Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Covid II: Medical Info and Implications


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

This is so true.  This has been my experience even within wards in the same stake, or stakes in the same county.  

It is imo the bishop or SP it seems as people describe a casual bishop and the ward is casual. A bishop who has made the point of setting up hand sanitizer and extra masks at the door, doesn’t allow singing….the ward wears masks more. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
23 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Here is he last communication we received for our stake

"Based on recently updated state of [my state] and CDC guidance, beginning June 30, 2021, we will suspend all current COVID protocols, including face coverings and social distancing, while participating in any activity of the [my] stake.
 
We ask that you each be understanding as individuals and families adopt these adjustments in the best manner to fit their current situations.
 
We love and appreciate each of you. We look to the future with excitement as we continue to return to a more normal life. We invite you to continue to strive to become joyful disciples of our Savior Jesus Christ and a missionary minded, temple attending people.
 
If you have any questions, please contact a member of your bishopric."
 
Nothing in there about wearing masks being the church preferance, at least in my area.
 
Other areas of the church have different standards and I respect them when I visit. 
 
 

In other words, that letter is outdates as it is based on outdated information (CDC guidelines).  

The official position of the church is to follow CDC guidelines in regards to masks.  Therefor the most current and updated recommendation is to wear masks at church.  The general leadership trumps any outdated local letter. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Calm said:

It is imo the bishop or SP it seems as people describe a casual bishop and the ward is casual. A bishop who has made the point of setting up hand sanitizer and extra masks at the door, doesn’t allow singing. 

With my bishop, we were requested to wear masks, and they did all the sanitizing possible (between each person at the podium, stations at the doors, everything wiped down after it was over, exiting row-by-row, etc.) but we still always sang and if people didn't wear a mask he didn't say anything to them.

But that could be because his wife and kids were some who didn't wear masks. :lol:

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I really don't think it is your place to call my stake and local leaders to repentance. These things were done openly, and not in the dark.  If there needs to be a change, I am confident that my stake leaders will be open to correction from those who preside over them.

I am not calling them to repentance.  I am saying that the letter you are referring to is outdated.  You don't need to wait for your leaders to ask you to wear a mask before you know the position of the church.  Your local leaders letter was appropriate for the time.  It was following CDC guidelines.  No need to repent.  The new CDC guidelines are brand new and thus you can disregard what the outdated letter suggests about masks. 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, pogi said:

In other words, that letter is outdates as it is based on outdated information (CDC guidelines).  

The official position of the church is to follow CDC guidelines in regards to masks.  Therefor the most current and updated recommendation is to wear masks at church.  The general leadership trumps any outdated local letter. 

Again, you are not the spokesperson for my stake,  if you do have a calling to preside over my stake president, then you should talk to them directly.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, pogi said:

In other words, that letter is outdates as it is based on outdated information (CDC guidelines).  

The official position of the church is to follow CDC guidelines in regards to masks.  Therefor the most current and updated recommendation is to wear masks at church.  The general leadership trumps any outdated local letter. 

We've heard zero about wearing masks in church since May.  It's been radio silence on the subject and no one has any plans to start wearing them again any time soon in my ward at least.   

This matches all the wards that I have friends in. 

If the church expects members to follow the CDC they need to explicitly say that over the pulpit because it is not giving the impression that the CDC is setting the mask recommendations for the church.  

Edited by bluebell
Link to comment
27 minutes ago, pogi said:

If I am reading the data right, it looks like these are accumulative figures from January.  That will severely skew the data since the Delta variant wasn't the dominant strain in the US until around mid July.  If we start from that point onward, I think we will start seeing many more cases of breakthrough.   Most of the reporting is from periods when Delta was unlikely, and case rates went through an extremely low point (low possibility for exposure and thus breakthrough).  I think that we will see this data change very rapidly with the Delta variant.  We are already seeing individual case studies of the Delta variant shattering these figures.   Also, duration from vaccination is increasing and immunity may be waning, increasing likelihood of breakthroughs. 

I know that both my MIL and FIL were infected after being fully vaccinated with pfizer.  That doesn't seem reasonable with these numbers.  I think the Delta variant is not fully accounted for in these numbers. 

