Jump to content

Covid stats


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

@Harry T. Clark @mburgess1982 @CelestialSeething

Hi,

As someone who is not LDS, I have a couple of questions for you.

Are you LDS (it appears you are, but I just want to double-check)?

If so, how you do you reconcile your stance concerning the vaccine, masks, and covid with that of your prophets and apostles? Restricting access to your temples unless you are wearing a mask seems to put a pretty high importance on masking, doesn't it? I'm going with the assumption that your temples are the most sacred sites for your religion. Your prophet calling the vaccine a miracle from God seems to be a strong statement, too.

Also, for those of you who believe that a Satanic secret combination (a phrase I recently learned in the LDS context) is behind all of this, do you believe that your prophet is deceived or that your prophet is part of the conspiracy?

If you believe your prophet is deceived by something so huge and so important, what use is a prophet? I mean, he is telling you to do what the Satanic secret combination wants you to do, so he is telling you to follow Satan. Doesn't seem like a prophet of God would make such a huge blunder.

If you believe your prophet is in on it, why are you still LDS?

Finally, if you say personal revelation tells you the truth, I will ask the same question above: What good is a prophet if he leads God's people to follow a Satanic conspiracy? It would be like Moses coming down from Mt. Sinai and telling everyone that yeah, that gold calf is pretty cool and maybe they should build another.

I hope you don't ignore my questions. This is an LDS board after all, not a covid board, and these questions are striking at the heart of some of the LDS church's most important claims (modern day revelation through a prophet of God to guide God's people).

The president is fallible like anyone else.  I don't know if he is deceived or if he is acting in good faith and simply making a mistake.  In any event, his counsel was not put in terms of a commandment or "thus sayeth the Lord."

Why do you think it necessary to couch disagreement with the vaccine narrative as a Satanic secret combination?  This is part of the problem, couching any disagreement in terms of nutty conspiracies.  Has anyone even put it in those terms?  If anything, this is a group of pharma executives taking advantage of the situation, pushing their maintenance vaccines with the forever boosters on us, to make money.  They are some of the biggest advertisers in the media and they have compromised the FDA and CDC to push society toward booster profits for themselves.

Have you seen what's going on in Australia?  This is what fear + the desire to control can do ..... 

Maybe you are for the draconian lock-down measures they are doing down under?  They only had a few cases and their government went nuts and locked everyone down.

Edited by Harry T. Clark
Link to comment
53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Speculation, maybe.  But how on earth is it "pointless?"  The most powerful man in the world just publicly told the country, in a response to a question about vaccination rates: "Look, I think we get the vast majority — like is going on in so many – some industries and some schools — 96, 97, 98 percent..."

This is not important?  To you, of all people?  You've been chastising me for weeks about what you see as irresponsible and/or uninformed commentary on Covid, but when the President of the United States is talking about "96, 97, 98 percent" vaccination rates as a precondition to our country getting "back to normal," you are okay with that?  

Oh.

"96, 97, 98 percent" doesn't seem "pretty vague."

And holy cow, after all the vitriol you've thrown at me, you are giving the most powerful man in the world a pass on failing to effectively and responsibly communicate about Covid?  

Why is that?  I suspect it's probably about shared political affiliation/ideology.  Perhaps you can start to see why people like me have a hard time with people like you.  Your selective wrath about talking about Covid comes across as politically convenient/necessary.  This is a big part of the problem overall.  The role of government.  The shifting of goalposts, possibly for political reasons.  The ever-increasing authoritarianism of the government.  At the expense of individual liberties and autonomy.

I think these are real and salient concerns.  And I think the merits of those concerns become more apparent in instances where a politician goes off-script.  Here, the politician happens to the POTUS.  He and his cabinent and untold numbers of bureaucratic functionaries have insane amounts of power at their disposal.  Power over our lives.  Our individual liberties.  And not just in an abstract sense.  The right to associate, to worship, to shop, to congregate, to walk outside.  These most fundamental rights have been profoundly infringed upon for many, many months.  Draconian measures all over the place.  Australia is turning into an totalitarian state.  Some cities and states here have moved towards that as well.  

And now Pres. Biden is throwing out "96, 97, 98 percent" vaccination figures before he and his cronies let the proles get "back to normal."  I think that's a pretty alarming development. 

For you, though, it's . . . a Tuesday.

Got it.  Earlier this morning I ate a bit of crow because I thought - and still do - that you had made some fair points about my posts about Covid.  But your response here makes me think you are fairly unserious in your treatment of the sociopolitical aspects of Covid.

You've spent weeks reaming a neophyte with no medical training, and no power or authority over anyone else, for not sufficiently vetting news items about Covid.  But when the President of the United States starts talking about  "96, 97, 98 percent" vaccination figures as a prerequisite for the government allowing our lives to "get back to normal" you blithely decline to "hold him accountable" for his published-to-the-world statements.

Got it.

This is one of the reasons I am so concerned about the specter of governmental overreach.  There are too many instances of political considerations unduly influencing public policy.

Sure, Dr. Risch seems to be an outlier.  But then...

Biznewspost:

Huh.  We haven't even reached Fauci's proposed "back to normal" numbers (70-85%) cited in February before Pres. Biden moved the goalposts to "96, 97, 98 percent."

And you don't care about this.

Got it.

Duty to America News:

DailyCaller:

And here (same link) :

And here:

And here:

And here:

And here:

And here:

And here:

POTUS talking about "96, 97, 98 percent" vaccination figures as a prerequisite for the government allowing our lives to "get back to normal" is pretty disturbing.

And you don't care about it.

Got it.

You are running defense for a favored politician ("one tiny segment of his words" ... "out of context" ... "much ado about nothing").

Got it.

I feel pretty strongly about this stuff, but I also recognize that I am way out of my wheelhouse in terms of grasping the medical side of things.  So I had come to appreciate your pushback.  But then there's my wheelhouse, with is the legal side of things, the ramifications of governmental policy and decision-making re: Covid.  That's what I am concerned about most.  I had really started to take you seriously as a voice of reason in these discussions.  As regarding purely medical issues, I still will.  Otherwise, though, you've blown it.  People like you are a big part of why people like me are worried about governmental overreach and authoritarianism.

Thanks,

-Smac

I get where you're coming from.   I think we have to chalk this one (like many others) up to the dumb a$$ things polititans say.  You know, like the previous POTUS did.

Edited by Senator
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Senator said:

I get where you're coming from.   I think we have to chalk this one (like many others) up to the dumb a$$ things polititans say.  You know, like the previous POTUS did.

Until and unless it is specifically retracted or further explained, I'm not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment

The disparity in the numbers between Fauci and Biden on percentage needed for herd immunity is explained by the delta variant supplanting the other variants. It will require greater vaccination numbers now to get herd immunity compared to before. It may not even be possible depending on spread through the vaccinated.

Portraying this as a disagreement is nuts so don’t.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, T-Shirt said:

These are indeed tragic.  Nevertheless, this still does not support The Nehor's statement.  All of these teachers got the virus before school started and the shutdowns were only for a few days.  In one case, it was only two days.  None of them closed due to a teacher shortage.  The Nehor said,  "The news is full of schools closing because teacher hospitalizations and fatalities make it impossible to continue operating."

The parts of this statement that need to be shown are as follows:

1 - The news is full of these stories.

2 - It is impossible for school districts to operate due to teacher hospitalizations and deaths.

As tragic as they are, none of these stories satisfy the CFR regarding his statement.

CFR on this.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The disparity in the numbers between Fauci and Biden on percentage needed for herd immunity is explained by the delta variant supplanting the other variants. It will require greater vaccination numbers now to get herd immunity compared to before. It may not even be possible depending on spread through the vaccinated.

Portraying this as a disagreement is nuts so don’t.

Getting to heard immunity doesn’t just depend on vaccination rates.  It also depends on people getting natural immunity.   It’s probably impossible to say how long that will take. 

And how do we define herd immunity?  If it means Covid 0 than we’ll never get there.  If it means getting to a point where hospitals aren’t getting their butts kicked by Covid surges, than we can be there sometime next year.   That is unless another bad variant doesn’t throw us another curveball.   
 

 

Edited by Rivers
Link to comment
4 hours ago, pogi said:

It has also been demonstrated that vaccination after natural infection decreases risk of repeat infection by around 2.5 times.  Why would that not be a good thing and recommended?

Do you have the source and raw numbers for the 2.5x figure?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Until and unless it is specifically retracted or further explained, I'm not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Thanks,

-Smac

Did he say anything about policy or any specific actions that might be taken?

You don't have to give him the benefit of the doubt, but you also don't have to jump to conclusions and skewer him and others (me) without the facts. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
54 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

The president is fallible like anyone else.  I don't know if he is deceived or if he is acting in good faith and simply making a mistake.  In any event, his counsel was not put in terms of a commandment or "thus sayeth the Lord."

Why do you think it necessary to couch disagreement with the vaccine narrative as a Satanic secret combination?  This is part of the problem, couching any disagreement in terms of nutty conspiracies.  Has anyone even put it in those terms?  If anything, this is a group of pharma executives taking advantage of the situation, pushing their maintenance vaccines with the forever boosters on us, to make money.  They are some of the biggest advertisers in the media and they have compromised the FDA and CDC to push society toward booster profits for themselves.

Have you seen what's going on in Australia?  This is what fear + the desire to control can do ..... 

Maybe you are for the draconian lock-down measures they are doing down under?  They only had a few cases and their government went nuts and locked everyone down.

Australia: 1,256 covid deaths

United States: 692,000, approximately with another huge wave of deaths incoming.

The draconian lockdown measures sure seem to have saved a lot of lives.

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Australia: 1,256 covid deaths

United States: 692,000, approximately with another huge wave of deaths incoming.

The draconian lockdown measures sure seem to have saved a lot of lives.

The US has a population that is 13 times the size of Australia, so if everything else was equal the 1256 is the equivalent of about 16,000.

Back in July, Australia only had 10% and now has a 34% (partial is over 70%, so looks like biggest push to get jabbed is happening this month and last for them) vaccination rate, so it is understandable IMO that they have to resort to other measures.  They have had supply issues, expected shipments held back by the EU.  And hesitancy over the vaccines are high (30% saying not getting it in June) in part because they don’t feel threatened due to low numbers of infection.

Lockdowns will end when they reach 80% (another report says 70%) over 16 vaccinated.  They are getting/have gotten a big shipment this month, so hopefully lockdowns will ease in the next month or two.  They should hit 80% by midNovember.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2021/09/16/despite-persistent-delta-variant-surge-australia-prepares-to-live-with-covid-as-partial-vaccination-rate-touches-70/?sh=6817e91583e2

Quote

Australia isn’t the only country that has decided to go with the ‘living with Covid-19’ approach. Earlier this month, the Danish government lifted all of its pandemic restrictions in the country, stating that Covid-19 was no longer “a critical threat to society.” This move was partially driven by the fact that nearly 75% of its entire population is fully vaccinated against Covid-19. In Asia, Singapore and Thailandhave decided to move forward with minimal Covid restrictions even though both countries are facing a delta variant outbreak. However, unlike Singapore which has fully inoculated over 78% of its population, Thailand’s strategy is fraught with risk as less than 20% of its population is fully vaccinated.


It will be interesting to watch these countries over the next half year.

People who refuse to get vaccinated, even for a good reason, need to understand the part they pay in the need for lockdowns.

https://apnews.com/article/europe-business-health-new-zealand-coronavirus-pandemic-67366a181cacae74021787f820620a9d
 

Why the url says New Zealand when the article is about Australia….haven’t a clue.

So apparently even with Delta about half the country has lived without the virus, without any lockdowns or likely masks and social distancing maybe.  This will change when the 70-80% goal gets hit.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

@Harry T. Clark @mburgess1982 @CelestialSeething

Hi,

As someone who is not LDS, I have a couple of questions for you.

Are you LDS (it appears you are, but I just want to double-check)?

If so, how you do you reconcile your stance concerning the vaccine, masks, and covid with that of your prophets and apostles? Restricting access to your temples unless you are wearing a mask seems to put a pretty high importance on masking, doesn't it? I'm going with the assumption that your temples are the most sacred sites for your religion. Your prophet calling the vaccine a miracle from God seems to be a strong statement, too.

Also, for those of you who believe that a Satanic secret combination (a phrase I recently learned in the LDS context) is behind all of this, do you believe that your prophet is deceived or that your prophet is part of the conspiracy?

These are difficult, but fair, questions.  I hope you get some reasoned responses to them.

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

If you believe your prophet is deceived by something so huge and so important, what use is a prophet? I mean, he is telling you to do what the Satanic secret combination wants you to do, so he is telling you to follow Satan. Doesn't seem like a prophet of God would make such a huge blunder.

Particularly since he doesn't act alone.  I suspect Pres. Nelson would have counseled with his counselors and with the Quorum of the Twelve when crafting the Church's recommendations regarding Covid.

That said, there is still room in my mind for the Brethren to make mistakes, even serious ones.  While I think the "deceived by Satan" stuff too silly to take seriously, I am open to the possibility that the Brethren are acting per their cumulative knowledge, experience, "best lights," and so on.  While I don't think the Lord will let them lead the Church "astray," I think He gives them more autonomy than we might otherwise expect.  The Parable of the Talents comes to mind in that regard.

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

If you believe your prophet is in on it, why are you still LDS?

For me, I remain a member of the Church notwithstanding any past or present errors by the leaders of the Church because:

A) I have received what I believe to be confirmation and ratification from the Holy Spirit of the founding events of the Restoration.

B) I have received further personal revelation and confirmation that the Church is today still led by the same priesthood as was restored through Joseph Smith, and that the Church is - broadly speaking - in communion with the Lord and not out of the way.

C) The covenants I have made compel me to continue in faith and solidarity and fellowship with the Church.

D) I am, in the main, fully supportive the work being done by the Brethren.  For instances where I am confused about or harbor concerns about, or even outright disagree with something they are doing, I give them the benefit of some pretty hefty presumptions that what they are doing is generally congruent with the Lord's will, and any errors they make will be corrected by mechanisms that are not within my stewardship, or else will be corrected by the Lord.

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Finally, if you say personal revelation tells you the truth, I will ask the same question above: What good is a prophet if he leads God's people to follow a Satanic conspiracy? It would be like Moses coming down from Mt. Sinai and telling everyone that yeah, that gold calf is pretty cool and maybe they should build another.

I have long valued these remarks by Michael Ash:

Quote

In a previous installment I explained that Roman Catholics take a three-legged tripod-like approach to determining truth—Scripture, Tradition, and the Pope. I believe that we Latter-day Saints are asked to take a four-legged approach to truth, like the four legs of a stool. These would include: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true.

The other legs of the stool (scripture, prophets and reason) function well in "vetting" personal revelation.  Utilizing all four "legs" is, in my view, a far more reliable mechanism for discerning truth than relying on just one of them exclusively.

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I hope you don't ignore my questions. This is an LDS board after all, not a covid board, and these questions are striking at the heart of some of the LDS church's most important claims (modern day revelation through a prophet of God to guide God's people).

I quite agree.  I think "I sustain the Brethren but only when they act and do things I fully agree with"-style sentiments  won't be feasible in the long run.  

Below my sig line I have included the following passage from Isaiah for many years: 

Quote

"{T}his is a rebellious people ... which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits..."  -- Isaiah 30:9-10

I'm not going to pass judgment on anyone who is "vaccine hesitant."  I respect their concerns.  But I think we Latter-day Saints need to be really serious about listening to the Brethren, particularly if and when they are saying and doing things that go against prevailnig sociopolitical trends.

Yesterday the Washington Post published an article: The Rise of the Liberal Latter-day Saints.  It has some real flaws (it's too anecdotal, too eager to superimpose less-than-apt political labels onto the members of the Church in their capacity as members of the Church, and is generally a bit superficial), but it touches on some things that merit attention.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, pogi said:

Thanks. I think you mean "2.34x", not "2.34%", but beyond that, I have a different question.

What is the actual risk reduction being introduced by the vaccines to previously infected individuals? What is the baseline risk that the 2.34x is based on? The study took a pool of existing data and analyzed it to get that ratio. But it doesn't give us what, I suspect, is the more common question:

What is the risk of reinfection (and hospitalization and death) to someone who has prior natural immunity compared to someone without prior natural infection, someone fully vaxxed without prior natural infection, and fully vaxxed with natural infection?

Because the 2.34x number could be saying that, for example, out of 10,000 previously infected people, 2,000 will get reinfected with the vaccination and 4,680 (2.34x) will be reinfected without the vaccination (so 6,680/10,000 get reinfected). So a huge number (66.8%!) are getting reinfected, and the risk reduction from vaccination is huge.

Or it could be saying that out of 10,000 previously infected people, 1 was vaxxed and reinfected compared to 3 who were unvaxxed and reinfected. So a tiny, tiny percentage were reinfected either way, and I suspect many people would argue that the benefit of vaccination is tiny.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Harry T. Clark said:

The president is fallible like anyone else.  I don't know if he is deceived or if he is acting in good faith and simply making a mistake.  In any event, his counsel was not put in terms of a commandment or "thus sayeth the Lord."

Since you're not going along with him, I'm assuming that you think he is deceived (about something pretty big). Also, when was the last time that there was a "thus sayeth the Lord"? Are his (seemingly from my point-of-view) strong actions and statements about the pandemic not worthy of your consideration and belief? What's the line where you put aside your personal belief and follow what your prophet is saying?

1 hour ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Why do you think it necessary to couch disagreement with the vaccine narrative as a Satanic secret combination?  This is part of the problem, couching any disagreement in terms of nutty conspiracies.  Has anyone even put it in those terms?

Yes, one of the other posters I tagged: mburgess1982. They have been posting along in this thread, too. I'm not saying you share their views, which is why I asked. Here's what they said:

On 9/27/2021 at 12:08 PM, mburgess1982 said:

You want me to convince you that there are secret combinations happening in our day just as in the times of the Book of Mormon which was given to us in our day to warn us about this? It's literally all around us, if people can't see it by now 18 months into this thing they probably aren't going to see it 

and

On 9/27/2021 at 1:10 PM, mburgess1982 said:

Conspiracies only take a tiny handful of people to work. You don't need the silent complicity of hundreds of thousands of people, that would imply that hundreds of thousands of people know exactly what's going on, which they don't. Evil people have conspired together since the beginning of time you don't think its happening right now, right in front of us?

You posted about Australia. I'm not going to respond to that because it is off the topic I'd like to discuss, which is faithful LDS ignoring multiple statements and actions by their living prophets and apostles regarding masks and vaccines.

Edited by MiserereNobis
Link to comment
28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

These are difficult, but fair, questions.  I hope you get some reasoned responses to them.

Thanks. I appreciate your taking time to address them.

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Particularly since he doesn't act alone.  I suspect Pres. Nelson would have counseled with his counselors and with the Quorum of the Twelve when crafting the Church's recommendations regarding Covid.

That said, there is still room in my mind for the Brethren to make mistakes, even serious ones.  While I think the "deceived by Satan" stuff too silly to take seriously, I am open to the possibility that the Brethren are acting per their cumulative knowledge, experience, "best lights," and so on.  While I don't think the Lord will let them lead the Church "astray," I think He gives them more autonomy than we might otherwise expect.  The Parable of the Talents comes to mind in that regard.

In reflecting back, I think the "deceived by Satan" came from a link in a post here that I followed that led me to another forum (LDS freedom forum). I only read a couple of pages on the one thread that was linked. It was pretty nutty. I was just seeing similar yet veiled hints by some posters here, so I wanted to flesh out their views.

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

For me, I remain a member of the Church notwithstanding any past or present errors by the leaders of the Church because:

A) I have received what I believe to be confirmation and ratification from the Holy Spirit of the founding events of the Restoration.

B) I have received further personal revelation and confirmation that the Church is today still led by the same priesthood as was restored through Joseph Smith, and that the Church is - broadly speaking - in communion with the Lord and not out of the way.

C) The covenants I have made compel me to continue in faith and solidarity and fellowship with the Church.

D) I am, in the main, fully supportive the work being done by the Brethren.  For instances where I am confused about or harbor concerns about, or even outright disagree with something they are doing, I give them the benefit of some pretty hefty presumptions that what they are doing is generally congruent with the Lord's will, and any errors they make will be corrected by mechanisms that are not within my stewardship, or else will be corrected by the Lord.

I understand this and can "translate" it into the Catholic parallels for me. Just so you know, I wasn't questioning the faith of the standard LDS posters here. The question was specifically for those who believe that President Nelson is part of the conspiracy because he is urging people to be vaccinated and apparently denying entrance to temples without a mask.

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The other legs of the stool (scripture, prophets and reason) function well in "vetting" personal revelation.  Utilizing all four "legs" is, in my view, a far more reliable mechanism for discerning truth than relying on just one of them exclusively

I absolutely agree (and while reason is not listed in the traditional three pillars of the Catholic faith, reason plays a huge part in Catholic theology).

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yesterday the Washington Post published an article: The Rise of the Liberal Latter-day Saints.  It has some real flaws (it's too anecdotal, too eager to superimpose less-than-apt political labels onto the members of the Church in their capacity as members of the Church, and is generally a bit superficial), but it touches on some things that merit attention.

I'll check it out, thanks.

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

You posted about Australia. I'm not going to respond to that because it is off the topic I'd like to discuss, which is faithful LDS ignoring multiple statements and actions by their living prophets and apostles regarding masks and vaccines.

Don’t want to spoil it for those who want to watch to the end but…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[spoiler]It is political idolatry[/spoiler]

Link to comment
54 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Thanks. I think you mean "2.34x", not "2.34%"

Yes, thank you!

54 minutes ago, cinepro said:

What is the actual risk reduction being introduced by the vaccines to previously infected individuals? What is the baseline risk that the 2.34x is based on? The study took a pool of existing data and analyzed it to get that ratio. But it doesn't give us what, I suspect, is the more common question:

What is the risk of reinfection (and hospitalization and death) to someone who has prior natural immunity compared to someone without prior natural infection, someone fully vaxxed without prior natural infection, and fully vaxxed with natural infection?

Because the 2.34x number could be saying that, for example, out of 10,000 previously infected people, 2,000 will get reinfected with the vaccination and 4,680 (2.34x) will be reinfected without the vaccination (so 6,680/10,000 get reinfected). So a huge number (66.8%!) are getting reinfected, and the risk reduction from vaccination is huge.

Or it could be saying that out of 10,000 previously infected people, 1 was vaxxed and reinfected compared to 3 who were unvaxxed and reinfected. So a tiny, tiny percentage were reinfected either way, and I suspect many people would argue that the benefit of vaccination is tiny.

Good question.  We might be able to glean some from other studies. 

Quote

We used a large national surveillance dataset of individually referable PCR test results to estimate the degree to which previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 results in protection against repeat infection. We found protection in the population to be 80% or higher [77-83%] in those younger than 65 years, but to be approximately 47% in those aged 65 years and older. We did not see signs of waning protection against repeat infection within the year 2020.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00575-4/fulltext

So, is we assume 80% efficacy, then out of 10,000 infections, 2,000 are at risk of rei-infection within 1 year.  With vaccination and natural immunity, we would only expect to see 854 re-infections.  On the scale of millions of people, that reduces reinfection and transmission significantly.   

For over 65, out of 10,000 infections, 5,300 are at risk of reinfection, so the risk increases enormously.  

With a safe vaccine, there really is no reason not to get the boosted immunity and further protect yourself and our community from transmission. 

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
39 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:

Yes!  And only at the cost of killing liberal society!

You seem to be missing the reality that half their country was living without any restriction outside an international travel ban, I believe (maybe had to quarantine after travel, haven’t checked that).  No masks or even social distancing needed because they kept Covid from entering into the community.  It was likely the more conservative part of the country too if the demographics run there like here, bigger cities tend to be more liberal than smaller and rural areas.

New South Wales, the most populous state (includes Sydney) is under lockdown and two cities, Melbourne and Canberra.

That would be like having only the states of California and Texas under lockdown as well as the cities New York, Chicago, Phoenix, and Philadelphia while the rest of the country frolic and play (too lazy to figure out comparable numbers because density of population is really what should be used to choose states and cities, not just population numbers themselves, so if you want to add in a couple more high density states and cities or as many as you want up to half the population, that also works).  Since the largest cities in the US tend to be liberal as are most of the densely populated states, the conservatives would be greatly benefitted by liberals accepting lockdowns.

added:  for half the population of US, that would take the top 9 states, so 41 states would not be under any restrictions outside of traveling

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
31 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

In reflecting back, I think the "deceived by Satan" came from a link in a post here that I followed that led me to another forum (LDS freedom forum).

The "vibe" I get from that forum is that it is a place for people who let their political ideologies and sentiments predominate over everything else, with membership in the Church being an important, but still ultimately secondary or subordinate, form of expresssion and identity.  

I am open to correction on this point.

31 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I only read a couple of pages on the one thread that was linked. It was pretty nutty. I was just seeing similar yet veiled hints by some posters here, so I wanted to flesh out their views.

I'll be curious to see if others more familiar with that forum than I will weigh in regarding that forum.

31 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:
Quote

For me, I remain a member of the Church notwithstanding any past or present errors by the leaders of the Church because:

A) I have received what I believe to be confirmation and ratification from the Holy Spirit of the founding events of the Restoration.

B) I have received further personal revelation and confirmation that the Church is today still led by the same priesthood as was restored through Joseph Smith, and that the Church is - broadly speaking - in communion with the Lord and not out of the way.

C) The covenants I have made compel me to continue in faith and solidarity and fellowship with the Church.

D) I am, in the main, fully supportive the work being done by the Brethren.  For instances where I am confused about or harbor concerns about, or even outright disagree with something they are doing, I give them the benefit of some pretty hefty presumptions that what they are doing is generally congruent with the Lord's will, and any errors they make will be corrected by mechanisms that are not within my stewardship, or else will be corrected by the Lord.

I understand this and can "translate" it into the Catholic parallels for me.

I have long felt a strong affinity and affection for Catholics.  You folks are operating within, more or less, the same paradigm we are, that is, priesthood authority.

A few days ago I came across this YouTube video that I found intriguing in its examination of priesthood authority:

Although I (respectfully) disagree with his conclusions, I think his questions are spot-on.

31 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Just so you know, I wasn't questioning the faith of the standard LDS posters here. The question was specifically for those who believe that President Nelson is part of the conspiracy because he is urging people to be vaccinated and apparently denying entrance to temples without a mask.

I understand.

31 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:
Quote

The other legs of the stool (scripture, prophets and reason) function well in "vetting" personal revelation.  Utilizing all four "legs" is, in my view, a far more reliable mechanism for discerning truth than relying on just one of them exclusively

I absolutely agree (and while reason is not listed in the traditional three pillars of the Catholic faith, reason plays a huge part in Catholic theology).

Very cool.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Calm said:

You seem to be missing the reality that half their country was living without any restriction outside an international travel ban, I believe (maybe had to quarantine after travel, haven’t checked that).  No masks or even social distancing needed because they kept Covid from entering into the community.  It was likely the more conservative part of the country too if the demographics run there like here, bigger cities tend to be more liberal than smaller and rural areas.

New South Wales, the most populous state (includes Sydney) is under lockdown and two cities, Melbourne and Canberra.

That would be like having only the states of California and Texas under lockdown as well as the cities New York, Chicago, Phoenix, and Philadelphia while the rest of the country frolic and play (too lazy to figure out comparable numbers, so if you want to add in a couple more high density states and cities or as many as you want up to half the population, that also works).  Since the largest cities in the US tend to be liberal as are most of the densely populated states, the conservatives would be greatly benefitted by liberals accepting lockdowns.

added:  for half the population of US, that would take the top 9 states, so 41 states would not be under any restrictions outside of traveling

This is what you are defending:

image.png.bd379e937e86b6975b2d93f6b9cdb32c.png

No liberal society should ever accept the police brutality at work in Sydney and Melbourne.  

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...