Coronavirus pandemic

[SEWIGuy]

As for the act of banning religious gatherings...  My father (who is a retired pastor) put it this way:

At a time when people are facing fear, sickness, and death, you're going to keep them away from church?  Can you imagine what our founding fathers would have to say about that?  When do people need church more than when they're facing fear, sickness, and death?

As someone who is religious, but does not attend church: you just to lean into your faith a bit. If you're actually facing sickness, and death, you definitely should not be near other people. That will cause further sickness and death. If your fear is strong, that's totally understandable, but why not simply call your pastor or bishop? Or even hold a Zoom conference. Churches near me have been ordered shut by the State of Washington, but have largely moved to electronic sermons. Maybe we can't touch and hold each other, but for the sake of everyone else (religious or not), that's probably a good thing.

I'd argue that religion is only partly defined by one's personal faith and belief system, but is also–perhaps moreso–defined by one's corporate acts of worship.  It's pretty hard to imagine, for example, the Roman Catholic religion without mass, the taking of Communion, confession and absolution, etc, etc.  Hymns were meant to be sung corporately, the Bible was written to be read publicly, the distribution of the bread and wine at Communion either (depending on your denomination) symbolizes or even carries on Jesus' giving of himself for his followers, and so on and so forth.

Yet our local Roman Catholic diocese was one of the first to close its parishes to worship, livestream masses, and encourage people to stay home. 

Pastors who are continuing to hold live services are putting their members at risk and should be cited by the local authorities.  And there should be no exception carved out in local regulations for them.  And this is coming from a regular church-goer whose dad is a retired pastor...and is saftely worshiping from home as well.

We're sacrificing life in the name of staying alive.  And I'm about done with it.

LOL.  It's been a tough...<checks calendar>....six weeks.  Hang in there champ!  Your bravery will be noted in the history books.

[Max Rockatansky]

If the quarantine makes you feel like life is not worth living, that means you are not making use of the time properly.

I've been pretty fortunate to be able to nominally retain my job, but stay home and still get paid regularly, so I don't have to stress about money. That's not a luxury everyone has. But since I'm at home, I've been having 36 extra hours a week to spend on my priorities instead of the priorities of some tie-wearing dipshit. Even though I can't go out to restaurants or hang out with friends in person, I've actually gotten to socialize with them more through using technology like Discord group chats, since we don't have to work around each others' work schedules now.

I learned how to install light fixtures on my house. I set up the pool for the summer. I've been catching up on things with my small business that I let slip for lack of time and energy. I've been less stressed so I'm not getting on my wife's nerves as often.

If instead of treating it like you're in jail, you treat it as you getting a break from the daily grind of life, it's really not so bad. I've been happier over the last couple of months than I have been in years.

In my case I haven't missed a day from work since being at home isn't an option for me.  To that end it's been soul crushingly boring at work as opposed to the normal fast moving hectic.  That slow pace coupled with the fact that I really don't have many options on off hours like I normally do is what sucks most.

I have read a lot since late March and I've been catching on highway page writing.  Normally on days off I would go hike, for now I've added extra running and started cycling again.

[J N Winkler]

I agree that a mindset of looking to make lemonade out of a lemon is more helpful in fighting lockdown blues.

At this stage, however, as compliance with stay-at-home restrictions decays, I am becoming increasingly concerned that there may be no overlap between what we are willing to do to fight the virus and what we need to do to defeat it.

In Kansas, for example, the statewide stay-at-home order expires on May 3 but our governor has admitted that we don't have the testing capacity to reopen.  The news coverage I have seen has been less than lucid on the legal aspects involved, but it seems her emergency management powers do not allow further extension of the order or the underlying state of emergency, and declaring a new state of emergency would jeopardize federal COVID-19 funding.

Meanwhile, Sedgwick County recently hosted a conference of big players from the restaurant, hotel, tourism, and fitness-club sectors of the local economy to get a sense of what would be required to reopen.  Some common themes emerged:  those that serve the public directly want indemnification in the event they are found to be venues of fresh outbreaks, and many of them adhere to business models that require occupant densities that are not currently allowed by social distancing rules.

As a large share of restaurants remain closed, a lot of weight has fallen on the few that remain open for takeaway business, and wait times for order pickup have increased greatly.  On Friday night, we ordered a pizza over the telephone and were promised it would be ready in 25 to 30 minutes; in actuality, it took an hour and fifteen minutes (about 40 of which were spent waiting outside in the parking lot on a chilly day) before it was ready.  Saturday night's dinner was Popeye's, entailing thirty minutes spent waiting in the drive-thru.  Several of those present at the county's reopening conference noted that once you get a critical mass of people in an area, no matter how large it is, they start clumping together and social distancing collapses.

I don't know what's next--people trucking on through a second wave as the bodies stack up like cordwood?