That is what Colorado data is showing

. 1AE435FA-6235-46BB-ADF5-BED478538932.jpeg0A5DB849-6523-4B0E-B98B-E275350D7BF3.jpeg

 

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Again, you are not the spokesperson for my stake,  if you do have a calling to preside over my stake president, then you should talk to them directly.

Again, I am not suggesting that your stake did anything wrong.  How is this not clear?  Their letter was perfectly appropriate.  They shouldn't have to command in all things and recommend masks again when the general leadership has already recommended that we follow CDC guidelines in regards to masks.  My frustration is with members, not your stake.  Although I do think a a clarifying letter wouldn't hurt if you are any indication of the confusion that might be ensuing in your stake.  I certainly see it in my stake too. 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am not calling them to repentance.  I am saying that the letter you are referring to is outdated.  You don't need to wait for your leaders to ask you to wear a mask before you know the position of the church.  Your local leaders letter was appropriate for the time.  It was following CDC guidelines.  No need to repent.  The new CDC guidelines are brand new and thus you can disregard what the outdated letter suggests about masks. 

You are suggesting I ignore counsel from our stake leadership and instead follow your counsel.? You suggesting that my stake leaders are not up to date on the guidence they give to my stake(they haven't in the past been shy to make changes).  You suggest you have revelation that counteracts the revelation in our stake.  Are you setting yourself up as an authority over my stake president? If you are, I would suggest that anonymous posting on an internet discussion board isn't really the place to do it.

Link to comment
Just now, pogi said:

Again, I am not suggesting that your stake did anything wrong.  How is this not clear?  Their letter was perfectly appropriate.  They shouldn't have to command in all things and recommend masks again when the general leadership has already recommended that we follow CDC guidelines in regards to masks.  My frustration is with members, not your stake.  Although I do think a a clarifying letter wouldn't hurt if you are any indication of the confusion that might be ensuing in your stake.  I certainly see it in my stake too. 

Maybe if you could provide the bolded, that would help clarify your point?

Also, wasn't the CDC recommending masks during the April general conference, even though not all of the 12 wore them?  I could be remembering that wrong though and haven't bothered to check yet.  I just have this picture in my mind of some wearing masks and some not.

Link to comment

My concern locally is the stake, when it passes on guidelines it often rephrases them. One part was rephrased so badly that we had three different procedures for Covid in the stake. We were one of two wards that read the sentence accurately. We were also wrong.

In future I really really want to see what the Area Presidency actually said instead of muddied water.

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment

I have been Zooming church meetings all along. I hate to say it , but much of the masking and cleaning is theatre. At the pulpit, the cleaning after each speaker was quick and cursory. Masks were often not covering the nose and men with beards had the sides of their faces essentially open. Others used a cloth mask like a bandana and yet others used a turtle neck as a quick way to look compliant. ( These examples were not from church but in public areas.) Most of the commercial masks were used many times over and seemed to be worn just to avoid confrontation. I suspect a large group of people will resent going back to masking everywhere. 

 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, pogi said:

Again, I am not suggesting that your stake did anything wrong.  How is this not clear?  Their letter was perfectly appropriate.  They shouldn't have to command in all things and recommend masks again when the general leadership has already recommended that we follow CDC guidelines in regards to masks.  My frustration is with members, not your stake.  Although I do think a a clarifying letter wouldn't hurt if you are any indication of the confusion that might be ensuing in your stake.  I certainly see it in my stake too. 

you are not suggesting that my stake did something wrong, your are suggesting that my stake is doing something wrong. Today.  Right Now.  At activities that are taking place today.

Link to comment
Just now, The Nehor said:

My concern locally is the stake, when it passes on guidelines often rephrased them. One part was rephrased so badly that we had three different procedures for Covid in the stake. We were one of two wards that read the sentence accurately. We were also wrong.

In future I really really want to see what the Area Presidency actually said instead of muddied water.

My friend's bishop got in a bit of hot water in this regard, when he implied that the area presidency said no singing, and then accidentally copied the stake in an email that included the area presidency's actual 'rules'.

After that went out, he had to eat some crow and suddenly singing was allowable again.  :lol:

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If the church expects members to follow the CDC they need to explicitly say that over the pulpit because it is not giving the impression that the CDC is setting the mask recommendations for the church.  

  • Quote

    On March 4, church leaders asked members around the world to follow the health recommendations of the World Health Organization and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They specifically said members should follow public health agency recommendations for wearing a face mask.

