Jump to content

We're Headed Back to Church! Sorta.


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have heard of a number who go there to do work as it is quieter than at home.

And some people have their actual office in a meeting house. ūüėČ

Link to post
5 hours ago, Danzo said:

In my experience, living in large extended families has more to do with poverty than coming from south of the border. 

In mine, it is culture.  First generation immigrated Asian families in Calgary, Canada were almost all multigenerational, some even had friends who were recently immigrated or who were in Canada to improve their English skills living with them.  They were also generally wealthy and lived in very nice areas of the city a few years after immigrating.  Third generation Asians generally followed more local culture patterns than heritage though second generation was mixed.

Most Hispanics in Canada that I knew (mostly from South America) didn't have their parents or grandparents around and had younger or college aged kids, so they were just the nuclear families, but I don't know if by choice or just circumstance.

Edited by Calm
Link to post
4 hours ago, ksfisher said:

 My favorite at the moment...as can be seen by my referencing above.  Very detailed and well explained and based on actual incidents and not models/theories.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
Link to post
3 hours ago, mtomm said:

For this reason each stake will be responsible to provide those to the members for cleaning before any meetings begin so they will have to get them locally.  There are hurdles to opening quickly. 

I really, really hope there aren't leaders taking short cuts.

Do you know if there is any monitoring going on or is it fully a trust situation...as in 'here is the info, get it done, pat on the back, we are sure you will do exactly what we say or even better'....?

Link to post
1 hour ago, mtomm said:

It would be a big misconception to think that building use ever stopped.

I know my son and other missionaries go there for both basketball and other things.

Link to post
1 hour ago, mtomm said:

And some people have their actual office in a meeting house. ūüėČ

That is true.  My bishop is there for set hours each week for those that need to see him.

Link to post
1 hour ago, mtomm said:

It would be a big misconception to think that building use ever stopped.

Yep.  We haven't met since March 8th, but a few of us went in to clean the building on March 21st (since it hadn't been done before we stopped meeting).  At that time, I cleaned the kitchen thoroughly myself.  Two weeks ago, my husband (serving as bishop) and I went to the church so he could do a batch of tithing and checks with his clerk, and someone had left a whole bunch of dirty dishes soaking in water in one of the kitchen sinks.  Literally looked like someone had a party with cake and ice cream and failed to wash any of the dishes.  So someone had been in there serving food to a group during the time we were not supposed to be using the building.  

Link to post
4 hours ago, alter idem said:

I Don't.  I know for certain I don't project and I don't sing powerfully,  I bet they're referring to trained singers. The tab choir most of us ain't.  I'm exhale much harder when exercising, so I'm not buying this.

4 hours ago, alter idem said:

I'm sorry but this fear of singing is ridiculous.  Singing involves breath control; just try singing and exhaling strongly at the same time,  you'll probably get light headed, let alone sing very choppily, which sounds terrible.  

Please read very carefully to understand the difference between aerosols and droplets.  This gives a fantastic and detailed description of how and why the mechanism of singing is so effective at generating and spreading these aerosols:

Not only can these tiny particles carry respiratory disease like the coronavirus, but they may also be more infectious than larger droplets, the study proposed. Because aerosols are so light, they may hang in the air for hours. They may reach deeper into the lungs than droplets do. Most important, there are more of them: Saying ‚Äúaah‚ÄĚ for 30 seconds produces twice as many particles as coughing nonstop for the same amount of time, according to a study in the¬†Journal of Aerosol Science. And singing,¬†according to research done on the spread of tuberculosis, may produce six times the rate of small airborne droplets as speaking does.

In fact, almost everything about singing seems to create more (potentially virus-spreading) aerosols. Ristenpart explains the mechanism: When you exhale, mucosal fluid forms a film deep in your contracting lungs. When you inhale and your lung walls expand, the film bursts, creating aerosol particles that are then breathed out into the world. ‚ÄúThe rate at which you inhale or exhale affects the number of particles you emit,‚ÄĚ he says. Deep, slow breathing followed by a fast exhale would produce the fewest particles. The greatest number would come from quick inhalation (causing a more violent film burst) followed by slow and prolonged exhaling. ‚ÄúThat‚Äôs kind of a description of singing,‚ÄĚ Ristenpart says.

A similar film-burst effect happens in the larynx as your vocal cords expand and contract ‚ÄĒ and your cords vibrate more when you sing than when you speak. Your volume also matters: The louder you are, the more particles you emit and the greater risk you would infect the people near you.¬†

Quote

Members can just wear masks and this would stop droplets so why demand that there can be no singing?

You shouldn't be worried about droplets with singing.  You should be worried about aerosols.  

