Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[Hakons]

The obvious caveat is that the virus is receding because of lockdown, not of its own accord. Opening everything up again will stop it from receding.

The fact it is receding is not evidence that lockdown should be over, but that it works.

The point of the lockdown is to reduce the disease curve to the point that the healthcare system can give the most effective care. The point of the lockdown isn’t, nor is it possible, to reduce transmission to zero. Receding rates of infection mean lockdown restrictions should be reduced. This is what every country with receding rates is doing. This is what all 50 states are now doing. The justification for lockdowns was never continuous lockdown until we’re “safe.” Once again, we won’t be “safe” until transmission risk becomes zero because of widespread vaccines. Your argument is an argument for lockdown for the next year and a half.

Lockdown has a cost. Consider that cost, don’t ignore it. To relate this to the CDT, lockdown prevents people from going to life giving Mass. How long do you want people to wait to receive the Lord in the sacraments? How long do you want my parish’s one candidate to wait until he can be confirmed into the Ark of Salvation? He’s been waiting since Easter. At what point do you consider the spiritual cost of missed confessions? What is the cost of deathbeds without family members? Funerals without gatherings? The toll of the virus has been terrible. We mourn the dead and pray for their souls. As the virus recedes, consider the massive hardships taken up in the form lockdowns. In honesty, why do you want this suffering perpetuated beyond necessity, increasingly against the wishes of Church authorities?

[Lower Nubia]

The obvious caveat is that the virus is receding because of lockdown, not of its own accord. Opening everything up again will stop it from receding.

The fact it is receding is not evidence that lockdown should be over, but that it works.

The point of the lockdown is to reduce the disease curve to the point that the healthcare system can give the most effective care. The point of the lockdown isn’t, nor is it possible, to reduce transmission to zero. Receding rates of infection mean lockdown restrictions should be reduced. This is what every country with receding rates is doing. This is what all 50 states are now doing. The justification for lockdowns was never continuous lockdown until we’re “safe.” Once again, we won’t be “safe” until transmission risk becomes zero because of widespread vaccines. Your argument is an argument for lockdown for the next year and a half.

Lockdown has a cost. Consider that cost, don’t ignore it. To relate this to the CDT, lockdown prevents people from going to life giving Mass. How long do you want people to wait to receive the Lord in the sacraments? How long do you want my parish’s one candidate to wait until he can be confirmed into the Ark of Salvation? He’s been waiting since Easter. At what point do you consider the spiritual cost of missed confessions? What is the cost of deathbeds without family members? Funerals without gatherings? The toll of the virus has been terrible. We mourn the dead and pray for their souls. As the virus recedes, consider the massive hardships taken up in the form lockdowns. In honesty, why do you want this suffering perpetuated beyond necessity, increasingly against the wishes of Church authorities?

I'm aware of why Lockdown exists but your logic is ridiculous. If the virus is receding because of Lockdown, you don't loosen it. That's how you get a spike in cases. You keep lockdown the same.

As the saints attest, you can go years without receiving the sacraments.

[Lower Nubia]

The obvious caveat is that the virus is receding because of lockdown, not of its own accord. Opening everything up again will stop it from receding.

The fact it is receding is not evidence that lockdown should be over, but that it works.

Sweden didn’t lock down in the same manner as the UK, keeping with similar social distancing guidelines to those we saw in the week leading up to the lockdown, and the statistic for deaths per million from with Coronavirus there is 20% lower than here. That’s without even mentioning the crisis’ negative effects on personal freedom, mental health and business being mitigated somewhat by less stringent measures being taken.

Uhh... no, Sweden has one of the highest death rates in Europe.

[Hakons]

The point of the lockdown is to reduce the disease curve to the point that the healthcare system can give the most effective care. The point of the lockdown isn’t, nor is it possible, to reduce transmission to zero. Receding rates of infection mean lockdown restrictions should be reduced. This is what every country with receding rates is doing. This is what all 50 states are now doing. The justification for lockdowns was never continuous lockdown until we’re “safe.” Once again, we won’t be “safe” until transmission risk becomes zero because of widespread vaccines. Your argument is an argument for lockdown for the next year and a half.

