COVID-19 Response: An issue that shouldn't be at all political....yet here we are

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngopher35

I am not sure about bars, restaurants can have up to 25% capacity I believe but that is different than a church gathering for many reasons. I think it was linked just above but will share the link again here.

https://bgr.com/2020/09/20/coronavir...ovid-19-study/

We are talking about activities that are likely to create spread here, something like concerts and movie theaters and sporting events where large groups may be gathering together is a better comparison due to this. I would agree that a % with a maximum amount allowed may be better than just a total number (depending on size/distancing capabilities) but that isn't really specific to religion/church it would be an issue with the order placed in general. The restrictions on Churches fall in line with other activities closer suited to what happens there which will be different than other businesses without the same risk factors.

As was covered churches are placed in a category based on what they provide and the risk it poses. They are fighting to be treated like different things such as places that provide food or Nasty used school as an example (although a school in NY was moved to all remote with no one claiming its against the constitution).

---

but see that's where the disagreement comes in.....allowing a bar to have 25% capacity (and close at 10pm now) while not allowing a church service at 25%.....I mean, it's silly to even tell them 10-25 people for a limit, just tell them no in-person service at all at that point.

Cuomo HIMSELF said the bulk of the current spread is coming from bars, restaurants, gyms, and home gatherings....no mention of a church service as a primary spread source. So of COURSE a church is going to fight to be treated like other places when the governor suggests places he's allowing 25% capacity are bigger spreaders. Not every church provides online services and not every parishioner has the ability to access services that are.

So maybe that's where the disconnect is here- people think I'm asking for churches to be placed in a special category to get fewer restrictions when I'm really saying they should NOT be in a special category that causes MORE restrictions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spliff(TONE)

This is really your idea of an intelligent response? As per usual, you are a complete waste of time and laughably clueless about the very subjects you pretend to be an expert on.

Not a single person attended a Giants game this entire season (other than a small spattering of media members and club employees....aka zero paying fans). Two playoff series in Arlington, Texas between the Dodgers, Braves, and Rays were literally the only games open to fans this entire season.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_asNhzXq72w

---

So my point of places opening up with safety measures in place stands, correct?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

No, you do. I have been saying that if other places are allowed to open with safety protocol intact then the church should to allowed to do so as well. Me and sitewolf have both very clearly said this numerous times.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

Then when questioned which places you chose something much different than a church while acknowledging that gyms should have different restrictions due to circumstances around it... Oh and schools.

Cmon you will get there eventually!

It's almost like not every business will be treated the exact same and the restrictions on churches were also applied to many similar businesses/events as has been covered plenty now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crovash

WhoTF is banning church?

---

Don't mind him. He doesn't even know what he's arguing for or arguing against, yet continues to pat himself on the back for being the man with all the answers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

No it's not. I said if a church has proper safety in place they should be allowed to operate. If someone is opposing this, they are trying to temporarily ban church.

It's your guys argument, not a strawman.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

Quote the person who said it then, I can wait. You won't because it was an obvious strawman you made up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

but see that's where the disagreement comes in.....allowing a bar to have 25% capacity (and close at 10pm now) while not allowing a church service at 25%.....I mean, it's silly to even tell them 10-25 people for a limit, just tell them no in-person service at all at that point.

.

---

Agreed.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spliff(TONE)

This is really your idea of an intelligent response? As per usual, you are a complete waste of time and laughably clueless about the very subjects you pretend to be an expert on.

Not a single person attended a Giants game this entire season (other than a small spattering of media members and club employees....aka zero paying fans). Two playoff series in Arlington, Texas between the Dodgers, Braves, and Rays were literally the only games open to fans this entire season.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_asNhzXq72w

---

that's already near 100 people total between players, coaches, umpires, and media, yes? Do they not count towards 'a gathering'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

. Not every church provides online services and not every parishioner has the ability to access services that are.

---

Well if not having credit cards and internet is the reason to keeps grocery stores open, then I guess that applies to church as well, lol.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

I have supported and defended the stance that if churches operate safely with distances they should be allowed to open. You and everyone else here is saying they shouldn't. Me and sitewolf are holding them to the same standard as any other business, you guys are asking for special statis for churches to be given no option to remain open regardless of what safety precautions they implement.

Think about it.

Again, somehow you guys are not understanding plain and simple English. It's the atheist effect. It got Richard dawkins and itll get you if you're not careful. It is very simple, if a place can safely stay open, they should be afforded that opportunity. Every single business and entity in america is approached as such, there is no reason to exclude churches from this approach.

You comprehend what I am saying, right? I am saying everything should based off of science and stats, not some stupid atheist agenda.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

Hilariously off-base and hopelessly lost once again. How many times do you need to be told that no one here is arguing that churches should be shut down?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngopher35

Quote the person who said it then, I can wait. You won't because it was an obvious strawman you made up

---

Quote someone saying churches shouldn't be allowed to open?

You don't think I can do that?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

Read this thread buddy..

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

:facepalm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngopher35

Then when questioned which places you chose something much different than a church while acknowledging that gyms should have different restrictions due to circumstances around it... Oh and schools.

Cmon you will get there eventually!

It's almost like not every business will be treated the exact same and the restrictions on churches were also applied to many similar businesses/events as has been covered plenty now.

---

How many people have been gathered at an NFL game? Or a MLB game? C'mon, you'll get there eventually! :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mike_noodles

I guess that's me... If we're shutting down everything that is non-essential, they should be on the list of non-essential things.

---

Okay, so one person here is suggesting we shut down all non-essential establishments. Having said that, is it safe to assume that you don't think these church's livestreams should also be shut down?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngopher35

Then when questioned which places you chose something much different than a church while acknowledging that gyms should have different restrictions due to circumstances around it... Oh and schools.

Cmon you will get there eventually!

It's almost like not every business will be treated the exact same and the restrictions on churches were also applied to many similar businesses/events as has been covered plenty now.

---

So if churches are treated the same, that means you agree they should be allowed to open if its within the parameters if science and stats?

If you do, then what the hell are we arguing about?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

but see that's where the disagreement comes in.....allowing a bar to have 25% capacity (and close at 10pm now) while not allowing a church service at 25%.....I mean, it's silly to even tell them 10-25 people for a limit, just tell them no in-person service at all at that point.

Cuomo HIMSELF said the bulk of the current spread is coming from bars, restaurants, gyms, and home gatherings....no mention of a church service as a primary spread source. So of COURSE a church is going to fight to be treated like other places when the governor suggests places he's allowing 25% capacity are bigger spreaders. Not every church provides online services and not every parishioner has the ability to access services that are.

So maybe that's where the disconnect is here- people think I'm asking for churches to be placed in a special category to get fewer restrictions when I'm really saying they should NOT be in a special category that causes MORE restrictions.

---

It is different for places that serve food and are generally not full of people singing without masks on etc. as that study noted the risk is very high with church services for various reasons. The reasons there are differences is because you are talking about very different services not similar ones, they are in a different category for reasons around being essential and the risk posed as was covered and those that are deemed similar have the same restrictions on churches they have not been singled out.

I generally would agree with you on limiting those places more anyways though but it isn't really relevant to the singling out of churches aspect. Churches singled themselves out as deserving of the most lax restrictions, regardless of the risk factors or services provided which is based on expert health opinion. They are fighting to be treated like places they are not as similar to. I would expect a sports fan to fight for in person attendance if they care more about sports than the health of others in the surrounding area but I won't agree that they should be granted it.

It's the same argument though and it is asking for special treatment because only services deemed as essential fall into lesser restrictions. That special label is what is being argued for in order to be given special ability other similar businesses aren't. The argument on if something should be given certain treatment based on risk factors and expert health opinion compared to basing it on if a group wants to go to church or a sporting event or a concert isn't the same level of validity imo. I think that is the main argument here is most say listen to the experts and place it with similar businesses, you guys disagree with that approach but haven't really explained why it should be with logic.