We're Headed Back to Church! Sorta.

[Danzo]

7 minutes ago, Calm 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 ‘facts’ get stated with less nuance than they should be, such as including ‘at this time research seems to indicate...’. 
 

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?

I've always suspected aerosols have been the primary mode of transmission.  After all, it seems to effect the lungs more than the upper respiratory tract,  If it were transmitted primarily via touching, you would see it infecting the upper respiratory tract first and then progressing to bronchitis and Pneumonia like sensible viruses tend to do.  (not that touching can't transmit it, just that breathing someone elses air seems to be the more likely transmission method.) Just because it is alive on a surface doesn't explain how it gets to the lower respiratory tract. 

[Maureen]

12 hours ago, Danzo said:

That's a very racist statement

I assure you that people who speak Spanish are Just as intelligent as you are and can make decisions about their health without your help.

I think you are confusing race with ethnicity.

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethnicity_vs_Race

M.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Danzo said:

it seems to effect the lungs more than the upper respiratory tract, 

I will admit that I wasn't paying that close of attention to that aspect.  I have been trying to avoid thinking about specifics postinfection and was focusing on the initial infection and avoidance.

[Danzo]

10 minutes ago, Maureen said:

I think you are confusing race with ethnicity.

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethnicity_vs_Race

M.

perhaps,  

Is one better than the other?  Both seem to be made up constructs

From the article you linked.

Geneticist Luca Cavalli-Sforza has argued that neither ethnicity nor race have a genetic basis and cannot be scientifically defined. He notes that human populations have a great degree of genetic unity (even in their apparent diversity):

Most genetic differences are between individuals, not groups. Almost never does one group (racial or ethnic) have a trait that is missing in the rest of humanity. Our physical differences—skin color, facial features, hair texture— actually represent ancestral adaptations to different environments. These are malleable characteristics that evolve relatively swiftly. The obvious differences in skin color, for instance, relate to the intensity of sunlight at different latitudes.

Edited May 22, 2020 by Danzo

[Calm]

Just now, Danzo said:

perhaps,  

Is one better than the other?  Both seem to be made up constructs

Geneticist Luca Cavalli-Sforza has argued that neither ethnicity nor race have a genetic basis and cannot be scientifically defined. He notes that human populations have a great degree of genetic unity (even in their apparent diversity):

Most genetic differences are between individuals, not groups. Almost never does one group (racial or ethnic) have a trait that is missing in the rest of humanity. Our physical differences—skin color, facial features, hair texture— actually represent ancestral adaptations to different environments. These are malleable characteristics that evolve relatively swiftly. The obvious differences in skin color, for instance, relate to the intensity of sunlight at different latitudes.

One of these days we may be labeled by what gene creates high risks for disorders, etc.

[Danzo]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

One of these days we may be labeled by what gene creates high risks for disorders, etc.

Its possible but I have full confidence we will continue to make judgements against people who look or act different than what we think is normal.

Its much easier that way. Genetic testing sounds like too much work when there are easier ways to be prejudiced. 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Ahab said:

We generally don't approve of people wearing masks to cover their faces, do we?  I've heard something about that in regards to Halloween and costume parties.

For safety reasons, no masks were the norm because of possible strangers, not being able to identify suspects, etc.  (the reason was not in the handbook, but was what I was told by several leaders, still it was possibly speculation rather than instruction). Was in the handbook and likely still is.

yep, see section 20.6.25

I suspect full face masks will still not be allowed, only masks for medical reasons...though I have seen variations that work well for both and not just doctors and nurses' costumes.

Edited May 22, 2020 by Calm

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

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 “aah” 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. “The rate at which you inhale or exhale affects the number of particles you emit,” 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. “That’s kind of a description of singing,” Ristenpart says.

A similar film-burst effect happens in the larynx as your vocal cords expand and contract — 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. 

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?

