"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

Friday, November 27, 2020

Exactly What Isn't Working in Mitigating Covid-19?

Good health involves eating right, exercising, and avoiding addictive behaviors. Though individual good health betters society in general, the government cannot mandate citizens to follow good health rules.  Ask New York. Six years ago, New York politicians attempted to ban Big Gulp soda drinks "for the good of the people," but they found their laws were struck down by the courts as unconstitutional. People in New York still drink Big Gulp soda drinks.

Good hygiene is similar to good health. Wash your hands, isolate from other people when sick " (e.g. 'dis-ease' means 'not at ease'), practice good hygiene, and trust God.  Those are the rules. The government mandating laws to force people into good hygiene is unconstitutional, just like the government mandating laws to force people into good health.

Some vocal administrators and doctors in Enid's medical establishment (not all), as well as some Garfield County public health department leaders, have convinced Enid's mayor and city council leaders to place a "mask mandate" (law) on the agenda for Enid's City Council meeting this Tuesday night, December 1, 2020, the third time some have attempted to pass a mask mandate in Enid. The first two attempts failed. Medical personnel should not be allowed to run the city government. 

A well-run city must think of private businesses, personal freedoms, and a host of other practical considerations that keep a city running smoothly. 

For example, Enid is hosting Enid Lights Up the Plains tonight, November 27, 2020, with an estimated 10,000 people coming downtown. The mayor and city council are all for the event, sponsored by Mainstreet Enid and the city of Enid. The editorial in today's city newspaper encouraged people to wear a mask and to socially distance. This is the same paper that has been pushing for a mask mandate for months. I'm all for attempting to persuade people to wear masks for their good health.  Some people are absolutely convinced wearing a mask is not good for their health.  They should be free to make an individual hygiene choice like they are free to make an individual health choice (e.g., drinking a Big Gulp soda). Unenforceable and unconstitutional municipal laws do much damage to the citizenry. The civic government should encourage and persuade citizens to practice good hygiene, never mandate it.

If it seems ironic that Enid city officials (the mayor and city council) will allow 10,000 people downtown three days before considering for the third time a mask mandate, it is. There are other considerations for city officials, as there should be. Tonight,  restaurants will be full, tax revenues will be collected, and the people of Enid will enjoy a Christmas celebration three days before the city council considers mandating masks. If persuading people to wear a mask, keep social distance, and wash one's hands is good enough for Enid Lights Up the Plains, then it should be good enough for the remainder of the year.

A leading Garfield Public Health official advocating city officials to force wearing masks by legal mandate is personally practicing persuasion at the businesses she and her husband own, not mandates. If persuasion is good enough for a private business owner who happens to be Enid's leading public health official, then it ought to be good enough for the entire city. 

But those who are vocally advocating laws mandating masks and cynical toward those who choose not to force others into personal hygiene practices, usually take the approach of a well-intentioned but logically absurd letter-to-the-editor in today's Enid paper.
"It has become obvious by the ever-increasing number of Covid-19 cases in Enid and Garfield County that a voluntary mask recommendation is not working. To our mayor and city council: Please fulfill your duties to protect the citizens of Enid and vote for a mandate now."
The government can't be in the business of forcing people not to drink Big Gulps and to wear masks. It's unconstitutional. Persuade the people on the merits. Trust the people with the measures. 

Cities and states with the strictest lock-down laws and mask mandates in place since the spring are seeing their Covid-19 cases increase as well. Michigan, a state with stringent laws mandating personal hygiene, sees a rate case increase 30 times higher than Oklahoma, which has no state mask mandate.

If it is said, "But our hospitals are full." Yes, they are. It's a tough time right now for hospitals, and it's going to get tougher. The cities with mask mandates and lockdowns have full hospitals too. How do you think people in nursing homes get Covid-19? How do you think people who check into hospitals without Covid-19 get Covid-19 while in the hospital?  You can't stop its spread. Attempting to mitigate the spread of Covid-19 is a great idea. Mitigating it isn't as simple as you'd like to make it. Locking down cities and encroaching on citizens does more harm than good. If we are rightly concerned for hospitals at this time, set some revenue aside for nurses who are overworked and pay them public health bonuses, continue to persuade citizens to practice good hygiene, and tell the truth that hundreds of thousands of people are going to get sick, but 99.6 percent will recover after being knocked for a loop physically. And consider giving some good, cheap drugs to treat Covid-19 instead of banning them, hoping for a vaccine. Masks are not a magic potion creating more hospital space. 

Finally, some say, "But if you refuse to mandate masks, you'll kill people! How heartless! How tragic! More people are going to die because you don't force everyone to wear a mask."

Those statements are not even close to the truth.

The prestigious Johns Hopkins Medical Center recently released a study that showed some startling facts (read it for yourself). Listen to the leading conclusion of these scientists, epidemiologists, and public health experts, a conclusion based upon their exhaustive research: 
"These data analyses suggest that in contrast to most people’s assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, Covid-19 has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States."

Before you state categorically, "more people will die without a mask mandate," you better do your research.  

Enid, Oklahoma, is an exceptional place to live. I want to encourage people to practice good health and good hygiene. But I want our government to never allow public health officials, hospitalists, or others in the medical profession to make decisions for private businesses, public corporations, non-profits,  and individual citizens. 

There's a great deal at stake next Tuesday night, and the people of Enid, Oklahoma, will take seriously the hypocrisy of city leaders and public health officials, the unconstitutional attempt to mandate individual hygiene, and the often-stated "trust the medical experts" mantra when even the medical experts don't agree among themselves. Persuade the people and trust the people. Or else be recalled by the people. 

If you allow an unconstitutional mandate for a mask, the government will pass an unconstitutional law mandating a vaccine. 

If you allow an unconstitutional mandate for a vaccine, the government will then pass an unconstitutional law forbidding travel without a vaccine.

If you allow an unconstitutional law forbidding travel, then the government will pass a law tracking citizens for "the good of public health."

If you allow an unconstitutional law tracking U.S. citizens, then you are no longer free.

It all begins next Tuesday night. 

Let your city leaders know you wish them to persuade you and trust you, not mandate you and control you.

For the good of Enid, America. 

34 comments:

Christiane said...

The 'enemy' IS the virus.

Beth Duncan said...

The reason why mask mandates don’t work is they’re too piecemeal, and not evenly enforced, and same with social distancing. I work for a major employer, in a building with a fair amount of people. Mask wearing is enforced as is social distancing, and we haven’t had an outbreak in the building. This is even though some people have gotten it from outside, and ended up feeling sick and being sent home in the middle of a shift. In every case no one else in the building got sick, proving the spread can be minimized, but everyone has to do their part. And if you do the research, total deaths in the United States is up this year, by over 300,000. This pandemic is real, nothing to play politics with, or assert your rights about. I mean, you wear a seat belt, don’t you?

Wade Burleson said...

Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I agree with the distinguished Founding Father.

Wade Burleson said...

As for me, I am willing to be misunderstood, disliked, and defriended because I believe with all my heart that the most loving thing I can do for my friends, neighbors, and fellow Americans is exactly what I am doing. Trust God. Not the government. Take personal responsibility, don't infringe on others personally, and gently persuade other people and respect all people, even those who disagree.

carl4grace said...

Well written Wade. This is most complicated. I’m reminded of Erwin Lutzer, pastor of Moody Memorial church, saying: “CONVINCE A PERSON AGAINST THEIR WILL AND THEY WILL BE OF THE SAME OPINION STILL.” Praying for revival. And may it begin in me!

Wade Burleson said...

Thanks, Carl4grace.

May it be so.

B Williams said...

Using this Ben Franklin quote out of context is a false equivalency, Mr. Burleson.

Franklin "was writing about a tax dispute between the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the family of the Penns, the proprietary family of the Pennsylvania colony who ruled it from afar. And the legislature was trying to tax the Penn family lands to pay for frontier defense during the French and Indian War. And the Penn family kept instructing the governor to veto. Franklin felt that this was a great affront to the ability of the legislature to govern. And so he actually meant purchase a little temporary safety very literally. The Penn family was trying to give a lump sum of money in exchange for the General Assembly's acknowledging that it did not have the authority to tax it. It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the opposite of what it's almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the opposite than to the thing that people think it means." (Benjamin Wittes, 2015)

Wade Burleson said...

B. Williams,

Thanks for your comment. It may be a false equivalency in your mind, it is a precise equivalency in my mind.

