Covid cases, hospitalizations, death trends and other touchy subjects…

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think we were all super clear where they stood on vaccines with all that they have said.  What has apparently been less clear (if this thread is any indicator) is their recommendation to wear masks in church.  So, I was especially happy to see the First Presidency take the initiative to make it crystal clear where they stand on masks and address this issue for all members, and leave no room for question, or doubt, or ward/stake roulette. 

Are you sure?  From the letter: "To limit exposure to these viruses, we urge the use of face masks in public meetings whenever social distancing is not possible."

What does "whenever social distancing is not possible" mean?  

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

The First Presidency has raised the modern day brazen serpent of masks and vaccines.  

I hope that this makes a difference and that members will heed and obey their counsel.  I believe it will reduce suffering if we obey.  I know that there are some members that will hold out, but I believe my ward, at least, will mostly return to masking again (as it once was). 

Even if and when social distancing is possible?

Thanks,

-Smac

[provoman]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

Maybe we are reading different letters.  It leaves nothing up to local leaders or governments.  It is a general recommendation for all members to wear masks in public meetings when social distancing is not possible.  Period.  That is not dependent upon government mandate or lack thereof.  That is not dependent on the personal opinion of local leaders regarding masks.  It urges all members to wear them.   

Well now you have helped shown how the letter is not clear. 

Which statement overrides the other?

• we urge the use of face masks in public meetings whenever social distancing is not possible, verse
• We can win this war if everyone will follow the wise and thoughtful recommendations of medical experts and government leaders

The second statement leaves it to individuals to follow recommendations of medical experts and government leaders...and someone just said they will follow Rand Paul.

My only point is, I think there is room for people to disagree as what the letter means. 

Edited August 12, 2021 by provoman

[pogi]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Are you sure?  From the letter: "To limit exposure to these viruses, we urge the use of face masks in public meetings whenever social distancing is not possible."

What does "whenever social distancing is not possible" mean?  

Even if and when social distancing is possible?

Thanks,

-Smac

Am I sure about what?

Are you asking me what "social distancing" means, or what "possible" means?  Either way, I think you already know the answer to that. 

If you go to church and someone, not of your own family, is sitting within 6 feet of you from either side, front, or back, and you can't move somewhere else without passing within 6 feet of someone to find your own little 6 foot bubble back on the stage or something, then I think it is pretty clear what you should do. 

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, provoman said:

Well now you have helped shown how the letter is not clear.

No.  You have simply exemplified how to manipulate the words of our prophets.

24 minutes ago, provoman said:

Which statement overrides the other?

• we urge the use of face masks in public meetings whenever social distancing is not possible, verse
• We can win this war if everyone will follow the wise and thoughtful recommendations of medical experts and government leaders

Neither.  They are both perfectly harmonious.  

We "urge" you to use a face mask...  That is not conditional.  It is in fact in harmony with the "wise and thoughtful recommendations of medical experts" that we have heard in loud and clear consensus on the issue from the begining, and which our prophets and apostles have repeated over and over and compared to obeying the second commandment.  

 

 

[provoman]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

No.  You have simply exemplified how to manipulate the words of our prophets.

Neither.  They are both perfectly harmonious.  

We "urge" you to use a face mask...  That is not conditional.  It is in fact in harmony with the "wise and thoughtful recommendations of medical experts" that we have heard in loud and clear consensus on the issue from the begining, and which our prophets and apostles have repeated over and over and compared to obeying the second commandment.  

I have made it abundantly clear that the letter is not "crystal clear" as you assert.   We know, that ALL medical experts do not agree and we know ALL government leaders do not agree. A person need only find the medical expert and government official that confirms their individual bias, and then that person can say "I am following the Prophets, because I am basing my choices on the X medical expert and Y government official."

You have your own personal opinion of the what the letter means, another can have a opinion opposite of yours; and you both refer to the same source for your justification.  
 

Edited August 12, 2021 by provoman

[smac97]

As regarding the whole "vaccine hesitancy" thing, the over-arching reasons seems to be lingering questions about safety.  Here are a few thoughts:

1. Politicization.  Then-candidate Biden said “I trust vaccines, I trust scientists, but I don’t trust Donald Trump and at this moment, the American people can’t either.”  Then-candidate Harris said “If the public health professionals, if Dr Fauci, if the doctors tell us that we should take it, I will be the first in line to take it, absolutely. But if Donald Trump tells us we should take it, I’m not taking it.”

See also here:

Quote

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among American adults fell by one-third in the first five months of 2021, a new study finds, but distrust of vaccines and the government are still keeping many people from getting vaccinated.

Researchers analyzed data gathered from about 1 million Americans a month between January and May as part of an ongoing national COVID-19 survey.

Those who said they would probably not or would definitely not get vaccinated were considered to be vaccine-hesitant.

Who were these people?

In terms of education levels, people with a high school education or less had the largest decrease in vaccine hesitancy during the study period, while hesitancy held constant among those with a PhD, which was the most hesitant group by May.

Vaccine hesitancy fell across nearly all racial groups, with the largest decreases among Black people and Pacific Islanders. By May, they had joined Hispanics and Asians at having lower vaccine hesitancy than white people.

Counties with higher support for Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election had higher hesitancy rates, and the difference in hesitancy between areas with high and low Trump support grew over the study period, the findings showed.

"This finding really highlights the politicization of public health recommendations," said study first author Wendy King, an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh.

...

Not trusting the vaccine and not trusting the government were common reasons for not getting vaccinated among the most hesitant, while less hesitant people were more likely to say they wanted to wait to see if the vaccines are safe, the researchers said in a University of Pittsburgh news release.

King pointed out that "in all the other levels of vaccine intent we saw change over time. The lack of change in prevalence of the 'definitely not' group implies those with strong feelings about the vaccine are not likely to change easily. Thinking about how to reach that group, and having messaging and incentives that that group will respond to is important."

Then Biden one, the tables turned, and so-called "conservatives" became vaccine hesitant, attributable to some extent to partisanship.  In other words, I think some are concerned that the vaccines are not safe because politicians ostensibly pushed them through testing and are pressuring us to get the vaccine for political, more than health-based, reasons.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

When Donald Trump was in the White House, conservatives lauded Operation Warp Speed. They viewed Pfizer’s decision not to seek emergency authorization for its COVID vaccine until after the November 2020 election as an attempt to deny Trump a much-needed and deserved boost at the ballot box. Liberals, meanwhile, from Kamala Harris to Andrew Cuomo, expressed skepticism about the safety of a Trump-overseen vaccine. Now that Joe Biden is president, the conservative outer fringes are portraying COVID vaccines as bioweapons designed by ‘globalist psychopaths’, while liberals are decrying vaccine hesitancy as a pathology of right-wingers, ignoring the even higher rate of skepticism among blacks.

Many conservatives would insist that their opposition focuses on vaccine mandates, rather than on the vaccines themselves. But the distinction is not sharply drawn. The media and the numerous Democratic interest groups will never stop hyping COVID case counts as a way to keep society in lockdown or its next best alternatives: universal masking and crippling social distancing rules. If the last year and a half has taught anything, it is that no amount of rational argument can counter the siren song of fear. 

2. Hesitancy by Race.  Per this article, there are some significant disparities of vaccination by race (Asian - 66%, White - 49%, Hispanic - 43%, Black - 38%).

That said, this PBS article says that attributing this to vaccine hesitancy "misses the mark," and goes on to attribute the discrepancy to "social factors that research shows play a critical role in health status and outcomes."  It's worth a read.

3. Distrust of Government, "The Establishment" and Media.  Boston mayor Kim Janey, a black woman, has said this:

Quote

“We want to make sure that we are giving every opportunity for folks to get vaccinated. When it comes to what businesses may choose to do, we know that those types of things are difficult to enforce when it comes to vaccine,” she said.

She then went on to compare vaccine passports to Jm Crow-era laws, and the “birtherism” comments Donald Trump used to question Barack Obama’s citizenship.

“There’s a long history in this country of people needing to show their papers,” Janey told the Boston media. “During slavery, post-slavery, as recent as you know what immigrant population has to go through here. We heard Trump with the birth certificate nonsense. Here we want to make sure that we are not doing anything that would further create a barrier for residents of Boston or disproportionally impact BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and people of color) communities.”

See also here:

Quote

I’m vaccinated. I think people should be vaccinated. But this latest moral mania — and make no mistake about it, the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” p.r. campaign is the latest in a ceaseless series of such manias, dating back to late 2016 — lays bare everything that’s abhorrent and nonsensical in modern American politics, beginning with the no-longer-disguised aristocratic mien of the Washington consensus. 

If you want to convince people to get a vaccine, pretty much the worst way to go about it is a massive blame campaign, delivered by sneering bluenoses who have a richly deserved credibility problem with large chunks of the population, and now insist they’re owed financially besides.
...
Now this new vaccine debate has been amped to 11. The universal consensus of the “Powerhouse Roundtable” types is that it’s time to start opening the cans of whoop-*** on the vaccine-hesitant, yanking services and civil liberties from those murderous holdouts who are, the president tells us, “killing people.”

They do this acting like the public doesn’t remember the messaging from the Biden-Harris campaign last year, which was talked about at the time as being irresponsible precisely because it set a precedent of urging the public to distrust the vaccine. Biden repeatedly came out with statements like:

“When we finally do, God willing, get a vaccine, who’s going to take the shot? Who’s going to take the shot? You going to be the first one to say, ‘Put me — sign me up, they now say it’s OK’?”

This article seeks to explain why blacks and political conservatives both have higher rates of vaccine hesitancy:

Quote

Glen Nowak, director of the Center for Health and Risk Communication at the University of Georgia, spent decades working on vaccine and other public health campaigns at the CDC. He said conservatives and Black people tend to distrust vaccines for different reasons.

Conservatives have less trust in government figures and may be particularly wary of mandates, he said. Politicians and government officials have led much of the messaging on COVID-19 and may not be highly trusted among those who vote Republican.

Although there are many historical examples of racism in medical research, Nowak said distrust of medicine among Black patients is more complicated than that.

“They distrust medicine and public health, which in some cases goes back to Tuskegee,” Nowak said. “But probably in more cases goes back to experiences with their own providers.”

And then there are conspiracy theories involving social media engineering/controlling information about the vaccines.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Project Veritas has revealed some explosive information provided by two Facebook whistleblowers.   According to documents and testimony by the insiders, Facebook initiated a program to control the speech of users who were expressing “vaccine hesitancy”, or concerns about the COVID vaccine.  Anyone who was concerned about the vaccine was given a “vaccine hesitancy ” score.  Unbeknownst to the user, that score was then used to ban, remove or shadow-ban the content.

4. Apathy: From this article:

Quote

After an impressive start, vaccination rates in the United States have begun to plateau, even though there's more than enough medicine to go around and a dangerous variant on the loose.

If the nation is to reach President Biden's goal of vaccinating 70 percent of the public, some researchers say we need to start appealing to those who are not just hesitant about vaccines, but apathetic. 

Disinterest, they argue, is the latest bump in the road to immunity.

"These might be people who feel very healthy, very strong, [or] think that it's unlikely that they're going to get sick because they live in a low-density area," explain two researchers in a newly published Viewpoint.

"They just don't feel as at risk."

Those who feel apathy towards the COVID-19 vaccine come from a range of backgrounds, researchers say, with different reasons for remaining unvaccinated.

Young people, for instance, might think they are not at risk from COVID-19, so they aren't as bothered about getting vaccinated.

Some older adults, meanwhile, might consider vaccination a low priority compared to all the work and family obligations they are struggling to balance already.

Others might have experienced systemic racism or similar forms of discrimination within the medical system. As such, they are more likely to ignore medical topics, like vaccinations.

5. Pending Approval by the FDA: From this op-ed:

Quote

But a recent Kaiser Family Foundation survey suggests 30 percent of the vaccine hesitant, concerned they are taking an “experimental” drug, are waiting for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to formally approve the vaccine.

What is the FDA waiting for?

Under ordinary circumstances, it can take up to 10 to 15 years for the FDA to approve a new vaccine. However, the FDA can grant Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to a new vaccine during public health emergencies, when time is of the essence.

To receive an EUA the vaccine still must meet rigorous safety and efficacy benchmarks. ...

With an annual budget of $5.9 billion, the FDA should be able to assemble enough experts to check over Pfizer’s data and render an opinion before next year. They should also start looking over the data Moderna provided thus far to get the ball rolling on that company’s request. The U.K. Medicines and Health Care Regulatory Agency employs “rolling reviews” of vaccine data, collecting it from the manufacturer and reviewing it in real time.

This way, when enough information has been gathered, they can quickly decide on approval.

I hope that we, as Latter-day Saints, can take both a reasoned and faithful approach to this issue.  The Brethren are encouraging us to get vaccinated.  That should really mean something.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

I have made it abundantly clear that the letter is not "crystal clear" as you assert.   We know, that ALL medical experts do not agree and we know ALL government leaders do not agree. A person need only find the medical expert and government official that confirms their individual bias, and then that person can say "I am following the Prophets, because I am basing my choices on the X medical expert and Y government official."

You have your own personal opinion of the what the letter means, another can have a opinion opposite of yours; and you both refer to the same source for your justification.  
 

To "urge" means to "try earnestly or persistently to persuade (someone) to do something".  The brethren have been both earnest and persistent in their plea to wear masks.  Wearing a mask "is a sign of Christ like love for our brothers and sisters", and also "offers us a measure of protection."  Elder Renlund said these things, "not as a former physician, but as an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ" There was nothing conditional about their honest plea and urging of the members to wear a mask as indicated in the most recent letter. 

Do what you feel is right.

 

Edited August 12, 2021 by pogi

[rongo]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Am I sure about what?

Are you asking me what "social distancing" means, or what "possible" means?  Either way, I think you already know the answer to that. 

If you go to church and someone, not of your own family, is sitting within 6 feet of you from either side, front, or back, and you can't move somewhere else without passing within 6 feet of someone to find your own little 6 foot bubble back on the stage or something, then I think it is pretty clear what you should do. 

It will be very interesting to see what, if anything, happens on Sunday. i.e., if stakes continue laissez faire, or send out local communiques in the next two days. I think mileage will vary; some will renew mask pressure, and others won't. 

The timing over the last few days is interesting. President Eyring's son (president of BYUI) did a video asking BYUI students to wear masks and get vaccinated.

https://www.facebook.com/BYUID/videos/822225785160751

A stake president from the Salt Lake area put out this video yesterday:

I don't know if the downvotes are from his stake, or internet trolls. I hate the whole downvoting concept in general. 

It will be very interesting to see if the Brethren shift beyond encouraging action to requiring it. 

Just as long as we don't go back to alternating rows, no hymn books, sanitation theater, etc.  I think many/most local leaders will continue to not confront people not wearing masks. 

[Peacefully]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I hope that we, as Latter-day Saints, can take both a reasoned and faithful approach to this issue.  The Brethren are encouraging us to get vaccinated.  That should really mean something.

Thanks,

-Smac

Agree wholeheartedly! 

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I hope that we, as Latter-day Saints, can take both a reasoned and faithful approach to this issue.  The Brethren are encouraging us to get vaccinated.  That should really mean something.

Thanks,

-Smac

Amen.  But lets be more careful not to leave out their urging of us to wear masks as indicated.  That should really mean something too, coming from them. 

[provoman]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

It will be very interesting to see what, if anything, happens on Sunday. i.e., if stakes continue laissez faire, or send out local communiques in the next two days. I think mileage will vary; some will renew mask pressure, and others won't. 

The timing over the last few days is interesting. President Eyring's son (president of BYUI) did a video asking BYUI students to wear masks and get vaccinated.

https://www.facebook.com/BYUID/videos/822225785160751

A stake president from the Salt Lake area put out this video yesterday:

I don't know if the downvotes are from his stake, or internet trolls. I hate the whole downvoting concept in general. 

It will be very interesting to see if the Brethren shift beyond encouraging action to requiring it. 

Just as long as we don't go back to alternating rows, no hymn books, sanitation theater, etc.  I think many/most local leaders will continue to not confront people not wearing masks. 

Apparently there is a protest at or near ASU tomorrow regarding masks.

[provoman]

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

To "urge" means to "try earnestly or persistently to persuade (someone) to do something".  The brethren have been both earnest and persistent in their plea to wear masks.  Wearing a mask "is a sign of Christ like love for our brothers and sisters", and also "offers us a measure of protection."  Elder Renlund said these things, "not as a former physician, but as an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ" There was nothing conditional about their honest plea and urging of the members to wear a mask as indicated in the most recent letter. 

Do what you feel is right.

 

They absolutley set the condition for mask wearing ... public meetings AND social distancing not possible.

Also we cant ignore the last part of the letter which intructed to follow medical experts and government officials.

