Preserving Religious Freedom in Time of Crisis: Remarks by Elder Bednar

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

So you're saying that the governor can set the rules and we should follow those rules (agreed).  But when the governor's rules say that a church can do something we shouldn't do it?

I am not blaming the church for following the rules.  I am simply arguing against the claim that we are being conservative.  We certainly are not being conservative in Utah.  Because I agree that the power should be in the hands of the governor does not mean that I am going to agree with every decision he makes.  I disagree with the governor in this instance.  I think he is giving special and dangerous privilege to churches, but I would rather him make the decisions than allow churches to make their own rules.  

Edited June 25, 2020 by pogi

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I agree that we did things right in the beginning, however Elder Bednar is now accusing governments of violating religious liberty in an unprecedented way, demanding that it never happen again.  Not a very sincere thank you.

We have given governor's power and authority in emergency situations to determine guidelines and enforce them in the interest of saving lives and public health.  To give churches authority to make their own guidelines would be a disaster.  They are not privileged with the same resources the governor has to make these decisions.  They do not have access to top health experts with inside knowledge of outbreak areas and other important data in decision making.  Why should religion be privileged and immune from executive order when no one else is?    If you leave it up to some churches, they would continue gathering in mega churches with thousands.  Even with restrictions, some churches refuse to follow them and we see huge outbreaks like in Oregon.  No way in heck should religion be given this kind of immunity and be expected to act in appropriate ways in determining their own guidelines in emergency pandemics.  

The CDC discourages singing.  The church has not.  In Utah, the church is gathering in groups of 99 and singing together in areas where the rest of the population is limited to gathering sizes of 20.  We certainly are taking advantage of a special privilege that we should not have.  I think we started out on the right foot, but we are not being conservative anymore (at least here).

I wasn’t saying the Church came up with her own guidelines without having the legal authority to do so. I said that she came up with guidelines that are more conservative than the jurisdictions within which she operates and not opening contrary to government guidance.

As time rolls on and the pandemic express itself differently in different locales, the Church has delegated “reopening” plans to the Areas, Coordinating Councils and Stakes which are still subject to approval from above. These too are coming up with guidelines and plans that are more restrictive than the jurisdictions within which they operate; none are authorized by the Church to do anything less restrictive. We are not going to be singing.

I have access to top health experts and serve on our stake’s task force for this, and from what I can see, the Church employs them (and lawyers on the subject) at every other level along the approval process as well.

I don’t think Elder Bednar is calling for immunity from executive orders, but to better recognize the right to freedom of religious expression going forward by considering religion “essential” and by putting out equitable safety measures. Yes, some churches are behaving irresponsibly (in my opinion) by disobeying their jurisdiction’s executive orders (and he is not calling for that, either). Recognition and accommodation are not immunity!

Many people, religious and not, are acting irresponsibly in many other venues (and mostly while minding their own mundane business, going about their daily lives).

Utah? From what I see online, events and activities may now host large group gatherings (3000 indoors, 6000 outdoors) with social distancing and mask precautions. Compliance and enforcement of course are another thing. It also looks like a county-by-county phasing. As far as churches, the yellow and orange phases allow for gatherings of any size and the State policy has been very “liberal” to faith groups all along. https://coronavirus-download.utah.gov/Health/Phased_Health_Guidelines_V4.6.2_06172020.pdf

I can see faith groups being granted essential service status (which is what Elder Bednar is calling for in the name of religious freedom) and also equivalent restrictions / responsibilities as their secular counterparts in the name of safety. That is still protecting religious freedom. And of course being a public exercise, requires representation and voices from all affected parties. Tough job for government!

[pogi]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I wasn’t saying the Church came up with her own guidelines without having the legal authority to do so. I said that she came up with guidelines that are more conservative than the jurisdictions within which she operates and not opening contrary to government guidance.

As time rolls on and the pandemic express itself differently in different locales, the Church has delegated “reopening” plans to the Areas, Coordinating Councils and Stakes which are still subject to approval from above. These too are coming up with guidelines and plans that are more restrictive than the jurisdictions within which they operate; none are authorized by the Church to do anything less restrictive. We are not going to be singing.

