SpiritDragon

This is where things get pretty well impossible to compare effectively across time. We can't compare apples to apples because we are simply under different circumstances. The spanish flu had the opportunity to be spread by overstressed, overtired, undernourished soldiers coming home from war to all parts of the world under different guidelines and understanding than we have now. Today, while we didn't have to compete with soldiers coming home from a world war, we dealt with world travel on a scale never before seen to bring this to/from all parts of the world. But because we used the measures we did in our era and they used the measures they did in their era and the measures aren't identical and perhaps more important to the point of lethality neither were the treatments offered, we can't accurately determine if we did a better or worse job or were simply up against a more ferocious or more tame enemy.

It's not just a problem in the USA. The problem lies in the fact that we've raised people to believe the day of reckoning will never come and so voting for fiscal responsibility isn't a priority. The fact of the matter is that cuts and austerity don't win elections so no party that wants to actually get in power seems able to pull this off.

I don't believe the most recent statement to be doctrine of any kind. It has no direct bearing on salvation one way or the other whether one masks or vaccinates (and following the guidance of government and health authorities varies greatly by area), but it does make a difference if one follows the 1st Presidency's counsel. Prophetic counsel can simply be specific to a situation or individual without being canonized into any doctrinal umbrella. Consider counsel given to a leper to bathe in the River Jordan or other such acts (that were likely not necessary, but either bolstered faith or tested obedience) and yet they were never taught as something that others needed to do for healing, salvation, or anything else. However, these instances do showcase the outpouring of blessings available to those who follow the prophet, even in matters not tied to doctrinal teaching.

It seems that if there had been a known safe and effective treatment than the vaccines couldn't have been given emergency use authorizations and the developers of those products would be out a lot of money waiting for properly vetted approval before a single shot could go into any arm and people couldn't be scared into taking them as much if an effective alternative were widely known to be available. The sad part about this is that it's not the first nor the last time that treatments for "vaccine-preventable" illness have been largely ignored. Since vaccines are never perfect, it only makes sense to still make sure that treatments are available for all those who become sick regardless of vaccination history. Yet, historically once vaccines are entrenched as safe and effective for a particular illness state, further research into treatments is greatly inhibited, even though eradication is the exception and not the rule.

I don't see what you're seeing, but I'm happy to let it go. It's not my preference to make comparisons to Nazis, but as it was already done by others, I felt to simply point out that the comparison was not necessarily the same default Nazi calling as is so common as there are actually similar tactics in play and not just someone being butt hurt and thinking up a term to make an opposing party sound like the bad guy. Thanks for trying to help me understand. The closest I can come to seeing what I think you see is in the potential to reopen wounds among those with lived experience, but I don't suspect we have any of those in this discussion or who would see it. While I see some of the articles make the same assertions you have, they fail to expound any reasoning aside form saying so beyond the aforementioned lived experience piece. Either way, no further discussion of the matter will be useful for anyone, so let's end it amicably. Thanks again.

I welcome an explanation of how pointing out similarities for the purpose of learning from history is insulting to prior victims. Instead of simply doubling down into a four-year-old-fit going back and forth between yes it does, no it doesn't, who can yell louder as your continued assertion that it's just so absurd comes across as, I truly welcome some actual dialogue to help me see how what you claim is so. Gavin Debecker has an interesting book called the gift of fear that is all about recognizing pre-incident indicators that have been recognized by reverse engineering the tell tale signs that were found to occur prior to sexual assaults. By teaching people about these indicators so they can avoid being victims of sexual assault, I can't begin to fathom how that is conflated to saying that the previous victims' experiences don't matter or the suffering wasn't real. It would seem a greater travesty to recognize tactics used by criminals and not bother to point them out keeping a higher proportion of new victims always available because no one could bother to learn from history and share the help. Now perhaps there is some inflammatory rhetoric you've experienced elsewhere in regards to this that you are bringing to this discussion, but I feel I've been nothing but respectful in pointing out commonalities of indicators (in this case used by government to make a section of the population into "deplorables", which is a requisite step for the actions taken against the Jews in the middle of the twentieth century to occur). I have not said the Jews didn't suffer. I have not called anyone a Nazi or Vazi. I have not said that the unvaccinated today have suffered in an equivalent manner to Holocaust victims. I have simply pointed out that there are similarities that warrant recognition as they are strikingly similar tactics being used by world leaders to demonize the unvaccinated right now as were used by the Nazis to make the Jews lose standing in German society *prior* to the atrocities perpetrated upon the Jewish people and others selected by those in power as undesirable members of society. If you can show me the blind spot in my reasoning, I'm open to learning.

You're entitled to seeing it that way, but to me this is akin to taking the position that when a gunman walks onto a campus with loaded weapons we can't draw parallels from previous shootings until after people have become victims and are shot down. It makes more sense to me to recognize troubling indicators and take steps to prevent history from repeating itself as opposed to claiming there is no way a comparison should be made until an equal or greater cataclysm has taken place. It isn't at all suggesting that the holocaust victims didn't suffer immensely, nor diminish their stories. It is simply a comparison of how people were manipulated into going along with atrocities in relatively recent history to how similar tactics are being used now. Is it entitled whining to point out to a friend that her partner is using manipulative tactics that suggest he's an abuser and she should get out of the relationship before things get worse? Does it minimize other victims of abusive partners? No. It simply points out key indicators worth knowing to avoid that cycle being repeated if the warning is heeded.

While I would prefer to agree with this statement there are some parallels worth considering. Things moved along a similar trajectory in the early years of the NAZI regime. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/1933-1939-early-stages-of-persecution/ There are certainly emergency powers being used around the world to shut down freedoms of assembly, speech, and a fully free press. Lockdowns influence all of these to an extent and social media censorship steps things up. As for ending democracy, there are certainly questions the world and many Americans have about the legitimacy of the last election in the USA. Perhaps it's not as overt as the German Chancellor's moves, but that may make things more sinister. Whether the election was a free and fair election or not, there is a serious problem when likely half the world thinks it was suspicious at best and stolen at worst. Is the power no longer vested in the people? It seems more like we have rulers than public servants in what's supposed to be the free world, but there may yet be hope to reclaim the broken system. At this point the science is clear that the available vaccines are not stopping infection or transmission of Covid-19 so to continue to blame the unvaccinated as a risk to anyone but themselves is preposterous, and yet here we are with people getting worked up into such a feverish frenzy that they agree the unvaccinated should lose jobs and become second-class citizens. Which mirrors 1930s Germany... Yikes... Is it really so unfair to look at history and see the striking resemblance? "Achtung, vaccine papers please"

I can't help but think this is a terrible mischaracterization and not well thought through. I think you're a highly intelligent person and appreciate your thoughts, so in addition to the observation pointed out by @estradling75 in response to this I feel the need to point out what I see to be the inconsistencies here. First: Most people opposing lockdowns and forced injections for protection against a virus that is over 99% survivable, are not against protecting and saving lives from said virus, but are also aware that decisions around it don't live in isolation. Lockdowns come with an incredible cost of human lives through suicide and suffering in many forms such as mental health issues, financial stress, and so on. It's unclear that the risk/reward to society is in favour of ongoing lockdowns that aren't sustainable. They simply want the freedom to make their own health decisions and wish that information was presented in a clear unbiased way without censorship. Second: They do not want governments to use the maximum available powers to protect them from "potential" bad guys, but "known" bad guys. Most would also agree that even outside of this pandemic that it would be a good idea for sick people to stay home and get better. Disease has always been with us and always will be until we are loosed from mortality. Sure asymptomatic spread is a possibility, but it's less common. It makes more sense to focus on stopping known illness from spreading than stopping everyone from being able to go about their lives and pay their bills. Third: Protection from themselves is a nightmarish condition if allowed to go too far. Who gets to make those decisions of what is taking the proper steps for personal protection? Shall we force everyone to eat a whole foods diet and eliminate overprocessed junk foods to nearly eradicate heart disease and diabetes? Should everyone be forced to the gym? Should women found to be at genetic risk of breast cancer be forced to undergo prophylactic mastectomies? No more driving because a collision could occur? There are risks inherent to the human condition and people need to be allowed to make decisions on their own to navigate those risks.

On a related tangent this reminds me of an argument I come across from time to time against pro-lifers. If they care so much about life why then do they also so often support capital punishment? I can only speak for myself, but suspect I'm not alone in my reasoning, is that those that I favour the idea of consequences for actions to those with the greatest responsibility in driving the decisions (i.e. if lady doesn't want a baby she shouldn't be sleeping around, and if a person doesn't want the death penalty they shouldn't kill or commit capital offences in their respective jurisdiction). The unborn are innocent and did not have a decision in the process that brought about the circumstance for which they are being terminated, the criminal did. Of course, that is just the logic side of my reasoning, but what trumps that is the fact that God has taught in favour against abortion and in favour of capital punishment under certain circumstances.

I got a kick out of seeing that the first time as well. The sad part is it may not be as far-fetched as we want to believe with boosters and vaccine passports being pushed all over the place.

Indeed. In fact, it raises the question of if the vaccines not being effective sterilizing agents (allowing viral infection and replication within the vaccinated) are not a causative factor leading to variants that are mutating in response to the vaccines, similar to how bacteria adapt to become antibiotic resistant. It certainly showcases the weakness of the greater good/ herd immunity argument that is always bandied about in these discussions as the vaccine is unlikely to lead to protection for others in light of this type of information. Also speaking of virus reservoirs, with the many animal reservoirs that appear to be available it's extremely unlikely we can ever vaccinate our way out of this as the virus supposedly already made the jump from animal to human transfer and can be found in cats, dogs, deer and more it can continue to mutate and recirculate back and forth between critters and people, so unless we get an actually effective sterilizing vaccine to also shoot up all the mammals the world over, we just need to learn to live with this.

I appreciate your point of view and struggle with the position myself. It's my way (for now at least) to not have to deconstruct my testimony over this issue being at odds with my personal witness of the spirit as directed previously. I'm not saying that the prophet didn't put thought or prayer into the statement, but I can see how it could come across that way and I may just need to stop saying anything and keep it to myself as I don't want to be casting doubts, I'm simply sharing my own struggle and how I'm trying to hold true in the face of contradiction between church leadership and personal revelation. It could be counsel from God that doesn't apply to me, but that seems even more suspect to me than Russell M. Nelson simply falling back on personal biases through his medical training to favour this intervention (and I realize how that sounds like, "isn't this the carpenters son?" and I am probably the problem and need to figure out to get out of my own way). I mean there are any number of ways, I suppose, that one could justify why the counsel isn't what people think it is, or doesn't apply personally, but they are all problematic in one way or another as far as I can see. The problem for me is that on this topic, following the counsel as it is appears is also problematic given personal history and relationship with the spirit on the matter. Left with the choice between following the spirit or following the prophet, I'm following the spirit, but cautiously and trying to remain open to different avenues as I don't like doubting the prophet and have seen too many people go down what I perceive to be errant paths in the name of following personal revelation that contradicts the teachings of the church.

By carefully reflecting. Thus far, I have taken the counsel to mean that I am still to prayerfully make personal and family decisions. Counsel with competent medical professionals as needed and wear masks in church if social distancing isn't possible and local government health authorities advise to do so. If my ward or stake asks us to mask up, I will do so. For the time being, our local restrictions have been lifted and just about no one in church is wearing masks. I asked my bishop if he knows if in light of this announcement we should be doing so in our area and he replied he is waiting for further direction at the stake level, but in the meantime he doesn't believe it's necessary on account of it not being asked by our health authorities and government leaders who the first presidency suggested we look to for direction. I haven't read that to be the direction given, but I will follow local church guidance on the issue. If the Stake or ward asks us to wear masks, that's easy to do. That's a harder question to answer. I haven't ruled it out entirely, but I've been leaning towards not getting one for a variety of reasons. 1.) I've had bad vaccine reactions in the past and have been counselled by a medical professional to be cautious and selective about any future vaccines and to definitely avoid further tetanus boosters. 2.) The approved vaccines in my area don't appear to stop infection and spread of the delta variant and with more variants sure to follow it is likely to be as futile as getting a Flu shot that every year we hear the same contradictory messaging around Christmas that the shot this year proved to be a poor match and doesn't offer much protection, but get it anyway as it's the best we have to offer. Since, the vaccine narrative at this point has even changed from protecting others to simply protecting myself and I'm in a low risk for having complications from covid, I would prefer to gain natural immunity for a more robust and accurate response to future threats beyond just antibody-mediated immunity, but the whole complex process. 3.) I believe this urging from the first presidency to be either a combination of largely giving advice based on personal reasoning speaking as men, or a calculated move on the part of church communications positions signed off by the 1st presidency and don't consider it an admonition from the lord to get the vaccine. 4.) I've prayed about it and haven't felt that getting it is right for me at this time. I would have left it at that, but since this has come again I am again studying it out and praying it out more. I'll need a strong witness to change my mind though as I don't want to risk taking the route of continuing to pray for a different answer on account of outside pressures as Joseph Smith did with Martin Harris and the lost manuscript. 5.) I ponder on quotes such as the following: (This quote applies less to the exact topic at hand but stands in contrast to the living prophet being more important than a dead one, and yet we judge the validity of a current prophet on how his teachings match the dead in the standard works, so it's not as cut and dried as the living oracle having free will to do and say anything. There is a balancing act to following the prophet and we can take an extreme approach of he can never lead us astray and we simply need to listen without any extra effort or thought on our part to the flipside that we need to pray about everything he says and if we don't have a confirmation it isn't truth or at least not incumbent upon us individually - I personally think that somewhere in the middle is more likely best, but lean towards the side of having spiritual confirmation) As well as the following: On the one hand it seems that we are to always simply follow the prophet, as he must surely be the mouthpiece of the lord and assurances have been given that he won't be able to lead the church astray. On the flip side, a way I've been given to know when a prophet is speaking as a prophet and not as a man is that the spirit testifies to me and I have the principle ratified via a personal testimony through the spirit. It's a challenge with this issue, because I can acknowledge that my own leanings are in conflict with the counsel to get the vaccine at this time, and perhaps that puts me in a position of being hard-hearted and unwilling to allow the spirit to act on me in this matter. But there again, I have felt at peace with spiritual confirmation to stay my course the last while, but this messaging has come out again more strongly still against my personal witness leaving in the position of having to choose to doubt either more personal witness or the counsel of the brethren. Since my testimony is founded on experiences deemed to be a witness of the spirit, I believe that needs to be given the higher priority, but admittedly it's an awkward situation. If I don't accept a personal witness, I risk losing my testimony altogether because at the foundation level it's built on a spiritual witness as to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith's calling. But if I choose to "disobey" the urging of the 1st presidency I feel I also set a poor precedent of picking and choosing what counsel to follow, and I don't love the idea of setting a standard for selectively following prophetic guidance. So sadly, I'm left with the position that if I believe my personal witness I have to conclude that either the prophets counsel on this matter is generally good advice, but not for me, or that the brethren have bigger issues. If I choose to believe my prior witness on this matter is in error, I am choosing to be in constant doubt of any church teaching and not just the current counsel. It's not a fun place to be, and I don't want to hurt others in the process and wish to be careful about calling out the brethren while remaining to true to the witness within me.

That's a very good observation. I had seen such footage and didn't think enough on it to notice, but once I read your post it registered as completely true, almost exclusively young men.

On that note, I find it interesting how people live in alternate versions of what they consider reality. I was just talking to my former Stake President yesterday and he blames Trump for sewing mistrust in everything and puts the blame on him for lower than expected vaccine uptake. I see Trump's rise as a symptom of that mistrust rather than a cause. And if I were to point any fingers on the vaccine issue in particular in the political realm, Biden and Harris were the one's saying they wouldn't trust Trump's vaccine leading up to the election, they are the same vaccines and were never "Trump's" to begin with, but they seem to skate free of having caused any controversy or doubt...

We'd likely agree to a great extent, but perhaps not. I see it kind of like workers with no experience in a particular field turning their nose up at how those who labour in that field go about their work, they don't have the requisite experience to understand why things are done a certain way. Most of the world can't seem to grasp the foundation of liberty that the United States is built on, and while they try to emulate those freedoms to an extent the majority are still quick to snuff out individual choices they are not in favour of.

Yup JJ's post is the first I've heard of this!

@mirkwood I agree with your interpretation of the handbook as this being a personal matter to be decided upon by the spirit. The concern is that the messaging from the first presidency is getting stronger toward the default position is to be vaccinated and it's creating a situation where vaccination and mask wearing are being seen as a sign of devotion to God. @LDSGator actually made an interesting comparison to wearing white shirts which is certainly not pertinent to salvation, but is very much part of church culture and those who don't follow suit can tend to be ostracized. Of course, wearing a white shirt is a simple matter that won't affect health and isn't likely to be something people would have medical or revelatory reasons to avoid, but it might not be a completely bad comparison as it's something used to gauge dedication to the gospel in a sense. Only the white shirt issue is one that I can't recall ever even being brought up by the brethren, it just seems to be a cultural thing as far as I can tell - perhaps a pharisaical interpretation of guidelines to dress and groom in a respectable and modest manner? However, I think a better comparison would be counsel to have food storage. It's not a temple recommend question or anything like that, and it doesn't seem to be directly tied to salvation in anyway, but it is certainly advised (although much less than 20+ years ago) and everyone knows that the truly faithful will be working on that food storage.

I've often wondered about this very thing as well. As I don't want to air all manner of dirty laundry beyond the concerns I've already expressed, I'll simply state that this is the latest in a string of concerns that I'm having a harder time accepting. I'm afraid if a new revelation in the way of homosexual acceptance or possibly even women holding priesthood offices were to come out it would likely be the final nail in the coffin of my ability to push to believe and doubt my doubts. This just seems to me that the Saviour was frequently found among the lepers and the unclean, but that the current earthly church leadership is unnecessarily sowing divisions and creating the groundwork where those who have already followed the counsel to seek personal revelation on this matter and arrived at a different conclusion will be viewed as unfaithful for not being vaccinated. Perhaps there's a greater play at work beyond what I can see. I'm certainly not perfect and am more than capable of being mislead as well. I just don't see how this counsel helps anyone as church reopens (My ward just reopened fully and we've attended one time prior to this announcement which may mean we are back to worshipping from home without authorization to have a sacrament service) It also raises concerns about which way the sifting will occur. I know the standard mantra in the church is to stick with the brethren, but what if the real test is to see who will follow personal revelation even when it seems to contradict the church establishment? In Abrahams test he was being asked to sacrifice his son, Nephi to kill Laban, these go against the commandment not to kill, but were the right thing to do as directed by the spirit. I'm not saying people should leave the church either, so please don't misconstrue my intent. I'm just voicing thoughts and trying to adapt. I've felt as strongly with my answer on these vaccines as I did when I received my witness of the Book of Mormon, so to see the brethren practically come out and say my personal revelation is wrong is disheartening for sure. Perhaps no one at church will ask, but I'm concerned this is the beginning of a new requirement for church attendance which will force a decision one way or the other for sure. It's not my first or last test of faith, it's just the latest. You're right though, these matters are highly personal and no one can really do much from the sidelines. Listening and praying is appreciated.

While you are absolutely correct, and in fact these vaccines are incapable of producing herd immunity as they can't stop infection and spread and are likely driving the variants of concern as the virus adapts to incomplete vaccine immunity by mutating to evade the subpar immune effort mounted in the vaccinated, the sad fact is that the first presidency is not using immunization in this context as they are urging members to go get vaccinated and not to look after their immune health by getting good sleep and following the word of wisdom. What's also sadly lacking in this communication is reference to personal revelation. It's not even a message of hope if the only protection is vaccines that are failing all over the place. That's not to say that they don't appear to be curbing Covid in some ways, but there is so much break-through infection (read: vaccine failure) that we can't call covid a vaccine preventable illness. There is no mention of therapeutics and such that have been shown to actually help reduce transmission and effectively treat the disease itself, even among those who were vaccinated but not protected.

I'm happy it's working out for you and hope you are happy and on the right path. I will continue to soul search as I've done most of my life. The Church seems to be the correct vehicle and certainly seems more sound than other alternatives in the religious and areligious realm to me. I know it's comprised of imperfect people including those in leadership positions at the highest levels, save the Lord himself, so I can't expect perfection.

That and the bigger concern for me is this phrase: Since when does prophetic counsel defer to the corruption of the government leaders and medical experts? (and which experts and governments? there are multiple viewpoints that are not in agreement) What happened to trusting in the Lord and not the arm of flesh? I'll continue to fast and pray, but I haven't felt that this is the answer for me and my family. I'm admittedly struggling to believe the 1st presidency is inspired and speaks for the lord at all these days. I don't know if that means that the church is false and always has been, if it means that our current leadership is just making some blunders and in time the church will right itself, if I'm listening to the wrong spirit and can't trust personal revelation or something else altogether, but I don't like it. I've been struggling to reconcile this since the handbook alterations and conference moment, but have accepted the following the guidance of the spirit part. More and more it seems that the spirit is being diminished and the opinions of man being held up. It doesn't inspire confidence. I've been studying Isaiah lately and been finding Gileadi's commentary really helpful in this process. I'm not sure what to make of this yet, but this is seeming more and more to me like it's happening before my eyes:

I completely understand where you are coming from. I know that as I often post the counter position to the pro-vaccine narrative that I must be considered quite the anti-vaxxer, and yet I don't consider myself as such (In fact, aside from never taking flu shots and having concerns about covid vaccines being too early to tell and one-sided in reporting, I'm fully vaccinated aside from tetanus boosters after a bad reaction leaving my arm in a state of paralysis for a week following my last booster 20+ years ago). My position has always been that of pushing for informed consent where we have better information to work with and don't have to be worried about medical tyranny forcing any procedure on any individual or group, it needs to be a voluntary decision made based on the best available evidence (including the risks that don't get their due attention). This current vaccine push does appear to be opening others eyes to how the information is presented works in favor of one authorized outcome which is sadly not new in the world of vaccines. The messaging is always "safe and effective" downplaying vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths while up-playing disease risks and complications. Consider that throughout this pandemic anyone with Covid at the time of death could have been documented as a covid death, even if they didn't die of covid. This unnecessarily inflates the numbers making it appear more dangerous than it is. On the flip side, vaccine reactions are only passively monitored through VAERS where they should be followed up on with better data analysis than it is capable of providing (as though they don't really want to know about problems) and then simply considered unverified and probably only a temporal association. When disease rates come down after vaccination campaigns correlation is causation, but when adverse events go up with the campaign correlation is not causation. It certainly continues to breed mistrust when now that vaccines are out that diagnostic criteria are changing and how covid deaths are reported and recorded are changing, so that by changing definitions we can make the disease less problematic. It ultimately means that we can't compare apples to apples and have junk data. You may find this a worthwhile watch:

Simply to showcase that concerns aren't unreasonable based on numbers people see I am sharing the following. I don't know what to make of the contrast of these numbers with what @NeuroTypical has presented for New Jersey, but Massachusetts appears to be telling a different story. Perhaps they have different metrics for collecting numbers, or different vaccines or dominant covid strains? I don't have the answers right now, but I totally understand people not simply buying into the narrative of vaccines are safe and effective when we get these kinds of conflicting results and one side tends to be censored so as not to alert the population of the concerns and failures. Based on the numbers presented by NT clearly vaccines appear to be making a huge difference in NJ and I wouldn't fault anyone for wanting to ascertain that protection. On the flip side we have numbers like this out of Massachusetts (Cued to the sound of the Beegees : https://usafacts.org/visualizations/covid-vaccine-tracker-states/state/massachusetts https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/30/cdc-study-shows-74percent-of-people-infected-in-massachusetts-covid-outbreak-were-fully-vaccinated.html What we are seeing here is that in a population with around 72% who have one dose of vaccine at least and 64% are fully vaccinated, that same 64% who are fully vaccinated are making up 74-75% of the new covid cases. Of interest: With asymptomatic breakthrough infections being likely to be underreported that means almost certainly the actual percentage of cases is even higher still among the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. At the very least, one would hope to see that the new case percentage was lower than the vaccinated percentage in the population as this would still indicate protection, but this paints the picture of the vaccine being a statistical wash at best for preventing disease (and the spread of it as the vaccinated are still contagious to others) and at worst making people more vulnerable to infection than they would be if not vaccinated because the documented percentage of new cases is 10% higher among the vaccinated population than it should be without intervention. Perhaps it's a statistical anomaly, but it is understandably concerning to those who would take a more cautious approach to injecting foreign matter into their bodies that haven't been fully vetted. Ahh but it's really just the serious cases we care about... In this case, 80% of those being admitted to hospital were fully vaccinated (I'm curious if the other one was partially vaccinated or unvaccinated, but I don't see that info). This matches pretty closely with what would be expected from 3/4 of the cases had nothing been done. Now I can't explain the differences in what's going on in Massachusetts compared to New Jersey, but I think it's worth being aware of different data sets that people are seeing and clearly formulating opinions of which are better based on preconceived biases, which is human nature.