Coronavirus prep
Options
Replies
-
ExistingFish wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »ExistingFish wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »The fear and prejudiced feelings about these things are why people are coughing on babies
Oh, c'mon.
Personality disorders are why people are coughing on babies.
I decided early on that it is none of my business what other people do so I'm not about to point out to a stranger that they need to step back six feet. Instead, I take a large shopping cart and try to keep it between me and the person behind me. There is only so much I can do against sociopathic behavior so since I'm old I try very hard not to put myself in situations that will cause conflict. So far in the past four months no one has gotten mad at me.
Apparently, she worked in the local school district. No one has gotten mad at me, I just see what I consider irrational behavior online.
I'm just watching our state's daily covid update. They did a survey - which I understand isn't scientific or anything - but 82% of respondents say they are wearing masks when they go out. They even broke it down by age. 16% said No, and 2% weren't sure. That's over the 80% that would be needed to slow down covid.
We don't have a mandate. By suggestion and recommendation, we have 84%. No enforcement measures.
This survey? https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2020-06/topline-axios-poll-wave-14.pdf
I live in TN - the lowest rate of any of the states included in results - and my observation is that we are nowhere near the level who said they wear a mask. But that also depends on location. My work requires it and I'm almost certain everyone in my dept. is going to claim "yes" as to wearing a mask. I'm also certain they don't wear a mask when outside of work, especially since half of the people in my dept. have expressed their opposition to wearing masks in stores. The rate found for my state is minimum 3 times higher than reality and likely closer to 7-8 times higher than reality, but I'm being very conservative to average out for places like Memphis and Nashville. Note the survey was taken before Memphis' mask ordinance took effect, so hopefully better now (but still not enough).
In my experience, I would say 75-85% wear masks, which is pretty close to the slides he showed. Your link didn't load for me.
Hmm.... even NY isn't at 75%.
Here is another link - an article about that study and mentions others found similar results. https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/06/26/which-part-of-the-u-s-leads-the-country-in-mask-wearing/?fbclid=IwAR0QztL5bTHSfGu4cWedL-ZwQdYNEwuYgR8C12G5tDylhHQ6T6jLp3WZCuA2 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »ExistingFish wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »ExistingFish wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »The fear and prejudiced feelings about these things are why people are coughing on babies
Oh, c'mon.
Personality disorders are why people are coughing on babies.
I decided early on that it is none of my business what other people do so I'm not about to point out to a stranger that they need to step back six feet. Instead, I take a large shopping cart and try to keep it between me and the person behind me. There is only so much I can do against sociopathic behavior so since I'm old I try very hard not to put myself in situations that will cause conflict. So far in the past four months no one has gotten mad at me.
Apparently, she worked in the local school district. No one has gotten mad at me, I just see what I consider irrational behavior online.
I'm just watching our state's daily covid update. They did a survey - which I understand isn't scientific or anything - but 82% of respondents say they are wearing masks when they go out. They even broke it down by age. 16% said No, and 2% weren't sure. That's over the 80% that would be needed to slow down covid.
We don't have a mandate. By suggestion and recommendation, we have 84%. No enforcement measures.
This survey? https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2020-06/topline-axios-poll-wave-14.pdf
I live in TN - the lowest rate of any of the states included in results - and my observation is that we are nowhere near the level who said they wear a mask. But that also depends on location. My work requires it and I'm almost certain everyone in my dept. is going to claim "yes" as to wearing a mask. I'm also certain they don't wear a mask when outside of work, especially since half of the people in my dept. have expressed their opposition to wearing masks in stores. The rate found for my state is minimum 3 times higher than reality and likely closer to 7-8 times higher than reality, but I'm being very conservative to average out for places like Memphis and Nashville. Note the survey was taken before Memphis' mask ordinance took effect, so hopefully better now (but still not enough).
In my experience, I would say 75-85% wear masks, which is pretty close to the slides he showed. Your link didn't load for me.
Hmm.... even NY isn't at 75%.
Here is another link - an article about that study and mentions others found similar results. https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/06/26/which-part-of-the-u-s-leads-the-country-in-mask-wearing/?fbclid=IwAR0QztL5bTHSfGu4cWedL-ZwQdYNEwuYgR8C12G5tDylhHQ6T6jLp3WZCuA
FL, TX, and CA are doing so well now, aren't they? They were near the front of the pack!
This was a locally done poll, AFAIK, unfortunately, I can't seem to find the data and stuff from the governor updates anywhere except in the youtube video. I think it was also more recent than the linked poll.
ETA and I said "In my experience" - I am socially distancing and staying in when needed, do you think I'm going around visually polling? I mean when I go to the grocery store (once a week) about 75-85% of people are wearing masks.
Everywhere else I've been, it's more than that - the dentist, the chiropractor, Lowes (I only saw customer service, doing a pickup order), I don't think I saw ANYONE not wearing a mask at those locations. I saw some poor mask usage (pulled below nose) but otherwise, everyone I saw was wearing masks.
So my experience does support 82% use.0 -
ExistingFish wrote: »Where I live, we have a Sheriff, a Deputy, and one Patrol Officer. I don't think having them running around mandating masks is a good use of their time.
You are really letting your anxiety run away with you.
Just like there is not a Deputy at every stop sign, there is not going to be a mass LEO response to a teenager at the Rite Aid not wearing a mask.
The "enforcement" as it is will fall to retailers and businesses to not serve those who are not wearing a mask. Just like dogs aren't allowed in stores, but people bring their dogs in anyway. Smoking isn't allowed at the zoo, but people smoke anyway. I don't blame stores and businesses for not being able to control this any more than they can control someone walking out with a $40 steak.
Be realistic here. C'mon.
There is a lot to be said for Social Pressure. The more people who wear masks, the more people will be self-conscious about not wearing them. Not everyone - because sociopathy and psychopathy - but we'll have to live with that or move to a tent in the woods.9 -
ExistingFish wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »The fear and prejudiced feelings about these things are why people are coughing on babies
Oh, c'mon.
Personality disorders are why people are coughing on babies.
I decided early on that it is none of my business what other people do so I'm not about to point out to a stranger that they need to step back six feet. Instead, I take a large shopping cart and try to keep it between me and the person behind me. There is only so much I can do against sociopathic behavior so since I'm old I try very hard not to put myself in situations that will cause conflict. So far in the past four months no one has gotten mad at me.
Apparently, she worked in the local school district. No one has gotten mad at me, I just see what I consider irrational behavior online.
I'm just watching our state's daily covid update. They did a survey - which I understand isn't scientific or anything - but 82% of respondents say they are wearing masks when they go out. They even broke it down by age. 16% said No, and 2% weren't sure. That's over the 80% that would be needed to slow down covid.
We don't have a mandate. By suggestion and recommendation, we have 84%. No enforcement measures.
Why would you shrug off a paper by an epidemiologist as not enough proof but take a survey of the general public as proof of compliance?
And a mandate isn't about enforcement. No police resources are typically being committed. It's a message, it's a way to make the idea more official and a tool that storefronts and organizations can lean on to require masks.11 -
cmriverside wrote: »ExistingFish wrote: »Where I live, we have a Sheriff, a Deputy, and one Patrol Officer. I don't think having them running around mandating masks is a good use of their time.
You are really letting your anxiety run away with you.
Just like there is not a Deputy at every stop sign, there is not going to be a mass LEO response to a teenager at the Rite Aid not wearing a mask.
The "enforcement" as it is will fall to retailers and businesses to not serve those who are not wearing a mask. Just like dogs aren't allowed in stores, but people bring their dogs in anyway. Smoking isn't allowed at the zoo, but people smoke anyway. I don't blame stores and businesses for not being able to control this any more than they can control someone walking out with a $40 steak.
Be realistic here. C'mon.
There is a lot to be said for Social Pressure. The more people who wear masks, the more people will be self-conscious about not wearing them. Not everyone - because sociopathy and psychopathy - but we'll have to live with that or move to a tent in the woods.
But see we already have that. Without a mandate. There are posters on this thread calling for a nationwide mandate with enforcement. In the past 5 pages. That is what I think is being irrational.
We have no mandate in our state, and establishments have had the right to refuse people without masks since the shutdown started in March. What I've said, and what I'm saying - is that we don't need a mandate. We don't need law enforcement to enforce it.
I didn't realize there were still areas where businesses were powerless to deny service to non-maskers. That has been allowed here since the beginning. I think we are seeing the word "mandate" and "enforcement" different ways.0 -
ExistingFish wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »ExistingFish wrote: »Where I live, we have a Sheriff, a Deputy, and one Patrol Officer. I don't think having them running around mandating masks is a good use of their time.
You are really letting your anxiety run away with you.
Just like there is not a Deputy at every stop sign, there is not going to be a mass LEO response to a teenager at the Rite Aid not wearing a mask.
The "enforcement" as it is will fall to retailers and businesses to not serve those who are not wearing a mask. Just like dogs aren't allowed in stores, but people bring their dogs in anyway. Smoking isn't allowed at the zoo, but people smoke anyway. I don't blame stores and businesses for not being able to control this any more than they can control someone walking out with a $40 steak.
Be realistic here. C'mon.
There is a lot to be said for Social Pressure. The more people who wear masks, the more people will be self-conscious about not wearing them. Not everyone - because sociopathy and psychopathy - but we'll have to live with that or move to a tent in the woods.
But see we already have that. Without a mandate. There are posters on this thread calling for a nationwide mandate with enforcement. In the past 5 pages. That is what I think is being irrational.
We have no mandate in our state, and establishments have had the right to refuse people without masks since the shutdown started in March. What I've said, and what I'm saying - is that we don't need a mandate. We don't need law enforcement to enforce it.
I didn't realize there were still areas where businesses were powerless to deny service to non-maskers. That has been allowed here since the beginning. I think we are seeing the word "mandate" and "enforcement" different ways.
I'm going to disagree altogether and say we need a mandate yesterday. But then I'm in the crowd that doesn't pretend people with pre-existing conditions don't exist in an effort to argue that the mortality rate is too low to make it worthwhile to wear masks.8 -
ExistingFish wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »ExistingFish wrote: »Where I live, we have a Sheriff, a Deputy, and one Patrol Officer. I don't think having them running around mandating masks is a good use of their time.
You are really letting your anxiety run away with you.
Just like there is not a Deputy at every stop sign, there is not going to be a mass LEO response to a teenager at the Rite Aid not wearing a mask.
The "enforcement" as it is will fall to retailers and businesses to not serve those who are not wearing a mask. Just like dogs aren't allowed in stores, but people bring their dogs in anyway. Smoking isn't allowed at the zoo, but people smoke anyway. I don't blame stores and businesses for not being able to control this any more than they can control someone walking out with a $40 steak.
Be realistic here. C'mon.
There is a lot to be said for Social Pressure. The more people who wear masks, the more people will be self-conscious about not wearing them. Not everyone - because sociopathy and psychopathy - but we'll have to live with that or move to a tent in the woods.
But see we already have that. Without a mandate. There are posters on this thread calling for a nationwide mandate with enforcement. In the past 5 pages. That is what I think is being irrational.
We have no mandate in our state, and establishments have had the right to refuse people without masks since the shutdown started in March. What I've said, and what I'm saying - is that we don't need a mandate. We don't need law enforcement to enforce it.
I didn't realize there were still areas where businesses were powerless to deny service to non-maskers. That has been allowed here since the beginning. I think we are seeing the word "mandate" and "enforcement" different ways.
Did you or did you not say:ExistingFish wrote: »Where I live, we have a Sheriff, a Deputy, and one Patrol Officer. I don't think having them running around mandating masks is a good use of their time.
The store employees making low wage are the enforcers. I wouldn't count on that. The one place that does work is Costco because it's members-only with membership required to enter. Other business have open doors and even though they are empowered to the "No mask no service" thing - it's still a matter of people just being testy in general. When we had masks as a suggestion, lots of people weren't wearing them. I'm happy for the Mandate even though I know there aren't going to be police at the door of the Safeway.
3 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »ExistingFish wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »ExistingFish wrote: »Where I live, we have a Sheriff, a Deputy, and one Patrol Officer. I don't think having them running around mandating masks is a good use of their time.
You are really letting your anxiety run away with you.
Just like there is not a Deputy at every stop sign, there is not going to be a mass LEO response to a teenager at the Rite Aid not wearing a mask.
The "enforcement" as it is will fall to retailers and businesses to not serve those who are not wearing a mask. Just like dogs aren't allowed in stores, but people bring their dogs in anyway. Smoking isn't allowed at the zoo, but people smoke anyway. I don't blame stores and businesses for not being able to control this any more than they can control someone walking out with a $40 steak.
Be realistic here. C'mon.
There is a lot to be said for Social Pressure. The more people who wear masks, the more people will be self-conscious about not wearing them. Not everyone - because sociopathy and psychopathy - but we'll have to live with that or move to a tent in the woods.
But see we already have that. Without a mandate. There are posters on this thread calling for a nationwide mandate with enforcement. In the past 5 pages. That is what I think is being irrational.
We have no mandate in our state, and establishments have had the right to refuse people without masks since the shutdown started in March. What I've said, and what I'm saying - is that we don't need a mandate. We don't need law enforcement to enforce it.
I didn't realize there were still areas where businesses were powerless to deny service to non-maskers. That has been allowed here since the beginning. I think we are seeing the word "mandate" and "enforcement" different ways.
I'm going to disagree altogether and say we need a mandate yesterday. But then I'm in the crowd that doesn't pretend people with pre-existing conditions don't exist in an effort to argue that the mortality rate is too low to make it worthwhile to wear masks.
I think wearing masks is worthwhile, in certain situations. I don't think to mandate it is appropriate.
If mask-wearing is for kindness and protection of others only, it's trying to legislate morality.
If it were really about the health of people with pre-existing conditions, cigarettes and unhealthy food would need to be mandated away too.
I don't think wearing masks is not important. I think mandating wearing masks is inappropriate.3 -
ExistingFish wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »ExistingFish wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »ExistingFish wrote: »Where I live, we have a Sheriff, a Deputy, and one Patrol Officer. I don't think having them running around mandating masks is a good use of their time.
