States that force you to wear mask

[AkMtnRunner]

But you do drive. Thats the thing.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at. My analogy compares the increased risk that I pose to others via not wearing a mask, and unbuckling a passengers seatbelt. In both situations, I have control over other people’s safety yet I would be choosing to increase their risk.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

Utah sent masks to anyone who asked for them. My wife signed up and we got 6.

That’s cool.

It truly isn’t a mask access issue for me. It’s an issue of do what I say even though I have no idea why I’m saying it, issue for me. I’m having problem swallowing all the quilt trips and uncertainty government has sprung on citizens during this whole thing. Not to mention the financial hardships imposed on private business. All that added in with the reality that me wearing a mask has zero to do with others health. It’s not like I’m hanging out in Walmart even though the two mom and pop hardware and thrift stores has closed down permanently due to this crap. And, best of all, everyone has a right to wear one if they want. Ain’t life grand?

 

[Sharticus007]

We are mask free in MT as of now. As long as people stop coming to visit we should be good!

 

[Spike elk]

I’m not sure what you’re getting at. My analogy compares the increased risk that I pose to others via not wearing a mask, and unbuckling a passengers seatbelt. In both situations, I have control over other people’s safety yet I would be choosing to increase their risk.

Your analogy would make sense if the dangers were equivalent, but they are not. According to the CDC over two million people are in car accidents and gravely injured or killed every year. That is a realistic danger to all of us. Current numbers from the CDC put the survivabilty of Covid for the American who is NOT in a rest home at 99.8% According to Fauci up to 40% of the people who get Covid don't even know that they have it. Covid is not a realistic danger to the average person. I would imagine that 100% of people who are in a car accidents know that they are. It is so overblown it is ridiculous. The media and the left have ignored any science that points to Covid NOT being the apocalypse that we all thought it might be in mid March. It is no wonder that many people are scared to death. The solution is simple. Make sure that those who are at a realistic danger have access to N95 masks and then let them choose if they wear one or not. If you are scared to death of Covid then you can also wear an N95 mask. It would not matter then if anyone else did not.

 

[lif]

Here’s a couple questions to the pro mask wearers:

If a person had the virus and recovered from it should they be forced to wear a mask still? Do you believe in immunity through antibodies?

If someone is a symptomatic should they have to wear one? Most studies and virologists are now stating that a symptomatic people cannot spread the virus.

When you wear a mask in public do you actually feel safer or are you wearing it to save the next person?

Last question , do you believe the accuracy of the statistics we are being given for actual positive tests as well as the amounts of Covid deaths?

Just curious if folks are believing all the medical studies being talked about or just picking and choosing which ones are important to themselves. This is not meant as a message to poke at folks. Just genuinely curious of how much thought is being put into these decisions we are all making. Myself included.

I would still like to hear some feed back from those who are pro mask wearing. I’m Curious what we are basing our decisions off of as a society. Not a trap, or debate, just more of a pole of how we are all coming to our current decisions.

 

[handwerk]

worth a listen:

U of M epidemiologist Michael Osterholm on how to assess COVID-19 risks

NPR’s Fresh Air host Terry Gross interviews epidemiologist Michael Osterholm about how to assess COVID-19 risks.

www.mprnews.org

 

[trophyhill]

How many of us sit in the woods for hours on end wearing something covering our face? I don’t think it’s a big deal to wear a mask for 30 minutes grocery shopping.

I'm not one of those who wears a mask in the woods. Nor will I in the grocery store. There is no scientific proof whatsoever that a non medical non N95 mask protects you from anything. Improper mask use can actually do more harm than good.

 

[Alaskanopolis]

How many of us sit in the woods for hours on end wearing something covering our face? I don’t think it’s a big deal to wear a mask for 30 minutes grocery shopping.

Good, then you can wear one.

 

[Alaskanopolis]

I really don’t understand why people are upset. I view protecting my fellow citizens as a core value. The constitution was established to “promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty” after all. They’re not mutually exclusive principals.

Then you wear a mask and don't worry about what others are doing.

 

[Mike7]

worth a listen:

U of M epidemiologist Michael Osterholm on how to assess COVID-19 risks

NPR’s Fresh Air host Terry Gross interviews epidemiologist Michael Osterholm about how to assess COVID-19 risks.

www.mprnews.org

This article seems fairly reasonable, and would support for the purpose of nfection control something like Oregon has done with mask requirements in public indoor spaces while encouraging them elsewhere only if within 6ft of others. It also suggests that other reactionary measures like states mandating businesses maintain ridiculous expensive, repetitive cleaning protocols or closing down beaches, parks, trails, etc. are unwarranted.

It also suggests that perhaps we need to have some level of ongoing transmission of the virus to help avoid a large more dangerous spike in a couple of months.

One thing it fails to mention is that the high false positive rate of antibody tests is primarily due to the low background incidence of antibodies in most communities. It also fails to mention that the earliest less specific antibody tests were the direct result of pressure applied to the government by media and politicians within the govt to push out any test, regardless of whether it has any real diagnostic worth, just like occurred with the initial nasal swab tests that the feds canned.

 

[Mike7]

Additionally, just to make clear in differentiating from the antibody test above, and unlike has been reported by media talking heads, the PCR Covid19 (nasal swab) test does "not" have a high false positive test at all. In fact, it is very low.

It does however have a high false negative rate. In other words, with the PCR test done on people with Covid19, about 30% of people will falsely test negative.