 

Again my only point is, reasonable minds can differ on "how" to follow the Letter.

Edited August 12, 2021 by provoman

[rongo]

1 minute ago, provoman said:

Apparently there is a protest at or near ASU tomorrow regarding masks.

Arizona is fascinating. A passed and signed bill (not an executive order) prohibits mask and vaccine mandates on K-college campuses. Some rogue districts have defied this, with no action from the government, and the state college system announced yesterday that it would defy it as well. Still no action (the legislature is urging the governor to block funding to renegade districts and universities). What a madhouse! Passing laws but doing nothing when they are flouted is only going to encourage more of the same. And, many people will go absolutely berserk if funds are pulled from schools. 

I'm glad I'm where I'm at.  But, I feel bad for my son and daughter up at NAU. 

There is a hearing on a lawsuit about Phoenix Unified's mask mandate tomorrow. Plaintiff is asking for a temporary restraining order blocking the mask mandate, and defendant is asking for summary judgment and dismissal. It will be really interesting and telling to see what the judge does. 

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix-education/2021/08/12/what-know-lawsuit-phoenix-union-high-school-district-mask-mandate/5546091001/

[provoman]

16 minutes ago, rongo said:

Arizona is fascinating. A passed and signed bill (not an executive order) prohibits mask and vaccine mandates on K-college campuses. Some rogue districts have defied this, with no action from the government, and the state college system announced yesterday that it would defy it as well. Still no action (the legislature is urging the governor to block funding to renegade districts and universities). What a madhouse! Passing laws but doing nothing when they are flouted is only going to encourage more of the same. And, many people will go absolutely berserk if funds are pulled from schools. 

I'm glad I'm where I'm at.  But, I feel bad for my son and daughter up at NAU. 

There is a hearing on a lawsuit about Phoenix Unified's mask mandate tomorrow. Plaintiff is asking for a temporary restraining order blocking the mask mandate, and defendant is asking for summary judgment and dismissal. It will be really interesting and telling to see what the judge does. 

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix-education/2021/08/12/what-know-lawsuit-phoenix-union-high-school-district-mask-mandate/5546091001/

Goodness yes, what a madhouse. And what a madhouse if the Judge does not follow the law.

Edited August 12, 2021 by provoman

[pogi]

58 minutes ago, provoman said:

Also we cant ignore the last part of the letter which intructed to follow medical experts and government officials.

You are right, no we can't.  

The AMA, AHA, AAMC, AAP, ANA, ISTM, Mayo Clinic, NCBI, WHO, the Utah Medical Association (and probably all other state medical associations), etc, etc, etc. recommend masks for prevention of COVID.   In terms of government, the CDC, FDA, NIOSH, CCID, NCPDCID, NIAID, HRSA, AHRQ, OSHA...and every state and local DOH and state epidemiologists, etc. etc. etc.  recommend masks for prevention of COVID...    

Can you name one medical association or government health agency that discourages mask wearing or argues that they don't work, or simply don't recommend them?

I honestly don't know who is left, other than non-medical politicians and maybe a few isolated and independent doctors who don't recommend masks.     Do you disagree that there is overwhelming consensus in the medical field?  Do you disagree that there is consensus in all medical government agencies? 

The quote was not to "follow medical experts and government officials",  but to follow "the wise and thoughtful recommendations..."

Naturally, "wise and thoughtful" is subjective.  

We know what the overwhelming consensus is in the medical community.  We know what the overwhelming consensus is in local and federal government health agencies is.  We know the position of the prophets and the Church on masks.  Do you honestly think it is wise and thoughtful to instead trust in extreme outliers and non-medical politicians who disagree with medical consensus and the prophets?   Which source is more "reliable", do you think?  Do you really believe that the First Presidency was encouraging people to trust in outlier doctors who disagree with our prophets and medical consensus?

Quote

Members of the Church should seek out and share only credible, reliable, and factual sources of information. They should avoid sources that are speculative or founded on rumor. The guidance of the Holy Ghost, along with careful study, can help members discern between truth and error (see Doctrine and Covenants 11:12; 45:57).

Wouldn't it be wise and thoughtful to seek out guidance from more reliable sources.  

Some may have concerns with the CDC and FDA, but look at the other organizations and institutions which unflinchingly back these organizations on masks.  These organizations are the back-bone of medicine in America.  

