OT: COVID-19 thread #2

[Dresden]

IMHO, what happened in NY is never going to happen again. You had a unique set of circumstances which are completely impossible to replicate. No testing, no masks, no awareness, densely packed city with lots of public transportation, etc.

What I see happening is a slow burn. We will see a wave of small spikes. 50 cases here, 100 there. Its going to get worse and then slowly better as more people get immunity and the impact of masks and social distancing slow it down. I don't see some huge second wave, barring a major mutation.

The whole thing was just so . . . unnecessary. By opening up a little too early and a little to irresponsibly, we are effectively wasting the months we spent huddled in our houses. A few more weeks and the virus would have been mostly gone and very controllable.

From my understanding, a few more weeks of isolation would not have eliminated the pandemic. Just to take CA as an example- our cases were slowly coming down in isolation- the curve was flattening and even moving slightly down- but they weren't taking a nose dive. People were still being infected, even during the shutdown. And as soon as things opened up, they were bound to spike again, whenever that was.

The key to stopping things was to test and trace. Testing (at least where I live, in SF) has gotten a lot better, but tracing is still almost non existent, as far as I know. that's what S. Korea did so well. They traced the hell out of the disease, and made sure anyone who was in contact with an infected person was isolated for 2 weeks.

I'm not saying opening back up is a good thing. Not at all. Again, to use CA as an example, our governor has been pretty smart about using variable criteria to gauge how to slowly, and carefully open things back up again. And hopefully, that will prevent a real big second wave. But in states like GA, that just said, "the hell with this, we've had enough", and where people don't wear masks and social distance, etc., I'd be surprised if we didn't see a big rebound. Maybe the warm weather will save some places, esp. in the south.

The bottom line is, if people don't change the way they live, and adapt to this new reality of living with the pandemic, there will be more outbreaks. Especially next fall/winter.

And yes, to your earlier point about large groups of people in crowded spaces for extended periods of time- that should be the #1 thing to avoid. It is almost inevitable that we will see many church goers infected in the coming weeks and months, which is very sad.

I think you misunderstand my post:

"A few more weeks and the virus would have been mostly gone and very controllable" does not equal "eliminated"

The virus was really going down nationally. Our frontline data is terrible. Deaths are lagging. Testing was really low initially so its not an apples to apples comparison. That said, when you look at ER visit data and the deeper stuff, the rate of infection was markedly lower than before and going down.

If we had waited until June 1, we would have been to the point where we can do 500k tests per day with a pretty small amount circulating. Add in masks, social distancing and you had a recipe for this being driven into the ground.

By opening up a few weeks earlier, we had hundreds of thousands more infections being tracked by less testing. Its a less controllable situation asking for more problems.

Regardless, I think people are making a mistake on focusing on spikes like what happened in NY is going to happen again. It lets governors like the Georgia or Florida ones off easy. They could literally do nothing right and still avoid the epic spike. People are aware and we are testing now. The viral spread just isn't going to be as fast going forward. When people predict big second waves or NY like spikes, they are setting up a situation where those on the "open it up" side of the equation can point out how they were wrong later.

That's true, we won't see a situation like NY again. It's anyone's guess what this fall and winter will bring. We could very well see a big problem again in cold weather cities, unless precautions are taken. Masks are a key- hopefully they will be in good supply (really good ones, not just bandanas).

You are probably right about a couple more weeks being needed, in many places. These next few weeks and months will be very revealing about how opening up when we have is going to affect infection rates. Luckily the weather is in our favor. But here in SF, I can already hear people having parties (indoors), which is a terrible idea right now. And I'm sure that's going on all across the country. It could get really bad again, really fast. Not as bad as the initial wave, but enough to really cause a lot more illness and deaths.

[dice]

so those studies that suggested that the virus could live on surfaces (doorknobs) for days were wrong?