I have access to top health experts and serve on our stake’s task force for this, and from what I can see, the Church employs them (and lawyers on the subject) at every other level along the approval process as well.

I don’t think Elder Bednar is calling for immunity from executive orders, but to better recognize the right to freedom of religious expression going forward by considering religion “essential” and by putting out equitable safety measures. Yes, some churches are behaving irresponsibly (in my opinion) by disobeying their jurisdiction’s executive orders (and he is not calling for that, either). Recognition and accommodation are not immunity!

Many people, religious and not, are acting irresponsibly in many other venues (and mostly while minding their own mundane business, going about their daily lives).

Utah? From what I see online, events and activities may now host large group gatherings (3000 indoors, 6000 outdoors) with social distancing and mask precautions. Compliance and enforcement of course are another thing. It also looks like a county-by-county phasing. As far as churches, the yellow and orange phases allow for gatherings of any size and the State policy has been very “liberal” to faith groups all along. https://coronavirus-download.utah.gov/Health/Phased_Health_Guidelines_V4.6.2_06172020.pdf

I can see faith groups being granted essential service status (which is what Elder Bednar is calling for in the name of religious freedom) and also equivalent restrictions / responsibilities as their secular counterparts in the name of safety. That is still protecting religious freedom. And of course being a public exercise, requires representation and voices from all affected parties. Tough job for government!

I 100% disagree that church gatherings should be considered "essential" in an emergency pandemic, which allows them immunity from closure in emergency.

When you say "we are not going to be singing" are you talking about your ward specifically?  Several people here have already reported that their wards are singing.  Can you show me any guidelines discouraging singing from the church?  I can show you some from the CDC. 

If these gathering sizes are accurate, things have changed when I wasn't looking.  I remember the governor limiting church gathering to less than 100 (which is exactly when the church limited group sizes to 99).  If he has loosened that restriction as numbers have increased - that makes no sense to me.   Social gatherings are still limited to 50.  If there truly is no restriction on church gathering sizes now, and 3,000 or more are allowed for events, then I am extremely disappointed.  Hospitals are saying that they will be over-run in 2-3 weeks time if things continue as they are, and we are allowing church gatherings of any size and other indoor events up 3,000 people??? Is anyone watching the numbers here?  

I guess I was confused by your original comment that churches should be allowed to make their own guidelines.  It sounded to me like you wanted them to have total immunity on how they did things:

Quote

Having this experience, it is good to assess where we can do better in preserving freedom of religious expression while determining our own guidelines which are quite conservative anyway.

 

 

Edited June 25, 2020 by pogi

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I agree that we did things right in the beginning, however Elder Bednar is now accusing governments of violating religious liberty in an unprecedented way, demanding that it never happen again.  Not a very sincere thank you.

We have given governor's power and authority in emergency situations to determine guidelines and enforce them in the interest of saving lives and public health.  To give churches authority to make their own guidelines would be a disaster.  They are not privileged with the same resources the governor has to make these decisions.  They do not have access to top health experts with inside knowledge of outbreak areas and other important data in decision making.  Why should religion be privileged and immune from executive order when no one else is?    If you leave it up to some churches, they would continue gathering in mega churches with thousands.  Even with restrictions, some churches refuse to follow them and we see huge outbreaks like in Oregon.  No way in heck should religion be given this kind of immunity and be expected to act in appropriate ways in determining their own guidelines in emergency pandemics.  

The CDC discourages singing.  The church has not.  In Utah, the church is gathering in groups of 99 and singing together in areas where the rest of the population is limited to gathering sizes of 20.  We certainly are taking advantage of a special privilege that we should not have.  I think we started out on the right foot, but we are not being conservative anymore (at least here).

Singing? I hadn't heard of that happening, just a recording. Or am I missing something?

[pogi]

18 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Singing? I hadn't heard of that happening, just a recording. Or am I missing something?