No masks are currently safe for singing, Lucinda Halstead, MD, an otolaryngologist at the Medical University of South Carolina, said in a recent webinar

Please read the whole article.  It is fantastic and directly addresses your points. 

https://elemental.medium.com/why-singers-might-be-covid-19-super-spreaders-57607ed71b9b

Do you have any science to back up your opinion?

 

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

How would you suggest an easy to define identifier that can help with finding trends due to genetic or cultural causes?  Say for sickle cell anemia....how would you talk about the populations most at risk for that?

The term "latino/hispanic" is worse than useless in identifying genetic or cultural causes.   Someone from Argentina and someone from the Domican Republic can both be identified as "Latino/Hispanic".  There wouldn't be any more Genetic similarities than would be a norwegian and and someone from china.  The cultures are vastly different.  I had a friend once who was an immigrant from Argenta whoes parents came from laos.  Was she Hispanic? Or was she Asian?. I communicated with here parents in Spanish.   I met another person who was from Boliva with parents who were Russian.  Hispanic? or European.  Didn't speak russian. I remember talking in spanish to a guy from mexico city.  Blond hair, blue eyes.  He said he was decendended over several generations from Irish deserters in the Mexican american war.  Mexican? Latino? Hispanic? The guy didn't speak any english or Irish. The list can go on and on. The more I meet people the more I realize that you just can't classify them without taking the time to get to know them.

One of the problems is that people want an easy way to define someone.  There really aren't any, but people look for them anyway its a human tendency to try and classify people according to a few obvious characteristics to avoid going through the trouble of really getting to know who people are. 

Even the common idea that African americans have sickle cell anemia is oversimplistic.   The disease is prevelent in certain areas in africa and not in other places. It also occurs in Indan and Middle Eastern Populations. People in american that are decendents of slaves have a lower incendence than those that live in africa. (1/16th as likely as those living in africa).

I live and work with immigrant populations from mexico.  When someone comes in to see me, I don't just say to myself, this person is a latino, or hispanic.  I ask them where they are from.  If they say they are from Oaxaca, I ask them what region, what town.  I ask them if they speak Mixteco, or Zapateco, or Triqui.  If they are from another country I ask about their town, their culture. People from the town of Tindu think of themselves differently than those of Yucucimi or Tezoatlan or Huajuapan.

On my mission, I met and talked to many people from many places. I learned that someone from Camaroon does not usually Identify with someone from Ghana, or Cote d'Ivoire or senegal. Here in american they would be classified as  one race due to us americans not really wanting to take the time to know the difference. Someone from Haiti and Someone from Nigeria probably couldn't be more different but some stupid police officer would treat them the same because understanding differences would be just too hard. 

Its only here in american that these poeple must be placed in broad catagories, largly, I feel, because people here are too lazy to want to get to know them or want to make it easy to market to them.

Link to post

Outside of the disease aspect, this stuff is fascinating to me. Thanks for sharing, Pogi. The world is such an interesting work of art. 

Link to post
3 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Its only here in american that these poeple must be placed in broad catagories, largly, I feel, because people here are too lazy to want to get to know them or want to make it easy to market to them.

Thank you for answering. I think I understand your disagreement much better. I agree we could probably do better with more precise grouping, but not sure when too precise renders medical surveys too bulky to work with.  I also think we should avoid labels when we don’t need them...which I think is quite often.  Certain fields should, imo, be much less fond of them (law for one).
 

I had assumed nonAmerican medical studies used the same categories in general. I will have to take a look at some to see how they handle specifying groups.  
 

Maybe Hamba can share how his government and society handle labels and if he sees problems with it. 
 

I see Canada as being pretty consistent with American usage, but it has been awhile so my memory may be faulty. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
6 minutes ago, pogi said:

Please read very carefully to understand the difference between aerosols and droplets, and why the mechanism of singing is so effective in spreading these highly infectious aerosols:

Not only can these tiny particles carry respiratory disease like the coronavirus, but they may also be more infectious than larger droplets, the study proposed. Because aerosols are so light, they may hang in the air for hours. They may reach deeper into the lungs than droplets do. Most important, there are more of them: Saying ‚Äúaah‚ÄĚ for 30 seconds produces twice as many particles as coughing nonstop for the same amount of time, according to a study in the¬†Journal of Aerosol Science. And singing,¬†according to research done on the spread of tuberculosis, may produce six times the rate of small airborne droplets as speaking does.

In fact, almost everything about singing seems to create more (potentially virus-spreading) aerosols. Ristenpart explains the mechanism: When you exhale, mucosal fluid forms a film deep in your contracting lungs. When you inhale and your lung walls expand, the film bursts, creating aerosol particles that are then breathed out into the world. ‚ÄúThe rate at which you inhale or exhale affects the number of particles you emit,‚ÄĚ he says. Deep, slow breathing followed by a fast exhale would produce the fewest particles. The greatest number would come from quick inhalation (causing a more violent film burst) followed by slow and prolonged exhaling. ‚ÄúThat‚Äôs kind of a description of singing,‚ÄĚ Ristenpart says.