[Ccwatercraft]

Trump announced he wants churches opened for this weekend, and will override any governor's orders to the contrary (which he doesn't actually have the power to do, and said so himself a month ago). I haven't heard a single doctor or public health expert who thinks this is a good idea, except Dr. Brix. She said that "I'm sure anyone who is sick will not go to church", minutes after talking about how people can be highly infectious yet not show any symptoms. People are going to get sick because of this, and most likely die.

It’s hard for him to do anything that is the “most blatant” version of despicable things he does, but this is the most blatant example yet of him dangerously politicizing the pandemic to pander to voters.

As an aside, if you go back and look at my posts the day after he retracted his statement that he he could force the governors to follow his plans, I said then that his playbook could not be more transparent. He will claim he does not have control over the national response specifically so that he can use governors as punching bags to drum up votes. This is one of many examples of his so obvious plan to politically weaponize the pandemic.

I sincerely hope that the people who foolishly return to church at the behest of Trump (which is exactly what this is) stay healthy. But I expect churches to be at the heart of pop up hot spots in the coming weeks. It’s truly disgusting using people’s faith to endanger them in the name of political expediency.

Every day presents a new reason to lose faith in America.

You would have found my day at the airport flying to texas quite disheartening then, both flights were right around 70% full and more people in the halls, lobby, food court than you would have been comfortable with tsa was consolidated to One terminal so we were packed pretty close there too, about half were masked only during boarding to satisfy requirements then pulled them down during flight.

A couple people with full gas masks on and a couple of face shields too, I assume those were then ones that really had to go somewhere and had no choice vs wanted to go somewhere and did so voluntary.

Everyone else was pretty chill, just another day.

I am not religious myself but I respect those that are and want to go to worship, just as I respect those that want to go to lowes (packed) to buy spring flowers for planting or run to the grocery (packed) for a ny strip or head out for some good texmex. All really non essential by any standard.

So for some going to church is just as important as random errands, it's their call, I'm ok with it and I'm ok with Trump supporting their choice, hes not making anyone leave the house that doesn't want to, but trust me, the roads are busy again here and un Houston that's for dam sure.

[DuckIII]

Trump announced he wants churches opened for this weekend, and will override any governor's orders to the contrary (which he doesn't actually have the power to do, and said so himself a month ago). I haven't heard a single doctor or public health expert who thinks this is a good idea, except Dr. Brix. She said that "I'm sure anyone who is sick will not go to church", minutes after talking about how people can be highly infectious yet not show any symptoms. People are going to get sick because of this, and most likely die.

It’s hard for him to do anything that is the “most blatant” version of despicable things he does, but this is the most blatant example yet of him dangerously politicizing the pandemic to pander to voters.

As an aside, if you go back and look at my posts the day after he retracted his statement that he he could force the governors to follow his plans, I said then that his playbook could not be more transparent. He will claim he does not have control over the national response specifically so that he can use governors as punching bags to drum up votes. This is one of many examples of his so obvious plan to politically weaponize the pandemic.

I sincerely hope that the people who foolishly return to church at the behest of Trump (which is exactly what this is) stay healthy. But I expect churches to be at the heart of pop up hot spots in the coming weeks. It’s truly disgusting using people’s faith to endanger them in the name of political expediency.

Every day presents a new reason to lose faith in America.

You would have found my day at the airport flying to texas quite disheartening then, both flights were right around 70% full and more people in the halls, lobby, food court than you would have been comfortable with tsa was consolidated to One terminal so we were packed pretty close there too, about half were masked only during boarding to satisfy requirements then pulled them down during flight.

A couple people with full gas masks on and a couple of face shields too, I assume those were then ones that really had to go somewhere and had no choice vs wanted to go somewhere and did so voluntary.

Everyone else was pretty chill, just another day.

I am not religious myself but I respect those that are and want to go to worship, just as I respect those that want to go to lowes (packed) to buy spring flowers for planting or run to the grocery (packed) for a ny strip or head out for some good texmex. All really non essential by any standard.