[kalvado]

At this stage, however, as compliance with stay-at-home restrictions decays, I am becoming increasingly concerned that there may be no overlap between what we are willing to do to fight the virus and what we need to do to defeat it.

Would we be able to defeat it at all?
Genie is out of the bottle, and we're dealing with something that is here to stay. In 2050 it will be just another cold virus - one out of 5 (4 until 2019) regular cold coronaviruses. We're just not immune to it yet. Kids are normally accumulating immunity in childhood while getting sick - or even seriously sick -  of relatively benign viruses. But look, kids are surviving this virus... as we did survive our share of childhood colds.
So my prediction is that everyone will get this virus within the next 3-5 years, 1% or so will die of it, the rest of us will accommodate and live on. Just pray you're not in that 1%.
So it makes limited sense to quarantine - flatten the curve and carry on.

[hotdogPi]

At this stage, however, as compliance with stay-at-home restrictions decays, I am becoming increasingly concerned that there may be no overlap between what we are willing to do to fight the virus and what we need to do to defeat it.

Would we be able to defeat it at all?
Genie is out of the bottle, and we're dealing with something that is here to stay. In 2050 it will be just another cold virus - one out of 5 (4 until 2019) regular cold coronaviruses. We're just not immune to it yet. Kids are normally accumulating immunity in childhood while getting sick - or even seriously sick -  of relatively benign viruses. But look, kids are surviving this virus... as we did survive our share of childhood colds.
So my prediction is that everyone will get this virus within the next 3-5 years, 1% or so will die of it, the rest of us will accommodate and live on. Just pray you're not in that 1%.
So it makes limited sense to quarantine - flatten the curve and carry on.

We're not dealing with the 1918 flu every year. This one will go away, just like the others.

[Roadgeekteen]

At this stage, however, as compliance with stay-at-home restrictions decays, I am becoming increasingly concerned that there may be no overlap between what we are willing to do to fight the virus and what we need to do to defeat it.

Would we be able to defeat it at all?
Genie is out of the bottle, and we're dealing with something that is here to stay. In 2050 it will be just another cold virus - one out of 5 (4 until 2019) regular cold coronaviruses. We're just not immune to it yet. Kids are normally accumulating immunity in childhood while getting sick - or even seriously sick -  of relatively benign viruses. But look, kids are surviving this virus... as we did survive our share of childhood colds.
So my prediction is that everyone will get this virus within the next 3-5 years, 1% or so will die of it, the rest of us will accommodate and live on. Just pray you're not in that 1%.
So it makes limited sense to quarantine - flatten the curve and carry on.

We're not dealing with the 1918 flu every year. This one will go away, just like the others.

H1N1 is still around though. The pandemic is over, but the virus is still here, just mutated.

[CoreySamson]

I'd argue that religion is only partly defined by one's personal faith and belief system, but is also–perhaps moreso–defined by one's corporate acts of worship.  It's pretty hard to imagine, for example, the Roman Catholic religion without mass, the taking of Communion, confession and absolution, etc, etc.  Hymns were meant to be sung corporately, the Bible was written to be read publicly, the distribution of the bread and wine at Communion either (depending on your denomination) symbolizes or even carries on Jesus' giving of himself for his followers, and so on and so forth.

I'm reminded of back when my wife and I had a housemate from Saudi Arabia, a student at WSU.  One day in conversation, religious intolerance in that nation came up.  He stated that there is freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia, because religion is about what you personally believe in your heart, and the Saudi government can't stop you believing in your heart whatever you want.  That's ridiculous!  Religion is so much more than that.  It's actions.  It's practice.  It's traditions.  It's sights and sounds and smells and even peculiar vocabulary.  Take all the "extra" stuff away, and what you're left with is not religion.

Calling someone on the phone or seeing them on a screen is just not the same.  A human being with another human being is what it takes to make a real human connection.  Imagine if my wife died suddenly, and I were left to raise three sons without her.  I'd be livid if having a funeral were against the law–not allowed to cry with our brothers and sisters from church;  not allowed to sing songs of sorrow and comfort and joy with others who have lost loved ones;  not allowed to have our pastor and best friends lay their hands on my back and pray for me;  not allowed to have a potluck dinner of dishes prepared by the same ladies my wife cooked for when they were home with newborns or laid up from a recent hospital stay;  not allowed to look right into people's eyes and find no words to fill the silence;  not allowed to begin moving on with life by getting out of the house and having real conversations with other people...

This is literally what people are being deprived of.  My parents just received a dis-invitation to a wedding.  That couple will not get to celebrate what is perhaps the happiest day of their life in church.  No walking down the aisle past family and friends, no bridesmaids looking uncomfortable in their dresses, no lighting of the unity candle, no grinning at the ring bearer grabbing his crotch for the whole congregation to see, no cheering when they kiss, no pastor exhorting the whole congregation to support their marriage, no receiving line full of people to offer sage advice, no big family pictures out on the lawn, no dance, no reception, no rice thrown on their heads as they make their way to the car in the parking lot, none of that.  What they will have lost is a lot more than just a few Sundays in the pew, but a whole day of memories that might have been.

For what it's worth, tomorrow will be my family's seventh week in a row without going to church and without having our weekly "small group" meeting.  Our pastor records a sermon on Thursday afternoons, they air online Sunday mornings, and our family–along with most others from the church–watches them at home.  I usually pick out a couple of songs to play on the guitar and a Bible passage to read, and one of us prays out loud.  But that's just not the same thing.  This morning was the first time we musicians have gotten together at church since mid-March.  We did sound check, camera setup, and all that good stuff in preparation for recording two songs per week to go along with the online sermons.  While it felt great to see my friends again and to play songs of the faith again, it simply isn't the same when there's no one out in the congregation to sing along.  It felt more like making a music video than it did a worship experience, and I'm afraid that will be the case on recording day too.  And I'm also afraid that, for those at home, it will feel more like watching a music video than it will a worship experience.

I realize that this thread isn't supposed to be about religion, but I think it's simply illustrative of what gets taken away from us by mandatory self-isolation.  We lose each other.  What helps keep life moving along is to sit on your friends' couch and talk about work, joke about how your kids drive you nuts, self-diagnose your cars' latest mechanical issues, make fun of whatever political party is on the other side of the fence from you, eat sloppy joes and ice cream, and watch the game.  What keeps us sane is to roll our eyes at other people's kids, chuckle at wondering how that woman managed to squeeze into that dress, bite your tongue when your friend is being controlling with his wife and then mention it to your own wife later that day, and feel old when the college freshmen in front of you in line at Wendy's all have their noses buried in their smartphones.

We're sacrificing life in the name of staying alive.  And I'm about done with it.

Honestly, great post. My church is in the same boat, broadcasting services online and prerecording sermons, and I agree it's not the same. All my friends are at church (I'm homeschooled), and not being around them for the last month or so is not great. At least I get to play piano for my youth group when they broadcast their midweek messages with part of the band, but still, like you said, not the same. I can't wait for this to be over.

[kphoger]

reckless indoor sermons

What, exactly, is a reckless indoor sermon? assuming the church had implemented measures to keep the congregants more than six feet apart during the delivery of said sermon?

Before the Kansas ban was changed to 10 people or more, my parents' church was already taking steps to comply with social distancing measures during worship.  Why is it unthinkable that religious services could be held responsibly?  It's simply a crock that you can easily go find people congregating at liquor stores and grocery stores and Wal-Mart, yet it's illegal for people to congregate in an activity guaranteed freedom by the First Amendment of the Constitution.  Why should we assume churches can't take the same sort of precautionary measures as grocery stores?

If the quarantine makes you feel like life is not worth living, that means you are not making use of the time properly.

I've been pretty fortunate to be able to nominally retain my job, but stay home and still get paid regularly, so I don't have to stress about money. That's not a luxury everyone has. But since I'm at home, I've been having 36 extra hours a week to spend on my priorities instead of the priorities of some tie-wearing dipshit. Even though I can't go out to restaurants or hang out with friends in person, I've actually gotten to socialize with them more through using technology like Discord group chats, since we don't have to work around each others' work schedules now.

I learned how to install light fixtures on my house. I set up the pool for the summer. I've been catching up on things with my small business that I let slip for lack of time and energy. I've been less stressed so I'm not getting on my wife's nerves as often.

If instead of treating it like you're in jail, you treat it as you getting a break from the daily grind of life, it's really not so bad. I've been happier over the last couple of months than I have been in years.

My "daily grind of life" hasn't changed much.  My work computer is set up in my bedroom instead of at the office, but I still do the same job as before, and I still work 40 hours a week at it.  The only extra time I've gotten is the 15-minute drive to work and the 15-minute drive back home.  All that's changed for me, really, is that I never get to see anyone outside my own family anymore.  And my wife and I couldn't go out for our anniversary on Wednesday because, well, where would we go?

I'm fortunate enough to live in a city and state that hasn't banned the mere act of going outside.  I can still go for a walk around the block at the end of my lunch break, for example.  But, still, the governing authorities have decided where you should be allowed to go and where you shouldn't.  Sorry if it's hard to consider that more like a "break" and less like "jail".

H1N1 is still around though. The pandemic is over, but the virus is still here, just mutated.

More to the point, there were an estimated 60.8 million cases of swine flu in the USA during the 2009-10 season, and I don't remember hearing anyone even suggesting that we shut everything down.



What happens if COVID becomes like the flu, in which we end up having a "season" of it on a regular basis, and against which vaccinations have limited effectiveness due to mutation?  Does anyone think it would be prudent to shut the country down for a couple of months every year?  And if not, then why is it prudent now?

