Do you hate religion?

Some people really (I’m gonna say) “hate” religion. I have been having a discussion with one of my online “anti-religion” atheist friends, for several days now.  He insists that religion (in particular, Christianity) is just a “pack of lies” (my words) and sees absolutely no good use for it; that it’s way more harmful than helpful to humans.

Maybe you also consider yourself an anti-religious atheist.  Heck, I myself am an “agnostic atheist” (don’t know, but don’t happen to believe in any god(s)).  For the record, I’m also (spiritually) a Pantheist (recognize/connect with what I refer to as a “God Process”).

OK, enough on our religious bios.  Here is the comprehensive question:

If no Jesus or God exists, does that really matter?  Isn’t their legacy that was left behind the thing of worth?  If those sentiments hold human value (don’t kill, steal, lie, honor each other, do unto others, etc.), what does it matter if there was no actual Jesus or God?  Aren’t the teachings, and the encouragement to follow them, the point?  Weren’t Jesus’ words much more important than the man (or believing he was God in the flesh)?

Please think about it more deeply, and then give your thought on this, my POV.

Thanks for posting and recommending. :)

Recent Research on Slowing Covid-19 Infections

Blue to blue-green indicate less virus spread and 
yellow-green to red indicates increasingly out of control virus spread

Research is continuing to come out with evidence that wearing face masks in public is the best protection against COVID-19 currently available.

Results from humans

A paper from Texas A&M analyzed spread of the virus among people wearing cloth face masks compared to those who did not. The paper, Identifying airborne transmission as the dominant route for the spread of COVID-19, analyzed infection trends in view of mitigation measures in Wuhan, China, Italy, and New York City, from January 23 to May 9, 2020. The analysis indicates that the difference with and without mandated face covering shapes the pandemic trends in all three study areas.

Airborne transmission of the virus in droplets was found to be the most common route of transmission among people. Wearing face masks in public significantly reduces the transmission rate. Social distancing in the US was insufficient by itself in limiting virus spread. The researchers conclude: "wearing of face masks in public corresponds to the most effective means to prevent interhuman transmission." They argue that face masks coupled with social distancing, quarantine, and contact tracing, appears to be the best means practical to stop the COVID-19 pandemic.

In an interview, one of the researchers commented: "Our work suggests that the failure in containing the propagation of COVID-19 pandemic worldwide is largely attributed to the unrecognized importance of airborne virus transmission. Social-distancing and washing our hands must continue, but that's not sufficient enough protection. Wearing a face mask as well as practicing good hand hygiene and social distancing will greatly reduce the chances of anyone contracting the COVID-19 virus."

Computational biology: Modeling virus spread

Another paper, A modelling framework to assess the likely effectiveness of facemasks in combination with ‘lock-down’ in managing the COVID-19 pandemic, describes computer modeling analyses that included modeling the effects of wearing face masks in public. The model allows researchers to set and test various parameters that influence COVID-19 spread from person to person. The parameters that were analyzed include (i) comparing populations in lock downs compared to non-lock down populations, and (ii) effects of different levels of effectiveness of facemasks in stopping droplet escape from people and in preventing droplet transfer to other people.

The authors write: "Our results are illustrated for a number of plausible values for parameter ranges describing epidemiological processes and mechanistic properties of facemasks, in the absence of current measurements for these values. We show that, when facemasks are used by the public all the time (not just from when symptoms first appear), the effective reproduction number, Re, can be decreased below 1, leading to the mitigation of epidemic spread. ..... Under certain conditions, when lock-down periods are implemented in combination with 100% facemask use, there is vastly less disease spread, secondary and tertiary waves are flattened and the epidemic is brought under control. The effect occurs even when it is assumed that facemasks are only 50% effective at capturing exhaled virus inoculum with an equal or lower efficiency on inhalation."

The authors also commented: "A key message from our analyses to aid the widespread adoption of facemasks would be: ‘my mask protects you, your mask protects me’." In other words, an infected person who wears a cloth facemask spreads less virus and an uninfected person who wears a facemask is exposed to less virus, both of which reduces virus spread.

At present some countries do not require wearing facemasks in public, but the accumulating research evidence suggests that is probably a major mistake. The researchers comment that their analyses could explain why some countries with a facemask requirement had significantly lower rates of COVID-19 spread and associated deaths.

Laissez faire?

I live in small town USA, a tourist town that has been hard hit by Covid 19 restrictions.

Fortunately, we are, for the most part, a town that cares about our people, so we have been wearing masks when we go out, there have been NO "let's open now" protests, and even our recent very small gatherings of George Floyd protests have shown social distancing and mask wearing.

Mind you, we are small, not a big city with it's inherent risks of having so many people cramped into tight spaces - we have no big box stores as example.

STILL - with recent news that we have had no outbreaks in the last week in our town, I am still stunned by how "lax" some of our citizenry has become.

Suddenly, mothers with the toddlers going to our shops without masks, people picnicking at our marina in large groups, our sidewalks filled with strollers and shoppers - with more and more people coming from outside our town.

If one person in our town ends up being a carrier, there will be another outbreak.
BUT the counter-argument is, we have to open for the sake of our economy at SOME point, right?

I agree, but with all the precautions in place. My argument has nothing to do with government dictates, but the behavior of the average Joe or Mary.

The same people I observed last month observing distancing, wearing masks, going out ONLY when absolutely needed are now taking their unmasked kids shopping?

SO - simple question:

HAVE YOU observed the same change in behavior amongst your fellow citizens over the last couple of weeks? A more "Laissez faire" attitude towards protecting self and loved ones from the potential of contracting Covid 19?

Pandemics and History

The Week magazine recently published several articles about pandemics and Covid-19. Some of the information is quite interesting. Information from The Week and some other sources is summarized below.

History

One article discussed pandemics and history. The Black Death plague started in 1347. It was caused by a bacterium. It killed about 200 million people, which then was about 55-60% of the global human population. Health authorities in Europe responded by instituting public health measures that are still in use today, including quarantines, routine health inspections and hospitals.

Another effect of the Black Death was to end European feudalism and serfdom. The deaths caused a labor shortage that shifted the balance of power from feudal lords and nobility to workers. The labor shortage allowed serfs to break free from the lords that in essence owned them. They were free to look for work under better conditions. That economic system shift paved the way for modern capitalism.

In 1802, a Yellow Fever epidemic in the French colony of what is now Haiti caused the deaths of about 50,000 French troops who were controlling the island. Yellow Fever is a virus infection that is transmitted by mosquitoes. The death toll caused the troops to withdraw, causing massive economic losses to Napoleon. The losses forced Napoleon to sell 828,000 square miles of land to Thomas Jefferson for $15 million in what is now called the Louisiana Purchase.[1]

The Spanish flu, which probably originated on a Kansas poultry farm, brought widespread death to troops fighting in trenches in World War I. Spanish flu was an exceptionally virulent form of H1N1 influenza virus. About 50 million people worldwide died in the pandemic, which included about 675,000 Americans.

Among the Americans who were killed were members of the US delegation to the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. Many of those delegates were opposed to forcing Germany to pay reparations as part of the treaty of Versailles. With the American anti-reparation voice weakened, delegates approved harsh reparations against Germany. That both humiliated the Germans and economically crippled the country. Both factors are considered by some historians to be key factors in the rise of Hitler. Some consider the economic impact of Spanish flu to be a major factor in the rise of nationalism and authoritarianism.

In terms of public health, the Spanish flu epidemic provoked public health innovations, including spawning the field of virology and accelerating research in the field of epidemiology.

