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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

What specifically would this do for them? and in turn on spread? One thing is capacity goes from 10% to 25%, what else..?

How does this spread compare to other essential and non essential business spread?

I see the semantics of why you're complaining about this, but what's the substance of why you're complaining?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

It would change the requirements they have to follow on how many people are allowed inside. I think from 10 to 25 people to 10 to 25 percent? Not completely sure on all the specifics this changing label would do for them.

The label determines the capacity allowed for essential vs non essential (your label as essential means you don't have to follow the stricter guidelines). I believe the issue is they used percentages on the essential businesses at time like restaurants and used a capped number like 10 people or 25 people for non essential.

The substance issue is that churches should not get special labeling due to non scientific reasoning in a pandemic. There should be valid reasoning to label it as essential business with less restrictions but none has actually been given yet by anyone here. There have been multiple studies on high spread risks and examples of super spreader events coming from churches. It isn't providing food or a need to live and doesn't require in person meeting/can be done remotely. I see no scientific reasoning provided and most people ignoring the risk factors/differences when making comparisons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngopher35

It isn't semantics when the label has specific requirements that need to be followed depending on which label you have the requirements may be different. Part of that evaluation is done in the essential vs non essential labeling (what is the service, what is the risk factors etc). In labeling it non essential there was likely consideration of the risk larger church gatherings have cause.

Not needing to take place in person is not shutting it down lol. You need to follow the conversation yourself and start quoting people when you make these claims. Multiple people have seen you making things up/putting words in their mouth not just me. That you then tell others to follow the conversation when you can't even follow it/make things up is ridiculous.

It is important in that the restrictions that go along with the labels differ. That is reality. You can't just ignore reality if it doesn't fit your narrative. Each industry will also have their own specific regulations sure that is also part of the point others have been making (it's different than restaurants for example).

---

When me and sitewolf both clearly state that we are talking about it in comparison to other places that are open, and I add onto my opinion by saying it comes down to the ACTUAL SPREAD, then you circling back to essential vs non essential is semantics.

This is why Pakis can't argue with white people, lol! I just don't know that game the way you guys do, and it convolutes literally every argument mngopher is involved in.

Don't talk to me about quotes, you said no one is saying churches should be shut down, and I referred to exactly which post I would quote referring to churches not needing to be open, and you changed your tune real quick.

That's right.

If churches can safely operate under essential business restrictions, then what is there to complain about? If they can't, then they shouldn't. Hell, if they can't safely operate under NON essential, then they shouldn't do that either.

To me it doesn't matter what label you want to give it, all that matters is the science and the spread, not the semantics.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngopher35

It would change the requirements they have to follow on how many people are allowed inside. I think from 10 to 25 people to 10 to 25 percent? Not completely sure on all the specifics this changing label would do for them.

The label determines the capacity allowed for essential vs non essential (your label as essential means you don't have to follow the stricter guidelines). I believe the issue is they used percentages on the essential businesses at time like restaurants and used a capped number like 10 people or 25 people for non essential.

The substance issue is that churches should not get special labeling due to non scientific reasoning in a pandemic. There should be valid reasoning to label it as essential business with less restrictions but none has actually been given yet by anyone here. There have been multiple studies on high spread risks and examples of super spreader events coming from churches. It isn't providing food or a need to live and doesn't require in person meeting/can be done remotely. I see no scientific reasoning provided and most people ignoring the risk factors/differences when making comparisons.

---

Ok, so if a church is huge and can house 25 people all beyond 6ft distance along with other distance protocol, so what? Why should we label it non essential? If it can easily and safely operate under essential guidelines then so what?

lol at your studies. Your talking about churches where they sing and trying to apply that across the board. That's like treating every restaurant like the strip club that serves food, cmon man.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

When me and sitewolf both clearly state that we are talking about it in comparison to other places that are open, and I add onto my opinion by saying it comes down to the ACTUAL SPREAD, then you circling back to essential vs non essential is semantics.

This is why Pakis can't argue with white people, lol! I just don't know that game the way you guys do, and it convolutes literally every argument mngopher is involved in.

Don't talk to me about quotes, you said no one is saying churches should be shut down, and I referred to exactly which post I would quote referring to churches not needing to be open, and you changed your tune real quick.

That's right.

If churches can safely operate under essential business restrictions, then what is there to complain about? If they can't, then they shouldn't. Hell, if they can't safely operate under NON essential, then they shouldn't do that either.

To me it doesn't matter what label you want to give it, all that matters is the science and the spread, not the semantics.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

You guys are trying to use a single comparison of something that others don't even agree with as legitimate reasoning.

Stop assuming there is some weird game, actually read what other people are saying. That might be the issue.

That post didn't say churches should be shut down lol. You are the one playing the games...

