How many more must die for the throne? (Movie Quote: Prince Caspian)
The Spread of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt
I've seen a lot of FUD spreading across the intergnat on various stats etc.
So let's put this in context ... especially the perspective of those people in positions of authority who need to make decisions to protect the lives of their citizens.
Yep, this is going to be that type of post.
Like it or not the leaders of our governments have their authority from God. So, as Catholics should know, you need to have a very good reason to deliberately disobey the orders of their superiors.
This is basic St. Thomas Aquinas ... so don't blame me for discussing things from a Catholic perspective.
The leaders of our countries have taken action to protect the vulnerable of our countries.
As much as the young and not-so-young may whine and complain - I have to ask how many more of our elderly have to die?
What the armchair virologists and economists are implying is that they value money more than the lives of the old, infirm and sick.
I'll just echo what I believe me Grandma would say:
Shame on You!
We need to focus on what is important (God, Family, Country) instead of being overly concerned about things beyond our control and influence, we need to focus on our duty of state.
In other words, if you only gripe and complain about what the politicians are saying / doing and can't get up enough energy to do something constructive about it ... then I advise you to say a rosary each time you're tempted to complain. As least then you'll be able to make a positive difference.
Hmmm, that was a bit of a rant ...
Ultimately, we won't be judged on what the politicians did and said. We will be judged on how we fulfilled our duty of state.
Context
Personally, I think that the West has gotten spoiled by its soft life-style and God is giving us a wake-up call.
What I want to point out is that COVID-19 is worse than some viruses, but there are much worse ones in the wings waiting to strike. So this is a wake-up call, the response systems in Canada were woefully unprepared for even this pandemic and the people in the West were (I think) too lackadaisical with regard to the risk it posed.
Dispelling some FUD
There are two statistics that are of key importance: Case Fatality Rate and Infection Fatality Rate.
The case fatality rate is simply a calculation of the deaths divided by the number of known cases.
This is important in the short-term because it gives us an idea of the probabilities of death from diagnosed cases, an indication of the efficacy of the healthcare system and controls.
However,
in the long-term the infection fatality rate (IFR) becomes much more
important! Why? Because this statistic gives you and idea of the overall probability of death from infection.The IFR is calculated by dividing the number of deaths by the number of people infected and not the entire population as some would have you believe.
By the way, for COVID-19 - the IFR is estimated to be between 0.4% and 1.0%. But it will change from region to region and ... we won't know until they can do serology tests. I understand that the materials for the serology tests overlap those of the infection tests. Given the strain on the supply chain for testing materials, it won't be happening for a while at a national level.
What does this mean, as noted in the chart in this article - in Canada the older you are the greater the risk of death. This is very evident in a care home near us. During their outbreak 40% of residents who contracted COVID-19 passed away.
The worldometer site is a great resource for creating a good perspective on how effective a country is at managing the outbreak of COVID-19 in their borders.
I've heard the Sweden's response held up as an example for Canada to follow. Looking at the statistics below, it is obvious that such a course of action would not be advised.
One conclusion is that testing does not seem to stop infection ... but we should look at Japan, New Zealand, and Taiwan for better methods ... for the next pandemic!
Parting Thought
As one of my children is fond of saying: Adult Up People.
DON'T be a liberal by undermining the authorities.
DO act responsibly, be a adult looking at both sides of a story weighing the evidence critically and make a rational decision.
Wishing you a Happy and Holy New Year and Paradise at the end of your days!
P^3
I'd be curious to know what the crux of your post here is. I think the emphasis on saying that we must obey authority unless we have a grave cause is important, and I also think we should weigh both sides. That being said, I'd like to know your thoughts on a few distinctions and observations that I would make. I haven't experienced a hard, mandatory lockdown yet, I live in a state with in the United States that doesn't even have many restrictions. You don't even have to wear masks to some places (like church)
ReplyDelete1. I think you start off by making the point that lots of elderly are dying and so therefore we should take things more seriously. Of course even one person dying is unfortunate, and we should pray for their souls, however, I do think when dealing with a government action that effects everyone in the nation we need to look at scale. I've heard some people say that if making everyone wear masks would prevent 10 people from dying it would be worth doing, but I don't think this is fair. Even though your question is rhetorical of "how many elderly need to die?" I think it should be asked "when does the situation warrant the action."
2. This point is linked with my previous one because I think we also need to look at what damages the action will cause if done this applies to the government and the individual. What immediately comes to mind is the shutdown of businesses. In many places we are looking at a situation of every small business having to close down. If this keeps going in places like NYC and California, I doubt small businesses will even be a thing in 10 years there. We are also seeing people in the West out of their jobs or mentally unstable. Are those effects worth the action? You mention how we shouldn't put money over the lives of the elderly, but that we should also focus on God, family and country. You can't focus on those things without money. How many will the action save considering that many places have a terrible crisis despite having very strict lockdowns also needs to be a question we ask.
3. For the individual I must ask you, what exactly are you talking about obeying? If this is about having private gatherings, or being forced to stay home, I would say I would agree that this should be obeyed temporarily. But this obviously couldn't continue forever, so the question then becomes "How long until this can be disobeyed?" which is a conversation to have. If you are talking about wearing a mask, I would agree you should obey the authorities, but I also think this couldn't continue forever. So the same follow up question would apply. Now the final one that I would want to make sure you would agree with me on is that if the government makes receiving the sacraments illegal, I would argue that you should disobey. The state does not have the right from God to do that. If I was in mortal sin, and I knew a willing priest who would give me a confession but the state made this illegal, I'd go to that priest without thinking.
Hi Murrax
DeleteIt doesn't take much to understand the disastrous effects of the lockdowns in almost every country. This quote from a poor day to day worker in India says it all. "it's better to die from Covid than to die from starvation" Those poor people are forced to stay home, their income to feed themselves and their families comes from day to day work. I'm sure there are many people in North America who would rather fight this (I'll use the word from the W.H.O.) "pandemic" working than sit and watch their livelihood dwindle in front of their eyes. You can see the plot thicken with the restrictions and laws in place. First is the news, fear fear fear, this causes anxiety and stress. Mask wearing with less emphasis on sanitary mask wearing which can cause bacterial infection in the lungs. Constant mask wearing with shallow breathing recirculates spent carbon dioxide. Hand sanitizing constantly cleans the hands of necessary bacteria needed for stimulating your immune system. Isolating at home creates mental instability, just think what solitary confinement does to prisoners.
The debt creation for the countries can not even be imagined right now. Debt creation for individuals also causes anxiety and stress. All these things affect your immune system.
What about the vaccines, are they vaccines, mRNA's are not your traditional vaccines, they do not have any data support it as safe.
I personally think Tradical is Fudding around without all the cards on the table. Of course Tradical cannot comprehend the amount of suicides and mental illnesses caused by this because NO MATTER WHAT THEY ARE THE AUTHORITY AND WE CANNOT QUESTION THEIR LAWS. Of course that last sentence will be Tradical's main attack on my comment, or he may just ignore both of our comments as it's already Jan 16th and this blog is 15 days old. Zat is zee pazt, itz an old blog.
MM
A1. One principle that I had in mind are that the leaders are held responsible by God for the common good of the people they govern. Principles don't "scale", you either abide by them or you do not.
DeleteA2. The principle of saving lives is higher than economic welfare.
A3. The question surrounds whether the state of emergency is still in effect and the sphere of authority. As long as an order is within their sphere of authority, then there is an obligation to obey (which normal conditions as per the doctrine of the Church). With regards to making receipt of the sacraments illegal, it is outside the sphere of their authority. The problem is that, for example last rites for thos dying in the hospital, priests have no access. Likewise, your last example is bang-on, the prohibition of sacraments such as that is outside of the authority of the state. However, it is within the authority of the Church.
@MM: If you don't like my explanation of Catholic Principles, then either show me where I am wrong by citing a reputable source or at least put forward a rational argument that stands on its own without simply repeating the various conspiracy theories that you've been reading on the web.
DeleteI agree with your principles, but the problem is the application of them. Scale does matter in determining the common good, I am utterly confused why you would deny that. I still think the question of "If forcing everyone to wear a mask might save even 1 life should we obey that order forever?" my instinct says no and I think some intelligent people have made solid arguments based on Catholic principles that this specific order ought to be disobeyed. https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2020/12/the-case-against-masks-presented-by.html Maybe you could write a post interacting with this?
DeleteYour second answer doesn't get at the root of the problem. Of course lives>economic welfare but if you are starving people to death and locking them in their homes that has to do with a threat to life through a lack of economic welfare. That's the question here. The restrictions are obviously doing that. If we were living in a Distributist society where our main needs were provided for I might agree with you here but they are not. When people don't have money they starve to death.
Finally regarding your final point. We agree. We agree on the principles at least. I think you should interact with valid arguments that challenge if these orders are in the sphere of authority or if there is an actual threat to the common good. The rorate article is a good place to start.
MM: I agree with your principles, but the problem is the application of them. Scale does matter...
DeleteTradical
I'm sorry, ... scale does matter? Let's recast the situation to examine the principle. If the murder of one baby would save millions, is it justified? That baby would have been Adolf Hitler. Let's take this reasoning to the appropriate conclusion. The situation: A doctor attending the birth of Adolf Hitler, had just completed an autopsy and decided to not wash his hands. Even though it has been demonstrated that this simple act reduces the risk of serious infection. Both Adolf and his mother contract the disease and die.
Is the doctor morally culpable for the pre-mature death ofAdolf and his mother?
The answer is yes.
Let's step back from the extreme cases to examine the rorate argument. Is wearing a mask an extreme measure in public an extreme measure? The rational answer is no.
This is supported by a logical fallacy in the Rorate article:
"...There is a parallel that can be drawn to another time in history when citizens were ordered to wear peculiar articles of clothing: the Jewish star. ..."
This is fallacious as requiring Jews to wear a star was not to prevent or more correctly slow the spread of disease. It had nothing to do with the common-good and everything to do with identifying and segregating the Jews from the rest of the population.
The fact is that masks reduce the risk of transmission of a virus. They were used effectively during the Spanish Flu, they are used in Asia automatically when a new disease emerges as a result of their stronger social awareness. Coronavirus, as is the case with most viruses, is particularly dangerous for those over the age of 60. Even were it not, the overwhelming of health care systems would put the doctors in the situation of needing to decide who lives and who dies.
So, if the Governments did not take appropriate actions, then they would not be fulfilling their duty of state.
MM: ... starving people to death ... ?
Where in North America are people starving to death? I am not aware that the food banks are completely empty or a food shortage as the agriculture sector has not been severely impacted.
MM: ... is there is an actual threat to the common good....?
Well, I haven't reviewed the stats for the USA, but I have look at Canada's stats. It is clearly a threat to the common-good.
It poses a direct threat to the health of Canadian citizens who contract it. It also poses an indirect threat if the health care system is overwhelmed as other serious diseases will go untreated.
One area that I am concerned is the thought that the Coronavirus is simply "Boomer Remover". The thought that appropriate measures should not be taken to preserve lives of the elderly is suspiciously close to euthanasia.
P^3
oops - apologies Murrax - I incorrectly labelled your responses.
DeleteP^3
Come on Tradical, you're misrepresenting my position. I didn't just say "scale does matter" I said "Scale does matter *in determining the common good*" which it obviously does. It seems you think that if 1 person dies it is a threat to the common good? Again, I'm not speaking about an individual action where an individual endangers another, I am speaking about a government enforcing that people wear something in order to protect the common good. But I want to talk about that too. So a few things here.
Delete1. I wish you would answer my question. If everyone wearing masks would prevent the spread of COVID 19 to one person, would the government be permitted to do this?
The problem with your application of true Catholic principles are that I don't see an end to potential absurdities. So my next question is.
2. If the government supplied everyone with a Hazmat suit and enforced people to wear it when in public, knowing that it would slow the spread, could the government do this? With your position this I think you have to say the government is justified in doing this. If you don't think that the government is justified in doing this, why not?
Further, it must be asked why wouldn't you wear a hazmat suit yourself if you were given it? The masks may help, but they are not absolute. Fauci just said people should wear two masks. You know what is absolute? A hazmat suit. So....
3. Why shouldn't the individual feel morally obliged to wear the hazmat suit if he is also morally obliged to wear a mask?
And finally...
4. I would also ask you, since it is possible to spread the flu to an elderly individual and you might not know if you have the flu, why shouldn't you feel obliged to always wear a mask even when we aren't in a pandemic?
These aren't extreme questions, they are simply applying your principles in the way you are applying them. If you could show me why under your principles wearing a mask is only a temporary solution to this crisis and why someone wouldn't be forced to wear other PPE in public or more and more masks, I would hear you out. But that isn't the full issue either. I don't think it is acceptable to mandate these things in Church, the idea of a priest wearing a mask on the altar is absurd and crazy and if it is true that the government can't, I don't see why they could mandate this in public? I also see a big problem with children not being able to look at faces, kids with asthma not being able to breath and the general social isolation that this causes. But let's just stick with the questions that I asked.
I get your concerns about the elderly. My generation has this kind of attitude because they feel like none of their problems are taken seriously by "boomers" and are are often neglected or made worse. But this has resulted in them losing the virtue of charity. My instinct naturally goes to concern for children who I think have been permanently damaged by these restrictions. Why not a compromise and simply say that the elderly should wear masks and you should wear masks around them until they get the vaccine? (Which I believe you can take.)
Tradical
ReplyDeleteSamuel Clements quoted "it's easier to fool someone than to convince someone they are being fooled".
After reading your article I believe this freemason known as Mark Twain.
MM
... are you practicing psychological projection?
DeleteP^3