 

So in Black Death we should have killed the hamsters. For Covid19 we should have killed the choirs.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, LJP said:

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.  

Yes, a very deliberate people.  People who seldom get outraged about anything.

[Meadowchik]

11 hours ago, pogi said:

Multigenerational households are not necessarily responsible for higher rates any more than large households.  The only concern about multigenerational homes is that older/retired populations are living with younger, working people.  That places vulnerable people at risk where they otherwise wouldn't be at as high risk if they were empty-nesting.    

However, we don't see the same infection rates in large households (and we live in Utah!) and even multigenerational households in every population.  By simply targeting large households and multigenerational households, we are going to miss the target.  The net is too wide.  The hot spots are more narrowly concentrated, and ethnicity has been a more effective way of identifying those hotspots than any other measure (which we do track). 

I think it is a combination of factors.  1) House size.  Number of bedrooms/bathrooms and total square feet.  It is impossible for some to isolate from household members.  2) Family size.  For some reason, poor white people don't seem to have as large of families as poor Hispanic people.  3) Ability to work from home and number of close contacts at work.   So, poor people with small homes, and large families who can't work from home or work in close proximity with many other people are high risk.  We tend to see those factors more in some populations than others.  I have found through my many, many contacts that Hispanic people seem to be more likely to work through their symptoms if they have mild/moderate symptoms.  It is not uncommon to call someone who said their symptoms started on say 04/10/20 and they worked everyday through 04//25/20 and only tested once they found out a coworker or family member was positive.  It happens all the time.  By that time, they have spread the disease to upwards of 20 people at work.  I see it all the time. They also tend to work with other Hispanics who speak their language and so it stays in that concentrated population.  Many of the close contacts of index cases refuse to stay on quarantine because they need to work.  For whatever reason, I have noticed through my calls  that poor Hispanic people seem to be more eager to work than poor white people.  It is the poor white people that I see trying to stretch out quarantine as long as possible to get paid to stay home. Those are my personal observations.  People may be offended by them, but that is what I see. I believe it is a combination of those factors that may be causing some ethnic populations to be at greater risk.

The Pacific Islanders - huge families that love to party.  My contact list for Pacific Islanders frequently exceeds 20.  They have SO MANY contacts. Highly social.   

I would think that multigenerational households by definition have a larger number of adults and a larger chance of having more workers. (If they are poor, they also might be less likely to work from home, and so they find essential work.) A passle of kids can remain isolated without the household income changing, but not the same for adults who work. BTW where do your numbers come from?

[alter idem]

13 hours ago, pogi said:

Based on what evidence?  It has been long known that singing spreads respiratory disease better than talking.  Do you deny the science?

1) We aren’t required to wear masks.  Have you ever tried singing in a mask? 
2) masks don’t “stop” droplets. 
 

Are you willing to bet someone else’s life on it?  Are you that confident?

Yea, I guess I'm a science denier because I tested it.  I put out more air when speaking than when I sing. It's super easy to tell, try it, maybe we're different,  but for me,  the science is not relevant.  I guess I'd be better off singing around other people than speaking.

And your comments on masks,  it's just as hard to sing a hymn as it is to speak in a mask, but a lot of people are insisting we should be wearing masks.

You said masks don't stop droplets, why are we told to wear them? What's the point if tgey can't keep droplets from spewing in the air, why bother?  I've been wondering  this from the beginning, because way back in late February we were told masks didn't do anything,  but then they started saying they do work and we should all be wearing them. No one's explained that reversal that I know  of.

