Mass obligation (w/mask)

[pnewton]

Where in heaven’s name are you getting that idea?

It’s true, at least in most churches. The point that is missed though is that protecting each other is a numbers game that extends beyond one’s own little circle and selfish needs. If I only have one chance in a thousand of coming in contact with this virus from you, it is unlikely I will catch it. If there are a dozen of people around me in Church, I am not much at risk.

However, the priest that may see a thousand people, or in a diocese where they will see a hundred thousand receive communion, there is a near certainty that the priests will come in contact with infected people. The precautions will prevent that priest or those priests that do give communion to the one who is contagious from catching the virus and spreading it to others.

So far, we have already had one priest die since the outbreak. We do not need to lose more priests, and thus, close more parishes.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

It’s true, at least in most churches.

Except that we don’t have any idea where JulianN’s church or anyone else’s church is located or who goes there. It could be in the middle of a burgeoning “hot spot”. It could have health care workers or meat processing plant workers in the congregation, or in the community surrounding the congregation, who are at higher risk.

We can’t just assume that probably no one around us has the virus so don’t bother with reasonable precautions.

 

[MikeInVA]

We can’t just assume that probably no one around us has the virus so don’t bother with reasonable precautions.

The question I have is when will it be safe to take off the masks? We really haven’t had enough time to properly research this disease and fully understand it (not like we’ve done much better with the flu) so we don’t know what it’s going to do over time. It is likely that it will linger indefinitely in the population. Are we going to wear masks forever?

 

[pnewton]

Are we going to wear masks forever?

I suspect it will be SOP in most places until a vaccine is distributed. After all, transmission through the air seems to be the primary vector.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I would presume when we get a reliable vaccine, then the masks will go away in US society.

We’re also doing a lot of things that will indicate if going without masks is really safe. I see many restaurants around here opening up. The seating here is mostly outside and the “social distancing” is laughable/ non-existent. In other places, restaurants and bars are serving indoors. No one is wearing masks to eat or drink. I honestly think a lot of people are going to get sick.

It’s been common in Japan and some other Asian countries to wear masks frequently, especially during cold and flu season, so they’ll probably keep wearing them as it’s considered polite and culturally appropriate.

 

[dochawk]

. I personally am very uncomfortable wearing them, I get very anxious and experience chest pains.

in all seriousness: try a bandana. I find them far more comfortable than the strings around my ears. (a single loose not behind my head.

As an added. bonus, I have the outfit if I want to take up a career in bank robbery when this is over!
:crazy_face:

 

[otjm]

It is very unlikely that anyone in your church has the virus.

Let’s talk a little about likelihood.

La Grande is a small town in eastern Oregon; population is about 13,340. Eastern Oregon is about 40,000 square miles with a population of about 191,400 scattered over 8 counties (Bend and Klamath Falls are generally excluded from the count).

There was wedding in La Grande recently; people came from Washington and other spots in Oregon.

Out of that wedding, 236 people have come down with the virus, because of lack of social distancing, close quarters, singing, and talking. One wedding in a small town that was essentially Covid 19 free. Oregon has 2,446 confirmed cases to date for the entire state and 101 deaths, the vast majority of it in western Oregon (Willamette Valley) and that one wedding has produced the largest outbreak of infection in the entire state.

One wedding at one small church in one small town. As in, about 10% of all the cases in the entire state, and it is in the most unpopulated area of the state.

From the mayor of the town: La Grande Mayor Steve Clements said after three months and almost no cases, the community — including himself — began to get complacent about the risk posed by the coronavirus.

“We were looking forward, as a community, to a summer to get out and about, back into restaurants, somewhat more normal life,” Clements said. “That has been pulled out from under us.” (quote from OPB article).

You might want to reconsider your statement as to risk.

 

[pnewton]

This is a good example of why “likelihood” can only be considered in the context of society. Any wedding is unlikely to result in an outbreak, as is going to church with no precautions. But if you have enough wedding or Masses, these outbreaks will occur somewhere, and two weeks later the likelihood for another outbreak increases exponentially. That is why precautions must be universal to be totally effective. People will die based on how well disciplined people are in society.

 

[Anesti33]

No, the precautions are not designed to prevent people from dying. The precautions are supposed to “flatten the curve” which means we slow down the R0 enough so that hospitals and health care systems are not overwhelmed by acute cases.

It is not a matter of “if” we contract COVID-19, but “when”; so as long as the hospitals are coping with an influx of COVID-19 patients, then we have successfully managed the R0 rate.

 

[pnewton]

No, the precautions are not designed to prevent people from dying. The precautions are supposed to “flatten the curve” which means we slow down the R0 enough so that hospitals and health care systems are not overwhelmed by acute cases.

Do you not see how having hospital capability can save lives? We have seen in other countries choices between who gets respirators and who is left to die. Also, it is not a given everyone will catch this disease.

 

[Beryllos]

No, the precautions are not designed to prevent people from dying… It is not a matter of “if” we contract COVID-19, but “when”;

Even if we suppose that all will catch it, postponing the onset of the disease improves the odds of survival, as those who catch it later will benefit from improvements in medical understanding and treatment. Flatter curve and lower R0 mean, at the very least, that more people will have that advantage.

 

[otjm]

That is why precautions must be universal to be totally effective.

And therein lies the conundrum.

America in particular is known for independence and freedom, and both can have very negative consequences.

About a week ago I came across a group of about 60 to 75 people in a get-together in the hall of a local parish. they were literally sitting shoulder to shoulder and singing - loudly and with fervor.

God willing, no one was infected in the group. However, a reading of “The Risks -Know Them - Avoid Them” would indicate that wittingly or unwittingly (and in charity I will presume unwittingly) what they engaged in and how they engaged in it did not even come close to a common sense way of engaging in their activity with safety measures.

No one in La Grande thought they had any likelihood of ever catching the virus. So far they have been proved exceedingly wrong.

Perspective is always interesting. Death from smoking related health issues is in the range of 480,000 per year. Smoking is a very long term danger - that is, death from related issues normally takes years from the onset of smoking.

Death from complications due to the virus happen much more rapidly, and those who are overweight, have diabetes or heart issues are among the most vulnerable, with the elderly most likely to die.

I have no idea what it takes to reach “herd immunity” but I suspect that there are a seriously significant number of people who, like the residents of La Grande, took some precautions but were very relaxed about their vulnerability.

As a society we seem to generally have a feeling we do not want to be inconvenienced, and tend to think “It can’t happen to me”.

Statistically they are correct. But just as the stock market doesn’t care what you think about a stock, statistics don’t care what you think about the likelihood of contracting the virus - and then spreading it to others.

 

[Sarcelle]

This is what I will be doing. I will be attending online masses.

I have asthma so I am especially vulnerable.

 

[tuffsmurf]

The exception for young children makes the rule kind of pointless, I mean children are mostly asymptomatic if they carry the virus AND they are very likely to spread body fluids around. These kinds of rules seem to be largely about virtue signaling.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The reality is there’s very few children at Mass. While this may be due in part to COVID, the bathrooms at many churches are closed to the public at least during Sunday Mass, which means a family with young children is likely to stay home.

The majority of Mass goers I’m seeing are from teens to elderly for the Sunday obligation Masses, and middle aged to mostly elderly at the daily Masses. I just came from a well-attended noon Mass where I’m pretty sure 70 percent of attendees were over 65. If I’m going to be around 100 grannies and grampas I’m for sure wearing a mask. I don’t want to be the one who infects and maybe kills someone’s Nana.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

I urge you to reflect positively on those who are acting with a well formed conscience and choose to not wear a mask. Shocked at the shaming going on and blaming others of murder. But I guess that’s the outrage culture we live in now.

I just don’t get what the opposition is. Like, even if you believe masks only reduce transmissibility by, say, 5%, is it really such a big imposition to have a piece of cloth over your face?

I don’t get all the performative, hysterical outrage. It feels like people are just looking for something to feel aggrieved over.

 

[MikeInVA]

I don’t get all the performative, hysterical outrage.

Maybe some of us don’t buy in to the idea that any random piece of cloth is somehow going to stop the transmission of a microscopic virus. Wearing a mask to stop the transmission of a virus (by people who are not infected) is right up there with thinking that making all of us remove our shoes at airport security is actually doing something for our safety.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

Maybe some of us don’t buy in to the idea that any random piece of cloth is somehow going to stop the transmission of a microscopic virus.

Do you think it does literally nothing? Like, doesn’t even mitigate the risk, even if it doesn’t eliminate it?

 

[MikeInVA]

I think washing your hands and covering your mouth when you cough or sneeze is more effective. Maybe some medical grade masks would be useful for at-risk individuals, but I don’t think the masks that are being sold everywhere do much more than to make a person feel good.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I think washing your hands and covering your mouth when you cough or sneeze is more effective.

The reality is I see people coughing and sneezing all day in public without covering their nose and mouth. In many cases the sneeze seems to happen before the person can reach for a kleenex. On two separate occasions in the last few weeks, a person a few feet from me on the sidewalk has let loose the Mother of All Sneezes. Neither of these folks, who were both college age, had a mask on, nor did they use a Kleenex or bandana or even their sleeve. I’m sure there are many more such people walking around. I was very happy I was wearing my own mask. Even if it only protects me 50 percent, it’s better than nothing.