How Politics Hijacked Science and Religion

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

You're assuming that the only pagans were in Northern Europe. It's an older and more widespread phenomenon.
Paganism - Wikipedia

Tolerance is what Jesus practiced. He criticized Jewish believers who had the cultural practices, but lacked care for others. And he was tolerant and encouraging to those of other faiths. Christianity is not a contest of wills or a cultural battle. It's the way back to God.

Don't look for anything else.

If tolerance was the Gospel of Jesus, why did he make a gentile woman compare herself to a dog before he would heal her daughter? Why didn't he tolerate the money changers in the temple? Why did he tell Judas that it was better that the one who betrayed the Son of Man should never have been born? These do not seem to me the words of a 21st century enlightened liberal, rather they seem to be the teaching of the Lord. One who knows there will be those who are damned in the end, one who knows what is required by people to earn his approval. Christ did not consort with prostitutes willy nilly, nor can we infer from his teaching to the poor that he preferred them over his inner circle of disciples. Those men who gave up everything for him. Jesus invited the Jews to his Gospel, a majority rejected it. Will Jesus accept those who heard him and were healed by him but never acknowledged him as Messiah? As the Son of God?

I notice there's a way liberal exegetes interpret the New Testament. It is a way in which they ignore any and all points of division within the Gospel. for instance, Jesus divides the world into sheep and goats. The liberal might agree with that, but clearly the conservatives are the goats, because they are the same as the religious authorities of Jesus' day. Yet that simply isn't true. Any casual examination of Church history will show that the Church has never been particularly universal. She has also been exacting in her demands and you'll find that it was that strict cultivation of virtue and morality in the early Church that caused it to gain traction. Once you became a Christian you did not tolerate the old way of doing things. You literally spat on Satan, you literally renounced the pagan ways of your fathers and embraced a new life. It was entering into a new way of being, not merely adapting the Gospel to suit the world around you.


G.K Chesterton had a wonderful way of talking about the modern world and liberal Christians fit into it perfectly.

The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered.. .it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful.

I don't consider my scheme wildly intolerant, only practical in that there needs to be definite boundaries which as Christians we will not cross. When it comes to the encroachment of liberalism, liberalism takes but never gives. We have been moving further and further away in the west from the Christian society we once were and to what end? To a tolerance of the most wretched ways of life, to aimlessness and the destruction of family.

I'm not sorry to say that I'm unconvinced that tolerance was the Gospel message. Jesus could be tolerant but that tolerance was not absolute.

 

[The Barbarian]

If tolerance was the Gospel of Jesus

He was tolerant of those of other faiths. He was highly intolerant of sin. Hence, He saved the woman caught in adultery by shaming the holier-than-thou "good people" who were eager to have the thrill of killing her, but then says to her, "Go and sin no more."

This thinking is derided as "liberal", but it's the essence of God's love for us. He wants us to stop sinning, not because it offends Him (although it does). He wants us to stop because it is hurting us.

G.K Chesterton had a wonderful way of talking about the modern world and liberal Christians fit into it perfectly.

Notice that Chesterton does not advocate imposing Christianity on those who will not accept it. He merely asserts his right and the right of all Christians to have "definite boundaries which as Christians we will not cross."

Perfectly reasonable and tolerant. Tolerance of others does not extend to a responsibility to adopt their beliefs or ways. It does extend to a willingness to give the same consideration to those of other beliefs or lack of beliefs.

This is the part that so many Pharisees miss: "If we can't force you to listen to our prayers in public schools, you are intolerant and violating our religious rights!"

Tolerance is accepting the rights of others, without giving up one's own rights. Hence prayer in public schools is perfectly legal (even in America which is Constitutionally neutral WRT religion) as long as there is no official support for it, and it is forced on no one. My daughter was an officer in the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. They often prayed together before school, and in school in their meetings. Perfectly tolerant and Christian.

That's what God wants of us.

 

[probinson]

Fauci, early on, correctly pointed out that masks don't really do a very good job of protecting the people who wear them, but do protect others from the wearer.

Actually, early on Fauci correctly pointed out there was no reason for anyone to be walking around wearing masks. He expounded on that in his email by saying that the virus is too small and passes right through the material. Was he wrong? Did he think it was like "netting fish"? How is it possible that he, the top infectious disease expert in the country, gave such a wrong explanation?

Nope. A couple of things. First, it turns out that the virus particles tend to stick to fibers by electrostatic forces, which is why non-woven fabrics catch more virus than those with a regular weave. Second, it happens that the site in the respiratory tract most vulnerable to infection is also the site where most of the larger droplets tend to settle. So that helps, too.

It's not like netting fish, although someone without much understanding of the process might be led to think so.

So do you think that the systematic study of the 10 RCTs published by the CDC last May was wrong? To refresh your memory, the systematic study of 10 RCTs spanning 7 decades concluded, "we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks." If, in fact virus particles do stick to fibers by electrostatic forces and that in turn results in lower transmission, don't you think the systematic study would have shown some evidence of that?

 

[Derek1234]

Actually, early on Fauci correctly pointed out there was no reason for anyone to be walking around wearing masks. He expounded on that in his email by saying that the virus is too small and passes right through the material. Was he wrong? Did he think it was like "netting fish"? How is it possible that he, the top infectious disease expert in the country, gave such a wrong explanation?



So do you think that the systematic study of the 10 RCTs published by the CDC last May was wrong? To refresh your memory, the systematic study of 10 RCTs spanning 7 decades concluded, "we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks." If, in fact virus particles do stick to fibers by electrostatic forces and that in turn results in lower transmission, don't you think the systematic study would have shown some evidence of that?

Since C19 can be spread by both respiratory droplets and aerosols, and masking has demonstrated effect in significantly reducing transmission by respiratory droplets (much less so with aerosols), I'd say there was good evidence to suggest that masking is an effective strategy to limit infection by a key transmission vector, yes.

 

[probinson]

Since C19 can be spread by both respiratory droplets and aerosols, and masking has demonstrated effect in significantly reducing transmission by respiratory droplets (much less so with aerosols), I'd say there was good evidence to suggest that masking is an effective strategy to limit infection by a key transmission vector, yes.

So do you believe all historical RCTs on the subject were wrong?

 

[The Barbarian]

Actually, early on Fauci correctly pointed out there was no reason for anyone to be walking around wearing masks.

No one at the time knew that the masks were protecting other people from exposure if the wearer was infected. When that become known, Fauci changed his advice in accordance with the evidence. Which is what he should have done.

He expounded on that in his email by saying that the virus is too small and passes right through the material. Was he wrong?

Yep. No one knew that the virus would be stopped by electrostatic forces, greatly reducing the emission of virus particules from a person wearing the mask.

If, in fact virus particles do stick to fibers by electrostatic forces and that in turn results in lower transmission, don't you think the systematic study would have shown some evidence of that?

Here it is:
Journal of Fluid Mechanics Volume 894 01 May 2020
The flow physics of COVID-19
...
The face-mask material traps droplets and particles via the combined effects of diffusion, inertial impaction, interception and electrostatic attraction (Thomas et al. 2016; Fleming 2020). Filter efficiency (the ratio of the particle concentrations upstream and downstream of the mask) is a function of the particle- and fibre-size-based Reynolds numbers, fibre-based Péclet number (for diffusion), particle-to-fibre size ratio (for interception) and Stokes number (for impaction). The nonlinear variation of filtration mechanisms on these parameters generates a complex dependence of the filter efficiency on flow velocity, particle size and filter material characteristics such as pore size, fibre diameter and electrostatic charge.

Physicists had it figured out. In principle, the masks shouldn't work. But they do. For the reasons above. Kind of like the "Bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly" stuff. Turns out, they can because of the properties of a tiny little pad of extraordinarily resiliant material no one knew about.

So now you know why masks were so effective where they were used.

So do you think that the systematic study of the 10 RCTs published by the CDC last May was wrong?

Did they miss this effect? Yep. And so the masks turned out to be way more effective than first thought. Science moves on.

If, in fact virus particles do stick to fibers by electrostatic forces and that in turn results in lower transmission, don't you think the systematic study would have shown some evidence of that?

If they were looking for it. But maybe they weren't. Physicists who are interested in the details of such things, located it.

An engineer, BTW, discovered why bumblebees can fly. The material, resylin, returns almost 100% of the downstroke energy to the wing, pushing it upwards. And that's enough. The properties of materials aren't covered in the education of most entomologists, just as physicians aren't often trained in the details of electrostatics and air flow.

Go figure. But scholars talk among each other, and eventually these kinds of things get known.

 

[probinson]

For reference, even the CDC says they are not aware of any randomized control trials that show masks or double masks or cloth face coverings are effective against COVID-19.

 

[probinson]

So now you know why masks were so effective where they were used.

"So effective..."

Did they miss this effect? Yep. And so the masks turned out to be way more effective than first thought. Science moves on.

This is all smoke and mirrors. The CDC's systematic review of 10 RCTs on masking said "we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks." So even if there is an electrostatic charge that captures some viral particles, IT DIDN'T REDUCE TRANSMISSION. That's the bottom line, no matter how you try to spin it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes, we're aware of your tendency to cherry-pick data. But as you learned, the infection rates in states with mask mandates were significantly lower than in states without them. Not just for a limited snapshot of time, but for data throughout the pandemic.

Apples to apples.

And now you know why it worked. No point in denial, now.

 

[The Barbarian]

The CDC's systematic review of 10 RCTs on masking said "we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks." So even if there is an electrostatic charge that captures some viral particles, IT DIDN'T REDUCE TRANSMISSION. That's the bottom line, no matter how you try to spin it.

Turns out, it works differently for influenza and COVID-19. Remember when we were told to use hand sanitizer frequently? COVID-19 doesn't spread from surfaces as readily as influenza, and COVID-19 viruses are more easily reduced by masks.

Bottom line, it worked. As you know, data from states with and without mask mandates show that states with mask mandates average significantly lower infection rates than states without mask mandates. And physicists have figured out why.

Reality is a tough customer, but it is real.

 

[Derek1234]

So do you believe all historical RCTs on the subject were wrong?

I believe science evolves, and you should read this. Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks | Nature Medicine

 

[probinson]

"So effective..."

 

[probinson]

"So effective..."

 

[probinson]

"So effective..."

 

[probinson]

"So effective..."

 

[probinson]

"So effective..."

 

[probinson]

"So effective..."

 

[probinson]

"So effective..."

 

[probinson]

"So effective..."

 

[probinson]

"So effective..."