Current disappointingly low Mass attendance

[Elf01]

Hm, ok. Do you in which countries that has happened?

Sioux Falls Catholic Diocese becomes first in nation to lift mass attendance dispensation

Leaders of the Sioux Falls Catholic Diocese have lifted its pandemic-based dispensation on attending public mass, becoming the first Catholic diocese in the United States to do so.

www.dakotanewsnow.com

 

[whatistrue]

The guy was 74, and thus at risk. That is no reflection on the efficacy or lack thereof of a mask.

Since he didn’t use a mask, he didn’t give it a chance to work. I tend to dislike stating the obvious, but no precautions work if they are not taken. Perhaps if he hadn’t acted as if the virus didn’t really exist, like far too many people in the country, he would have taken some precautions and possibly not caught it.

 

[Socrates92]

Since he didn’t use a mask, he didn’t give it a chance to work. I tend to dislike stating the obvious, but no precautions work if they are not taken. Perhaps if he hadn’t acted as if the virus didn’t really exist, like far too many people in the country, he would have taken some precautions and possibly not caught it.

I agree. But nothing in there is in logical contradiction with anything I said. The question was about the efficacy of masks as a precaution, not whether some sort of precaution should have been taken for an at-risk person.

 

[whatistrue]

The question was about the efficacy of masks as a precaution,

No, there was a statement about refusing to be bullied by people who insist that they are not necessary, but my understanding of the point of the entire passage leans more towards the later part about people who claim it is some sort of social control. So your post was not in response to a question about efficacy at all.

 

[Socrates92]

No, there was a statement about refusing to be bullied by people who insist that they are not necessary, but my understanding of the point of the entire passage leans more towards the later part about people who claim it is some sort of social control. So your post was not in response to a question about efficacy at all.

Claiming that it is a form of social control implies that it is not about protection. If it did provide some protection against the virus, than the social control hypothesis would hold less water.

hard-nosed people who insist that masks are unnecessary, who insinuate that the severity of the risk is exaggerated, and who further insinuate that it is an attempt to impose social control. Look at what happened to Herman Cain — not saying that he was one of these people, but he went to the rally, and he didn’t wear a mask.

As you can see, the statement I was replying to clearly implied that masks provide some sort of protection.

 

[pnewton]

I don’t think you would be obliged, even if the bishop did reinstate it. We all have different levels of risk we can tolerate, and the legitimate reasons for missing Mass on Sunday are more liberal than people generally think they are.

The one case I know of so far has exempted a lot of people who would be at risk. One option for a someone who did not meet the strict criteria of exemption would be to talk to the priest and get a dispensation from him. That is always an option, and I cannot imagine a priest that did not take a threat of life, or even fear of that threat, seriously.

My priest has already had COVID. He is most understanding. I do not have the luxury of staying home, but boy do I take it seriously using every precaution I can think of. Instead of resenting those who withdraw, I am grateful. Viral spread is a numbers game. A few percentages off here from some staying at home, a few points up here from better masks, a larger percentage of people wearing masks, and we can save more lives.

It is like we are steering an iceberg with a thousand paddles.

 

[whatistrue]

the statement I was replying to clearly implied that masks provide some sort of protection.

And as you can see, it was not a question as you styled it to be. And yes, masks do provide some level of protection, primarily for those around the wearer. Not perfect, no, but some. And the social control hypothesis holds about as much water as a sieve already.

 

[Socrates92]

And as you can see, it was not a question as you styled it to be.

? I’m not sure what you mean. I was replying to the point (topic, question, whatever synonymn you want to use) about the efficacy of masks.

And as you can see, it was not a question as you styled it to be. And yes, masks do provide some level of protection

There is very little evidence for that.

primarily for those around the wearer.

The original point was about whether the wearer himself was afforded some sort of protection, as he was the one that died from Covid.

And the social control hypothesis holds about as much water as a sieve already.

What’s implausible about it? You don’t see any motive for it whatsoever?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Thanks for posting that ad, HomeschoolDad. I had one like that that somebody had given me some time ago, and I’m going to order a package now.

They’re pretty good. About as airtight as a mask could possibly be, and about as comfortable as a mask can get. I’m still on my first one. I only change them out when they get too offensive to wear anymore.

HomeschoolDad:

And I refuse to be bullied by all the hard-nosed people who insist that masks are unnecessary, who insinuate that the severity of the risk is exaggerated, and who further insinuate that it is an attempt to impose social control.

How is such an insistence a case of “bullying”?

Treating you like you’re a dupe (or, worse, willing fellow-traveler) of the One-World-Order, or whatever, that is perpetrating social control and a massive hoax to take over the world and enslave us all. Some livelier versions of this moral panic have us being injected with biometric vaccines that will interface with the 5G network, and similar creative writing.

Excuse me, I’ve lost my tin hat and have to go see where it is…

HomeschoolDad:

Look at what happened to Herman Cain

The guy was 74, and thus at risk. That is no reflection on the efficacy or lack thereof of a mask.

Masks don’t work or fail to work based upon the age of the wearer.

HomeschoolDad:

hard-nosed people who insist that masks are unnecessary, who insinuate that the severity of the risk is exaggerated, and who further insinuate that it is an attempt to impose social control. Look at what happened to Herman Cain — not saying that he was one of these people, but he went to the rally, and he didn’t wear a mask.

As you can see, the statement I was replying to clearly implied that masks provide some sort of protection.

It’s like the old joke about the tiger repellent — “have you seen any tigers around here lately?”.

I’ve been wearing a mask in public for seven months now, and haven’t gotten sick yet. If it’s okay with everyone else, I think I’ll continue wearing the mask for the foreseeable future, thank you.

 

[Socrates92]

Socrates92:

HomeschoolDad:

And I refuse to be bullied by all the hard-nosed people who insist that masks are unnecessary, who insinuate that the severity of the risk is exaggerated, and who further insinuate that it is an attempt to impose social control.

How is such an insistence a case of “bullying”?

Treating you like you’re a dupe (or, worse, willing fellow-traveler) of the One-World-Order, or whatever, that is perpetrating social control and a massive hoax to take over the world and enslave us all. Some livelier versions of this moral panic have us being injected with biometric vaccines that will interface with the 5G network, and similar creative writing.

Excuse me, I’ve lost my tin hat and have to go see where it is…

… still didn’t answer the question. Unless you’re using some weird progressive “micro-aggression” definition of “bullying” where anyone holding an opinion you don’t like is labelled a bully.

Masks don’t work or fail to work based upon the age of the wearer.

I never implied that they did. You are the one that was assuming the mask would have made some sort of difference. The argument is circular. You were using the fact that someone got sick and died as evidence that your pet method would have prevented the death. When, overwhelmingly, the scientific literature has been at best skeptical of that idea right up until about April, when the CDC decided to do a 180 and start recommending them. Even most mask apologists admit that they probably offer, at best, minimal protection.

It’s like the old joke about the tiger repellent — “have you seen any tigers around here lately?”.

Agreed. This whole mask thing seems exactly like the tiger repellent. Anyone who doesn’t get sick can credit the face diapers.

I think I’ll continue wearing the mask for the foreseeable future, thank you.

Go for it. You’re welcome. I’ll continue to criticize the decision for the foreseeable future as well.

 

[c4csp]

Yes, it is happening in most parishes, except maybe a bit less in more traditional parishes. Many are not coming back. We must prepare for what Jesus told us would happen. It is all coming down. We need to have faith because our Church is heading for very rough times. Just stay faithful.

 

[pnewton]

I have to add a plug for continued support for one’s parish. If one’s giving drops over not attending Mass, there is a lack of understanding about why we support the work of God financially. Giving will drop because of economic times as it is. Those without that economic hardship have to stay true.

 

[whatistrue]

I was replying to the point (topic, question, whatever synonymn you want to use) about the efficacy of masks.

The point, at least as I understood it (and I am more than willing for the poster to correct me if I am mistaken), was not actually about the efficacy of masks per se, but about people yammering about it and trying to get people to follow their own brand of “logic”.

There is very little evidence for that.

Only if you ignore the mountains of evidence that are actually there.

What’s implausible about it? You don’t see any motive for it whatsoever?

I don’t see any purpose to it, or how it would even begin to achieve the purported goal. How is wearing a mask being controlled? It is no more a violation of your freedoms to be required to wear a mask in public during a pandemic than it is a violation of your freedoms to require you to wear clothes in public at any time.

 

[AngelaMarie]

I know in my diocese, people who are at high risk, which includes our seniors, who are a big part of our parish, are encouraged not to attend for their own safety. We have had over 30 deaths in our parish due to COVID.

IMHO, I think our parish members are being wise in staying away for their own safety sake.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Socrates92:

Treating you like you’re a dupe (or, worse, willing fellow-traveler) of the One-World-Order, or whatever, that is perpetrating social control and a massive hoax to take over the world and enslave us all. Some livelier versions of this moral panic have us being injected with biometric vaccines that will interface with the 5G network, and similar creative writing.

Excuse me, I’ve lost my tin hat and have to go see where it is…

… still didn’t answer the question. Unless you’re using some weird progressive “micro-aggression” definition of “bullying” where anyone holding an opinion you don’t like is labelled a bully.

If someone suggests that I am aiding and abetting the forces of evil by wearing a mask, and urging others to do so, then, yes, I think that could fall under the rubric of “bullying”. But even if that analogy fails, for someone to breathe freely into the open air, the air I am going to be breathing as well, and for that person possibly to be contagious without even being aware of it, then call it “bullying”, call it whatever you will, if that’s not an assault upon my person, then I don’t know what is.

I never implied that they did. You are the one that was assuming the mask would have made some sort of difference. The argument is circular. You were using the fact that someone got sick and died as evidence that your pet method would have prevented the death.

A well-made mask is rated to block out 95% of all particles. Assuming that breathing in one of the particles that killed him was the cause of Herman Cain’s death, then his chances of breathing in that particle would have been 95% less.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/sep/16/after-balking-at-masks-pastor-and-church-staff-in-/

If I had to guess, I’d say that this pastor, and his congregation, skew kind of conservative and/or libertarian. There is a long, wide streak of anti-government and anti-restraint-by-outside-forces thinking among many conservative religionists of all stripes. And North Idaho, res ipsa loquitur.

Having hung out with many traditionalist Catholics, I know whereof I speak.

 

[pnewton]

On a side note, as intensive care is quite expensive, if some part of the money to pay for this came from tax-payer funds, then this is the business of everyone who helped pay for this foolishness. In fact, if on of these pastors acts against current directives, even if there is no criminal penalty, then the state would have cause for suit against him and his church to recover the money on the behalf of the tax-payers.

I see it only becoming obvious later, but violating orders, maybe even violating recommendations, that result illness that cost the tax-payers, will be a civil liability. I am thinking of Grace Community Church.