The issue is can states enforce laws that place churches with other similar non essential businesses in order to restrict mass gatherings. I believe they should be able to as long as they are grouped with similar things/risks and there is reasoning behind it (this pandemic). For example if a black woman business owner claimed she is being discriminated against because her business isn't labeled essential but a white business owners in a totally different industry/situation is I don't think that is actually discrimination nor is it valid reason to lift the restrictions because of a protected class. The reason for the restrictions isn't to discriminate against a protected class it is standards within a pandemic created for all businesses/organizations to follow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

Ok, so if a church is huge and can house 25 people all beyond 6ft distance along with other distance protocol, so what? Why should we label it non essential? If it can easily and safely operate under essential guidelines then so what?

lol at your studies. Your talking about churches where they sing and trying to apply that across the board. That's like treating every restaurant like the strip club that serves food, cmon man.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

Why should anything that can safely operate under good guidelines be labeled one way or the other with more or less restrictions? It doesn't matter, that isn't how it is done this is about how NY is actually doing their restrictions and churches shouldn't be exempt.

Yes, that is what is happening in NY they have across the board standards for different industries. You even mentioned this being alright with gyms. It isn't a case by case thing, you seem to not get that. That isn't church specific that is every industry, churches being treated this way would be special in comparison...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbroncos78087

Was this meant to make people laugh? Because I’m cracking up.

---

You've always been an easily amused weirdo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngopher35

Stop assuming there is some weird game, actually read what other people are saying. That might be the issue.

That post didn't say churches should be shut down lol. You are the one playing the games...

---

Here are quotes for you, this is what people had said in regards to churches not needing to be open. Comprende?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crovash

Churches, synagogues, and mosques can do their essential outreach services — either by means of financial support or volunteerism — without congregating.

.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GasMan

How is in person service essential? Does god not hear you in your house? Lots of musicians are claiming in person concerts are essential and movie theaters think in person movies are essential. Art and religion are important but can be performed/consumed in your home.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GasMan

What’s Ross? The point you are missing is that none of this is safe. It’s all risk mitigation. Masks and social distancing reduce the risk not eliminate it. Some things are worth accepting that risk, like groceries, some are not, like praying and singing hymnals in the same room.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GasMan

You can be a fully adherent person of faith without leaving your home.

---

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.

---

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbroncsinmo

You've always been an easily amused weirdo.

---

Please explain this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngopher35

Why should anything that can safely operate under good guidelines be labeled one way or the other with more or less restrictions? It doesn't matter, that isn't how it is done this is about how NY is actually doing their restrictions and churches shouldn't be exempt.

Yes, that is what is happening in NY they have across the board standards for different industries. You even mentioned this being alright with gyms. It isn't a case by case thing, you seem to not get that. That isn't church specific that is every industry, churches being treated this way would be special in comparison...

---

Ok, so if that across the board label stops churches from safely operating to their potential, then I agree they should be labeled essential.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbroncos78087

Please explain this.

---

You're easily amused and you're a weirdo. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

Here are quotes for you, this is what people had said in regards to churches not needing to be open. Comprende?




















Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

Alright I hadn't seen that bottom one, not sure how he meant it.

The others are saying have it be remote though not shutting it down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GasMan

This is a cop out. The majority of the discussion has been about designation of religious services relative to the recent SCOTUS ruling. Because those of us who are arguing that we don’t think people need to physically be in the same room together to worship during a global pandemic doesn’t mean we are trying to shut down churches. I also don’t think people need to physically stand together in a Bed Bath and Beyond during a global pandemic, I’m not anti-housewares either.

---

Here for example he is straight up telling you that isn't what he means yet you quoted him multiple times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

Ok, so if that across the board label stops churches from safely operating to their potential, then I agree they should be labeled essential.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

Great but you still haven't provided any scientific reasoning you had previously talked about. What makes in person service essential and not a risk given the factors involved and studies provided? That's the part that has yet to be provided by anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngopher35

Alright I hadn't seen that bottom one, not sure how he meant it.

The others are saying have it be remote though not shutting it down.



Here for example he is straight up telling you that isn't what he means yet you quoted him multiple times.

---

He is saying he wants them to close down, but not stop operating, be that remotely or whatever..

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

He is saying he wants them to close down, but not stop operating, be that remotely or whatever..

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

Not having in person gatherings is not the same as shutting it down to most people. If that's what you meant it's just semantics then anyways. Yes people think it is something that can be done remotely if other similar things are restricted to that level in said area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngopher35

Great but you still haven't provided any scientific reasoning you had previously talked about. What makes in person service essential and not a risk given the factors involved and studies provided? That's the part that has yet to be provided by anyone.

---

What makes it essential? The same opinion which declares any other entity essential. Meaning this is all a matter of opinion.

What risk factors are involved at my local mosque? All traffic is directed in one direction, everyone wears as mask, everyone stands 6 ft apart and holds their belongings on them so as not to congregate when gathering them later. About 150 people do this once a week. Whats the risk factor here?

The issue is, like most of psd, you don't fully grip science and what it is, so you link an article and start making arguments off it which are much much weaker than you realize. I fully understand science, I understand it forward, backward, and upside down. You guys can barely read it forward, forget backwards and upside down. Its rough watching you guys think you know what you're talking about, lol.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk