Mennonite Measles in Texas

[Judas Maccabeus]

But I think it's helpful for people to point to some verifiable source of fact if they are making scientific claims. None of our opinions are facts. Skepticism is not the same thing as fact. Fear is not the same thing as fact.

Alright then. Let's see those verifiable sources of fact for why we had to have 6 feet of separation during COVID.

Any takers?

My memory says that the professionals never claimed the 6 feet was ever anything scientific at all, but rather from the outset a mere attempt to balance a need for some distance/space without completely closing everything down.
I just don’t remember it ever being claimed as some scientific distance at all - yet it is decried today by many as if it were. It’s sort of a straw man.

It was partly derived from the inverse square law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

As such, it was the best one could do within reason.

[JohnH]

It was partly derived from the inverse square law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

As such, it was the best one could do within reason.

Then why did it persist for two years?

Remember, these were things imposed with legal consequences for anyone who dared not to. And yes, we were told at church we had to sit so far apart from each other. It turns out it was actually based on nothing at all, but the powers that be decided to just release a rule anyway so that... they could have the appearance of doing something. (If you want references and citations, I'll be glad to give 'em.)

That kind of thing doesn't inspire confidence in public health. Instead, it reveals the "public health" profession for what it was all along: a sham mostly populated by busybodies who liked to go on power trips to control other people's lives. It is a feature of the totalitarian state. It is one that I plan to never submit to again.

[Ken]

It was partly derived from the inverse square law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

As such, it was the best one could do within reason.

Then why did it persist for two years?

Remember, these were things imposed with legal consequences for anyone who dared not to. And yes, we were told at church we had to sit so far apart from each other. It turns out it was actually based on nothing at all, but the powers that be decided to just release a rule anyway so that... they could have the appearance of doing something. (If you want references and citations, I'll be glad to give 'em.)

It didn't last 2 years as any sort of mandate. Even here in the blue state of Washington. By spring 2021 we were back doing in-person school, in summer 2021 we were back doing family reunions, and by fall 2021 my kids were back doing marching band, attending football games, etc.

[JohnH]

It didn't last 2 years as any sort of mandate. Even here in the blue state of Washington. By spring 2021 we were back doing in-person school, in summer 2021 we were back doing family reunions, and by fall 2021 my kids were back doing marching band, attending football games, etc.

"No big deal, it was only 1 - 2 years depending on jurisdiction."

1 year was 1 year too long.

There was no reason to do any of it. It was not based on science; to quote Dr. Fauci, it "sort of just appeared" and "wasn't based on data."

So why did it happen at all?

[Ken]

It didn't last 2 years as any sort of mandate. Even here in the blue state of Washington. By spring 2021 we were back doing in-person school, in summer 2021 we were back doing family reunions, and by fall 2021 my kids were back doing marching band, attending football games, etc.

"No big deal, it was only 1 - 2 years depending on jurisdiction."

1 year was 1 year too long.

There was no reason to do any of it. It was not based on science; to quote Dr. Fauci, it "sort of just appeared" and "wasn't based on data."

So why did it happen at all?

The fact of the matter is that social distancing actually works for every sort of disease. But any sort of regulation or recommendation will ultimately be a political compromise. That is the nature of public health. At 100 meters you are absolutely safe from catching any contagious disease. At 50 meters also. Outdoors probably 10 meters. As you get closer and closer the chance of transmission increases. At 5 meters your risk probably starts to increase but is still low. If someone is breathing on you from 6 inches away your risk is probably high. Two meters (or 6 ft) is ultimately going to be some kind of a compromise measure that will reduce (but not eliminate) transmission but still allow for viable commerce, doing business, doing school, etc. And, of course distance isn't the only factor. The duration of exposure, ventilation, type of virus, etc. all play a role.

So you combine distancing with other measures like improved ventilation, proper masking, etc. to bend the pandemic curve downwards until more effective measures like vaccines become available. Even if you only eliminate a fraction of transmissions through such measures they are still worth it if they bring down the transmission rate and burden on the public health system so that ill people aren't dying in the streets because hospitals are beyond capacity. This is public health 101 stuff and the sort of thing you do for any communicable disease pandemic. It saves lives. Lots and lots of them.

Part of living in a society is thinking about others as well. Not just yourself.

[R7ehr]

How about those measles though.

[Ken]

How about those measles though.

Measles is even more communicable than COVID.

Luckily we have a vaccine that is more effective and longer lasting than the COVID vaccine. So protecting yourself and your family against measles is trivially cheap and easy. We have occasional outbreaks in unvaccinated communities. But no big pandemic.

[Judas Maccabeus]

It was partly derived from the inverse square law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

As such, it was the best one could do within reason.

Then why did it persist for two years?

Remember, these were things imposed with legal consequences for anyone who dared not to. And yes, we were told at church we had to sit so far apart from each other. It turns out it was actually based on nothing at all, but the powers that be decided to just release a rule anyway so that... they could have the appearance of doing something. (If you want references and citations, I'll be glad to give 'em.)

That kind of thing doesn't inspire confidence in public health. Instead, it reveals the "public health" profession for what it was all along: a sham mostly populated by busybodies who liked to go on power trips to control other people's lives. It is a feature of the totalitarian state. It is one that I plan to never submit to again.

Fine. There is no way to experimentally test this, without a “challenge test” which is clearly unethical with a potentially fatal infection. So public health did the best it could to limit a potentially FATAL infection. And, yes, it CAN and must impose restrictions during an emergency, such authority has been a part of established law since the late 1800s. Your “it is all about me and my rights” reflect poorly on you and I hope do not reflect the position of your branch of the Mennonite church.

Most of your other comments are beginning to smack of “vain jangling “ 1 Tim 1:6.

[JohnH]

Fine. There is no way to experimentally test this, without a “challenge test” which is clearly unethical with a potentially fatal infection. So public health did the best it could to limit a potentially FATAL infection. And, yes, it CAN and must impose restrictions during an emergency, such authority has been a part of established law since the late 1800s. Your “it is all about me and my rights” reflect poorly on you and I hope do not reflect the position of your branch of the Mennonite church.

Most of your other comments are beginning to smack of “vain jangling “ 1 Tim 1:6.

If you have an actual spiritual concern for me, please respond to my email.

Thank you.

[JohnH]

Your “it is all about me and my rights” reflect poorly on you and I hope do not reflect the position of your branch of the Mennonite church.

The position of my church was that we held votes to decide to start meeting for church anyway, in contravention of public health officials saying not to. Generally speaking we decided we needed an 80% threshold to do this, but ultimately, our authority as a church supercedes any "authority" that public health officials pretend they have.

Part of our reasoning was that other churches around us were also meeting.

My church conducted my wedding in contravention of state orders at the time as well, in another state. We did so with the blessing of the local county officials, but in direct contravention of the state orders. The local county officials advised us to conduct it away from a state route to minimize the chance of any CHP officers seeing it.

Another wedding was conducted the next weekend, although done outdoors due to the desire of the size of the gathering.

At the time, I was a bit concerned about all of this. I decided I would submit to what my church felt was best. I also decided I would trust what local county officials had to say and ignore state level officials.

In retrospect, this was the right thing to do.

Do you have a problem with any of this?