Two weeks. Right on schedule.
This seems to please the OP, I also notice you fail to mention other churches which have opened yet not had a similar situation occur.
This is the problem when you cherry pick examples.
Yes, because diseases are only a problem if everyone gets them. :rolleyes:
Somebody did not pray hard enough.
We are still very early in the reopening process. Some are literally doing it as we speak. Just wait a while.
The Georgia church in question has only been reopened for two weeks, and the incubation time for COVID-19 has been recognized as one to two weeks. That implies the damage began almost immediately upon reopening.
It isn’t every drunk driver that injures or kill someone on the way home from the bar.
The real problem is arrogance. It’s the attitude that, because they are Believers and worship God, He will give them Carte Blanche to do whatever they want regardless of the consequences.
I guess they never read Matthew 4, verses 6 & 7:
**“If You are the Son of God,” he said, “throw Yourself down. For it is written: ‘He will command His angels concerning You, and they will lift You up in their hands, so that You will not strike Your foot against a stone.’” 7Jesus replied, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”
There’s that viral video about the woman in her car leaving a service, claiming she was protected because she was “Covered in the blood of Jesus”. It doesn’t matter what the book says. Just say the magic words and olly-olly-oxen-free!
I feel that the familiar story about the man in the flood who rejected help from two boats and a helicopter applies here. Don’t ask for miracles when you could achieve the same result merely by not being an idiot.
Not idioting is hard.
Speaking of Georgia, did everybody see this—is it really true?
“The state of Georgia made it look like its covid cases were going down by putting the dates out of order on its chart May 5 was followed by April 25, then back to May again, whatever made it look like a downslope.” (tweeted one writer).
“I have a hard time understanding how this happens without it being deliberate,” microbiology and molecular genetics PhD and state Rep. Jasmine Clark told the Journal Constitution. “Literally nowhere ever in any type of statistics would that be acceptable.”
Georgia isn’t the only state itching to reopen that has a penchant for dubious data. Florida actively tried suppressing county coroners from releasing COVID-19 death tallies.
The anticipated hypothetical outbreak at two weeks has happened, Jasmine is providing evidence.
At this point, NOT having an outbreak at two weeks is the hypothetical you propose. Have you any examples to support your hypothesis, or is your position still just “possible”?
Wow. Where to start. First off, the article says that 75% of its congregation didn’t attend in person when they reopened. And it doesn’t say anything about whether the infected families were part of the 25 percent or the 75. So, there’s that, as a starting point. But the far, far more troubling notion is that someone would jump straight from correlation to causation here. if there’s one thing I’d guess about families that attend a smallish church in a smallish town, which I’m assuming is what we’re talking about here, it’s that their lives are likely in some way intertwined. Like, maybe their kids play together, maybe they get together for cards on Saturday night, watch sports together on Sunday, that kind of thing. Hell, maybe they are even family. Don’t cousins in Georgia often marry? Or maybe they work together at the same factory, or meat packing plant.
Point is, there’s no way to tell from this article how the families got infected. The article also says the church did the whole social distancing thing in what sounds like a pretty rigorous way. I guess one might be of the point of view that even careful social distancing protocols and 75% reductions in capacity still don’t make gatherings like this acceptable, and I do agree with the sentiment that it’s attitudes like those that are doing more to harm right now than to help.
And yes, I agree completely with Carryon that if this is thought to be ‘right on schedule’ then we should line up the other in-person services from the same weekend, the ones that didn’t make the paper because their familes aren’t sick, and put them in the other column. You know, to be fair and all. And then let’s see whose right about how reckless, or not, it really is.
First, this does not apply to the church in your link. They were taking precautions.
Second, the article doesn’t say whether the people who got infected got infected at that church, or elsewhere, perhaps where fewer precautions were taken. I’d guess it’s unknown whether those people got the infection there or elsewhere. Maybe that church is the “sower”; maybe not.
Sorry if I’m spoiling your schadenfreude. But there are plenty of other, more egregious examples of churches being arrogantly reckless.
Because evidence of absence is absence of evidence? Or is it the news media’s conspirational fault for not running stories about gatherings that turned out safe? Now, if you want to say the OP is an example of confirmation bias that’s another thing entirely. But it is at least one example of “well who wouldn’t have seen that coming?”
Yes, that is exactly the point, that you don’t make broad generalizations based on isolated cases. (What is the other thing entirely, in this case, is that the generalization itself is not even well-founded.)
I believe that religious websites are still number one at spreading computer viruses. If you’re not willing to risk yourself by visiting friends and family, why are you at a church when a human virus is roaming around? Since the websites aren’t clean, I wouldn’t pass the collection basket in real life.
I think the larger point is that while these people could have been, and almost certainly were, infected elsewhere, attending church offers the opportunity for the virus to spread. Which is the entire point of avoiding gatherings like this. Even if they had the best intentions and practices of keeping people 6 feet apart, having people gather for non-essential reasons opens the church to speculation and criticism.
Which generalization is unfounded? That people gathered in larger groups tends to aid the spread of the virus? Or that it’s impossible to know who carries a virus asymptomatically thus an abundance of caution is advisable when considering non-essential gatherings?
Keep in mind, the church is not being blamed for the virus. Only its spread in the community.
Cite? I’ve never even heard this claimed, let alone established. AFAIK the top sources of malware are porn and piracy. And a few minutes with Google seems to bear this out.