You are really letting your anxiety run away with you.
Just like there is not a Deputy at every stop sign, there is not going to be a mass LEO response to a teenager at the Rite Aid not wearing a mask.
The "enforcement" as it is will fall to retailers and businesses to not serve those who are not wearing a mask. Just like dogs aren't allowed in stores, but people bring their dogs in anyway. Smoking isn't allowed at the zoo, but people smoke anyway. I don't blame stores and businesses for not being able to control this any more than they can control someone walking out with a $40 steak.
Be realistic here. C'mon.
There is a lot to be said for Social Pressure. The more people who wear masks, the more people will be self-conscious about not wearing them. Not everyone - because sociopathy and psychopathy - but we'll have to live with that or move to a tent in the woods.
But see we already have that. Without a mandate. There are posters on this thread calling for a nationwide mandate with enforcement. In the past 5 pages. That is what I think is being irrational.
We have no mandate in our state, and establishments have had the right to refuse people without masks since the shutdown started in March. What I've said, and what I'm saying - is that we don't need a mandate. We don't need law enforcement to enforce it.
I didn't realize there were still areas where businesses were powerless to deny service to non-maskers. That has been allowed here since the beginning. I think we are seeing the word "mandate" and "enforcement" different ways.
I'm going to disagree altogether and say we need a mandate yesterday. But then I'm in the crowd that doesn't pretend people with pre-existing conditions don't exist in an effort to argue that the mortality rate is too low to make it worthwhile to wear masks.
I think wearing masks is worthwhile, in certain situations. I don't think to mandate it is appropriate.
If mask-wearing is for kindness and protection of others only, it's trying to legislate morality.
If it were really about the health of people with pre-existing conditions, cigarettes and unhealthy food would need to be mandated away too.
I don't think wearing masks is not important. I think mandating wearing masks is inappropriate.
Morality is legislated constantly - and that is not just ok, it is necessary. Necessary because some people don't care about anyone else and will only do the right thing when forced. As to cigarettes, unhealthy food, etc. - there are already laws (as there should be) about smoking around other people. Most places, you can't smoke in stores, for example. The laws in place are pretty much exclusively about not harming others with poor choices. You can smoke away and harm yourself, but you can't expose me to 2nd hand smoke. Same should be true with masks. If you don't want to wear a mask in your car or home, then no problem. But when I'm trying to get some food at the store, I shouldn't have to be exposed.18 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »ExistingFish wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »ExistingFish wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »ExistingFish wrote: »Where I live, we have a Sheriff, a Deputy, and one Patrol Officer. I don't think having them running around mandating masks is a good use of their time.
You are really letting your anxiety run away with you.
Just like there is not a Deputy at every stop sign, there is not going to be a mass LEO response to a teenager at the Rite Aid not wearing a mask.
The "enforcement" as it is will fall to retailers and businesses to not serve those who are not wearing a mask. Just like dogs aren't allowed in stores, but people bring their dogs in anyway. Smoking isn't allowed at the zoo, but people smoke anyway. I don't blame stores and businesses for not being able to control this any more than they can control someone walking out with a $40 steak.
Be realistic here. C'mon.
There is a lot to be said for Social Pressure. The more people who wear masks, the more people will be self-conscious about not wearing them. Not everyone - because sociopathy and psychopathy - but we'll have to live with that or move to a tent in the woods.
But see we already have that. Without a mandate. There are posters on this thread calling for a nationwide mandate with enforcement. In the past 5 pages. That is what I think is being irrational.
We have no mandate in our state, and establishments have had the right to refuse people without masks since the shutdown started in March. What I've said, and what I'm saying - is that we don't need a mandate. We don't need law enforcement to enforce it.
I didn't realize there were still areas where businesses were powerless to deny service to non-maskers. That has been allowed here since the beginning. I think we are seeing the word "mandate" and "enforcement" different ways.
I'm going to disagree altogether and say we need a mandate yesterday. But then I'm in the crowd that doesn't pretend people with pre-existing conditions don't exist in an effort to argue that the mortality rate is too low to make it worthwhile to wear masks.
I think wearing masks is worthwhile, in certain situations. I don't think to mandate it is appropriate.
If mask-wearing is for kindness and protection of others only, it's trying to legislate morality.
If it were really about the health of people with pre-existing conditions, cigarettes and unhealthy food would need to be mandated away too.
I don't think wearing masks is not important. I think mandating wearing masks is inappropriate.
Morality is legislated constantly - and that is not just ok, it is necessary. Necessary because some people don't care about anyone else and will only do the right thing when forced. As to cigarettes, unhealthy food, etc. - there are already laws (as there should be) about smoking around other people. Most places, you can't smoke in stores, for example. The laws in place are pretty much exclusively about not harming others with poor choices. You can smoke away and harm yourself, but you can't expose me to 2nd hand smoke. Same should be true with masks. If you don't want to wear a mask in your car or home, then no problem. But when I'm trying to get some food at the store, I shouldn't have to be exposed.
I don't mind stores or places of business requiring it. That is an exchange, they have something to offer and I willingly enter into an exchange with them. There is an exchange. I can take my business elsewhere or online if I don't like the policies.
We know cigarette smoke is dangerous. You are basically assuming by breathing I'm being dangerous. That is kind of insulting for you to compare my essential to life breathing to cigarette smoke. I know I *could* be asymptomatic - they don't talk to me. Talking is what spreads it, not breathing. My breath does =/= cigarette smoke.
If you don't want to be exposed, wear a face shield with your masks, it does far more to protect the wearer than those around them. It covers your eyes. it is a waterproof barrier between things in the air around you and your face, it will protect you far better. Take some responsibility, don't shame others for not caring about you. It really isn't the responsibility of others to protect you, it's yours.
We legislate morality when it violates the constitution, nothing else. Don't kid yourself. If "morality" were really legislated, it would look like an Islamic country where Sharia law is in place. That is legislated morality. We don't legislate morality, we follow the constitution.3 -
ExistingFish wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »ExistingFish wrote: »Where I live, we have a Sheriff, a Deputy, and one Patrol Officer. I don't think having them running around mandating masks is a good use of their time.
You are really letting your anxiety run away with you.
Just like there is not a Deputy at every stop sign, there is not going to be a mass LEO response to a teenager at the Rite Aid not wearing a mask.
The "enforcement" as it is will fall to retailers and businesses to not serve those who are not wearing a mask. Just like dogs aren't allowed in stores, but people bring their dogs in anyway. Smoking isn't allowed at the zoo, but people smoke anyway. I don't blame stores and businesses for not being able to control this any more than they can control someone walking out with a $40 steak.
Be realistic here. C'mon.
There is a lot to be said for Social Pressure. The more people who wear masks, the more people will be self-conscious about not wearing them. Not everyone - because sociopathy and psychopathy - but we'll have to live with that or move to a tent in the woods.
But see we already have that. Without a mandate. There are posters on this thread calling for a nationwide mandate with enforcement. In the past 5 pages. That is what I think is being irrational.
We have no mandate in our state, and establishments have had the right to refuse people without masks since the shutdown started in March. What I've said, and what I'm saying - is that we don't need a mandate. We don't need law enforcement to enforce it.
I didn't realize there were still areas where businesses were powerless to deny service to non-maskers. That has been allowed here since the beginning. I think we are seeing the word "mandate" and "enforcement" different ways.
For clarity:
I think mandates should be considered, as a reasonable tool. Many things are done for public health and safety, many of them are inconvenient to someone or everyone, but we're used to them. I don't see mask-wearing as such an onerous thing there's a reason not to mandate use, setting off the inconvenience against the potential benefits.
That said, I'm not saying a nationwide absolute mandate is a necessity. There are still areas where there are very low or even zero rates of infection. I'm certainly not saying that a nationwide mandate is an unvarnished good thing: I'd prefer voluntary compliance to work. I don't like mandates.
I think it would be fine, in areas with high rates of infection in certain areas (one city in a county, multiple cities in a region of a state, that sort of thing) to mandate masks more widely than the absolute narrowest area of infection.
You are seeing 80%+ mask usage voluntarily in your area. That's great. I believe you. Others are reporting near zero or single-digit kind of usage in their area. I believe them, too.
In a PP, you mentioned shaming, harassment, prejudice. Some here are reporting seeing that used against people who are wearing masks or requiring masks. I believe them. (There's a little of that immediately here, but this is a middling-compliant area so the social pressure is probably more toward mask wearing than against it. OTOH, it was in this state, around 90 miles away, where a store security person was shot by a couple of guys who didn't like that the guard told their friend she had to wear a mask in order to shop. (That, like spitting on counters and whatnot, is obviously pathological behavior.))
If we keep seeing big infection spikes in various parts of the country, major noncompliance with voluntary mask recommendations or toothless mandates in significant numbers of areas, and abuse/prejudice/shaming (or even attacks) on businesses' employees telling people to wear masks or on mask-wearers, then I think it's legit to put a nationwide mandate on the table for consideration. The primary function of a mandate is to add weight to the pressure to use masks.
I do think that if a business is allowed to require masks, and a customer fractiously objects and behaves violently or abusively, it should be legit for the business to call police (as they would do if customers get fractious over a large range of other things).
Even with an absolute mask mandate, I don't expect police to start patrolling stores and handing out tickets for non-mask-wearers. Enforcement of other public health rules (wearing shoes in restaurants, say) doesn't work like that.6 -
ExistingFish wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »ExistingFish wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »ExistingFish wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »ExistingFish wrote: »Where I live, we have a Sheriff, a Deputy, and one Patrol Officer. I don't think having them running around mandating masks is a good use of their time.
You are really letting your anxiety run away with you.
Just like there is not a Deputy at every stop sign, there is not going to be a mass LEO response to a teenager at the Rite Aid not wearing a mask.
The "enforcement" as it is will fall to retailers and businesses to not serve those who are not wearing a mask. Just like dogs aren't allowed in stores, but people bring their dogs in anyway. Smoking isn't allowed at the zoo, but people smoke anyway. I don't blame stores and businesses for not being able to control this any more than they can control someone walking out with a $40 steak.
Be realistic here. C'mon.
There is a lot to be said for Social Pressure. The more people who wear masks, the more people will be self-conscious about not wearing them. Not everyone - because sociopathy and psychopathy - but we'll have to live with that or move to a tent in the woods.
But see we already have that. Without a mandate. There are posters on this thread calling for a nationwide mandate with enforcement. In the past 5 pages. That is what I think is being irrational.
We have no mandate in our state, and establishments have had the right to refuse people without masks since the shutdown started in March. What I've said, and what I'm saying - is that we don't need a mandate. We don't need law enforcement to enforce it.
I didn't realize there were still areas where businesses were powerless to deny service to non-maskers. That has been allowed here since the beginning. I think we are seeing the word "mandate" and "enforcement" different ways.
I'm going to disagree altogether and say we need a mandate yesterday. But then I'm in the crowd that doesn't pretend people with pre-existing conditions don't exist in an effort to argue that the mortality rate is too low to make it worthwhile to wear masks.
I think wearing masks is worthwhile, in certain situations. I don't think to mandate it is appropriate.
If mask-wearing is for kindness and protection of others only, it's trying to legislate morality.
If it were really about the health of people with pre-existing conditions, cigarettes and unhealthy food would need to be mandated away too.
I don't think wearing masks is not important. I think mandating wearing masks is inappropriate.
Morality is legislated constantly - and that is not just ok, it is necessary. Necessary because some people don't care about anyone else and will only do the right thing when forced. As to cigarettes, unhealthy food, etc. - there are already laws (as there should be) about smoking around other people. Most places, you can't smoke in stores, for example. The laws in place are pretty much exclusively about not harming others with poor choices. You can smoke away and harm yourself, but you can't expose me to 2nd hand smoke. Same should be true with masks. If you don't want to wear a mask in your car or home, then no problem. But when I'm trying to get some food at the store, I shouldn't have to be exposed.
Take some responsibility, don't shame others for not caring about you. It really isn't the responsibility of others to protect you, it's yours.
We legislate morality when it violates the constitution, nothing else. Don't kid yourself. If "morality" were really legislated, it would look like an Islamic country where Sharia law is in place. That is legislated morality. We don't legislate morality, we follow the constitution.
Wow. I don't honestly know how to respond to this without breaking forum rules.
I think we all depend far more than we realize on decent human beings taking responsibility for the care and safety of each other, and agreeing to abide by laws that keep the community safe.
I'm just going to back away from this thread for a little while.23 -
For clarity:
I think mandates should be considered, as a reasonable tool. Many things are done for public health and safety, many of them are inconvenient to someone or everyone, but we're used to them. I don't see mask-wearing as such an onerous thing there's a reason not to mandate use, setting off the inconvenience against the potential benefits.
That said, I'm not saying a nationwide absolute mandate is a necessity. There are still areas where there are very low or even zero rates of infection. I'm certainly not saying that a nationwide mandate is an unvarnished good thing: I'd prefer voluntary compliance to work. I don't like mandates.
I think it would be fine, in areas with high rates of infection in certain areas (one city in a county, multiple cities in a region of a state, that sort of thing) to mandate masks more widely than the absolute narrowest area of infection.
You are seeing 80%+ mask usage voluntarily in your area. That's great. I believe you. Others are reporting near zero or single-digit kind of usage in their area. I believe them, too.
In a PP, you mentioned shaming, harassment, prejudice. Some here are reporting seeing that used against people who are wearing masks or requiring masks. I believe them. (There's a little of that immediately here, but this is a middling-compliant area so the social pressure is probably more toward mask wearing than against it. OTOH, it was in this state, around 90 miles away, where a store security person was shot by a couple of guys who didn't like that the guard told their friend she had to wear a mask in order to shop. (That, like spitting on counters and whatnot, is obviously pathological behavior.))
If we keep seeing big infection spikes in various parts of the country, major noncompliance with voluntary mask recommendations or toothless mandates in significant numbers of areas, and abuse/prejudice/shaming (or even attacks) on businesses' employees telling people to wear masks or on mask-wearers, then I think it's legit to put a nationwide mandate on the table for consideration. The primary function of a mandate is to add weight to the pressure to use masks.
I do think that if a business is allowed to require masks, and a customer fractiously objects and behaves violently or abusively, it should be legit for the business to call police (as they would do if customers get fractious over a large range of other things).
Even with an absolute mask mandate, I don't expect police to start patrolling stores and handing out tickets for non-mask-wearers. Enforcement of other public health rules (wearing shoes in restaurants, say) doesn't work like that.
I think we can agree on a lot of these things.1 -
Wow. I don't honestly know how to respond to this without breaking forum rules.
I think we all depend far more than we realize on decent human beings taking responsibility for the care and safety of each other, and agreeing to abide by laws that keep the community safe.
I'm just going to back away from this thread for a little while.
I probably should to. If you are paying attention, you'd know I take all the appropriate measures myself. I stay home unless necessary, I wear masks, I use hand sanitizer, I keep distance, I clean the gym equipment when I'm done with it, I do everything I can to protect other people. That is who I am and it's my choice.
I also do all I can to protect myself and my family. The kids don't go out. We only have one adult out ever.
I don't think the government should have the authority to write me a ticket if I don't.
I don't think anyone should ever insinuate that my breathing is equivalent to secondhand smoke, that was hurtful.
2 -
ExistingFish wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »ExistingFish wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »ExistingFish wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »ExistingFish wrote: »Where I live, we have a Sheriff, a Deputy, and one Patrol Officer. I don't think having them running around mandating masks is a good use of their time.
You are really letting your anxiety run away with you.
Just like there is not a Deputy at every stop sign, there is not going to be a mass LEO response to a teenager at the Rite Aid not wearing a mask.
The "enforcement" as it is will fall to retailers and businesses to not serve those who are not wearing a mask. Just like dogs aren't allowed in stores, but people bring their dogs in anyway. Smoking isn't allowed at the zoo, but people smoke anyway. I don't blame stores and businesses for not being able to control this any more than they can control someone walking out with a $40 steak.
Be realistic here. C'mon.
There is a lot to be said for Social Pressure. The more people who wear masks, the more people will be self-conscious about not wearing them. Not everyone - because sociopathy and psychopathy - but we'll have to live with that or move to a tent in the woods.
But see we already have that. Without a mandate. There are posters on this thread calling for a nationwide mandate with enforcement. In the past 5 pages. That is what I think is being irrational.
We have no mandate in our state, and establishments have had the right to refuse people without masks since the shutdown started in March. What I've said, and what I'm saying - is that we don't need a mandate. We don't need law enforcement to enforce it.
I didn't realize there were still areas where businesses were powerless to deny service to non-maskers. That has been allowed here since the beginning. I think we are seeing the word "mandate" and "enforcement" different ways.
I'm going to disagree altogether and say we need a mandate yesterday. But then I'm in the crowd that doesn't pretend people with pre-existing conditions don't exist in an effort to argue that the mortality rate is too low to make it worthwhile to wear masks.
I think wearing masks is worthwhile, in certain situations. I don't think to mandate it is appropriate.
If mask-wearing is for kindness and protection of others only, it's trying to legislate morality.
If it were really about the health of people with pre-existing conditions, cigarettes and unhealthy food would need to be mandated away too.
I don't think wearing masks is not important. I think mandating wearing masks is inappropriate.
Morality is legislated constantly - and that is not just ok, it is necessary. Necessary because some people don't care about anyone else and will only do the right thing when forced. As to cigarettes, unhealthy food, etc. - there are already laws (as there should be) about smoking around other people. Most places, you can't smoke in stores, for example. The laws in place are pretty much exclusively about not harming others with poor choices. You can smoke away and harm yourself, but you can't expose me to 2nd hand smoke. Same should be true with masks. If you don't want to wear a mask in your car or home, then no problem. But when I'm trying to get some food at the store, I shouldn't have to be exposed.
I don't mind stores or places of business requiring it. That is an exchange, they have something to offer and I willingly enter into an exchange with them. There is an exchange. I can take my business elsewhere or online if I don't like the policies.
We know cigarette smoke is dangerous. You are basically assuming by breathing I'm being dangerous. That is kind of insulting for you to compare my essential to life breathing to cigarette smoke. I know I *could* be asymptomatic - they don't talk to me. Talking is what spreads it, not breathing. My breath does =/= cigarette smoke.
If you don't want to be exposed, wear a face shield with your masks, it does far more to protect the wearer than those around them. It covers your eyes. it is a waterproof barrier between things in the air around you and your face, it will protect you far better. Take some responsibility, don't shame others for not caring about you. It really isn't the responsibility of others to protect you, it's yours.
We legislate morality when it violates the constitution, nothing else. Don't kid yourself. If "morality" were really legislated, it would look like an Islamic country where Sharia law is in place. That is legislated morality. We don't legislate morality, we follow the constitution.
Yes, talking spreads it. So does breathing. By breathing through a mask, you reduce the chance of spreading it to others. Don't pretend that nobody can catch it to you unless you talk to them... that's what I expect to hear from the same conspiracy nuts that think electric windows are dangerous for their health.5 -
Based on what I've seen, many places in the US won't reach 80% compliance without a mandate.
This is the problem, and a mandate helps stores and other businesses (like airlines) that want to require them too.
I don't see 80% of people on the street wearing masks (and I don't really care, I think the risk from passing someone quickly outdoors is low, even though it's dense enough that you aren't always 6' from people without effort and sometimes not even then). I do see near 100% wearing them in stores (even if some aren't covering both mouth and nose), and I think that's good, and same with people in the public areas of my office building and the elevator. Sadly, NOT 100% on buses from what I've heard and seen (I haven't taken a bus since this all started). They are absolutely required on Ubers and the like. Imagine being an Uber driver and having a customer refuse to wear one and having no recourse? As we open up more and more, I think masks are an important tool in not having yet another bad outbreak and needing to shut down again. There are exceptions, but you'd think those who think opening up ASAP would also support masks, not get upset about them, yet so often that's not the case.8 -
ExistingFish wrote: »I just see what I consider irrational behavior online.
Very little is easier to find than irrational behavior online.I'm just watching our state's daily covid update. They did a survey - which I understand isn't scientific or anything - but 82% of respondents say they are wearing masks when they go out. They even broke it down by age. 16% said No, and 2% weren't sure. That's over the 80% that would be needed to slow down covid.
Do you think those numbers reflect the reality where you are?4 -
ExistingFish wrote: »Where I live, we have a Sheriff, a Deputy, and one Patrol Officer. I don't think having them running around mandating masks is a good use of their time.
I live right on the border between Pima County (Tucson) and Pinal County, a more rural area. Pima, which is blowing up in Covid-19 cases, mandated that anyone in a public place put on a mask. The Mayor of Marana, which is run by the opposite political party as Pima, made it crystal clear that his officers won't cite, fine, enforce or in any way discourage anyone from walking around without a mask -- coughing, sneezing -- generally, whatever the heck they want to do.