But as I said before, "do what you feel is right".  

Edited August 12, 2021 by pogi

[provoman]

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

You are right, no we can't.  

The AMA, AHA, AAMC, AAP, ANA, ISTM, Mayo Clinic, NCBI, WHO, the Utah Medical Association (and probably all other state medical associations), etc, etc, etc. recommend masks for prevention of COVID.   In terms of government, the CDC, FDA, NIOSH, CCID, NCPDCID, NIAID, HRSA, AHRQ, OSHA...and every state and local DOH and state epidemiologists, etc. etc. etc.  recommend masks for prevention of COVID...    

Can you name one medical association or government health agency that discourages mask wearing or argues that they don't work, or simply don't recommend them?

I honestly don't know who is left, other than non-medical politicians and maybe a few isolated and independent doctors who don't recommend masks.     Do you disagree that there is overwhelming consensus in the medical field?  Do you disagree that there is consensus in all medical government agencies? 

The quote was not to "follow medical experts and government officials",  but to follow "the wise and thoughtful recommendations..."

Naturally, "wise and thoughtful" is subjective.  

We know what the overwhelming consensus is in the medical community.  We know what the overwhelming consensus is in local and federal government health agencies is.  We know the position of the prophets and the Church on masks.  Do you honestly think it is wise and thoughtful to instead trust in extreme outliers and non-medical politicians who disagree with medical consensus and the prophets?   Which source is more "reliable", do you think?  Do you really believe that the First Presidency was encouraging people to trust in outlier doctors who disagree with our prophets and medical consensus?

Wouldn't it be wise and thoughtful to seek out guidance from more reliable sources.  

Some may have concerns with the CDC and FDA, but look at the other organizations and institutions which unflinchingly back these organizations on masks.  These organizations are the back-bone of medicine in America.  

But as I said before, "do what you feel is right".  

I thank you for the time of your responses.

The letter does not say Medical Organizations, the letter does not reference consensus of medical organizations in the last paragraph, it says medical experts and government leaders. And yes it says "wise and thoughtful" and as you admit it is subjective, which then supports the notion that the letter is not crystal clear.

 

[pogi]

33 minutes ago, provoman said:

I thank you for the time of your responses.

The letter does not say Medical Organizations, the letter does not reference consensus of medical organizations in the last paragraph, it says medical experts and government leaders. And yes it says "wise and thoughtful" and as you admit it is subjective, which then supports the notion that the letter is not crystal clear.

 

So you think associations aren’t composed of the leading medical experts in their fields?  Do you honestly think that they don’t represent medical consensus?

Where do you think doctors look for updated information and best practice, if not these organizations?

Do you consider them all - the whole lot of them - unanimously unwise and unthoughtful in regards to masks?

If the letter is not clear to you, then pray about it I guess.  I can’t seem to help you.
 

Edited August 13, 2021 by pogi

[provoman]

37 minutes ago, pogi said:

So you think associations aren’t composed of the leading medical experts in their fields?  Do you honestly think that they don’t represent medical consensus?

Where do you think doctors look for updated information and best practice, if not these organizations?

Do you consider them all - the whole lot of them - unanimously unwise and unthoughtful in regards to masks?

If the letter is not clear to you, then pray about it I guess.  I can’t seem to help you.
 

You mentioned medical organization. You also got fussy about my lack of use of "wise and thoughtful"; in turn I addressed a very specific issues of medical organizations that YOU brought up.

Your problem, and yes you have a problem, is that even though you admit the letter contains subjective language, you maintain an appearance that your OPINION is the ONLY valid opinion. So, you admit the letter contains subjective language, thus the letter is not crystal clear.

[Hamba Tuhan]

57 minutes ago, provoman said:

So, you admit the letter contains subjective language, thus the letter is not crystal clear.

As everyone from linguists to critical theorists has repeatedly pointed out, all language is subjective.

And as Bill Clinton taught us, we can make language even more subjective when we really need it to be:

Quote

It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the—if he—if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement

 

Edited August 13, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[pogi]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

You mentioned medical organization. You also got fussy about my lack of use of "wise and thoughtful"; in turn I addressed a very specific issues of medical organizations that YOU brought up.

Your problem, and yes you have a problem, is that even though you admit the letter contains subjective language, you maintain an appearance that your OPINION is the ONLY valid opinion. So, you admit the letter contains subjective language, thus the letter is not crystal clear.

So just to clarify, you think the First Presidency urged us to wear masks as indicated, and then continued to encourage us to follow the recommendations on masks from medical professionals who are antagonistic of their consistent and repeated counsel to wear masks?  

What seems crystal clear to me is that while “wise” and “thoughtful” may be subjective, it was crystal clear that they were talking about the medical experts (including the Prophet and Elder Renlund) that agree with the church’s position and counsel on masks...lest you believe they were insinuating that they themselves are unwise and unthoughtful.

Again, do what you feel is right.

Edited August 13, 2021 by pogi

[rongo]

3 hours ago, provoman said:

Goodness yes, what a madhouse. And what a madhouse if the Judge does not follow the law.

This just in from Governor Ducey: School mask mandates are "toothless, unenforceable, and won't hold up in court."

https://www.abc15.com/news/coronavirus/gov-duceys-office-mask-mandates-toothless-unenforceable-and-will-not-hold-up-in-court

Maybe he's wiser than I give him credit for, and he's taking the short-term apparent loss by appearing to be defied and flouted in order to win the long-term (like an umpire patiently getting dirt kicked on him before sending the coach to the showers). 

I hope that he's right about not holding up in court, but I have questions about "toothless and unenforceable." If, for example, my kids at college refuse to wear a required mask, can't the schools kick them out of school or impose other sanctions (until the law is enforced --- I would think that having the law fully behind you would help eventually, but probably not in the moment)? 

What about someone in Tucson or Phoenix who refuses to wear a mask to high school --- what could the school actually do to them? Worst case scenario, hypothetically, call the police for removal for trespassing or the standby "Class 6 felony --- disturbing the operation of an educational facility?"

We couldn't be in a better situation as far as not being forced to wear a mask and be vaccinated, but I'm curious what the ultimate logical extension of "mandates" is or will be. 

Aren't city and county mandates also limited by "only" misdemeanor trespass arrests, worst case? 

[Amulek]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Brethren are encouraging us to get vaccinated.  That should really mean something.

It should. Unfortunately, I'm already starting to hear about resistance from a minority of members.

This really isn't the counterexample I was looking for to combat the canard about 'when the Brethren have spoken, the thinking has been done.'

 

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Amulek said:

It should. Unfortunately, I'm already starting to hear about resistance from a minority of members.

This really isn't the counterexample I was looking for to combat the canard about 'when the Brethren have spoken, the thinking has been done.'

 

Opposition to Prohibition among the Saints seems much less noteworthy these days. 
 

Betraying a major bias here, but my mind goes to more “the thinking has been done and gone, so it doesn’t matter what the Brethren have spoken and they would prefer if the Brethren just kept their mouths shut” for this issue.  (Am hearing of too many parents with kids at home, including young kids, in the hospital fighting for their lives because they chose not to vaccinate and it makes me angry for their children’s sake, I grew up with a mom greatly limited by health and so have my kids and it is wrong on so many levels…only the Atonement allows me to get any peace about it; I can’t imagine the fear and pain and loneliness that a child will feel when losing a parent or worse, both)

Edited August 13, 2021 by Calm

[pogi]

This is so sad to see.  So many scriptures come to mind:

https://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=62167

Thick mists of darkness are among us.  The iron rod has been presented.  The brazen serpent has been lifted up.  The later-day sifting continues.  

Over a simple face covering request (and shot in the arm) the “saints” of God will drag our prophet through the mud.

 

Edited August 13, 2021 by pogi

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, pogi said:

This is so sad to see.  So many scriptures come to mind:

https://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=62167

Thick mists of darkness are among us.  The iron rod has been presented.  The brazen serpent has been lifted up.  The later-day sifting continues.  

Over a simple face covering request (and shot in the arm) the “saints” of God will drag our prophet through the mud.

 

I don’t understand the rejection of a vaccine because it allows transmission of the disease when it is still preventing the vast majority of serious illness and death that would be happening without the shots. 
 

Really wish it did the one, two punch of no infections, no illness (or rather little infections, little illness), but I am still all for celebrating the knock out punch it still has for most for illness. 

Edited August 13, 2021 by Calm