Sweden Ends Its Pandemic Experimen

[Shawnster]

1 hour ago, Qapla said:

 

The same could be said of wars ... yet, there have been two world wars and numerous other wars since - and even the US has been more than willing to participate in such wars at the expense of their own and other nations economies. The possibility of economic devastation has not stopped nations from participating in wars.

 

The world did recover from the economic devastation of the two world wars ...

 

And the Great Depression.  And the 1987 market crash.

[Thesauron]

 
The same could be said of wars ... yet, there have been two world wars and numerous other wars since - and even the US has been more than willing to participate in such wars at the expense of their own and other nations economies. The possibility of economic devastation has not stopped nations from participating in wars.
 
The world did recover from the economic devastation of the two world wars ...
 

Yes, you might say, but large parts of the world are still suffering the consequences of those wars in various ways. Wars tend t’ make people crazy, but when the last time people willingly fought an illness in such a way that it risked damaging their economy long term?

[Qapla]

damage to the economy is damage to the economy .. regardless of the cause.

 

It is survivable and recoverable.

 

The only real cure for this pandemic and the "economy" is the Kingdom.

 

[Bob]

2 hours ago, califlorican said:

Oof. CA is a huge state, so one area can’t speak for the whole state. Huntington Beach/Orange County has been known to refuse wearing masks. Oakland and SF have been doing a good job too, but the small town we live in and other small towns near us (and there are a lot of them)- not so much. It honestly doesn’t matter if many areas are doing as they’re meant to when the rest of the population isn’t. It’s just sad all around. 

Yeah I can only speak to what I’ve seen. 

[Bob]

4 hours ago, Shawnster said:

But, as Witnesses, we are also trained to be in subjection to the worldly governments.  Yes, the world can't be submissive even if you paid them.  We, on the other hand, are more than willing to comply with any directions that do not violate Bible standards. 

Yeah. While I most times DO believe the world as a whole is rebellious, this time I feel a little differently, because these new laws violate their "bible" standards, which is the US Constitution. 

 

Locking people in their homes, telling them to wear masks when they leave the house under penalty of jail, all during a pandemic, while are safe measures, are not Constitutional. The Constitution doesn't even address pandemics.

 

Two Supreme Courts, Wisconsin and Michigan, both stripped their respective Governors of their powers on the grounds of Constitutional violations. 

 

Not saying I agree with those courts, but just making the point that the world's authority is their Constitution, not the Bible.

[Qapla]

Not sure just how Constitutional mandates are - but then, I don't get "political"

 

The FDS has asked us to wear masks - that is enough for me.

 

[Bob]

1 hour ago, Qapla said:

Not sure just how Constitutional mandates are - but then, I don't get "political"

 

The FDS has asked us to wear masks - that is enough for me.

 

I feel you. But I wasn't discussing the Constitution as much as I was noting why non-Witnesses don't obey what they see violates their "Bible". The Bible, in a sense, is our "Constitution" and we proudly disobey laws that clearly violate that. 

 

So I just looking at this from their point of view. 

 

 

[M.J.]

9 hours ago, Thesauron said:

I think that when we entered into this situation, nobody knew what to do, exactly. Did you?

Yes. In Februrary of 2020, we already heard on the news that some strange, new, possibly highly contagious disease was spreading. Common sense tells me that the least I could do is wear a mask to not breathe anything contagious into my lungs. 

 

I had to accompany someone into the hospital, and so I wore a mask. The DOCTOR laughed and told me I didn't need a mask. I smiled politely and told him I felt more safe and secure wearing a mask. 

 

People have become so dependent upon tests and studies, that they've lost common sense. 

[Shawnster]

19 minutes ago, M.J. said:

Yes. In Februrary of 2020, we already heard on the news that some strange, new, possibly highly contagious disease was spreading. Common sense tells me that the least I could do is wear a mask to not breathe anything contagious into my lungs. 

 

I had to accompany someone into the hospital, and so I wore a mask. The DOCTOR laughed and told me I didn't need a mask. I smiled politely and told him I felt more safe and secure wearing a mask. 

 

People have become so dependent upon tests and studies, that they've lost common sense. 

