Mass obligation (w/mask)

[puer.dei]

They should be wearing a mask there too. It’s not an either/or requirement.

Well, you know, those few seconds spent putting on/taking off masks could be spent SO much better by . . . um . . . well . . .

 

[JulianN]

Your missing the point. Right now it is an either or requirement . Total freedom everywhere ecept at mass. That’s the point.

No, it’s not. It’s that Starbucks and Walmart are not enforcing the requirement because selfish people who want to be free to infect others have gotten violent when store clerks have attempted to enforce the rules.

 

[dochawk]

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

That’s just plain bad math and the denial of well established statistics.

The more widespread measures are, the faster the clampdown, and it is likely (as in “near certain”) that will survive a bit longer in places that are sloppier, but it doesn’t take anywhere close to 100%.

(OK, I should probably mention that I’ve taken graduate stochastic calculus, and had the highest grade by a stunning margin . . .)

The reality is there’s very few children at Mass.

As I looked at a couple today, it occurred to me that it might be wise to excludes those too small (or ill behaved, for that matter) to we are a facemask.

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.

Maybe, but that is akin to the antivaxesrs, flat earths, and such.

Universal ask is because they seriously reduce transmission from those who don’t know they have it yet. Science does know something about the size of molecules in breath, and whether or not masks stop that.

Masks are not about protecting the wearer. In fact, with the eyeballs exposed, they are close to (if not fully) irrelevant in that regard.

 

[pnewton]

That’s just plain bad math and the denial of well established statistics.

The more widespread measures are, the faster the clampdown, and it is likely (as in “near certain”) that will survive a bit longer in places that are sloppier, but it doesn’t take anywhere close to 100%.

Did you miss the word “totally”? Perhaps I should not have used an absolute, but I do not see the issue with using 100% to achieve 0%. It would be more accurate to say that the more universal appropriate precautions are taken the more the spread of infection approaches 0.

But the point is not math, but behavior. Masks were strongly recommended for those in public here, and less than half wore them. If these were N95 masks, then people could rely on their own mask to protect them. But as most masks are not hospital grade, those in public rely on others in public. If I go out and drive sober because I know being intoxicated on the road is a danger to others, it is still unsafe if the majority of the other drivers are drunk.

As of today, masks are again mandatory everywhere in public buildings, with a $1000 fine for violators. I can now go out with the force of law to make sure my family and I are safe. All it took was two weeks of and local epidemic and exponential outbreak, the single most predictable outcome when most of the people here are stupid, stubborn, or both.

 

[Gorgias]

Any wedding is unlikely to result in an outbreak

From my personal observations (so, take this or leave it, as you wish), a wedding is far more likely to result in an outbreak – folks gather close to one another and tend not to take the precautions that they might otherwise take, in other situations.

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.

…which leads to fewer people dying.

And I will stay home if I don’t feel well.

The problem isn’t whether you feel well, but whether you transmit the virus while you’re asymptomatic.

They should just have mass at Walmart. Hundreds of people roam freely buying garden hose, and bbq grills no problems. Safest place in the country right now when it comes to freedom.

“Shopping” and “being stationary at an hour-long event” are two completely different sorts of activities. We see the uptick in cases from folks who are being unsafe at restaurants. That’s closer to the environment at a Mass than shopping is.

Total freedom everywhere ecept at mass. That’s the point.

And it’s completely inaccurate.

 

[dochawk]

Did you miss the word “totally”?

No, not at all.

reduction of the R to any value below 1 will totally wipe out this or any other. It may survive longer in areas where it remains above 1, but for any value below 1, the statistical calculation is straightforward. Math will take you to about 30 cases, and after that it’s a statistical distribution function to when you get zero.

The more widespread compliance and other useful behavior/tactics, the farther below 1 R goes, and the faster it goes away, but the assertion that we need universal compliance to get there is simply incorrect.

(p.s. Putting your old avatar back would be enough reason to have animated icons here . . .)

…which leads to fewer people dying.

“flattening” is more “putting off” than “fewer”. It’s doing things to delay cases, so that resources aren’t overwhelmed, and, (hopefully) to be better able to treat the later cases. It allows more of the available resources to apply to each early case.

It’s “nice” if this also results in reducing the number of cases, but that’s not the “flattening” aspect.

 

[Gorgias]

“flattening” is more “putting off” than “fewer”. It’s doing things to delay cases, so that resources aren’t overwhelmed, and, (hopefully) to be better able to treat the later cases. It allows more of the available resources to apply to each early case.

Right – because, if you don’t, then those who cannot receive proper care are at risk of more extreme outcomes. Like death.

It’s “nice” if this also results in reducing the number of cases

Not the case I’m making. The case I’m making is that flattening leads to a reduction in the number of deaths, not infections.

 

[Reverent_Howler]

Here, Mass obligation is suspended until 30 August.

Attended my third Mass since limited worship was permitted. About 50 in church. Father had to leave the sanctuary to explain social distancing to a latecomer. Ushers should’ve responded. We must wear mask, apply hand sanitizer, and stay 6 feet apart–unless living in same household.

 

[Jen95]

Your missing the point. Right now it is an either or requirement . Total freedom everywhere ecept at mass. That’s the point.

I can sit in my car and have a conversation with the lady at the drive thru window at Starbucks , or McDonald’s all day any day. But I have to jump thru all kinds of hoops to get to a scocial distant conffesion. And that was only possible in the last few weeks , for a couple months cant even get to confession.

But Starbucks, home depot, Walmart, no problem all day every day. Its ridiculous!!!

Hmmm. Could it be that the “bosses” of the Church care more about their “employees” than the bosses of walmart, home depot care about their staff?
I hope so.
Also, imagine a Walmart with essentially one staff member. It’s not so easy to replace those employees at churches!

 

[Mac]

Thats one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is Starbucks employee is willing to risk getting sick for minimum wage.

While (in some cases) preists are not allowed to risk getting sick to save souls, although out door confession sitting 10 feet away , or drive thru confession posses virtually no risk.

Anyways not my decision to make. , and glad I dont have to make it.

I do understand being careful about having many people in side together for mass.

I just didn’t understand the suspention of confession,

Glad to see things have started to loosen up.

 

[OddBird]

The article says that masks are good for droplets, which I believe I have said. They said nothing about stopping the virus in a person’s breath.

Yes. Do you speak with your mouth in your elbow too ? Because if you talk for just one minute, that’s about 1000 droplets which will stay in the air during the next 10 minutes for the others to breathe in.

Masks do make sense.

 

[MikeInVA]

Hmmm. Could it be that the “bosses” of the Church care more about their “employees” than the bosses of walmart, home depot care about their staff?

To be honest, it seems like the pastors are scared to death that they will be cited for violations and closed down. There is a story in my parish about a Christmas Mass that was shut down by zoning officials because there were too many people in attendance, so it isn’t a completely baseless fear.

 

[pnewton]

While (in some cases) preists are not allowed to risk getting sick to save souls,

While not getting into every detail that each diocese has laid out, there are two sides to this - the tactical and the strategic. Yes, hearing this confession on this day is important to this soul and this time, we do not have an unlimited supply of priests. A priest who is sick is Mass that will not be said and confessions that will not be heard for weeks. A priest who gets sick and dies, in some cases, will be a parish that is shut down. Strategically, especially with an elderly priesthood, the salvation of souls need us to protect those priests.

FYI - my priest is sick and could use all your prayers.

 

[Mac]

Will pray for your preist . I understand what your saying , and respect that veiw point.

I think it depends on weather one acepts that hearing confessions out doors at a distance is a high risk activity. Bottom line is, it’s not my desision to make , and that restriction has been relaxed here as in most other diocese.

I suspect this ordeal will cause many to have a greater appreciation for the sacraments, and that s a good thing.

,

 

[mary77]

masks are used in hospitals to stop bacteria. Bacteria is much much larger then virus, Masks dont keep virus out. Masks are being used now as comfortable appearances, kindness to others, and that is why many people are not wearing them because its getting too hot for keeping up appearances.

 

[JulianN]

There is a story in my parish about a Christmas Mass that was shut down by zoning officials because there were too many people in attendance, so it isn’t a completely baseless fear.

That’s happened in our diocese as well —but are you suggesting churches are exempt from the fire codes (which are the normal sources of those shutdowns)?

 

[MikeInVA]

I think it’s interesting that the fire marshal visits churches on Christmas eve.

 

[JulianN]

Because it might have occurred to the fire department that overcrowding was likely. Coupled with the possibility of open flame. It’s actually what the fire marshal is supposed to do.

 

[Retman]

My parish requires masks and reservations. First half alphabet goes 1st and 3rd Sunday. Last half 2nd and 4th. If I don’t go up for communion ( old school, confession before communion) will I freak others in the pew, causing a jam, not wanting to squeeze around me, or going to the aisle and standing there disrupting the flow? For that reason I don’t go

 

[MikeInVA]

1. The threat of fire at a Christmas Mass is relatively low. Easter Vigil might be a little more risky!
2. If I were the Fire Marshall, I would never enter a house of worship on any major feast day to avoid the appearance of interference with the right to worship.