And let's not take lightly the fact that we are now setting the precedent for the government "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]; ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble".  That is not a small thing.  The argument "it's a time of crisis, and it's only temporary" is ridiculous:  wouldn't it be precisely in a time of crisis that the government might seek to strip its opposition of the right to assemble? and wouldn't it be the first lie out of their lips to say "it's temporary"?

[jeffandnicole]

reckless indoor sermons

What, exactly, is a reckless indoor sermon? assuming the church had implemented measures to keep the congregants more than six feet apart during the delivery of said sermon?

You're still touching everything everyone else has.  You're still going out, and while you're out, you might as well stop at a few other places, again touching what other people have touched.

A church isn't a magical place where everyone is suddenly touching base and no one will get sick. 

[kalvado]

What happens if COVID becomes like the flu, in which we end up having a "season" of it on a regular basis, and against which vaccinations have limited effectiveness due to mutation?  Does anyone think it would be prudent to shut the country down for a couple of months every year?  And if not, then why is it prudent now?

Flu is a new disease pretty much every year, it comes from the natural reservoir of waterfowl.
COVID, I suspect, will be returning annually - but if you had it once, you have some level of immunity, so things will be much milder. Like these guys: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/general-information.html  (please read the link - it is NOT about covid, it is about older versions)

[SEWIGuy]

reckless indoor sermons

What, exactly, is a reckless indoor sermon? assuming the church had implemented measures to keep the congregants more than six feet apart during the delivery of said sermon?

Before the Kansas ban was changed to 10 people or more, my parents' church was already taking steps to comply with social distancing measures during worship.  Why is it unthinkable that religious services could be held responsibly?  It's simply a crock that you can easily go find people congregating at liquor stores and grocery stores and Wal-Mart, yet it's illegal for people to congregate in an activity guaranteed freedom by the First Amendment of the Constitution.  Why should we assume churches can't take the same sort of precautionary measures as grocery stores?

If the quarantine makes you feel like life is not worth living, that means you are not making use of the time properly.

I've been pretty fortunate to be able to nominally retain my job, but stay home and still get paid regularly, so I don't have to stress about money. That's not a luxury everyone has. But since I'm at home, I've been having 36 extra hours a week to spend on my priorities instead of the priorities of some tie-wearing dipshit. Even though I can't go out to restaurants or hang out with friends in person, I've actually gotten to socialize with them more through using technology like Discord group chats, since we don't have to work around each others' work schedules now.

I learned how to install light fixtures on my house. I set up the pool for the summer. I've been catching up on things with my small business that I let slip for lack of time and energy. I've been less stressed so I'm not getting on my wife's nerves as often.

If instead of treating it like you're in jail, you treat it as you getting a break from the daily grind of life, it's really not so bad. I've been happier over the last couple of months than I have been in years.

My "daily grind of life" hasn't changed much.  My work computer is set up in my bedroom instead of at the office, but I still do the same job as before, and I still work 40 hours a week at it.  The only extra time I've gotten is the 15-minute drive to work and the 15-minute drive back home.  All that's changed for me, really, is that I never get to see anyone outside my own family anymore.  And my wife and I couldn't go out for our anniversary on Wednesday because, well, where would we go?

I'm fortunate enough to live in a city and state that hasn't banned the mere act of going outside.  I can still go for a walk around the block at the end of my lunch break, for example.  But, still, the governing authorities have decided where you should be allowed to go and where you shouldn't.  Sorry if it's hard to consider that more like a "break" and less like "jail".

H1N1 is still around though. The pandemic is over, but the virus is still here, just mutated.

More to the point, there were an estimated 60.8 million cases of swine flu in the USA during the 2009-10 season, and I don't remember hearing anyone even suggesting that we shut everything down.



What happens if COVID becomes like the flu, in which we end up having a "season" of it on a regular basis, and against which vaccinations have limited effectiveness due to mutation?  Does anyone think it would be prudent to shut the country down for a couple of months every year?  And if not, then why is it prudent now?

And let's not take lightly the fact that we are now setting the precedent for the government "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]; ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble".  That is not a small thing.  The argument "it's a time of crisis, and it's only temporary" is ridiculous:  wouldn't it be precisely in a time of crisis that the government might seek to strip its opposition of the right to assemble? and wouldn't it be the first lie out of their lips to say "it's temporary"?

The government has always had the right to put reasonable limitations on first amendment rights.  You think we are "now" setting the precedent?  You should probably look a little deeper into our history.

And the reason we didn't do this for the swine flu is because this is more deadly.

[tradephoric]

H1N1 is still around though. The pandemic is over, but the virus is still here, just mutated.

More to the point, there were an estimated 60.8 million cases of swine flu in the USA during the 2009-10 season, and I don't remember hearing anyone even suggesting that we shut everything down.

The mortality rate of H1N1 was relatively low.  Of the 60.8 million cases in the USA there was reportedly 12,469 deaths.  Extrapolating that out, even if every single American got infected with H1N1 deaths would have been 67,333.  Even with extreme mitigation measures being imposed, coronavirus will almost certainly kill more than 67,333 Americans. 

[webny99]

If the quarantine makes you feel like life is not worth living, that means you are not making use of the time properly.
...
If instead of treating it like you're in jail, you treat it as you getting a break from the daily grind of life, it's really not so bad. I've been happier over the last couple of months than I have been in years.

My "daily grind of life" hasn't changed much.  My work computer is set up in my bedroom instead of at the office, but I still do the same job as before, and I still work 40 hours a week at it.  The only extra time I've gotten is the 15-minute drive to work and the 15-minute drive back home.  All that's changed for me, really, is that I never get to see anyone outside my own family anymore.

I would suggest that you set up somewhere outside your bedroom, but that's probably already crossed your mind. I'm feeling for a lot of people during these times, but people that have to share work environments in crowded or multi-purpose rooms are near the top of the list. Waking up and going somewhere, anywhere, is hugely helpful for maintaining a sense of sanity and routine.

And my wife and I couldn't go out for our anniversary on Wednesday because, well, where would we go?

You could do what we did and sit in the drive-thru line at Chick-Fil-A for half an hour... 

[J N Winkler]

Before the Kansas ban was changed to 10 people or more, my parents' church was already taking steps to comply with social distancing measures during worship.  Why is it unthinkable that religious services could be held responsibly?  It's simply a crock that you can easily go find people congregating at liquor stores and grocery stores and Wal-Mart, yet it's illegal for people to congregate in an activity guaranteed freedom by the First Amendment of the Constitution.  Why should we assume churches can't take the same sort of precautionary measures as grocery stores?

Congregation at liquor stores, supermarkets, Walmart, etc. should not be happening.  That is pretty much why I am deferring a coolant drain and fill in my daily driver (this service is not overdue enough to justify a trip to Walmart to pick up antifreeze and distilled water) and trying to limit trips to Dillons as much as possible.  Why expose oneself unnecessarily to other people's poor impulse control?

As others have already noted, it is established judicial precedent that the exercise of First Amendment freedoms can be curtailed so long as the relevant measures survive strict scrutiny.  This is more or less what has happened in Kansas with the enjoining of the part of the governor's stay-at-home order that extends the ten-person gathering limit to religious services.  Churches, per the terms of the injunction, can host services with more than ten people, but there is a long list of specific requirements that generates an enormous compliance headache:  so many people per hundred square feet, separate entrance and exit, door control to enforce headcount limits, and so on.  I haven't heard of any Catholic or mainline Protestant denominations locally that are holding services under such conditions.

I'm fortunate enough to live in a city and state that hasn't banned the mere act of going outside.  I can still go for a walk around the block at the end of my lunch break, for example.  But, still, the governing authorities have decided where you should be allowed to go and where you shouldn't.  Sorry if it's hard to consider that more like a "break" and less like "jail".

I don't know of any US jurisdiction that has forbidden people to go outside for exercise.  I've found it helpful to walk twice a day (not just once) to fight cabin fever.

More to the point, there were an estimated 60.8 million cases of swine flu in the USA during the 2009-10 season, and I don't remember hearing anyone even suggesting that we shut everything down.

It didn't have anywhere near the propensity to fill ICUs that COVID-19 does.  People were very nervous about it because of its genetic similarities to 1918 flu, but it turned out to be a paper tiger.

What happens if COVID becomes like the flu, in which we end up having a "season" of it on a regular basis, and against which vaccinations have limited effectiveness due to mutation?  Does anyone think it would be prudent to shut the country down for a couple of months every year?  And if not, then why is it prudent now?

If we are really lucky, it will mutate into a form we can treat on more or less the same basis as seasonal flu.  We are not there yet.

And let's not take lightly the fact that we are now setting the precedent for the government "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]; ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble".  That is not a small thing.  The argument "it's a time of crisis, and it's only temporary" is ridiculous:  wouldn't it be precisely in a time of crisis that the government might seek to strip its opposition of the right to assemble? and wouldn't it be the first lie out of their lips to say "it's temporary"?

Health emergencies are qualitatively different because they are time-limited and necessity is a matter of scientific proof.  This is part of the reason precedents in Kansas, such as denying a habeas petition filed by a chronic gonorrhea patient in jail (at a time when antibiotics were not available to cure gonorrhea), are almost a century old and still good.

The case of Mary Mallon ("Typhoid Mary"), who died after 23 years in forcible quarantine, is instructive.  Once it was scientifically established that she was spreading disease, and she refused to have her gallbladder removed so that she would no longer be a typhoid carrier (as was her option), there was no question of setting her loose on society again.

[Max Rockatansky]

If the quarantine makes you feel like life is not worth living, that means you are not making use of the time properly.
...
If instead of treating it like you're in jail, you treat it as you getting a break from the daily grind of life, it's really not so bad. I've been happier over the last couple of months than I have been in years.

My "daily grind of life" hasn't changed much.  My work computer is set up in my bedroom instead of at the office, but I still do the same job as before, and I still work 40 hours a week at it.  The only extra time I've gotten is the 15-minute drive to work and the 15-minute drive back home.  All that's changed for me, really, is that I never get to see anyone outside my own family anymore.

I would suggest that you set up somewhere outside your bedroom, but that's probably already crossed your mind. I'm feeling for a lot of people during these times, but people that have to share work environments in crowded or multi-purpose rooms are near the top of the list. Waking up and going somewhere, anywhere, is hugely helpful for maintaining a sense of sanity and routine.

And my wife and I couldn't go out for our anniversary on Wednesday because, well, where would we go?

You could do what we did and sit in the drive-thru line at Chick-Fil-A for half an hour... 

We at least ordered tri-tip and paid for it to be delivered for ours.  I couldn't fathom being that level of ghetto on an anniversary...really that applies to any fast food IMO.  Plus Chick-Fil-A might be the most overrated fast food restaurant out there out right now. 

[1995hoo]

We at least ordered tri-tip and paid for it to be delivered for ours.  I couldn't fathom being that level of ghetto on an anniversary...really that applies to any fast food IMO.  Plus Chick-Fil-A might be the most overrated fast food restaurant out there out right now. 

Heh, it was a running joke in our family that my parents would have McDonald's for their anniversary dinner. Of course that has not happened for many years, but when my brother and I were kids, our family vacations were always in August and were almost always to the north, often to Canada, and there was more than one time that on my parents' anniversary we found ourselves in the middle of nowhere with the only thing around being a McDonald's, so we ate there.

I was going to give them a 20-piece McNuggets last August as a joke on their 50th anniversary, but Dad died a little over a month before that date rolled around. As you can imagine, I did not make McDonald's jokes with my mom when the actual day arrived.

[GaryV]

In our on-line service today, the pastor said she didn't like worshiping that way, with no one in physical attendance.  But she is accepting it so that when restrictions are lifted, we can ALL return.  If we recklessly congregated together now, it is a virtual certainty that some of our congregation has it (maybe asymptomatic) and will pass it on.  And the most vulnerable in the church might not survive.

[kphoger]

You're still touching everything everyone else has.  You're still going out, and while you're out, you might as well stop at a few other places, again touching what other people have touched.

A church isn't a magical place where everyone is suddenly touching base and no one will get sick. 

The same is true of the grocery store.  I have a fundamental problem with the government excluding religion from a list of "necessary" activities.  I can order my groceries online and have them delivered, yet I am also allowed to go to the grocery store in person if I so choose.  I can watch an online sermon, yet I am not allowed to go to church in person if I so choose.

The government has always had the right to put reasonable limitations on first amendment rights.  You think we are "now" setting the precedent?  You should probably look a little deeper into our history.

Yes, and I realized that as I was typing it.  But I kept it in my post because two precedents are more than one precedent.  We could have instead set the opposite precedent of deciding the other way.

And the reason we didn't do this for the swine flu is because this is more deadly.

The mortality rate of H1N1 was relatively low.

Is that the reason we're doing it now, though??  I thought the reason for the shutdowns was to prevent everyone from getting sick all at once and flooding the hospitals.  Now you're telling me it's to prevent deaths.  Which is it?

Congregation at liquor stores, supermarkets, Walmart, etc. should not be happening.  That is pretty much why I am deferring a coolant drain and fill in my daily driver (this service is not overdue enough to justify a trip to Walmart to pick up antifreeze and distilled water) and trying to limit trips to Dillons as much as possible.  Why expose oneself unnecessarily to other people's poor impulse control?

I still consider the risk of contracting the virus at the grocery store to be quite small.  So I don't really see going shopping as "exposing myself unnecessarily" to anything.  Certainly not much more than I consider it as "exposing myself unnecessarily" to myriad other airborne respiratory diseases that are always going around any other year.  But to answer the question more directly, one might choose to go to the store in order to feel some sense of normalcy by doing a normal routine activity.

I don't know of any US jurisdiction that has forbidden people to go outside for exercise.

I don't either, but I know several people who live in countries that do prohibit such.  The first people we heard that sort of news from live in South Africa.  I know there have been such orders passed in Italy, although I don't know anyone who lives there.  Our best friends in Mexico need to make a border run to try and get new FMMs and vehicle permits (which may or may not happen, depending on whether INM is issuing FMMs right now), and they need to drive through the city of Monclova in order to do so;  in Monclova it is now prohibited to walk down the street without having "good reason" to be outside your home, and no more than two people are allowed to be driving in a car at the same time;  hopefully, their family of five isn't detained by the police while driving through town.

Health emergencies are qualitatively different because they are time-limited and necessity is a matter of scientific proof.

If it were a matter of scientific proof, then there would be no argument.  Science does not prove that the government should have the right to prohibit people gathering and practicing their religion.

[Roadgeekteen]

You're still touching everything everyone else has.  You're still going out, and while you're out, you might as well stop at a few other places, again touching what other people have touched.

A church isn't a magical place where everyone is suddenly touching base and no one will get sick. 

The same is true of the grocery store.  I have a fundamental problem with the government excluding religion from a list of "necessary" activities.  I can order my groceries online and have them delivered, yet I am also allowed to go to the grocery store in person if I so choose.  I can watch an online sermon, yet I am not allowed to go to church in person if I so choose.

The government has always had the right to put reasonable limitations on first amendment rights.  You think we are "now" setting the precedent?  You should probably look a little deeper into our history.

Yes, and I realized that as I was typing it.  But I kept it in my post because two precedents are more than one precedent.  We could have instead set the opposite precedent of deciding the other way.

And the reason we didn't do this for the swine flu is because this is more deadly.

The mortality rate of H1N1 was relatively low.

Is that the reason we're doing it now, though??  I thought the reason for the shutdowns was to prevent everyone from getting sick all at once and flooding the hospitals.  Now you're telling me it's to prevent deaths.  Which is it?

Congregation at liquor stores, supermarkets, Walmart, etc. should not be happening.  That is pretty much why I am deferring a coolant drain and fill in my daily driver (this service is not overdue enough to justify a trip to Walmart to pick up antifreeze and distilled water) and trying to limit trips to Dillons as much as possible.  Why expose oneself unnecessarily to other people's poor impulse control?

I still consider the risk of contracting the virus at the grocery store to be quite small.  So I don't really see going shopping as "exposing myself unnecessarily" to anything.  Certainly not much more than I consider it as "exposing myself unnecessarily" to myriad other airborne respiratory diseases that are always going around any other year.  But to answer the question more directly, one might choose to go to the store in order to feel some sense of normalcy by doing a normal routine activity.

I don't know of any US jurisdiction that has forbidden people to go outside for exercise.

I don't either, but I know several people who live in countries that do prohibit such.  The first people we heard that sort of news from live in South Africa.  I know there have been such orders passed in Italy, although I don't know anyone who lives there.  Our best friends in Mexico need to make a border run to try and get new FMMs and vehicle permits (which may or may not happen, depending on whether INM is issuing FMMs right now), and they need to drive through the city of Monclova in order to do so;  in Monclova it is now prohibited to walk down the street without having "good reason" to be outside your home, and no more than two people are allowed to be driving in a car at the same time;  hopefully, their family of five isn't detained by the police while driving through town.

Health emergencies are qualitatively different because they are time-limited and necessity is a matter of scientific proof.

If it were a matter of scientific proof, then there would be no argument.  Science does not prove that the government should have the right to prohibit people gathering and practicing their religion.

You don't need church to live.

[LM117]

CDC has added 6 new possible symptoms to it's list.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cdc-adds-six-new-possible-coronavirus-symptoms-2020-04-25/

[Scott5114]

I agree that a mindset of looking to make lemonade out of a lemon is more helpful in fighting lockdown blues.

At this stage, however, as compliance with stay-at-home restrictions decays, I am becoming increasingly concerned that there may be no overlap between what we are willing to do to fight the virus and what we need to do to defeat it.

I think most people would be willing to comply with restrictions and make the most of it. However, there are rich fuckers in this country that are sad because they'll make only one million dollars this year instead of ten million, so they're spending money to agitate people who don't know any better into fighting the lockdowns.

The unfortunate thing about the United States of America is that it has turned from a free country to a for-profit enterprise, where life doesn't matter, only profit. We may soon get to see how much profit a dead body turns. My suspicion is not much.

[Max Rockatansky]

You're still touching everything everyone else has.  You're still going out, and while you're out, you might as well stop at a few other places, again touching what other people have touched.

A church isn't a magical place where everyone is suddenly touching base and no one will get sick. 

The same is true of the grocery store.  I have a fundamental problem with the government excluding religion from a list of "necessary" activities.  I can order my groceries online and have them delivered, yet I am also allowed to go to the grocery store in person if I so choose.  I can watch an online sermon, yet I am not allowed to go to church in person if I so choose.

The government has always had the right to put reasonable limitations on first amendment rights.  You think we are "now" setting the precedent?  You should probably look a little deeper into our history.

Yes, and I realized that as I was typing it.  But I kept it in my post because two precedents are more than one precedent.  We could have instead set the opposite precedent of deciding the other way.

And the reason we didn't do this for the swine flu is because this is more deadly.

The mortality rate of H1N1 was relatively low.

Is that the reason we're doing it now, though??  I thought the reason for the shutdowns was to prevent everyone from getting sick all at once and flooding the hospitals.  Now you're telling me it's to prevent deaths.  Which is it?

