Off-topic comments from other discussions
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,691
    This discussion was created from off-topic comments split from: Passion reading in electronic dialog format.
    Thanked by 2Andrew_Malton tomjaw
  • This is one way to deal with the crowd parts, 4 unsocially distanced singers


    If it's too dangerous to have misalettes, given what we now how about how Covid spreads, how on earth is it possible to have singers???
  • Maybe unsick singers, who have no lode of the virus?
    Thanked by 1CCooze
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,159
    The only thing we "now know" about how Covid spreads is that "experts" still can't agree, and the vaccine isn't doing anything to bring general society back to any state of "normalcy," regardless of how many PIPs (in this case people in power) made the promise of "or until there is a vaccine."
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 980
    When you say 'experts' do you mean epidemiologists? If so, they all agree on how Covid is spread and all agree on ways to slow the rate of infection. If not you are not talking about epidemiologist, then they are NOT experts and are only giving their (mostly) biased, uninformed opinions.

    With so few vaccinations done (in comparison to the entire world population), it is not surprising that it hasn't really made a dent in the spread.

  • BHCordova,

    I think that Corinne means that the "experts" seem to be manufacturing positions based on maintaining their control over the populace. Here in California our 2-week shelter in place order is now in its 10th month, and Dr. Fauci -- who once opposed mask wearing -- is now urging 2-masks per person. Dr. Fauci is (ostensibly) an epidemiologist.

    In a larger sense, aren't those here who are choral musicians more experts on the dangers of singing than epidemiologists?

    Lastly (for now): is the need to have a follow-along booklet partly based on the reality that the music to which the texts ought to be sung, by clerics, is not used?
    Thanked by 2tomjaw ServiamScores
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,159
    re: "With so few vaccinations done (in comparison to the entire world population), it is not surprising that it hasn't really made a dent in the spread."

    As I said, the clearly-false promise of "...or until there is a vaccine," is frustrating.
    Our bishops didn't say, "or until all of our parishoners can prove they've been 'fully' vaccinated against covid."

    re: "experts"
    There really are more voices than epidemiologists that should be considered.
    As an example, experts of various sorts have said from the beginning that PCR testing was faulty, at best, in giving a diagnosis of "covid infection."
    They've said, all along, that the presence of proteins etc related to covid doesn't mean that someone is infected or even contagious. Therefore, the numbers they've been giving, and then the "positive results" they've been using to count "covid deaths" is inaccurate at best, and purposely misleading at worst.
    The W.H.O has finally come out with similar information, now that the vaccine has come out. And if doing so suddenly causes the number of "positive cases" to go down, does that actually mean that vaccine is working, or that the powers that be have already achieved their goal, whatever that may be, and accuracy is suddenly more important?
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,146
    When you say 'experts' do you mean epidemiologists? If so, they all agree on how Covid is spread and all agree on ways to slow the rate of infection. If not you are not talking about epidemiologist, then they are NOT experts and are only giving their (mostly) biased, uninformed opinions.

    With so few vaccinations done (in comparison to the entire world population), it is not surprising that it hasn't really made a dent in the spread.

    If an Epidemiologist is an expert in Covid what does a virologist do? A virologist is an 'expert' in viruses, Epidemiology is the study and analysis of the distribution (who, when, and where), patterns and determinants of health and disease conditions in defined populations.

    No measure recommended by epidemiologists has successfully slowed the rate of infection, they only appear to have delayed the infection. See the second, third and fourth spikes. Even the vaccines will not help much in this regard as they are not sterilising vaccines, they are more like the flu vaccine a non-sterilising vaccine, so you (well those at risk) will need boosters each year. This of course will not prevent deaths from Covid, just as with Flu.

    They have no idea at present the of levels of herd immunity needed to get Covid under control, but the largest medical trials ever are in progress in the U.K. and Israel, so we will have some data soon. Whether this will be applicable anywhere else is anybodies guess.
    Thanked by 1CCooze
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 980
    An epidemiologist is an expert in the spread of disease. A virologist studies viruses in a lab under controlled conditions. The measures recommended by epidemiologists are meant to slow down the spread of the disease, not stop it. In countries where the measures recommended by epidemiologists have been successfully implemented, the spread of Covid-19 has slowed significantly.

    The US has failed miserably to implement those measurements and has the highest rate of infection per 100,000 people. New Zealand has fully implemented those measurements and has the lowest rate of infection per 100,000 people.
    Thanked by 2Schönbergian Elmar
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,146
    An epidemiologist 'studies' the spread of disease, whether he has any workable ideas is another thing entirely, I would expect an expert to give reliable advice that works and does not change every few weeks.

    Anyway you can stop the spread of disease we have been successful with Smallpox. With Corona viruses including the common cold and the Flu, we have seen abject failure.

    As for New Zealand an isolated country, with a low population density and a unique genetic make up, can hardly be described as model to follow. Anyway they got lucky they lockdown in a panic and managed to stop the spread quickly, but now they are isolated and have to remain isolated from the rest of the world until a sterilising vaccine is produced which may be never. The 1% or so of New Zealanders have had their deaths postponed, not prevented.

    The same goes for European countries that have tried the Lockdown and masks approach and have failed, no one has yet come out of lockdown with a sustainable solution. N.B. the 'experts' at the WHO, have said that lockdowns should not be the primary way of controlling respiratory illnesses. As for masks for every academic paper that tells us they work another shows in real world conditions they don't.

    Also the rate of infection per 100,000 people is meaningless if you have not tested large random sections of your population.
    Thanked by 2CCooze MatthewRoth
  • GerardH
    Posts: 222
    This discussion was created from off-topic comments split from: Passion reading in electronic dialog format.

    I'm surprised this discussion is being humoured at all. It's even less relevant to the purpose of this forum than corrupt church members being crushed by those to whom they gave allegience...
    Thanked by 1Schönbergian
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,358
    I guess the connection is: passion.

    Not always of the fruitful kind.
  • CatherineS
    Posts: 630
    I suppose church musicians might be particularly frustrated by the way the virus and reaction to it have disrupted their beloved vocation/work. So in that sense it's very relevant.
    Thanked by 1CCooze
  • GerardH,

    Since we are being directly hindered in the doing of our work by the advice of the "experts", by lawmakers and public health officials, and by the panic these have caused, surely makers of sacred music have a (vested) interest in the topic and must have a voice in restoring sanity in the current circumstance. Besides, even here in our midst we have scientifically trained persons who are practicing their craft and adding to our knowledge base. Finally, since one of the etiquette standards asks us to remember future readers - I should think it would be valuable to see the arguments put forth by musicians of the caliber here assembled in the midst of the situation under study. How many of you would be interested to see discussion notes among musicians trying to do their jobs during some historically analogous situation. How did they handle it -- or fail to handle it?
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,159
    And now that those so-called “experts” are touting the greatness of funding abortions at home and on foreign soil, with how much salt should the rest of their “scientific expertise” be taken?

    Not to mention that, since people are now under the impression that watching a live-stream = “participating,” will churches insist on finding more, creative ways for them to “more actively” participate, once they dare to return to pews, and will it conveniently set back all the improvements made away from the clown masses of yesteryears?
    Thanked by 2tomjaw MatthewRoth
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,223
    Select the four worst trouble makers in the choir, or members of the parish council, or both, and let them sing/speak while close together and not wearing masks. Two (four) birds with one stone.

    Just kidding. My bad.
    Thanked by 3tomjaw Elmar bhcordova
  • GerardH
    Posts: 222
    @Chris: ...even here in our midst we have scientifically trained persons who are ... adding to our knowledge base.

    Let's hear from them shall we?

    @CCooze: And now that those so-called “experts” are touting the greatness of funding abortions at home and on foreign soil, with how much salt should the rest of their “scientific expertise” be taken?

    This is a logical fallacy, specifically an ad hominem appeal to motive. Care to come up with a real argument?

    @Chris: ...future readers...

    Somehow I don't think anyone will be much interested in the poorly-informed scientific opinions of "musicians".

    Edited to add:
    @CCooze: Not to mention that, since people are now under the impression that watching a live-stream = “participating,” will churches insist on finding more, creative ways for them to “more actively” participate, once they dare to return to pews, and will it conveniently set back all the improvements made away from the clown masses of yesteryears?

    This is another logical fallacy: the slippery slope argument. What a roll!
    Thanked by 1Schönbergian
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,159
    Really, now.
    And exactly how many masks do you think we should each be wearing, nowadays?
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,699
    During the Spanish flu pandemic a century ago, the Japanese decided that wearing masks was a useful measure. It became culturally normal to wear a mask whenever you think there is an appreciable risk of catching an airborne disease, and expected that you wear a mask if you might be infectious. This cultural norm has spread among the eastern states of Asia. It is evident that these countries have had much lower rates of infection during the current pandemic.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen Liam
  • davido
    Posts: 506
    If rates of infection are something that can even be believed. Even the WHO has changed the goalposts on what now constitutes a COVID infection.

    Wearing a mask when infectious is not a bad idea. It’s the treating all the healthy people as infectious that is ridiculous.
    Thanked by 3francis tomjaw CCooze
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,146
    @a_f_hawkins
    It is evident that these countries have had much lower rates of infection during the current pandemic.

    Whether that is due to the masks or other factors is anyones guess. It is notable in Western European countries looking at the graphs of positive tests that wearing masks appears to do nothing, either the number of infections remains constant or they increase.

    Yet another group of scientists finding that human behaviour is very difficult to model or predict.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,699
    human behaviour is very difficult to model or predict
    Don't I know it! I spent much of 35 years predicting transport demand. I would only claim that collecting data and modeling it is better than relying on the hunches of politicians. Provided that you are not deceived by the economists notion of "rational (and perfectly informed) economic man".
    Thanked by 3tomjaw francis Elmar
  • Gerhard,

    Re: scientific experts.

    They run their credentials up the flagpole when someone accuses them of just being some q-anon infected freak, and occasionally at other times when it is helpful to the discussion to do so. They don't, generally, strut like peacocks with their expertise in non-musical fields because this is a musicians' forum. Nevertheless, they exist, and they usually contribute thoughtfully when they do weigh in with their non-musical expertise.

    Re: Interest of historians in later periods.

    Historians are always coming up with new ways to organize data, especially in our own day, when "social history" is (still) all the rage. Some time ago, of course, there was the (mostly now defunct) school called the Analystes. My family and I are currently watching (because it's relevant to the boys' schoolwork) A History of England, produced by Michael Wood of the BBC. Talk about things our forebears didn't think anyone would care about!
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,159
    A virologist studies viruses in a lab under controlled conditions


    *CDC sprays aerosols at dummies with masks on to "prove" a point (which *has* to be worse than what virologists actually do)*

    Jordan Schachtel panned the latest "study" as “nothing more than a handful of experiments on mannequins in a contained environment[.] … The CDC sprayed aerosols at mannequins and slapped a science™ label on their experiments.”

    But, now double-masking is given the go-ahead by the CDC.
    ...not without a little caveat (fine print is often telling):
    “double masking might impede breathing or obstruct peripheral vision for some wearers, and knotting and tucking can change the shape of the mask such that it no longer covers fully both the nose and the mouth of persons with larger faces.”

    If they're finally admitting that any sort of masking might impede breathing, then it's safe to say that those who felt masking impeded their breathing weren't just being dramatic.
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,159
    Wow.

    So, people are going into churches in the UK to receive a [tainted] vaccine.
    Are they also going on Sundays, to worship?

    What a strange and sad scene.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Gee, I hope that organist didn't accidentally pick the wrong Largo out of the thousands Handel wrote.
    So, people are going into churches in the UK to receive a [tainted] vaccine.

    There's room for reasonable debate on how we should be handling COVID as a society, but I think this kind of blatant fear-mongering shouldn't be present on this forum.
  • KARU27
    Posts: 151
    Interesting point. Salisbury Cathedral is closed for worship, but open as a vaccination site.
    I suppose the government trusts (and funds) medical people to supervise a huge building like this, but not the religious authority.
    https://www.salisburycathedral.org.uk/news/cathedral-opens-covid-19-vaccination-site
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,159
    blatant fear-mongering

    I mean, as Bp* Schneider said, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference whether the fetal cell lines are in the vaccine or just used to test the vaccine. It's still tainted. It's still abominable.

    closed for worship, but open as a vaccination site.

    Exactly. That's really messed up. The religious authority shouldn't stand for such blatant hypocrisy.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Schoenbergian,

    In a sense, reception of a vaccine is a sacramental (to some, at any rate), so surely Corinne is right to draw attention to the repurposing of the Cathedral? "Tainted" may be a fear-mongering word in some contexts, but I don't think (Corinne will correct me if I'm wrong, I hope) she means to manufacture fear. Some of the vaccines available are actually derived from fetal lines, and other vaccines are tested on fetal lines, so in this technical sense they are tainted with the stain of someone else's murder.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw CCooze
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,699
    In England places of worship are open, with restrictions, for communal worship as well as for private prayer, and for funerals, weddings and so on. The regulation for communal worship is very vague :
    Communal worship, including prayers, devotions or meditations led by a Minister of Religion or lay person
    Limits for communal worship should be decided on the basis of the capacity of the place of worship following an assessment of risk.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,223
    I mean, as Abp Schneider said, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference whether the fetal cell lines are in the vaccine or just used to test the vaccine. It's still tainted. It's still abominable.


    There is so much we don't know about those vaccines. Some are getting good results from them but how well they will work long-term I don't think anyone really knows. I haven't taken one yet. We can sign up for them here, but the vaccines are in short supply so you may not get one immediately. Maybe a little "wait and see" might not be a bad thing if you can stay away from others.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 980
    I've had both doses of the Moderna vaccine and the only thing I suffered was a sore arm for a few days. Several reliable Catholic sources have stated that it is licit to receive both the Moderna and the Pfizer vaccines.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,546
    I am presently composing a fugue called 'The Stab'. (The Fantasia is called, 'The Mask'.)

    Be very careful what you wear, and what you dare.

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-study-claims-humid-cloth-masks-lessen-covid-impact?utm_source=top_news&utm_campaign=standard
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,699
    I am prepared to rely on this CDF document https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20201221_nota-vaccini-anticovid_en.html
    whether the fetal cell lines are in the vaccine or just used to test the vaccine
    I am obviously not qualified to argue the toss with Bishop† Schneider. But there is a fundamental difference between incorporating material descended from X, and having collateral antecedents who had transactions with X.
    †Bishop Schneider is an auxiliary Bishop, not a metropolitan, and not a diocesan (yet).
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • From the document:
    It must therefore be considered that, in such a case, all vaccinations recognized as clinically safe and effective can be used in good conscience with the certain knowledge that the use of such vaccines does not constitute formal cooperation with the abortion from which the cells used in production of the vaccines derive. It should be emphasized, however, that the morally licit use of these types of vaccines, in the particular conditions that make it so, does not in itself constitute a legitimation, even indirect, of the practice of abortion, and necessarily assumes the opposition to this practice by those who make use of these vaccines.

    We can stop spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt about COVID-19 measures for the umpteenth time on this forum.
    Thanked by 3CharlesW GerardH SarahJ
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,691
    Please, folks, ease up.

    The more we can keep secular controversies out of this forum, the better.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,146
    I am a Covid steward, and roster clerk for the Covid stewards for the Latin Masses at our Parish. Basically in the U.K. we just need to have a risk assessment to open, and this is only checked by the diocese. The police have attended some places that were not following any guidelines, but these visits are few and far between.

    People are supposed to social distance, and wear masks (if not exempt), we also have an enhanced cleaning regime. I have made it clear that it has to look right, rather than have a rigidly enforced regime. Apart from every other bench being out of use we are more or less back to normal. 82% of our normal Sunday Mass attendance for this time of year and we are supposedly in Lockdown with a stay at home order.

    Sadly other churches, and some Anglicans have taken a far stricter line, and either closed or made the restrictions so onerous that people are actively encouraged not to come.

    The Government have said that churches do not increase the risk of spread and are happy for us to continue the work we do in and for society. Sadly we are divided into two groups, Group one believes it is important to provide access to the Sacraments, and is encouraging people to come to church. Group two believes it is more important to reduce the risk of spread, so remains closed or discourages people to come.

    Vaccine uptake is higher than expected in the U.K. but it is being shunned by many ethnic minorities (although that is understandable considering the appalling behaviour of various medics towards such minorities in the past).
    Thanked by 2CharlesW CHGiffen
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,159
    FWIW: I thought Bp. Schneider was very thorough in his (link:) answers to all of the questions, including those about these vaccines (which are arguably not to be "recognized as clinically safe and effective," even if people rush to say they are. Clearly they aren't "effective," even if supposedly "safe," because they're already throwing around the idea that people need MORE than 2 doses, and that receiving the vaccine changes nothing for society, as a whole, nor even individuals)
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • I will stay out of this issue from now on as per Chonak's request, but...
    which are arguably not to be "recognized as clinically safe and effective," even people rush to say they are.
    I know, and am related to, people that actually work in this field for a living, who are tired of correcting this kind of misinformation on a regular basis. Nothing about the approval process is inherently unsafe and †Bishop Schneider is not necessarily to be believed over the CDF just because you personally agree with him on the matter. If you actually hold these concerns about the vaccine, I suggest you sit down with someone actually in the field who has the authority to answer your questions, rather than spreading these dubious claims on the Internet.
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,159
    Would that be like asking Dr. Fauci his thoughts on the matter? If anyone's expert opinion has become laughable, it is that of those who have been constantly changing their stories for what seems to be completely unscientific reasons.
    I have relatives who are in the medical fields, as well, and their opinions on this vary.

    I appreciate that you have trust in some people in this field.
    And you are clearly free to make your own choices, according to your conscience.

    I think it's wrong for prelates to continuously flip-flop on the issue, as well.
    And I do hope that you'd actually hear his reasoning (why I gave the link... and it's closer to the end, but I can't play it again to find the exact timestamp, now), rather than assuming it isn't up to snuff with a blanket statement by the CDF.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 980
    I would say that 96% effective and less than 1/100th of a percent having bad reactions would very definitely mean safe & effective. The "more than 2" that you are talking about is a booster proposed by Moderna to combat variants that didn't exist at the time the vaccine was created. Much like the flu shot is given each year due to new variants appearing. I too have relatives and friends in the medical field. All of their opinions agree - if you have a chance to get the vaccine then do so.

    Also, the CDF is definitely more authoritative than a single bishop.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,223
    I would definitely say most bishops know little or anything about medicine.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,546
    Women have been loosing babies in pregnancy after receiving the Vac. One life lost over a Vac is certainly reason to call it unsafe for all.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,223
    We take a chance on any medication. There are no guarantees. Life itself is a risk. Church music is an even greater one. ;-)
    Thanked by 3CHGiffen tomjaw Viola
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,691
    I think people can examine the arguments being offered and evaluate the quality of the reasoning. Here's biology professor Fr. Nicanor Austriaco, OP's analysis:
    https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/05/63752/
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,159
    I would definitely say most bishops know little or anything about medicine.

    That would most likely include those at the CDF.

    (And there is more than a single bishop who opposes these shots and is willing to say so.)
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,223
    Cooze, since they know so little about music what makes you think they know medicine?

    Thanked by 2Richard Mix Elmar
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,546
    I think people can examine the arguments being offered and evaluate the quality of the reasoning.


    Thank you Chonak for saying that 'people can examine the arguments'. We must hear ALL the arguments, not just the ones promoted in the general media, and the ones being censored. We need to get to the bottom of the matter at hand, ultimately to find the truth.

    Here is another argument.

    The grizzly truth?

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/babies-were-aborted-alive-placed-in-fridge-to-harvest-cell-lines-used-in-some-vaccines-researcher

    Attached is the paper mentioned in the article by Dr. Wong.
    Thanked by 1CCooze
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,691
    Francis, the piece by Dr. Wong is well done; it identifies the potential sins that can be committed in the use of fetal cell lines, and rightly cites the duties that are implied by any use of research that is based on them.

    On the other hand, the other article adds nothing relevant to the discussion. The moral implications of fetal cell lines would be just the same if the abortions had been performed in some clinically "nice" way. All the talk about how many experiments were done on the remains doesn't contribute any moral reasoning; it's just posturing, condemning actions that we already know are immoral.
    Thanked by 1Elmar
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,546
    All the talk about how many experiments were done on the remains doesn't contribute any moral reasoning


    hmmm... i am unsure of what you are saying...

    they aren't remains... the article points out that they are harvested while still alive.

    “So these babies were literally placed into the fridge alive and then stored between one and 24 hours until they could be dismembered, basically. And this is right there in the scientific literature,” she said.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,546
    I think people can examine the arguments being offered and evaluate the quality of the reasoning.
    ...but now our comments are categorically removed?