And it's all political. Nothing to do with science at all. It's an "in your face" to the county government of Pima, daring them to say anything.
I agree that police/sheriff departments shouldn't be going in as "mask police" as a first duty, but they also shouldn't be told by politicians NOT to enforce laws/ordinances to protect the elderly and the immunocompromised. It has gotten sickeningly political here without any concern for facts from certain politicians.10 -
ExistingFish wrote: »I just see what I consider irrational behavior online.
Very little is easier to find than irrational behavior online.I'm just watching our state's daily covid update. They did a survey - which I understand isn't scientific or anything - but 82% of respondents say they are wearing masks when they go out. They even broke it down by age. 16% said No, and 2% weren't sure. That's over the 80% that would be needed to slow down covid.
Do you think those numbers reflect the reality where you are?
Yes, I said that. They do seem to correlate.
I would say between 75 and 85% in the grocery store. 100% at the dentist and chiropractor and hair salon. All people at the gym were maintaining 12'+ distance. 95% at drive throughs (I saw one person without a mask). Those are the only places I've been, and I don't go out often. I go to scheduled appointments everywhere except the grocery store and gym, so there is very little traffic.1 -
cmriverside wrote: »ExistingFish wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »ExistingFish wrote: »Where I live, we have a Sheriff, a Deputy, and one Patrol Officer. I don't think having them running around mandating masks is a good use of their time.
You are really letting your anxiety run away with you.
Just like there is not a Deputy at every stop sign, there is not going to be a mass LEO response to a teenager at the Rite Aid not wearing a mask.
The "enforcement" as it is will fall to retailers and businesses to not serve those who are not wearing a mask. Just like dogs aren't allowed in stores, but people bring their dogs in anyway. Smoking isn't allowed at the zoo, but people smoke anyway. I don't blame stores and businesses for not being able to control this any more than they can control someone walking out with a $40 steak.
Be realistic here. C'mon.
There is a lot to be said for Social Pressure. The more people who wear masks, the more people will be self-conscious about not wearing them. Not everyone - because sociopathy and psychopathy - but we'll have to live with that or move to a tent in the woods.
But see we already have that. Without a mandate. There are posters on this thread calling for a nationwide mandate with enforcement. In the past 5 pages. That is what I think is being irrational.
We have no mandate in our state, and establishments have had the right to refuse people without masks since the shutdown started in March. What I've said, and what I'm saying - is that we don't need a mandate. We don't need law enforcement to enforce it.
I didn't realize there were still areas where businesses were powerless to deny service to non-maskers. That has been allowed here since the beginning. I think we are seeing the word "mandate" and "enforcement" different ways.
Did you or did you not say:ExistingFish wrote: »Where I live, we have a Sheriff, a Deputy, and one Patrol Officer. I don't think having them running around mandating masks is a good use of their time.
The store employees making low wage are the enforcers. I wouldn't count on that. The one place that does work is Costco because it's members-only with membership required to enter. Other business have open doors and even though they are empowered to the "No mask no service" thing - it's still a matter of people just being testy in general. When we had masks as a suggestion, lots of people weren't wearing them. I'm happy for the Mandate even though I know there aren't going to be police at the door of the Safeway.
IME, big chains with lots of employees are able to enforce it by having employees dedicated (who are already stationed outside to count people coming in). Earlier today I was in my neighborhood's local shopping area (filled with small stores now able to be open), and they were doing a good job too. Part of is community-spiritedness, I think, as well as the fact many are so small that they were having a very tiny number of people in at a time, so it would be hard not to stick out not wearing a mask. And most people in the neighborhood really want to support our local stores, so wouldn't fight the rules I don't think.
And no, people break the rules outdoors (they are mandated in situations where you can't socially distance) here and mostly don't get ticketed. People were crowding in lines (no mask -- 20-somethings) to get into bars and restaurants and within the bars (there's supposed to be a limited number of people in them and you are supposed to stay in a seat when not going to the bathroom or the like). If bars don't enforce the rules they will get penalties.2 -
ExistingFish wrote: »I don't think the government should have the authority to write me a ticket if I don't.
If you go into your grocery store without a mask, despite being asked nicely by the employee at the door to wear one, because you know she can't actually stop you (what is she logically going to do), then yes, I think the gov't should have the authority to write you a ticket. I also think the store can and should refuse to ring up your purchases.
Now, in reality, you probably won't get ticketed, but I would have zero problem with that happening.I don't think anyone should ever insinuate that my breathing is equivalent to secondhand smoke, that was hurtful.
It was an analogy and obviously not directed at you personally. That said, I'd rather be around someone smoking than someone with COVID who was breathing on me and not wearing a mask, even if they had no clue they had COVID, as is not uncommon.12 -
ExistingFish wrote: »
Wow. I don't honestly know how to respond to this without breaking forum rules.
I think we all depend far more than we realize on decent human beings taking responsibility for the care and safety of each other, and agreeing to abide by laws that keep the community safe.
I'm just going to back away from this thread for a little while.
I probably should to. If you are paying attention, you'd know I take all the appropriate measures myself. I stay home unless necessary, I wear masks, I use hand sanitizer, I keep distance, I clean the gym equipment when I'm done with it, I do everything I can to protect other people. That is who I am and it's my choice.
I also do all I can to protect myself and my family. The kids don't go out. We only have one adult out ever.
I don't think the government should have the authority to write me a ticket if I don't.
I don't think anyone should ever insinuate that my breathing is equivalent to secondhand smoke, that was hurtful.
I don't think the intention was to say you, personally, have breath that is equivalent to secondhand smoke. It was a comparison meant to emphasize that certain laws are put into place to protect people who have the potential to be negatively affected by the behavior of others. This is especially important to people who work in public environments and have exposure all day long. Non-smoking laws were passed mostly to help bartenders and wait staff who had to endure that environment for their entire shifts.
In the case of the coronavirus, it could be argued that an infected person's breath is actually MORE dangerous than second-hand smoke. Whereas it would take prolonged exposure to secondhand smoke to ultimately cause health issues, a few seconds of exposure to an unmasked infected person could cause serious illness or death within weeks.
It's also fair to point out that these "laws" would be temporary, at least until the virus is under control and/or we have a vaccine. It's not a permanent thing that warrants a discussion on legislating morality (which we do...can't site examples without violating forum rules).
This is a public health emergency, and emergency measures have been taken in the past after natural disasters and terrorist attacks that you could say violated constitutional rights. This is no different...except that FAR more people have already died than those we lost in any natural disaster or terrorist attack.14 -
ExistingFish wrote: »ExistingFish wrote: »I just see what I consider irrational behavior online.
Very little is easier to find than irrational behavior online.I'm just watching our state's daily covid update. They did a survey - which I understand isn't scientific or anything - but 82% of respondents say they are wearing masks when they go out. They even broke it down by age. 16% said No, and 2% weren't sure. That's over the 80% that would be needed to slow down covid.
Do you think those numbers reflect the reality where you are?
Yes, I said that. They do seem to correlate.