Congregation at liquor stores, supermarkets, Walmart, etc. should not be happening.  That is pretty much why I am deferring a coolant drain and fill in my daily driver (this service is not overdue enough to justify a trip to Walmart to pick up antifreeze and distilled water) and trying to limit trips to Dillons as much as possible.  Why expose oneself unnecessarily to other people's poor impulse control?

I still consider the risk of contracting the virus at the grocery store to be quite small.  So I don't really see going shopping as "exposing myself unnecessarily" to anything.  Certainly not much more than I consider it as "exposing myself unnecessarily" to myriad other airborne respiratory diseases that are always going around any other year.  But to answer the question more directly, one might choose to go to the store in order to feel some sense of normalcy by doing a normal routine activity.

I don't know of any US jurisdiction that has forbidden people to go outside for exercise.

I don't either, but I know several people who live in countries that do prohibit such.  The first people we heard that sort of news from live in South Africa.  I know there have been such orders passed in Italy, although I don't know anyone who lives there.  Our best friends in Mexico need to make a border run to try and get new FMMs and vehicle permits (which may or may not happen, depending on whether INM is issuing FMMs right now), and they need to drive through the city of Monclova in order to do so;  in Monclova it is now prohibited to walk down the street without having "good reason" to be outside your home, and no more than two people are allowed to be driving in a car at the same time;  hopefully, their family of five isn't detained by the police while driving through town.

Health emergencies are qualitatively different because they are time-limited and necessity is a matter of scientific proof.

If it were a matter of scientific proof, then there would be no argument.  Science does not prove that the government should have the right to prohibit people gathering and practicing their religion.

You don't need church to live.

I used to say the same thing to my Grandpa when I was about your age just to piss him off, it was very successful.  Suffice to say there are A TON of people who would disagree with that statement.

[US71]

You don't need church to live.

[Roadgeekteen]

You're still touching everything everyone else has.  You're still going out, and while you're out, you might as well stop at a few other places, again touching what other people have touched.

A church isn't a magical place where everyone is suddenly touching base and no one will get sick. 

The same is true of the grocery store.  I have a fundamental problem with the government excluding religion from a list of "necessary" activities.  I can order my groceries online and have them delivered, yet I am also allowed to go to the grocery store in person if I so choose.  I can watch an online sermon, yet I am not allowed to go to church in person if I so choose.

The government has always had the right to put reasonable limitations on first amendment rights.  You think we are "now" setting the precedent?  You should probably look a little deeper into our history.

Yes, and I realized that as I was typing it.  But I kept it in my post because two precedents are more than one precedent.  We could have instead set the opposite precedent of deciding the other way.

And the reason we didn't do this for the swine flu is because this is more deadly.

The mortality rate of H1N1 was relatively low.

Is that the reason we're doing it now, though??  I thought the reason for the shutdowns was to prevent everyone from getting sick all at once and flooding the hospitals.  Now you're telling me it's to prevent deaths.  Which is it?

Congregation at liquor stores, supermarkets, Walmart, etc. should not be happening.  That is pretty much why I am deferring a coolant drain and fill in my daily driver (this service is not overdue enough to justify a trip to Walmart to pick up antifreeze and distilled water) and trying to limit trips to Dillons as much as possible.  Why expose oneself unnecessarily to other people's poor impulse control?

I still consider the risk of contracting the virus at the grocery store to be quite small.  So I don't really see going shopping as "exposing myself unnecessarily" to anything.  Certainly not much more than I consider it as "exposing myself unnecessarily" to myriad other airborne respiratory diseases that are always going around any other year.  But to answer the question more directly, one might choose to go to the store in order to feel some sense of normalcy by doing a normal routine activity.

I don't know of any US jurisdiction that has forbidden people to go outside for exercise.

I don't either, but I know several people who live in countries that do prohibit such.  The first people we heard that sort of news from live in South Africa.  I know there have been such orders passed in Italy, although I don't know anyone who lives there.  Our best friends in Mexico need to make a border run to try and get new FMMs and vehicle permits (which may or may not happen, depending on whether INM is issuing FMMs right now), and they need to drive through the city of Monclova in order to do so;  in Monclova it is now prohibited to walk down the street without having "good reason" to be outside your home, and no more than two people are allowed to be driving in a car at the same time;  hopefully, their family of five isn't detained by the police while driving through town.

Health emergencies are qualitatively different because they are time-limited and necessity is a matter of scientific proof.

If it were a matter of scientific proof, then there would be no argument.  Science does not prove that the government should have the right to prohibit people gathering and practicing their religion.

You don't need church to live.

I used to say the same thing to my Grandpa when I was about your age just to piss him off, it was very successful.  Suffice to say there are A TON of people who would disagree with that statement.

Lots of people need religion to live, but actually going to church is not always necessary (especially during a pandemic).

[Scott5114]

Religion is beyond the remit of this forum, and discussion of it is against the forum rules.