Am I willing to bet someone's life on my irresponsibly singing? No, but it sounds like I could kill someone with my speaking as well, and the mask won't help! I guess I should not speak, let alone sing while out of my house, just to be safe. No wonder so many are so fearful of going back to outside life now.  Forget zombies, we're need to be afraid of the living; we are walking biological hazards to everyone around us!😷

[Calm]

Droplets come in large, medium, and small sizes.  Masks block some, but not all droplets.  Certain masks are much better than others.  Multi layered cloth masks are better than single layer, tighter weave better than loose, but too tight too hard to breathe.

https://www.lhsfna.org/index.cfm/lifelines/may-2020/how-effective-are-masks-and-other-facial-coverings-at-stopping-coronavirus/

Quote

Comparing N95s, Surgical Masks and Cloth Masks

First, let’s be clear that there’s no comparison between a correctly worn respirator, such as an N95, and other types of masks and facial coverings. Respirators are designed – and scientifically proven – to filter extremely small particles from the air. N95s and more protective options like elastomeric or half-face respirators are so effective because they form a tight seal to the wearer’s face, which forces all the inhaled air to pass through the filter.

Unfortunately, this is also why N95s are in such short supply. Knowing that it’s not realistic for everyone to wear an N95 respirator, let’s take a look at the potential benefits and limitations of other options in more detail.

Surgical Mask

Effective for: The primary purpose of these masks is to protect other people from the wearer’s respiratory droplets. These masks also give some barrier protection against larger respiratory droplets from other people.

Limitations: Because there’s no facial seal, surgical masks don’t reliably filter enough smaller airborne particles to count as respiratory protection. One study found surgical masks can filter about 60 percent of smaller, inhaled particles. (By comparison, an N95 would filter 95 percent of these particles.)

Paper Mask

Effective for: These masks are intended to filter larger nuisance dusts from the air, such as pollen or sawdust, which are much larger than virus particles. Like surgical masks, they provide some barrier protection for the wearer and those in close contact with the wearer.

Limitations: Though made of filtering material, they are not designed to filter inhaled particles as small as viruses and don’t form a face seal.

Homemade Cloth/Fabric Mask

Effective for: Homemade masks provide some barrier protection from large respiratory droplets expelled by other people. Perhaps most importantly, they reduce the spread of respiratory droplets emitted by the wearer. In one study, coughing through a cotton mask significantly reduced the amount of SARs-CoV-2 particles transferred to a test surface.

Limitations: As above, these masks don’t form a tight seal to the face and don’t reliably filter small inhaled particles. Attempts to measure the effectiveness of cloth masks to filter small particles show a wide range of results: cotton T-shirt (seven percent), shop towel (19 percent), coffee filter (49 percent). Material type and thickness (e.g., cotton, denim, canvas), fit to face (e.g., flexible nose bridge) and use of an internal filter (e.g., coffee filter) are just some of the variables that affected filtering efficiency.

Summarizing Available Mask Benefits and Limitations

The overall evidence shows that surgical masks, paper masks, cloth masks and other facial coverings all provide the wearer with some protection against SARs-CoV-2. Those benefits include a protective barrier for virus particles to land on instead of our mouth and nose, and a level of particle filtration (even though nothing comes close to an N95 respirator). In short, wearing a mask offers some protection against the virus, but there’s a big gap between some protection and effective protection.

While these alternative mask options are far from perfect, we should keep in mind that the biggest benefit of wearing them is likely for the people around you. We know small virus particles can hang in the air, and we know people can spread the virus without ever having symptoms. Any steps we can take to contain our coughs, sneezes and regular breaths behind a mask can help limit how far the virus travels. That alone is reason enough to put on a mask.

While homemade masks are far from a perfect level of protection, the reality is that slowing the spread of SARs-CoV-2 requires us to take advantage of every opportunity we have. We should also remember two other important points. First, no mask is a silver bullet. Even an N95 won’t protect you if you touch your face with contaminated hands right after taking it off. That’s why masks have to be used in combination with physical distancing, hand hygiene, cough etiquette and other precautions. Second, the reason we’re wearing homemade masks is so we can hopefully leave N95s and other more protective respirators for the healthcare workers and frontline workers who desperately need them.