So for some going to church is just as important as random errands, it's their call, I'm ok with it and I'm ok with Trump supporting their choice, hes not making anyone leave the house that doesn't want to, but trust me, the roads are busy again here and un Houston that's for dam sure.

I don’t need to go to an airport to watch them. I’m already familiar with Americans.

[Dez]

so those studies that suggested that the virus could live on surfaces (doorknobs) for days were wrong?

Everything I've read is that contracting the disease from contaminated surfaces isn't as easy as simply touching the surface, you can obviously get it that way but it's not highly likely.

You'd practically have to lick the surface for minutes at a time.

[Dresden]

Trump announced he wants churches opened for this weekend, and will override any governor's orders to the contrary (which he doesn't actually have the power to do, and said so himself a month ago). I haven't heard a single doctor or public health expert who thinks this is a good idea, except Dr. Brix. She said that "I'm sure anyone who is sick will not go to church", minutes after talking about how people can be highly infectious yet not show any symptoms. People are going to get sick because of this, and most likely die.

It’s hard for him to do anything that is the “most blatant” version of despicable things he does, but this is the most blatant example yet of him dangerously politicizing the pandemic to pander to voters.

As an aside, if you go back and look at my posts the day after he retracted his statement that he he could force the governors to follow his plans, I said then that his playbook could not be more transparent. He will claim he does not have control over the national response specifically so that he can use governors as punching bags to drum up votes. This is one of many examples of his so obvious plan to politically weaponize the pandemic.

I sincerely hope that the people who foolishly return to church at the behest of Trump (which is exactly what this is) stay healthy. But I expect churches to be at the heart of pop up hot spots in the coming weeks. It’s truly disgusting using people’s faith to endanger them in the name of political expediency.

Every day presents a new reason to lose faith in America.

You would have found my day at the airport flying to texas quite disheartening then, both flights were right around 70% full and more people in the halls, lobby, food court than you would have been comfortable with tsa was consolidated to One terminal so we were packed pretty close there too, about half were masked only during boarding to satisfy requirements then pulled them down during flight.

A couple people with full gas masks on and a couple of face shields too, I assume those were then ones that really had to go somewhere and had no choice vs wanted to go somewhere and did so voluntary.

Everyone else was pretty chill, just another day.

I am not religious myself but I respect those that are and want to go to worship, just as I respect those that want to go to lowes (packed) to buy spring flowers for planting or run to the grocery (packed) for a ny strip or head out for some good texmex. All really non essential by any standard.

So for some going to church is just as important as random errands, it's their call, I'm ok with it and I'm ok with Trump supporting their choice, hes not making anyone leave the house that doesn't want to, but trust me, the roads are busy again here and un Houston that's for dam sure.

I don't know if people should be outright banned from going to church, but at the least, the president should not be giving it his approval, and he should be warning people about the risks they face if they do go. That's what doctors and public health officials are doing- they are telling people it's not a good idea, and discouraging it. That, IMO, is the responsible thing for a leader to be doing right now. Not making this into some sort of us v. them fight.

[dice]

so those studies that suggested that the virus could live on surfaces (doorknobs) for days were wrong?

Everything I've read is that contracting the disease from contaminated surfaces isn't as easy as simply touching the surface, you can obviously get it that way but it's not highly likely.

You'd practically have to lick the surface for minutes at a time.

good to know. i was at a place of business today and practically everyone who came in grabbed onto the door handle w/ bare hands when they came in. so if the virus could reasonably be transferred in that way we'd be screwed, yet the new case rate peaked 2 weeks ago in chicago

[Dresden]

so those studies that suggested that the virus could live on surfaces (doorknobs) for days were wrong?

Everything I've read is that contracting the disease from contaminated surfaces isn't as easy as simply touching the surface, you can obviously get it that way but it's not highly likely.

