Coronavirus (Orange: weddings, to live, costs)

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by goodheathen

The advice should be to have weddings outside, with workers and guests tested just before. Wedding planners should start marketing themselves as having the know-how to avoid wedding super-spreader disasters.

Again, same as your outside eating idea. That won't fly across the US with variable weather conditions. How bout we suck it up and deal with it. It's not going away. You have to look very hard to find an outside church.

[goodheathen]

"Deal with it" as in pretend it doesn't exist?

I was talking about California. Rain is unlikely on any given day over the next few months. Too hot is the only likely problem, which can be somewhat circumvented by location choice and time (weddings used to usually happen before noon). Many people don't have church weddings, and outdoor options for weddings are almost endless, unless it's a very large wedding party (which is inadvisable in itself during a pandemic). Also, it's time for church buildings to improve their ventilation, which might be hard, but many of them have wealthy members who can chip in.

Edit: when religion/culture doesn't demand it, long weddings need to be made obsolete. 3 hours of continuous gathering of households, no, that just isn't safe. Public health officials have done a terrible job in not mentioning that sheer time negates various safety measures.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Entire cities aren't changing ways for a few people's paranoia. It's already 100 plus in the desert. Just stay in your house and wear your mask when you need to join normal people living their lives.

[ThinkingOutsideTheBox]

Originally Posted by goodheathen

"Deal with it" as in pretend it doesn't exist?

I was talking about California. Rain is unlikely on any given day over the next few months. Too hot is the only likely problem, which can be somewhat circumvented by location choice and time (weddings used to usually happen before noon). Many people don't have church weddings, and outdoor options for weddings are almost endless, unless it's a very large wedding party (which is inadvisable in itself during a pandemic). Also, it's time for church buildings to improve their ventilation, which might be hard, but many of them have wealthy members who can chip in.

Edit: when religion/culture doesn't demand it, long weddings need to be made obsolete. 3 hours of continuous gathering of households, no, that just isn't safe. Public health officials have done a terrible job in not mentioning that sheer time negates various safety measures.

Maybe because the public health officials realized that all their "restrictions" were USELESS and caused more harm than good and it's time for people to assess their own risk. 3 hours of multiple households gathering to celebrate a joyous occasion is certain a LOT safer walking down the streets of downtown of any major CA city at night (due to crime, not Covid) yet we don't abolish that.

[goodheathen]

Some comments should be routinely ignored, as broken-record bleating.

Masking at weddings isn't going to happen on a large scale. One of the more rational reasons is unless it's a short civil ceremony, people eat. In some cases, there can be a quick indoor portion with a reception outdoors. Birthday party reportedly is the most risky private gathering. It would make sense if wedding is second on the list. People need to get serious about reducing risks.

[ThinkingOutsideTheBox]

Originally Posted by goodheathen

Some comments should be routinely ignored, as broken-record bleating.

Masking at weddings isn't going to happen on a large scale. One of the more rational reasons is unless it's a short civil ceremony, people eat. In some cases, there can be a quick indoor portion with a reception outdoors. Birthday party reportedly is the most risky private gathering. It would make sense if wedding is second on the list. People need to get serious about reducing risks.

Talk about broken-record bleating, NO public official has any right to control's people's birthday parties, weddings, etc to reduce risks of a virus that has a survival rate of 99.99 percent for healthy people under 50. People who want to get serious about "reducing risks" can refrain from attending such events. But to ask a healthy 21 year old to not celebrate their birthday with friends in person at a bar or restaurant or tell a family that they can't have a large birthday party with pizza and cake for their 8 year old or to tell a healthy couple in their 30s their wedding has to be a short outdoor civil ceremony with limited guests is unreasonable and stupid as all those demographics have a much higher chance of dying in a car accident on the way to the party than dying of Covid. Yes, people sacrificed those events in 2020 but they won't sacrifice them forever.

[goodheathen]

I love hostile, over-the-top, irrational replies that make up things I didn't say.

Here is rational: there need to be some adjustments by more than just vulnerable people (who have the right to safely leave home) to get this under control, and government has plenty of leeway to issue public-safety regulations and would be smart to focus on super-spreading.

I think people naturally get angry when confronted by a reality they don't like that will force them to do things they dislike. The gist of points I make is true, and some of the ideas also are good. Eventually government will come around. What's happening now is a long-term economic disaster (probably just as much due to non-fatal outcomes as deaths), making pinning down the virus the only realistic strategy.

[saibot]

Originally Posted by goodheathen

I love hostile, over-the-top, irrational replies that make up things I didn't say.

Here is rational: there need to be some adjustments by more than just vulnerable people (who have the right to safely leave home) to get this under control, and government has plenty of leeway to issue public-safety regulations and would be smart to focus on super-spreading.

I think people naturally get angry when confronted by a reality they don't like that will force them to do things they dislike. The gist of points I make is true, and some of the ideas also are good. Eventually government will come around. What's happening now is a long-term economic disaster (probably just as much due to non-fatal outcomes as deaths), making pinning down the virus the only realistic strategy.

The economic disaster is mainly due to government missteps and overreach including but not limited to ridiculous Covid mandates and shutdowns.

You can stand on your street corner and preach all day about what people ought to, need to, or should be doing, but in the end it is all just your own opinion and you shouldn't be surprised if people pay no attention and go about their lives.

Even Fauci admitted the pandemic is over, and he only backpedalled because he realized that means he won't be getting much attention any more.

[goodheathen]

While Fauci does like attention, why he backpedaled is your made-up claim about him.

Worker shortages and healthcare costs are two major drivers of the economic disaster, and they have almost nothing to do with lockdown, which ended more than a year in many parts of the world.

[saibot]

Originally Posted by goodheathen

While Fauci does like attention, why he backpedaled is your made-up claim about him.

Worker shortages and healthcare costs are two major drivers of the economic disaster, and they have almost nothing to do with lockdown, which ended more than a year in many parts of the world.

Not my "made-up claim."

Recently, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden, Dr. Anthony Fauci, declared that the CO-VID 19 pandemic is officially over.

But at some point the lightbulb went off with him, and Fauci realized that if the pandemic is over, so too are his TV bookings, laudatory newspaper profiles and swanky party invitations.

And this man likes the limelight.

https://enewspaper.ocregister.com/?t...b_627d232e_4_0