 

Edited May 22, 2020 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

Droplets come in large, medium, and small sizes.  Masks block some, but not all droplets.  Certain masks are much better than others.  Multi layered cloth masks are better than single layer, tighter weave better than loose, but too tight too hard to breathe.

https://www.lhsfna.org/index.cfm/lifelines/may-2020/how-effective-are-masks-and-other-facial-coverings-at-stopping-coronavirus/

 

Just an FYI that might have potential. Yesterday the repairman told me about this, now being produced here in the UK.  It is a fabric made into a scarf-like mask that supposedly deactivates viruses on contact: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-8193223/The-snood-mask-infection.html  Things like this might make a big difference for some of us. Company link: https://www.wearwell.co.uk/british-workwear-manufacturer-wearwell-makes-anti-virus-snoods/

Edited May 22, 2020 by Meadowchik

[pogi]

1 hour ago, alter idem said:

Yea, I guess I'm a science denier because I tested it.  I put out more air when speaking than when I sing. It's super easy to tell, try it, maybe we're different,  but for me,  the science is not relevant.  I guess I'd be better off singing around other people than speaking.

And your comments on masks,  it's just as hard to sing a hymn as it is to speak in a mask, but a lot of people are insisting we should be wearing masks.

You said masks don't stop droplets, why are we told to wear them? What's the point if tgey can't keep droplets from spewing in the air, why bother?  I've been wondering  this from the beginning, because way back in late February we were told masks didn't do anything,  but then they started saying they do work and we should all be wearing them. No one's explained that reversal that I know  of.

Am I willing to bet someone's life on my irresponsibly singing? No, but it sounds like I could kill someone with my speaking as well, and the mask won't help! I guess I should not speak, let alone sing while out of my house, just to be safe. No wonder so many are so fearful of going back to outside life now.  Forget zombies, we're need to be afraid of the living; we are walking biological hazards to everyone around us!😷

Please read the article I posted.  It is not about how much air you put out.  Blowing out hard and fast  produces the fewest aerosols, so your science experiment is based on a false premise.  Most aerosol's are produced by breathing in deep and fast followed by a slow controlled exhale (aka singing).  Masks don't completely eliminate droplets, but they can help reduce how many and how far they are transmitted.  With aerosols, they may reduce it some, but not enough to make singing in a mask safe.  

Yes, speaking can be dangerous too, but usually there is only one person talking at a time during sacrament.  The highest risk will be the singing and socializing that happens before and after sacrament meeting.  We have to be realistic though.  We can't eliminate all risk.  But we can take steps to eliminate high risks activities where the risk outweighs the benefit.   Risk vs benefit.  Simple as that.  We can eliminate singing without causing serious harm.  We can also do our best to minimize contacts/socializing before and after church.  That is best practice if going to church is unavoidable. 

Edited May 22, 2020 by pogi

[alter idem]

11 hours ago, pogi said:

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 “aah” 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. “The rate at which you inhale or exhale affects the number of particles you emit,” 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. “That’s kind of a description of singing,” Ristenpart says.

A similar film-burst effect happens in the larynx as your vocal cords expand and contract — 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. 

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?

 

You know,  a lot of this is theory, the theories and models have not been thoroughly tested, retested,  challenged by other scientists (though that sadly seems to be discouraged these days) But to some, regardless, it will be viewed as fact and as this belief spreads, it won't matter if there is error in the science.

If singing gets labeled as the most dangerous way to spread airborne illness and disease,  then we can expect singing in church to be targeted and banned permanently by well-meaning individuals in order to protect us all for our own good.  Covid 19 isn't the only threat that is airborne.   

I know through scripture, The Lord delights in our singing, so why am I surprised it's being targeted?  Will we have to hide in our closets to be able to sing one day?

 

[CA Steve]

I have a suggestion which would allow people to make their own choices about attending meetings.

Where multiple buildings are available, set up different levels of meeting exposure at different locations. Use one building for those who do not worry about contracting or infecting others and a different building for those who are concerned about it and apply the appropriate levels of caution at the two different buildings.