A similar film-burst effect happens in the larynx as your vocal cords expand and contract ‚ÄĒ and your cords vibrate more when you sing than when you speak. Your volume also matters: The louder you are, the more particles you emit and the greater risk you would infect the people near you. For example, the UC Davis study suggested, ‚Äúairborne infectious disease might spread more efficiently in a school cafeteria than a library, or in a noisy hospital waiting room than a quiet ward.‚ÄĚ

As for a choral concert? ‚ÄúWould singing cause a large number of expiratory particles to be emitted? I would say absolutely,‚ÄĚ Ristenpart says. Whether those aerosols actually transmit disease depends on additional factors ‚ÄĒ like airflow, to name a big one. Still, says Ristenpart, ‚Äúif that choir in Washington had sat for two hours of meditation instead of singing, the transmission would almost certainly have been much lower.‚ÄĚ There is abundant evidence to suggest that Covid-19 is spread via aerosols, he adds, ‚Äúbut a lot of people are very resistant to that idea, because the potential implications are a bit terrifying.‚ÄĚ

 

You shouldn't be worried about droplets with singing.  You should be worried about aerosols.  

No masks are currently safe for singing, Lucinda Halstead, MD, an otolaryngologist at the Medical University of South Carolina, said in a recent webinar

Please read the whole article.  It is fantastic and directly addresses your points. 

https://elemental.medium.com/why-singers-might-be-covid-19-super-spreaders-57607ed71b9b

 

Ive always suspected it is being transmitted mainly by aerosols.  Why does everyone keep telling us its transmitted by droplets and touching surfaces?  If it is transmitted primarily by aerosols, then most masks aren't going to stop it very well.

I wonder how much healther the lungs are in people who sing vs people who don't sing.  I understand poor lung health (COPD, left sided heart failure) can cause worse outcomes in covid infected people. 

Link to post

Danzo, another question. At the moment in order to get help to groups in need, discriminating between groups is necessary imo. It would be better if groups were divided into more precise grouping for even better targeting. However, our system is currently set up with certain labels and those who are working to get people help don’t have much option to work with others right now because they can’t go out and get the info that way themselves. 

I am curious what terms you would suggest Pogi substitute for what he used given the info he works with currently uses that grouping. 

Link to post
25 minutes ago, Calm said:

Maybe Hamba can share how his government and society handle labels and if he sees problems with it. 

Sorry, I haven't been following this discussion at all. I had a quick look at Danzo's post that you quoted to try to get a sense, but I may be off base.

If the question is whether broad groupings of people are social constructs of dubious genetic (and consequently medical) value, then the answer is undeniably yes. It's quite possible that my West Africa-born housemate is genetically closer to me than he is to someone from, say, Botswana. We are certainly much closer culturally.

But it's not true that America is the only place that relies on broad groupings of people for statistical purposes. I just looked up the categories for our census. Here they are:

  • North African and Middle Eastern
  • North-East Asian
  • North-West European
  • Oceanian
  • People of the Americas
  • South-East Asian
  • Southern and Central Asian
  • Southern and Eastern European
  • Sub-Saharan African

So basically all you people of the Americas are the same to us! :P

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
  • Like 3
Link to post
22 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I am not at all smug in this matter, but I am very sorry that an otherwise well-developed and intelligent society (Sverige) should have dropped the ball and exercised such poor judgment.  That failure to exercise common sense and the evident lack of professional medical judgment costs lives that should not have been lost.  The same problem of politicizing a medical issue is also taking place in the good old USA.  It need not have.

I am so surprised about Sverige also.  Sweden is my mother’s homeland and my father’s parents homeland.  They have always seemed to be particularly cautious.  Were they trying to do a scientific study?  They have a lot of research in that country.  I’m just shocked that the population isn’t outraged.  

Link to post

Droplets and touching (meaning picking up the droplets or what is left of them when we touch surfaces with them or get our own spit, etc on our hands)¬†transmit the virus. They are right to act on avoiding those where possible. It is the ‚Äėaddition to those‚Äô¬†that they were originally not certain about iirc...though that could be described as more don‚Äôt have the data for covid specifically yet from what I remember of my readings and discussions with medical professionals (they assumed aerosol would be an issue as well since it typically is) which is why patients were placed in pretty strict¬†isolation in¬†hospitals rather than just depending on protective wear and basic quarantining.¬†

Edited by Calm
Link to post
15 minutes ago, Calm said:

Thank you for answering. I think I understand your disagreement much better. I agree we could probably do better with more precise grouping, but not sure when too precise renders medical surveys too bulky to work with.  I also think we should avoid labels when we don’t need them...which I think is quite often.  Certain fields should, imo, be much less fond of them (law for one).
 