Be interesting to see what he'd say now.

[Thesauron]

Yes. In Februrary of 2020, we already heard on the news that some strange, new, possibly highly contagious disease was spreading. Common sense tells me that the least I could do is wear a mask to not breathe anything contagious into my lungs. 
 
I had to accompany someone into the hospital, and so I wore a mask. The DOCTOR laughed and told me I didn't need a mask. I smiled politely and told him I felt more safe and secure wearing a mask. 
 
People have become so dependent upon tests and studies, that they've lost common sense. 

You’d think, but the masks did not intend for you to protect yourself, but rather to protect others from you. They only work somewhat if a majority wears them, and only then. The science was really out if they made any difference at all in the long run. Instead, it gave people a false sense of security.

[Qapla]

Ever had surgery?

 

How would you feel if the surgical team stepped up to you on the surgical table without masks, gloves, hair restraint and in street clothes?

 

They do not wear that garb to protect themselves from what you have wrong ... they wear that garb to protect you from infection.

 

But then, perhaps it is just to give a false sense of security ...

 

 

 

That is what I think of when people say that there is no "proof" masks cut down on the transmission of COVID. 

 

[Thesauron]

Ever had surgery?

 

How would you feel if the surgical team stepped up to you on the surgical table without masks, gloves, hair restraint and in street clothes?

 

They do not wear that garb to protect themselves from what you have wrong ... they wear that garb to protect you from infection.

 

But then, perhaps it is just to give a false sense of security ...

 

 

 

That is what I think of when people say that there is no "proof" masks cut down on the transmission of COVID. 

 

You’re right. They do not protect the wearer, as some think. That’s what I mean by false security. “ I wear a mask, so I am now protected and does not have to bother about social distancing.”

 

Here, the authorities do not require you to have them, or suggest that you should. And the branch also do not include those recommendations in their letters to the congregations, even though social distancing is strongly suggested. Of course, where the governments require them, we follow such instructions.

[Katty]

I'm onboard with the idea that early travel bans,-- or at the very least, testing and quarantining people from high risk areas in the early days of a pandemic-- are more effective than actual lockdowns. By the time the infection spreads to the point that government leaders feel they need a lockdown it's already too late.
I come from south Louisiana. By the time Mardi Gras rolled around, a decision could have been made that could have prevented the virus to spread around the state, and travel back across the country when the revelers return home. But I'll trust the mayor might have been naive and didn't realize how bad the virus was going to be, but it doesn't matter why. At the end of the day, that was a bad call, but she continuously chides the city like they're a bunch of 5 year olds, about a virus that could have been contained in the early days, but now is at a point of no return.
Lockdowns don't work, because they can't be followed on a regular basis, especially depending how draconian the laws are? In some places people couldn't tend to their lawns? walk their dog or exercise??? If you have an indoor dog, won't you get more sick from poop accumulating in your house/apartment than from getting to walk your dog??? People don't have the luxury to not shop or exercise or do things far enough away from home that they might have to pick up some food on the way  home. Also people have never stopped needing to work for a living. It seems that a lot of lawmakers are making laws that are extremely difficult not to break, but I'm so sick of the people being blamed when the numbers go up, when exponential growth is how pandemics grow once they're set loose in the public. It was the government leaders who dropped the ball in the early days, by not making everyone who came from China or any country with virus cases self isolate or get tested, but instead decide to put the burden of slowing the spread squarely on the shoulders of poor working class people, who can't always carry it.

 

Edited December 9, 2020 by Katty

[califlorican]

3 hours ago, Katty said:

I'm onboard with the idea that early travel bans,-- or at the very least, testing and quarantining people from high risk areas in the early days of a pandemic-- are more effective than actual lockdowns. By the time the infection spreads to the point that government leaders feel they need a lockdown it's already too late.
I come from south Louisiana. By the time Mardi Gras rolled around, a decision could have been made that could have prevented the virus to spread around the state, and travel back across the country when the revelers return home. But I'll trust the mayor might have been naive and didn't realize how bad the virus was going to be, but it doesn't matter why. At the end of the day, that was a bad call, but she continuously chides the city like they're a bunch of 5 year olds, about a virus that could have been contained in the early days, but now is at a point of no return.
Lockdowns don't work, because they can't be followed on a regular basis, especially depending how draconian the laws are? In some places people couldn't tend to their lawns? walk their dog or exercise??? If you have an indoor dog, won't you get more sick from poop accumulating in your house/apartment than from getting to walk your dog??? People don't have the luxury to not shop or exercise or do things far enough away from home that they might have to pick up some food on the way  home. Also people have never stopped needing to work for a living. It seems that a lot of lawmakers are making laws that are extremely difficult not to break, but I'm so sick of the people being blamed when the numbers go up, when exponential growth is how pandemics grow once they're set loose in the public. It was the government leaders who dropped the ball in the early days, by not making everyone who came from China or any country with virus cases self isolate or get tested, but instead decide to put the burden of slowing the spread squarely on the shoulders of poor working class people, who can't always carry it.

 

To be fair, no one understood just how contagious the virus was. We don’t even know if China was being truthful with their numbers back in January/February, so I think a lot of people around the world were thinking it would be similar to SARS and get under control somewhat quickly. 
 

The Bay Area was the first area in the USA to really lockdown in mid-March and numbers were much lower here than in the rest of the state or other states. But because the government provided no economic relief, there was pressure to reopen. The places that have been successful have been able to contain the virus because the government has provided economic assistance and made it easy for people to WANT to stay home. Unfortunately that’s not the case in a lot of others countries where the virus just spread too easily and too quickly. And now people are tired of it, and say “lockdowns/masks don’t work” because they’re still out acting like everything is normal. Of course they don’t work if not everyone is complying and millions have no choice but to work to make ends meet. It’s selfishness from all sides- governments not caring enough to protect citizens and too many citizens not caring enough to protect each other. 
 

[califlorican]

4 hours ago, Thesauron said:

You’re right. They do not protect the wearer, as some think. That’s what I mean by false security. “ I wear a mask, so I am now protected and does not have to bother about social distancing.”

 

I've heard the “false sense of security” idea so many times, but I don’t know where people are getting that from. CDC/WHO have never said masks replace other means of prevention. We wear masks and still stay at least 6 feet away from people, more if possible. I’m curious if a lot of people actually feel masks replace social distancing. I do think it’s better than no masks at all, but I definitely wish people would stay back at grocery stores lol it’s so hard to stay 6 feet away in a small aisle.

[M.J.]

22 hours ago, Thesauron said:

You’d think, but the masks did not intend for you to protect yourself, but rather to protect others from you. They only work somewhat if a majority wears them, and only then. The science was really out if they made any difference at all in the long run. Instead, it gave people a false sense of security.

I can't even begin to make sense of your comment. I don't care to wait to see what science proves or doesn't prove. I have common sense. A mask is a barrier. Common sense tells me: SOMETHING is better than nothing. It amazes me that so many people can't wrap their head around this simple concept.

 

And then the endless stupid conversations on the news about if the mask benefits the person wearing it, or the other person.  Really??

Does the Coronavirus say, "well, apparently this mask has a one way entrance/exit"

 

Good grief, if the virus can go one way through the mask, then it can go the other way too!!

 

I don't need an expensive study with equipment and participants to figure that out for me!

[Shawnster]

5 hours ago, Thesauron said:

You’re right. They do not protect the wearer, as some think. That’s what I mean by false security. “ I wear a mask, so I am now protected and does not have to bother about social distancing.”

 

 

1 hour ago, califlorican said:

I've heard the “false sense of security” idea so many times, but I don’t know where people are getting that from. CDC/WHO have never said masks replace other means of prevention. We wear masks and still stay at least 6 feet away from people, more if possible. I’m curious if a lot of people actually feel masks replace social distancing. I do think it’s better than no masks at all, but I definitely wish people would stay back at grocery stores lol it’s so hard to stay 6 feet away in a small aisle.

@Thesauron is correct.  The purpose of masks is not to protect the wearer.  Masks protect others FROM the wearer.  I wear a mask to protect you.  You wear a mask to protect me.  

 

 

Quote

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/masking-science-sars-cov2.html

SARS-CoV-2 infection is transmitted predominately by respiratory droplets generated when people cough, sneeze, sing, talk, or breathe. CDC recommends community use of masks, specifically non-valved multi-layer cloth masks, to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Masks are primarily intended to reduce the emission of virus-laden droplets (“source control”), which is especially relevant for asymptomatic or presymptomatic infected wearers who feel well and may be unaware of their infectiousness to others, and who are estimated to account for more than 50% of transmissions.1,2 Masks also help reduce inhalation of these droplets by the wearer (“filtration for personal protection”). The community benefit of masking for SARS-CoV-2 control is due to the combination of these effects; individual prevention benefit increases with increasing numbers of people using masks consistently and correctly.

 

Masks are used to prevent transmission, not reception.

 

Now, Johan went on to point out that many people do not understand this.  They think that if they wear a mask, then they are protected.  Masks give them a false sense of security, so they lower their guard and get closer than 6 feet to someone else.  This is understandable.  People aren't realizing that masks are a "do unto others" type of tool.  They think the mask prevents them from inhaling Coronavirus particle, not realizing that those particles can still enter through the eye or those particles could rest on the mask and then, when the wearer takes the mask off, gets the virus on their hands...   

 

Some people are getting the wrong idea because they are imperfect people.  They've tuned out the warnings.  They've not done the research.  They only think for themselves and not their neighbor.  Even though it can be explained to them how masks work, they will still misunderstand and think they wear the mask to protect themselves, just like you wear a gas mask to protect yourself from poisonous gas.

 

Ohio (I can't speak for other locations, but I'm sure it's the same) has always preached layers of defense.  Masks and social distancing and hand washing.  

 

 

[Shawnster]

4 minutes ago, M.J. said:

I can't even begin to make sense of your comment. I don't care to wait to see what science proves or doesn't prove. I have common sense. A mask is a barrier. Common sense tells me: SOMETHING is better than nothing. It amazes me that so many people can't wrap their head around this simple concept.

 

Masks are like a condom.  If a man wears a condom, he will not transmit an STD to his partner.  The man is not protecting himself, he's protecting his partner.  The man is already sick.

 

Masks are like a diaper.  A baby wears a diaper to keep everyone else clean.  When the baby dirties the diaper, the baby gets dirty.  The diaper does not protect the baby from getting dirty.

 

Doctors and surgeons have worn masks for 100s of years.  They do this not to protect themselves, but to protect their sick and immunocompromised patients.  They wear a mask to keep the operating room a sterile environment.  They wear a mask to prevent them from ruining the sterile environment.  

Edited December 10, 2020 by Shawnster

[M.J.]

27 minutes ago, Shawnster said:

  Quote

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/masking-science-sars-cov2.html

SARS-CoV-2 infection is transmitted predominately by respiratory droplets generated when people cough, sneeze, sing, talk, or breathe. CDC recommends community use of masks, specifically non-valved multi-layer cloth masks, to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Masks are primarily intended to reduce the emission of virus-laden droplets (“source control”), which is especially relevant for asymptomatic or presymptomatic infected wearers who feel well and may be unaware of their infectiousness to others, and who are estimated to account for more than 50% of transmissions.1,2 Masks also help reduce inhalation of these droplets by the wearer (“filtration for personal protection”). The community benefit of masking for SARS-CoV-2 control is due to the combination of these effects; individual prevention benefit increases with increasing numbers of people using masks consistently and correctly.

 

Maybe I'm really sleepy,  but this quote you quoted seems to be saying that masks benefit both parties (see bold print above)

[M.J.]

27 minutes ago, Shawnster said:

Masks are like a condom.  If a man wears a condom, he will not transmit an STD to his partner.  The man is not protecting himself, he's protecting his partner.  The man is already sick.

 

Masks are like a diaper.  A baby wears a diaper to keep everyone else clean.  When the baby dirties the diaper, the baby gets dirty.  The diaper does not protect the baby from getting dirty.

 

Doctors and surgeons have worn masks for 100s of years.  They do this not to protect themselves, but to protect their sick and immunocompromised patients.  They wear a mask to keep the operating room a sterile environment.  They wear a mask to prevent them from ruining the sterile environment.  

The problem is that in most scenarios you don't know who has it. If you and I are standing in front of each other, and neither one of us knows if we're infected, then either one of us wearing a mask is already improving the odds. It's that simple.

[Thesauron]

I can't even begin to make sense of your comment. I don't care to wait to see what science proves or doesn't prove. I have common sense. A mask is a barrier. Common sense tells me: SOMETHING is better than nothing. It amazes me that so many people can't wrap their head around this simple concept.
 
And then the endless stupid conversations on the news about if the mask benefits the person wearing it, or the other person.  Really??
Does the Coronavirus say, "well, apparently this mask has a one way entrance/exit"

 
Good grief, if the virus can go one way through the mask, then it can go the other way too!!
 
I don't need an expensive study with equipment and participants to figure that out for me!

I am not here to educate you about this in this thread, but the governing body has instructed the branch to follow the guidance of the authorities in this respect here in this country for the very reason I mentioned, just as they request the brothers follow the various instructions from other governmental authorities in other countries.

[califlorican]

3 hours ago, Shawnster said:

 

@Thesauron is correct.  The purpose of masks is not to protect the wearer.  Masks protect others FROM the wearer.  I wear a mask to protect you.  You wear a mask to protect me.  

 

 

Masks are used to prevent transmission, not reception.

 

 

I’m confused. Did I say something that made it sound like I didn’t think that way? If WE (meaning myself and everyone I’m around) all wear masks, isn’t that protecting each other because we’re all preventing our droplets from landing on each other? I don’t spend time around any person who isn’t wearing a mask.
 

Also, In my experience, the same people who are not wearing masks are also not social distancing lol so I don’t see what the false sense of security thing really means. 

Edited December 10, 2020 by califlorican

[boodles]

If the mask has the appropriate filter, wouldn't that protect the wearer? Theoretically, I'm breathing filtered air. I doubt it's fullproof, but I think it's beneficial for myself as well as others. It's another layer of protection.  

[M.J.]

3 hours ago, Shawnster said:

Masks are used to prevent transmission, not reception.

This makes no sense. Of course masks can prevent transmission and reception. If I'm talking, mouth open, and someone next to me coughs and has Covid-19, then obviously the mask could help, to a certain degree, by preventing the coughers germs from floating into my mouth.  

 

Why is this so hard for everyone to understand??

[Qapla]

On our local nightly news they run a message from the news anchor (public service type) where he is wearing a mask and encourages people to "wear a mask and social distance and avoid crowds".

 

However, people hear what they want to hear ... so they  hear "wear a mask or social distance or avoid crowds" - and then do what they want.

 

Today I had to go to Walmart. I wore my mask and kept my distance from others. I also take sterile wipes and clean anything I have to touch. As I was nearing the store to enter a man was heading in without a mask. The lady at the door reminded him about the mask and gave him one. He put it on. While in the store I saw several people without masks. On my way out I mentioned this to the Walmart employee that checks your basket if you have unbagged items. She said that Walmart does not require masks ... they only recommend them. Yet, Walmart released this policy to the public

Quote

Walmart, Nation's Largest Retailer, Will Require Customers to Wear Masks. The new rule (which went into effect in September) is a strong statement about wearing masks in public spaces at a time when the issue has become politicized.

 

Three of my daughters are food vendors and deliver to Walmart. Their mask policy has not changed since September - but, even some of it's employees hear what they want to hear.

 

As a side thought. While the GB has continued to say that taking a vaccine is a personal decision and no one should criticize you for whatever your personal decision is - that does not mean they cannot state that, without one, you cannot enter their facilities ... and that could include KH's.

 

As for continuing Zoom even when we go back to the KH - the Branch already sent direction about how and where to place ONE static camera in the KH to stream the meeting to KHConf through the Roku app. The same setup could be used to connect the KH to Zoom. While those on the stream could not see the audience, only the stage, they could hear the entire meeting and could comment using Zoom or KHConf.