 

[LostArra]

Additionally, just to make clear in differentiating from the antibody test above, and unlike has been reported by media talking heads, the PCR Covid19 (nasal swab) test does "not" have a high false positive test at all. In fact, it is very low.

It does however have a high false negative rate. In other words, with the PCR test done on people with Covid19, about 30% of people will falsely test negative.

Very good point here. Pcr tests are highly specific=false positives are rare.
Sensitivity is not as high so there are false negatives probably related to testing protocol. I would suspect that those drive thru test centers where the patient swabs themselves have more false negatives than if a trained worker is doing the swab that approaches the brain stem.

 

[Rob5589]

Additionally, just to make clear in differentiating from the antibody test above, and unlike has been reported by media talking heads, the PCR Covid19 (nasal swab) test does "not" have a high false positive test at all. In fact, it is very low.

It does however have a high false negative rate. In other words, with the PCR test done on people with Covid19, about 30% of people will falsely test negative.

If a patient comes into my wife's ER with Covid symptoms and tests negative, they receive two follow up tests before they are officially considered negative due to the high false negative results.

 

[AkMtnRunner]

Your analogy would make sense if the dangers were equivalent, but they are not. According to the CDC over two million people are in car accidents and gravely injured or killed every year. That is a realistic danger to all of us. Current numbers from the CDC put the survivabilty of Covid for the American who is NOT in a rest home at 99.8% According to Fauci up to 40% of the people who get Covid don't even know that they have it. Covid is not a realistic danger to the average person. I would imagine that 100% of people who are in a car accidents know that they are. It is so overblown it is ridiculous. The media and the left have ignored any science that points to Covid NOT being the apocalypse that we all thought it might be in mid March. It is no wonder that many people are scared to death. The solution is simple. Make sure that those who are at a realistic danger have access to N95 masks and then let them choose if they wear one or not. If you are scared to death of Covid then you can also wear an N95 mask. It would not matter then if anyone else did not.

With that logic, there's no need to have a firearm for protection because we have the survivability rate from threat of violent crime of 99.994%. In other words, 6 out of 100,000 Americans die of violent crime, whereas your statistic of dying from Covid is 200 out of 100,000. So, if I were 'scared to death' of covid (which I am not), what does it say about people who always carrying a firearm for their protection when the risk of equal consequence is 33 times less?

I get the uncertainty of the effectiveness of a simple cloth mask. Of course, it's not the magic bullet. But guess what, neither is having a firearm a magic bullet against dying from a violent crime. There are a lot of unquantifiable factors involved. The fact remains . . . something so simple and easy to do does help to some degree.

By the way, do people still not understand that mask is to prevent the spread from the wearer to others? If it were our own safety at stake, fine, but we're playing with the risk to other people in this situation. Maybe that difference still means something, maybe not.

 

[trophyhill]

Then you wear a mask and don't worry about what others are doing.

As in "you do you and I'll do me"

 

[Billinsd]

I really don’t understand why people are upset. I view protecting my fellow citizens as a core value. The constitution was established to “promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty” after all. They’re not mutually exclusive principals.

No, the purpose of the Constitution was to limit the government, because the founders were worried about government over reach. I'm not terribly upset over mandatory masks. It's the state and local government that dictate whether or not masks are mandatory and we get what we vote for.

 

[Billinsd]

I love the ‘what harm will it do to you to wear a mask?’ People.

Most folks are sheep. It's not like having to wear a mask for 6 months, a year or a lot longer will kill us, as well as many other laws, like seatbelt and helmet laws, which can be a great idea. When ever anyone asks you what harm will it do, ask them if they've heard of the straw on the camel's back?

What most don't get or aren't too bothered by is that if we lose our freedoms during difficult times like now, what good are they really? Having guns, mountain biking, hunting and enjoying other activities that some hate and want to restrict until they can ban it, I'm very sensitive about my freedoms. Live Free

 

[HuntHarder]

With that logic, there's no need to have a firearm for protection because we have the survivability rate from threat of violent crime of 99.994%. In other words, 6 out of 100,000 Americans die of violent crime, whereas your statistic of dying from Covid is 200 out of 100,000. So, if I were 'scared to death' of covid (which I am not), what does it say about people who always carrying a firearm for their protection when the risk of equal consequence is 33 times less?

I get the uncertainty of the effectiveness of a simple cloth mask. Of course, it's not the magic bullet. But guess what, neither is having a firearm a magic bullet against dying from a violent crime. There are a lot of unquantifiable factors involved. The fact remains . . . something so simple and easy to do does help to some degree.

By the way, do people still not understand that mask is to prevent the spread from the wearer to others? If it were our own safety at stake, fine, but we're playing with the risk to other people in this situation. Maybe that difference still means something, maybe not.

Difference is....... We choose to carry a firearm for protection. The Gov't is trying to choose for me on whether I wear a mask or not.

 

[kda082]

If it keeps shit open, I’ll throw on a mask.

 

[Billinsd]

I remember the "flatten the curve slogan", which was a great idea. Now it's "stop wuflu". The government has moved the goal posts. Personally I think folks should decide themselves if they want to wear a mask or go to a bar, unless it's pretty clear the hospitals will get overwhelmed. Personally to me, it would horrible if folks in need are turned away from hospitals and die. We all have to follow what our state and local governments direct or risk a fine. I'm suffering in California, but it's my choice to live here for now.