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

[Rain]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

That is weird.  

It makes sense with the men in our ward.  Our bishop had just recovered from cancer before getting put in maybe a year before?  I've noticed that he has been much concerned about this than other wards all along.  

The seventy I get. If there were not a seventy coming I do wonder how the stake president would have reacted.  So much of what he says would have me put him in the not wearing a mask group, but the last few weeks I've been told and seen  things about him that surprise me. It doesn't surprise me that nearly everyone else didn't wear one. 

 

[Tacenda]

11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This reminds me of Amulek's words to the Zoramites, which passage lends itself well to the following revision:

It has very much been my personal experience that the past 18 months have been perfectly designed to teach me which parts of my relationship with the Restored Church have been grounded in genuine discipleship and which parts have perhaps been more 'cultural'. Some of those lessons have hurt me quite deeply. Thankfully -- mercifully! -- repentance is still an option at this point.

But if something as doctrinally foundational and as central to our covenant relationship with Jehovah as ministering isn't a defining feature of our membership when things are good, then our tether to the Church was superficial at best. In such a case, what hope do we have (outside of epiphany followed by sincere repentance) that a disruption of any kind will not 'kill it off completely'.

And we are not finished with disruptions, I strongly suspect. I personally know Saints who diligently kept the Church operating during periods of government banning, both in Africa and in Eastern Europe. One of my family members helped reopen a nation that had been severed from Church headquarters for several years by war. One of my boys served in a nation that was closed down for a time by Ebola, and he was reassigned to serve here, in his homeland -- and did so with passion and loyalty.

The Church weathered the significant disruptions of the Spanish flu pandemic. If 'commitment and reliability' cannot survive this one, then who are we?

Wishing for things to quickly go back to pre-COVID so that members of convenience can go back to treating the Church like their personal 'cookie club' is no way forward, in my opinion.

The Lord knows what He is doing. He desperately needs us to learn some very important lessons right now. I worry that things may not really improve unless or until enough of us do.

By the way, our convert baptism that was scheduled for today had to be postponed because public gatherings have once again been banned where I live. We had one three weeks ago, and we have another one scheduled for 29 August. This last person has already started attending my mission prep class despite not being a member yet. Missionary work is definitely still possible right now ... if we want it to be.

I wish I could give you, @BlueDreams and @Raina rep point, but hope this will do! 👏

Edited August 15, 2021 by Tacenda

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

The men in our ward had masks.  The women didn't. 

Didn't Paul, in the New Testament, say something about men wearing face coverings?   (Got it wrong.  I just looked it up:  It was women and heads, not men and faces.  Easy mistake.)

[BlueDreams]

10 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Sorry forgot to add links. But, in Israel, more people are vaccinated than not so maybe when you factor in that percentage, it is still protective? 

About 60% of the total population and 85% of the adult pop is vaccinated. Considering that it supposedly moved from young unvaxxed to vax’d pop, I would be curious to see the breakdown of the ages in these. That and duration from full vaccination may  be important. People 12-15 couldn’t receive the vaccine in Israel until early June. So it’s likely the 53% comes mostly from the 85% vax’d number than from the total  pop percentage and it wouldn’t surprise me if a number of those were younger considering they’d have less time to build up antibodies, even if the got the vaccine immediately after it was available. Which means the fully vax’d are definitely less likely to get covid than the unvaxxed. One sight said around 5 x’s less likely but that was 3 weeks ago and didn’t say how it got to that number. The people who already had covid numbers around 9% of the pop…but I can’t find a rundown or estimate for how many of these got vaccinated after as there’s likely a significant overlap. If it’s on par with the general percentage than that would mean around 3-4% of the pop had covid but didn’t get vax’d. Meaning the 1% is also an under representation but not as significantly as the vax’d. 

this is synthesizing several google searches and articles I looked through. So I don’t have one source for this. 

from what I’m reading and getting the hierarchy for degree of immunity so far goes: 

1) had covid-got vax’d

2) vax’d 2 shots preferably moderna

3) vax’d 1 shot variety

4) got covid not vax’d (not sure if this would be equal to 3…haven’t seen a lot on that) 

5) unfinished vaccinations

… then…

6) unvaxxed/no symptomatic covid with social distancing, masking, and limited contact etc (also don’t know where that sits with number 5 exactly) 

7) unvaxxed living the “norm”

 

with luv,

BD 

Edited August 15, 2021 by BlueDreams

[BlueDreams]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I wish I could give you, @BlueDreams and @Raina rep point, but hope this will do! 👏

I’ll always take an otter  

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I’ll always take an otter  

Who wouldn’t. Best part of my honeymoon was an otter swimming up to say hi to us. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

13 hours ago, Rain said:

Some of the things I wasn't excited about I now have a spiritual reason for doing and I understand what had been missing before. 

The essence of true conversion! In my experience, nothing else is sustainable over even the medium term.

Quote

But now it is time to build relationships in person with some of those people again, but this time deeper and more Christlike.  I've found it isn't easy.

It's really not .. but in the end, as Paul and Mormon both taught, nothing else really matters.

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, Rain said:

Mom says her ward is doing every other row.

We've been doing this since returning to church in September last year. Under current government guidelines, we can choose to use all the pews, or we can choose to sing. Easy choice. (Of course, with the current stay-at-home order, we did neither today ...)

I did speak to my sister in America earlier. She said their bishop had copied the First Presidency statement into an email of his own and added that he expected members to follow their guidelines.

Yesterday, I spoke with a recorder in an American temple, and he said that their temple presidency has stated that masks will be required from when they reopen on Tuesday.

 

[BlueDreams]

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

We've been doing this since returning to church in September last year. Under current government guidelines, we can choose to use all the pews, or we can choose to sing. Easy choice. (Of course, with the current stay-at-home order, we did neither today ...)

I did speak to my sister in America earlier. She said their bishop had copied the First Presidency statement into an email of his own and added that he expected members to follow their guidelines.

Yesterday, I spoke with a recorder in an American temple, and he said that their temple presidency has stated that masks will be required from when they reopen on Tuesday.

 

I’m going to have to check with the our temple now and see if they will be doing the same. I’ve been meaning to get an appointment in and keep forgetting and now thought my safer window closed. But this gives me a little more hope that we could still do sealings, particularly when I get our better quality masks.

hope i have a hard time extending to my stake. The stake presidency has been soft on covid from the get-go. As in their actions indicate they don’t take it super seriously…or at least not as seriously as the problems social distancing and not meeting in person caused. I think in some way our doc SP being lackadaisical about it also has given allowance to others who feel similarly to do as they please (not sure his subspecialty, but perty sure it’s not anything directly related to covid cases). This isn’t surprising exactly. Our area holds many of the current demographics who tend towards vax hesitancy, pro-freedom, downplaying covid info, etc. So beyond reading the statement in our ward, I’m not sure what that’ll look like to change our stake. They’re still planning to have live stake conference this month in an area with high transmission and hospitals full. We’ll watch the broadcast, but I’ve definitely found it harder to listen to their words when I find their actions so difficult to respect the 1.5 years. 
It’s on a list of things I need to spiritually figure out at some point soon. For now it’s clarified my own discipleship in having a window to the lives of those with disabilities especially and making sure that our blindspot of living “normally” doesn’t make it harder for those who cant live like that. 
 

with luv,

BD

[smac97]

https://scottrasmussen.com/just-15-of-unvaccinated-believe-fauci-makes-recommendations-based-on-science/

Quote

Just 15% of unvaccinated voters believe Dr. Anthony Fauci makes his policy recommendations based primarily on scientific data and research. A Scott Rasmussen national survey found that 48% think his recommendations are based primarily upon his own personal and political views.

The survey also found that just 20% of unvaccinated voters have a favorable opinion of Fauci. Fifty-two percent (52%) of the unvaccinated have an unfavorable view of the presidential advisor.

Trust in Fauci is even lower among those who say they will never get vaccinated.

In terms of encouraging more people to get vaccinated, these numbers suggest that Dr. Fauci is not an effective messenger.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

https://scottrasmussen.com/just-15-of-unvaccinated-believe-fauci-makes-recommendations-based-on-science/

Thanks,

-Smac

Is that surprising? I mean apparently Russell Nelson is not an effective messenger for Latter-day Saints so why would Fauci have any prayer of doing better?

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

https://scottrasmussen.com/just-15-of-unvaccinated-believe-fauci-makes-recommendations-based-on-science/

Thanks,

-Smac

Does it really matter who the messenger is?  Even Donald Trump urged people to get vaccinated...  

Unless Q himself recommends vaccination, many of these people are hopeless.  We can't blame Fauci for that when people don't really listen to him and only listen to what their favorite radio personality says about him. 

I think it is evident that right wing media has to take some accountability:

Quote

 

TOPLINE Nearly 40% of Republicans are still hesitant about getting the Covid-19 vaccine or refuse to get it, a new Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI)/Interfaith Youth Core (IFYC) poll finds, though certain subsets of the GOP appear notably more likely to accept or refuse the shot based on their religion, media consumption and whether or not they believe in the QAnon conspiracy theory.

The poll, conducted June 7-23 among 5,123 U.S. adults, found 64% of Republican respondents are Covid-19 “vaccine accepters” who have been or plan to get vaccinated—up from 45% in March—while 18% are hesitant about getting inoculated and 19% refuse the shot (down from 32% and 23% in March, respectively).

The most likely group to refuse the Covid-19 vaccine are Republicans who consume far-right television news (46%, up from 31% in March), while 8% of those viewers are hesitant about the shot (down from 37% in March) and 45% accept it (up from 32% in March).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/07/28/here-are-the-republicans-most-likely-to-refuse-the-covid-19-vaccine-poll-finds/?sh=1e02bbb735f8

 

Things are changing though:

Quote

A growing number of high-level Republicans have made more vocal endorsements of the shots in recent days as a result: Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey said “it’s time to start blaming the unvaccinated folks” for the state’s Covid-19 surge and Fox News hosts Sean Hannity and Steve Doocy encouraged viewers to get vaccinated, while Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said the shots are “saving lives” as his state records one in five of all Covid-19 cases nationwide. Other Republicans, including far-right lawmakers like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), have continued to be opposed to the shots.

 

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Is that surprising? I mean apparently Russell Nelson is not an effective messenger for Latter-day Saints so why would Fauci have any prayer of doing better?

Mic drop!

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Is that surprising?

15%  Yes.

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I mean apparently Russell Nelson is not an effective messenger for Latter-day Saints so why would Fauci have any prayer of doing better?

Not sure I follow.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

The First Presidency, the highest governing body of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, issued a statement yesterday urging parishioners to receive the COVID-19 vaccine and wear masks during public gatherings.

Opposition to vaccines among Christian groups has been a feature of the medical freedom debate in America for the past few months, with protesters drawing on the Bible and writing posters such as “Jesus’s blood is my vaccine” in opposing mandates. . Yet the historically pro-vaccine LDS church has largely stayed out of the fray with 65 percent of members saying they accept vaccination, according to a report by PRRI and Interfaith Youth Corps.

65% seems a bit better than 15%

Moreover, consider how many members of the Church approve of things like elective abortion and same-sex marriage.  Is Pres. Nelson "not an effective messenger" because some members of the Church choose to disregard prophetic counsel?

IIRC, you are a pro-abortion, pro-SSM guy, are you not (I am very much open to correction here, as I have a hard time keeping track of online handles, and I have never met you in person)?  You allow yourself some room to deviate from prophetic counsel, then?  Can you therefore allow some wiggle room for the 35% of members who are ambivalent about, or have concerns about, or specifically and emphatically oppose, vaccination (I not being one of them, BTW)?

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

15%  Yes.

Not sure I follow.  See, e.g., here:

65% seems a bit better than 15%

apples and oranges comparison. How many of the unvaccinated went out and got vaccines after the release? If this thread and my Facebook feed is any indication, it’s close to zero. So they are beyond his reach just like Fauci. The problem isn’t the messenger. 

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Moreover, consider how many members of the Church approve of things like elective abortion and same-sex marriage.  Is Pres. Nelson "not an effective messenger" because some members of the Church choose to disregard prophetic counsel?

IIRC, you are a pro-abortion, pro-SSM guy, are you not (I am very much open to correction here, as I have a hard time keeping track of online handles, and I have never met you in person)?  You allow yourself some room to deviate from prophetic counsel, then?  Can you therefore allow some wiggle room for the 35% of members who are ambivalent about, or have concerns about, or specifically and emphatically oppose, vaccination (I not being one of them, BTW)?

Thanks,

-Smac

I am no longer a member. People can do what they want. I will say that the fact that protecting the vulnerable is where so many Christians draw the line speaks volumes about the utility of religion. 

[pogi]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

15%  Yes.

Not sure I follow.  See, e.g., here:

65% seems a bit better than 15%

Can you therefore allow some wiggle room for the 35% of members who are ambivalent about, or have concerns about, or specifically and emphatically oppose, vaccination (I not being one of them, BTW)?

Thanks,

-Smac

Where are you getting 15% from?  The CDC places national average at 69% for at least one dose.  The numbers would be even higher if asked how many "accept vaccination" as was the question with LDS folks.   The church is lower that national average with vaccines.  Though they may be higher than other Christian groups (which maybe you are getting the 15% from, I don't know.

Quote

The CDC estimates that 69% of adults 18 and older have had at least one vaccine shot and that 60% have been fully vaccinated. 

Why should we give wiggle room to the 35% of members, when your article is giving 0% wiggle room for the public at large - who happen to have higher vaccine rates when compared to Mormons?

Point is, I don't think we can blame the messenger as much as we can blame other influences that Fauci or President Nelson have no control over. 

Edited August 16, 2021 by pogi

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

Does it really matter who the messenger is? 

When significant percentages of the public doubt the message because of the messenger?  Perhaps.

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

Even Donald Trump urged people to get vaccinated...  

Sure.

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

Unless Q himself recommends vaccination,

"Q"?

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

many of these people are hopeless. 

We'll never get to 100%.  On anything.  But that doesn't mean we cannot try to make inroads.  Persuasion, rather than compulsion, is the better way to go, IMO.

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

We can't blame Fauci for that when people don't really listen to him and only listen to what their favorite radio personality says about him. 

Both sides have politicized vaccines.  

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think it is evident that right wing media has to take some accountability:

Do you think Biden/Harris bear some responsibility as well?

Also, what are your thoughts about black folks?  They have some of the lowest vaccination rates in the country:

Quote

In the United States, black people have the lowest vaccination rates of any racial or ethnic group. Although full up-to-date statistics are not available, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that the share of black people who are vaccinated is about 6 to 7 percentage points lower than that of white or Hispanic people and 10 percentage points lower than that of Asians. The CDC's breakdown by demographic, though, reflects less than 70% of all shots administered since December 2020.

Vaccine hesitancy rates in black and white people are similar, NPR/Marist Polling shows — 25% and 28% respectively, suggesting that access to the shots is a greater barrier for black people. Measures of vaccine hesitancy by racial groups overlook barriers to access, Benjamin said, such as hardship taking time away from work to get the shots, as well as other "structural things that disproportionately get in the way of communities of color being vaccinated."
...
Democrats have proven much more willing to implement mandates for private and public sector workers. But Boston’s acting Mayor Kim Janey, a black woman governing a city whose population is 25% black, has broken with fellow Democrats by resisting a vaccine mandate for public workers. She likened the compulsory vaccination policies to racist post-Civil War policies that required black people to show their identification papers.

“There’s a long history in this country of people needing to show their papers — whether we are talking about this from the standpoint of … during slavery, post-slavery, as recent as, you know, what the immigrant population has to go through,” she said last week. “We’ve heard Trump, with the birth-certificate nonsense.”

After walking back the analogies to slavery, Janey stood by her argument against the mandates, saying they could also further delay the country’s economic rebound as far fewer people would be able to participate in commerce.

...

While vaccine hesitancy in communities of color is an obstacle to preventing even more transmissible, virulent coronavirus strains from taking over, survey data indicate that 40% of black and Hispanic people who are unvaccinated are open to getting the shots, while just 26% say they will “definitely not” get the shots.

Rather than lambaste these folks, ought we not try to persuade?

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

Things are changing though:

Yes.  I dislike the politicization of vaccines.  Far too many areas of of life are being politicized.  A few additional examples: 

Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine urges use of 'chestfeeding' and 'parent’s milk' in new guidance

Quote

A worldwide organization of doctors called the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine urged the use of "gender-inclusive language" such as "chestfeeding," "parent’s milk" and "human milk feeding" in new guidelines. 

"ABM recognizes that not all people who give birth and lactate identify as female, and that some of these individuals identify as neither female nor male," said in a document posted July 29.

Eight doctors and the organization co-authored the document on "infant feeding and lactation-related language and gender," and said that "the use of de-sexed or gender-inclusive language is appropriate in many settings."

One of the co-authors, Dr. Laura Kair of the UC Davis Children’s Hospital, said in a statement that, "language has power." 

Indeed, language does have power.  As Phillip K. **** so aptly noted: “The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.”

See also here: Harvard calls women ‘birthing people’ because ‘not all who give birth’ are women

Quote

A Harvard Medical School department Twitter account referred to women using the term “birthing people” in a tweet.

To advertise a panel about “maternal justice,” the Harvard Med Postgraduate and Continuing Education account tweeted that “globally, ethnic minority pregnant and birthing people suffer worse outcomes and experiences during and after pregnancy and childbirth.”

After thousands of social media users mocked Harvard Medical School — which is ranked as the top medical school for research in the United States, according to US News and World Report — the school posted a follow-up tweet.

The webinar panelists used the term ‘birthing person’ to include those who identify as non-binary or transgender because not all who give birth identify as ‘women’ or ‘girls,’” explained the tweet. “We understand the reactions to this terminology and in no way meant for it to erase or dehumanize women.”

I dunno.  Replacing "mothers" with "birthing people" sure seems to have an "erase or dehumanize women" vibe to it.

And here: Sorry, but they’re called ‘mothers’ — not ‘birthing people’

Quote

Three years ago my wife came to me with a stack of papers and some textbooks. “Can you believe this?” she asked. “They are calling women ‘birthing people.’” She explained that in the curriculum for her certification as a birth doula it was now de rigueur to refer to mothers with this ridiculous-sounding neologism. “It’ll never catch on,” I told her. She disagreed.

My wife was right.
...

On the Web site of Harvard Medical School, you can read about how advancing something called “maternal justice” is “essential for all birthing people.” The National Institutes of Health, the New York State Department of Health, the apparently real California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, the Hawaii Department of Human Services and even the city of Milwaukee all present helpful information about this hitherto-unknown category of human beings. Countless state legislators across the country have introduced bills or resolutions that include the preposterous terminology.

They should all be on their toes. You never know when yesterday’s woke terminology will be considered insufficiently inclusive. The Health Resources and Services Administration corrects this oversight by referring to “pregnant and birthing people,” in case anyone were to make the mistake of assuming that men, in addition to being unable to give birth, cannot get pregnant. (Don’t even get me started on “chestfeeding,” which also appears in seemingly respectable medical books.)

The rise of “birthing people” and “chestfeeding” follows a well-established pattern: Universities carry the terminology from once-fringe activist groups to the professional classes during what passes for their education. Graduates bring it with them to hospitals, law firms, big business and, of course, politics. A new consensus about apparently settled questions such as the definition of motherhood is established before ordinary Americans are even aware that new terms exist...

“Birthing people” should be a line in the sand for all decent and rational Americans. It is not a question of so-called “political correctness,” which is often a simple matter of politeness. The phrase is not only an insult to mothers everywhere; it is an attack on reason itself. Everyone knows that women who give birth to children are mothers. Those who suggest otherwise are either living in a fantasy world or the kind of people who get their jollies by forcing others to say that 2+2 = 5, which is the ambition of every totalitarian.

