Lourdes shrine closes healing pools

[Tired of the Nonsense]

CATHOLIC HERALD
March 3, 2020
Lourdes shrine closes healing pools as precaution against coronavirus
https://catholicherald.co.uk/lourdes-sh ... ronavirus/

What does this say about the church's confidence in the "miraculous" properties of the water at Lourdes?

[Purple Knight]

An as-yet unpublished, unreviewed paper by one team is not quite the same thing as a conclusive revising of expert opinion.

Later in your post you seem to understand that this is about common knowledge that is in the spotlight. If you listen to the news, the figures have been changing.

Of course, even that paper's prospective results of a mortality rate 14 times higher than the flu still radically contradicts 1213's claim that "common influenza is about as dangerous."

I don't believe he ever said common. He may have meant that, but it's generally true that if you're not in a high-risk group, you are very unlikely to die. Same as the flu.

We're dealing with tiny, tiny numbers well under the 2% mark, so yes, fourteen times can seem a lot bigger, but both figures are still very low (as of now).

Whichever side you're on, it's likely that you're wrong until the whole thing has run its course and the final figures are in.

I see a lot of people being snapped at for being stupid due to perceived underreacting, but I see none of that for people overreacting. Both are possible and both could result in deaths. If too many people hoard, for example, others will starve.

But when it's something as straightforward, widely-communicated and important as "This is a highly contagious disease much deadlier than influenza" (which itself is no joke to begin with), there's really no excuse for ignorance, misinformation and putting other people's lives at risk.

No one is putting anyone's life at risk. At the end of the day, each of our actions are our own, and most things aren't known yet, so you or me or anyone else could be wrong. But we're allowed to have opinions and speak them, and being wrong isn't a crime unless you intentionally misrepresent yourself as an expert when you aren't one.

Presumably that also applies to the case of taunting religious folk with irrational arguments about a perceived "lack of faith" in their sensible, compassionate behaviour.

I agree with you here. I actually tried to respond to that effect in the healing pools thread and it turned into a rant about how scamming people was legal if religious people do it, and I wasn't going for that, so I deleted it.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 19 by Mithrae]

In terms of covid-19, people have died but many have also recovered. In fact, the number of recoveries far exceed the number of deaths (source). You rarely, if at all, see the mainstream media reporting on that. When you focus on only the negatives, then that is bound to bring fear. People with anxiety also tend to focus on the negatives.

It makes absolutely no rational sense to quarantine or restrict those who are immune or even low risk. We need to get over this one-size-fits-all response and instead tailor our responses based on case-by case(s) (or based on different populations - low risk/immune vs. high risk) basis. Those who are immune are likely not to get reinfected nor pass on infections to anyone.

[Purple Knight]

Why the flu of 1918 was so deadly
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2018 ... -so-deadly

Given the advances we have made in medicine, health and living conditions since then, together with the drastic actions taken around the world, a 1% death rate still makes this virus outbreak even deadlier in my opinion.

Remember that each advance in medicine allows more people to live who otherwise wouldn't, and that as a selective process, people who are a little bit weaker living on due to advances in medicine probably (okay, just my opinion) very roughly controls for the advances in medicine over a few generations.

In 1900..
https://www.pbs.org/fmc/timeline/dmortality.htm

...the infant mortality was 165 per 1000 births and the life expectancy was 47. Now the infant mortality rate is 7 and the life expectancy is 76. We have a good deal more people with us whose genetic condition would not have allowed them to grow to adulthood in 1900, and we have more elderly who now live on, where in 1900, they would not have.

I know it's a broad sweep but we have two factors working in tandem that tend to cancel each other out, or at least work toward some sort of equilibrium. So yes, I'm suggesting that disregarding both and just looking at the mortality rate isn't some horrible sin.

[1213]

…Is it 'evil and fascistic' to quarantine people who are highly infectious?

Are you aware that people who do not know they have the virus and have no symptoms can pass it on to others?

Person can never guarantee that he is not infectious. Even if you would just have been tested, you could get it from the test place and then be infectious. So, to be sure, all should stay in home eternally. I think it is not good idea. Better is that people are free to move and those who fear are free to stay at their home.

[Zzyzx]

.

Better is that people are free to move and those who fear are free to stay at their home.

Correction: Those who are wise stay at home and reduce chances of being infected.

Here in the US Bible Belt many people share your opinion -- and often gather together in churches.

That has the potential to reduce certain segments of the population. Unfortunately, it also risks passing infection on in the population -- including employees of essential businesses and medical personnel. If and when the unwise get sick, they expect medical care and overload hospitals.

But, thank you for sharing with readers a religionist's point of view.

[1213]

.... If and when the unwise get sick, they expect medical care and overload hospitals.
....

Ok, I understand that medical care cannot be for all. For me it would be fine to renounce medical care, if it would mean that I could then have freedom.

[bjs]

Of course on the flip side of the coin, many of those same critics would also condemn shrines or churches if they remained open: Such a damned if they do and damned if they don't approach would suggest that it's far more a matter of reaching for justification of a preconceived opinion than fairly assessing the merits or otherwise of those institutions' actions.

For three days and two pages of debate this statement has been ignored, but it seems to get at the heart of the matter.

Churches/shrines that stay open are condemned by non-theists.

Churches/shrines that close are condemned by non-theists.

I can see no away around the valid criticism that this is “far more a matter of reaching for justification of a preconceived opinion than fairly assessing the merits or otherwise of those institutions' actions.�

[bluegreenearth]

Of course on the flip side of the coin, many of those same critics would also condemn shrines or churches if they remained open: Such a damned if they do and damned if they don't approach would suggest that it's far more a matter of reaching for justification of a preconceived opinion than fairly assessing the merits or otherwise of those institutions' actions.

For three days and two pages of debate this statement has been ignored, but it seems to get at the heart of the matter.

Churches/shrines that stay open are condemned by non-theists.

Churches/shrines that close are condemned by non-theists.

I can see no away around the valid criticism that this is “far more a matter of reaching for justification of a preconceived opinion than fairly assessing the merits or otherwise of those institutions' actions.�

Would the same valid criticism apply to the following:

Churches/shrines that stay open are defended by theists.

Churches/shrines that close are defended by theists.

[benchwarmer]

Churches/shrines that stay open are condemned by non-theists.

I would think the action of remaining open during a pandemic would be condemned by people who understand how this virus spreads.

Churches/shrines that close are condemned by non-theists.

Only in so far as it points out that some theists realize 'god' won't save them with magic healing water in the case of Lourdes. In other words, even the people who run the pools at Lourdes know they won't save everyone who uses them from COVID-19.

They are 2 different 'condemnations'. The first is a condemnation for ignoring basic science in this day and age. The other is a condemnation of touting pools of water as having healing abilities when it's clear they don't and they know it.

So it's not really lose/lose since we are talking about two different things. I'm sure not all theists think Lourdes healing pools actually do anything other than cleanse some people of their money.

[bjs]

Churches/shrines that stay open are condemned by non-theists.

I would think the action of remaining open during a pandemic would be condemned by people who understand how this virus spreads.

Churches/shrines that close are condemned by non-theists.

Only in so far as it points out that some theists realize 'god' won't save them with magic healing water in the case of Lourdes. In other words, even the people who run the pools at Lourdes know they won't save everyone who uses them from COVID-19.

They are 2 different 'condemnations'. The first is a condemnation for ignoring basic science in this day and age. The other is a condemnation of touting pools of water as having healing abilities when it's clear they don't and they know it.

So it's not really lose/lose since we are talking about two different things. I'm sure not all theists think Lourdes healing pools actually do anything other than cleanse some people of their money.

The description of a “lose/lose� is that someone finds different reasons to condemn a person no matter what action that person takes.

You have done exactly that.

Instead of showing that this is not a “lose/lose,� you have given a clear demonstration of how this criticism is an effort to justify a preconceived opinion.