 

If multiple buildings are not available maybe alternate weeks between the two different groups.

Edited May 22, 2020 by CA Steve

[Raingirl]

9 minutes ago, alter idem said:

You know,  a lot of this is theory, the theories and models have not been thoroughly tested, retested,  challenged by other scientists (though that sadly seems to be discouraged these days) But to some, regardless, it will be viewed as fact and as this belief spreads, it won't matter if there is error in the science.

If singing gets labeled as the most dangerous way to spread airborne illness and disease,  then we can expect singing in church to be targeted and banned permanently by well-meaning individuals in order to protect us all for our own good.  Covid 19 isn't the only threat that is airborne.   

I know through scripture, The Lord delights in our singing, so why am I surprised it's being targeted?  Will we have to hide in our closets to be able to sing one day?

 

That’s one of the wackiest conspiracy theories I’ve ever read. 

Pogi is simply explaining how disease transmission works. He’s explaining a transmission route many people are ignorant of. And he is doing an excellent job. 

[pogi]

27 minutes ago, alter idem said:

You know,  a lot of this is theory, the theories and models have not been thoroughly tested, retested,  challenged by other scientists (though that sadly seems to be discouraged these days) But to some, regardless, it will be viewed as fact and as this belief spreads, it won't matter if there is error in the science.

Actually, the role of aerosols in the spread of disease has been thoroughly tested and retested and published in peer reviewed medical journals.  This has been scientific knowledge long before Covid ever came around.  

27 minutes ago, alter idem said:

If singing gets labeled as the most dangerous way to spread airborne illness and disease,  then we can expect singing in church to be targeted and banned permanently by well-meaning individuals in order to protect us all for our own good.  Covid 19 isn't the only threat that is airborne.   

I think you are being a little dramatic.  Like I said, we can't eliminate all risks in life.  But we can take temporary steps to reduce heightened risk during an extremely contagious and life threatening pandemic of which there is no vaccine or cure.

27 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I know through scripture, The Lord delights in our singing, so why am I surprised it's being targeted?  Will we have to hide in our closets to be able to sing one day?

You are definitely being dramatic.  Are you accusing me of assisting the devil for targeting something the Lord delights in?  Do you know what the Lord delights in even more than singing?  Life and physical well-being. 

Edited May 22, 2020 by pogi

[alter idem]

I don't think I want to continue in this discussion,  it's bringing to me feelings of sad helplessness.  I have been wondering why, as I personally  don't really care if we go back to church (I could do home church indefinitely )  but others I know, who really miss church, are struggling without it.they need it to return. Missionary work needs it to return. 

   I came to realize the sad reality is that I don't miss my ward that much because I rarely hear inspired talks or lessons. The irony is, the times I do feel the spirit is occasionally during hymn singing. I'm frustrated to think that the one thing that has power to bring the spirit to my dull ward meetings could be removed. If there can be no singing at all,  I worry it will hurt the ability to feel the spirit.

If everything is so dangerous in enclosed places,  maybe our meetings should be outside in the parking lot, and shortened, until the fear of contagion subsides.  That would be a whole lot easier imo.

[Tacenda]

45 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Just an FYI that might have potential. Yesterday the repairman told me about this, now being produced here in the UK.  It is a fabric made into a scarf-like mask that supposedly deactivates viruses on contact: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-8193223/The-snood-mask-infection.html  Things like this might make a big difference for some of us. Company link: https://www.wearwell.co.uk/british-workwear-manufacturer-wearwell-makes-anti-virus-snoods/

We're going to need to figure out something soon, schools are struggling on how to re-open schools, and it's my line of work, so I'm hoping too!

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, alter idem said:

Yea, I guess I'm a science denier because I tested it.  I put out more air when speaking than when I sing. It's super easy to tell, try it, maybe we're different,  but for me,  the science is not relevant.  I guess I'd be better off singing around other people than speaking.

And your comments on masks,  it's just as hard to sing a hymn as it is to speak in a mask, but a lot of people are insisting we should be wearing masks.

You said masks don't stop droplets, why are we told to wear them? What's the point if tgey can't keep droplets from spewing in the air, why bother?  I've been wondering  this from the beginning, because way back in late February we were told masks didn't do anything,  but then they started saying they do work and we should all be wearing them. No one's explained that reversal that I know  of.

Am I willing to bet someone's life on my irresponsibly singing? No, but it sounds like I could kill someone with my speaking as well, and the mask won't help! I guess I should not speak, let alone sing while out of my house, just to be safe. No wonder so many are so fearful of going back to outside life now.  Forget zombies, we're need to be afraid of the living; we are walking biological hazards to everyone around us!😷

I think it'd be great to sing while wearing a covering. Solves everything!  Watch the video below to see why.

https://dr58mx4d40r1x.cloudfront.net/22904554/high.mp4#t=0.001

[Meadowchik]

12 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I don't think I want to continue in this discussion,  it's bringing to me feelings of sad helplessness.  I have been wondering why, as I personally  don't really care if we go back to church (I could do home church indefinitely )  but others I know, who really miss church, are struggling without it.they need it to return. Missionary work needs it to return. 

   I came to realize the sad reality is that I don't miss my ward that much because I rarely hear inspired talks or lessons. The irony is, the times I do feel the spirit is occasionally during hymn singing. I'm frustrated to think that the one thing that has power to bring the spirit to my dull ward meetings could be removed. If there can be no singing at all,  I worry it will hurt the ability to feel the spirit.

If everything is so dangerous in enclosed places,  maybe our meetings should be outside in the parking lot, and shortened, until the fear of contagion subsides.  That would be a whole lot easier imo.

I can relate to this, singing especially with other people is one of the most enjoyable hobbies I've ever had. It can be absolutely wonderful and edifying. This is hard, and I have also wondered how singers, choirs, and other musicians will fare through this. I am hopeful that human beings will find ways to participate. Music fills the soul, we need it!

[Rain]

47 minutes ago, alter idem said:

You know,  a lot of this is theory, the theories and models have not been thoroughly tested, retested,  challenged by other scientists (though that sadly seems to be discouraged these days) But to some, regardless, it will be viewed as fact and as this belief spreads, it won't matter if there is error in the science.

If singing gets labeled as the most dangerous way to spread airborne illness and disease,  then we can expect singing in church to be targeted and banned permanently by well-meaning individuals in order to protect us all for our own good.  Covid 19 isn't the only threat that is airborne.   

I know through scripture, The Lord delights in our singing, so why am I surprised it's being targeted?  Will we have to hide in our closets to be able to sing one day?

 

I love the singing part as well. I love my husband's full beautiful voice and love singing beside him singing alto as he sings base even though he has so much power behind his that I don't. 

I think though that this scripture applies,

" To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

"2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

"3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

"4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;"

Even if it isn't a time to sing, it will be again.  

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I can relate to this, singing especially with other people is one of the most enjoyable hobbies I've ever had. It can be absolutely wonderful and edifying. This is hard, and I have also wondered how singers, choirs, and other musicians will fare through this. I am hopeful that human beings will find ways to participate. Music fills the soul, we need it!

I don't know why, but your post made me think of sign language.  I know from time to time we incorporate sign language in, but it could be really cool to have choirs of signers for awhile.

Edited May 22, 2020 by Rain

[Meadowchik]

48 minutes ago, pogi said:

Actually, the role of aerosols in the spread of disease has been thoroughly tested and retested and published in peer reviewed medical journals.  This has been scientific knowledge long before Covid ever came around.  

Thanks for posting the Medium article before. I had already read it but could not remember where from and wanted to see it again.