The church has only banned ward choirs.  The church has not discouraged singing hymns as a ward in any way, unfortunately.  I know that several members here have reported singing in their wards - Scott, bluebell, and Anijen come to mind.  There may be others.  Where singing is allowed, it sounds like hymnals are not allowed.  I just have to shake my head at that.  It is the SINGING not the touching of the hymnals that is the bigger risk.

Edited June 25, 2020 by pogi

[ksfisher]

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

The church has only banned ward choirs.  The church has not discouraged singing hymns as a ward in any way, unfortunately.  I know that several members here have reported singing in their wards - Scott, bluebell, and Anijen come to mind.  There may be others.  Where singing is allowed, it sounds like hymnals are not allowed.  I just have to shake my head at that.  It is the SINGING not the touching of the hymnals that is the bigger risk.

We're not back yet, but the bishop has said that when we do we won't be singing.

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

We're not back yet, but the bishop has said that when we do we won't be singing.

Good to hear.  I was relieved to learn that my stake also is not singing. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I 100% disagree that church gatherings should be considered "essential" in an emergency pandemic, which allows them immunity from closure in emergency.

When you say "we are not going to be singing" are you talking about your ward specifically?  Several people here have already reported that their wards are singing.  Can you show many any guidelines discouraging singing from the church?  I can show you some from the CDC. 

If these gathering sizes are accurate, things have changed when I wasn't looking.  I remember the governor limiting church gathering to less than 100 (which is exactly when the church limited group sizes to 99).  If he has loosened that restriction as numbers have increased - that makes no sense to me.   Social gatherings are still limited to 50.  If there truly is no restriction on church gathering sizes now, and 3,000 or more are allowed for events, then I am extremely disappointed.  Hospitals are saying that they will be over-run in 2-3 weeks time if things continue as they are, and we are allowing church gatherings of any size and other indoor events up 3,000 people??? Is anyone watching the numbers here?  

I guess I was confused by your original comment that churches should be allowed to make their own guidelines.  It sounded to me like you wanted them to have total immunity on how they did things:

I haven't seen a case where "essential" does not carry with it obligations to protect the health of all concerned with the service (again, compliance and enforcement may be something else). Immunity from closure -- and "essential' means different things in different jurisdictions (it can also mean "mandatory") -- is not immunity from safe practice; rather, it obligates it. Otherwise all the state can do is recommend with various levels of emphasis.

Yes, we are looking at guidelines from CDC and state sources, and other stake / area plans,  and have decided, as many others, to not include singing in our stake plan.

My point in referring to the information I got off UT's website is 1) that the Church is in compliance and, depending on the ward/stake I guess, more stringent; 2) being a designated "essential" service carries with it designated obligations for safe public health practices and that religious freedom and public health are both enhanced when an essential service follows the (typically) associated obligations.

ETA: I originally said, "the Church guidelines for resuming group activities (chapels, temples, youth, etc.) are quite a bit more restrictive than those put out by many government jurisdictions." That may or may be so in UT. Are UT Church units going to have 3,000-attendee conferences?

Edited June 25, 2020 by CV75

[pogi]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I haven't seen a case where "essential" does not carry with it obligations to protect the health of all concerned with the service (again, compliance and enforcement may be something else). Immunity from closure -- and "essential' means different things in different jurisdictions (it can also mean "mandatory") -- is not immunity from safe practice; rather, it obligates it. Otherwise all the state can do is recommend with various levels of emphasis.

I am glad to hear that your stake is listening to the CDC instead of church headquarters on that one. 

When the risk of operating outweighs the benefit operating in emergency lock-downs, it is not considered "essential" and is therefore obligated to close in order to "protect the health of all concerned with the service".    Stated another way, if the risk of temporarily shutting down is greater than the benefit of temporarily shutting down it is considered essential. 

ANY gathering poses risk.  The point is to LIMIT those gatherings to essential services only (those services that would cause more harm than good to close temporarily).  Designating things as essential that are not essential posses a public health risk, despite your assurance of "obligations to protect the health of all concerned in the service".   Also, designating an entity as essential allows its workers to continue working, even if placed under quarantine for exposure to someone who tested positive.  I am just repeating myself now though.  Maybe you should go back and re-read this thread before continuing.  Churches are not essential in that way.  Our spiritual health is not in danger if we close churches temporarily in the same way that our life, and that of our neighbors, would be in danger if we stay open - even with any claimed obligations to protect.  If a church's obligation is to protect, then their obligation is to close down in a lock-down.  Period.    If the governor bans all social gatherings because the risk is so high, we should not be gathering in church.  To claim that the risk is worth it, is reckless.  My attending church during a lockdown (even if it was allowed) is NOT loving my brother, it is placing him at risk of health and life!  The same goes with wearing masks in public. 

Edited June 25, 2020 by pogi

[ksfisher]

15 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am glad to hear that your stake is listening to the CDC instead of church headquarters. 

When the risk of operating outweighs the benefit of temporarily closing in emergency lock-downs, it is not considered "essential" and is therefore obligated to close in order to "protect the health of all concerned with the service".    ANY gathering poses risk.  The point is to LIMIT those gatherings to essential services only (those services that would cause more harm than good to close temporarily).  Designating things as essential that are not essential posses a public health risk, despite your assurance of "obligations to protect the health of all concerned in the service".   Also, designating an entity as essential allows its workers to continue working, even if placed under quarantine for exposure to someone who tested positive.  I am just repeating myself now though.  Maybe you should go back and re-read this thread before continuing.  Churches are not essential in that way.  Our spiritual health is not in danger if we close churches temporarily in the same way that our life, and that of our neighbors, would be in danger if we stay open - even with any claimed obligations to protect.  If a churches obligation is to protect, then their obligation is to close down in a lock-down.  Period.    If the governor bans all social gatherings because the risk is so high, we should not be gathering in church.  To claim that the risk is worth it, is reckless.  My attending church during a lockdown (even if it was allowed) is NOT loving my brother, it is placing him at risk of health and life!  The same goes with wearing masks in public. 

I think you would agree though, that the definition of "essential" has been applied inconsistently.  There is a pool supply business a 1/2 block from where I work (at an essential business) that didn't close during the lock down.  I don't know if they were deemed  essential or if they just stayed open.

I was also talking recently with a guy I used to work with who now manages a store that sells vacuum cleansers.  When I asked him how he and his family were doing with the lock down he said they were fine as his business was considered "essential."

While I completely agree with you that it was right and still is correct to limit access to churches at the moment, theses two examples leave me scratching my head.  Why is buying pool cleaning supplies or a vacuum cleaner "essential?"  (that's a rhetorical question)

 

[pogi]

35 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I think you would agree though, that the definition of "essential" has been applied inconsistently.  There is a pool supply business a 1/2 block from where I work (at an essential business) that didn't close during the lock down.  I don't know if they were deemed  essential or if they just stayed open.

I was also talking recently with a guy I used to work with who now manages a store that sells vacuum cleansers.  When I asked him how he and his family were doing with the lock down he said they were fine as his business was considered "essential."

While I completely agree with you that it was right and still is correct to limit access to churches at the moment, theses two examples leave me scratching my head.  Why is buying pool cleaning supplies or a vacuum cleaner "essential?"  (that's a rhetorical question)

 

I would agree with that.  I think a lot of the problem is that business were kind of left to interpret things and decide for themselves if they were essential or not.  I think many business took a very loose interpretation of the guidelines and wrongly considered themselves essential when they probably weren't.  No one was really going out and checking or enforcing anything.   I wouldn't doubt that governments got it wrong in some cases though with everything they were dealing with. 

Edited June 25, 2020 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

40 minutes ago, pogi said:

To claim that the risk is worth it, is reckless.  My attending church during a lockdown (even if it was allowed) is NOT loving my brother, it is placing him at risk of health and life!  The same goes with wearing masks in public. 

My daughter works in an essential business, and sometimes clients want to intrude into her 6 foot safety boundaries, even while wearing masks. 

