Coronavirus prep
Replies
-
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »ExistingFish wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »ExistingFish wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »ExistingFish wrote: »ExistingFish wrote: »https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
This article is about influenza, but influenza is very much like covid in the fact that it is a contagious respiratory disease.
Thoughts?
I'm really interested to hear the opinions on those who want to mandate face masks:
Face Mask
In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51–1.20; I2 = 30%, p = 0.25) (Figure 2). One study evaluated the use of masks among pilgrims from Australia during the Hajj pilgrimage and reported no major difference in the risk for laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection in the control or mask group (33). Two studies in university settings assessed the effectiveness of face masks for primary protection by monitoring the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza among student hall residents for 5 months (9,10). The overall reduction in ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza cases in the face mask group was not significant in either studies (9,10). Study designs in the 7 household studies were slightly different: 1 study provided face masks and P2 respirators for household contacts only (34), another study evaluated face mask use as a source control for infected persons only (35), and the remaining studies provided masks for the infected persons as well as their close contacts (11–13,15,17). None of the household studies reported a significant reduction in secondary laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the face mask group (11–13,15,17,34,35). Most studies were underpowered because of limited sample size, and some studies also reported suboptimal adherence in the face mask group.
Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids (36). There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.
I'm not sure it's the same as influenza. We know Coronavirus is spread by droplets leaving our mouth and nose, so it is logical that a mask that limits droplets will work. Is it 100%? Nope. Nobody ever said it is... but any effectiveness is worthwhile.
In fact, unless if a mask was proven to be 0% effective (not against influenza), they should be required. Even a 1% decrease in spread means more than a thousand lives saved here in the U.S. alone... so far. If you believe your personal convenience is more important than more than 1,000 lives; then just stay home.
Can you point me in the direction of the current death rate? Google seems to be failing me. I came up with 0.04%, this is all deaths - not taking into account comorbidities and stuff. I'm sure an expert could get me a better number. I'm not sure a 1% or 5% effectiveness rate would be worth mandates or enforcement. Would you take a vaccine with a 1% effectiveness rate?
People die in car crashes every year, should we make more restrictive mandates (10mph speed limits) and spend money on enforcement? It would save significantly more people from death or injury.
Don't get me wrong, I wear a mask where required. My state hasn't made a mandate and I'm glad they haven't. They've done contact tracing, people aren't picking up COVID from the gym or the restaurants. The new cases haven't gotten them there. They are getting them from their household, or from large gatherings I'm guessing where social distancing isn't enforced - like protests and other large gatherings.
Are you seriously arguing it is ok for people to die for your convenience?! Seems selfish to me.
Fear and feelings aside, we make those kinds of arguments every day. Do you know how many people die or are injured in car crashes? Do you know what decisions they have to make when they set speed limits? They know changing the limit by 5 or 10 mph saves or risks lives. They have to make that kind of decision because people have to go to places.
I don't think it's okay for people to die for my convenience, I never said that and I don't think anything I said should make you arrive at that conclusion. I'm just trying to get you to consider that these kinds of choices are made every day. Should I never get in a car and drive because there is a risk I could hit someone? No, I follow the rules and have insurance, but I take that risk to drive - as does everyone else on the road.
If I thought it was okay for people to die for my convenience, I wouldn't stop at stop signs - that's inconvenient! Who cares if I hit someone. But I do stop, because I do care.
I care about the possibility of spreading covid. I step back and allow people to walk through doorways so we aren't in it together, I stand on the 6' markings when standing in line. I don't shake hands. I use hand sanitizer when entering and leaving stores. I am okay with wearing a mask, but I don't think it is really doing anything when I wear it. I have barely been within 6' of someone for more than 15 seconds (you know, in passing). I don't think that casual contact is enough to spread covid, and from what I've heard, it isn't.
Vehicles are used in a lot of ways that are extremely valuable - in fact, in ways that quite literally preserve and save lives. How is the benefit of operating a vehicle the same as the benefit of refusing to wear a mask? This is the part I can't understand about anti-maskers. I understand the benefits of wearing a mask. I have yet to hear more than "cuz muh freedoms..." or "I don't like the way it looks / feels" as a reason to not wear a mask.
I never said I was against masks, I'm against mandates that require enforcement. That takes law enforcement or regulators away from things where they are really needed. I don't want our already stressed first responders coming to dispute with individuals about mask-wearing. That does cost. That opens them for more discrimination issues that they are already facing. You can't just say "oh we should mandate that!" it costs businesses, it requires law enforcement (at the same time everyone is calling for defunding and disbandment of law enforcement)
All this and Governor is now allowing cities to mandate (city by city) mask-wearing.1 -
ExistingFish wrote: »ExistingFish wrote: »ExistingFish wrote: »https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
This article is about influenza, but influenza is very much like covid in the fact that it is a contagious respiratory disease.
Thoughts?
I'm really interested to hear the opinions on those who want to mandate face masks:
Face Mask
In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51–1.20; I2 = 30%, p = 0.25) (Figure 2). One study evaluated the use of masks among pilgrims from Australia during the Hajj pilgrimage and reported no major difference in the risk for laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection in the control or mask group (33). Two studies in university settings assessed the effectiveness of face masks for primary protection by monitoring the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza among student hall residents for 5 months (9,10). The overall reduction in ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza cases in the face mask group was not significant in either studies (9,10). Study designs in the 7 household studies were slightly different: 1 study provided face masks and P2 respirators for household contacts only (34), another study evaluated face mask use as a source control for infected persons only (35), and the remaining studies provided masks for the infected persons as well as their close contacts (11–13,15,17). None of the household studies reported a significant reduction in secondary laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the face mask group (11–13,15,17,34,35). Most studies were underpowered because of limited sample size, and some studies also reported suboptimal adherence in the face mask group.
Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids (36). There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.
Without disputing the conclusion at all**, I'd observe that the research is influenza research. Is Covid transmitted identically (same droplet size needed in exhalates for transmission, and that sort of thing), same volume of virus bits needed to infect, same effect of environmentals (heat, light, airflow) on life of virus or other aspects that make it more/less contagious via exhalation, etc.?
I have no idea. Could be identical. Could be not identical. Just because it's a symptomatically similar disease, doesn't make the different virus have the same transmission characteristics, AFAIK.
It does seem to me that some of what had the experts confused and sending mixed messages, certainly at first but to some extent even now, was that research on factors like those I mentioned were just beginning to be to be published for this specific virus.
I'd also observe that there's some sign that countries with high mask adherence had better virus control, generally (possibly not absolutely). That's a correlational thing, so weak evidence . . . but wearing a mask is pretty easy & cheap, so seems worth doing even if there's some mere correlational findings as the justification. (I understand that some people with health issues can have problems wearing masks. I'm talking in general terms about the population.)
From my amateur history of closely reading other health research (breast cancer), it seems to me that preventatives/treatments with generally no negative side-effects will be accepted as part of standard practice/recommendations based on moderately weak evidence; and things that are more likely to cause harm are subjected to higher standards for proof of effectiveness before becoming standard practice. Outside of the health-related minority end-cases, mask wearing is pretty harmless.
** Not because I think it's indisputable, but because I'm not an expert, and I don't feel like researching/disputing today.
I made it clear it was influenza research, we don't have 70 years of covid research to look at, now do we?
I'm fine with it being a "standard practice/recommendation" that is not the same as a mandate with enforcement.
Mandates, and all this mask-wearing hype (when the science is iffy, at best), it causes discrimination against those who don't. Prejudice. Sanctimonious behavior. Racial discrimination (yes, it has happened). When everyone is hyping it up like if you don't do it, you are gonna kill your grandma - well the science just isn't there.
I'm tired of seeing leaders standing up saying "WEAR YOUR MASKS" and then when they think the camera cuts off, they take it off - if they don't believe it, why are they preaching it? or reporters on the beach saying "No one is wearing masks! The horror!" and a passerby points out their camera guy isn't wearing a mask. It's just becoming a way to point fingers and shame people.
@ExistingFish what state are you in?
I'm in MA, where we've had local mask mandates and then a state mandate for some time.
7 -
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.2
-
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).3 -
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.0 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 910 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions