Juliet Hotel
En-Route
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2018
- Messages
- 2,634
- Display Name
Display name:
Juliet Hotel
So what does it do for those who aren't infected?
To mask or not to mask?
- Thread starter Arnold
- Start date
- Status
NHWannabe
Line Up and Wait
You mean besides those who suffer from Severe Arthritis and Lupus who take this drug on a regular basis?
Finding a doctor for or against this drug is as easy as high wing vs low wing. Some doctor and some points said hey lets try this malaria drug for arthritis and lupus. The only difference is for the most part we only hear about the doctors who are against it.
Interesting NPR piece on politics and trial volunteers.
https://www.npr.org/2020/05/20/8592...nterferes-with-recruiting-research-volunteers
Early findings from NYU study show promise
https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-borough...thromycin-combo-on-decreasing-covid-19-deaths
UK NIH starts trials
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/new...thromycin-treat-covid-19#.Xr_1YCR2YXw.twitter
Cap'n Jack
Final Approach
That's the putative mode of action. The cell studies suggested a different mode of action (you have the citations on the purple board).
In any case, it doesn't matter because no controlled study has shown that it actually does anything. The previous studies weren't controlled. There are a lot of clinical trials, and there certainly hasn't been a "eureka" moment coming from those.
Same goal post position. Just asking in a different way to understand your point. Regardless, you state we do not know who is vulnerable, yet ER docs, CDC demographics, international statistics all are able to triage who is vulnerable by the level of care they are given and how they are entered in the books. A quick look to all the data out there, which is continuously updated, and you can determine who is vulnerable to COVID which is about 15-20% of the known infections. Is it perfect? No. So is it more that you don't agree with the available data on who is vulnerable? Or that you don't think it is appropriate for the general public to look at that data and personally determine if they are in a vulnerable group and quarantine, or move on with their lives if they don't believe they are vulnerable?
Morgan3820
En-Route
I am working on the assumption that we’re all going to get this at some point in time. I go to work every day around dozens of people and I don’t wear a mask. My wife is a hospital nurse, we do not wear mask at home. My wife has to wear it at work and it does cause her distress. To wear ppe for twelve hours straight, I sympathize with her feelings.
I am weary of the drama.
I am weary of the drama.
Actually, nobody knows what if any effect it has on the course of the disease. The reason it was being investigated was the (weak) activity in some cell level experiments. If it was for its immune-modulation effect, then it would make no sense to give it to someone as a preventive drug. It has been used in sick patients in more advanced stages of the disease, and so far nobody has been able to reproduce the observational results of the french group. The VA stopped their 'study' after more patients in the treatment arm died, but closer analysis shows that they were also significantly sicker when they were enrolled.
There are trials underway to look at whether interleukin 6 inhibitors, covalescent plasma and something called 'JAK inhibitors' are helpful, but so far there is no magic bullet.
tspear
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,507
- Display Name
Display name:
Timothy
And what I am saying is, the data for the analysis you propose does not exist; yet. Will it? Sure.
Just does not exist yet.
Tim
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of why you are being asked to wear a mask. If your issue was with a requirement to wear a filtering facepiece respirator (e.g. a N95) in public, then your argument would make sense. The request to wear a mask is to reduce the risk of you, while asymptomatic (or pre-symptomatic) with covid inadvertently infecting another person.
You object to being asked to protect the more vulnerable around you.
MyDimeIsUp
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2019
- Messages
- 131
- Display Name
Display name:
There are definitely places that are have overreacted and underrated, but the people working at grocery stores are generally younger and aren't in the age bracket of being affected (again asymptomatic transmission) and those who do have pre-existing conditions have probably already been warned and have left.
Winged_Splinter
Pre-Flight
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2020
- Messages
- 43
- Display Name
Display name:
Winged_Splinter
As of right now the TSA is looking over their operating procedures to figure out if they are going to be participating in this. From what I understand it's going to be tested at a few select airports to see how it goes, but there is already information on how it's went since this whole thing started, way longer wait times and more than likely more complaints.
My trip is for the Bahamas. Before I booked my trip I looked to see if they were going to be open and most places are going to be operational by early June with some next week. Hopefully everything goes to plan and I don't have my trip cancelled.
I'll deal with the whole mask thing if need be, but I'm just not one to make a scene. However, I don't understand how they are going to work this out for long because people will only put up with for so long especially since the CDC keeps changing what was known. Now the CDC says that catching the virus off of surfaces isn't an issue.
NHWannabe
Line Up and Wait
We are in a similar situation, my wife is a dental hygienist who just went back to work on Monday.
Morgan3820
En-Route
Before Covid-19 everyone understood that leaving their house exposed them to a potentially life threatening infection risk. Those who felt vulnerable took extra precautions as they saw fit. Typically they did not ask extra measures from the general population. I don’t see why the current situation should be any different.
Jess
Let me repeat myself:
The request to wear a mask is to reduce the risk of you, while asymptomatic (or pre-symptomatic) with covid inadvertently infecting another person.
Yes, the same rationale could be applied for the flu, but as the flu is far less deadly*, it hasn't been recommended or required for the general public. It is however a requirement for visitors and personnel in certain nursing homes during flu season.
Whether you feel vulnerable or not has simply no bearing on whether it is a good idea to wear a mask while you encounter other humans indoors at a range of less than 6 ft.
* In all of New York state, the 'bad' flu season of 2017-2018 caused 23,302 hospitalizations. At this point, with the event far from concluded, covid in New York State has killed 22,976 people.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,448
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
Actually, that's not true. Before Covid there were seatbelt laws, helmet laws, speeding laws, drunk driving laws, all of OSHA, etc. This is something new, and any new restriction sucks. I'm not arguing for or against these new facemask requirements or any other rules, just pointing out the these types of rules are not new. I wear one in public places indoors and on public transportation (as we are required to do), but not outdoors. I also don't wear one in the shared area of a multifamily dwelling (halls, stairway, elevator, laundry, garage, etc.).
GaryM
Pattern Altitude
That's not good. If TSA is involved, you know what kind of thermometer they'll want to use.
No misunderstanding. Considering those statistically vulnerable only account for 15-20% of the population, I believe those who are vulnerable, or even think they are vulnerable, should bear the responsibility of protecting themselves and not the 80% non-vulnerable population--just as all people did/do for everything else in life. If that means the vulnerable must stay home indefinitely and wear full PPE then so be it. This becomes their new individual norm and not the population in general as we now see it. Curious, can you name any other historical instance where your view on protecting the vulnerable has been carried out?
Checkout_my_Six
Touchdown! Greaser!
I'm not wearing a mask for you....and neither is anyone else. 
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
That's not true. I'm wearing a mask for whoever it is that you're addressing!I'm not wearing a mask for you....and neither is anyone else.
Morgan3820
En-Route
Non sequitur. You are talking traffic laws, a voluntary activity. I am talking about just walking out the door.
Morgan3820
En-Route
So you simply dont care because you perceive that it is not likely to harm you personally.
The person you infect may not be one of those reckless vulnerable people who dare to venture into the world. It is much more likely some other younger person who then brings it home to their parents or someone with a bad combo of pre-existing conditions.
Its about controlling the progression of the disease in the population at large by reducing R0 to below 1.0 for a prolonged period of time allowing it to clear from the population. I dont know how effective masks are for that goal, but as they address the difficult to control issue of pre-symptomatic transmission, they are probably a good idea.
- Immunization requirements for school children. The school doesn't worry about your kid going deaf from measles, they worry about it killing off some kids who couldn't get the vaccine due to a valid medical reason.
- prohibitions against spitting in public when tuberculosis was endemic.
- requirements to control mosquitoes on private property when insect borne disease was an issue (e.g. yellow fever or more recently zika)
- requirements on the treatment of sewage from homes not on a public sewer
.
.
It's called public health.
Last edited:
As long as you are clear about that, yes that's what it comes down to.
MyDimeIsUp
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2019
- Messages
- 131
- Display Name
Display name:
There you go assuming again. No perception about it. I have 3 people within my circle that are part of the COVID vulnerable population, ages 90 and 67, each with current COVID comorbidities, and a 4 yo with a compromised immune system. When I have to personally interact with them I put a mask on, etc. as I would expect anyone else to do in that specific private environment. Once I leave their homes mask comes off as I expect everyone else in public to shelter at home if they are vulnerable just as these people do.
I think these are key words in general even though I took them out of context. Regardless, what makes COVID deaths more important than any other preventable death? Should we adapt your mask theory to other non-COVID preventable diseases and save those vulnerable people also?
And public health departments take into consideration how many people something affects before implementing programs. Otherwise they would never raise the public funds to implement anything. Currently public health officials state mask wear is only recommended in public just like those who are vulnerable should stay home. However, there are a number of elected officials who have made mask wear mandatory. Big difference.
As to your other list items:
- There are no mandatory immunizations in the US. However, if you want to participate in certain public endeavors, like public schools, shots are required. A recent example of this was the 2019 measles outbreak in NY.
- On the Tuberculosis/spitting, this disease has no 20% vulnerable as 100% of the population can catch it in the right circumstances. And unfortunately is making a come back in certain areas.
- Nobody came on my property, or others, to control mosquitoes during the initial West Nile outbreak and I live along the GOM. They did spray the marsh areas though.
- On the sewage, I'm guessing you live in an urban environment as that is where most of those requirements exist for more than just health reasons.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
Do you ever feel like you need one of these?
https://www.amazon.com/Please-Confuse-Google-Medical-Ceramic/dp/B01AHGDK5I
Morgan3820
En-Route
You can spare me the moral condensation. I don’t care about that either. In the end we are all dead and forgotten, all of us.
Wrong math. It's 15% of known COVID infections not the overall population count. As more testing is done the 15-20% group gets smaller (it used to be 26%) as it is being found more people have/had SARS than previously thought. There are some models projecting the vulnerable group to lower even further to less than 5%.
JGoodish
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2006
- Messages
- 1,419
- Display Name
Display name:
JGoodish
First, I'm surprised this thread isn't locked already. You guys are pushing 500 messages without a lock--that's impressive. Things must be getting more civil on PoA.
With respect to masks: It appears that there are quite a few published studies on the effectiveness of masks (medical masks, in particular) from various parts of the world over quite literally decades of study, mostly with respect to the spread of influenza. I have read through many of them. Most of them show a clear benefit from approved respirators, some benefit to surgical masks, and an undetermined benefit (even for source transmission) of generic cloth "face coverings" such as the ones which are the subject of most of the current "mask" requirements in the U.S. In all cases, the efficacy depends largely on proper protocols for use being strictly followed: this includes ensuring a proper fit, not handling or touching the mask while in use, and after removal either replacing or sanitizing the mask before reapplication. Some of the studies also warn that *not* following proper protocols for use could *increase* the risk of transmission. These conclusions and warnings appear to be consistent with published recommendations from the CDC, WHO, and other health authorities.
The bottom line is that while there is clear and consistent credible evidence that approved medical masks reduce the transmission of infection, there appears to be little to no such evidence for general cloth face coverings. Even if there were, the reliability of results would depending both on the controlled design and manufacturing of such coverings *and* the wearer adhering to proper protocols for use. The current "face covering" recommendations and mandates appear to be nothing more than a general hope that they *might* do something without any negative side effects, but even the latter has not been clearly established and is a point of debate. One thing that appears to be clear: the recommendations are not the result of conclusive science on the matter.
With regard to an individual's obligation to reduce the risks of others: In a society which would like to remain relatively free, the obligation is necessarily rather limited. It's a choice between freedom and safety; the more safety, the less freedom. In this particular case, those who desire mask requirements for all are asking for the removal of freedoms of those who don't, in the name of safety for themselves. On the other hand, those who oppose the requirements aren't removing any freedom from those who want them. Millions of people from all over the world have come and desired to come to the U.S. because of its protection of individual liberties, not for its position on individual safety; millions of lives have been lost in wars to protect those liberties, not to remove the risks which accompany them. In order to protect those freedoms, it is necessary to demonstrate incredible restraint before restricting or remove any of them, and when we do restrict them, ensure that there is overwhelming justification for doing so (hint: "It's probably a good idea" may be true, but it is not sufficient justification).
I am not going to enter into a debate over the data--it is what it is. If you believe that some states are under-reporting or over-reporting, that's up to you. What the reported data appears to show, however, is that the majority of fatalities (and in some areas, the vast majority) have been suffered by people who were soon likely to become all-cause fatalities anyway. Again, there are many things that we can do to reduce all-cause fatalities, but there is always a cost--and yes, sometimes the cost won't be worth the benefit to society as a whole.
With respect to masks: It appears that there are quite a few published studies on the effectiveness of masks (medical masks, in particular) from various parts of the world over quite literally decades of study, mostly with respect to the spread of influenza. I have read through many of them. Most of them show a clear benefit from approved respirators, some benefit to surgical masks, and an undetermined benefit (even for source transmission) of generic cloth "face coverings" such as the ones which are the subject of most of the current "mask" requirements in the U.S. In all cases, the efficacy depends largely on proper protocols for use being strictly followed: this includes ensuring a proper fit, not handling or touching the mask while in use, and after removal either replacing or sanitizing the mask before reapplication. Some of the studies also warn that *not* following proper protocols for use could *increase* the risk of transmission. These conclusions and warnings appear to be consistent with published recommendations from the CDC, WHO, and other health authorities.
The bottom line is that while there is clear and consistent credible evidence that approved medical masks reduce the transmission of infection, there appears to be little to no such evidence for general cloth face coverings. Even if there were, the reliability of results would depending both on the controlled design and manufacturing of such coverings *and* the wearer adhering to proper protocols for use. The current "face covering" recommendations and mandates appear to be nothing more than a general hope that they *might* do something without any negative side effects, but even the latter has not been clearly established and is a point of debate. One thing that appears to be clear: the recommendations are not the result of conclusive science on the matter.
With regard to an individual's obligation to reduce the risks of others: In a society which would like to remain relatively free, the obligation is necessarily rather limited. It's a choice between freedom and safety; the more safety, the less freedom. In this particular case, those who desire mask requirements for all are asking for the removal of freedoms of those who don't, in the name of safety for themselves. On the other hand, those who oppose the requirements aren't removing any freedom from those who want them. Millions of people from all over the world have come and desired to come to the U.S. because of its protection of individual liberties, not for its position on individual safety; millions of lives have been lost in wars to protect those liberties, not to remove the risks which accompany them. In order to protect those freedoms, it is necessary to demonstrate incredible restraint before restricting or remove any of them, and when we do restrict them, ensure that there is overwhelming justification for doing so (hint: "It's probably a good idea" may be true, but it is not sufficient justification).
I am not going to enter into a debate over the data--it is what it is. If you believe that some states are under-reporting or over-reporting, that's up to you. What the reported data appears to show, however, is that the majority of fatalities (and in some areas, the vast majority) have been suffered by people who were soon likely to become all-cause fatalities anyway. Again, there are many things that we can do to reduce all-cause fatalities, but there is always a cost--and yes, sometimes the cost won't be worth the benefit to society as a whole.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
Whenever I see condensation on my bathroom window, I think "That's really immoral!"
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,448
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
Where are you required to wear a mask when walking out the door? Going to stores, being inside other public buildings, and riding on transit are voluntary activities, just as much as driving is.
Morgan3820
En-Route
Well saidFirst, I'm surprised this thread isn't locked already. You guys are pushing 500 messages without a lock--that's impressive. Things must be getting more civil on PoA.
With respect to masks: It appears that there are quite a few published studies on the effectiveness of masks (medical masks, in particular) from various parts of the world over quite literally decades of study, mostly with respect to the spread of influenza. I have read through many of them. Most of them show a clear benefit from approved respirators, some benefit to surgical masks, and an undetermined benefit (even for source transmission) of generic cloth "face coverings" such as the ones which are the subject of most of the current "mask" requirements in the U.S. In all cases, the efficacy depends largely on proper protocols for use being strictly followed: this includes ensuring a proper fit, not handling or touching the mask while in use, and after removal either replacing or sanitizing the mask before reapplication. Some of the studies also warn that *not* following proper protocols for use could *increase* the risk of transmission. These conclusions and warnings appear to be consistent with published recommendations from the CDC, WHO, and other health authorities.
The bottom line is that while there is clear and consistent credible evidence that approved medical masks reduce the transmission of infection, there appears to be little to no such evidence for general cloth face coverings. Even if there were, the reliability of results would depending both on the controlled design and manufacturing of such coverings *and* the wearer adhering to proper protocols for use. The current "face covering" recommendations and mandates appear to be nothing more than a general hope that they *might* do something without any negative side effects, but even the latter has not been clearly established and is a point of debate. One thing that appears to be clear: the recommendations are not the result of conclusive science on the matter.
With regard to an individual's obligation to reduce the risks of others: In a society which would like to remain relatively free, the obligation is necessarily rather limited. It's a choice between freedom and safety; the more safety, the less freedom. In this particular case, those who desire mask requirements for all are asking for the removal of freedoms of those who don't, in the name of safety for themselves. On the other hand, those who oppose the requirements aren't removing any freedom from those who want them. Millions of people from all over the world have come and desired to come to the U.S. because of its protection of individual liberties, not for its position on individual safety; millions of lives have been lost in wars to protect those liberties, not to remove the risks which accompany them. In order to protect those freedoms, it is necessary to demonstrate incredible restraint before restricting or remove any of them, and when we do restrict them, ensure that there is overwhelming justification for doing so (hint: "It's probably a good idea" may be true, but it is not sufficient justification).
I am not going to enter into a debate over the data--it is what it is. If you believe that some states are under-reporting or over-reporting, that's up to you. What the reported data appears to show, however, is that the majority of fatalities (and in some areas, the vast majority) have been suffered by people who were soon likely to become all-cause fatalities anyway. Again, there are many things that we can do to reduce all-cause fatalities, but there is always a cost--and yes, sometimes the cost won't be worth the benefit to society as a whole.
MyDimeIsUp
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2019
- Messages
- 131
- Display Name
Display name:
I was just using what you said that only 15% of the population is vulnerable, not that it’s 15% of known COVID infections.
Do you ever feel like you need one of these?
https://www.amazon.com/Please-Confuse-Google-Medical-Ceramic/dp/B01AHGDK5I
That's really not it. I'll gladly have a discussion with anyone who can put a logical argument together. Whether I have a degree is really not the important part.
You misspelled condescension ;-)
Yeah, but I rather have that happen later than sooner. I also rather have my end determined by my actions, not the carelessness of another.
We dont even know to what extent masks work to slow down transmission. They are called 'surgical masks' because we wear them during surgery with the idea that we want to reduce the transfer of bacteria contaminated saliva and respiratory secretions into the surgical field. A few years ago, the Ontario government went back and reviewed the actual literature on the issue to come up with their own guidelines of when you have to be masked and when you dont. Turns out, the literature to support the wearing of masks during many types of surgery is to put it kindly is 'weak'.
There IS however data that showed during the first SARS outbreak that the wearing of masks reduced transmission. And that is all that this is about, nipping away at all the different ways the virus can spread. None of this is 100% and there are plenty of ways you can assail the logic of the measuresL
- the droplets can carry 6ft but not 6'1" ?
- how do the droplets know to hit the floor at 6ft (1.82m) when they have 2m to travel in a metric country ?
- why is there no transmission in the clothing department at Walmart if there IS transmission at JC Penneys ?
.
.
The key is to keep as many people as possible from having as many face to face interactions as possible. R0 is an aggregate number for the population, if we have more people who 'dont care' than those who do, we'll be back on a growth trajectory. Masks are probably a small part of keeping that number below 1, but given the minimal inconvenience involved, its a mystery to me why people make it a big deal. Nobody should be forced to wear a mask to leave their home or to go to a public place. It should be limited to any situation where we know that transmission can occur, and that is for the most part face to face between humans.
And that is where your logic fails. If you happen to be a pre-symptomatic spreader, you would contribute to the spread of the virus in the community which will eventually hit vulnerable individuals. Its about reversing the spread overall, not what you may or may do in your immediate surroundings.
There are lots of things we delegate to the government to protect the more vulnerable. Why is the speed limit in residential areas not 'any reasonable speed' ? Why do we restrict smoking indoors ?
I dont think it should be mandatory to wear a mask 'in public'. There is no biological or epidemiological reason to require that. There is some rationale to require mask wear from anyone who indoors in a business or in public transit where a safe distance cannot be maintained. And that's exactly what the countries require that are well on their way to beating this epidemic.
Yes, and it should be no different with the masking thing. You want to walk down the street, there is no reason to require you to wear a mask. You want to enter the DMV office to register a trailer, you are required to wear a mask.
Its exactly the same. For most immune competent individuals, an infection with tuberculosis is at least initially not dangerous. The body fights the infection, encapsulates the bacteria in granulomas and stops the progress. In a minority of individuals who may have a compromised immune system due to HIV, living on the street, living in a prison or immune modulating treatment, they can have a rapid progression of the disease. The restrictions on spitting and other non-pharmacologic control measures were in place to control the epidemic as a whole, not limited to what one individual may cause to happen to one other individual.
Maybe not in your jurisdiction, in other places there are very clear rules what you can and cannot do on your property in terms of mosquito abatement.
I live on a rural lot with well and septic. And it would be much less 'inconvenient' if I could just run a pipe down to the creek to dispose of my sewage rather than maintaining a septic system. But I can't do that, because my actions would affect the health of others downstream on the creek. My permit for a septic system comes from the health department, not 'planning and growth management' or any of the other agencies involved in construction.
RJM62
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 13,157
- Location
- Upstate New York
- Display Name
Display name:
Geek on the Hill
First, I'm surprised this thread isn't locked already. You guys are pushing 500 messages without a lock--that's impressive. Things must be getting more civil on PoA.
With respect to masks: It appears that there are quite a few published studies on the effectiveness of masks (medical masks, in particular) from various parts of the world over quite literally decades of study, mostly with respect to the spread of influenza. I have read through many of them. Most of them show a clear benefit from approved respirators, some benefit to surgical masks, and an undetermined benefit (even for source transmission) of generic cloth "face coverings" such as the ones which are the subject of most of the current "mask" requirements in the U.S. In all cases, the efficacy depends largely on proper protocols for use being strictly followed: this includes ensuring a proper fit, not handling or touching the mask while in use, and after removal either replacing or sanitizing the mask before reapplication. Some of the studies also warn that *not* following proper protocols for use could *increase* the risk of transmission. These conclusions and warnings appear to be consistent with published recommendations from the CDC, WHO, and other health authorities.
The bottom line is that while there is clear and consistent credible evidence that approved medical masks reduce the transmission of infection, there appears to be little to no such evidence for general cloth face coverings. Even if there were, the reliability of results would depending both on the controlled design and manufacturing of such coverings *and* the wearer adhering to proper protocols for use. The current "face covering" recommendations and mandates appear to be nothing more than a general hope that they *might* do something without any negative side effects, but even the latter has not been clearly established and is a point of debate. One thing that appears to be clear: the recommendations are not the result of conclusive science on the matter.
With regard to an individual's obligation to reduce the risks of others: In a society which would like to remain relatively free, the obligation is necessarily rather limited. It's a choice between freedom and safety; the more safety, the less freedom. In this particular case, those who desire mask requirements for all are asking for the removal of freedoms of those who don't, in the name of safety for themselves. On the other hand, those who oppose the requirements aren't removing any freedom from those who want them. Millions of people from all over the world have come and desired to come to the U.S. because of its protection of individual liberties, not for its position on individual safety; millions of lives have been lost in wars to protect those liberties, not to remove the risks which accompany them. In order to protect those freedoms, it is necessary to demonstrate incredible restraint before restricting or remove any of them, and when we do restrict them, ensure that there is overwhelming justification for doing so (hint: "It's probably a good idea" may be true, but it is not sufficient justification).
I am not going to enter into a debate over the data--it is what it is. If you believe that some states are under-reporting or over-reporting, that's up to you. What the reported data appears to show, however, is that the majority of fatalities (and in some areas, the vast majority) have been suffered by people who were soon likely to become all-cause fatalities anyway. Again, there are many things that we can do to reduce all-cause fatalities, but there is always a cost--and yes, sometimes the cost won't be worth the benefit to society as a whole.
A lot of the resistance is based on the inconsistent recommendations of CDC and other government officials whose words some people actually take seriously.
At first, they recommended against masks; but this probably was to discourage panic buying, which would make it even more difficult for first responders and health-care workers to obtain them. It was basically a well-intentioned lie.
Predictably, people who are more cautious by nature went out and bought surgical and N95 masks anyway; so the recommendation changed to wearing cloth masks or "face coverings," but not surgical or N95 masks. It doesn't take my Brooklyn cynicism to translate that as "Wear a mask, but not one that actually works."
Then we had the predicable deluge of studies with contradictory results that each "side" holds up to defend "their" position.
I take anything anyone associated with government says with a bag of rock salt. But common sense and my college biology courses both tell me that a cloth mask is unlikely to do much good, but may possibly do some good. So I wear one when I'm in public with other people. Evidence of some possible good is sufficient for me to do something that causes me little inconvenience, even if I suspect that "some" good is actually "very little, if any" good.
It's like when I put $2.00 on a horse with long odds to show. Once in a while, it pays off in a big way. When it doesn't, I'm out two bucks.
The mask also reduces the risk of interactions with mask Nazis and self-appointed hall monitors, two groups from whom I really do want to social distance. If it does nothing other than keep those busybodies away from me, it's a net win.
Now, if government came out and told me I had to wear, say, a chartreuse jock strap, I'd tell them to go sod off, as my British friends would say. Idiocy is idiocy, no matter who's spewing it.
Rich
Becky
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2012
- Messages
- 828
- Display Name
Display name:
Becky
I just got an email from an Oregon Coast motel telling me about their new policy. “We ask that you wear a mask or face covering when you leave your unit.”
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
I agree. I regard professional qualifications as worthy of respect, but not necessarily the last word. The fact that members of any profession sometimes disagree tells us that.
denverpilot
Tied Down
You said granulomas. Sarcoid patient: triggered!
LOL!
Sorry just had a reaction to the word and laughed, mostly at myself. Thought you’d get a chuckle.
Effff granulomas!!!!!
(And yeah, two of the 40+ tests were TB and HIV... haha... but the one for some rare island-based sexually transmitted virus that causes lymphoma was the weirdest one.)
- Status