Words mean things. We already have a name for people who give birth to children. That name is mothers. If your definition of justice requires you to invent jargon to describe things for which there are already words in every language ever observed in human history, you need to find a new one.

In a few weeks, my wife will give birth to our fourth child. We pray that everything goes well and that she and baby Sylvia are happy and healthy. It is impossible to say what our little girl’s life will look like in 20 years, but one thing that is absolutely certain is that she will be loved by her father, her siblings and the person who gave birth to her: her mother.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

When significant percentages of the public doubt the message because of the messenger?  Perhaps.

I don't buy that.  Fauci is not the lone messenger.  He is backed by the entire medical field on vaccines, with around 98% of doctors fully vaccinated.  Fauci is a political scapegoat.  That explains why it is predominantly those who listen to right wing media who lambast Fauci.  I hear it from my in-laws all the time.  They primarily parrot Tucker Carlson.  They hate him because they view him as a reason that trump lost. 

Fauci is not perfect.  No man is.  But we have zero reason to be hesitant about vaccines because of him, when the rest of the medical community backs him. 

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We'll never get to 100%.  On anything.  But that doesn't mean we cannot try to make inroads.  Persuasion, rather than compulsion, is the better way to go, IMO.

 Agreed.  So does Fauci. 

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Rather than lambaste these folks, ought we not try to persuade?

When has Fauci lambasted black folks for not getting vaccinated?

 

 

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

apples and oranges comparison.

Then why did you present it here?

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

How many of the unvaccinated went out and got vaccines after the release? If this thread and my Facebook feed is any indication, it’s close to zero.

Oh.  Facebook and this thread are the bellweathers, eh?

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So they are beyond his reach just like Fauci. The problem isn’t the messenger. 

There are a variety of problems, one of which is the politicization of the message.  By both sides.

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I am no longer a member. People can do what they want.

Good to know.

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I will say that the fact that protecting the vulnerable is where so many Christians draw the line speaks volumes about the utility of religion. 

Does "protecting the vulnerable" include . . . the unborn?

As for "the utility of religion," I invite you to read this article by Daniel Peterson: What Difference Does It Make?

Some excerpts (emphases added) :

Quote

I don’t wonder at the havoc that complete loss of faith can induce in sensitive souls.

Listen to what the outspokenly atheistic philosopher Bertrand Russell says in his 1903 essay “A Free Man’s Worship”:

That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the débris of a universe in ruins — all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.

Somehow, “unyielding despair” doesn’t seem a very promising basis for a happy life.

The French philosopher and writer Albert Camus published a famous 1942 collection of essays titled The Myth of Sisyphus in which he grappled with the view that we’re just a pointless combination of chemicals, with what he labeled the “absurdity” of the human situation:

“There is but one truly serious philosophical problem,” he wrote, “and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy.”

A robust faith, like the loss of one, makes a difference.

Health

For one thing, it apparently makes people healthier.
...
 

For several decades, Armand Nicholi, a clinical professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School as well as the editor and co-author of the Harvard Guide to Psychiatry, has taught an honors course for Harvard College and Harvard Medical School that’s focused on Freud and the great Christian writer C.S. Lewis. Although the two never actually met, Nicholi puts them in dialogue and comparison with each other. (This isn’t as arbitrary as it might seem: Lewis, an atheist for half his life, was well aware of Freud’s writings.)

In 2002, based upon that course, Nicholi published The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex and the Meaning of Life. It’s a fascinating study, and one could easily argue from it that Lewis led a healthier and happier life than did Freud.

Via such publications as Is Religion Good for Your Health: The Effects of Religion on Physical and Mental Health (1997), his Handbook of Religion and Mental Health (1998), and his editorship of the Oxford Handbook of Religion and Health (2012), Harold Koenig, a psychiatrist on the faculty of Duke University, has established himself as a premier authority in this area. He and his collaborators argue that religious involvement is correlated with better mental health in the areas of depression, substance abuse and suicide, and, somewhat less certainly, with better results in the treatment of stress-related disorders and dementia.

Moreover, according to Tyler VanderWeele, professor of epidemiology at Harvard University, recent research published by himself and his colleagues in various top-tier medical journals confirms the links that previous scientific investigation had identified between attendance at religious services and enhanced health. Regular attendance is associated, for example, with “a roughly 30 percent reduction in mortality over 16 years of follow-up; a five-fold reduction in the likelihood of suicide; and a 30 percent reduction in the incidence of depression,” VanderWeele writes.[1]

But the apparent blessings don’t end there: Regular participation in communal religious worship appears to be associated with “greater likelihood of healthy social relationships and stable marriages; an increased sense of meaning in life; higher life satisfaction; an expansion of one’s social network; and more charitable giving, volunteering, and civic engagement,” says VanderWeele.
...
In his 2009 book Is Faith Delusion? Why Religion is Good for Your Health, Dr. Andrew Sims, former president of the United Kingdom’s Royal College of Psychiatrists and professor of psychiatry at the University of Leeds, contends, on the basis of his own psychiatric practice as well as a large number of scientific studies, that “people with religious belief, rather than being timid and lacking clear convictions, have a greater sense of direction and feeling of independence from control.” Indeed, one of the major themes of his book is that “religious belief tends to be associated with better health, both physical and mental.”

“The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best-kept secrets in psychiatry, and medicine generally,” he writes. “If the findings of the huge volume of research on this topic had gone in the opposite direction and it had been found that religion damages your mental health, it would have been front-page news in every newspaper in the land!”

Moreover, Sims contends, “churches are almost the only element in society to have offered considerate, caring, long-lasting and self-sacrificing support to the mentally ill,” which is one of the reasons why “religious involvement results in a better outcome from a range of illnesses, both mental and physical.”

In the majority of scientific studies, Sims summarizes, religious involvement correlates with enhanced well-being, happiness and life-satisfaction; greater hope and optimism, even when facing serious diseases, such as breast cancer; a stronger sense of purpose and meaning in life; higher self-esteem; better responses to bereavement; greater social support; less loneliness; lower rates of depression and faster recovery from depression; reduced rates of suicide; decreased anxiety; better coping with stress; less psychosis and fewer psychotic tendencies; lower rates of alcohol and drug abuse; less delinquency and criminal activity; and greater marital stability and satisfaction. A strong faith and the positive relationships and thinking associated with church membership fortify the immune system, “thus reducing the risk of cancer, improving general health and protecting the cardiovascular system.”

“When looking at the overall effects of religious belief and practice on whole populations,” he writes, “there is substantial evidence that religion is highly beneficial for all areas of health, and especially mental health.”

Indeed, correlations between religious faith and improved well-being “typically equal or exceed correlations between well-being and other psychosocial variables, such as social support.” And, he adds, this substantial assertion is “comprehensively attested to by a large amount of evidence.”

“In one well-conducted study,” Sims reports, “almost 3,000 women who regularly attended church services were assessed for health status, social support and habits. When they were followed up 28 years later, their mortality over that period was found to be more than a third less than the general population.”

Furthermore, “An inverse relationship has been found between religious involvement and suicidal behaviour in 84 per cent of 68 studies. That is, those with religious belief and practice are less likely to kill themselves. This association is also found for attempted suicide; believers are less likely to take overdose or use other methods of self-harm.”

“The nagging question we are left with is, why is this important information” — “epidemiological medicine’s best-kept secret,” he calls it — “not better known?”

If it were anything other than religious belief or spirituality resulting in such beneficial outcomes for health, the media would trumpet it and governments and health care organizations would be rushing to implement its practice.

One of the most interesting and provocative social analysts in America today is Arthur Brooks, currently president of the American Enterprise Institute. In 2004, Dr. Brooks published Who Really Cares, in which he notes that scores of studies have demonstrated that believers live longer, healthier lives. People who never attend religious services are at the highest risk of early death, while those who attend more than once each week have the lowest such risk. At age 20, this translates into a seven-year difference in average life expectancy. Religious people heal more quickly from serious diseases and surgeries. Remarkably, too, in victims of HIV four years after diagnosis, those who’ve become religious show noticeably lower rates of disease progression than do their unbelieving fellow-sufferers.

In addition, as many studies have shown, religious people tend to be much happier and more satisfied than the irreligious. They cope better with crises. They recover faster from divorce, bereavement and being fired. They enjoy higher rates of marital stability and marital satisfaction. They’re less likely to be depressed, to become alcoholics or drug addicts, to commit suicide or to commit crimes. Elderly religious people are much less likely to be depressed, but if they are, they’re less so than their unbelieving counterparts.

In 2008, Brooks published a book titled Gross National Happiness. In it, drawing on the relevant sociological literature, he presents his case for what makes us happy and what doesn’t.

Religious people of all faiths are, on average, markedly happier than secularists, and this is true even when wealth, age and education are taken into account. In one major survey, 23 percent of secularists reported being “very happy” with their lives, versus 43 percent of religious respondents. Believers are a third more likely to express optimism about the future. Unbelievers are almost twice as likely as the religious to say, “I’m inclined to feel I’m a failure.”

In 2004, 36 percent of those who prayed every day said they were “very happy,” while only 21 percent of those who never prayed said so.

Data from 1998 reveal that people who were certain that God exists were a third more likely to describe themselves as “very happy” than those who denied his existence. Curiously, agnostics were more gloomy than atheists; only 12 percent of agnostics surveyed claimed to be very happy. People who asserted that there was “little truth in any religion” were roughly half as likely to assert a high degree of happiness as those who believed that religion contains significant truth.

Believers in life after death are about a third more likely than nonbelievers to call themselves “very happy.” By contrast, people who say that we don’t survive death are three-quarters more likely to say that they aren’t very happy.

Correcting for other cultural factors and comparing apples with apples, people who live in religious communities also fare better financially than do those who live in relatively secular communities. Brooks cites an economist who investigated the effect on one’s income when others in one’s community are religiously active. For instance, he measured how the church attendance of Italian-American Catholics affected the incomes of African-American Protestants in the same neighborhood. His conclusion? The more your neighbors go to church, the more you will tend to prosper. This is probably because of the cultural benefits that accrue to a community as a whole when a significant proportion of the community follows typical religious standards: There’s likely, for example, to be less divorce and drug abuse—both of which cause economic woes. And such influence in a community attracts like-minded people into a neighborhood, thus improving it further.