At first she will simply back up, but sometimes the client simply keeps on stepping closer.

She is a kind and shy person, but she will then ask them nicely to keep the 6 ft. recommended social distancing.

The reply is often something like " Oh, don't worry about it, I don't worry about it, and you don't seem to be sick at all."

People only think about themselves in these situations.

People just don't have a clue.

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, pogi said:

The church has only banned ward choirs.  The church has not discouraged singing hymns as a ward in any way, unfortunately.  I know that several members here have reported singing in their wards - Scott, bluebell, and Anijen come to mind.  There may be others.  Where singing is allowed, it sounds like hymnals are not allowed.  I just have to shake my head at that.  It is the SINGING not the touching of the hymnals that is the bigger risk.

Yes, I heard that singing is a big no-no as well. 

[Meadowchik]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

My daughter works in an essential business, and sometimes clients want to intrude into her 6 foot safety boundaries, even while wearing masks. 

At first she will simply back up, but sometimes the client simply keeps on stepping closer.

She is a kind and shy person, but she will then ask them nicely to keep the 6 ft. recommended social distancing.

The reply is often something like " Oh, don't worry about it, I don't worry about it, and you don't seem to be sick at all."

People only think about themselves in these situations.

People just don't have a clue.

It is so weird. In the UK city where I live, there seems to be a general compliance in those situations. Seems like such a difference in overall attitudes.

[Tacenda]

20 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It is so weird. In the UK city where I live, there seems to be a general compliance in those situations. Seems like such a difference in overall attitudes.

I've never been so disappointed in people in the US and in my own backyard, people I know very well. This has been difficult to say the least, to feel the divide. 

[CV75]

16 hours ago, pogi said:

I am glad to hear that your stake is listening to the CDC instead of church headquarters on that one. 

When the risk of operating outweighs the benefit operating in emergency lock-downs, it is not considered "essential" and is therefore obligated to close in order to "protect the health of all concerned with the service".    Stated another way, if the risk of temporarily shutting down is greater than the benefit of temporarily shutting down it is considered essential. 

ANY gathering poses risk.  The point is to LIMIT those gatherings to essential services only (those services that would cause more harm than good to close temporarily).  Designating things as essential that are not essential posses a public health risk, despite your assurance of "obligations to protect the health of all concerned in the service".   Also, designating an entity as essential allows its workers to continue working, even if placed under quarantine for exposure to someone who tested positive.  I am just repeating myself now though.  Maybe you should go back and re-read this thread before continuing.  Churches are not essential in that way.  Our spiritual health is not in danger if we close churches temporarily in the same way that our life, and that of our neighbors, would be in danger if we stay open - even with any claimed obligations to protect.  If a church's obligation is to protect, then their obligation is to close down in a lock-down.  Period.    If the governor bans all social gatherings because the risk is so high, we should not be gathering in church.  To claim that the risk is worth it, is reckless.  My attending church during a lockdown (even if it was allowed) is NOT loving my brother, it is placing him at risk of health and life!  The same goes with wearing masks in public. 

It is broader than that: We are listening to both CDC and state public health officials, and where applicable, following county and city ordinances. And of course, praying too! As a result, we are more stringent in our plans than these sources recommend. Note that I’ve been saying that these are plans; we are not even meeting yet.

Guidance from these sources results from weighing the risks you mention. They are extremely difficult and complex decisions, and can be emotionally affecting for various reasons. And then they get politicized no matter how calmly one deals with it. I could re-read the thread, but I am not coming at this from an emotional or political standpoint.

Different jurisdictions define “essential” in different ways, and there is certainly room to include faith groups in that definition with attendant responsibilities within the phased stages from absolute lockdown to full opening. The rationale for doing so is a fair part of the discussion.

[SteveO]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

I would agree with that.  I think a lot of the problem is that business were kind of left to interpret things and decide for themselves if they were essential or not.  I think many business took a very loose interpretation of the guidelines and wrongly considered themselves essential when they probably weren't.  No one was really going out and checking or enforcing anything.   I wouldn't doubt that governments got it wrong in some cases though with everything they were dealing with. 

C’mon...

Words matter.  And designating people and their jobs, occupations, and business as “non-essential” is a catastrophically bad idea.  Who voluntarily labels themselves “non essential”?

People’s lives, hopes and dreams have been destroyed by this.  We’ve single handed saved the family that owns the AirBNB that we’re staying at while our house is being built.  They lost their barbershop (life savings type of thing), and if it wasn’t for the monthly payments to live in their basement, they would’ve lost their house as well.

I’m not understanding why people who are “at risk” don’t self quarantine and let everyone get back to normal.  Wear the mask, maintain 6 ft, etc, but open up.

[CV75]

40 minutes ago, SteveO said:

I’m not understanding why people who are “at risk” don’t self quarantine and let everyone get back to normal.  Wear the mask, maintain 6 ft, etc, but open up.

"Essential" is a technical term for a specific purpose and shouldn't be taken personally.

People who are at risk should certainly follow the guidelines/executive orders. So should everyone else because the virus can work its way into a quarantine.

The mask, distancing, hand-washing are the most basic measures. The virus still spreads and other controls are sometimes necessary, including temporarily shutting down non-essential services/businesses that intensify the impact of people getting together. It is a tough call. Even some essential services are reduced in their levels of activity or required to do things differently,and this costs them.

 

[USU78]

Saw a graphic yesterday showing the new infectees tended to be between twenty and thirty.

And it hit me: partying and dating.

[CV75]

23 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Saw a graphic yesterday showing the new infectees tended to be between twenty and thirty.

And it hit me: partying and dating.

Well then, that's the "CO-" in "COVID-19..."

[pogi]

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

C’mon...

Words matter.  And designating people and their jobs, occupations, and business as “non-essential” is a catastrophically bad idea. 

I agree.  Bad choice of words.  It triggers an emotional response and people get cough up in semantics.  For example, I described a scenario earlier to someone who was upset that the church was considered non-essential.  After I described the scenario I asked if they thought it sounded fair in an emergency situation.  they agreed that the scenario was agreeable.  Well, for all intents and purposes I described a non-essential entity.  Semantics.  People can't see past it. 

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

Who voluntarily labels themselves “non essential”?

Exactly!  Now you are starting to see the problem.  The answer is - no one does!  Hence the problem of self-regulating in emergency to protect the lives and health of the public. 

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

People’s lives, hopes and dreams have been destroyed by this.  We’ve single handed saved the family that owns the AirBNB that we’re staying at while our house is being built.  They lost their barbershop (life savings type of thing), and if it wasn’t for the monthly payments to live in their basement, they would’ve lost their house as well.

There are no easy answers, but you are not considering the other side of things with the suffering/death/over-run hospitals/economic consequences, of not having a controlled response.  The point is to mitigate and reduce suffering, but people are going to suffer either way, so anecdotes don't really help.  You need to see things from the big picture. 

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

I’m not understanding why people who are “at risk” don’t self quarantine and let everyone get back to normal.  Wear the mask, maintain 6 ft, etc, but open up.

This isn't just about protecting vulnerable populations.  It's also about protecting the integrity of our healthcare system and hospitals.  Once those are overrun, people are no longer just at risk from Covid, but they will be at risk for any medical emergency they have. 

This is from 2 days ago:

“If we continue this trend and do not abate the crisis that is going on now, we will reach capacity in the coming weeks and we will no longer be able to care appropriately for patients with COVID-19, and also those that seek care for other reasons,” said Dr. Eddie Stenehjem with Intermountain Healthcare during Tuesday’s virtual press conference on the importance of wearing a mask. “We are seeing a disturbing and quite frankly an alarming trend in COVID cases.”

https://www.ksl.com/article/46768823/health-care-officials-concerned-about-covid-19-cases-overwhelming-hospitals

If it gets to that point, do you think business are going to voluntarily label themselves as non-essential to mitigate the public health problem?  I will repeat your valid question here "Who voluntarily labels themselves “non essential”?"