Covid-19

In terms of predictions about long-term effects of Covid-19, experts are beginning to speculate. Some evidence suggests that the pandemic is decreasing political polarization in the US, a trend that has been in progress for about 50 years. The thinking there is that Covid-19 constitutes a common enemy and such threats tend to unite societies. Of course, that socially unifying factor is opposed by the president's heavy and usually effective reliance on social polarization and division to maintain power. How the matter of social cohesion and improved functionality will play out is completely unclear to me.

Other experts suggest that nationalism, authoritarianism and xenophobia could increase in the US. Others project that telemedicine and other online activities will increase in acceptance and use. Not surprisingly, some experts who speak from political ideological points of view are projecting social and governmental changes that fall in line with their ideology, e.g., a libertarian sees more deregulation in our future.

Another short story in The Week asserted that the state of New York probably delayed its shutdown due to a years-long feud between governor Cuomo and NYC mayor Bill de Blasio. Epidemiologists estimated that if New York had shut down 1-2 weeks earlier, about half of the death toll could have been avoided. That was asserted in an article published by ProPublica. If that is true, then petty political bickering fueled by personal ambitions caused thousands of needless deaths.

In terms of personal political ambitions and big egos, another article The Week published mentioned congressional testimony by Dr. Rick Bright, the top US vaccine development official. Bright testified that the president ignored his urgent warnings in January about Covid-19. Because there was no master plan in place, he believed that lives were needlessly lost. The president had fired Bright, calling him a disgruntled employee. Bright had called for serious scientific vetting of hydroxhchloroquine as a treatment for Covid-19. He claimed that the administration had put “politics and cronyism ahead of science.” Not surprisingly, that angered the president.

Face masks

The Lancet published research about the effectiveness of wearing face masks. A meta analysis of multiple studies indicate that wearing a face mask does decrease the rate of viral infections from infected people compared to people who do not wear a face mask in the presence of other people. The data also indicated that staying 6 feet away from an infected person is appears to be more effective than staying 3 feet away. ABC News summarized the analysis like this: "Staying 3 feet away from another individual can lower the risk of transmission to less than 3% from an estimated 12%, the researchers found. A distance of 6 feet could lower that risk to 1.5%. And wearing a mask can reduce the risk to about 3% from roughly 17%."

Another source commented on The Lancet meta-analysis: "Keeping at least one metre from other people as well as wearing face coverings and eye protection, in and outside of health-care settings, could be the best way to reduce the chance of viral infection or transmission of COVID-19, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis synthesising all the available evidence from the scientific literature, published in The Lancet. ..... The study, conducted to inform WHO guidance documents, is the first time researchers have systematically examined the optimum use of these protective measures in both community and healthcare settings for COVID-19. The authors say it has immediate and important implications for curtailing the current COVID-19 pandemic and future waves by informing disease models, and standardising the definition of who has been 'potentially exposed' (ie, within 2 metres) for contact tracing."

Statistics: Why Groups of 10 or less

Finally, an NPR broadcast segment in the last day or two explained why groups of 10 people or less are often recommended as the size limit of social gatherings. Statistics dictates the number. If the community Covid-19 infection rate is say, about 2%, then on average, one would expect that in a group of 100, about 2 people would be infected. Also, as social gatherings increase in number of participants, there is a trend for people to be closer together in closed venues in buildings and in limited outdoors areas such as a small backyard. By limiting group gatherings to 10 or less, (1) the chance of anyone being infected drops drastically (about 100-fold if I recall the data right -- I can't find a link to that info), and (2) people are generally better able to stay physically separated. Due to the larger area that is usually present, gatherings outdoors are limited to 25 or less to reduce the possibility that an infected person is present.

Thoughts on Various Things

The volume of news at present is overwhelming, to me at least. Focusing on any one story seems usually inadequate. Among the mostly bad to awful news, a few things seem to stick in my mind.