Regardless, thanks for your comment and respectful dialogue.

B Williams said...

Exactly how is a wealthy family's desire to donate a large sum of money in exchange for passing legislation to allow them to avoid paying taxes relevant to the current masking issue?

Christiane said...

There are many 'points of view' out there, and being Americans, we love the 'choice' of self-identity according to where we land;

but for them what fears loss of freedom and would refuse to wear a mask in public if mandated to do so by the government, but who ALSO recognize that there is some valid connection to sanitizing, to distancing, to tracing, and most certainly to spreading virus by 'sharing air',
I have an ethical and moral question to raise as food for thought, this:

IF we KNEW we had 'no symptoms' of covid-19, and we ALSO knew we could still be 'carriers' of that virus to vulnerable peoples;
what FACTORS would give us pause to think about our responsibility to wear a mask around others?

- would we wear a mask in an enclosed home for 'at-risk' people? (the mentally challenged, the homeless shelters, the wards of nursing homes for the aged?)
I'm asking if we would CONSIDER the vulnerability of such people when deciding just how much to 'inconvenience' ourselves by putting on the hated mask for a time 'for their sakes', as a precaution?

?

I ask this because it is known that in the Christian faith, some of us do not share the concept of 'community' in the same way and it does make a difference in how we come to determine what is 'the right thing to do' in a given situation

I'm trying to sort out what CONSIDERATIONS differ between traditional main-line Christians and those Christians who are from other faith communities that hold to different concepts of the 'limits' of obligation of self to help 'others'. There must be some thoughts on why we would not hesitate to wear a mask and why at other times, we would refuse to do so.
What considerations come before us to be weighed by our consciences in accordance with our Christian beliefs? No need to respond; but it has been noticed that people do line up differently on the subject of masking-testing-distancing-tracing in accordance with their faith traditions, and I can't help wondering where the lines are 'placed' that determine these differences. So, food for thought, or share if you care to, and thanks for listening.

Wade Burleson said...

B Williams,

I appreciate your persistence. If people are willing to give up their liberty and acquiesce to legal mandates "for a little public safety," it will not be long until both safety and liberty are lost. The PRINCIPLE remains the same. By the way, the Penns were willing to PAY for the defense of the frontier but did not agree to an income tax. The acquiescence to an income tax has caused huge problems of government overreach. A consumption tax would be much better.

Wade Burleson said...

"Would we wear a mask in an enclosed home for 'at-risk' people? (the mentally challenged, the homeless shelters, the wards of nursing homes for the aged?"

Of course.

The issue is "should the vulnerable go to places where healthy people are not wearing masks?"

Of course not.

Rex Ray said...

Just for fun; check this out: (Less than ten seconds.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No5XJ9fahmo

B Williams said...

The Penn family offered cash to fund defense of the frontier only as long as the Assembly would acquiesce that it lacked the power to tax the family’s lands. Franklin was complaining of the choice facing the legislature between being able to make funds available for frontier defense and maintaining its right of self-governance, criticizing the governor for suggesting it should be willing to give up the latter to ensure the former. Franklin was not describing some tension between government power and individual liberty. He was describing effective self-government in the service of security as the liberty it would be contemptible to trade. The “essential liberty” to which Franklin referred was not what we consider as civil liberties today, but the right of self-governance of a legislature in the interest of collective security.

Rex Ray said...

I regret laughing at Biden, I believe he has a good heart. I feel sorry for him.

Donald said...

Donald said...

Just an FYI regarding the John Hopkins study. Although it wasn’t officially a JHU study.
https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/11/a-closer-look-at-u-s-deaths-due-to-covid-19

Christiane said...

"The issue is "should the vulnerable go to places where healthy people are not wearing masks?"

Of course not."


Hello WADE,

I've been thinking about your comment above for a while and looking at it from different points of view. And I think it has merit but in some 'better world than this'. Why? Because in reality, these days, there are too many 'vulnerable' souls who don't have the choice to stop working or to stop taking care of others who depend on them, and even IF these vulnerable people had the money and resources to 'isolate' themselves, on another level, they might be members of a group that is much needed on the 'front lines' in places where folks will yell at them if they are asked to 'wear a mask'; so the vulnerable may continue to work in the public arena for moral and ethical purposes, and so they have, and so they have contracted the virus, and so have many of these vulnerable died from it.

I don't mean to 'argue' a 'point' as what I am saying goes beyond the pros and cons of isolating and confronting the virus and is one of those 'hard truths' that we have learned from how these vulnerable continued to serve, and died in that service.

I WISH we 'knew' who was NOT a 'carrier' of the virus among the healthy, but according to all the doctors, there are 'carriers' who have the virus and show NO symptoms. So this knowledge is something we take into conscious reckoning ourselves.

And I WISH that we lived in some 'better world than this' where, for the convenience of the many who wish to carry on as 'before' the virus came,
others could stand aside and, knowing they had 'pre-conditions', not engage with those who thought themselves 'healthy'.

But it hasn't worked out. And I don't know the Christian answers to this trouble, but I know we don't 'tempt God' and I know we must help to bear one another's burdens, and in all honesty, I am not convinced that knowing what we do know, if we take certain courses, we also must knowingly ask forgiveness for those acts we FAILED to do, knowing their consequences to our neighbors.

Not an argument, no. Just what I have have been able to see so far. And I can't see that far ahead, no. The limitations outweigh any claim on wisdom and 'at least do no harm' no longer makes sense in these times of pandemic when 'harm' is a 'virus' that walks invisible and has no mercy nor thought for any soul. some thoughts . . .

Wade Burleson said...

Thanks, Christiane.

I see what you are saying. I appreciate your compassion.

Unknown said...

B Williams
I would agree. Just like lawyers they like facts. Not opinions. Applying an unrelated fact to enforce an opinion doesn’t fly in court.
My 2 cents.

Bunkababy

Christiane said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Too bad JHU threw Yanni Gu under the bus for telling the truth when they redacted her article.

“Some people have questioned my concern over both the CDC and John Hopkins University is a PRIVATE organization where the CDC accepts private funding – NOT ONLY GOVERNMENT! The CDC is quasi-government under the Department of Health and Human Services which strangely has sources of funding that are predicated on the fact that it also has a private 501(c)(3) public charity, like the Clinton Foundation. The CDC Foundation receives charitable contributions and philanthropic grants from individuals, foundations, corporations, universities, NGOs and other organizations to advance the work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This is NOT a government-funded organization. It is not exclusively a government-funded – very curious.
I have serious questions as to what is being driven by the CDC in conjunction with John Hopkins University who takes $1.8 billion from Bloomberg. The CDC and John Hopkins are either deliberately trying to create an economic depression, or are sublimely ignorant of the consequences of their scorched earth policy. Yes, we can cure contagions by sequestering everyone and shutting down the economy. We all then live on handouts from the government, stay home, don’t work, and watch TV? As one reader commented: “Mirror, Mirror, on the wall; Guess we are all socialists after all!”

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/disease/cdc-is-a-private-organization-not-government/

Anonymous said...

Too bad JHU threw Yanni Gu under the bus for telling the truth when they redacted her article.

“Some people have questioned my concern over both the CDC and John Hopkins University is a PRIVATE organization where the CDC accepts private funding – NOT ONLY GOVERNMENT! The CDC is quasi-government under the Department of Health and Human Services which strangely has sources of funding that are predicated on the fact that it also has a private 501(c)(3) public charity, like the Clinton Foundation. The CDC Foundation receives charitable contributions and philanthropic grants from individuals, foundations, corporations, universities, NGOs and other organizations to advance the work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This is NOT a government-funded organization. It is not exclusively a government-funded – very curious.
I have serious questions as to what is being driven by the CDC in conjunction with John Hopkins University who takes $1.8 billion from Bloomberg. The CDC and John Hopkins are either deliberately trying to create an economic depression, or are sublimely ignorant of the consequences of their scorched earth policy. Yes, we can cure contagions by sequestering everyone and shutting down the economy. We all then live on handouts from the government, stay home, don’t work, and watch TV? As one reader commented: “Mirror, Mirror, on the wall; Guess we are all socialists after all!”

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/disease/cdc-is-a-private-organization-not-government/

Anonymous said...

ATTORNEY DR. REINER FUELLMICH: 1ST OF MANY LAWSUITS HAS BEEN FILED TO ATTACK USE OF PCR TESTS WHICH ARE THE CORNERSTONE OF “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” CRISIS

USA, Canada, Europe all filing lawsuits.

https://truthcomestolight.com/attorney-dr-reiner-fuellmich-1st-of-many-lawsuits-has-been-filed-to-attack-use-of-pcr-tests-which-are-the-cornerstone-of-crimes-against-humanity-crisis/

Anyone advocating lockdowns is complicit in murder.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nuDQ_3g53qc



Christiane said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Neil Cameron (One Salient Oversight) said...

Here in Australia we mitigated pretty hard. We had severe lockdowns and people wore masks. Now we have no Covid. Praise God for his common grace in providing us with leaders who stood by their epidemiologists, saving lots of lives.

Anonymous said...

Not sure why I’m double posting? Sorry. Not extremely computer literate.

Christiane - yes, he’s an ex-con who has some very good insight into what makes economies tick. He’s not the only one questioning where the true allegiance of the CDC and JHU lies. Follow the money.

Perhaps you would enjoy this similar article by a female teacher in the Catholic faith.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/11/ellen-finnigan/playbook-for-world-domination/

Christiane said...

Hello Sojourner,

thank you for responding to my question and for the link; although we may not agree on some issues, I appreciate that you took the time to respond civilly

it is good for me to try to comprehend the thinking of those who do not share my opinions, so that I might begin to understand what is important to them, and why it is important

it helps me to 'clarify' my own thinking also in so far as I am able to do it

I am much more devoted to ANY kinds of upgrades in how children are treated in our country, because right now, we have much to be ashamed about concerning the plight of many little ones and school-aged children.
We can do better for them AS A COUNTRY. The 'disconnect' between children who are well-off and the children of poverty is too great for us to sustain in this country which is so wealthy, where one in five children now have hunger issues. We are dishonored by what we have failed to do on the behalf of children, yes.

Christiane said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Wibech said...

I agree with your perspective of gov't overreach. However, since we allowed the gov't to fund much of our healthcare (Medicaid, Medicare, ACA), it seems that since we have asked the govt to fund our healthcare, we have given them the right to legislate 'healthy behavior' since they are paying the tab for the majority of Americans.

Unknown said...

Wade, It seems to me that you are making a case here based on constitutionality rather than Christianity. I won't speculate on what may or may not be constitutional during a pandemic, but my Christianity and my conscience dictate a different answer for me than the one you have arrived at.

I believe this pandemic is serious and do not want to put others at risk of serious illness or even death, by potentially exposing them to any virus I might be carrying and be unaware of.

I would also like to point out that some of the information you are using to argue that covid is not as serious as it is made out to be is false. There is a lot of bad information out there right now and sadly, many people are being taken in by it. I urge you to take a closer look at three of the claims you made. First, what you wrote was "The prestigious Johns Hopkins Medical Center recently released a study"- was actually an article written by a student in a student newspaper about a webinar given by someone on the economics staff. She is not a doctor or a scientist and has no connection at all with the JH Medical Center. The article was, in fact, retracted by the student newspaper that published it two days later because it contained false and misleading information.

What was false and misleading about it? For starters, the claim that there has not been any increase in deaths. In fact, there have been over 300,000 deaths above normal this year- that is even more that the current covid death count of 275,000 or so. Anyway, here is a link to an article explaining what was wrong with the article and why it was removed. https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/11/a-closer-look-at-u-s-deaths-due-to-covid-19

I'd also like to point out that your statement "Michigan, a state with stringent laws mandating personal hygiene, sees a rate case increase 30 times higher than Oklahoma, which has no state mask mandate" is inaccurate unless one completely disregards the population differential between the two states. If you look at the statistics (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/) and sort by Tot Cases/ 1m pop, you will see that OK actually has a higher percentage of people infected in their population than MI does. (as of today, OK is approx 50,000 per 1m, while MI is around 39,000 per 1m. This is actually quite remarkable considering the fact that Michigan contains the big city of Detroit and was one of the hardest-hit states during the first wave, when Oklahoma had very few cases. In fact, sorted by infection rates, one can see that the states with very high infection rates are states in which regulations regarding masking and distancing have been much lower than in states where regulations were stricter or enforced.

