Maine wedding is linked to the deaths of 7 people who didn't attend

Becky1951

Becky1951

🌹
Location
Tennessee
During this pandemic, 50 people gathered together is a lot. Yet Maine seems to think 50 is the magic number to NOT be of a concern. So 65 people attended, 15 extra and now 176 cases and 7 deaths are linked to the wedding? Was it those extra 15 who caused the spread or would there still have been a spread? The blame seems to be on having 15 extra people. I would think that 50 people would be just as likely to be a cause. :rolleyes:

"(CNN) A wedding in Maine is linked to 176 Covid-19 cases and the deaths of seven people who didn't attend the celebration, demonstrating just how easily and quickly the virus can spread at social gatherings, public health experts say.

The wedding held in Millinocket on August 7 had about 65 guests, in violation of the state's 50-person cap for indoor events, Maine CDC said.

The event is linked to outbreaks that have unfolded at a nursing home and a jail, both more than 100 miles away from the wedding venue, and among people who had only secondary or tertiary contact with an attendee."

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/16/health/us-coronavirus-wednesday/index.html
 

Becky1951 said:
During this pandemic, 50 people gathered together is a lot. Yet Maine seems to think 50 is the magic number to NOT be of a concern. So 65 people attended, 15 extra and now 176 cases and 7 deaths are linked to the wedding? Was it those extra 15 who caused the spread or would there still have been a spread? The blame seems to be on having 15 extra people. I would think that 50 people would be just as likely to be a cause. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Exactly, which should prove to even the most basic observer that this has less to do with virus control and more to do with people control.

I would like to know more about the deaths. Of the 7, how many had comorbidities? And how many had multiple? Ages? How many were actually fighting COVID? How many simply tested positive and were asymptomatic? One would assume that if someone attended they weren't actually in the process of fighting the virus themselves, but you never know. What I do know is that getting news from CNN is like getting beef from a chicken.
 

I'mnotdeadyet, I'd be interested to know why you feel that news from CNN is fake. What wrong news have you heard on that channel? Can you give us some examples?
 
Sure. I recall one in particular where their reporter swore he had rescued a guy who drove into a ditch during a flood. It never happened. They knew it and kept him on.

It really doesn't take much research to find examples. Do a search for 'CNN caught in lie' and see what pops up. Unfortunately most of what you'll get is political, so posting herein wouldn't be acceptable.

Everyone should get their news from many sources, then draw their own conclusion.
 
Interesting comments about CNN, and seemingly mainstream media in general. I wonder how those critical of these feel about Fox News, or Breitbart?
 
I guess the topic of lying news media is far more interesting then the original topic posted. BTW, the original topic was in several media sites not just CNN, so I doubt CNN lied about it.
 
Well, the quoted story IS a lie. The truth is that the magic number is 49.5, and not 50. Do any of you remember when the "average" family supposedly consisted of the parents and 2 1/2 kids? I always wondered how half a kid looked, or even functioned. Well, now we can wonder about that half a person that completes that magic number. Without that half a person, maybe nobody would have contracted the virus. :) :)

Tony (never to be taken seriously, but sometimes lightly)
 
It has gotten to the point where it is difficult for me to even listen to the tabloid propaganda that call itself "news stations" or "the media". They have carried on a relentless 24/7 bombardment of this pandemic. Anything they think will increase their ratings goes on the air. Forget about actual news going on around the country. I have to go to BBC to get actual, factual news on the U.S.

Pathetic
 
Sunny said:
https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/fox-news-lie

They're all guilty of it, I'mnotdeadyet? Could be. But apparently some are more guilty than others. 😁
Click to expand...
Please look up 'Media Matters'. They are a leftist non-profit that specializes in acting as a watchdog on right-leaning (only) media. Would you expect their opinion to be any different?

So, some of you have applied a political leaning to this. It should be pretty clear to everyone that all of them are disingenuous when it suits them.

I spent the early part of my professional career in public service. One of the studies I undertook was dealing with the media. Regardless of the outlet, there is one thing that is absolutely true throughout:

No media company, whether radio, TV, newspaper, magazine, internet, or streaming, is actually in the business of reporting the news. Their business is selling advertising. It's how they get paid. They get advertising through scoops, clicks, views, polls. It's why so many will report inaccurate 'facts' during a crisis. It is extremely important to them to get the scoop, be the first, be the most sensational. They'd rather get it wrong NOW and apologize later than let someone else beat them to it. That brings in the dollars. Without dollars they will fail.

