The Mysterious Coronavirus Spreading Worldwide

[Bob]

32 minutes ago, runner92 said:

I think this is being done intentionally to keep people confused. There's no other reason. Something is very very off about this whole pandemic.

Well, I think the CDC is simply trying to give people answers when they don't have any. A simple "we don't know" yet is more than enough because it appears to be the truth. 

Edited September 23, 2020 by Bob

[Shawnster]

1 hour ago, runner92 said:

I think this is being done intentionally to keep people confused. There's no other reason. 

Well, politics can be a reason.  The Trump administration is not in lock-step with the world when it comes to Covid-19.  The CDC could be receiving pressure from the White House to comply with the administration's point of view.  

[➕👇 ꓤꓱꓷꓠꓵ🎵Tone]

32 Million (reported) cases
This seems to picking up speed!

Old (Downunder) Tone
 

Edited September 23, 2020 by Maʹher-shalʹal-hash-baz

[Lee49]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/23/cdc-director-says-more-than-90percent-of-americans-remain-susceptible-to-the-coronavirus.html

CDC director says more than 90% of Americans remain susceptible to the coronavirus

 Covid-19 has spread across America at varying rates since it crossed U.S. shores in January, infecting as much as 15% to 20% of the population in some states and less than 1% in others, he said. One state said almost a quarter of its residents have had the coronavirus sometime this year, he added.

He said the CDC is in the process of a “very large” study that seeks to more precisely determine how widely the virus has spread across the country. 

The rate of infection is important because epidemiologists think infection generally conveys some immunity against the virus for at least a few months.

 

“The preliminary results in the first round show that a majority of our nation, more than 90% of the population, remains susceptible,” he said at a Senate hearing hosted by the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. “A majority of Americans are still susceptible.”

[Hugh O'D]

11 hours ago, Bob said:

I sometimes chuckle at these arbitrary pub/restaurant closures. Closing at 10pm? Why? What is that going to change? All people will do is pile in BEFORE 10. And they will buy their booze earlier in the day. 

Some Scientists give their explanations here. You'll notice they're not all favourable to the way the Government is handling things but they do help to make the matter clearer (which they also criticise the Government for not doing).

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-pubs-and-restaurants-closing-early/

 

Let's make it personal. I write on this forum late because I work until ten pm. So do many of my work mates. It's not unusual for them to stop off in the pub once or twice a week when they've done the late shift (and I've joined them when I needed to get something done). Now we'll go home. That's less interaction. We're not alone in working these sort of hours. So it is reducing footfall and therefore social interaction in the pubs. I'm not speaking in support of the matter, I don't know what the Governments should do and I'm not going to pretend that I could somehow make human rule work by myself, I'm merely providing another perspective to your comments, the more perspectives we get the more accurate our picture becomes. Cheers.

[Bob]

4 hours ago, Shawnster said:

Well, politics can be a reason.  The Trump administration is not in lock-step with the world when it comes to Covid-19.  The CDC could be receiving pressure from the White House to comply with the administration's point of view.  

Fauci, Admiral Giroir, and Redfield have categorically denied this, however. I'm more apt to believe them over the media who has been pushing this conspiracy theory for months.

[Bob]

28 minutes ago, Hugh O'D said:

Some Scientists give their explanations here. You'll notice they're not all favourable to the way the Government is handling things but they do help to make the matter clearer (which they also criticise the Government for not doing).

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-pubs-and-restaurants-closing-early/

 

Let's make it personal. I write on this forum late because I work until ten pm. So do many of my work mates. It's not unusual for them to stop off in the pub once or twice a week when they've done the late shift (and I've joined them when I needed to get something done). Now we'll go home. That's less interaction. We're not alone in working these sort of hours. So it is reducing footfall and therefore social interaction in the pubs. I'm not speaking in support of the matter, I don't know what the Governments should do and I'm not going to pretend that I could somehow make human rule work by myself, I'm merely providing another perspective to your comments, the more perspectives we get the more accurate our picture becomes. Cheers.

Good points.

[hatcheckgirl]

From Hugh's link to article:

 

“We know that one of the biggest influences in people’s risk-taking behaviour is alcohol. The more drunk you are, the less inhibited and less risk-averse you are. Closing the bars and restaurants at 10pm simply keeps people more sober. It gives them plenty of time for a meal, or a quick drink with friends after work, but means they are likely to be sober enough to remember to put on a face-covering on the train or bus home, and to be careful around elderly relatives when they get home. It gives restaurant and bar staff time to give the venue a thorough clean when the last customers have left, without having to work unreasonably late. This means that a lot of the risk is reduced.“

 

Thank you for this and your personal insight. It now makes a bit of sense what the government is aiming at. If we assume the patrons inside the pub are well spaced, appropriately masked and following hygiene practices, then closing early is a good idea. People have to eat after work, so the drinking time is reduced. And only so many people at a time can enter the pub. When it’s full, it’s full.

 

More people won’t be flocking before the 10pm closing time - the pub will already have hit the maximum intake. So if there is a set amount of time, the people already in the pub drink less. Hopefully they are sober enough to wear a mask going home.

Edited September 24, 2020 by hatcheckgirl

[hatcheckgirl]

South Africa banned alcohol and tobacco when they were in lockdown, but I never could figure out why. Possible this is the reason - to keep people sober and aware of doing the right thing. My friend from Africa told me also there is also the custom of sharing drinking vessels and sharing smokes in rural and poorer area of South Africa. Also may explain why the government mandated this prohibition.

 

Just shows, every country must plot its own path on how to best manage COVID spread. Customs are different and customs are what drives behaviours. We all need to adapt our behaviour to manage this pandemic. We witnesses are always alert to doing this to serve Jehovah appropriately. The world has little interest in  changing their behaviour to follow governmental advice, even for their betterment.

 

Last point about drinking: assuming you can’t stay long at the pub to get too drunk, they can actually drink themselves silly when they are safely at home. And that will open another can of worms - dv, etc.
In Australia where I live, when we were under lockdown our state imposed a limit of how much booze you could buy in a day. I did wonder why .....

Edited September 24, 2020 by hatcheckgirl

[Bob]

10 hours ago, hatcheckgirl said:

Last point about drinking: assuming you can’t stay long at the pub to get too drunk, they can actually drink themselves silly when they are safely at home. And that will open another can of worms - dv, etc.
In Australia where I live, when we were under lockdown our state imposed a limit of how much booze you could buy in a day. I did wonder why .....

This was basically my question as well. Will the strict limits on public alcohol consumption just push people to become closet drunkards? Limiting the purchase of booze will drive an underground, bootlegging market, just like Prohibition did in the US in the early 20th century. 

 

I don't agree with rebellion against law, but humans aren't created to be tightly controlled like this from the top-down, so that natural inclination toward a little more self-regulation is the catalyst to rebellion. Not absolute freedom, no. But your rights ends where mines begin. 

 

I have always been a proponent of having as much wide personal freedom as possible under the circumstance.  

Edited September 24, 2020 by Bob

[hatcheckgirl]

🤣🤣 We managed. I know it’s difficult to understand how different it is here from USA. The limits were generous anyway, it lasted just for the lockdown, and didn’t take away anyone’s freedom. No one rioted, we all just got on with it (May be a grumble here and there). But no, it wasn’t prohibition, so no need for an underground economy for booze. 
 

 

[Shawnster]

48 minutes ago, hatcheckgirl said:

🤣🤣 We managed. I know it’s difficult to understand how different it is here from USA. The limits were generous anyway, it lasted just for the lockdown, and didn’t take away anyone’s freedom. No one rioted, we all just got on with it (May be a grumble here and there). But no, it wasn’t prohibition, so no need for an underground economy for booze. 
 

 

The liquor laws here are varied (slightly) from state to state.  For example here in Ohio there are no liquor sales after 10pm.  Since Covid-19 laws changed to permit all restaurants to sell carry-out liquor meaning I can go to any restaurant now and order an alcoholic drink and take it home (or elsewhere) instead of drinking it in the restaurant.  Before Covid restaurants were not allowed to do that.  

 

Interesting you mentioned intoxication, Lucy, as a reason for the no liquor sales after a certain time.  I hadn't given that a thought.  My impression was simply the congregating aspect and that these bars and restaurants were busier and more crowded the later the night went on and that people stayed longer.  And, perhaps, that's an additional thought behind the curfew.  By stopping liquor sales at 10pm this discourages people from staying congregated in an enclosed space for a longer period of time.  They have to leave sooner.  If they have to leave sooner and if they do not arrive earlier (because quitting time at work is still the same), then they spend less time exposed to one another.  

 

I'm sick and tired of some of these memes I'm seeing on Facebook about how Covid can't tell time or that Covid is lurking behind a tree at 9:59pm just waiting for the clock to strike 10 because Covid only pounces after 10pm.  

 

I'm also sick and tired of the people complaining on social media about how masks (and these liquor laws) are such a government overreach and draconian abuse of authority just to seize power.  I mean, what new powers did the government seize that they did not have pre-Covid?  Apparently the government already had the power to mandate masks and closing time for alcohol sales.  Masks is really an insidious plot to control the masses?  Masks are really so much a burden?  Seriously?  These same people have never complained about the government demanding people to pay good tax money on property the people already own.  They don't complain about the government demanding money and requiring the purchase of a license so that a person can drive a car they already own.  They don't complain about the government demanding money and requiring a license for people to even operate a vehicle, hunt for food, own a gun, or the myriad other ways the government has been controlling the population.  

 

Oh no, having to wear a little cloth over their mouth when they go outside... now that's just a bridge too far.

[Bob]

3 hours ago, hatcheckgirl said:

🤣🤣 We managed. I know it’s difficult to understand how different it is here from USA. The limits were generous anyway, it lasted just for the lockdown, and didn’t take away anyone’s freedom. No one rioted, we all just got on with it (May be a grumble here and there). But no, it wasn’t prohibition, so no need for an underground economy for booze. 
 

 

Yep. There is a ton of variance there and differences between AU and the US. Good discussing this with you.

Edited September 24, 2020 by Bob

[Bob]

2 hours ago, Shawnster said:

 I'm also sick and tired of the people complaining on social media about how masks (and these liquor laws) are such a government overreach and draconian abuse of authority just to seize power.  I mean, what new powers did the government seize that they did not have pre-Covid?  Apparently the government already had the power to mandate masks and closing time for alcohol sales.  Masks is really an insidious plot to control the masses?  Masks are really so much a burden?  Seriously?  These same people have never complained about the government demanding people to pay good tax money on property the people already own.  They don't complain about the government demanding money and requiring the purchase of a license so that a person can drive a car they already own.  They don't complain about the government demanding money and requiring a license for people to even operate a vehicle, hunt for food, own a gun, or the myriad other ways the government has been controlling the population.  

 

Oh no, having to wear a little cloth over their mouth when they go outside... now that's just a bridge too far.

Well, it IS a violation of your rights to force you to to wear mask, to tell you that you cannot see your family or friends in a group setting, to tell you to 'stay home'. The question is not whether your rights are violated or not - the question is are these violations necessary under the circumstances.

 

Each state and country must answer that question themselves.

 

Now is this a "plot" to control the masses? Well, I'll say this; when people get power, they don't give it back. It has to be wrestled away from them by the court system here (which itself serves as a check and balance on government power).

 

The system itself is designed to prevent tyranny, which is a staple of human rulership.

[Bob]

The organization often talks about giving up personal rights and freedoms for the benefit of others. So essentially, there are times when your rights ought to be suppressed for the benefit of others. But that means accepting that your rights are being suppressed, whether government imposed or self-imposed.  

[Old]

30 minutes ago, Bob said:

Well, it IS a violation of your rights to force you to to wear mask, to tell you that you cannot see your family or friends in a group setting, to tell you to 'stay home'. The question is not whether your rights are violated or not - the question is are these violations necessary under the circumstances.

 

What right or rights are we talking about when you say "it is a violation of your rights to be forced to wear a mask"in public? Is it a violation of our rights to be told we have to wear a decent amount of clothes in public?  

I have the right to bear arms, but the right to a bare  face? I am not too sure of that.

[Bob]

19 minutes ago, Old said:

What right or rights are we talking about when you say "it is a violation of your rights to be forced to wear a mask"in public? Is it a violation of our rights to be told we have to wear a decent amount of clothes in public?  

I have the right to bear arms, but the right to a bare  face? I am not too sure of that.

This is simple. Masks are a type of clothing. The Government forcing you to wear certain types of clothing is a violation of your rights. Its like if the government attempted to force you to wear shorts in the summer, or a coat in the winter. Its you right choose what type of clothing you choose to wear. 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Bob

[Bob]

29 minutes ago, Old said:

What right or rights are we talking about when you say "it is a violation of your rights to be forced to wear a mask"in public? Is it a violation of our rights to be told we have to wear a decent amount of clothes in public?  

I have the right to bear arms, but the right to a bare  face? I am not too sure of that.

THAT being said, I have no problem with masks during a pandemic. I was just pointing out that sometimes having your rights suppressed temporarily is at times necessary. 

 

There is nothing wrong with saying the government forcing you to wear a type of clothing, violates your rights. 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Bob

[Lee49]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/national/coronavirus-deaths-neighborhood/?utm_campaign=wp_to_your_health&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_tyh&wpmk=1

 

What if all covid‑19
deaths in the United
States had happened
in your neighborhood?

 

( click on link, put your address in )

[Old]

1 hour ago, Bob said:

This is simple. Masks are a type of clothing. The Government forcing you to wear certain types of clothing is a violation of your rights. Its like if the government attempted to force you to wear shorts in the summer, or a coat in the winter. Its you right choose what type of clothing you choose to wear. 

Why does the government not have the right to dictate clothing? Again what rights, where do we get the right to choose our clothing? 

 

1 hour ago, Bob said:

 

 

There is nothing wrong with saying the government forcing you to wear a type of clothing, violates your rights. 

Yes there is: There is something wrong if you are basing your argument on a right that doesn't exist. The fact that the government can step in and dictate certain types of clothing and the setting in which they must be worn has gone to the several state supreme courts and were found to be constitutional, with-in the rights of the state. 

A law directing the wearing of face masks is not a violationof constutional law. It is not contrary to scriptural law. (Romans 13)

Some might think it wrong to be echoing a political party's propaganda.

Edited September 24, 2020 by Old

[M.J.]

Hasn't the organization repeatedly said that we shouldn't insist on our "rights" ?

[Bob]

37 minutes ago, Old said:

Why does the government not have the right to dictate clothing? Again what rights, where do we get the right to choose our clothing? 

Clothing is an INALIENABLE right. Clothing and the right to choose what type you wear pre-dates government. 

 

Quote

 

Yes there is: There is something wrong if you are basing your argument on a right that doesn't exist. The fact that the government can step in and dictate certain types of clothing and the setting in which they must be worn has gone to the several state supreme courts and were found to be constitutional, with-in the rights of the state. 

A law directing the wearing of face masks is not a violationof constutional law. It is not contrary to scriptural law. (Romans 13)

Some might think it wrong to be echoing a political party's propaganda.

Well, inalienable rights cannot be conferred by the constitution. 

 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Bob

[Bob]

2 minutes ago, M.J. said:

Hasn't the organization repeatedly said that we shouldn't insist on our "rights" ?

Yep. And who here said we should insist on our rights?

[Bob]

45 minutes ago, Old said:

Some might think it wrong to be echoing a political party's propaganda.

That's a stretch. Which party's "propaganda" am I echoing? 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Bob

[runner92]

20 hours ago, hatcheckgirl said:

From Hugh's link to article:

 

“We know that one of the biggest influences in people’s risk-taking behaviour is alcohol. The more drunk you are, the less inhibited and less risk-averse you are. Closing the bars and restaurants at 10pm simply keeps people more sober. It gives them plenty of time for a meal, or a quick drink with friends after work, but means they are likely to be sober enough to remember to put on a face-covering on the train or bus home, and to be careful around elderly relatives when they get home. It gives restaurant and bar staff time to give the venue a thorough clean when the last customers have left, without having to work unreasonably late. This means that a lot of the risk is reduced.“

 

Thank you for this and your personal insight. It now makes a bit of sense what the government is aiming at. If we assume the patrons inside the pub are well spaced, appropriately masked and following hygiene practices, then closing early is a good idea. People have to eat after work, so the drinking time is reduced. And only so many people at a time can enter the pub. When it’s full, it’s full.

 

More people won’t be flocking before the 10pm closing time - the pub will already have hit the maximum intake. So if there is a set amount of time, the people already in the pub drink less. Hopefully they are sober enough to wear a mask going home.

But they were already in there with no mask while they were eating and drinking.

Edited September 24, 2020 by runner92