a friend, that’s a problem. I can’t think of a single sure-fire thing a woman could do to avoid assault. I could think of so many more things a man could do to reduce the behaviors and what we can do to shift cultural norms around male entitlement, appropriate behaviors, self-mastery, frank lessons on consent and seeking it, greater gender parity, etc. Because the greater equity, knowledge, stability, and reduction of social violence in society are what are tied more with a reduction in sexual violence. And an individual woman really can’t modify her behaviors or dress to change that. with luv, BD
  18. 1. Do you think married gay couples should be allowed to attend church services? Of course. Anyone is welcome to attend and I'd find it highly inappropriate for a ward or ward (busybody) member to question otherwise 2. Do you think married gay couples should be excommunicated from the Church. Any exceptions? My gut generally shrinks from that one. Technically a bishop, based on current policies would have a right to do so. But I think it also needs to be strongly balanced by whether or not the member(s) were willing/wanting to attend, that may affect their attendance, and if they were willing to differentiate not being ex'd with assumed condoning of said relationship. I would assume what limits that would entail (temple recommends, priesthood actions, etc) could also be talked about with the bishop informally and leave the matter at that. I would think it could be similar to part member families that are coming back to church where the one spouse is more like "spouse" due to complicated legal restraints (that's fairly common in some countries with rigid divorce laws). There's a bigger benefit in fellowshiping and incorporating them into the ward as much as possible than there is in disfellowshipping and putting them through disciplinary procedures. 3. Do you think married or unmarried gay members should be allowed to hold hands in a church building? Yeah, if a married couple could comfortably do it, they should be able to 4. Do you think married or unmarried gay members should be allowed to kiss as long as it is in an appropriate place? same answer as above. I've never seen much more than small kisses from married couples in churchy place in general so I can't see why that shouldn't be afforded gay members that as well. 5. Do you thinks single gay members should be allowed to date someone of the same sex? Yeah, that's a personal choice I shouldn't get to dictate. I also think it's important to really know what they want. I know for some gay members having that time to explore and experience same sex relationships was important for them to decide, more decisively, whether they can live church standards or not or where/how much they wanted to participate in church. I know that may mean they leave for (long) periods of time. But we're asking a heck of a lot of gay members if they choose full activity with our current understanding of doctrines and certain policies. I've also seen members that kept acting out in super unhealthy ways (gay or straight) because their choices were more than nudged by social pressures to be "normal" than it was by a true conversion to the Gospel. That's not sustainable. Whatever choices they make I would hope it was made from a truly authentic space and represented a balance of their own beliefs and convictions....not borrowed from mine or coerced by others. 6. What restrictions, if any, do you think the Church should place on someone who is gay? Similar to married people...or single depending. Excommunication may need to be on the table if there's an affair...just as it is when it's a straight couple (fun fact I do know a gay man who did have I think a couple affairs that the bishop knew about, before they decided it was probably best to excommunicate....though I don't doubt that there were other bishops less mercy oriented or more homophobic who hear same sex anything in the manner of the sin and let their own biases weigh heavier than it should on such decisions). When it's a concern of belief more than actions I would hope it showed some key markers of actual apostacy than simply "I believe in marriage equality." As in they didn't differentiate that belief from a religious stance and started preaching or condemning others based on their beliefs. But I would hope either way excommunication was rare, a last resort in stickier situations (repeated affairs or unrepentant stances, etc), or a collaborated solution to spiritual concerns. Edit to add: For a basic rundown of my current beliefs with lgbt things in and out of the church - ok with civil gay marriage or at least civil unions with equal rights for gay people (whichever works best for the country in question). Work actively with gay members in particular in coming to healthier terms with their sexuality....their usual descriptor for me is something along the lines of safe or non-judgy. I took a lot of training to make sure I was that way and regularly check myself in sessions (gay or straight) to make sure it's not my own person beliefs coming out too much. This is tied heavily to some gospel related experiences and beliefs: namely we're all on our own journey, we all deserve dignity and respect and have infinite worth, most people have good intention even when they royally screw up, and my job is to help, witness and support. Dictating what someone should do should be super super rare....99 times out of 100, that is not my stewardship. Church specific, I believe there is something very important in both men and women and that it likely has eternal weight/balance to have these in union/harmony. I feel we could use a better understanding of heaven that better incorporates the experiences of those who are not married in general and LGBT specifically. I assume we still have a ways to grow on this. Both in culture, custom, policies, and clarification on doctrines...I hope that I'm apart of that in my own small ways. I also don't think the end picture will be having same-sex marriages be sealed in temples....but I will humbly repent if I'm wrong on that one. ' Got distracted again from work...and again... With luv, BD
  19. Yeah, I read the study summary and the few others I could find. The research is limited because the time frame is limited to have the long term studies needed...so what you're going to find is a lot of individual studies at best (I think I could find 3-4) all of them (including the israel study) with limitations. The israel study focused on pfizer and likely disproportionately had people with symptomatic infections and focused on people several months after infection/vaccination. Which is part of the reason the US decided to open up boosters. It also still stated that receiving a vaccine after infection increased immune response even further and that there were indications of waning immunity in the infected (if I read it right....the wording was a little weird). This also then has to be placed in line other like studies, studying varying aspects of reinfection questions. I haven't found one that really covers all of my questions all at once. What you still get is that one can still reduce the infection rate even further by being vaxxed an appropriate amount of time after infection. On the individual level this may not be huge difference. But on a large scale with a substantial part of the population that can't be vaccinated (12 unders), this little edge can add up. It's still about seeing the society and efforts on the effects of the whole and weighing what would be best for the larger population. That balance isn't easy for me to fully come to by myself. I don't have the education and training needed to fully assess, so I have to rely on those that do. And those currently have the consensus to vaccinate all the population, previous infection or no, for the better good of the whole If you're wondering how I judge them, specifically....I still judge it as not the best reasoning. My closest cousin for a while fell into this camp for a little bit. But she's also intellectually oriented. So when more research started to trickle in that indicated there were benefits from vaccinating even after infection, she got the vax. There is reason why to get it even after infection, I don't get the reasons why not. Yes, but one also has farrrr less of a chance of "complications" from a vaccine than an infection. Not that I think you're suggesting one hope for natural infections. With luv, BD
  20. Not the ones i'm reading. Most the ones I find or epidemiologists I find note that they have protection, it's less consistent or strong than those who received just vaccination, and would be stronger than the vaxxed if they got at least a single dose due to hybrid immune responses (or something like that....can't remember the exact term). THere's also a solid chance that that the naturally immunities are even less effective if they had covid earlier in the pandemic and/or with the alpha variant. So after the 90 day wait, they really should go in and get a booster shot. With luv, BD
  21. This is probably a bit of a controversial response: but technically they're not following the prophet on this specific issue. I definitely wouldn't go so far as to call them apostate unless they're actively preaching that the prophets are wrong/being misled and that we should move against them and/or leave the church in protest (I don't know if I've heard someone whose frustrated with the non-vaxxers overtly claim that...though I'm sure they probably exist somewhere). But it's hard to say they're following the prophet when the first presidency have been pretty dang consistent in both example and speech about covid, following sound science, taking social distancing/masking measures, and getting vaccinated when you can. So if you didn't heed that, found questionable or heavily biased resources that biased one's info stream, only wore masks or socially distanced when it was externally enforced (and then chose to "wear" it as some variety of a chin strap), and continue to not get vaccinated....then yeah, that's not following the counsel of the prophet. Nelson basically said go left, avoid turning onto this one way street, and make a small u-turn in this new region. And they effective said I'll go straight, might turn on a one way if I don't see any other cars coming my way, and therefore will avoid the u-turn....I feel pretty confident in my own knowledge on this. (note: these are the ones who have not had legitimate reasons to wait or not get it. For example, those who were pregnant in the spring and wanted to wait for more research for pregnant people to come out before getting the shot, or have a waiting period because they got covid, etd. Okay I get that....but when the medical consensus changed, or the waiting period was over, that needed to change too. There are very very few people who really shouldn't get the shot at this point that are over the age of 12. Most people who are still holding out don't fit that category.) That said, at some point most of us don't "follow the prophet." I know I've disagreed and still actively disagree on some things prophets and apostles have said...or at least common interpretations of them. I think for many (not all) that fall into the point of not following prophetic counsel in such an obvious way are may often be the sort who also aren't used to doing it and often judged those that have in the past. In short they're more likely to be validated in their worldview than pressed on it in the faith community. I would assume having that as a new experience has got to be extremely uncomfortable. From what my RS prez said, mask wearing went up but there's still a minority who don't wear them. I still don't go to church outside of young women's, so I'm not sure what the wards look like. I won't lie, I judge those who are not vaxxed at this point. A lot. Though my views on those choosing (emphasis on choosing as opposed to willing or truly open to get it but for some reason can't or have a hard time doing so for reasons outside their control) to not get the vaccine based on some variant of the term "freedom" and "choice" while following selective or questionable information sources still holds some nuance while I'm judging the heck out of them. Minus when I'm irritated and venting to my husband. I prefer self-centered over selfish, stubborn/misguided (depending) over unfaithful, and foolish or a bad judge of info/risk assessments over stupid. With luv, BD
  22. This is very different the rodheadlee’s inferences with “bedroom eyes” and other things that suggest signs of sexual flirting or openness. This one’s more so showing signs of victimhood through being more submissive and thus less likely to talk or fight back. Basically predators are looking for prey: people deemed weaker or more vulnerable in some way. though I’d also point out this research noted has one big gaping flaw: it’s only focused on violent psychopaths who got convicted of sexual assault. Those are unfortunately the minority of sexual assault cases (as in a small sliver of the whole). Most perpetrators do not fit this description. There’s more perpetration by people who don’t name what they did as sexual assault, but it fits the def. Men who repeatedly get away with this and may more likely hold beliefs that perpetuate their assumptions of women really being willing to some degree in the end or because she does A she’s really open to B…even if she made it clear in the beginning she most certainly wasn’t. I have actually talked to people who’ve assaulted. And due to my line of work, I’ve gotten the sliver that are deemed marital rape. I’ve also worked with victims of sexual assault. I’ve read a heck of a lot of research on this too. Which makes me pretty comfortable saying rodheadlee is hitting some serious foul balls on this one. with luv, BD
  23. If your opinion is "I think I drive pretty safely drunk" that would be an opinion that puts lives in danger. Likewise certain covid related "opinions" definitely do put lives at risk. It's quite simple, certain preventative and slowing measures are needed to slow down the spread just enough to at least allow our hospitals to better manage and in the case of vaccines reduce the likelihood of hospitalizations all together. Each person infected with covid and particularly the delta variant continues to spread the disease in communities and increase the rate of variants. If no measures are taken or only taken by a few in society then the numbers of people with long-term side effects, chronic illness, and hospitalizations go up. When the hospitilzations massively spike, the system gets overwhelmed and other non-covid deaths go up. That's a description of much of the south right now. Part of me empathized with the first part of your quote. I got vaxxed and when the CDC changed advice to match new data rolling in about the spread of the delta variant, my first reaction was hesitation and resistance. I didn't care about protecting the unvaccinated because they had an open option to go get the vax and I would likely get a glorified cold. What convinced me was my daughter, who's young and has an underlying health condition. I remembered that many people like her could also unknowingly get sick if I was infected and didn't know it. So I put a solid mask back on and I started curtailing activities. The one time we've made a big exception was because we went to a place that heavily enforced masking. But to you're point on division. Yes, of course there is. Again this is an issue that directly effects lives. it is nice to assume this is a free choice for everyone in an equal manner. But it's not. Other people's choices burden other sectors of society. Medical staff, support personnel, and everyday people like me. It's not simply that I choose to wear a mask or choose to stay home. I have to stay home more or restrict places I would love to go because I know many people in the area I live choose to not mask and choose to not vaccinate. And their reasons for doing so (I've listened and purposely sought out many) just fall super super flat in comparison. It's not an equal field of reasons, not an equal experience of burden, and inevitably not an equal consequence. That's going to naturally build resentment and disdain and frustration. I'm watching people choose to do what pleases them and act normally when I simply can't afford that choice....but that if they gave a little more consideration for others I could probably rejoin them. How am I and others not supposed to feel a sense of division when their choices unnecessarily burden me and keep me having to limit my interactions with them? that's a serious question I've had to wrestle with more than once. All I've got so far is actively practicing forgiveness...which has allowed me to feel compassion when say a man gets sick and dies leaving a wife and children behind because he refused to take this seriously. But it is constant WORK to check my anger and frustration with people in the Unmasked and especially unvaxxed categories. I'm constantly carrying a weight they refuse to fully acknowledge. We will not have peace when a group ignores and downplays the other groups pain, fears, and at times harm they may have unintentionally placed on others and continues to pretend that their choice is simply an individual decision that needs to be respected. With luv, BD
  24. I can’t remember when, but I assume it was when I was a teen. By 15 or 16 I had a healthy leeriness around truck drivers and construction sites especially. There seemed to be a higher likelihood of something uncomfortable happening with the subsets for whatever reason. with luv, BD
  25. When I looked on Wikipedia, there were only a handful of countries with beard/grooming laws of some sort. Most of these were limited to specific professions or religious exemptions. And a couple were countries that most of us will never visit or have an active presence in for a long time to come anyways (like North Korea). Even if there was, it would be simple to have cultural training or mission/area specific rules for when you’re called to be a representative in that specific area. that’s not exactly difficult. It makes no sense to me to care about for what is at this point a small sunset of the population freaking out about some facial hair for usually petty reasons (some variation of “I don’t like it” usually) as the determinate for how we should conduct ourselves globally or generally. with luv, BD
×
×
  • Create New...