CDC: "consider suspending use of a choir"
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,014
    I just read something that stated there were 100,000 deaths from Hong Kong flu in the U.S. in 1969. Seems like the folks at that time might have handled it with less hysteria.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,716
    Total deaths: 1st - US, 103, 775; 2nd - UK, 38, 458


    Ah, yes. Unadjusted numbers. Here's a graph from Our World in Data---maintained by Oxford University, and whose data in used by: Science, Nature, BBC, CNN, Vox, New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, Harvard, Berkeley, Cambridge, Oxford, & MIT, among others---which shows total deaths adjusted per 1 million population, logarithmic scale, 7-day rolling average, comparing the US and UK. This is followed by the same in a linear scale for comparison.

    Also, the US has performed more tests per thousand people than the UK, though not many. Though it is a general principle that the more tests the more cases are likely to be found.

    I have also attached the Case Fatality Rate graph for the US vs UK for comparison.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,716
    And here is a chart, again adjusted for population, of total deaths. Logarithmic & Linear

    In descending order:
    United Kingdom
    Italy
    France
    United States
    Canada
    Brazil (NB, still a steep upward trend)
    Germany
    Australia
    India
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,536
    A virus is about 3 microns in diameter. The common paper mask will NOT stop anything smaller than ~70 microns.

    This argument doesn't seem to address how the disease transmission supposedly happens, through droplets from sneezes and coughs. Large sneeze droplets can be 60-100 microns (info here), so common masks would help keep people from spewing those around.
    Thanked by 1Carol
  • jpnz71
    Posts: 65
    Ah, yes. Unadjusted numbers.

    Ah, yes. Let's find as many graphs as possible to make 100,000+ deaths look smaller. I am sure this will make the 100,000+ families who lost loved ones to this virus feel better about their loss.

    [Admin note: Please make constructive contributions. Sarcasm tends to stoke "flame wars".]
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,003
    Noted today at Mass (alleluia!!) only about 10 of the 250 parishioners were wearing a mask.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,536
    there were 100,000 deaths from Hong Kong flu in the U.S. in 1969. Seems like the folks at that time might have handled it with less hysteria.

    The epidemic in 1968-69 resulted in 1 million deaths worldwide and 100,000 in the U.S., according to CDC. The current pandemic, in its initial five months, has racked up 373,899 fatalities (as of 5/31/20), according to data on worldometers, and is approaching 100,000 in the U.S., so it is on track to becoming a somewhat more serious burden.

    Besides the rapid spread and the impact of the disease, there are probably social factors that drive the great attention given to COVID-19, such as the constant flow of news and data; and the scientific advances that have made testing available quickly and have made at least some vaccine research possible already.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,014
    The deaths are a reality. The world is a dangerous place - always has been. Despite our advances in technology and medicine, everything is not subject to our control. Until a vaccine is developed or the disease runs it course, we will have to live with this for a while longer.

    Noted today at Mass (alleluia!!) only about 10 of the 250 parishioners were wearing a mask.


    Surprising. In our diocese everyone had to wear them. Mass attendance was down by about half but the only time the masks were removed was to receive communion. Social distance, or in my usual case anti-social distance, was maintained by all.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,716
    I am sure this will make the 100,000+ families who lost loved ones to this virus feel better about their loss.

    It isn't intended to. You made a claim, I countered; you fired back with emotionalism.

    The U.S. is the fourth largest country in the world by area, and the third largest by population. Is it really surprising that during a pandemic it would have one of the highest numbers of cases or deaths, as far as raw numbers are concerned? The U.S. states with the highest number of cases are New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts, and California (and, incidentally, California has not peaked yet). And in these states the most cases are in and around the large urban centers (New York City, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles, etc.), rural areas are less affected. This shouldn't shock anyone. Throughout the history of the world, large, congested cities have always been the hardest hit by plagues and pandemics: Nihil novus sub sole.

    Now, getting back to those 100,000+ families who have lost loved ones. Yes, it is a terrible thing that anyone should lose family or friends, particularly unexpectedly. They do need prayers and love, particularly from those of us in the Church who are required by Charity to do so. I do not intend to make light of that. But, I don't understand the dichotomy that has been set up between caring about and for the sick, dying, and dead, and looking at the data from a more detached and objective stance.

    I also don't understand how the 2019 novel coronavirus pandemic is any more Trump's fault than the Spanish Flu epidemic was Wilson's fault or the polio epidemic was Truman's or Eisenhower's faults. There is no reason to have an over-bearing national quarantine policy for the US because of the different sizes, demographics, etc., of the various states. There is no reason why Maine (which is 90% forest and the least populous state in New England) needs to follow the exact same protocols and procedures that DeBlasio has set up in NYC, where ~8.4 million people live on top of each other. I am not a Trump fan (I didn't vote for him), but can we actually be reasonable and knock-it-off with the Orange Man Bad nonsense?

    As I write this Worldometers shows 106,198 CoVID-19 related deaths in the U.S., it also shows that 599,875 cases have either recovered and/or have been discharged from hospital---that's 85% of closed cases.

    The purpose of social-distancing, etc., is not to stop the virus, but to slow the spread in order to not over-burden hospitals. I live in Massachusetts (one of the hardest-hit states with 96,965 total cases), at the high-point of the peak in April there were just shy of 4,000 coronavirus patients in MA hospitals, and just over 1,000 in ICU. At the height my local hospital had a grand total of ... 11 (Eleven!) cases, and 3 (Three!) in ICU. The governor and the hospitals had rushed to create field hospitals to cope with the burden, most went entirely unused, and needed to be closed down. I'm not saying that that wasn't a prudent thing to do, considering that at the beginning no one really know what to expect, but I do know that the opening of the field hospitals was big news (even on Sports Talk Radio!), with lots of hype, while the closing of field hospitals due to non-use was hardly mentioned.

    Here are some other statistics for comparison: (World-wide, since Jan. 1, 2020)
    Coronavirus Deaths: 374,334
    Seasonal flu Deaths: 203,152
    HIV/AIDS Deaths: 701,192
    Malaria Deaths: 409,140
    Suicides: 447,291
    Road Traffic Accident Fatalities: 563,063
    Thanked by 2tomjaw Carol
  • These reality deniers are a discredit to CMAA


    I notice that there are three recent postings, here at the CMAA forum, for job openings, so those posting them must not take "discredit" as seriously as the one who raised this concern.

    On the general subject of trusting experts about when to discontinue or suspend the use of a choir, there are (at least) three different kinds of experts who need to be consulted, humanly speaking:

    1) doctors and/or nurses (but not "public health officials")
    2) parents (or the singers themselves)
    3) choirmasters


    Susan on the Parish Council (if that's the right name) should be consulted or heeded only if she fits in one of the above groups. This respects the principle of subsidiarity, making the decision at no higher a level than absolutely necessary.

  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 4,628

    SINK.   THIS.   THREAD. --- PLEASE!!!
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,516
    CHGiffen - I think @chonak has opened the scuppers already, you can check the time on the last post against the time on the 'all discussions' page. But there is not much activity on the forum, so it is only sinking slowly!
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • jpnz71
    Posts: 65
    I notice that there are three recent postings, here at the CMAA forum, for job openings, so those posting them must not take "discredit" as seriously as the one who raised this concern.

    In my sphere of influence, which is not small, I tell people to avoid CMAA because of what I find on this forum. I keep hoping for better, and continue to be disappointed. Those of you who are invested more deeply in CMAA, and believe in its mission, might want to think about advocating for a forum which does not allow nonsense, ignorance and worse to be publicly posted.
  • JPNZ71,

    My sphere of influence is miniscule, but enlarged by one just recently, with the birth of my grand daughter. I have no doubt that your sphere of influence is larger than mine.
    Nevertheless, the people who posted here still think it is a valuable avenue, even in the age of SIP, on which to look for suitable candidates.

    Could you comment, though, on my other observation, that the principle of subsidiarity (part of Catholic teaching) requires that doctors, nurses, parents, singers and choirmasters should make the decision about whether to continue the work of the choir?
  • SINK. THIS. THREAD. --- PLEASE!!!
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,308
    sink anything with the word virus in it.
    Thanked by 1CatherineS
  • BruceL
    Posts: 1,049
    Richard, thank you. Came here to post that. The virus is transmitted on the droplets, thus the concern about aerosolized droplets. A surgical mask (or even a cotton one) is very effective in keeping those droplets away from your neighbor!
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,003
    Oh. So no need to cover one's mouth when sneezing/coughing if you're wearing a mask!! And if you're going to scream bloody murder at someone, please remain 6' away if not wearing a mask.

    Got it. Makes all the sense in the world.

    [If you're going to post sarcasm, please remain 6' away from your keyboard. --admin]
  • Francis,

    Does that mean that the following thread should be suppressed? (Yes, I'm tweaking you):

    Reparation to Immaculate Heart of Mary only known cure for virus of modernism infecting the Church
    Thanked by 2CharlesW francis
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,308
    No threads (within reason) should be suppressed. (Or sunk)

    However, humanity is now shuddering at the future day by day.

    Reparation is this coming Saturday. Be there if you are able!
    Thanked by 1Gustavo Zayas