Let's look at ratings. In the link below there's a listing of 2019 ratings for all networks. Since someone wanted to pick on Fox, let's look at them first. Fox news was ranked 5th and had 2,501,000 viewers and was up 1%. And, since I chose to pick on CNN, let's look at them too. CNN was ranked 22nd, had 944,000 viewers, and was down 2%. Of course there are other news networks rated higher than Fox, and few ranked lower than CNN. Interestingly the news station rated higher than Fox are all over-the-air networks, while Fox is the #1 cable news network. The point is, over 2-1/2 times as many people trust Fox over CNN. For my part, I watch NBC, Fox, and BBC. It gives me far more perspective than watching only one.

https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/ne...els-fox-news-espn-cnn-cbs-nbc-abc-1203440870/
 
My SIL, and her daughter, went to a wedding this past Sunday. I looked at the photos on Facebook and.........no masks and no distancing done. The wedding was in Dallas, TX and, before flying there, the SIL wanted to know if she could come here (northern Colorado) to see us. I put the hammer down and said "absolutely not" to her on the phone. My wife completely agreed with me. So, she rented a car and drove up to Kansas to see her granddaughter.

The SIL told me, "I'm absolutely sick of staying at home and the wildfire smoke isn't helping. Virus or no virus, I'm going to the wedding and wherever else I can go." And, I told her again, "just don't come here!" And, btw, she does wear a mask, but we don't know how much.
 
So I'm to believe 65 people didn't gather in Maine and 176 cases + 7 deaths aren't really linked to the gathering because if CNN reported it it's probably not true. Gotcha. I'll only get my news from the radio waves entering my brain from the air around me. That way I'll know it's pure, because no advertising.
 
I find the bickering over the number that Maine chose for gatherings somewhat of a red herring. It kind of reminds me of the story of a rich person approaching someone and offering them someone a million dollars to do something illegal or immoral. The person agrees and the rich person says how about $25. The other person says "You think I'm a person who does illegal or immoral things?" and the rich person says, "We've already established that, now we're just haggling over the price."

The bottom line is a group of people got together doing something that had been deemed to be risky and likely to spread a virus that is known to be fatal to some people. The predicted risky result played out and 7 people are dead. I think the 65 people who attended the wedding are all very selfish.

I hope there will be strong enough evidence of the strains of Covid the victims got to sue the pants off of the people who attended for contributing to wrongful deaths.
 
I always wondered where these "allowable" numbers come from. Sometimes, I have seen 25 attendees for indoors and 250 for outdoors as an example. It really only takes one person to spread the virus. So the fewer people, the better. It's all based on risk assessment. The fewer the people, the less likely of someone or someones being infected.

Anyone else care to weigh in on this issue? Where or how do you believe the numbers allowable are determined or by what means?
 
asp3 said:
I find the bickering over the number that Maine chose for gatherings somewhat of a red herring. It kind of reminds me of the story of a rich person approaching someone and offering them someone a million dollars to do something illegal or immoral. The person agrees and the rich person says how about $25. The other person says "You think I'm a person who does illegal or immoral things?" and the rich person says, "We've already established that, now we're just haggling over the price."

The bottom line is a group of people got together doing something that had been deemed to be risky and likely to spread a virus that is known to be fatal to some people. The predicted risky result played out and 7 people are dead. I think the 65 people who attended the wedding are all very selfish.

I hope there will be strong enough evidence of the strains of Covid the victims got to sue the pants off of the people who attended for contributing to wrongful deaths.
Click to expand...
Here in PA, all of the attendees would have to be tested and everyone would be quarantined for a minimum of 14 days by state law. If you even walk out to your mailbox, you could go to jail. So, by doing the testing, if only one person would test positive or even have the antibodies, he/she could be held liable.

This reminds me when HIV was initially a big deal, and in some parts of the world, it still is. There was a fellow who lived just outside of Pittsburgh and was confirmed to be HIV positive. He had multiple outstanding civil citations and a warrant was issued for his arrest. Two deputies went to his home to serve the warrant and arrest him. When the man opened the door and saw the deputy standing in the doorway, he spit in the deputy's face. He was charged with multiple counts and also was sued by the county, the state and the deputy.

I never followed up on the case, so I don't know the outcome.
 
911 said:
I always wondered where these "allowable" numbers come from. Sometimes, I have seen 25 attendees for indoors and 250 for outdoors as an example. It really only takes one person to spread the virus. So the fewer people, the better. It's all based on risk assessment. The fewer the people, the less likely of someone or someones being infected.

Anyone else care to weigh in on this issue? Where or how do you believe the numbers allowable are determined or by what means?
Click to expand...
I've never understood those number since day one. It's obvious that being with the one wrong person or ten thousand of the right people will have different outcomes. 10, 50, 200...makes no sense.
 


Back
Top