“the current debate over masks is ... currently the most obvious reflection of our idolization of liberty.”

"Community post-Enlightenment serves me now, not the other way around. The all important 'I.' In a word, our much beloved individualism. Some of you probably have calendars, t-shirts, and coffee mugs touting individualism’s tenets that tell you that you have the right to be happy, achieve your dreams, define yourself however you want, and live your best life now, among other distillations of secularism’s priority of the individual." - John Ellis

2171 reads

There are 48 Comments

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

John, I don't fault you for your passion on this, but I also don't think it helps. The debate already suffers from too much heat and not enough reason. We would benefit from a bit more enlightenment reason vs. post-enlightenment (or later-enlightenment) romanticism.

... which takes me to your enlightenment analysis. There's a lot of thought there, and I appreciate that, but there's something missing. Rousseau, for example, went on to promote collectivism (https://www.britannica.com/topic/collectivism). Bentham, and Mill and others--kind of the grandchildren of the Enlightenment--developed a vision of society in which in which enlightened elites engineer what's best for the society as a whole, at the cost of individual liberty.

So... much of the push back we're seeing on masks (as well as keeping schools closed, applying restrictions to churches, etc.) is rooted in anti-collectivist and anti-elitist populism (the latter is redundant... all populism is anti-elitist, but I wanted to focus on that part of it.)

Worldview wise, the idolatry vs. "kingdom ethics" clash is more complex than you've portrayed here because there are flavors of both individualist and collectivist idoloatry. It's just as easy to idolize the emotion of the crowd as it is to exalt the reason (or emotion) of the individual in ways that are contrary to Christian ethics.

So, I don't think the framing works.

What does work, I think, is recognizing that the Evangelical Christian mind is a stew of both biblical and cultural ideas -- theology and philosophy and folk philosophy -- and it's a huge challenge to step back and look at ideas notion by notion and try to bring them into captivity to the obedience of Christ. 

But difficult or not, that is our calling.   ... and I appreciate your efforts to do that.

A word of advice on persuasive strategy: in our current climate, everybody seems to come out swinging and nobody seems to listen anybody. I don't claim to have a cure for that but maybe people listen a little more if we start out softly? (Prov 15.1)

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

pvawter's picture

Welp, John has read 60 papers. That means we must listen to his expertise or we're sinning. Clearly this is the final word on the subject, and we can put our concerns to rest. I, for one, am thankful that I need not concern myself with disagreements on this subject any longer, now that the science is settled.

TylerR's picture

Editor

The article is very angry. I wear a mask when I go out in public.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

I've been trying to decide if the pushback on masks (the versions I've encountered personally, and a smattering of written episodes) is mostly built on philosophy/worldview, as John argues, or is more a problem of habits of thought... or some combination of the two.

I definitely get the feeling at times that a difference in worldview is involved to some extent. An example is that I don't see a person who is on the wrong side of lots of issues politically as some sort of nonhuman embodiment of pure evil, incapable of ordinary human motivations... and the highly politicized voices I hear on both the right and the left routinely make claims that require that as an assumption.

For example, if a governor is pro-abortion, she can't possibly issue a health-related restriction that she sincerely hopes will save lives.

So the thinking goes.

This is not my worldview...  at least, the part of my worldview I'll lump under the heading "anthropology," doesn't look at my fellow human beings that way, especially leaders who have very difficult decisions to make with always-inadequate information.

Maybe I'm wrong to see left-leaning, pro-abortion leaders as ordinary people who happen to be wrong about some things.

I think I'm happier though. I'm free to not be constantly angry, constantly assuming evil is afoot (as opposed to just dumb mistakes), constantly seeing hideous ugliness in people that might just be good people with some large and unfortunate blind spots.

The haste to see leaders with issues as evil people is especially rich when it comes form individuals who think Trump is mostly an OK guy... or even a really good president.

When that happens it hits me hard. We do not have the same worldview.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

But the mask debate is over now, anyway...

Trump tweets photo of himself wearing coronavirus mask: 'nobody more Patriotic than me' (Fox)

Now the populists and nationalists et al. all have permission from their Dear Leader to accept masks.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Andrew K's picture

I've mentioned before with John's writings on masks, I think he's completely missing the target. At most, the anti-mask typically reaction represents a failure of trust in our institutions ("elite" institutions, as has been pointed out above) more than a worked-out, idolatrous philosophy. And there's plenty of blame to spread around on that front. I don't know of a single person out there saying, "Yeah, I know I could be killing people by not wearing a mask, but stinks to be them. Beer?" Certainly not a Christian person. I've seen plenty falling into conspiracy theories. You can accuse them of bad faith or stupidity, but please realize one of those is necessarily prior to an accusation of sin.