Again, I won't venture an opinion about whether mask mandates are constitutional or not. I do have an opinion about what I believe is proper and compassionate behavior, though, and for me that equals masking up when I'm around others. And the great thing is, studies have shown that if more people would wear masks, it would actually help stem the pandemic enough to have a very positive effect on the economy, preventing further lockdowns. https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/pages/face-masks-and-gdp.html

I can respect that many of my fellow Christians have reached a different conclusion than I have about masking, but it grieves me that so many seem to be basing their conclusions on false information.

Anonymous said...

Not my intention to be inflammatory here - only helpful. Discussions about masking (fruit) is irrelevant, imo, if the root is poisoned to begin with.

SUMMARY CATALOGUE OF ERRORS FOUND IN THE PAPER
The Corman-Drosten paper contains the following specific errors:

1. There exists no specified reason to use these extremely high concentrations of primers in this protocol. The described concentrations lead to increased nonspecific bindings and PCR product amplifications, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

They list ten errors in total: https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/

"The genetic sequences used in PCRs to detect suspected SARS-CoV-2 and to diagnose
cases of illness and death attributed to Covid-19 are present in dozens of sequences of the
human genome itself and in those of about a hundred microbes. And that includes the
initiators or primers, the most extensive fragments taken at random from their supposed
"genome" and even the so-called "target genes" allegedly specific to the "new
coronavirus". The test is worthless and all "positive" results obtained so far should be
scientifically invalidated and communicated to those affected; and if they are deceased, to
their relatives. Stephen Bustin, one of the world's leading experts on PCR, in fact says that
under certain conditions anyone can test positive"

Look at their conclusions: https://ia601504.us.archive.org/16/items/the-scam-has-been-confirmed-pcr-does-not-detect-sars-cov-2/The%20scam%20has%20been%20confirmed%20-%20Dsalud%20November%202020.pdf





Jen said...

We as a society have agreed that certain things are the right thing to do:

Not drink and drive
wear seat belts

We have allowed the government to "control" us in this way and for a very good reason. Auto fatalities have gone way down.

Covid-19 is an illness where I believe we absolutely should have faith in God, but part of that is using the brains God gave us to do the right thing. We should respect those around us. My 74 year old father was told by the cardiologist at the beginning of the pandemic that he should not go anywhere as he only as 20% heart function. He is able to walk 5 miles, is extremely healthy in all other ways, except his heart. Why should he be caged at home because the rest of the country is not doing the right thing.

Churches should be on the front line of modeling compassionate care for their neighbors. And as we have discovered, some people who did not appear to be high-risk, in fact did suffer and/or die of Covid. We just don't know who will be affected and to be so cavalier is not right. Even Chris Christie admitted that he was wrong not to wear a mask.

I'm so thankful that our new president will not only model good behavior but will also have compassion for a country who has suffered immensely this year in so many ways - health, financial, emotional, and educational.

If we had followed the guidance of the infectious disease experts last spring, we would not be in near the trouble we are today.

The fact that your solution is to just give more money to healthcare workers is immoral. You are saying that people will get extremely ill and that healthcare workers will have to work hours upon hours of grueling, devastating work that could mostly be prevented. Look at what other countries have done and they have amazingly fewer deaths than do we, the greatest country in the world.

Here in Texas, Gov Abbott wouldn't allow El Paso to do a partial shutdown when needed to help prevent more disease and death, but he would send in National Guard troops to take care of all the dead bodies. If you really stop and think about it, it is unconscionable. Why not prevent death and disease and wearing a mask is not a great suffering, it is literally one of the easiest things to do (fun? no, but if I help my community, I am more than willing to wear a mask as long as it takes.)

“To quote Bishop Desmond Tutu, 'There comes a point where we need to stop just pulling people out of the river. We need to go upstream and find out why they're falling in. '”

Christiane said...

Only God can change hearts.

But how many thousands have to die before the frozen places in those hearts begin to thaw?

Essentially among civilized humane people is a principle: that the unnecessary death of even one human person is to be mourned as though millions had perished . . .
as the poet says 'Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee'

When we knowingly fail to protect innocent people, something in us dies also:
WE ARE WHO WE PROTECT

The unnecessary deaths also take down something vital in the humanity of those souls who KNOWINGLY allowed it to happen - tragedy compounded upon tragedy - but this kind imperils souls as it is not 'humane' to cease kindness towards the vulnerable in favor of the powerful