There's a reason that churches were closed. It's an event which encourages lots and lots of people to gather in close proximity for an extended duration of time at the same time.

Remember this?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/13/us/coronavirus-washington-cho...

> There's a reason that churches were closed. It's an event which encourages lots and lots of people to gather in close proximity for an extended duration of time at the same time.

And to sing hymns loudly together in that enclosed space (which almost certainly helps spread a respiratory disease just that much more easily).

A church is literally a place for mass assembly, while a liquor store or dispensary can easily be configured for social distancing, i.e. only let up to N customers in the store at a time depending on the size.

But just think how good of a talking point this is!

Bad government stop CHURCH allow LIQUOR and DRUGS! Want to corrupt your CHILDREN, steal them from GODS arms and deliver to SATAN!

Public figures never had a problem with mass assembly.

That's why the Governor of California wined and dined at the French Laundry restaurant in violation of his own COVID protocols at the height of the pandemic. Or why public figures encouraged people to attend large protests. It's pretty obvious in retrospect that they were playing fast and loose with the science for entirely political reasons.

What political goals do you suppose they were trying to accomplish by restricting public gathering establishments? Is the governor of California secretly a Republican trying to help create right wing talking points?

Sure, that doesn't give you license to play fast and loose rejecting science for entirely political reasons.

Individuals are fallible, politicians are hypocritical, news at 11. Rather than aim for consistent application of rules and justice, your movement seems to have overextrapolated these failings into a rejection of having any kind of society in the first place.

I think people view it more as an irreparable shattering of the social contract. Society exists, but the rules just don't matter. Many people have become strict conflict theorists, to borrow a term from sociology.

>A church is literally a place for mass assembly, while a liquor store or dispensary can easily be configured for social distancing, i.e. only let up to N customers in the store at a time depending on the size.

This logic makes 0 sense. Churches have the same capabilities to reconfigure, if not more most of them are just one big room. The same capabilities to limit patrons if it was required. They could split services and space the people out, or only let in N numbers of people as you suggested

It does not make 0 sense.

A liquor store or dispensary functions just fine with as low as 3-5 customers in the store. A church with only 3-5 patrons allowed at a time is effectively closed for most purposes.

It is literally a gathering space.

> Or when Nevada closed Churches, but not Liquor Stores and Pot Dispensaries, because the experts had decided Constitutional Rights weren't an essential activity.

People die from alcohol withdrawal, and dispensaries are medical care for a lot of folks.

> People die from alcohol withdrawal, and dispensaries are medical care for a lot of folks.

This is the exact type of argument that merely helped to inflame the debate.

The real distinction is that church services are mass gatherings of people, whereas liquor and pot are retail establishments that only serve a few people at a given time. Stores can institute policies to make people come into even less contact - whereas for churches the mass of people coming together is intrinsic.

The original argument fallaciously skips over that actual reality, and frames it as if public health administrators are godless heathens more interested in people getting their weed and booze than people going to church. Your counter argument, despite being technically correct, actually buttresses support for the original one.

“People will die if we do x” is important, even if it hurts the fee-fees.

“It’s a mass gathering” arguments met the same resistance. Any argument would have.

I'm with you on the idea that fascists will make any argument, and only value arguments as weapons rather than a good-faith attempt to figure things out. But I still believe there are people in the middle who are swayed by better arguments.

Maybe that's just my fatal flaw of being eternally hopeful that people will actually use their intelligence. But if this isn't the case, then what are we even doing?

(as for your actual argument, one can make the same argument that people will die without being able to get their fix of social church interaction. so then we're talking about numbers for hypotheticals, and right back to the dynamic where it's not even about logic)

Whatever your own feelings on the matter are, condescending to people with terms like "fee-fees" only engenders more conflict and outrage.

It's a fraction of a drop in an ocean of online hostility and malevolence, but is still a contributor nonetheless.

Who’s pretending COVID didn’t happen?

I think it was more meant as the society is ignoring it like a trauma that no one wants to talk about. This results in missing learnings on decisions that were taken back then.

Dying of Covid is worse than a bad impact to social life and education.