At any rate, I get the impression John is trying to shortcut the political discussion by finding a "Biblical" political position. I'm sorry, you don't get to go there. God hasn't seen fit to give us a handbook for politics. Christians can endorse a (limited) range of positions as consistent with Biblical truth. I'm sorry if that's messy, and doesn't allow you to browbeat your neighbors into your POV, but we'd best not be wiser than God on this. Like the sciences, medicine, etc., He's left us a lot of the work to hammer out how best to order a society.

As for the Reformed not holding a position to satisfy his "evolving" political inclinations... if they don't, I'm not sure who would. The Reformed tradition currently accommodates a very broad range of political persuasions, from Two Kingdoms, Transformationalist/neo-Kuyperian, "Ordinary-Means-Of-Grace," etc. The only other game in town is Rome or EO (Anabaptists aren't playing -- at least, not since Munster).

WallyMorris's picture

Private business (i.e. not gov't owned) has the right to set policies for their business, such as "no shirt, no shoes, no service" or "no smoking inside building". Although I am not a fan of masks, I will wear a mask inside a business that requires it, then take the mask off when I am outside. If I do not like the policy, I do not have to shop at that business. Gov't requirements always create disagreement, and that disagreement doesn't always mean that people are making liberty an idol. Many concerns are based on nothing more than wishing to protect liberty, not worship it. Large gov't and the regulations it produces inevitably produce inconsistency. For example: Consider a disease which is very contagious with serious consequences, requiring medication to control the disease and symptoms. The disease spreads through personal contact, yet the gov't does not require/mandate that anyone do anything, although the gov't does have education programs about the disease. What is the disease? Sexually Transmitted Disease or, when I was growing up, venereal disease. The comparison with the covid virus is not perfect but similar enough to consider/wonder why the gov't & media are so focused on one but not the other.

Wally Morris

Charity Baptist Church

Huntington, IN

amomentofcharity.blogspot.com

Bert Perry's picture

My daughter's father-in-law is a pathologist at Mayo--so perhaps the thoughts I've received from him count as somewhat authoritative--and there are any number of questions that haven't been totally answered yet.  For starters, there's a question of whether you really can get herd immunity for a coronavirus--you can get pretty much the same cold again and again and again, and for whatever reason, it's not that common to get secondary, permanent immunity with coronavirii.  We know we can see antibodies about 3 months out, but those are the primary ones.  Is a vaccine even possible for this?  They do it for veterinary, but not humans, so far.

But if you can get permanent immunity, does it make more sense to stomp it out, or is it too late, and would it be better if we all went to "Camp COVID" to deliberately get the disease--at least all of us who are healthy?  

Regarding masks, the question is "in what context?"  Inside makes a lot more sense than outside, but even there, you've got the question of whether people are using the mask as if it were impervious to the disease--and then they ignore social distancing because "they've got their mask on", well, except they don't have it over their nose half the time, so it's really not doing much good unless...they have a nasty cold and shouldn't be out in public to begin with, I dare say.

At this point, what I can say for sure is that Christian love ought to include some steps to protect the most vulnerable, and those are the aged and those with metabolic syndrome--obesity, high blood pressure/sugar, size of your waist.  So we would infer that staying away from the aged when possible, using protective gear when not, and....encouraging people to drop a few pounds and take care of their blood pressure and sugar.  And of course, pray that it doesn't do what many suggest the Spanish flu did--mutate so that it attacks the young more than the aged.

Put differently, though there are a ton of things I don't think we know for sure here, I'm amenable to John's thesis, but with a couple additions and modifications.  

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

Comparison "not perfect" is an understatement... but there are similarities.

What I'm seeing a lot is crossing over the fine line between questioning government on these things vs. a spirit of rebellion. And sometimes, it seems, a crossing over the line from concern for liberty to idolizing of liberty. I don't think John's wrong that this happens. It's just that there are other thought processes involved also.

