Will Churches be closed due to coronavirus pademic?

[tango]

There is a difference between "God can" and "God will" but beyond that you're right - much of the panic is pointless. Of course when you're dealing with people who make no claim to trust God for anything there should be no surprise that people aren't trusting God.

It is tricky trying to strike a balance between honoring the obligation to provide for your family in the face of many people panic-buying everything in sight, and not joining the ranks of the panic-buyers. It makes it harder not knowing whether there will be supply shortages caused by people buying 100 loaves of bread "just in case" and people who buy so much toilet paper it's hard to assume any intention other than hoping to stockpile it so they can sell it at a profit later.

It's also worth looking to strike a balance between "trusting God" and taking basic steps to provide for yourself. We go to work to earn a living rather than trusting God to meet our every need for us, we lock our doors at night rather than trusting God to protect us, so it's really not out of line to maintain a personal stock of food to last a few days rather than hoping God rains manna down on our back yard.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

What I'm seeing here, and might be wrong, is the sense of "nothing to see here, move along..." which isn't a reasoned response. Just as those in a panic aren't truly informed, I get the sense that the general public isn't either. It's simple to be informed and lots of resources to find out what this is all about, what to do, why certain measures are being taken, and what you should/shouldn't do. If I was to be near someone complaining of headache with fever and respiratory issues that they didn't have, say, a few days ago, then I would suggest that person take reasonable measures to be tested. Those are reasonable signs/symptoms. Panic? No. Call ahead to screening facilities/ER? Yes! They will want to know the person is coming as they have protocols in place and they can prepare. A person with those symptoms will be isolated. They just will. EVEN if a person believes "ah, just the flu..."

Educate yourselves to respond reasonably.

 

[NewCreation435]

Most of the churches near us are closing on Sunday. The church I just joined will have an abbreviated Sunday worship service, but no sunday school. The service will be streaming online so I will watch it online.

 

[Lamb]

The whole thing is crazy, nothing but panic. Where is peoples faith at? We say God can but do we really believe it? A situation like this is a reality check for where our faith level is.

God never promised that we won't get sick or die.

 

[Lamb]

What I'm seeing here, and might be wrong, is the sense of "nothing to see here, move along..." which isn't a reasoned response. Just as those in a panic aren't truly informed, I get the sense that the general public isn't either. It's simple to be informed and lots of resources to find out what this is all about, what to do, why certain measures are being taken, and what you should/shouldn't do. If I was to be near someone complaining of headache with fever and respiratory issues that they didn't have, say, a few days ago, then I would suggest that person take reasonable measures to be tested. Those are reasonable signs/symptoms. Panic? No. Call ahead to screening facilities/ER? Yes! They will want to know the person is coming as they have protocols in place and they can prepare. A person with those symptoms will be isolated. They just will. EVEN if a person believes "ah, just the flu..."

Educate yourselves to respond reasonably.

I don't think I've seen anyone suggest that someone shouldn't try to get tested if they show symptoms.

What I find strange is how we're being told by the CDC that the symptoms to look for are fever, cough and shortness of breath. Yet, there are those who have recovered that are reporting they never had the cough or shortness of breath but describe other flu like symptoms.

Even now we're hearing that those who are asymptomatic can spread the infection...and we weren't told that a month ago but the Chinese knew this since they've been dealing with it since November (it's now coming out that they had it a month earlier than they claimed previously). So much false information has been spread and the media doesn't help at all to make anyone feel that this situation is "okay".

 

[tango]

This is part of the problem - for those who get symptoms they often look much like the common cold. I can only imagine the chaos if everybody who had a cold in the winter rushed to their doctor's office to get tested. There's lots of whining about how this proves we need a social healthcare program but it's not like that would help - all it would mean is that offices would get even more overrun. If people can be contagious without showing any symptoms at all it just makes it even harder to contain.

Of course for good measure we didn't get this kind of media panic when H1N1 was a big thing. No travel bans, no paranoia, no events cancelled. I can't be the only one who is curious why that might be. When SARS was the latest threat about the only impact on international travel was that people who were coughing badly may (stress - may, not would) be restricted from boarding flights.