If you think everyone going about life as normal is going to protect vulnerable populations who try to quarantine, you don't understand the way this virus works.  

Edited June 26, 2020 by pogi

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I agree.  Bad choice of words.  It triggers an emotional response and people get cough up in semantics.  For example, I described a scenario earlier to someone who was upset that the church was considered non-essential.  After I described the scenario I asked if they thought it sounded fair in an emergency situation.  they agreed that the scenario was agreeable.  Well, for all intents and purposes I described a non-essential entity.  Semantics.  People can't see past it. 

Exactly!  Now you are starting to see the problem.  The answer is - no one does!  Hence the problem of self-regulating in emergency to protect the lives and health of the public. 

There are no easy answers, but you are not considering the other side of things with the suffering/death/over-run hospitals/economic consequences, of not having a controlled response.  The point is to mitigate and reduce suffering, but people are going to suffer either way, so anecdotes don't really help.  You need to see things from the big picture. 

This isn't just about protecting vulnerable populations.  It's also about protecting the integrity of our healthcare system and hospitals.  Once those are overrun, people are no longer just at risk from Covid, but they will be at risk for any medical emergency they have. 

This is from 2 days ago:

“If we continue this trend and do not abate the crisis that is going on now, we will reach capacity in the coming weeks and we will no longer be able to care appropriately for patients with COVID-19, and also those that seek care for other reasons,” said Dr. Eddie Stenehjem with Intermountain Healthcare during Tuesday’s virtual press conference on the importance of wearing a mask. “We are seeing a disturbing and quite frankly an alarming trend in COVID cases.”

https://www.ksl.com/article/46768823/health-care-officials-concerned-about-covid-19-cases-overwhelming-hospitals

If it gets to that point, do you think business are going to voluntarily label themselves as non-essential to mitigate the public health problem?  I will repeat your valid question here "Who voluntarily labels themselves “non essential”?"

If you think everyone going about life as normal is going to protect vulnerable populations who try to quarantine, you don't understand the way this virus works.  

Another aspect of this is if increased overall community exposure contributes to increased infections in people on the front lines of contact. As grim as it is to say, some essential jobs like grocery workers may be replaced relatively easily. Yet medical personnel will not be. Teachers will not be. So sharper infection rates can gut our ability to keep people alive and functioning.

Just a note, since it's something I'm currently learning about: On the other side of that coin is the obvious problem of economic health being jeopardized by lock-downs. With those competing dynamics, there may be lock-down variables which can be optimized, meaning measures that find the best possible balance between overall infection rates and societal function. However, these are the types of mathematical models which are most effective when done before a pandemic emerges, which study the flow of products, services, and human contact points in a given community. This is why imo we need eggheads making these calculations for states, nations, and local communities before the fact. 

Edited June 26, 2020 by Meadowchik

[pogi]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

Different jurisdictions define “essential” in different ways, and there is certainly room to include faith groups in that definition with attendant responsibilities within the phased stages from absolute lockdown to full opening. The rationale for doing so is a fair part of the discussion.

Should churches be immune from lock-down?  I agree that it is fair to discuss it, and the answer to that may vary from state to state, but for me, here in Utah, that is an easy answer.  No way.  But Elder Bednar is making accusations that constitutionally protected religious liberties have been violated in an unprecedented way and that there is no room for discussion.  "Never again" he said.  I am sorry, but no constitutionally protected rights were violated.  No, this is not unprecedented and has happened multiple times in multiple pandemics throughout history.  

Each jurisdiction has the right to decide if church is essential or not.  Elder Bednar is trying to say they don't have that right to decide.  Well, yes they do.  

Edited June 26, 2020 by pogi

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, USU78 said:

Saw a graphic yesterday showing the new infectees tended to be between twenty and thirty.

And it hit me: partying and dating.

And street rioting?

[ksfisher]

3 hours ago, USU78 said:

Saw a graphic yesterday showing the new infectees tended to be between twenty and thirty.

And it hit me: partying and dating.

 

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And street rioting?

And going back to work.