EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
COVID-19
May 22, 2020 14:28:55 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by EasyEd on May 22, 2020 14:28:55 GMT -5
Do we wait until the public health officials tell us there will be no deaths from the virus before the churches open up? How about if they tell us only five will die? How about a hundred? Or a thousand? How about Father Martin telling us when is safe enough for him? In real life there will be some deaths from the virus after churches open up. And there will be some deaths that would not have happened had the churches (and society) not opened up. This is not a black or white situation. And it is certainly not against the pro-life position to seek opening up the churches since that, itself, does not kill anyone. It merely raises the risk for anyone who freely chooses to attend a church service. My parish is open while enforcing strict distancing and other restrictions. I have chosen not to attend Mass yet. No offense but this sounds like a Fox News approach to worship: How dare Governor's keep Churches closed but I'm not going to actually risk going to Mass. Kind of like those brave Fox anchors risking their lives sitting at home urging people to get out and protest. I'm not sure what's offensive about Fr. Martin suggesting that Churches should open when it is safe to do so, although I think if Fr. Martin suggested the sun came up this morning, some people would take offense. We lost a Lay Deacon in my parish and a priest in a neighboring parish to this damn Virus. 46% of the people tested in my zip code in NYC have tested positive. My parish been live streaming Sunday Mass from a closed Church 2x/Sunday over Facebook since mid-March and holding Knights of Columbus council meetings over Zoom because the average age of our Knights is north of 60. I'm fine with waiting to hold Memorial services for all the parishoners who have died and resuming Mass in-person until it's safe to do so. When will it be safe? Please define how many people might die before it is safe? Give me a number. Otherwise you are only speaking generalities. That is the point of my post. There will always be the danger of someone dying after we open up. This has nothing to do with Foxnews. It’s reality.
|
|
hoyajinx
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,576
|
Post by hoyajinx on May 22, 2020 15:15:37 GMT -5
No offense but this sounds like a Fox News approach to worship: How dare Governor's keep Churches closed but I'm not going to actually risk going to Mass. Kind of like those brave Fox anchors risking their lives sitting at home urging people to get out and protest. I'm not sure what's offensive about Fr. Martin suggesting that Churches should open when it is safe to do so, although I think if Fr. Martin suggested the sun came up this morning, some people would take offense. We lost a Lay Deacon in my parish and a priest in a neighboring parish to this damn Virus. 46% of the people tested in my zip code in NYC have tested positive. My parish been live streaming Sunday Mass from a closed Church 2x/Sunday over Facebook since mid-March and holding Knights of Columbus council meetings over Zoom because the average age of our Knights is north of 60. I'm fine with waiting to hold Memorial services for all the parishoners who have died and resuming Mass in-person until it's safe to do so. When will it be safe? Please define how many people might die before it is safe? Give me a number. Otherwise you are only speaking generalities. That is the point of my post. There will always be the danger of someone dying after we open up. This has nothing to do with Foxnews. It’s reality. Maybe it’s not about a number. Maybe it’s about providing an adequate infrastructure that would allow places of worship to open up more safely. Testing is still not at a level it needs to be; neither is there yet adequate PPE for healthcare workers should there be a spike in infections once everything opens. I know you hate to hear it because you think Trump has done a bang up job, but the onus lies with him. He has failed. The reason that people can’t go to mass is because of the utter failure of this administration. But of course you guys, and the bumbling evangelicals, refuse to see that because many of you treat him as the second coming.
|
|
|
Post by badgerhoya on May 22, 2020 16:27:26 GMT -5
No offense but this sounds like a Fox News approach to worship: How dare Governor's keep Churches closed but I'm not going to actually risk going to Mass. Kind of like those brave Fox anchors risking their lives sitting at home urging people to get out and protest. I'm not sure what's offensive about Fr. Martin suggesting that Churches should open when it is safe to do so, although I think if Fr. Martin suggested the sun came up this morning, some people would take offense. We lost a Lay Deacon in my parish and a priest in a neighboring parish to this damn Virus. 46% of the people tested in my zip code in NYC have tested positive. My parish been live streaming Sunday Mass from a closed Church 2x/Sunday over Facebook since mid-March and holding Knights of Columbus council meetings over Zoom because the average age of our Knights is north of 60. I'm fine with waiting to hold Memorial services for all the parishoners who have died and resuming Mass in-person until it's safe to do so. When will it be safe? Please define how many people might die before it is safe? Give me a number. Otherwise you are only speaking generalities. That is the point of my post. There will always be the danger of someone dying after we open up. This has nothing to do with Foxnews. It’s reality. Truthfully, when there are enough tests and enough contact tracers to drive R-naught down to below 1, hospitalizations are stable, with enough PPE and hospital capacity to handle another influx. I know I keep using California as an example here, but it's because of the transparency of the process - something that has been woefully missing on the Federal level. In-Person worship is good to go in Phase 3 -- same time as when salons, gyms, and theaters open up. And just to call out a date? Given current trends, much of the state could go there in a couple of weeks, with more urban areas bringing up the rear.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,140
|
Post by SSHoya on May 22, 2020 17:19:09 GMT -5
Fr. James Martin, SJ
The President said today that he will "override the governors" and force states to allow churches to open. Churches should not be opened (or closed) by order of a president, but because it is safe to do so. To open churches before it is safe would needlessly put more lives at risk. And that would be the opposite of pro-life. Governors and religious leaders should follow the advice of public health experts and epidemiologists to help prevent the spread of infection and preserve life. Everyone wants to go back to church, including me, but not at the risk of increased infection and death, especially among the most vulnerable.