I had assumed nonAmerican medical studies used the same categories in general. I will have to take a look at some to see how they handle specifying groups.  
 

Maybe Hamba can share how his government and society handle labels and if he sees problems with it. 
 

I see Canada as being pretty consistent with American usage, but it has been awhile so my memory may be faulty. 

Thank you for allowing me to explain my position a little better, I probably didn't do a very good job earlier.

I just get rather tired of people constantly taking advantage of immigrants by having them do all the work no one wants to do during this epidemeic, then blame them for spreading the disease.  I know pogi doesn't mean for this to happen but sometimes all people need is an excuse.

Many of these people don't get any benifits from unemployment, they aren't elligble for the stimulus payment, yet they get in trouble for going to work and get treated either as a vector or some social justice cause.  

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Droplets and touching (meaning picking up the droplets or what is left of them when we touch surfaces with them or get our own spit, etc on our hands)¬†transmit the virus. They are right to act on avoiding those where possible. It is the ‚Äėaddition to those‚Äô¬†that they were originally not certain about iirc...though that could be described as more don‚Äôt have the data for covid specifically yet from what I remember of my readings and discussions with medical professionals (they assumed aerosol would be an issue as well since it typically is).

"Though there is the possibility that coronavirus could be transmitted by touching a surface ‚ÄĒ and then your nose, mouth or eyes ‚ÄĒ the likelihood of that is lower than person-to-person contact, which is believed to be the primary way coronavirus is transmitted. "

This is the latest from the Centers of Disease Control.

  • Like 1
Link to post
13 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Thank you for allowing me to explain my position a little better, I probably didn't do a very good job earlier.

I just get rather tired of people constantly taking advantage of immigrants by having them do all the work no one wants to do during this epidemeic, then blame them for spreading the disease.  I know pogi doesn't mean for this to happen but sometimes all people need is an excuse.

Many of these people don't get any benifits from unemployment, they aren't elligble for the stimulus payment, yet they get in trouble for going to work and get treated either as a vector or some social justice cause.  

 

I was thinking myself of¬†the increased harassment and¬†hate crimes against those of Asian descent no matter where or how long they have been in the US. (My biggest exposure with immigrants outside of ‚Äėwhite Americans‚Äô like myself traveling outside the US is with Asians in Canada. My daughter‚Äôs elementary school was 1/3 immigrant, most from Hong Kong or Korea, so I think that has led me to be more aware of their difficulties.)
 

I don’t know if Americans are worse than others or just have their own blind spots. Russians often lumped North Americans as all from the States in my experience.  There were many Canadians I ran into that did the same with First Nations, seemed to classify people south of the US and then Africa as one though much better with Asian categories.  I would have expected best with First Nations since they were in the same country. 

Edited by Calm
Link to post
38 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Yeah, stuff keeps getting updated as they learn more. ¬†It is unfortunate that the ways info is generally spread through news, internet,¬†and word of mouth ‚Äėfacts‚Äô get stated with less nuance than they should be, such as including ‚Äėat this time research seems to indicate...‚Äô.¬†
 

If they find viruses persisting on surfaces, they are going to assume a high likelihood of transmission that mode. Later work may prove otherwise (virus may test as present but not be viable if I understand correctly).
 

Part of it is that it can be hard to get people to act on possibilities, even if significant. How many people have smoked thinking lung cancer wouldn’t happen to them?  How many people speed thinking they can avoid an accident?

added:  And while I am happy to hear surface touching isn't as dangerous as originally thought, I honestly have to say I will be more confident when I see more than just the CDC saying it.  While I think calming fears is a big part of their job, I have been a bit concerned that has been given too much weight at times.

It will be interesting to see how this is all evaluated 25 years later.

Edited by Calm
Link to post
2 hours ago, Calm said:

I really, really hope there aren't leaders taking short cuts.

Do you know if there is any monitoring going on or is it fully a trust situation...as in 'here is the info, get it done, pat on the back, we are sure you will do exactly what we say or even better'....?

Trust.

Link to post
13 minutes ago, mtomm said:

Trust.

Did you hear my groan when I read that, thinking I might have been rather loud....even though I was pretty certain it would operate that way since pretty much everything does.

Unfortunately I have been hearing too many stories.

 

Edited by Calm
Link to post
1 hour ago, Rain said:

That is true.  My bishop is there for set hours each week for those that need to see him.

This. But I also mean they work there 5 days a week, 8 hours a day. 

Link to post
Just now, Calm said:

Did you hear my groan when I read that....even though I was pretty certain it would operate that way since pretty much everything does.

Unfortunately I have been hearing too many stories.

 

And then trust the members it is assigned to. 

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...