You'd practically have to lick the surface for minutes at a time.

good to know. i was at a place of business today and practically everyone who came in grabbed onto the door handle w/ bare hands when they came in. so if the virus could reasonably be transferred in that way we'd be screwed, yet the new case rate peaked 2 weeks ago in chicago

It's not impossible to catch it that way, they just don't think it's very likely. If someone just sneezed into their hand, then grabbed a door knob, then 2 seconds later you grabbed it, then rubbed your nose or your eyes, it's possible. But it's like the late Jerry Stiller sitting on Kramer's Fusilli Jerry, and having it go right up his ass- it's a "one in a million shot".

[Dez]

so those studies that suggested that the virus could live on surfaces (doorknobs) for days were wrong?

Everything I've read is that contracting the disease from contaminated surfaces isn't as easy as simply touching the surface, you can obviously get it that way but it's not highly likely.

You'd practically have to lick the surface for minutes at a time.

good to know. i was at a place of business today and practically everyone who came in grabbed onto the door handle w/ bare hands when they came in. so if the virus could reasonably be transferred in that way we'd be screwed, yet the new case rate peaked 2 weeks ago in chicago

It can definitely transmit that way but it has definitely being sensationalized how contagious that method of transmission is, I mean you can touch a contaminated surface but if you wash and sanitize your hands frequently then you're likely to be fine.

Basic hygiene is the best and most effective way to combat this until a vaccine, as long as we up our frequency of washing and sanitizing our hands then things should be fine.

[Ccwatercraft]

It’s hard for him to do anything that is the “most blatant” version of despicable things he does, but this is the most blatant example yet of him dangerously politicizing the pandemic to pander to voters.

As an aside, if you go back and look at my posts the day after he retracted his statement that he he could force the governors to follow his plans, I said then that his playbook could not be more transparent. He will claim he does not have control over the national response specifically so that he can use governors as punching bags to drum up votes. This is one of many examples of his so obvious plan to politically weaponize the pandemic.

I sincerely hope that the people who foolishly return to church at the behest of Trump (which is exactly what this is) stay healthy. But I expect churches to be at the heart of pop up hot spots in the coming weeks. It’s truly disgusting using people’s faith to endanger them in the name of political expediency.

Every day presents a new reason to lose faith in America.

You would have found my day at the airport flying to texas quite disheartening then, both flights were right around 70% full and more people in the halls, lobby, food court than you would have been comfortable with tsa was consolidated to One terminal so we were packed pretty close there too, about half were masked only during boarding to satisfy requirements then pulled them down during flight.

A couple people with full gas masks on and a couple of face shields too, I assume those were then ones that really had to go somewhere and had no choice vs wanted to go somewhere and did so voluntary.

Everyone else was pretty chill, just another day.

I am not religious myself but I respect those that are and want to go to worship, just as I respect those that want to go to lowes (packed) to buy spring flowers for planting or run to the grocery (packed) for a ny strip or head out for some good texmex. All really non essential by any standard.

So for some going to church is just as important as random errands, it's their call, I'm ok with it and I'm ok with Trump supporting their choice, hes not making anyone leave the house that doesn't want to, but trust me, the roads are busy again here and un Houston that's for dam sure.

I don't know if people should be outright banned from going to church, but at the least, the president should not be giving it his approval, and he should be warning people about the risks they face if they do go. That's what doctors and public health officials are doing- they are telling people it's not a good idea, and discouraging it. That, IMO, is the responsible thing for a leader to be doing right now. Not making this into some sort of us v. them fight.

There's a massive difference between banned and telling people it's not a good idea.

If you want to avoid an us vs them situation then not banning them is a good start.

As I said. Its not my thing, but who that doesn't mean the govt should single them out and just pretend other activities such as grocery and home improvement stores are safe, or the vast majority of the time essential, they aren't.

90% of the trips to the grocery are not based out of desperation or starvation but just personal preference, the cupboards are rarely 100% bare, not even crackers at home type situation.