Churches are indeed essential for Christians, and the desire to worship together is a holy desire. But holy though your desire may be, it's not just about you and your desire. It's about protecting the other person, especially if you are, like many people, asymptomatic. Wearing masks, maintaining social distance and even not gathering in churches protects the other person.
There have already been confirmed cases in Texas and Minnesota where Catholic churches have opened and the priests were found to have been unknowingly infected. Coming into contact with their parishioners, and exposing them to infection, may end up causing deaths, especially among the most vulnerable--the elderly, who often make up the majority of churchgoers.
I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. If you have the measles and a doctor says, "Don't go to church because you might infect a woman who is pregnant," you don't rail at your doctor for "impinging on your freedom." You listen to the doctor, make the sacrifice, and stay home, as a way of protecting the other person.
All these preventive actions are ways of caring of the other person--that is, ways of loving.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 22, 2020 19:00:31 GMT -5
Fr. James Martin, SJ The President said today that he will "override the governors" and force states to allow churches to open. Churches should not be opened (or closed) by order of a president, but because it is safe to do so. To open churches before it is safe would needlessly put more lives at risk. And that would be the opposite of pro-life. Governors and religious leaders should follow the advice of public health experts and epidemiologists to help prevent the spread of infection and preserve life. Everyone wants to go back to church, including me, but not at the risk of increased infection and death, especially among the most vulnerable. Churches are indeed essential for Christians, and the desire to worship together is a holy desire. But holy though your desire may be, it's not just about you and your desire. It's about protecting the other person, especially if you are, like many people, asymptomatic. Wearing masks, maintaining social distance and even not gathering in churches protects the other person. There have already been confirmed cases in Texas and Minnesota where Catholic churches have opened and the priests were found to have been unknowingly infected. Coming into contact with their parishioners, and exposing them to infection, may end up causing deaths, especially among the most vulnerable--the elderly, who often make up the majority of churchgoers. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. If you have the measles and a doctor says, "Don't go to church because you might infect a woman who is pregnant," you don't rail at your doctor for "impinging on your freedom." You listen to the doctor, make the sacrifice, and stay home, as a way of protecting the other person. All these preventive actions are ways of caring of the other person--that is, ways of loving. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof:...."