An advocate of greater secularism might concede that religious fantasies provide a helpful crutch for stupid, ignorant and/or irrational people, whereas better educated and more honest unbelievers face reality without such comfort.

A 2004 study, however, showed that religious adults were a third less likely than secular adults to lack a high school diploma, and a third more likely to have at least one college degree. Given two people, one of whom has a college degree and one of whom doesn’t, but who earn the same salary and are identical in age, gender, race and political views, the college graduate will be 7 percent more likely to be a churchgoer.

Secularizing writers often like to imagine how much better the world would be without religion. They should pray that they don’t get their wish.
...
 

Benefits to Society

By just about any measure, Western society has grown much more secular in recent decades. This is likely to have consequences. It makes a difference.

For as long as I can remember, nonreligious people have assured me that, while I’m supposedly focused on some sort of illusory “pie in the sky when I die” and on “saving” others from mythical sufferings in a fairy-tale afterlife, they’re devoted to making life in this world, on this planet, tangibly better for everybody.

In my particular case, of course, the critics may be right. They’re very likely far better people than I am—more charitable, kinder, more concerned for their fellow humans. However, unless they actually supply evidence to demonstrate it, Arthur Brooks’s 2006 volume, Who Really Cares, has made it much, much harder for secularists to preen themselves, as a class, on their superior compassion.

Brooks has studied patterns in charitable giving and service for many years and is widely recognized as perhaps the pre-eminent authority on the subject. Still, he even he reports that he’s been surprised by what he’s found.

Religious people, it turns out, give more to charity than do nonreligious people. They donate more money—and not merely to their churches, synagogues, temples and mosques.

They’re more likely to give money to family and friends, and, when they do, to give larger amounts. They’re far more likely to give food or money to the homeless and to donate blood, and even to return money from a cashier’s mistake or to express empathy for the less fortunate. It’s 15 percent more likely that churchgoing Europeans will volunteer for nonreligious charities than their secular compatriots. Even non-churchgoers, if they were raised in religious households, are more likely to donate to charity than those who were not.

Not surprisingly, private charity in ever-more-secular Europe has plummeted—to the point, in some areas, almost of extinction. Brooks, who also argues that charitable giving is essential to a strong economy, points to polling data suggesting that Europeans are, according to their own reports, less happy with their lives than Americans are, and suggests that their unhappiness may be connected with their low rates of charity and volunteerism. Humans feel better when they give.

91 percent of American religious conservatives give to charitable causes, compared to only 67 percent of those who identify themselves as secular liberals. Those who pray daily are 30 percent more likely to give to charity than people who never pray. In Europe, too, churchgoers volunteer 30 percent more often, overall, than non-churchgoers. Even controlling for other factors, 83 percent of religious Americans will volunteer in any given year, while, among secular French people, only 27 percent will.
...

In America’s Blessings: How Religion Benefits Everyone, Including Atheists, Rodney Stark draws a number of striking conclusions after surveying the relevant data. Some of this will repeat what I’ve already said. Which is fine. I want it to be remembered.

Regardless of their age, Stark says, religious people are much less likely to commit crimes. Accordingly, the higher a city’s church membership rate, the lower its rates of burglary, larceny, robbery, assault, rape, sexually transmitted disease and homicide. In a cleverly designed test at Pepperdine University, a disappointing 45 percent of weekly church attenders turned out to be honest, but that was still more than three times the 13 percent rating of non-attenders.

Curiously, however, although nearly 250 studies conducted between 1944 and 2010 showed clear evidence that religion helps to reduce delinquency, deviation and crime, virtually no standard textbooks on criminology so much as mention “religion” in their indexes. But the fact remains, says Stark, that “All Americans are safer and their property more secure because this is such a religious nation.”

Religious people are the primary source of charitable funds not only for religious causes but for secular philanthropies that benefit all victims of distress and misfortune. They are far more likely to volunteer their time for programs that benefit society and to be active in civic matters.

As I’ve already noted, fashionable schools of psychology have long taught that religion either contributes to mental illness or is itself a dangerous species of psychopathology. But the evidence, says Professor Stark, “shows overwhelmingly that religion protects against mental illness.” For example, persons with strong, conservative religious beliefs are less depressed than those with weak and loose religious beliefs. “They are happier, less neurotic, and far less likely to commit suicide.”

 

Religious people are more likely to marry and to stay married than their irreligious counterparts, and, on the whole, they express greater satisfaction with their marriages and their spouses. They are far less likely to have extramarital affairs. In addition, “Religious husbands are substantially less likely to abuse their wives or children.” Mother-child relationships are stronger for frequent church attenders than for those who rarely if ever go to church, and for mothers and children who regard religion as very important, they’re stronger than for those church-attenders who don’t value religion so highly. Precisely the same thing holds for the level of satisfaction of teenagers with their families. Greater religiosity means higher satisfaction.