    27 July 2021

    Quote

    Follow public health agency recommendations for using a face mask.
    *Based on recommendations from the World Health Organization and the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

    https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/coronavirus-update#precautions

  • I agree that it would be helpful to hear it over the pulpit.  Maybe we will.  But let those of us here reading this now not be confused as to the official position of the church on wearing masks to church.

  • It seems their position is still the same. 

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Danzo said:

You are suggesting I ignore counsel from our stake leadership and instead follow your counsel.? You suggesting that my stake leaders are not up to date on the guidence they give to my stake(they haven't in the past been shy to make changes).  You suggest you have revelation that counteracts the revelation in our stake.  Are you setting yourself up as an authority over my stake president? If you are, I would suggest that anonymous posting on an internet discussion board isn't really the place to do it.

No, I am asking that you follow the general church's counsel.  See my last post with the updated official church position on masks published July 27, 2021.  That trumps any local leader.  This is not about what I say. 

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Maybe if you could provide the bolded, that would help clarify your point?

Also, wasn't the CDC recommending masks during the April general conference, even though not all of the 12 wore them?  I could be remembering that wrong though and haven't bothered to check yet.  I just have this picture in my mind of some wearing masks and some not.

I have posted the references again for clarification.  All were wearing masks at conference:

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

I have been Zooming church meetings all along. I hate to say it , but much of the masking and cleaning is theatre. At the pulpit, the cleaning after each speaker was quick and cursory. Masks were often not covering the nose and men with beards had the sides of their faces essentially open. Others used a cloth mask like a bandana and yet others used a turtle neck as a quick way to look compliant. ( These examples were not from church but in public areas.) Most of the commercial masks were used many times over and seemed to be worn just to avoid confrontation. I suspect a large group of people will resent going back to masking everywhere. 

 

Yep.  In our ward they had to sanitize the podium after every speaker, even though the CDC said it wasn't necessary and on the bottle it said that the liquid had to sit on the surface for 10 minutes before it could be wiped off in order to kill anything.

Link to comment

I really have a problem with people inventing their own litmis test of good membership, especially when it goes outside established church doctrines and practices.

"Only mask wearers can be good members" reminds me of other phrases like "only republicans can be good members of the church" or "No member in good standing can be a communist" or "no member in good standing can be an undocumented immigrant" or other such tripe.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, pogi said:

I have posted the references again for clarification.  All were wearing masks at conference:

  •  

That talks about the october conference.  I'm asking about the April conference, when they were sitting in the semi-circle waiting for their turn to talk.

Edited by bluebell
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

My friend's bishop got in a bit of hot water in this regard, when he implied that the area presidency said no singing, and then accidentally copied the stake in an email that included the area presidency's actual 'rules'.

After that went out, he had to eat some crow and suddenly singing was allowable again.  :lol:

We decided as a ward to cut out singing. Bishop also made the comment that we were not removing any restrictions unless the entire Bishopric (and WES and clerk) all agreed. Obviously stake and area changes overruled us.

I saw a lot of silliness during Covid in my stake and adjoining stakes. I am tempted to share but probably shouldn’t. 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I really have a problem with people inventing their own litmis test of good membership, especially when it goes outside established church doctrines and practices.

"Only mask wearers can be good members" reminds me of other phrases like "only republicans can be good members of the church" or "No member in good standing can be a communist" or "no member in good standing can be an undocumented immigrant" or other such tripe.

The difference is one of those was counsel from the apostles. The others are the false traditions of our fathers.

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, pogi said:
  • 27 July 2021

  • I agree that it would be helpful to hear it over the pulpit.  Maybe we will.  But let those of us here reading this now not be confused as to the official position of the church on wearing masks to church.

  • It seems their position is still the same. 

I can see why you are interpreting that like you are, but I don't think most members are interpreting it the same way.  Even re-reading it now, I don't really see it as much different than the sign that is currently hanging in my local walmart, which walmart knows most people are ignoring.  It's a recommendation (largely to assuage any liability issues), not an expectation.

But you seem to be saying that our leaders are expecting the members to wear masks now based solely on the many changes of the CDC recommendations, without any new input from them.  I would be really surprised if our leaders thought that was going to happen.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...