On the other end, you have pro-mask folks who are driven by concern to help people avoid the disease etc., but some are motivated by idolization of government or wokeness or "the liberal social narrative" or what have you.  So...  isn't it human nature that when it comes to motives, you're always going to have some who are right for the wrong reasons and wrong for the right reasons?

Matt 7:1 comes to mind.... and 7:2, or wherever the part is that talks about the kind of standard we use to judge others ends up being the sort of standard we get judged by.

Of the two, it might be better to be wrong for the right reasons.

...discussion by finding a "Biblical" political position. I'm sorry, you don't get to go there. God hasn't seen fit to give us a handbook for politics. Christians can endorse a (limited) range of positions as consistent with Biblical truth. I'm sorry if that's messy...

It's not as limited as many think. In any case, we're supposed to derive principles from Scripture and apply them to all of life. So the claim that "this is the biblical way to think and act" is a legitimate claim for debate and a legitimate effort, regardless of whether it's "political" or not. There are no excluded categories of thinking and acting Christianly.   So, claiming "this is the biblical position" is not shutting down the debate. It is the debate--for believers. "This is political so there's nothing biblical to say" is shutting down the debate.  (Well, sort of. It's moving the debate back to a different, more fundamental question: What is the Bible good for? Or how do we use it for all of life?)

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Mark_Smith's picture

I am astounded at the thought that in 2020 Americans think not wearing masks to prevent the spread of a novel disease is a symbol of freedom and liberty. They somehow think they are resisting a repressive government... simply amazing and sad at the same time.

Let me edit to add this. There is an article in my local paper by a woman with severe asthma. So bad is her asthma that she says she cannot tolerate a mask... but she wants to still go out and expose herself to a novel virus that causes severe respiratory problems. What is the logic in that? And how come the local city council, county commission, and governor, are "oppressive" for asking her (or requiring her) to wear a mask to save her life which is apparently so fragile?

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

Aaron Blumer wrote:

So, claiming "this is the biblical position" is not shutting down the debate. It is the debate--for believers.

Of course the "biblical position" is to take what the Bible says and apply it to all of life.  We all agree on that.

However, taking your own application, i.e. "wearing a mask == the biblical position" and then assuming it is biblical truth, is indeed shutting down the debate.  It still must be shown to be true, not claimed and then preached as sin.

Dave Barnhart

Mark_Smith's picture

be to obey those that God puts in rule over you for your safety and protection (Heb 13:17 and Romans 13).

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

Mark_Smith wrote:

I am astounded at the thought that in 2020 Americans think not wearing masks to prevent the spread of a novel disease is a symbol of freedom and liberty. They somehow think they are resisting a repressive government... simply amazing and sad at the same time.

Mark, for the great majority, this is not about masks.  It's about trust and being lied to -- about science and a lot more.  If the main reason for telling us NOT to wear masks in the beginning was to preserve them for those who really needed them, why not say so?  Because government doesn't trust us to not run out and purchase them anyway?  And now that we are being told they are necessary, when everyone with half a brain understands that the majority of the cloth masks being used can't actually prevent transmission of virus, even if they can maybe slow down some transmission through fluid droplets, you wonder why people don't just trust what they are being told?  If government really believed that masks worked so well, they'd allow everything to open up if we wore masks.  And you know what, if they would allow life to get back to normal if we wore masks anytime we are around others, I'd sign up for it myself.

Science is also saying that the very young not only don't get very sick (if at all), they also don't transmit the virus much.  That's why in Europe, which is much more socially oriented than we are, the schools are opening.  But we're keeping all of ours completely shut.  What people dislike is the misuse of "science" to take whatever policy position the authorities like.  People are sick and tired of not being told the truth by those in authority.  As long as those in authority continue to behave that way, plan on much of the public telling them to take their masks and stick them where the sun doesn't shine.

Personally, I agree with protecting those who need it.  That's biblical.  I'll avoid getting too close to those at risk, and happily wear a mask for them.  What I'm not going to do is to strap one on my face every single time I go out "just in case."

Dave Barnhart

Mark_Smith's picture

How is it not sheer common sense that wearing a covering over your nose and mouth will do two things: limit how much virus you shed and how much virus you take in.

All the other arguments people make against masks I heard for two decades as to why they didn't wear seat belts, ie it's not comfortable, they're not safe, they don't really help, the government can't make me, I've got my rights... on and on and on.

The "I've got my rights" crowd and the "this is nothing but a bad flu, deal with it" crowd are why I still have not returned to church services inside. Too many who can't help themselves or help others yet think they are the righteous ones.