Same goes for home depot or lowes. People are buying flowers, mulch, closet shelving, ceiling fans, etc out of boredom, not out of desperation or necessity.

[DuckIII]

I’ve noticed on social media that the people I know who have been quickest to use words like “sheeple” and “think for yourself” or posted links to Plandemic are also super mad they haven’t been able to go to church.

I’ll let you decide if that’s ironic.

[dice]

You would have found my day at the airport flying to texas quite disheartening then, both flights were right around 70% full and more people in the halls, lobby, food court than you would have been comfortable with tsa was consolidated to One terminal so we were packed pretty close there too, about half were masked only during boarding to satisfy requirements then pulled them down during flight.

A couple people with full gas masks on and a couple of face shields too, I assume those were then ones that really had to go somewhere and had no choice vs wanted to go somewhere and did so voluntary.

Everyone else was pretty chill, just another day.

I am not religious myself but I respect those that are and want to go to worship, just as I respect those that want to go to lowes (packed) to buy spring flowers for planting or run to the grocery (packed) for a ny strip or head out for some good texmex. All really non essential by any standard.

So for some going to church is just as important as random errands, it's their call, I'm ok with it and I'm ok with Trump supporting their choice, hes not making anyone leave the house that doesn't want to, but trust me, the roads are busy again here and un Houston that's for dam sure.

I don't know if people should be outright banned from going to church, but at the least, the president should not be giving it his approval, and he should be warning people about the risks they face if they do go. That's what doctors and public health officials are doing- they are telling people it's not a good idea, and discouraging it. That, IMO, is the responsible thing for a leader to be doing right now. Not making this into some sort of us v. them fight.

There's a massive difference between banned and telling people it's not a good idea.

If you want to avoid an us vs them situation then not banning them is a good start.

we're in a pandemic. a once in a century pandemic. in which one person's lack of responsibility can severely harm many others. and as this, wait for it...PANDEMIC is proving to an alarming degree, many people are irresponsible. as such, bans are necessary. for the same damn reason that we ban people from drinking and driving. and have speed limits. and countless other restrictions on freedoms that are taken for granted as reasonable. because the reduction in freedom in these cases is dwarfed by the importance of public safety

avoiding an "us vs them" scenario should be very, very low on the list of priorities. the distinct minority of vocal morons don't get to have their voices heard, no matter how loud they scream

90% of the trips to the grocery are not based out of desperation or starvation but just personal preference, the cupboards are rarely 100% bare, not even crackers at home type situation.

i'm sorry, but that's a ridiculous statement. easily the majority of the food eaten since the stay at home orders were issued has been purchased during the pandemic and has thus been absolutely essential. some people had very little when this started, some people had a few weeks worth of food, very few had more than that. if we knew that EVERYBODY had, say, 3 weeks of food on hand, it would have been reasonable to shut grocery stores down for 3 weeks. but that was obviously not the case. so we're left with personal responsibility: try to minimize trips to the grocery store

Same goes for home depot or lowes. People are buying flowers, mulch, closet shelving, ceiling fans, etc out of boredom, not out of desperation or necessity.

except that those stores are not being kept open for that stuff. they're being kept open because our homes protect us from the elements/intruders and must occasionally be repaired for that purpose. should these stores be prohibited from (re)stocking non-essential stuff at this time to prevent people from coming in for that? maybe. but that would be tough to enforce

[musiqsoulchild]

I’ve noticed on social media that the people I know who have been quickest to use words like “sheeple” and “think for yourself” or posted links to Plandemic are also super mad they haven’t been able to go to church.

I’ll let you decide if that’s ironic.

This thing has been about re-election for him from the start.

The guy is dangerous.

[Dresden]

You would have found my day at the airport flying to texas quite disheartening then, both flights were right around 70% full and more people in the halls, lobby, food court than you would have been comfortable with tsa was consolidated to One terminal so we were packed pretty close there too, about half were masked only during boarding to satisfy requirements then pulled them down during flight.

A couple people with full gas masks on and a couple of face shields too, I assume those were then ones that really had to go somewhere and had no choice vs wanted to go somewhere and did so voluntary.

Everyone else was pretty chill, just another day.

I am not religious myself but I respect those that are and want to go to worship, just as I respect those that want to go to lowes (packed) to buy spring flowers for planting or run to the grocery (packed) for a ny strip or head out for some good texmex. All really non essential by any standard.

So for some going to church is just as important as random errands, it's their call, I'm ok with it and I'm ok with Trump supporting their choice, hes not making anyone leave the house that doesn't want to, but trust me, the roads are busy again here and un Houston that's for dam sure.

I don't know if people should be outright banned from going to church, but at the least, the president should not be giving it his approval, and he should be warning people about the risks they face if they do go. That's what doctors and public health officials are doing- they are telling people it's not a good idea, and discouraging it. That, IMO, is the responsible thing for a leader to be doing right now. Not making this into some sort of us v. them fight.

There's a massive difference between banned and telling people it's not a good idea.

If you want to avoid an us vs them situation then not banning them is a good start.

As I said. Its not my thing, but who that doesn't mean the govt should single them out and just pretend other activities such as grocery and home improvement stores are safe, or the vast majority of the time essential, they aren't.

90% of the trips to the grocery are not based out of desperation or starvation but just personal preference, the cupboards are rarely 100% bare, not even crackers at home type situation.

Same goes for home depot or lowes. People are buying flowers, mulch, closet shelving, ceiling fans, etc out of boredom, not out of desperation or necessity.

I get your point, but when you go to church, you're sitting in a tightly packed room for over an hour. That's not the same as going to a grocery store, where you're in and out in 15-20 minutes, and where social distancing is (hopefully) being practiced. They've been banning church services for the same reason they've been banning any large gathering of people, esp indoors. It falls into that same level of risk. So they aren't being singled out at all. It's just the opposite- you're making an exception for a church service with a hundred or more people to take place, while other large events of similar size are not allowed yet.

[dice]

I don't know if people should be outright banned from going to church, but at the least, the president should not be giving it his approval, and he should be warning people about the risks they face if they do go. That's what doctors and public health officials are doing- they are telling people it's not a good idea, and discouraging it. That, IMO, is the responsible thing for a leader to be doing right now. Not making this into some sort of us v. them fight.

There's a massive difference between banned and telling people it's not a good idea.

If you want to avoid an us vs them situation then not banning them is a good start.

As I said. Its not my thing, but who that doesn't mean the govt should single them out and just pretend other activities such as grocery and home improvement stores are safe, or the vast majority of the time essential, they aren't.

90% of the trips to the grocery are not based out of desperation or starvation but just personal preference, the cupboards are rarely 100% bare, not even crackers at home type situation.

Same goes for home depot or lowes. People are buying flowers, mulch, closet shelving, ceiling fans, etc out of boredom, not out of desperation or necessity.

I get your point, but when you go to church, you're sitting in a tightly packed room for over an hour. That's not the same as going to a grocery store, where you're in and out in 15-20 minutes, and where social distancing is (hopefully) being practiced. They've been banning church services for the same reason they've been banning any large gathering of people, esp indoors. It falls into that same level of risk. So they aren't being singled out at all. It's just the opposite- you're making an exception for a church service with a hundred or more people to take place, while other large events of similar size are not allowed yet.

and let's be honest - going to church is an excuse to congregate socially and not a personal spiritual necessity

[Dresden]

Churches aren't the only ones feeling like they've been singled out. This from a bar owner in NYC, from a NYT editorial:

"But what other industry is being handicapped with similar constraints? For all of its sanctimonious emails, United appears to have been packing flights to every last seat, with seemingly no oversight from anyone, and fielding $5 billion in federal aid while doing it. The grocery and liquor stores in Brooklyn where I’ve been shopping have customers in their aisles cheek by jowl — six-foot measures be damned — with no one objecting. Offices and factories nationwide will open to suggestions and guidelines for safety galore, but nothing officially mandating that they must hobble their production. Why should we be singled out for delimiting?"

[CBS7]

Eid Mubarak to my Muslims. It'll be a weird one this year, after a weird Ramadan, thanks to Covid-19.

[musiqsoulchild]

Eid Mubarak to my Muslims. It'll be a weird one this year, after a weird Ramadan, thanks to Covid-19.

On the flipside, fasting the past 40 days probably helped with a lot of internal health and immunity which helped ward off COVID to a certain extent.

Eid Mubarak brother!

[DuckIII]

There's a massive difference between banned and telling people it's not a good idea.

If you want to avoid an us vs them situation then not banning them is a good start.

As I said. Its not my thing, but who that doesn't mean the govt should single them out and just pretend other activities such as grocery and home improvement stores are safe, or the vast majority of the time essential, they aren't.

90% of the trips to the grocery are not based out of desperation or starvation but just personal preference, the cupboards are rarely 100% bare, not even crackers at home type situation.

Same goes for home depot or lowes. People are buying flowers, mulch, closet shelving, ceiling fans, etc out of boredom, not out of desperation or necessity.

I get your point, but when you go to church, you're sitting in a tightly packed room for over an hour. That's not the same as going to a grocery store, where you're in and out in 15-20 minutes, and where social distancing is (hopefully) being practiced. They've been banning church services for the same reason they've been banning any large gathering of people, esp indoors. It falls into that same level of risk. So they aren't being singled out at all. It's just the opposite- you're making an exception for a church service with a hundred or more people to take place, while other large events of similar size are not allowed yet.

and let's be honest - going to church is an excuse to congregate socially and not a personal spiritual necessity

Let’s also be honest that the church leaders who are aggressively pushing for a return to in-person service are doing so for business reasons and because they are being petty for not being deemed “essential.”

There are of course huge contingents of religious leaders who are doing the opposite and encouraging patience. Because they actually care about their flock above their own pride and pocketbook.

As with so many things related to the pandemic, religion is being put to the test. Many are revealing themselves to be frauds, and many are revealing themselves to be sincere.

[Dresden]

I get your point, but when you go to church, you're sitting in a tightly packed room for over an hour. That's not the same as going to a grocery store, where you're in and out in 15-20 minutes, and where social distancing is (hopefully) being practiced. They've been banning church services for the same reason they've been banning any large gathering of people, esp indoors. It falls into that same level of risk. So they aren't being singled out at all. It's just the opposite- you're making an exception for a church service with a hundred or more people to take place, while other large events of similar size are not allowed yet.

and let's be honest - going to church is an excuse to congregate socially and not a personal spiritual necessity

Let’s also be honest that the church leaders who are aggressively pushing for a return to in-person service are doing so for business reasons and because they are being petty for not being deemed “essential.”

There are of course huge contingents of religious leaders who are doing the opposite and encouraging patience. Because they actually care about their flock above their own pride and pocketbook.

As with so many things related to the pandemic, religion is being put to the test. Many are revealing themselves to be frauds, and many are revealing themselves to be sincere.

I would guess that many churches have already been setting up ways for parishioners to continue to tithe through the internet even though services are not being held in person. And I can see the sense in that- most churches are continuing to reach out and try to provide things to their members via online services or whatever. And rent has to be paid and maintenance done, etc. Those pastors who are more into the money are probably doing more along those lines to keep the money flowing, too.

Similarly, I read an article about house cleaners, and how they are obviously having a hard time during this, and that some clients are continuing to pay their cleaners even though they aren't currently doing anything due to the virus.

Personally, I think the thing with the churches is more a political issue, with the hard core religious right viewing this as a persecution of their faith by those atheistic scientists and liberals. And politicians trying to use this to their advantage to gain favor with the church going crowd.