May be an unpopular opinion here but i need to vent about cuomo

Yeah, I understand this. If the world had the ability to completely shut down and quarantine for 2-3 weeks, this would've been over long ago. While completely shutting down is impossible (we all need food, medical care, energy, and heat), it's frustrating seeing unnecessary things (like weddings!) being allowed before it's safer. From the government's perspective, why not just wait a couple more months! Get more people vaccinated, and let infection rates fall further. Wait for the weather to be nicer so more things can be done outdoors. I understand thinking "we had 22k people at the Super Bowl, why can't I have 150 people at my wedding?", but plenty of people (and massive sports organizations) do stuff every day that isn't safe or recommended. I'm not going to run that red light even though the person next to me just did.

My fiance is informing me that everyone in the crowd was vaccinated, mostly health care workers! Clearly I wasn't paying attention when the Super Bowl was on Doesn't mean that they wouldn't be able to spread the virus to others (you can, even being vaccinated), but better than just 22k randos.

According to NBC Sports, 7,500 of the over 22,000 were vaccinated healthcare workers who were given free tickets. There's no way to know who/how many of the fans were vaccinated - or honestly how much that made a difference. Personally, I'm here for packed out stadiums watching the game, I just don't think you can be selective with who/what you require certain Covid rules with. If we're allowed to do one major event, we should be allowed to do another. That's just my opinion! We will be having our wedding entirely, and whoever isn't comfortable with it doesn't need to come. The same with a football game

Ugh... that's not enough for protection / herd immunity at the event! Guess the NFL has done a good job spinning it to make people who don't do their own research think it was all vaccinated people. But ~of course~ we had to have a Super Bowl :eye rolls abound: Would much rather have weddings!

Exactly! I just get so frustrated with the inconsistency. I would rather have weddings, dad's allowed at ultrasounds, packed funerals for loved ones, hospital visits etc. allowed than anything else!

I dunno...we have been having 100+ weddings here in NJ for the last month or so and none of them have turned into super spreaders. My son has been in school since September and also have had no issues.

Unfortunately, this is a situation where a person's decisions have the potential to affect other people. We all breathe the same air, which right now happens to be sometimes contaminated with viral particles. What about the health care workers who would need to respond to an outbreak, god forbid that happens? What about those people in a nursing home who died because workers at the home decided to attend a wedding? What about the businesses (or the people getting married at later dates) that will be negatively affected by a spike in cases that causes further governmental intervention and shutdown? For me, this isn't the equivalent of choosing between a red or a blue shirt, a decision that wouldn't affect others. I liken it to running a stop sign. Sure, most of the time, it might not have an effect. But it's a decision that has the potential to negatively affect and even hurt or kill others.

I don't think there's much difference between going to a bar/restaurant and a wedding, which I why I would advocate for shutting down indoor dining also. Point being, the more we shutdown now, the better the situation will be in the future, especially as vaccine efforts are currently ramping up. Infection probability is a combination of 1) masks/no masks 2) social distancing 3) ventilation/air circulation and 4) time of exposure. Going to the store, you are masked and in contact for a smaller window of time, so that's less risky. Getting gas, you are either masked or, if not, you are outside and around people for a much shorter amount of time. Regarding testing, it's only a snapshot in time. Because you can spread c*vid days before you test positive, relying on testing to tell you if you're safe to mingle is similar (in my messed up mind) to relying on pregnancy tests for birth control. The individual is alerted to a problem when it's too late. Along those lines, I think allowing events where people are tested is certainly better than not testing (if someone does test positive, you can do something about it before they attend), but it shouldn't be taken as a guarantee. I equate it to "security theater" at the airport, where they're "screening bags", but how much do they actually help? Not much. (90% of security threats were allowed through in a study done within the last few years, yikes). Testing lowers the risk of a wedding becoming a super-spreader event, but it does not erase that risk.