I would say between 75 and 85% in the grocery store. 100% at the dentist and chiropractor and hair salon. All people at the gym were maintaining 12'+ distance. 95% at drive throughs (I saw one person without a mask). Those are the only places I've been, and I don't go out often. I go to scheduled appointments everywhere except the grocery store and gym, so there is very little traffic.
I noticed your answer after I posted that, and that you were mostly talking about at business that themselves have mandates. The surveys typically are about wearing them always, like outdoors.
I don't personally think there's a need to wear them when you are outdoors and can socially distance (our mandate does not require them then), but I see lots of people outdoors in situations where they aren't, or can't, socially distance, and no way is compliance that high then, and less so outdoors downtown (with more people from the 'burbs and elsewhere out of town).
From what people have reported here, more rural areas in general are less likely to have high number of people wearing masks outside of strict requirements (like at a dentist or hairdresser or some stores that demand it), which makes some sense as I understand the need wouldn't be as apparent and might not exist. That's why I was surprised before I understood you were talking about such limited situations. Curious what the percentages are for your state on the chart Carnivore linked, as none were over 80%.1 -
ExistingFish wrote: »
Wow. I don't honestly know how to respond to this without breaking forum rules.
I think we all depend far more than we realize on decent human beings taking responsibility for the care and safety of each other, and agreeing to abide by laws that keep the community safe.
I'm just going to back away from this thread for a little while.
I probably should to. If you are paying attention, you'd know I take all the appropriate measures myself. I stay home unless necessary, I wear masks, I use hand sanitizer, I keep distance, I clean the gym equipment when I'm done with it, I do everything I can to protect other people. That is who I am and it's my choice.
I also do all I can to protect myself and my family. The kids don't go out. We only have one adult out ever.
I don't think the government should have the authority to write me a ticket if I don't.
I don't think anyone should ever insinuate that my breathing is equivalent to secondhand smoke, that was hurtful.
If you have the coronavirus and are infectious, your breathing is MORE dangerous than secondhand smoke.
If you're not infectious, wear a mask to stay that way.
What state are you in?7 -
@ExistingFish You have made two comparisons here, and I think both of them are revealing because in neither case does the analogy as you are using it make sense to me.
Comparing your breath to second-hand smoke: as was pointed out, your breath right now is far more dangerous than cigarette smoke. You don’t get to claim that you somehow are the only person on earth who can magically know you are not infected; for the entire rest of everybody around you to be safe, you have to be reasonable and admit that your breath might be deadly to strangers. I fail to see how you can take this as a personal insult when it’s true of everyone.
Comparing mask-wearing to traffic laws. Yes, that’s a good example. We compromise on speed limits in order to get people to their goals in a reasonable amount of time, while maintaining what we have come to consider a reasonable amount of safety. But somehow you missed that a) there is no downside to wearing masks comparable to highway driving at 10 mph, and b) police do, in fact, enforce speed laws, they don’t just ask people nicely to obey them. This analogy, followed to a logical conclusion, supports the opposite point of view from yours.
8 -
I was in a small town local book and toy store the other day, haven't been in for months. One of the employees was very politely reminding people without masks that masks are required. The shopper handled it well. But what happens if they don't? If they become belligerent, nasty, physical, or worse?
If humankind could just stay civil and compassionate, we wouldn't even have to talk about making masks mandatory. Let's face it; countless people are not that way and they don't give a thought to others whatsoever.
And depending on day of the week or time of the day, seems to have an affect on what the percentages are of mask-wearers vs. no masks. Some days I'll notice a high %, 85+ compared to noon today when I went to the grocery store and there were *maybe* 50%.
I live in Utopia. I always wonder 'why can't we all just get along?'
Because seat belts/helmets were made mandatory(I know this was discussed)and we can get fined for not following the law, why is this any different? The government tells us we have to wear seat belts or strap our children in according to the law; some states mandate you cannot talk on your cellphone while driving or you get fined. I guess I just don't see a lot of difference between creating laws for those types of things as opposed to wearing a mask when in public. It's not 100% effective; I get that. But then neither is strapping a child in correctly 100% either. Isn't taking some safety measures better than zero measures?9 -
Talking with my brother today, both of our state had new infection highs today. He was mentioning the debates about whether the local university would require masks next fall. One school of thought was that since governor hadn’t made it mandatory that the u shouldn’t go beyond what was required (for political reasons really). The argument was that if professors wanted masks they could do it. Professors were not happy about that, not wanting to be the enforcers AND the rule makers. Better to just say “it’s policy at this school, so do it” vs “it’s my personal policy, do it”. Professors (so generally older, understanding that the students would likely be partying and in close contact outside of class) lobbies for masks as general policy.
General handwringing of “how can we make them do this?” Then someone said, “we make everyone get vaccinated. When we had a measles outbreak we made every unvaccinated student go home. Surely we can do the same with masks”. No rejoinder for that. Policy still up in the air.
Anyone else’s university come out with a definite plan yet?5 -
I just had a thought as I smacked a mosquito on my arm and there was blood... can mosquitoes spread this?!3
-
gradchica27 wrote: »Talking with my brother today, both of our state had new infection highs today. He was mentioning the debates about whether the local university would require masks next fall. One school of thought was that since governor hadn’t made it mandatory that the u shouldn’t go beyond what was required (for political reasons really). The argument was that if professors wanted masks they could do it. Professors were not happy about that, not wanting to be the enforcers AND the rule makers. Better to just say “it’s policy at this school, so do it” vs “it’s my personal policy, do it”. Professors (so generally older, understanding that the students would likely be partying and in close contact outside of class) lobbies for masks as general policy.
General handwringing of “how can we make them do this?” Then someone said, “we make everyone get vaccinated. When we had a measles outbreak we made every unvaccinated student go home. Surely we can do the same with masks”. No rejoinder for that. Policy still up in the air.
Anyone else’s university come out with a definite plan yet?
Here's highlights from the UMass policy:
https://www.umass.edu/coronavirus/health-and-safety
...2. Public Health Promotion Measures- Students will be required to sign The UMass Agreement in regard to social distancing and other public health practices.
- Face coverings are required in classrooms, workspaces, and all other common areas, indoors and in any outdoor situation where social distancing is not possible.
More:
2020 Reopening Plan: Health and SafetyThe university is using the best science and public health information available to protect members of the campus community; efforts are focused on mitigating the risk of infection and spread of the virus. We are relying upon the guidance and direction of the federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC), local, state, and federal health and medical professionals in setting our campus reopening and return to campus plans, and in determining the elements of our reopening and return to campus plans.
Our newly created Public Health Promotion Center will serve as the campus coordinating and operational hub for COVID-19 mitigation efforts. Its focus is to positively influence public health behaviors, provide critical health screening, and monitor protocols to maintain the health and wellness of our campus community.
As part of these efforts, we are implementing a multi-layered approach to deter the spread of the virus, help protect our campus, and allow us to rapidly respond when faculty, staff, or students present symptoms or test positive for the virus.
Fall 2020: A Multi-Layered Approach to Campus Health and Safety
1. The Public Health Promotion Center
The university is taking a leading and innovative approach by creating a Public Health Promotion Center (PHPC) to positively influence the public health behaviors surrounding COVID-19 and provide critical health screening and monitoring protocols to maintain the health and wellness of our campus community. The PHPC will serve as the central coordinating and operational center for COVID-19 and focus on the following: asymptomatic testing (symptomatic testing will be conducted at University Health Services); contact tracing; coordinating isolation and quarantine; flu vaccinations; and communication outreach focused on health promotion with public health ambassadors.
2. Public Health Promotion Measures- Students will be required to sign The UMass Agreement in regard to social distancing and other public health practices.
- Face coverings are required in classrooms, workspaces, and all other common areas, indoors and in any outdoor situation where social distancing is not possible.
- Appropriate barriers – plexiglass and other similar materials – will be established in high-volume areas.
- Sanitation and cleaning will be enhanced in buildings throughout the campus, and adequate hand sanitizer products will be made available in all common spaces (lobbies, lounges, academic learning centers, and classrooms).
- UMass Dining operations will be modified to meet new state requirements for cleaning, social distancing, and customer limits. More than 30 campus locations will be revamped. The plan includes new grab-and-go sites, outdoor dining tents and mobile ordering at some retail locations.
- Workplaces, meeting rooms, and research laboratories will have modified occupancy. Additionally, residence halls may have modified occupancy.
- Students will follow classroom operating guidelines that include:
- Requiring students/faculty to watch an education video prior to the first day of classes on the public health measures in place for the classrooms/laboratories
- Require students/faculty to wipe down chairs, other commonly touched surfaces, etc. at the start of every class
- Require face coverings in class
- No eating or drinking in class
- Assigned seating, where appropriate
3. Daily Screening for All- Faculty, students, and staff will use either the My UMass app or another application.
- Faculty, students, and staff must conduct symptom monitoring every day before coming to campus or leaving their residence hall room.
- A student who does not live in UMass housing must be free of any symptoms related to COVID-19 to be on campus or participate in activities on campus.
4. Testing- In line with current, best scientific practices, UMass will prioritize diagnostic testing and will continue to follow the development of antibody testing for potential use.
- UMass will execute a screening and testing strategy that mitigates community spread through early identification.
- Individuals coming to campus will be tested prior to arrival.
- Individuals who have any of the symptoms related to COVID-19 will be promptly tested by University Health Services. Individuals who are determined to be a close contact of an individual testing positive will also receive testing.
- Infection rates will be monitored on campus and in the surrounding communities.
5. Contact Tracing- UMass is expanding its case management team, using all relevant departments that provide contact tracing, support services, and coordination of quarantine and isolation. This team will be trained and available to support the campus community.
- To help determine the risk of potential exposure to others on campus, the UMass Public Health Team will conduct contact tracing with any campus individual who has tested positive.
- The UMass Public Heath Team will have a dedicated phone number and caller ID, and will actively promote “Answer the Call” to help protect the UMass community.
6. Isolation and Quarantine
The CDC defines isolation as separating sick people with a contagious disease from people who are not sick, and quarantine as separating and restricting the movement of people who were exposed to a contagious disease to see if they become sick.- Our plan for UMass residence halls for fall 2020 is focused on COVID-19 conditions, meaning we have identified quarantine and isolation locations for our on-campus residential community and will de-densify residential spaces to provide housing that is as safe as possible.
- The university is committed to supporting all students during any required isolation and quarantine. This includes contact tracing, academic support, health services, and counseling services.
- All students living on campus will be required to have an isolation and quarantine plan. For those students who can travel in a private vehicle, we strongly recommend isolation and quarantine in the comfort of your own home. For those students living on-campus and cannot travel home, the university will have dedicated isolation and quarantine space.
- Students living off campus will be encouraged to have an isolation and quarantine plan. The university will provide support services in your off-campus location or at your home. The university will not provide on-campus isolation and quarantine space.
- All students in isolation and quarantine, both on- and off-campus, will receive a daily wellness call.
- Students in isolation or quarantine will be encouraged to continue their coursework remotely.
- The university Public Health Team and/or local board of health have legal authority to issue isolation or quarantine orders, and such orders must be followed at all times.
7. Required Education for All- COVID-19 safety training is mandatory and includes instruction on physical distancing, wearing of face coverings, hand hygiene, and sanitation.
- A campus-wide approach is being developed to ensure consistent messaging.
8. High-risk Individuals Are Encouraged to Continue Remote Work and Study4 -
paperpudding wrote: »baconslave wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »The Tuscaloosa Alabama story -- students having Covid-19 parties, with a known infected person, putting money into a pot and the first one to officially "get it" gets the money -- makes me believe that we are the dumbest country in history. Sorry, there's no other way to look at it.
Went out to another outdoor concert last night, much better band this time. AZ rates are soaring. Only states worse are TX and CA, where my kids live! We went out again last night to eat and ate on a patio again.
I've resigned myself that there is no "back to normal" unless they find a vaccine for this. Or it could mutate so much that it won't be nearly as deadly. But once school is back in session, in the Fall, which I think is a terrible idea BTW, 1.5M dead doesn't seem too outrageous now. Perhaps 2M. The numbers don't lie. 5% have been infected and 130K dead. Multiply X 13. That's the point at which they say we will have herd immunity.
Our response as a country has been a pathetic combination of finger pointing, selfishness and incompetence.
Yep.
My sister lives in Houston, and I'm here in northeast TN, which is itchin' to catch up to TX. We have in this country a large population of entitled, uncaring, thoughtless, brats of widely varying ages. I have friends (30s & 40s), inlaws (60s), a 19-year-old sister-in-law, aunts and uncles (50s-70s) who are being so belligerent, selfish and ignorant. They are proof that unfortunately we can't just blame the lack of leadership of our government. Though they have certainly contributed greatly.
I'm so sorry. I'd pick you up and bring you here. No cases for now till the tourists show up I'm guessing. Everyone wants to come to Queensland worst luck. Hoping we keep boarders closed. Doubt it'll happen. Yeah.. come up and give us Covid.
You can open the borders but put restrictions in place. We expect tourists from next week, but they MUST have a test before traveling, and bring a COVID-free certificate to show at Immigration and Customs.
I take it by the reference to Immigration and Customs that you are talking about international tourists.
Australia, where mockchoc and I live, is a long way from accepting international tourists.
I think mockchoc was talking more state borders , especially since she said ' come up and give us Covid ' ie come up from southern states NSW and Victoria where Covid is still very active.
safe states here have closed their borders to other states - we may start opening to other safe states at some point.
I would like to go on holiday to Whitsunday islands ( northern Queensland) - may be possible in a few months from South Australia, also safe state.
Yes and I'll take you out to dinner or cook for you. I'm right near the Great Barrier Reef
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 396.8K Introduce Yourself
- 44.2K Getting Started
- 260.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.6K Recipes
- 232.8K Fitness and Exercise
- 450 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.7K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.3K Motivation and Support
- 8.3K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.5K Chit-Chat
- 2.6K Fun and Games
- 4.5K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 18 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.4K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3.1K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions