Was the media too alarmist?
-
I read today that Sweden wasn't enforcing social distancing and wasn't closing schools. They are politely asking their populace to do what they can not to catch or spread the virus. This is apparently not resulting in anything resembling the sort of social distancing we're experiencing elsewhere.
So, my question is, will Sweden be providing some hard evidence one way or the other regarding how much enforcement was necessary? I mean, assuming they stay this course throughout the epidemic.
-
Sorry, but the IMHE models had flaws that were being pointed out weeks ago by dumbasses like me. If I can see those flaws, then the statisticians and epidemiologists could as well, and a lot more. So the fact is that they either let the flaws slide to manipulate the public opinion as well as the policy decisions or they were criminally incompetent.
I am/was all for the steps taken to this point. I believe the states should have instituted they have and some weren't strong enough. But it NEVER should have been done by presenting those numbers.
-
@Horace said in Was the media too alarmist?:
I read today that Sweden wasn't enforcing social distancing and wasn't closing schools. They are politely asking their populace to do what they can not to catch or spread the virus. This is apparently not resulting in anything resembling the sort of social distancing we're experiencing elsewhere.
So, my question is, will Sweden be providing some hard evidence one way or the other regarding how much enforcement was necessary? I mean, assuming they stay this course throughout the epidemic.
My understanding is they encourage social distancing, banned large public gatherings (eg 100s) but not small ones. They’ve closed universities and high schools, but not elementary schools.
Imperial College estimates their R value to be the highest in Europe. See graphs on pp 6-8
It is an interesting experiment, I don’t think the public will allow it to run to conclusion, though.
-
@Jolly said in Was the media too alarmist?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Was the media too alarmist?:
That's a great point, Donald! Especially when you consider which one of those is experiencing exponential (read: like, rilly fast) growth and the other one has been going down in cases since 1950!
- There wasn't a test for flu in the 1950's. A lot of diagnoses back then were made on symptoms.
- It's true that COVID is more contagious than the flu. But you're lucky, you can work from home. A lot of people cannot do that. They're hurting financially already.
How important are you and I in the grand scheme of things?
Of highest importance. Read your Bible.
Please love yourself.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Was the media too alarmist?:
@Jolly said in Was the media too alarmist?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Was the media too alarmist?:
That's a great point, Donald! Especially when you consider which one of those is experiencing exponential (read: like, rilly fast) growth and the other one has been going down in cases since 1950!
- There wasn't a test for flu in the 1950's. A lot of diagnoses back then were made on symptoms.
- It's true that COVID is more contagious than the flu. But you're lucky, you can work from home. A lot of people cannot do that. They're hurting financially already.
How important are you and I in the grand scheme of things?
Of highest importance. Read your Bible.
This Bible?
Every Christian should gather together to hear the Scriptures and worship Jesus with other believers weekly (see Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; Acts 2:42; Col. 3:16; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Rom. 16:5; Acts 20:20; James 2:2; Ps. 84:4; Ps. 37:17; Ps. 92:13).
It is also good to meet for smaller groups of Christian community in each other’s homes regularly (see Acts 2:46).
If there are believers who are unable, for physical reasons, to attend a church weekly, they should find a church or believers who will gather together with them regularly for worship in their own home (see James 5:14; James 1:27).
-
If you're that obtuse then we don't really have that much to talk about. But you're not and you know it, so let's get serious.
What you're advocating for is Communist collectivism. The idea that individuals are of lesser importance to some greater good was exactly the rationale behind the Great Purge. It was verbatim what you just said.
Please love yourself.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Was the media too alarmist?:
If you're that obtuse then we don't really have that much to talk about. But you're not and you know it, so let's get serious.
What you're advocating for is Communist collectivism. The idea that individuals are of lesser importance to some greater good was exactly the rationale behind the Great Purge. It was verbatim what you just said.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
So, in one sense, man's soul is so important that God was willing to give his only Son. But the Bible also talks about meeting together in His name. Those verses I've already given you.
Also consider...Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Also consider * And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.*
Could it be that while your soul is of imminent value to God, perhaps your corporal body is a bit less so? Could it be by sacrifice, even of one's own life if need be, that the sacrifice is Biblical in its application? Again...
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
And before you get on the whole kick about God's Love that your generation thinks it invented, consider this:
***All ***(emphasis mine) scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
So, let's see...
- Your soul is so important that God gave his only Son to give you the opportunity for Salvation.
- But He also instructs you to gather in his name, through multiple verses cited earlier.
- God also makes a distinction between the importance of your spiritual self and your corporal self.
- And God has no problem if you lay down your life for the good of others.
Sacrifice, adherence to Biblical teachings and good works are not the realm of Stalinism, last time I looked.
-
Genesis 1:27. Divinity is found in the individual. As such, it's not a frivolous thing. I think for Christians (or any compassionate people generally), saving as many lives as possible is what's called for. And no, that doesn't mean shutting down the world and living in a bunker from now to eternity; that would quite obviously lead to a high death count as well. There are things we can do to open the country up gradually and safely.
Sacrificing individuals to "save" society runs counter to that, and it's exactly that kind of rhetoric that was used in the Soviet Union in the 30s.
Please love yourself.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Was the media too alarmist?:
Genesis 1:27. Divinity is found in the individual. As such, it's not a frivolous thing. I think for Christians (or any compassionate people generally), saving as many lives as possible is what's called for. And no, that doesn't mean shutting down the world and living in a bunker from now to eternity; that would quite obviously lead to a high death count as well. There are things we can do to open the country up gradually and safely.
Sacrificing individuals to "save" society runs counter to that, and it's exactly that kind of rhetoric that was used in the Soviet Union in the 30s.
You keep saying that, and I still think you're wrong. To me, it sounds like the typical self-centered mantra of today, with the highest importance of the self. Christianity has never been about the highest importance of the self.
-
It's the individual who surrenders himself to God, not some social collective. Salvation lies within, not in the hands of the state. Luke 7:36, Luke 10, Genesis 7, etc. etc.: every Biblical parable has at its center an individual, not a noble mob. Christianity is about understanding the sovereignty of the person, not killing individuals so that the rest of the state can go back to work. The idea that two people should kill themselves to help the economy get back on track sounds like a death cult to me, so no thanks.
Please love yourself.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Was the media too alarmist?:
It's the individual who surrenders himself to God, not some social collective. Salvation lies within, not in the hands of the state. Luke 7:36, Luke 10, Genesis 7, etc. etc.: every Biblical parable has at its center an individual, not a noble mob. Christianity is about understanding the sovereignty of the person, not killing individuals so that the rest of the state can go back to work. The idea that two people should kill themselves to help the economy get back on track sounds like a death cult to me, so no thanks.
Who said Salvation lies in the hands of the state?
-
I am probably the last person to talk about the Bible, as I will acknowledge that I do not know very much about it.
But, it seems (like many other religious books) that you can find passages to fit your point of view, even if they are totally opposite to each other.
One example I have heard:
Doesnt part of the Bible say "an eye for an eye" yet another part says "turn the other cheek"AGAIN, I do not know the Bible too much, so the above is probably taken out of contacts, but it is one example that I think of.
-
Why are we in a Biblical debate in a thread about whether the media went too far into panic mode?
Me/rry/Christmas
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Was the media too alarmist?:
Why are we in a Biblical debate in a thread about whether the media went too far into panic mode?
Amen.
But, I must say I am impressed with people that can reference Bible verses off the top of their head. When it gets real heavy, it ends up being references thrown back and forth, without content, almost like a game.
I do remember years ago on this forum, there were certain individuals that were amazing in their knowledge, and then the knock-down-drag-out fights that would occur as true meaning was chased around the room.
OK. Back to the topic.
Yeah, media sux, causes panic for click-bait. Orange Man bad, Biden has no marbles, Cuomo will be the next pres., Hillary is jiggly.Other than that, I got pretty much nothing.
-
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@taiwan_girl said in Was the media too alarmist?:
I am probably the last person to talk about the Bible, as I will acknowledge that I do not know very much about it.
But, it seems (like many other religious books) that you can find passages to fit your point of view, even if they are totally opposite to each other.
One example I have heard:
Doesnt part of the Bible say "an eye for an eye" yet another part says "turn the other cheek"AGAIN, I do not know the Bible too much, so the above is probably taken out of contacts, but it is one example that I think of.
The Bible has many layers. Some things that can be taken literally, also have deeper meanings, when you connect the books as a whole or when you know the background or the everyday life of the time it was written.
Tomorrow is Easter, the day Christ arose from the dead and walked away from his tomb. If you are a bit curious about that, pick up a good reference Bible and do some reading. The first five books of the New Testament is where I would start...
-
@Jolly said in Was the media too alarmist?:
@mark said in Was the media too alarmist?:
It's just a book, written by men.
Dewey, you're wrong on multiple levels.
I hope it’s merely a typo that you confuse mark for Dewey. I have met both mark and Dewey in person. They are two different people.
-
@Axtremus said in Was the media too alarmist?:
@Jolly said in Was the media too alarmist?:
@mark said in Was the media too alarmist?:
It's just a book, written by men.
Dewey, you're wrong on multiple levels.
I hope it’s merely a typo that you confuse mark for Dewey. I have met both mark and Dewey in person. They are two different people.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/the_new_coffee_room/viewtopic.php?p=1216039#p1216039
@dewey said in [Marriage Equality in the Presbyterian Church]
If you believe, as Jolly does, that the Bible is inerrant, infallible, immutable, then you cannot accept any of the explanation I've just offered.