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

Mark,

I don't know anyone who thinks this is all about "my rights."  I also know very few who think this is nothing but a bad flu.  However, a disease that, except for those at risk by old age or health, is not fatal to somewhere around 99.97% of healthy people doesn't feel to most of us like an emergency we must address as if it were the black plague.

Everything in life is a risk vs. reward calculation.  This is obviously true with something like smoking, that, in spite of good evidence, many people refuse to give up.  But it is also true with something like automobiles.  If you don't own a car, stay away from streets and don't ride in one, your chance of death by automobile is practically none.  However, most of us deem the convenience worth the risk.  When it comes to eating, common sense would tell me to eat more healthy food than I do.  However, I enjoy what I eat.  Do I always go for the highest-calorie, highest-fat and sugar content food I can?  No, but when I want some, I eat it.

On a more voluntary note, I participate in the sport of hang gliding.  Again, if you never hang glide, your chance of that sport killing you is practically none (although I guess one could come down on top of you).  The same could be said for most activities deemed risky, like skydiving, which I've also tried, but not taken up as a sport.  Some won't judge the reward worth the risk, and some will.  I have heard comments from both people who would like to try hang gliding, but can't bring themselves to as well as those who would never do anything like that, and think I'm stupid for doing so.  Common sense would say I don't *need* to hang glide, and it would be right.  But I enjoy it.

Our society has come to the point, where, because people don't believe in life-after-death, death is something to be avoided at all costs.  As a result, it's now trendy, especially among the lecturing classes, to be as risk-averse as possible and to berate the rest of us who don't see life their way.  I mean, how could you NOT wear a mask when there might be some chance it will help (no matter how small)?  I just don't approach life that way, because it's not living.  When God's time for me is up, I'll die.  If my destiny is to die of corona, nothing I do will stop it.  Am I going to tempt fate by going to a "coronavirus party" where I try to get infected?  Of course not, but that's not the same risk level as not wearing a mask every minute of every day.

As I've already stated, I'll wear a mask when I legally (or contractually, like at work) must and when it might help those who are at risk.  Otherwise, I'd rather not.  My choice.  I also attend our church where we have only two regular attenders who do wear masks, and a few visitors who do so.  Everyone else does not, including one Navy widow in her 80's who is completely contemptuous of the idea of hunkering down at home.  We do socially distance, ask those with symptoms or those in risky categories not to come, do not touch each other or have offering plates, disinfect the room after use, and we spread people out on the pews.  Otherwise, we have decided not to live in fear.  We do have one family who hasn't come back yet.  That's their choice.  We don't berate them, or talk bad about them behind their backs, and we do make remote services available.  However, most of our congregation has decided they'd rather be at the worship services, and though we don't discourage it, most have chosen not to wear masks.

I'm sure after everything I've written, you'll still think I'm foolish for how I've decided to approach this.  That is also your choice.  However, those of us who have chosen differently are tired of being lectured to by others, and the more we hear it, the less inclined we are to listen.

Dave Barnhart

Mark_Smith's picture

You think the disease is not dangerous? Then why are 140,000 dead?

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

Try actually reading what I wrote.  Someone with a higher degree than I have should be capable of that.

I didn't say it wasn't dangerous.  I said, it's not very dangerous to people outside of certain categories.  The overall death rate in the U.S. is about 3.6% of known (and that's important) cases.  That means that without regard to heath or age or the actual number of cases, a person has a 96.4% chance of not dying from the disease.  When you take out the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions, the numbers go way down from there.  Death rate of people aged 50-59 (my age group) is only 1.3% or just over 1/3 the full death rate.  That means without accounting for health, my chance of surviving is approximately 98.7%.  Considering comorbidities regardless of age, if one doesn't have any preexisting conditions (and I don't), the death rate is only 0.9%.  Add in age to that, and the fact that we have no idea how many people have actually had this disease undiagnosed, and you will see why I believe my risk from this disease is low.

But then again, with specific exceptions, I also don't get the flu vaccine, in spite of the fact there have been modern flu epidemics (I'm not counting 1918) that have also had a fairly large number of deaths.  The 1957-58 and 1968 pandemics (see CDC) resulted in over 116,000 deaths and over 100,000 deaths in the U.S., with the population of the US being only 170 million and 200 million vs 330 million today.  And those don't count the yearly totals from whichever strain is prevalent.  I have gotten the flu vaccine twice -- once when I was traveling to Asia in February, and once while my wife was undergoing chemo and radiation and was particularly susceptible.  In one case, it was reducing my own risk, and the other was out of love for someone else.  Otherwise, I don't bother, even though I have friends who get it religiously every year.

And anyway, I said I have evaluated the risks for myself.  My wife also evaluates her own risks, as do you.  You can choose to make a different decision than I have made, and we each will deal with our own consequences.  If something happens to me, and I die from Covid, you can say "I told you so."

Dave Barnhart

Bert Perry's picture

....we ought to come up with a list of masks that would be a lot of fun to wear.  My contributions:

1.  Darth Vader

2.  Jason from Friday XIII movies

3.  Phantom of the Opera

4.  MAGA

....maybe get some ideas here, too.  And another one.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Mark_Smith's picture

No need to insult. The summation of your multiple paragraph post, like I have time to read that much, is that in your opinion COVID isn't dangerous enough for most to worry about.

I disagree.

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

Mark_Smith wrote:

No need to insult.

I apologize.  It seemed to me you were misquoting what I said.

Quote:

The summation of your multiple paragraph post, like I have time to read that much...

And that is the problem with most of the views and opinions on Covid.  No one actually wants to read the actual numbers and statistics and try to decipher what that really means about the risks.  The media says it's dangerous, so it must be.  QED.

You are of course, welcome to disagree.  As I said earlier, it's when I get lectured about my view being wrong (without much, if any supporting data) that I get my hackles up.  I have no issues with those who choose to wear masks even in places I don't think they need to (like when I see them wearing masks in their cars).  I have issues when they try to modify my behavior to match theirs.

Dave Barnhart

AndyE's picture

dcbii wrote:
On a more voluntary note, I participate in the sport of hang gliding. 
I really wanted to go hang gliding last summer when we were in Switzerland, but it was sooo expensive for a short ride.

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

AndyE wrote:

dcbii wrote:
On a more voluntary note, I participate in the sport of hang gliding. 

I really wanted to go hang gliding last summer when we were in Switzerland, but it was sooo expensive for a short ride.

I can believe it.  It's like taking a tandem skydive or a ride in a biplane or WWII plane.  Those are always expensive.  I started back in 1996 on the dunes at Jockey's Ridge, NC.  That's a perfect place to learn, because when you crash, you're only 15-20 feet up, you crash in the sand, and you get up and brush yourself off.  But it's a very enjoyable sport.  Like any such pasttime, the equipment is not cheap, but it's worth it to me.  And, it's probably safer than facing mobs of people angry when you don't wear a mask! Smile

Dave Barnhart

Mark_Smith's picture

dcbii wrote:

 

Quote:

 

The summation of your multiple paragraph post, like I have time to read that much...

 

 

And that is the problem with most of the views and opinions on Covid.  No one actually wants to read the actual numbers and statistics and try to decipher what that really means about the risks.  The media says it's dangerous, so it must be.  QED.

dcbii, Just because I'm not going to read your 12 paragraph post closely and analyze your argument line by line does not mean I have not read and studied the numbers. I have. Once again you felt the need to insult me.

I skimmed both your long responses to me. A decent summary of them is you think COVID is not dangerous for almost all people. I disagree.

It is simply obvious that wearing a mask helps you and others. Are they perfect? No. But do they help? Yes.

If you don't want to wear one, fine. But stop acting like they strip you of your rights, or they are dangerous, or that COVID is not a significant disease.

**FYI I have a teenaged child at home with a potential risk to COVID. I am disappointed that my fellow Christians couldn't give a darn about protecting her, instead, ranting about their rights and how the media has blown this all up. So, that is why we have not returned to attending physical church. Too many who don't care about protecting others.

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

Mark_Smith wrote:

dcbii, Just because I'm not going to read your 12 paragraph post closely and analyze your argument line by line does not mean I have not read and studied the numbers. I have. Once again you felt the need to insult me.

I skimmed both your long responses to me. A decent summary of them is you think COVID is not dangerous for almost all people. I disagree.

It is simply obvious that wearing a mask helps you and others. Are they perfect? No. But do they help? Yes.

If you don't want to wear one, fine. But stop acting like they strip you of your rights, or they are dangerous, or that COVID is not a significant disease.

**FYI I have a teenaged child at home with a potential risk to COVID. I am disappointed that my fellow Christians couldn't give a darn about protecting her, instead, ranting about their rights and how the media has blown this all up. So, that is why we have not returned to attending physical church. Too many who don't care about protecting others.

Mark,

You don't have to read what I write at all if you don't want to.  I don't even expect you to read this, since it will be too long.  I just was pointing out that I'm not making the decision I'm making without any facts behind my thinking.

As to "almost all,"  I guess it will depend on what percentage you are thinking.  For myself, I think a 999/1000 chance of surviving is pretty good, and a risk I'm willing to take.  Obviously, even if only 1 out of every 1000 people in the US died, that's too many.  However, although we should never consider any preventable death "acceptable," we know that people die of things every day, many of them from things the rest of us do without thought.  I strongly disagree that all things that can kill people should be made illegal in order to try to prevent something we all know is going to happen eventually anyway to mortal creatures.  Again, a simple risk calculation.

I'm still not arguing that wearing one is "strip[ping me] of [my] rights," nor have I done so.  I've already said I wear one when required, and to help others.  Beyond that, I can't act as if every single person that is out and about is in the high risk category.  Those in that category and those that care for them should take extra precautions, as you are doing, and if the risk is high enough, they shouldn't be out at all, as even if everyone else wears a mask, that won't prevent transmission.  It can only reduce it, and thus those that might be high risk should be evaluating their own risk, and making a decision to stay home if they judge the risk too high, as you are doing in staying away from church.  I'd do the same as you if I had a high-risk person at home.  That's only prudent.  The point is that I don't, and further, that high risk people can't ask the entire world to stop for them.  They need to take their own precautions.  If I were in your position, no matter if everyone in the church wore masks, I wouldn't take a high-risk child to church without her being vaccinated or herd immunity being reached by the community.  But everyone on the planet wearing masks would give me no confidence that my child could come out safely, given we know even N95 masks are not 100% protection.

My whole argument includes the idea that covid is a significant disease (just one I'm not willing to treat like a population-ending plague), and I have NEVER made the claim that masks are dangerous.  I just don't believe the disease is as dangerous as our disaster-porn media are trying to get us to believe, that's all.  Numbers don't lie (unless, of course, we have many more people dying than are being reported, or the major disease organizations are passing along false statistics, which I don't believe).  I'm taking my own risks based on those numbers.

One last time, this isn't about "masks" per se.  But if we take the view that we should stop doing anything that might EVER have any risk, we'll do nothing at all, and at least in my view, that's not living.

“Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.” - Helen Keller

Dave Barnhart

Mark_Smith's picture

Let's say the survival rate is 999/1000, which is your made-up number, but let's use it. What is the hospitalization rate? What is the ICU rate? What is the three-weeks-in-the-hospital rate? What is the medical cost per person? What are the long-term health issues? This isn't just "death."

No need to answer because there is no point for you to. I just want you to consider more than death rates. This COVID is not a mere cold or flu.

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

Mark_Smith wrote:

Too many who don't care about protecting others.

Oh, and one other thing.  Though my wife and I wear masks as little as we can, she personally made over 500 of them (most of which she also bought and paid for the material) for local first responders, our local Christian rescue mission, and family members/relatives who wanted them.  That says nothing at all about me, but it does mean that not all people willing to risk themselves don't care at all about protecting others who need it.

Dave Barnhart

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

Mark_Smith wrote:

Let's say the survival rate is 999/1000, which is your made-up number, but let's use it. What is the hospitalization rate? What is the ICU rate? What is the three-weeks-in-the-hospital rate? What is the medical cost per person? What are the long-term health issues? This isn't just "death."

No need to answer because there is no point for you to. I just want you to consider more than death rates. This COVID is not a mere cold or flu.

Well, the number isn't completely made up, but I would agree it's just an estimation, for which I used facts I've gleaned from CDC and elsewhere, which I posted above.  For healthy people, the overall survival rate is 99.1 %, or 991/1000.  Then factor in the effect of age, and the fact that we don't know the total infection rate, and 999/1000 is not too far off for a usable guess.

But you are correct -- there are more factors involved.  However, not a single one of them convinces me that the biblical position requires me to wear a mask or that I am sinning when I don't, at least as long as I'm following civil law and the biblical admonishments to care for those who need protection.

Dave Barnhart

Pages