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

[bOObOO]

18 minutes ago, rongo said:

What do we make of the fact that the Church allows most of its wards (other than a few, here and there, that enforce masks because of leader roulette) to clearly do what they want, even contra these recommendations? 

Something I have learned by my experiences with other people:  I can't make anyone else do anything.  And you say:  "the Church allows most of its wards to clearly do what they want"  Yes.  As opposed to what, making them do what they want?

Same old story.   Our Church leaders teach correct principles while we as members govern ourselves.

 t's not as if our Church leaders can make us do what they say we should do.

[Chum]

3 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

 it’s a health issue. Injecting politics or other agendas doesn’t change that fact. 
 

What I feel gets left out is these are temporary measures, with built-in sunsets.

Meanwhile, most genuinely bad & purchased laws will be with us until civilization collapses.

[Chum]

2 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Something I have learned by my experiences with other people:  I can't make anyone else do anything. 

I recently convinced my ex to get her first vaccine. She's anti-vax. We talked while I was helping her out with other stuff. She eventually agreed to let me take her to a walk-in - to my surprise.

[rongo]

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

Once again, people are confusing mandate with admonition.  The church has never mandated masks, and I doubt any local wards are enforcing or requiring them for attendance.

Make no mistake that the admonition exists.  The question is, should we heed and obey their repeated and consistent counsel on masks?  

If we disobey, are we rebelling?

I agree that the Church has never had a mandate (meaning, enforcement --- which, at the end of the day, in brass tacks, means calling the police and having people removed. Or applying Church discipline. Of course the Church is not going to do that). I also agree that what the Church has given is counsel on this.

Your questions are good questions. I think the answer for me (and for many, many other people --- just look around at church or at the temple) is that this particular case is one where my agency allows dissent without it being rejection of the prophets.

I don't think we are rebelling in this case. The Brethren could "lance the boil" on this issue by being explicit, but I really don't think they will. If that does happen, then I will need to reassess my position (and I will at that point). 

We always say that we aren't blind sheep, unthinkingly doing what our leaders tell us. I think we're seeing this in action in our local wards and temples, and I think the Brethren also don't want to chance a "showdown" they might not win. The aftermath could be ugly, and the Church has enough activity, commitment, and enthusiasm problems as it is coming out of the Covid shutdown without antagonizing a significant bloc of very active, committed people. I think that this is one factor that is part of the calculus. 

Edited August 10, 2021 by rongo

[bOObOO]

Just now, Chum said:

I recently convinced my ex to get her first vaccine. She's anti-vax. We talked while I was helping her out with other stuff. She eventually agreed to let me take her to a walk-in - to my surprise.

Good that she made that decision.  Good that you advised her as you advised her.  But still you did not make her do what she did.  If she still did not choose to get the shot, after you advised her, that would have been her choice, then.

[Chum]

3 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Good that she made that decision.  Good that you advised her as you advised her.  But still you did not make her do what she did.  If she still did not choose to get the shot, after you advised her, that would have been her choice, then.

Agreed. My only goal was to respectfully convince her. This one time it worked out.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I agree that the Church has never had a mandate (meaning, enforcement --- which, at the end of the day, in brass tacks, means calling the police and having people removed. Or applying Church discipline. Of course the Church is not going to do that). I also agree that what the Church has given is counsel on this.

Your questions are good questions. I think the answer for me (and for many, many other people --- just look around at church or at the temple) is that this particular case is one where my agency allows dissent without it being rejection of the prophets.

I don't think we are rebelling in this case. The Brethren could "lance the boil" on this issue by being explicit, but I really don't think they will. If that does happen, then I will need to reassess my position (and I will at that point). 

We always say that we aren't blind sheep, unthinkingly doing what our leaders tell us. I think we're seeing this in action in our local wards and temples, and I think the Brethren also don't want to chance a "showdown" they might not win. The aftermath could be ugly, and the Church has enough activity, commitment, and enthusiasm problems as it is coming out of the Covid shutdown without antagonizing a significant bloc of very active, committed people. I think that this is one factor that is part of the calculus. 

If the church was saying something contrary to consensus in science and medicine, then I could understand a reason to question, or maybe even to choose to disobey their counsel.  But if one chooses to knowingly and willfully disobey their counsel, even when it is consistent with science and medicine, on what ground are they doing it on?  How do they justify their choice to knowingly and willfully disobey - especially considering the potential ramifications of not obeying.  We have been warned that we will be judged for how we behave in preventative measures during this pandemic.  Why risk judgment?  I don't expect a good answer to this question, just offering some questions for people to personally reflect upon. 

Quote

The aftermath could be ugly, and the Church has enough activity, commitment, and enthusiasm problems as it is coming out of the Covid shutdown without antagonizing a significant bloc of very active, committed people. I think that this is one factor that is part of the calculus. 

I see what you are saying here, but one has to wonder, how "committed" someone is if they choose to end activity in the church instead of simply wearing a mask to church - if it came to that.  It seems to me that vaccines and masks are a modern day brass serpent on a staff.  Such a simple task...

Quote

“many did look and live” (Alma 33:19; see also verses 20–22). Others, however, refused to look. “The labor which they had to perform was to look; and because of the simpleness of the way, or the easiness of it, there were many who perished” (1 Nephi 17:41). Could it be said of us someday that we refused to look to prophets and their counsel because of the easiness of the way?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2018/01/look-and-live?lang=eng

This was published by Elder Bassett just 2 years before the pandemic hit.  I don't think he realized how timely that message would be to help prepare the people of the church to look to the prophets and live.  Unfortunately, I think the answer to his last question is, yes.  Yes, it could be said of us "someday".  I think that "someday" came quicker than he realized. 

Edited August 10, 2021 by pogi

[strappinglad]

In my area the mask mandates from the gov't are lifted, hence the masking at church is not required. 

I went to Costco today and the sign at the entrance said masks are recommended. Most of the employees were masked. I was one of a dozen or so customers in the whole store that was masked. So much for following recommendations I guess. 

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

In my area the mask mandates from the gov't are lifted, hence the masking at church is not required. 

I went to Costco today and the sign at the entrance said masks are recommended. Most of the employees were masked. I was one of a dozen or so customers in the whole store that was masked. So much for following recommendations I guess. 

Thanks for wearing a mask!

Just to clarify, masking at church has never been required, just recommended.  At least in my area, membership was mostly good at wearing masks up until the CDC suggested that non-vaccinated people don't need to wear a mask in certain areas.  Compliance with current CDC/church guidelines is a different story.  It truly makes no sense to me.  Our ward was not having primary or nursery meet, there were empty rows between the pews for distancing, almost everyone was masked, the deacons wouldn't let members pass the tray to each other, etc. there was no singing of hymns... this was all back a few months ago when numbers were in the 200-300's for ALL of Utah (not just Salt Lake County) and Delta was not even a current threat.  As soon as Delta made the scene and numbers started skyrocketing the primary and nursery started meeting, hymns were sung, no separation in the pews, the sacrament was passed between members, and all masks came off.  I watched from a distance in utter amazement.  What is happening? Why???  Now is not the time to lax our standards.  Now is not the time to give up. 

The current church guidelines are to "follow public health agency recommendations for face masks", and that "local leaders should encourage members to follow these guidelines".  The church's guidance/position has never been based on mandates but on health agency recommendations. 

 

[Chum]

Florida is requesting hundreds of ventilators from the federal government after a surge in COVID-19 across the state.

As ever, FL leads the way.

[Metis_LDS]

Front page of the Telegraph UK this evening.    ""Delta variant has wrecked hopes of herd immunity, warn scientists""   It is a distressing article if true.  

[CV75]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

If the church was saying something contrary to consensus in science and medicine, then I could understand a reason to question, or maybe even to choose to disobey their counsel.  But if one chooses to knowingly and willfully disobey their counsel, even when it is consistent with science and medicine, on what ground are they doing it on?  How do they justify their choice to knowingly and willfully disobey - especially considering the potential ramifications of not obeying.  We have been warned that we will be judged for how we behave in preventative measures during this pandemic.  Why risk judgment?  I don't expect a good answer to this question, just offering some questions for people to personally reflect upon. 

I see what you are saying here, but one has to wonder, how "committed" someone is if they choose to end activity in the church instead of simply wearing a mask to church - if it came to that.  It seems to me that vaccines and masks are a modern day brass serpent on a staff.  Such a simple task...

This was published by Elder Bassett just 2 years before the pandemic hit.  I don't think he realized how timely that message would be to help prepare the people of the church to look to the prophets and live.  Unfortunately, I think the answer to his last question is, yes.  Yes, it could be said of us "someday".  I think that "someday" came quicker than he realized. 

I do not think not wearing a mask contrary to prophetic counsel is inherently disobedient or rebellious, nor about a lack of commitment to the Gospel, nor disrespect for the brethren. I think active members attending Church without a mask are operating with the light they have in good faith. Difficulty understanding another’s point of view (whether to wear a mask or not to wear a mask) has to do with fundamental differences in moral reasoning based in innate cognitive elements and tools that have been shaped by culture and genes (see “moral foundations theory” in Wikipedia). Their stance becomes problematic when they invite the spirit of contention into the issue.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I do not think not wearing a mask contrary to prophetic counsel is inherently disobedient.

Either we obey prophetic counsel, or we don't.  If we don't, we are by nature being disobedient to prophetic counsel.  That seems self evident to me.

Naturally, everyone has their reasons/justification for disobedience, but it is still disobedience.  

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Their stance becomes problematic when they invite the spirit of contention into the issue.

I agree.  

Edited August 11, 2021 by pogi

[CV75]

12 hours ago, pogi said:

Either we obey prophetic counsel, or we don't.  If we don't, we are by nature being disobedient to prophetic counsel.  That seems self evident to me.

Naturally, everyone has their reasons/justification for disobedience, but it is still disobedience.  

I agree.  

This is "disobedience" according to your moral foundations and reasoning. Others may not construe prophetic counsel --even when heartfelt and strong -- in the form of request, advice, recommendation, invitation, encouragement and position as a commandment.

The essential thing is that people keep the ordinances they have received to the best of their ability, and let the consequences and/or grace follow.

Edited August 11, 2021 by CV75

[pogi]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

This is "disobedience" according to your moral foundations and reasoning. Others may not construe prophetic counsel --even when heartfelt and strong -- in the form of request, advice, recommendation, invitation, encouragement and position as a commandment.

The essential thing is that people keep the ordinances they have received to the best of their ability, and let the consequences and/or grace follow.

Ya, I think we are miscommunicating here.  Just to explain where I am coming from, disobedience is not necessarily a mater of morality for me.  It is simply to act contrary to counsel given.  Either we obey counsel or we disobey counsel.  There is no in-between.  If we heed and follow the counsel, we are obedient to it.  If we don't, we are not obedient to it.  That is self-evident.   To some, disobedience may have moral connotations to it, but it was not intended by me.  It is up for each of us to decide the moral value of obedience or disobedience to counsel.  Make no mistake however, that to not follow counsel from a prophets is disobedience to that counsel.  One may be perfectly morally justified in that disobedience, but it is still disobedience.   I do think there are some occasions where one might be morally justified in disobeying counsel of our leaders (I think of the Martin Handcart company, for example), but it is still technically disobedience to that counsel. 

The point I am making is that the church's counsel on masks has been repeated and consistent.  It is up to us to decide the moral value of that counsel and decide if we will heed and obey that counsel.  I just don't want anyone to be confused as to what the counsel is, as it seems that there is some confusion with people thinking it is out of date.  It is not.  I just emailed my bishop and stake president last night regarding my concern over the lack of mask wearing at church and potential confusion as to where the church stands on the issue.  I received a rapid response.      My stake president responded that he is currently on day 19 of dealing with the effects of the Coronavirus.  He stated "As a stake presidency, we have consistently asked local leaders to encourage our members to follow federal, state and local health agencies' guidelines with regard to wearing masks..."  He continued "just 2 weeks ago we sent communicating to all bishops asking them to encourage members to do all they can to protect themselves and others."  For some reason, that hasn't translated into anything from my ward level that I have heard or seen from my bishop on masks and recommending that we follow federal and local guidelines recently.  My own bishopric does not wear a mask on the stand, so there may be some disconnect happening on many local levels.  Clearly, if this site is any indicator, there seems to be a breakdown in communicating the position of the church to follow the recommendations of local health departments in regards to masks at church.

My point here is simply to clarify and give resources for people to see the official position of the church on masks, in case they have not yet received them from local leaders.  I know that I have, in the past, seen communication from the local level to follow local and federal guidelines on masks.  For some reason, it seems that the membership thinks that counsel is somehow outdated due to changes in local mandates or CDC guidelines.  Unless your ward or stake has since rescinded their counsel, I would suggest that it is still in effect to follow local and federal guidelines (even as it fluctuates and changes, area by area).  We shouldn't need to be reminded to follow the guidelines with every single change, but apparently maybe we do. 

I don't think there is any room for doubt where the church stands in regards to masks, or what their counsel is in regards to masks.  The question is that I have been asking, where do you stand?  Will we heed and obey?  That is a moral question that one must consider for themselves. 

Edited August 11, 2021 by pogi

[rongo]

24 minutes ago, pogi said:

Ya, I think we are miscommunicating here.  Just to explain where I am coming from, disobedience is not necessarily a mater of morality for me.  It is simply to act contrary to counsel given.  Either we obey counsel or we disobey counsel.  There is no in-between.  If we heed and follow the counsel, we are obedient to it.  If we don't, we are not obedient to it.  That is self-evident.   To some, disobedience may have moral connotations to it, but it was not intended by me.  It is up for each of us to decide the moral value of obedience or disobedience to counsel.  Make no mistake however, that to not follow counsel from a prophets is disobedience to that counsel.  One may be perfectly morally justified in that disobedience, but it is still disobedience.   I do think there are some occasions where one might be morally justified in disobeying counsel of our leaders (I think of the Martin Handcart company, for example), but it is still technically disobedience to that counsel. 

I agree with you about this. Whether or not one obeys or not is straightforward and clear-cut.

25 minutes ago, pogi said:

The point I am making is that the church's counsel on masks has been repeated and consistent.  It is up to us to decide the moral value of that counsel and decide if we will heed and obey that counsel.  I just don't want anyone to be confused as to what the counsel is, as it seems that there is some confusion with people thinking it is out of date.  It is not.  I just emailed my bishop and stake president last night regarding my concern over the lack of mask wearing at church and potential confusion as to where the church stands on the issue.  I received a rapid response.  My stake president responded that he is currently on day 19 of dealing with the effects of the Coronavirus.  He stated "As a stake presidency, we have consistently asked local leaders to encourage our members to follow federal, state and local health agencies' guidelines with regard to wearing masks..."  He continued "just 2 weeks ago we sent communicating to all bishops asking them to encourage members to do all they can to protect themselves and others."  For some reason, that hasn't translated into anything from my ward level that I have heard or seen from my bishop on masks and recommending that we follow federal and local guidelines recently.  My own bishopric does not wear a mask on the stand, so there may be some disconnect happening on many local levels.  Clearly, if this site is any indicator, there seems to be a breakdown in communicating the position of the church to follow the recommendations of local health departments in regards to masks at church.

I think it's because your stake president is doing exactly what the Brethren are doing (via statements, etc.). i.e., asking local leaders "to encourage our members to follow federal, state and local health agencies' guidelines with regard to wearing masks.." But, do they call people out of compliance out on this (98% of almost all North American wards)? No, they don't. This is taken by most people to be what it (to me) clearly is intended to be: all views on this have "cover" for their position, but no contention or conflict is engaged in (which is a good thing). It is laissez faire in practice, as intended, even though the official statements are one thing. This is why even most leadership is availing themselves of the opportunity not to mask on the stand. 

We even see this in local firesides with high-ranking Church leaders. Arizona had a fireside with Elder Paul Pieper and Brother Achmad Corbitt, and we were stunned (and pleased) to see them not wearing a mask on the stand (this was during a time when it was remarkable, since all we had seen from the Brethren was masks, distancing, and very limited numbers in the last three General Conferences and counting). I would also include Elder Rasband's visit to a Queen Creek seminary in April in this. 

I think the messaging is precisely what is intended: to allow all Church members the ability to decide what they want to and are going to do in this matter. The statements are targeted to people like you so you can point to it as coming from the Church, but the willful and intentional refusal/failure to enforce them at all speaks volumes, to me and many, many others. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I agree with you about this. Whether or not one obeys or not is straightforward and clear-cut.

I think it's because your stake president is doing exactly what the Brethren are doing (via statements, etc.). i.e., asking local leaders "to encourage our members to follow federal, state and local health agencies' guidelines with regard to wearing masks.." But, do they call people out of compliance out on this (98% of almost all North American wards)? No, they don't. This is taken by most people to be what it (to me) clearly is intended to be: all views on this have "cover" for their position, but no contention or conflict is engaged in (which is a good thing). It is laissez faire in practice, as intended, even though the official statements are one thing. This is why even most leadership is availing themselves of the opportunity not to mask on the stand. 

We even see this in local firesides with high-ranking Church leaders. Arizona had a fireside with Elder Paul Pieper and Brother Achmad Corbitt, and we were stunned (and pleased) to see them not wearing a mask on the stand (this was during a time when it was remarkable, since all we had seen from the Brethren was masks, distancing, and very limited numbers in the last three General Conferences and counting). I would also include Elder Rasband's visit to a Queen Creek seminary in April in this. 

I think the messaging is precisely what is intended: to allow all Church members the ability to decide what they want to and are going to do in this matter. The statements are targeted to people like you so you can point to it as coming from the Church, but the willful and intentional refusal/failure to enforce them at all speaks volumes, to me and many, many others. 

In regards to this policy being laissez faire in practice, my stake president said this in his email to me "We have followed the admonition of the Prophet Joseph Smith in teaching correct principles and letting the members govern themselves."  So, I agree if that instruction by Joseph Smith can be interpreted as a "laissez faire" practice of counseling the church.   That is how 99% of the counsel is given from the brethren, however.  They tend to follow that counsel in most things, except for the temple worthiness questions.   So, I don't think their "willful and intentional refusal/failure to enforce them" speaks the "volumes" that you interpret from it.  I wouldn't use that as an excuse to downplay the counsel or justify our disobedience in it.  As my stake president said, they are "teaching correct principles", which the medical community has warned is of serious consequence.  So, we are not necessarily excused in our disobedience, even if our leaders are not perfect in obedience themselves.  No one is perfect in obeying the second great commandment, even our leaders, but we should all strive to obey the second great commandment and will be judged for it in relation to the pandemic, according to Elder Renlund - "In relation to the pandemic, that means wearing a mask".  

 

Edited August 11, 2021 by pogi

[bsjkki]

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/eu-drugs-regulator-looking-new-possible-side-effects-mrna-vaccines-2021-08-11/
 

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

I think the messaging is precisely what is intended: to allow all Church members the ability to decide what they want to and are going to do in this matter. The statements are targeted to people like you so you can point to it as coming from the Church, but the willful and intentional refusal/failure to enforce them at all speaks volumes, to me and many, many others. 

For you and others, how does this advice compare to the admonition to have no more than one pair of earrings or not to get tattoos?

Edited August 11, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

For you and others, how does this advise compare to the admonition to have no more than one pair of earrings or not to get tattoos?

Good question. I personally don't like tattoos or excessive earrings or body rings (or any rings on men), but I think the application is the same in both cases. Tattoos and rings don't keep one out of the temple or full fellowship as far as restrictions. The counsel is one thing, but members are free to follow their own lights, even contra counsel.

Masks and vaccines are clearly practically the same (except for foreign-bound missionaries). 

[bsjkki]

Quite a diverse group of people with vaccine hesitancy. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.20.21260795v1.full.pdf
 

[rongo]

52 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Quite a diverse group of people with vaccine hesitancy. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.20.21260795v1.full.pdf
 

I relate to several of these (history of positive Covid test, not worried about serious illness from Covid, work outside the home, never intentionally avoid contact with others, did not [have never] gotten a flu vaccine). I'm not anti-vax; I have the standard MMR and DPT shots up-to-date, as do my family members. But, I don't want vaccines I really don't think I need. Doctors get really scornful that our kids refuse Gardasil, too. For us, it's really an "ala carte" risk/benefit analysis. 

I think those wanting to convince the skeptics or "hesitants" (less entrenched than skeptics) could do things to better reach these people. While some will preemptively ad hominem National Review (which is solidly pro-vaccine, incidentally) --- can there any good thing come out of NR? --- I think there are some outstanding points here about messaging and truly trying to understand and reach the hesitant.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/07/convincing-the-skeptics/

[Key excerpts for TL;dnr]

1) “Proponents of the vaccine are unwilling or unable to understand the thinking of vaccine skeptics — or even admit that skeptics may be thinking at all. Their attempts to answer skepticism or understand it end up poisoned by condescension, and end up reinforcing it.” [rongo: I've seen this scorn, derision, and condescension, and it's off-putting and not likely to convince anybody].

2) An MIT study “showed that a substantial portion of public-health skepticism was highly informed, scientifically literate, and sophisticated in the use of data. Skeptics used the same data sets as those with the orthodox views on public health.” [rongo: Refusing to acknowledge this and act accordingly in arguments and attempts to sway skeptics is leading to growing distrust. There is a reason why many intelligent people are resistant, and they aren't all complete morons. I plead the 5th in my case . . .  ].

3) “Most vaccine skepticism, if by that we mean reluctance, is not based on conspiracy theorizing — it’s based on risk-benefit calculations . . . The older you are and the denser your community, the more likely you are to be vaccinated. The younger you are, and the more rural your community, the less likely you are to have gotten it. This reflects the real facts about the risk of death from COVID. People may be wildly overestimating their risk from the vaccine and underestimating their risks from COVID — but they have the directional thinking correct. Those who are in less danger, act like it.” [rongo: this nails it, to me. It's much more risk/benefit calculus than conspiracy theorizing, for the "silent majority" of the hesitant. The loud, vocal ones stand out, but the bulk of this demographic just quietly doesn't think the situation demands what is being demanded, in their experience].

4) “The risk-benefit calculation is also complicated by other factors. People find acts of God easier to accept than mistakes of their own volition. So they may find it easier to accept the risks of facing COVID in nature, which they did not choose to get, than the unknown risks of a vaccine that they did consciously choose to take. This is obviously one of the larger hurdles people face when talking to parents about vaccinating their children. Parents aren’t just fearful of the vaccine; they may be fearful of living with guilt over their decisions.”

5) “To understand vaccine skeptics, proponents need to understand that the skeptics typically don’t fear COVID . . . Arguing that the vax is the path back to normality and fewer public-health restrictions backfires with skeptics, in my experience. They see consent to this view as a promise to willingly go under house arrest once a new variant hits the front-page headlines again. For them, excessive fear of COVID is the primary cause of public-health restrictions, and their refusal to take the vaccine is, in some small way, an attempt to model a life unruled by this fear.’ [rongo: I would add that another reason this backfires is that many people have been living “normally” from the beginning. So, using vaccines and masks as a “carrot” to coax them to sacrifice so they can get back to normal is nonsensical. They never stopped in the first place).

6) “Some proponents of vaccines, especially among conservatives, are willing to grant that public health has wasted the trust of the public on interventions . . . Public-health messaging that is constant but doesn’t address your actual concerns will, quite understandably, feel sinister and propagandistic. That’s doubly true when public-health authorities and major corporations have become so much more interested in censoring “misinformation” about COVID-19.”

7) “The most serious phenomenon feeding skepticism, among the skeptics in my life, is the ongoing and bizarre public-health treatment of children."

8. “We know now from experience that COVID-19 is less deadly to children than other common diseases and illnesses. Many quality studies show no frequent incidence of long-term complications for children who do get COVID-19. It is hard for children to get COVID. And the masks we make children wear have potentially serious negative consequences. CDC director Rochelle Walensky explained that she was withholding her vaccinated teenager from summer camp because of the dangers of unmasked interaction, just two days before the CDC, under pressure from the public, withdrew its guidance that children should be masked outdoors.

The CDC and Dr. Fauci say alarmist, fear-mongering nonsense about the risks to children all the time and seem to suggest constantly that life cannot return to normal for children until pediatric COVID vaccines are approved and taken up. That is, people can see with their own eyes that our public-health establishment is not only anxious to censor dissent but is also habituated to lying about the risks in order to justify unnecessary public-health interventions.

One unvaccinated friend expressed to me that it was this pattern of lying about children and censoring dissent that set off his intuition that something about the vaccination effort was unseemly.”

9) “Getting skeptics on board will require abandoning efforts that seem like open manipulation in defiance of the evidence. It will also mean leveling with people . . . A public-health campaign would give context to the information about vaccine reactions reported on the government’s own websites — such as the VAERs system — and explain how the government assesses them. In the absence of this, skeptics will take the word of whoever is willing to give this information context.”

Edited August 11, 2021 by rongo

[rongo]

A follow up to the above on the conservative case for reaching the hesitant:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/07/how-to-reach-the-vaccine-skeptics-a-booster-shot-of-ideas/

1) "Misinformation isn’t the main problem. It may be a problem, but it’s not the most important one. A great deal of vax skepticism is simply rooted in a lack of fear of COVID. Or a fear of what we can’t yet know about the vaccines. Long before Big Pharma even asked for emergency-approval authorizations, a substantial portion of the adult population of the United States had decided that the risks COVID posed to people under 50 were being vastly overstated to justify the intrusive public-health restrictions on our lives. And they determined then to resist it at every turn. For many of them, this includes resistance to the vaccine.”

2) “I also don’t think cable news or social media is the main source of vaccine disinformation. I think most of it is shared laterally across in-real-life social networks.” People trust trusted friends and family more than “public health experts.” [rongo: this, in spades. Most people are much more swayed by people they know and respect than the discourse on social media or in the media. If they personally know and respect people who are vax-skeptical for their situation, this will be more influential than anything else, all other things being equal].

3) “If it’s true that a substantial portion of vax skeptics have good-faith questions for which they haven’t heard good answers, a campaign of censorship is likely to make them more suspicious. Perhaps a larger problem than disinformation is just excess information. One of the studies I cited in my piece was withdrawn later in the day after I published it. People who have their prior beliefs will remember lots of true information that supports them and discard piles of other true information that might complicate them.”

4) “I agree that mandates can cause more people to sign up for the vaccine. We’ve seen that in France: When certain public accommodations announced they were going to require proof of vaccination, 2 million people made appointments. My sense is that there’s a substantial number of people who are not particularly afraid of COVID and not anxious to get the vaccine but who are not particularly afraid of the vaccine either, and they’ll get it if it’s a hassle not to have had it. So yes, that may work. However, France is also now seeing mass protests against these inducements. Which means that the portion of people who are really fearful of the vaccine, or really convinced they have no need of it, are becoming radicalized. Mandates present a tricky balance. And my own view happens to be that this is the wrong pandemic to test these cases in court.

5) “I don’t believe all skeptics are persuadable. Probably about 20–25 percent of the public can’t be convinced at all; but the 10–20 percent who can be persuaded should be addressed intelligently. Spending money on messaging that doesn’t address their concerns is more likely to make them recoil from what looks like evasive propaganda.” [rongo: I feel like most messaging about masks and vaccines are preaching to the choir, tribalism, etc., rather than earnest attempts to understand and persuade skeptics and hesitants].

[rongo]

In my and my family's case, I think Malcolm Gladwell's observation about the bombing of London during WW2 comes into play. Conventional wisdom would be that this would be a harrowing and shattering experience from which people would not easily recover, but it turns out that only those immediately affected (those who died or were maimed in the attacks) had such an impact. The "close call" survivors actually developed surprising resiliency to go on with their lives (going to movie houses amid rubble and falling buzz bombs, etc.) and were super-strengthened by the near misses. 

For the many (most of whom are silent) who have had Covid and did not have a bad experience with it, their own experience gives them personally even less to fear about it. They may be wrong about the risks, but their own experience calls the "near misses and close calls" phenomenon into play. We all had it, had flu aches for a couple of days, a slight cough that quickly went away, and loss of taste and smell for about a week. We are told from "authoritative sources" that we could get long haul Covid if we get it again, that the damage might be done and manifest itself in 20 years, etc., but we don't believe it. Our antibodies seem to be holding up very well, and if we are constantly being exposed to Delta, our B lymphocytes are making antibodies against that, too. We definitely feel more like the people going on about their lives as the bombs fall than the ones hunkering down in the Tube.  

I do think the "near miss" phenomenon makes it hard to reach many who just aren't afraid of Covid, having had it. 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Ya, I think we are miscommunicating here.  Just to explain where I am coming from, disobedience is not necessarily a mater of morality for me.  It is simply to act contrary to counsel given.  Either we obey counsel or we disobey counsel.  There is no in-between.  If we heed and follow the counsel, we are obedient to it.  If we don't, we are not obedient to it.  That is self-evident.   To some, disobedience may have moral connotations to it, but it was not intended by me.  It is up for each of us to decide the moral value of obedience or disobedience to counsel.  Make no mistake however, that to not follow counsel from a prophets is disobedience to that counsel.  One may be perfectly morally justified in that disobedience, but it is still disobedience.   I do think there are some occasions where one might be morally justified in disobeying counsel of our leaders (I think of the Martin Handcart company, for example), but it is still technically disobedience to that counsel. 

The point I am making is that the church's counsel on masks has been repeated and consistent.  It is up to us to decide the moral value of that counsel and decide if we will heed and obey that counsel.  I just don't want anyone to be confused as to what the counsel is, as it seems that there is some confusion with people thinking it is out of date.  It is not.  I just emailed my bishop and stake president last night regarding my concern over the lack of mask wearing at church and potential confusion as to where the church stands on the issue.  I received a rapid response.      My stake president responded that he is currently on day 19 of dealing with the effects of the Coronavirus.  He stated "As a stake presidency, we have consistently asked local leaders to encourage our members to follow federal, state and local health agencies' guidelines with regard to wearing masks..."  He continued "just 2 weeks ago we sent communicating to all bishops asking them to encourage members to do all they can to protect themselves and others."  For some reason, that hasn't translated into anything from my ward level that I have heard or seen from my bishop on masks and recommending that we follow federal and local guidelines recently.  My own bishopric does not wear a mask on the stand, so there may be some disconnect happening on many local levels.  Clearly, if this site is any indicator, there seems to be a breakdown in communicating the position of the church to follow the recommendations of local health departments in regards to masks at church.

My point here is simply to clarify and give resources for people to see the official position of the church on masks, in case they have not yet received them from local leaders.  I know that I have, in the past, seen communication from the local level to follow local and federal guidelines on masks.  For some reason, it seems that the membership thinks that counsel is somehow outdated due to changes in local mandates or CDC guidelines.  Unless your ward or stake has since rescinded their counsel, I would suggest that it is still in effect to follow local and federal guidelines (even as it fluctuates and changes, area by area).  We shouldn't need to be reminded to follow the guidelines with every single change, but apparently maybe we do. 

I don't think there is any room for doubt where the church stands in regards to masks, or what their counsel is in regards to masks.  The question is that I have been asking, where do you stand?  Will we heed and obey?  That is a moral question that one must consider for themselves. 

You asked for understanding about where those who do not follow counsel are coming from, already having assessed them as disobedient.

Moral reasoning is how people think about right and wrong and how they acquire and apply moral rules. The issue of wearing masks is as much -- more -- about peoples' sense of right and wrong and the management of moral rules than it is about the COVID-19 data. We all know personal bias trumps "objectivity" every time, otherwise we would be robots/computers. That is why those who appeal to science also appeal to the morality of abiding the data to further justify wearing masks. On top of that, people will draw upon different sets of cognitive modules to do so. 

Just as we shouldn't shoot the (advocating) messenger, we shouldn't shoot the (resistant) recipient, but seek to understand them and how to effectively deliver the message to people who think very differently.