|
|
hoyajinx
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,576
|
COVID-19
May 22, 2020 19:42:20 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by hoyajinx on May 22, 2020 19:42:20 GMT -5
Fr. James Martin, SJ The President said today that he will "override the governors" and force states to allow churches to open. Churches should not be opened (or closed) by order of a president, but because it is safe to do so. To open churches before it is safe would needlessly put more lives at risk. And that would be the opposite of pro-life. Governors and religious leaders should follow the advice of public health experts and epidemiologists to help prevent the spread of infection and preserve life. Everyone wants to go back to church, including me, but not at the risk of increased infection and death, especially among the most vulnerable. Churches are indeed essential for Christians, and the desire to worship together is a holy desire. But holy though your desire may be, it's not just about you and your desire. It's about protecting the other person, especially if you are, like many people, asymptomatic. Wearing masks, maintaining social distance and even not gathering in churches protects the other person. There have already been confirmed cases in Texas and Minnesota where Catholic churches have opened and the priests were found to have been unknowingly infected. Coming into contact with their parishioners, and exposing them to infection, may end up causing deaths, especially among the most vulnerable--the elderly, who often make up the majority of churchgoers. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. If you have the measles and a doctor says, "Don't go to church because you might infect a woman who is pregnant," you don't rail at your doctor for "impinging on your freedom." You listen to the doctor, make the sacrifice, and stay home, as a way of protecting the other person. All these preventive actions are ways of caring of the other person--that is, ways of loving. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof:...." That’s all fine and good, but the Supreme Court has ruled that the government indeed CAN limit religious freedom as long as it has a “compelling interest” in doing so, meaning that it can if that compelling interest is to limit harm to other people. That’s why you can’t murder someone and say it’s religious expression. So it’s not unconstitutional to do so, and I think Father Martin makes a pretty compelling ethical appeal. It’s pretty clear that you can’t rely on people to use their best judgment or act with kindness with others in mind either, given the state of affairs. I’ll refer you to all the videos of people berating and assaulting workers who kindly ask them to wear masks in their stores.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,140
|
Post by SSHoya on May 22, 2020 20:48:04 GMT -5
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof:...." That’s all fine and good, but the Supreme Court has ruled that the government indeed CAN limit religious freedom as long as it has a “compelling interest” in doing so, meaning that it can if that compelling interest is to limit harm to other people. That’s why you can’t murder someone and say it’s religious expression. So it’s not unconstitutional to do so, and I think Father Martin makes a pretty compelling ethical appeal. It’s pretty clear that you can’t rely on people to use their best judgment or act with kindness with others in mind either, given the state of affairs. I’ll refer you to all the videos of people berating and assaulting workers who kindly ask them to wear masks in their stores. The Supreme Court in 1990 abandoned the "compelling interest" test and gave the government even more latitude under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). A law is constitutional under the Free Exercise Clause if it is facially neutral and generally applied. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, observed that the Court has never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate. Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind." Scalia cited as examples compulsory military service, payment of taxes, vaccination requirements, and child-neglect laws. www.oyez.org/cases/1989/88-1213 From the syllabus: Although a State would be "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" in violation of the Clause if it sought to ban the performance of (or abstention from) physical acts solely because of their religious motivation, the Clause does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a law that incidentally forbids (or requires) the performance of an act that his religious belief requires (or forbids) if the law is not specifically directed to religious practice and is otherwise constitutional as applied to those who engage in the specified act for nonreligious reasons. See, e.g., Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145, 98 U. S. 166-167. Page 494 U. S. at 873 supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/872/
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 31,980
|
Post by DanMcQ on May 23, 2020 1:03:35 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,140
|
Post by SSHoya on May 23, 2020 4:23:31 GMT -5
From the linked article: "Some Trump allies have attributed the recent slump in the president’s support to the closure of churches that Trump addressed on Friday. Social-distancing guidelines forced most churches to suspend in-person worship or move Sunday services into the virtual sphere, and one member of the Trump campaign’s “Evangelicals for Trump” coalition suggested that faith leaders and parishioners who have been frustrated by the limitations are mistakenly blaming Trump. ( Religious institutions in Kentucky, Texas, Virginia, Tennessee, Louisiana and California have all brought legal challenges against their states for restrictions on religious activities and gatherings.)" * * * * * "It was not immediately clear whether the president's order on Friday — that state and local officials must take immediate action to reopen religious institutions — was legally permissible, nor was it clear how administration officials planned to enforce the guidance." 28 U.S.C. Section 517 provides: Interests of United States in pending suitsThe Solicitor General, or any officer of the Department of Justice, may be sent by the Attorney General to any State or district in the United States to attend to the interests of the United States in a suit pending in a court of the United States, or in a court of a State, or to attend to any other interest of the United States. Trump may authorize the corrupt AG Barr to enter appearances in the above-referenced pending suits to support the challenges to the restrictions on religious services even though Employment Division v. Smith, supra, would seem to foreclose such challenges as social distancing orders are not specifically directed at religious practices and is otherwise constitutional. But precedent has never stopped this politicized DOJ before. EDIT: DOJ has already filed a notice of interest in Illinois challenging Gov. Pritzker's stay-at-home order and has filed notice of interests in Virginia and Mississippi regarding religious restrictions although it appears to be arguing that the restrictions have not been neutrally applied under Smith. The Trump administration is supporting a lawsuit challenging the Illinois governor's stay-at-home order. The legal maneuver marks the first time the U.S. Department of Justice has weighed in on state level COVID-19 policies that are unrelated to religious matters. www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/05/22/861413069/justice-department-backs-challenge-to-illinois-stay-at-home-orderwww.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-files-statement-interest-challenging-legality-illinois-governors-sweeping
|
|
hoyajinx
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,576
|
Post by hoyajinx on May 23, 2020 4:47:08 GMT -5
That’s all fine and good, but the Supreme Court has ruled that the government indeed CAN limit religious freedom as long as it has a “compelling interest” in doing so, meaning that it can if that compelling interest is to limit harm to other people. That’s why you can’t murder someone and say it’s religious expression. So it’s not unconstitutional to do so, and I think Father Martin makes a pretty compelling ethical appeal. It’s pretty clear that you can’t rely on people to use their best judgment or act with kindness with others in mind either, given the state of affairs. I’ll refer you to all the videos of people berating and assaulting workers who kindly ask them to wear masks in their stores. The Supreme Court in 1990 abandoned the "compelling interest" test and gave the government even more latitude under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). A law is constitutional under the Free Exercise Clause if it is facially neutral and generally applied. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, observed that the Court has never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate. Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind." Scalia cited as examples compulsory military service, payment of taxes, vaccination requirements, and child-neglect laws. www.oyez.org/cases/1989/88-1213 From the syllabus: Although a State would be "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" in violation of the Clause if it sought to ban the performance of (or abstention from) physical acts solely because of their religious motivation, the Clause does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a law that incidentally forbids (or requires) the performance of an act that his religious belief requires (or forbids) if the law is not specifically directed to religious practice and is otherwise constitutional as applied to those who engage in the specified act for nonreligious reasons. See, e.g., Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145, 98 U. S. 166-167. Page 494 U. S. at 873 supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/872/Thank you for the correction. Especially in light of these precedents, Ed’s quoting of the Constitution is simply off base.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,140
|
Post by SSHoya on May 23, 2020 5:11:01 GMT -5
The Supreme Court in 1990 abandoned the "compelling interest" test and gave the government even more latitude under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). A law is constitutional under the Free Exercise Clause if it is facially neutral and generally applied. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, observed that the Court has never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate. Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind." Scalia cited as examples compulsory military service, payment of taxes, vaccination requirements, and child-neglect laws. www.oyez.org/cases/1989/88-1213 From the syllabus: Although a State would be "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" in violation of the Clause if it sought to ban the performance of (or abstention from) physical acts solely because of their religious motivation, the Clause does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a law that incidentally forbids (or requires) the performance of an act that his religious belief requires (or forbids) if the law is not specifically directed to religious practice and is otherwise constitutional as applied to those who engage in the specified act for nonreligious reasons. See, e.g., Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145, 98 U. S. 166-167. Page 494 U. S. at 873 supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/872/Thank you for the correction. Especially in light of these precedents, Ed’s quoting of the Constitution is simply off base. Many lawyers on HoyaTalk and Ed is not one of them so one can cut him some slack on legal issues, I guess.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,140
|
Post by SSHoya on May 23, 2020 5:25:57 GMT -5
Our churches are now facing a set of difficult decisions: when to resume in-person ministries and how to carry out these ministries safely. I propose that the way forward is to take a step-by-step approach that helps the global church live out its missional calling, meet the needs of its congregants, and protect the health of those in the church and in the community. Our guideposts for decision-making To discern God’s call for the churches I am advising in my city of Seattle, I have relied on two guideposts: biblical truths and scientific knowledge, both of which have been given by God. The Great Commandment states, “You shall love the Lord your God … and love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 22:37–39, ESV). During this pandemic, love for ourselves is expressed in the ways we protect ourselves from getting infected. In the same way, love for our neighbor is expressed in the ways we protect them from getting infected. Even as we focus on preventing COVID-19 infections, however, we should not neglect spiritual, emotional, and social needs—in ourselves and others. During this period of social distancing, it is perhaps even more important that churches meet these needs. As Christ’s disciples, these needs are met as we live out our calling to worship, pray, encourage, witness, disciple, and serve. However, we now must do these in a way that minimizes the risk of COVID-19 transmission. Therefore, we need to use scientific knowledge about this virus to prevent its spread in our churches. www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2020/may-web-only/when-churches-reopen-phase-coronavirus-covid-19-guidelines.html
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 31,980
|
COVID-19
May 23, 2020 19:32:51 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by DanMcQ on May 23, 2020 19:32:51 GMT -5
SMH ... times 2
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2020 4:18:27 GMT -5
Trump botched Oval address announcing Europe travel restrictions, leading many US citizens to believe they were about to be locked out of country. Air travel surged – from 30K on 3/11 to 45K on 3/12. Many carried infection, reentered country w/ no medical checks.
As Trump spoke from Oval, panic swept thru United Flight 989 departing Dulles. Passengers demanded to get off, fearing they would be barred from return to US. Nearly every American on the Frankfurt flight deplaned. One flight attendant got off plane for first time in 21 yrs.
Trump blamed Kushner for Oval debacle. Kushner helped draft speech and wouldn’t share copy with DHS, HHS, CDC or any other agency that had to execute order.
Administration spent hours issuing tweets and statements to fix Trump errors.
Dep NSA Matt Pottinger & others pushed in Feb. to close off travel from Europe, saying once virus got there it would go “whoosh.” But he was blocked by Mnuchin and others. Infected travelers flowed in for weeks.
Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker lashed out at Trump on Twitter as O’Hare lines exploded. Feds need to get “s@#t together”. WH official called minutes later. He offered no help with crisis -- just berated the gov for insulting president.
Jack Siebert, NYU student studying in Madrid, caught covid in Spain with temps of 104 degrees. After Trump oval speech, hi parent raced to get him flight home. He spent 5 hrs in crowded lines at O’Hare. CDC screeners just took his temp and waived him thru.
Trump keeps claiming he alone blocked travel from China.
In reality, US airlines cut off flights before WH acted. United told WH it was about to do same but would hold off to let WH take credit. All before China ban.
Trump claims blocking China travel saved million-plus lives. But covid strains that killed most Americans came from Europe. WH let travel continue weeks after Italy outbreak. Troubled Trump speech/policy caused more covid to flood in.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,140
|
COVID-19
May 24, 2020 6:20:15 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by SSHoya on May 24, 2020 6:20:15 GMT -5
May 23, 2020. (Jeff Chiu) As California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) considers whether to ease restrictions on in-person religious gatherings, new clusters of coronavirus cases have emerged in northern California that appear connected to church services.
Health officials in Mendocino County confirmed over the weekend that all of the county’s six newest infections were linked to the Redwood Valley Assembly of God, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
The county reported last week that the church’s pastor and two other people were infected after they participated in a live-streamed Mother’s Day service that featured singing.
“When we have an outbreak of such a large magnitude, it’s very concerning because we know that these individuals have had other contacts since contracting the disease,” county health officer Noemi Doohan said in a video update Friday. “We now have to do the very time consuming and difficult work of the case investigation contact tracing.”
In Butte County, at least two people have fallen ill with covid-19 after attending a Mother’s Day service held by a local church in violation of the state’s prohibitions on large gatherings, as the Chico Enterprise-Record reported last week. County health officials have told the more than 180 people who attended the service to self-quarantine.
“At this time, organizations that hold in-person services or gatherings are putting the health and safety of their congregations, the general public and our local ability to open up at great risk,” county health director Danette York said in a statement.
Facing mounting pressure from religious groups to loosen restrictions on churches, Newsom said last week he would issue new guidance on in-person worship by Monday. President Trump has called on the nation’s governors to allow churches to open amid the pandemic, threatening to take unspecified action against them if they refuse. -- Washington Post (thus "fake news", right Trump cultists?)
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,140
|
Post by SSHoya on May 24, 2020 6:39:35 GMT -5
When President Trump said in late March he didn’t think the economic devastation from stay-at-home orders was a good trade off for avoiding covid-19 deaths, tweeting, “WE CANNOT LET THE CURE BE WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM ITSELF,” economists across the country already were busy working on the exact kind of cost-benefit analysis implied by the president. They reached a very different conclusion from Trump. Economists at the University of Wyoming estimated the economic benefits from lives saved by efforts to “flatten the curve” outweighed the projected massive hit to the nation’s economy by a staggering $5.2 trillion. Another study by two University of Chicago economists estimated the savings from social distancing could be so huge, “it is difficult to think of any intervention with such large potential benefits to American citizens.” www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/05/23/government-has-spent-decades-studying-what-life-is-worth-it-hasnt-made-difference-covid-19-crisis/
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 31,980
|
COVID-19
May 24, 2020 7:30:57 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by DanMcQ on May 24, 2020 7:30:57 GMT -5
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 31,980
|
COVID-19
May 24, 2020 8:40:12 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by DanMcQ on May 24, 2020 8:40:12 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,140
|
COVID-19
May 24, 2020 13:04:51 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by SSHoya on May 24, 2020 13:04:51 GMT -5
As the death toll nears 100,000, the disease caused by the virus has made a fundamental shift in who it touches and where it reaches in America, according to a Washington Post analysis of case data and interviews with public health professionals in several states. The pandemic that first struck in major metropolises is now increasingly finding its front line in the country’s rural areas; counties with acres of farmland, cramped meatpacking plants, out-of-the-way prisons and few hospital beds. www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/05/24/coronavirus-rural-america-outbreaks/?arc404=true
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,852
|
Post by DFW HOYA on May 25, 2020 9:21:49 GMT -5
|
|