From North Carolina to Florida

One item is the move of the republican convention from North Carolina to Florida. The president wants a packed house with people screaming their approval of all the lies and slanders the president plans to spew on them and the rest of us masochistic enough to listen to the spew. No face masks for the president and his screaming patriotic supporters. As we all know, the Covid-19 pandemic is now just a fading memory. The death toll has numbed us and the economic damage will take a year or two to assess. In the president's estimation, Covid-19 was just a bit of a nuisance for a while, mostly a democratic hoax and all Obama's and/or Pelosi's fault if it wasn't hoax. Regardless, now it is gone away because he personally fixed it. The president, in a fair and balanced way, gives himself a well-deserved grade of A+++.

Huh?? If that's the narrative, then why are the RNC and Trump campaign requiring attendees at the convention to sign a waiver of liability in the (almost impossible?) event that they pick up a Covid-19 bug from infected people scattered among the president's rabid screaming, unmasked, hoard? They will be spewing millions of little spitballs of approval for their wonderful president, but that's not anything to worry about. Making the president look good is the only concern.

Hm. Is something amiss here? Could it be that maybe the pandemic isn't over yet? Nah, that's not possible. Germaine is just delusional and irrational, as usual.

Speaking of liability waivers

The New York Times is reporting that the GOP's and president's tactic of shielding themselves from liability is something that seems to appeal to at least some businesses. In an article, Businesses Want Virus Legal Protection. Workers Are Worried., the NYT observes that businesses are (quietly, as usual) lobbying for protection against coronavirus-related lawsuits. The opposition suspects that a liability shield would encourage reckless behavior. Reckless behavior? Ya think? Nah, not possible.

Businesses are anything but reckless. For example, meat packers in Nebraska made the pandemic go away by refusing to disclose testing data. Easy peasy, pandemic squeazy. Poof! The pandemic is gone. Families of workers there have complained that they need to know if their family members are infected or not. The meat packers and Nebraska governor Pete Ricketts dismisses such complaints as just irrational sour grapes whining. In their endless pursuit of sacred profit, businesses are never reckless, much less malicious. 🤢

The hills are alive with the sound of music . . . . . and lies and bullshit . . . . .

But, one must keep in mind the wise words of our president (ALL RISE!). Paraphrasing: "What the hell use is it to do testing for Covid-19? All that does is reveal infections. If you don't test, then there are no infections to report. What the hell is wrong with you people? Are you all idiots?" Of course that's just Germaine recalling what president Bonespurs had to say about it. Vox quotes him directly: “Don’t forget, we have more cases than anybody in the world. But why? Because we do more testing. When you test, you have a case. When you test, you find something is wrong with people. If we didn’t do any testing, we would have very few cases. They [the media] don’t want to write that.”

Huh?

I'm confused (as usual)

Those pesky Antifa protesters

And, there's the ongoing protests over systemic racism. As we all know, the lawlessness is all due to Antifa. That's true because both the president and the attorney general said so. Darned Antifa.

Unfortunately, the failing New York Times is reporting fake news: "Federal Arrests Show No Sign That Antifa Plotted Protests -- Despite claims by President Trump and Attorney General William P. Barr, there is scant evidence that loosely organized anti-fascists are a significant player in protests. ..... But despite cries from President Trump and others in his administration, none of those charged with serious federal crimes amid the unrest have been linked so far to the loose collective of anti-fascist activists known as antifa."

As we all know, the neither the president nor AG Barr ever lie to people. 🤣 Clearly the enemy of the people NYT is just making stuff up by analyzing and reporting on federal arrest data. Analyzing data is just a bat shit crazy way to do journalism. This is the right way to do patriotic, red-blooded professional journalism:

I could go on in this vein for quite some time. But it's best to let this sip of political nectar rest on the tongue. That gives it time to burn a hole in it.

Second guessing oneself…

Definition:

verb. Second guess is defined as to question a decision or action that has already been completed. An example of second guess is when you make a decision and then you start to think about it a little more and decide another decision might have been better.

• Do you ever second guess yourself?
• If no, why not?
• If yes, what percentage of the time?
• On what do you second guess yourself the most?
• Is second guessing a good or bad thing?

Thanks for posting and recommending.