Area Presidency Asks That Church Members in Utah Wear Face Masks

[strappinglad]

So now masks are needed, and eye protection is suggested. How long before we are in full Hazmat suits in order to protect the most vulnerable among us.? Pray tell ,where is the line drawn? Sure masks are easy and should be used where necessary, and eye protection somewhat more difficult but not bad, then gloves? and booties? and gowns? 

I keep hearing in my mind the phrase " follow the money " . If the world goes for masks then there is a big business opportunity in making PPEs , as if it isn't already. Imagine making a billion masks a week. But if it saves just one life, it is worth it ! 

Herd immunity comes in generally 2 ways, by exposure or by vaccine. I don't hold out much hope for a vaccine any time soon and even then its effectiveness is not guaranteed. We are told that a mask does not prevent one from getting the virus but keeps one from spreading the virus to others and if everyone wore a mask that would prevent(reduce) transmission and exposure. OK, there goes Herd immunity . And if  the virus mutates all bets are off. 

[pogi]

Nevermind

Edited July 11, 2020 by pogi

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Then why involve the Area Presidency at all? 

Because it is their stewardship for one thing. And I have heard from places with less members, members tend to be more familiar with Area Presidencies. Having it come from someone you know on a more personal level may be more persuasive.
 

Finally, having both groups show concern by both being signatories rather than just looking efficient with one group makes sense to me when the purpose is to persuade people.  Showing there is true concern and not just doing it because they have to is one way to be more persuasive. 

Edited July 11, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

So now masks are needed, and eye protection is suggested. How long before we are in full Hazmat suits in order to protect the most vulnerable among us.

Do you really see this as that dramatic of a change or that big of a deal?  Government requires people to wear safety glasses for many jobs, glasses are required for driving if needed, masks are more comfortable than some of the clothing social norms require us to wear. Both glasses/eye protection are put on and off in a few seconds. 
 

Both are tons more comfortable and take less time to put on then seatbelts. 

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

OK, there goes Herd immunity .

Herd immunity is going to happen eventually as the virus is going to be with us a long, long time.  Didn’t dissipate during summer liked hoped for either. 
 

The difference is whether we spread it out and keep our medical system functioning as usual with some extra stress or have our hospitals maxed out like in New York where they had so many hospitalizations  at once they had to put patients in hallways and people who normally would have been admitted were being sent home, sometimes living on their own with no one to care for them as well as so many deaths they had to borrow refrigeration trucks to store the corpses in.

Arizona is possibly where New York was at the beginning of their crisis. 
 

Does anyone think repeating what happened in New York is healthy medically speaking or economically?

Edited July 11, 2020 by Calm

[pogi]

57 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

So now masks are needed, and eye protection is suggested. How long before we are in full Hazmat suits in order to protect the most vulnerable among us.? Pray tell ,where is the line drawn? Sure masks are easy and should be used where necessary, and eye protection somewhat more difficult but not bad, then gloves? and booties? and gowns? 

I keep hearing in my mind the phrase " follow the money " . If the world goes for masks then there is a big business opportunity in making PPEs , as if it isn't already. Imagine making a billion masks a week. But if it saves just one life, it is worth it ! 

Herd immunity comes in generally 2 ways, by exposure or by vaccine. I don't hold out much hope for a vaccine any time soon and even then its effectiveness is not guaranteed. We are told that a mask does not prevent one from getting the virus but keeps one from spreading the virus to others and if everyone wore a mask that would prevent(reduce) transmission and exposure. OK, there goes Herd immunity . And if  the virus mutates all bets are off. 

I think you are being a little dramatic, and I think I see a conspiracy theory in there too. 

This virus has only been around a few months and we are already seeing dozens of reinfections in Salt Lake County alone.  You shouldn't place so much wishful thinking (because that's all it is) in herd immunity through infection, we simply don't now how long immunity lasts in general.  Even if herd immunity through mass-infection was the best answer (wiping out the vulnerable population along the way), we should at least slow down the spread as much as possible to keep the economy afloat and to prevent overwhelming hospitals.  We should slow it as much as absolutely possible, especially while we are waiting for more effective treatments and a vaccine.  

Edited July 11, 2020 by pogi

[ksfisher]

9 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

Better to have from the 1st Presidency

 

 

The Utah Area Presidency is the appropriate authority to give direction to the Utah Area.  

[JamesBYoung]

In your opinion, perhaps, but the FP's direction would have stronger appeal.

[strappinglad]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you really see this as that dramatic of a change or that big of a deal?

Does anyone remember the statement made at the beginning of the lockdown? It was to flatten the curve and would only be for two weeks. Sure Fred !!! Here we are 5 months later and we are told to wear masks to , what is it, to keep the hospitals from overflowing with Covid patients. Deja Vue ! Some think we will be wearing masks for years to come if not the 'new normal ' forever. 

If there is a solution it will come in a viable treatment protocol , similar to the AIDS crisis , where a cocktail of drugs stops it , or at least prevents deaths. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

dozens of reinfections i

In terms of people or areas?

[Calm]

Just now, strappinglad said:

was to flatten the curve and would only be for two weeks

Not what I was reading. Maybe some were misrepresenting it, but most doctors and detailed medical analysis I was reading said we would have to practice significant slowdown and social distancing until there was a vaccine most likely, though they saw a possibility of a break during the warmer months as happens with flu but then there would likely be a second wave in the coming fall even if there was a break. 

[Calm]

From March:

Quote

If Trump stays the course, if Americans adhere to social distancing, if testing can be rolled out, and if enough masks can be produced, there is a chance that the country can still avert the worst predictions about COVID-19, and at least temporarily bring the pandemic under control. No one knows how long that will take, but it won’t be quick. “It could be anywhere from four to six weeks to up to three months,” Fauci said, “but I don’t have great confidence in that range.”...

Even a perfect response won’t end the pandemic. As long as the virus persists somewhere, there’s a chance that one infected traveler will reignite fresh sparks in countries that have already extinguished their fires. This is already happening in China, Singapore, and other Asian countries that briefly seemed to have the virus under control. Under these conditions, there are three possible endgames: one that’s very unlikely, one that’s very dangerous, and one that’s very long.

The first is that every nation manages to simultaneously bring the virus to heel, as with the original SARS in 2003. Given how widespread the coronavirus pandemic is, and how badly many countries are faring, the odds of worldwide synchronous control seem vanishingly small.

The second is that the virus does what past flu pandemics have done: It burns through the world and leaves behind enough immune survivors that it eventually struggles to find viable hosts. This “herd immunity” scenario would be quick, and thus tempting. But it would also come at a terrible cost: SARS-CoV-2 is more transmissible and fatal than the flu, and it would likely leave behind many millions of corpses and a trail of devastated health systems. The United Kingdom initially seemed to consider this herd-immunity strategy, before backtracking when models revealed the dire consequences. The U.S. now seems to be considering it too.

The third scenario is that the world plays a protracted game of whack-a-mole with the virus, stamping out outbreaks here and there until a vaccine can be produced. This is the best option, but also the longest and most complicated.

It wasn’t for ten days to two weeks either. That only covers the initial infections, the secondary infections that would have occurred from exposure at home where social distancing couldn’t be used to those infected would take another two weeks, so at the very least slowdowns had to be four weeks long.  Anyone saying two weeks were repeating stuff they didn’t understand and misrepresenting it. 

Vaccines by those who listened to the experts were always a year or a year and a half in the future from the beginning (so early 2021 or later).  Only some who refused to listen to the experts were promising vaccines earlier. 
 

Quote

And it is unclear whether Americans — who built this country on ideals of independence and individual rights — would be willing to endure such harsh restrictions on their lives for months, let alone for a year or more....

 That strategy would require, at a minimum, the nationwide practice of social distancing, home isolation, and school and university closures. And such restrictions would have to be maintained, at least intermittently, until a working vaccine is developed, which could take 12 to 18 months at best.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/19/coronavirus-projections-us/
 

This has a graph based on a five month effort of suppression/flattening the curve. 
 

Strapping, I will be happy to pull up more examples if you need them, but in that case I would like you to post examples of people saying two weeks was enough to flatten the curve. I will not be surprised if there were those saying it; I will be surprised if those who should have known what they were talking about said it (actual medical professionals, not people who should have taken advice from their medical advisors and didn’t).

Edited July 12, 2020 by Calm

[Duncan]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

Any out-of-stater’s seeing similar letters from your Area Presidencies? Florida, Texas, Arizona, California?

we got an email saying that in small branches to wear masks but due to being able to socially distance in ward buildings the option is yours. Where I live there are only 4 active cases

[strappinglad]

I never said medical pros gave that info. The State Gov. were in charge of lockdowns. Politicians called for lockdowns. I link to the Wiki lockdown timeline. Notice around March 13 when States called for closures of 10 days or 3 weeks or whatever. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_States\

Can we not agree that this disease caught everyone flat footed and huge errors were made. Most were flying by the seat of their collective pants, often giving contradictory advice and wildly optimistic/pessimistic pronouncements.? 

Has the pendulum swung too far ? Will it swing too far back? We still are arguing over how it is spread. Does it remain in the air now ? What  about on surfaces? 

Did lockdowns work or not? Do masks work or not.? New studies are coming out every day. Unfortunately Science has been sounding its trumpets with uncertain sounds and that has fueled the skepticism .The media has not helped either. 

Probably within a few months I will be fully on the same side as ' pogi ' et al  Then again, as one of the vulnerable , I may not live to see that happen.

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

Can we not agree that this disease caught everyone flat footed and huge errors were made. Most were flying by the seat of their collective pants, often giving contradictory advice and wildly optimistic/pessimistic pronouncements.? 

Government, politicians, and many medical adminstrative people...huge errors.  Not so many actual doctors and nurses from what I saw, but definitely enough to confuse people.

I could add some comments about what should have been done, but then I would get political, so keeping fingers flat except for that hint.

I so understand the frustration of there not being a single, consistent focus.  It is causing major conflict in my home on a weekly basis, sometimes daily.

Edited July 12, 2020 by Calm

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

5 hours ago, Peacefully said:

No general letter from the area presidency here in North Texas. I did see the letter from the area presidency sent out to leaders saying that masks should be worn to sacrament. Then our stake came out with a letter saying masks were recommended but optional. Talk about mixed messages. So many here think they are giving up freedom by wearing a mask. With 10000 cases a day, it seems like a small price to pay to get back some of our freedoms. 

If that's the case, your stake presidency totally blew it. 

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

How long have the mandates been in place?

 

It looks like they both went into affect on June 25th. 

[Calm]

Just now, bluebell said:

It looks like they both went into affect on June 25th. 

I don't think that is long enough to see much effect, but as to when we should see it, Pogi is probably best informed.

If I guessed, I would say at least 6 weeks thinking that would take us through a couple of infection cycles (two weeks per cycle) where not much effect the first cycle, but more each time; but it may be more just that is how long my doctors always tell me to wait to see if something is making a difference...except for exercise and then they say three months.

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you really see this as that dramatic of a change or that big of a deal?  Government requires people to wear safety glasses for many jobs, glasses are required for driving if needed, masks are more comfortable than some of the clothing social norms require us to wear. Both glasses/eye protection are put on and off in a few seconds. 
 

Both are tons more comfortable and take less time to put on then seatbelts. 

I’m with you on the first part but have to disagree with the bolded statement. I HATE wearing the mask and find it incredibly uncomfortable and annoying, and getting it positioned onto my face and my hair out of the way definitely takes more time than putting on my seatbelt.  Walking briskly with one on and trying to talk at the same time is the worst.  When you breathe in deeply they suction to your nose making you feel like you are being smothered.

I wear them, but at the same time I understand why a lot of people loathe them.

[Calm]

Seat belts have always rubbed my neck and caused rashes and other things but also saved my life or at least my face, so I have a love/hate with them.

Edited July 12, 2020 by Calm

[Peacefully]

7 hours ago, Peacefully said:

No general letter from the area presidency here in North Texas. I did see the letter from the area presidency sent out to leaders saying that masks should be worn to sacrament. Then our stake came out with a letter saying masks were recommended but optional. Talk about mixed messages. So many here think they are giving up freedom by wearing a mask. With 10000 cases a day, it seems like a small price to pay to get back some of our freedoms. 

I went back to the emails and it was actually a letter from the Bishopric that sent mixed messages, not the stake. 

This from the stake:

In addition, we have established new protocols for cleaning the buildings, administering the sacrament and maintaining social distancing.  The Area Presidency has also asked that we wear masks or other face coverings in the building. 
 

This from the Bishopric:

3. Masks are encouraged, although not required. Masks will be provided if you do not have one.

I asked about this in ward council and even read them the portion from the stake letter, and was still told it was highly encouraged, but optional.

 

[webbles]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

It looks like they both went into affect on June 25th. 

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/6/26/21304482/covid-19-coronavirus-case-count-rate-new-record-positive-tests-pandemic-masks-warning-salt-lake-city - Went into affect on Saturday June 27.

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, pogi said:

I was thrilled to receive this letter from the Area Authority, especially after reading this: 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/utah-group-organizes-flash-mobs-at-grocery-stores-to-oppose-face-masks/ar-BB16BmdP

There is a new kind of mob/protesters in town, popping up at a grocery store near you, placing you and your loved ones at risk.  They are violating the rights that these private businesses have to demand masks, and they are violating the law (in Salt Lake County) and disrespecting the constitutional powers given to local governments to protect the community.

Very troubling!

Defending Utah is the name of the group.  The irony is palpable. 

Hopefully the Area Authorities letter will shrink their numbers some. 

It has been very disturbing to see all the young people in Utah County going shopping without face masks, as though it just doesn't matter.  They are putting my life at risk.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

In your opinion, perhaps, but the FP's direction would have stronger appeal.

Perhaps, but that would also be indicative of a tremendous lack of maturity among LDS members.  Are we really that shallow?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It has been very disturbing to see all the young people in Utah County going shopping without face masks, as though it just doesn't matter.  They are putting my life at risk.

They are putting their lives at risk, even if it is a low risk.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/08/young-people-coronavirus-deaths/

This is from the beginning of April, so numbers are obviously higher now:

Quote

For the very young — people under the age of 20 — death is extremely rare in the current pandemic. But it happens: The Post identified nine such cases.

The risk appears to rise with every decade of age. The Post found at least 45 deaths among people in their 20s, at least 190 deaths among people in their 30s, and at least 413 deaths among people in their 40s.

Determining a precise number for each category is difficult because of the divergent ways states present age groups. But The Post found at least 102 other deaths that occurred among people younger than 50.

The true number of deaths among young people is probably even higher. Not all states provide data on coronavirus deaths sorted by age group. Some, like New Jersey and Texas, provided figures after being approached by The Post, while others, like California, did not. As a result, the figures above do not include data from some states, including several with sizable outbreaks.

 

Edited July 12, 2020 by Calm