MTSasquatch
WKR
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2019
- Messages
- 526
Far from anything to worry about.
this didn’t age well
Far from anything to worry about.
I believe your are being deliberately misleading as, at least here in CA, the notion is to wear masks when social distancing is not possible (e.g. grocery store). I haven't heard any recommendations regarding wearing masks while social distancing. Not sure the point of arguing something that isn't.
That said, what study shows the opposite? To my (limited) knowledge, none exists. Given this is a new disease and given what we know of other diseases, why not wear them in conditions that are deemed to warrant mask usage until we have better information?
Especially in light of evidence that masks have been part of a regiment that has significantly reduced the prevalence of the disease elsewhere?
A number of assumptions here: Lots of low risk people have died from this disease, this isn't as binary as you imply. Moreover, I do not believe we have evidence of seasonality. Answering the question is pointless as neither you or I know enough to even speculate.
Maybe this disease dies down over summer and is controllable in the fall through testing and selectively quarantining the ill and those they have been in contact with, which could result in even fewer deaths?
But if we are going to use speculation as the basis for policy, I'd rather just wear a mask.
Uh, none. What unconstitutional mandates do you suggest?
this didn’t age well
I believe that the local areas of California that I have read about where mask mandates have been ordered under penalty for non-compliance, and regardless of social distancing in some circumstances are in the LA and San Francisco Bay areas.
In San Diego, technically it looks like you have to have a mask if you get less than 6 feet from someone. However, read the County Supervisors adage below. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/health/story/2020-05-01/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-countys-new-face-covering-rule?_amp=trueI don't think that is a real thing. There are mask requirements when going into essential businesses or public transportation and such (or waiting in line outside to enter such). Again, the notion here is that there are instances where it is not possible to socially distance, so masks are being required.
Looks like you have to have a mask if you are less than 6 feet from someone. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/health/story/2020-05-01/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-countys-new-face-covering-rule?_amp=true
A new COVID-19 public health order that went into effect this morning requires the use of a cloth face covering or mask in all public and business spaces whenever you’re within 6 feet of another person who is not from your household. As encountering a stranger is unpredictable, county supervisors have adopted a new adage: “When you leave your place, cover your face.”
Detailed criteria for the new order or what consequences those who were not in compliance would face were not detailed Friday. But the county has stated anyone not in compliance with the public health order could face up to $1,000 fine or 6 months in jail.
Right, that's why I started off with "In San Diego". Thank God San Diego is not in LA or SF. We have enough troubles. Right the order in San Diego does not "technically" agree with Mike's assertion of the other two large metropolitan areas LA and SF, which San Diego is not in. However, the county supervisors have adopted a new adage: “When you leave your place, cover your face.” I can understand if people heard that, they could intrept it to be the order. Carry on... Cheers BillSan Diego is not in LA or the San Francisco Bay Area, and that order doesn't line up with what Mike 7 asserted ("regardless of social distancing" is not equal to "requires the use of a cloth face covering or mask in all public and business spaces whenever you’re within 6 feet of another person who is not from your household.".
San Diego is not in LA or the San Francisco Bay Area, and that order doesn't line up with what Mike 7 asserted ("regardless of social distancing" is not equal to "requires the use of a cloth face covering or mask in all public and business spaces whenever you’re within 6 feet of another person who is not from your household.".
I think I just had the most scientific mask test completed yet.
I walked in the restroom at work (masks required at all work places in PA) and the fat, weird guy that every workplace has was ughmm.. going number 2. I promptly put my mask back on and was relieved to find almost all the smell went away and I could pee without the full olfactory assault.
By the way, my mask for work is made from an old Kuiu t-shirt in vias in case anyone is wondering what material was so effective.
You can look up the orders by the public health officers and then additionally read all of the various interpretations by the press and law enforcement, but to summarize, the county orders in the areas that I am talking about say, "people/businesses shall be required to wear masks" without specifying social distancing, even though as I already stated this may not be the public health officer's intent.
I reviewed a couple of local orders (San Francisco and Santa Clara) and they do not say what you suggested. Which counties specifically?
What do you guys think about Sweden's response and corresponding results? People are freaking out that their deaths are higher than other Scandinavian countries, but this really makes sense if you're not flattening the curve "as much". WHO says their response is now a model for response.