Maybe unsick singers, who have no lode of the virus?

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.

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?

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.

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...

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.

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?

@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!

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.

@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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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/

Cooze, since they know so little about music what makes you think they know medicine?

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.

I think people can examine the arguments being offered and evaluate the quality of the reasoning.

...but now our comments are categorically removed?