Lockdown has a cost. Consider that cost, don’t ignore it. To relate this to the CDT, lockdown prevents people from going to life giving Mass. How long do you want people to wait to receive the Lord in the sacraments? How long do you want my parish’s one candidate to wait until he can be confirmed into the Ark of Salvation? He’s been waiting since Easter. At what point do you consider the spiritual cost of missed confessions? What is the cost of deathbeds without family members? Funerals without gatherings? The toll of the virus has been terrible. We mourn the dead and pray for their souls. As the virus recedes, consider the massive hardships taken up in the form lockdowns. In honesty, why do you want this suffering perpetuated beyond necessity, increasingly against the wishes of Church authorities?

I'm aware of why Lockdown exists but your logic is ridiculous. If the virus is receding because of Lockdown, you don't loosen it. That's how you get a spike in cases. You keep lockdown the same.

As the saints attest, you can go years without receiving the sacraments.

My logic isn’t ridiculous, it’s the national virus policy of almost every nation. You don’t keep the lockdown the same forever. Please address the rest of what I was saying too, because I think you’re reaching this conclusion by ignoring trade off costs from the lockdown. Eventually those trade offs are worse than the virus itself, which is why many nations and states are reducing restrictions.

As the Church attests, who properly interprets the Magisterium, including the teachings of the saints, public mass should be made available as soon as possible.

[New Lunenburg]

Sweden didn’t lock down in the same manner as the UK, keeping with similar social distancing guidelines to those we saw in the week leading up to the lockdown, and the statistic for deaths per million from with Coronavirus there is 20% lower than here. That’s without even mentioning the crisis’ negative effects on personal freedom, mental health and business being mitigated somewhat by less stringent measures being taken.

Uhh... no, Sweden has one of the highest death rates in Europe.

The 6th highest with 395.65 deaths per million to be precise, whereas the UK is in 3rd with 555.19 deaths per million.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/110 ... habitants/

[Lower Nubia]

I'm aware of why Lockdown exists but your logic is ridiculous. If the virus is receding because of Lockdown, you don't loosen it. That's how you get a spike in cases. You keep lockdown the same.

As the saints attest, you can go years without receiving the sacraments.

My logic isn’t ridiculous, it’s the national virus policy of almost every nation. You don’t keep the lockdown the same forever. Please address the rest of what I was saying too, because I think you’re reaching this conclusion by ignoring trade off costs from the lockdown. Eventually those trade offs are worse than the virus itself, which is why many nations and states are reducing restrictions.

As the Church attests, who properly interprets the Magisterium, including the teachings of the saints, public mass should be made available as soon as possible.

The national Virus policy of every country is not: "Receding rates of infection mean lockdown restrictions should be reduced. This is what every country with receding rates is doing."

As if that isn't a nebulous statement. What is this "universal" rate of infection when the lockdown is to be lifted?

So if the Church says it should remain closed. You won't complain then? Good.

[Lower Nubia]

Uhh... no, Sweden has one of the highest death rates in Europe.

The 6th highest with 395.65 deaths per million to be precise, whereas the UK is in 3rd with 555.19 deaths per million.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/110 ... habitants/

Yes. 6th Highest rate of deaths, but 83rd in population. hmmm...

Edit: Added a change because I put 15th in population of Europe alone, not the world.

Thanks for proving my point.

[New Lunenburg]

The 6th highest with 395.65 deaths per million to be precise, whereas the UK is in 3rd with 555.19 deaths per million.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/110 ... habitants/

Yes. 6th Highest rate of deaths, but 15th in population. hmmm...

Still less deaths per million than countries that enforced lockdowns such as the UK, Spain and Italy, whilst we don’t have other European countries that didn’t lockdown to compare with Sweden against countries that did, it is still noteworthy that the one country that bucked the trend is performing better than some and roughly in line with many other European countries. If the lockdown is as necessary as it is often thought to be and the unquestionably orthodox dogma that it is treated as, Sweden ought to be first by a mile.

[Hakons]

My logic isn’t ridiculous, it’s the national virus policy of almost every nation. You don’t keep the lockdown the same forever. Please address the rest of what I was saying too, because I think you’re reaching this conclusion by ignoring trade off costs from the lockdown. Eventually those trade offs are worse than the virus itself, which is why many nations and states are reducing restrictions.

As the Church attests, who properly interprets the Magisterium, including the teachings of the saints, public mass should be made available as soon as possible.

The national Virus policy of every country is not: "Receding rates of infection mean lockdown restrictions should be reduced. This is what every country with receding rates is doing."

As if that isn't a nebulous statement. What is this "universal" rate of infection when the lockdown is to be lifted?

So if the Church says it should remain closed. You won't complain then? Good.

Yes it’s a broad statement, but it’s the general policy. Italy, Germany, France, Spain, and the US are all reducing restrictions. Do you know something these national governments don’t? I don’t have precise infection rates or epidemic curves to recommend when lockdowns should be lifted. If you’re going to ask for that, you need to say when you’ll precisely want lockdowns lifted.

I trust my Church, yes. My Diocese closed when it planned and opened when it planned. Most of the US Dioceses are opening. In France, Masses have returned. In the Vatican, areas are opening up again. Is this not good? Do you not want your Church to open up too? Do you not see the life-giving value of reopened Church functions?

[Lower Nubia]

Yes. 6th Highest rate of deaths, but 15th in population. hmmm...

Still less deaths per million than countries that enforced lockdowns such as the UK, Spain and Italy, whilst we don’t have other European countries that didn’t lockdown to compare with Sweden against countries that did, it is still noteworthy that the one country that bucked the trend is performing better than some and roughly in line with many other European countries.

See my edit above.

You've literally proven yourself wrong that Sweden's no-lockdown has staved off an equivalent number of deaths. It's clear your assuming that if a country locked down, that they must of locked down well. That does not logically follow, example; the UK. Whose Lockdown has been appalling. 2 Weeks after Johnson "loosened" (confused more like) the Lockdown rules, there was a sizeable increase in the rate of infections.

To the surprise of nobody.

[Hakons]

Yes. 6th Highest rate of deaths, but 15th in population. hmmm...

Still less deaths per million than countries that enforced lockdowns such as the UK, Spain and Italy, whilst we don’t have other European countries that didn’t lockdown to compare with Sweden against countries that did, it is still noteworthy that the one country that bucked the trend is performing better than some and roughly in line with many other European countries.

And once again virus deaths aren’t the only measure. Sweden adopted its unique policy because it said it was the most sustainable in the long-run. Lockdowns extract a cost too, some of it fatal, and these simply can’t be ignored. Non-covid healthcare, like routine checkups or cancer screenings, is declining. Social isolation causes more suicide, more mental illness, and more domestic abuse. Since this is the CDT we also must account for the steep cost to the Church as well. Missed sacraments, Churches skidding by with plummeting funds, and less charitable outreach.

[Lower Nubia]

The national Virus policy of every country is not: "Receding rates of infection mean lockdown restrictions should be reduced. This is what every country with receding rates is doing."

As if that isn't a nebulous statement. What is this "universal" rate of infection when the lockdown is to be lifted?

So if the Church says it should remain closed. You won't complain then? Good.

Yes it’s a broad statement, but it’s the general policy. Italy, Germany, France, Spain, and the US are all reducing restrictions. Do you know something these national governments don’t?

Yes. It's called wave two for countries that have done well, and a plateau for countries that have done poorly. The issue is your applying the same rate of infection, and the assuming that lockdown has been equally effective across all nations and for each country, yet the US isn't ready for reducing restrictions. Yet Italy is.

That's the problem with your analysis.

"Donald Trump is urging American churches to reopen. If you were a priest, knowing how badly the USA was hit, if you were in charge of a church, would you reopen?"

Seeing as this was the question, your statement becomes the fallacy of equivalence, by assuming Germany's effectiveness in their lockdown is thus equivalent to the 50 states Lockdown, or the UKs. When the UK and US aren't ready to ease those restrictions.

I trust my Church, yes. My Diocese closed when it planned and opened when it planned. Most of the US Dioceses are opening. In France, Masses have returned. In the Vatican, areas are opening up again. Is this not good? Do you not want your Church to open up too? Do you not see the life-giving value of reopened Church functions?

During Pandemics, I don't trust Church's, I trust epidemiologists and experts in pathogenicity.

Is the Scientific consensus in the US that they should ease Lockdown? No.

Edit: depends on the state.

[New Lunenburg]

Still less deaths per million than countries that enforced lockdowns such as the UK, Spain and Italy, whilst we don’t have other European countries that didn’t lockdown to compare with Sweden against countries that did, it is still noteworthy that the one country that bucked the trend is performing better than some and roughly in line with many other European countries.

See my edit above.

You've literally proven yourself wrong that Sweden's no-lockdown has staved off an equivalent number of deaths. It's clear your assuming that if a country locked down, that they must of locked down well. That does not logically follow, example; the UK. Whose Lockdown has been appalling. 2 Weeks after Johnson "loosened" (confused more like) the Lockdown rules, there was a sizeable increase in the rate of infections.

To the surprise of nobody.

Not fully locking down most likely led to more deaths than a full lockdown, yes, of course it has. However, the example of Sweden dictates that this is nowhere near the level where lockdown can be elevated to some unquestionable dogma, they would be first by a country mile were that true. That is without mentioning the fact that Sweden can go on as they are until a vaccine is ready, the UK certainly cannot.

[Lower Nubia]

See my edit above.

You've literally proven yourself wrong that Sweden's no-lockdown has staved off an equivalent number of deaths. It's clear your assuming that if a country locked down, that they must of locked down well. That does not logically follow, example; the UK. Whose Lockdown has been appalling. 2 Weeks after Johnson "loosened" (confused more like) the Lockdown rules, there was a sizeable increase in the rate of infections.

To the surprise of nobody.

Not fully locking down most likely led to more deaths than a full lockdown, yes, of course it has. However, the example of Sweden dictates that this is nowhere near the level where lockdown can be elevated to some unquestionable dogma. That is without mentioning the fact that Sweden can go on as they are until a vaccine is ready, the UK certainly cannot.

If Lockdown saves lives. Then Lockdown is the right choice. End of conversation.

[New Lunenburg]

Not fully locking down most likely led to more deaths than a full lockdown, yes, of course it has. However, the example of Sweden dictates that this is nowhere near the level where lockdown can be elevated to some unquestionable dogma. That is without mentioning the fact that Sweden can go on as they are until a vaccine is ready, the UK certainly cannot.

If Lockdown saves lives. Then Lockdown is the right choice. End of conversation.

Best not drive ever again then, dearie. Think of the atmosphere, the other drivers and the pedestrians!

Thanks for proving that it is an unquestionable dogma for you, I admire such childlike faith but suggest you place it on a firmer foundation (this is the CDT after all).

[Lower Nubia]

If Lockdown saves lives. Then Lockdown is the right choice. End of conversation.

Best not drive ever again then, dearie. Think of the atmosphere, the other drivers and the pedestrians!

Thanks for proving that it is an unquestionable dogma for you, I admire such childlike faith but suggest you place it on a firmer foundation (this is the CDT after all).

*gets refuted on if lockdown works* WhY dOn'T yOu StOp DrIvInG tO sAvE lIvEs ToO.

[Lower Nubia]

If Lockdown saves lives. Then Lockdown is the right choice. End of conversation.

Thanks for proving that it is an unquestionable dogma for you, I admire such childlike faith but suggest you place it on a firmer foundation (this is the CDT after all).

Yes, *checks notes* I will stay inside to not kill people.

[New Lunenburg]

Best not drive ever again then, dearie. Think of the atmosphere, the other drivers and the pedestrians!

Thanks for proving that it is an unquestionable dogma for you, I admire such childlike faith but suggest you place it on a firmer foundation (this is the CDT after all).

*gets refuted on if lockdown works* WhY dOn'T yOu StOp DrIvInG tO sAvE lIvEs ToO.

It’s a bit of a meme, yes, but car accidents killed a similar number of people last year in the UK as Coronavirus has killed this year. As it would certainly cause less deaths to ban driving and lockdown is the right choice because it saves lives in your view, surely you’d want it banned?

[Hakons]

Yes it’s a broad statement, but it’s the general policy. Italy, Germany, France, Spain, and the US are all reducing restrictions. Do you know something these national governments don’t?

Yes. It's called wave two for countries that have done well, and a plateau for countries that have done poorly. The issue is your applying the same rate of infection, and the assuming that lockdown has been equally effective across all nations and for each country, yet the US isn't ready for reducing restrictions. Yet Italy is.

That's the problem with your analysis.

"Donald Trump is urging American churches to reopen. If you were a priest, knowing how badly the USA was hit, if you were in charge of a church, would you reopen?"

Seeing as this was the question, your statement becomes the fallacy of equivalence, by assuming Germany's effectiveness in their lockdown is thus equivalent to the 50 states Lockdown, or the UKs. When the UK and US aren't ready to ease those restrictions.

I trust my Church, yes. My Diocese closed when it planned and opened when it planned. Most of the US Dioceses are opening. In France, Masses have returned. In the Vatican, areas are opening up again. Is this not good? Do you not want your Church to open up too? Do you not see the life-giving value of reopened Church functions?

During Pandemics, I don't trust Church's, I trust epidemiologists and experts in pathogenicity.

Is the Scientific consensus in the US that they should ease Lockdown? No.

Edit: depends on the state.

You're seriously saying you're smarter than these national governments? I can't continue to argue with you if you're saying that. (We should also focus the discussion on Christianity haha)

I'm not contending all these nations have the same disease curve. What I am saying, and have been saying this whole time, is that broadly speaking when virus rates recede, lockdown restrictions are reduced. What is worrisome is that you don't give any indication as to when lockdown should end. If I were to summarize your position, it's lockdown and nothing else. No regard for the consequences of lockdown. No regard for the spiritual decay brought by lockdown. Christianity is an incarnate faith. Unless you're called to a religious life of isolation, streamed masses and squirt gun baptisms isn't sustainable.

I pity those that don't trust the Church. That, frankly, seems to be the root of our disagreement. If one doesn't trust the Church, one doesn't believe in her life-giving, essential labor. This argument is astounding, so I hope I'm not understanding it correctly.

You think the Archdiocese of Indianapolis is wrong? That they didn't follow your version of the science enough? Are the bishops in Minnesota wrong? Nebraska, New Jersey, and Texas? You know more than they do? Is the High Court in France wrong, for saying masses must be allowed to resume? You know just a bit more than they do? You say to follow the science, but it seems to just be the science according to you, without regard to public officials, Church leaders, and love of the Church and what she does.

[Lower Nubia]

*gets refuted on if lockdown works* WhY dOn'T yOu StOp DrIvInG tO sAvE lIvEs ToO.

It’s a bit of a meme, yes, but car accidents killed a similar number of people last year in the UK as Coronavirus has killed this year. As it would certainly cause less deaths to ban driving and lockdown is the right choice because it saves lives in your view, surely you’d want it banned?

Your reductio ad absurdum fails because a) it's not possible to do, (duh) and b) it actually proves my point. If you don't drive around recklessly, you won't kill anyone. Likewise, if you don't leave your home except for necessary commutes, you won't kill anyone.

[Lower Nubia]

Yes. It's called wave two for countries that have done well, and a plateau for countries that have done poorly. The issue is your applying the same rate of infection, and the assuming that lockdown has been equally effective across all nations and for each country, yet the US isn't ready for reducing restrictions. Yet Italy is.

That's the problem with your analysis.

"Donald Trump is urging American churches to reopen. If you were a priest, knowing how badly the USA was hit, if you were in charge of a church, would you reopen?"

Seeing as this was the question, your statement becomes the fallacy of equivalence, by assuming Germany's effectiveness in their lockdown is thus equivalent to the 50 states Lockdown, or the UKs. When the UK and US aren't ready to ease those restrictions.

During Pandemics, I don't trust Church's, I trust epidemiologists and experts in pathogenicity.

Is the Scientific consensus in the US that they should ease Lockdown? No.

Edit: depends on the state.

You're seriously saying you're smarter than these national governments? I can't continue to argue with you if you're saying that. (We should also focus the discussion on Christianity haha)

I haven't said that. Did you even read my last statement? I don't even know where you're getting that accusation from. I've already said some nations are able to reduce restrictions because they've done a good job of lessening the curve. The US, a per the question, has not done a good job. Like the UK's bad attempt.

I'm not contending all these nations have the same disease curve. What I am saying, and have been saying this whole time, is that broadly speaking when virus rates recede, lockdown restrictions are reduced. What is worrisome is that you don't give any indication as to when lockdown should end. If I were to summarize your position, it's lockdown and nothing else. No regard for the consequences of lockdown. No regard for the spiritual decay brought by lockdown. Christianity is an incarnate faith. Unless you're called to a religious life of isolation, streamed masses and squirt gun baptisms isn't sustainable.

I did:

During Pandemics, I don't trust Church's, I trust epidemiologists and experts in pathogenicity.

Is the Scientific consensus in the US that they should ease Lockdown? No.

I pity those that don't trust the Church. That, frankly, seems to be the root of our disagreement. If one doesn't trust the Church, one doesn't believe in her life-giving, essential labor. This argument is astounding, so I hope I'm not understanding it correctly.

The Church's job is not epidemiology. Just as I don't trust the Church to run Rodeo's or to run an Airforce. Don't make this out to be "you don't trust the Church to judge a pandemic, therefore, you don't trust the Church at all". I trust that my Church listens to sound scientific advice. What's the advice in the US? Don't ease the lockdown universally (I'm aware some states are reaching the level of coming out of restriction, but most are not and some never really did lockdown)

You think the Archdiocese of Indianapolis is wrong? That they didn't follow your version of the science enough? Are the bishops in Minnesota wrong? Nebraska, New Jersey, and Texas? You know more than they do? Is the High Court in France wrong, for saying masses must be allowed to resume? You know just a bit more than they do? You say to follow the science, but it seems to just be the science according to you, without regard to public officials, Church leaders, and love of the Church and what she does.

We'll find out. Won't we.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Yes. It's called wave two for countries that have done well, and a plateau for countries that have done poorly. The issue is your applying the same rate of infection, and the assuming that lockdown has been equally effective across all nations and for each country, yet the US isn't ready for reducing restrictions. Yet Italy is.

That's the problem with your analysis.

"Donald Trump is urging American churches to reopen. If you were a priest, knowing how badly the USA was hit, if you were in charge of a church, would you reopen?"

Seeing as this was the question, your statement becomes the fallacy of equivalence, by assuming Germany's effectiveness in their lockdown is thus equivalent to the 50 states Lockdown, or the UKs. When the UK and US aren't ready to ease those restrictions.




During Pandemics, I don't trust Church's, I trust epidemiologists and experts in pathogenicity.

Is the Scientific consensus in the US that they should ease Lockdown? No.

Edit: depends on the state.