Strongly religious persons seem, all other things being equal, to enjoy reduced risks of heart disease, strokes and high blood pressure or hypertension than those who are less religious, and seem to recover better from coronary artery bypass surgery. The average life expectancy of religious Americans is more than seven years longer than that of the irreligious. Moreover, “a very substantial difference remains” even when the effects of “clean living” have been factored out.

Religious students tend to get better grades than do their non-religious counterparts, as well as to score higher on all standardized achievement tests. They are less likely to be expelled or suspended or to drop out of school, and are more likely to do their homework.

Religious Americans are also, on average, more successful in their careers than are the irreligious. They obtain better jobs and are less likely to find themselves unemployed or on welfare.

Committed religious believers are less likely to patronize astrologers or to believe in the occult and the paranormal than are nonbelievers. On the other hand, though they’re often caricatured as ignorant, churchgoers are more likely to read, to patronize the arts and to enjoy classical music than are non-churchgoers.

“Translated into comparisons with Western European nations,” writes Professor Stark, addressing an American audience, “we enjoy far lower crime rates, much higher levels of charitable giving, better health, stronger marriages, and less suicide, to note only a few of our benefits from being an unusually religious nation.”

None of these facts proves religious claims true, of course. But they certainly undermine the old accusation that religion is unhealthy and antisocial.

I am sorry to hear that you have left the Church.  I hope you find some solace and happiness, and I hope you consider returning someday.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

When has Fauci lambasted black folks for not getting vaccinated?

I was thinking more of SeekingUnderstanding, who seems to be lambasting Latter-day Saints who, for perhaps a variety of reasons, are disregarding the counsel of the Brethren and not getting vaccinated.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, pogi said:

Where are you getting 15% from? 

I was referencing the 15% figure as trusting Dr. Fauci.  I found that (low) figure surprising.

24 minutes ago, pogi said:

Why should we give wiggle room to the 35% of members, when your article is giving 0% wiggle room for the public at large - who happen to have higher vaccine rates when compared to Mormons?

Not sure what you are referencing here.  I am advocating persuasion rather than compulsion.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Then why did you present it here?

You did not me. I merely pointed it out. 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

{Smac quoting article}: Just 15% of unvaccinated voters believe Dr. Anthony Fauci makes his policy recommendations based primarily on scientific data and research. 

{SeekingUnderstanding}: Is that surprising? I mean apparently Russell Nelson is not an effective messenger for Latter-day Saints so why would Fauci have any prayer of doing better?

{Smac}: 65% {of Latter-day Saints who accept vaccination, something Pres. Nelson has encouraged} seems a bit better than 15% {who trust Dr. Fauci}

{SeekingUnderstanding}: apples and oranges comparison.

{Smac}: Then why did you present it here?

{SeekingUnderstanding}: You did not me. I merely pointed it out. 

I quoted an article regarding low public trust in Dr. Fauci.  You responded by saying "Russell Nelson is not an effective messenger {either}."

A minor quibble.  Let's move on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I quoted an article regarding low public trust in Dr. Fauci.  You responded by saying "Russell Nelson is not an effective messenger {either}."

A minor quibble.  Let's move on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Correct. President Nelson (a prophet seer and revelatory) is not able to convince unvaccinated members to vaccinate or mask. Neither is Fauci. It’s not the messenger. It’s the receiver. 

Edited August 16, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[pogi]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I was referencing the 15% figure as trusting Dr. Fauci.  I found that (low) figure surprising.

I see.  That is only polling unvaccinated people, so not surprising at all. 

Quote

 

Sixty-eight percent of Americans said they are “confident” in the advice given by Fauci — down from the 71 percent who said so in April, but on par with the 68 percent of respondents in August 2020.

Instead, Americans place the most confidence, according to the poll, in their primary health care provider — at 83 percent. 

https://nypost.com/2021/07/22/public-trust-remains-high-in-vaccines-but-slips-for-fauci-poll/

 

Those are outstanding numbers for a government official.  I doubt anyone (including Scott Atlas - Trumps COVID advisor) could get better numbers than that.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/564262-trust-in-fauci-federal-health-agencies-strong-poll

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/27/upshot/coronavirus-americans-trust-experts.html

Quote

 

Despite vaccination rates lagging, 78 percent of Americans said they believe it is “definitely or probably true” that the shots are effective in preventing the coronavirus — up from 74 percent in April, according to the Annenberg Science Knowledge survey released this week. 

In addition, 76 percent of the public believes it is “definitely or probably true” that it’s safer to get the vaccine than to become ill from COVID.

The number of people who say is “definitely true” grew to 54 percent from 49 percent in April.

 

It appears that trust in primary health care providers can't even make up the difference.   

Again, when there are countless medical voices in the media urging vaccines (I see ICU doctors almost nightly pleading the public to get vaccinated), it seems silly to blame Fauci as the sole reason that people are not getting vaccinated.  Do you think right wing media is to blame at all for polluting the well/vaccine hesitancy?  

Edited August 16, 2021 by pogi