 

[psalms 91]

God never promised that we won't get sick or die.

No but He did say trust in Him, have faith.

 

[Lamb]

No but He did say trust in Him, have faith.

Right, that His will be done and that we'll have eternal life because our sins were forgiven at the cross.

 

[hedrick]

When SARS was the latest threat about the only impact on international travel was that people who were coughing badly may (stress - may, not would) be restricted from boarding flights.

I just looked at a CDC FAQ on SARS (archived from the period when it was an issue). It says that SARS was generally spread by close contact, i.e. mostly family, etc, and when the patient is symptomatic. It appears that COVID-19 is spread before symptoms show, and not just via close contact. Hence approaches will be different.

Also, contract tracing worked with SARS, so we achieved containment. That is, we eradicated the disease. That has failed with COVID-19. It doesn't appear possible that it will be contained in the US. That moves us into a very different situation. S Korea seems to have contained it. But it was a best-case situation. They had been hit badly by SARS, and had geared up to handle the next crisis. They are smaller than the US, and are able to do central planning. The US fired the team that would have done that, but they didn't really have a mandate to prepare us in advance anyway. Our health system guarantees that we can't reach a lot of our population. We're not a worst case, but we're on the lower end of first world countries.

The estimate is that each COVID-19 patient infects at least 2 other people. (That number is R0.) If you don't know who is infectious, the best hope is to reduce the number of people each person has contact with enough to reduce the number infected below 1. (One estimate based on China is R0 ~ 2.5)

However I'm a bit concerned about the end game. At some point restrictions will stop. If there's at least one person in the world that still has it, what's to stop the epidemic from starting again? This is what led to the UK approach. In the long run, if the disease persists, the only way to stop it in the end is for lots of people to get it, get over it, and presumably them be immune. If the R0 is about 2, half the population has to be immune. The actual fraction is 1 - (1 / R0), so it could be more than half if R0 is larger than 2. Thus the UK's approach (which they're probably going to give up on for political reasons) was to allow it to spread, though slowly it somewhat to keep the number of cases within their ability to treat, and concentrate restrictions on those most at risk for death or serious consequences. They actually wanted the population to get it, to build up immunity while they protect older people.

It's an interesting approach, and might even be right. But it depends upon the model being right, and we don't know at this point that it is. Of course this approach only works because the fatality rate for people below 50 is small. If you can't isolate the population at risk for serious consequences, the strategy doesn't work. It would be harder to use for Spanish flu. For Spanish flu (and for COVID-19 if you don't believe the UK model) the best approach might be to keep R below 1 until you can develop a vaccine. Can we actually do what we're moving to for a year?

Concern: it appears that China and at least S Korea have managed to stop the epidemic before half the population got it. This suggests that something else is going on.

 

[hedrick]

On the original question for this thread: our church is certainly not closing. It is, however, moving Sunday church services online.

 

[tango]

The issue of how many people each carrier might infect is certainly worthy of consideration but, as you say, it's simply not practical to expect more or less global self-isolation over an extended period.

Reading a lot of advice about how to contain the virus much of it is simply impractical. It's great if each member of a family can have their own bathroom but many (most?) families simply don't have that luxury. Not everybody can self-isolate into their own bedroom. Sooner or later you have to go and buy groceries - people and pets need to eat no matter what, and whatever grand schemes politicians come up with to isolate people only work to the extent that people can be isolated. In a big city maybe you have an option to have food delivered to your door but in many rural areas such options don't exist. Perhaps people with symptoms can arrange for a friend to get groceries for them, leaving them outside the door to avoid direct contact. Too bad if you don't have friends who can do that for you.

As you point out, even if the virus appears to have come under control there's still no way of knowing whether it's simply lying dormant in a number of people showing no symptoms, ready to flare up again as soon as people start interacting once more.

Even the grandest sounding plans to restrict contact between people don't consider the longer term and consequential effects. If people can't work and don't get paid, sooner or later they lose their homes. Some areas are talking about a moratorium on evictions but if a landlord doesn't get his rent and as a result can't pay the mortgage then sooner or later the whole thing becomes irrelevant as the bank forecloses, not to mention the implied assumption that the landlord can simply go without the rental money from his property. Perhaps some landlords are wealthy enough that they can afford to do without the rental income for the indefinite future but many aren't and it's hugely irresponsible to assume that landlords can just absorb the slack. If businesses like bars and restaurants can't open because of concerns about people too close together, sooner or later they close down because they can't pay their fixed costs, which means all the jobs they represent go away. Perhaps the former owners will have the means and the incination to try again, perhaps the jobs are gone for good.

 

[hedrick]

There's no practical way to remove all opportunities to get the virus. From an overall perspective all we need to do is significantly lower the rate.

There are some odd precautions. In NY they are limiting the number of people who can be in a grocery store at one time. Interesting idea, but the obvious outcome is lines at the entrance. (e.g. https://www.foodcoop.com/ says to expect waiting in line for an hour.) That will be a larger concentration of people than what they're preventing.

 

[tango]

Sounds like the idea that US citizens returning from Europe have to be screened, which means being forced into a small space for hours. Probably safer to just let people pass through.

In so many ways it seems the panic is going to do more damage than the virus.

 

[hobie]

I don't see why locals should be afraid, as for mega churches there are pilgrimages and travelers so that's a cause for concern.. I mean the panic frenzy has forced everyone to get what they can even if they weren't in panic mode they are now because people really need things..
the logic that they stuff themselves into the stores and shut down a local church is a bit odd

Didn't even think about that, I went to Costco early this morning, and the line was already snaking almost the length of the mall. Everyone was calm and orderly, but the police came with the lights flashing, kind of showing their presence. The doors opened and everyone walked in pushing their carts, and to my great surprise I walked in and they put a 32 roll of toilet paper in my cart and I walked to the back and they had it organized with a line for water and other supplies, I was impressed. Sam's Club was a madhouse in comparison...

 

[hedrick]

Sounds like the idea that US citizens returning from Europe have to be screened, which means being forced into a small space for hours. Probably safer to just let people pass through.

In so many ways it seems the panic is going to do more damage than the virus.

Yes, I think the models suggest that this kind of screening isn't worth doing.

 

[tango]

Yes, I think the models suggest that this kind of screening isn't worth doing.

Models or no models, it's hard to see how forcing huge numbers of people into a confined space for hours is an improvement on anything.

 

[hedrick]

Models or no models, it's hard to see how forcing huge numbers of people into a confined space for hours is an improvement on anything.

It's a disaster, which is going to expose a lot more people than it prevented. The problem with bureaucracies is that no one is in a position to say "this doesn't make sense." We've gone from underreaction to making things worse. Lines outside grocery stores are the same problem.

 

[hobie]

This was a post that I came across...

' Martin Luther had this to say during the bubonic plague, offering his thoughts in a letter titled "Whether One May Flee From a Deadly Plague" on how best to practically and spiritually overcome. His advice is prudent for all to follow during this Coronavirus pandemic, especially Christians.

"I shall ask God mercifully to protect us.

"Then I shall fumigate, help purify the air, administer medicine, and take it.

"I shall avoid places and persons where my presence is not needed in order not to become contaminated and thus perchance infect and pollute others, and so cause their death as a result of my negligence.

"If God should wish to take me, He will surely find me, and I have done what He has expected of me and so I am not responsible for either my own death or the death of others.


If my neighbor needs me, however, I shall not avoid place or person, but will go freely."

I also found it at this site..

https://patriotpost.us/articles/69289-martin-luther-on-responding-to-pandemics-2020-03-18

 

[Josiah]

My parish is going to stream the service over the 'net. Only a few (less than 10) will be at the church.

 

[hobie]

My friend's church has a very simple approach to this. Among their changes - there's no need for handshakes because we can assume anybody is welcome at any time.

Even a little bit of perspective is really useful here. The majority of people will probably get the virus. The overwhelming majority of them will survive with no major symptoms. Sadly that sort of thing doesn't sell papers.

Are the churches around you opening up now, and what are the restrictions if they have them?