You're seriously saying you're smarter than these national governments? I can't continue to argue with you if you're saying that. (We should also focus the discussion on Christianity haha)

I'm not contending all these nations have the same disease curve. What I am saying, and have been saying this whole time, is that broadly speaking when virus rates recede, lockdown restrictions are reduced. What is worrisome is that you don't give any indication as to when lockdown should end. If I were to summarize your position, it's lockdown and nothing else. No regard for the consequences of lockdown. No regard for the spiritual decay brought by lockdown. Christianity is an incarnate faith. Unless you're called to a religious life of isolation, streamed masses and squirt gun baptisms isn't sustainable.

I pity those that don't trust the Church. That, frankly, seems to be the root of our disagreement. If one doesn't trust the Church, one doesn't believe in her life-giving, essential labor. This argument is astounding, so I hope I'm not understanding it correctly.

You think the Archdiocese of Indianapolis is wrong? That they didn't follow your version of the science enough? Are the bishops in Minnesota wrong? Nebraska, New Jersey, and Texas? You know more than they do? Is the High Court in France wrong, for saying masses must be allowed to resume? You know just a bit more than they do? You say to follow the science, but it seems to just be the science according to you, without regard to public officials, Church leaders, and love of the Church and what she does.

Public officials and other leaders may have ulterior motives beyond consideration of science.

[New Lunenburg]

It’s a bit of a meme, yes, but car accidents killed a similar number of people last year in the UK as Coronavirus has killed this year. As it would certainly cause less deaths to ban driving and lockdown is the right choice because it saves lives in your view, surely you’d want it banned?

Your reductio ad absurdum fails because a) it's not possible to do, (duh) and it actually proves my point. If you don't drive around recklessly, you won't kill anyone. Likewise, if you don't leave your home except for necessary commutes, you won't kill anyone.

I have observed the government guidelines, I just resent the fact that our government has decided to treat us like naughty schoolchildren. I know that this view most likely stems from my distrust of government, which you don’t seem to share, though I can’t understand why given the shoddy job they’ve done (even their own don’t follow the bloody thing). Anyway, I reckon we’re at an impasse here and it’s nearly 1am, so I’m off to bed.

[Hakons]

You're seriously saying you're smarter than these national governments? I can't continue to argue with you if you're saying that. (We should also focus the discussion on Christianity haha)

I'm not contending all these nations have the same disease curve. What I am saying, and have been saying this whole time, is that broadly speaking when virus rates recede, lockdown restrictions are reduced. What is worrisome is that you don't give any indication as to when lockdown should end. If I were to summarize your position, it's lockdown and nothing else. No regard for the consequences of lockdown. No regard for the spiritual decay brought by lockdown. Christianity is an incarnate faith. Unless you're called to a religious life of isolation, streamed masses and squirt gun baptisms isn't sustainable.

I pity those that don't trust the Church. That, frankly, seems to be the root of our disagreement. If one doesn't trust the Church, one doesn't believe in her life-giving, essential labor. This argument is astounding, so I hope I'm not understanding it correctly.

You think the Archdiocese of Indianapolis is wrong? That they didn't follow your version of the science enough? Are the bishops in Minnesota wrong? Nebraska, New Jersey, and Texas? You know more than they do? Is the High Court in France wrong, for saying masses must be allowed to resume? You know just a bit more than they do? You say to follow the science, but it seems to just be the science according to you, without regard to public officials, Church leaders, and love of the Church and what she does.

Public officials and other leaders may have ulterior motives beyond consideration of science.

For example, Church leaders consider the revealed truth of Christianity and the sacraments in their decision.

[Lower Nubia]

Your reductio ad absurdum fails because a) it's not possible to do, (duh) and it actually proves my point. If you don't drive around recklessly, you won't kill anyone. Likewise, if you don't leave your home except for necessary commutes, you won't kill anyone.

I have observed the government guidelines, I just resent the fact that our government has decided to treat us like naughty schoolchildren. I know that this view most likely stems from my distrust of government, which you don’t seem to share, though I can’t understand why given the shoddy job they’ve done (even their own don’t follow the bloody thing). Anyway, I reckon we’re at an impasse here and it’s nearly 1am, so I’m off to bed.

Have you met the human race?

God literally calls us naughty children.