To mask or not to mask?

The wording of that is rather suggestive. Mostly, I've been just posting other information as the evidence for this really isn't as settled as you seem to indicate. As I stated earlier, we had the chance to do better studies that may have settled this question.

My opinion is that it might help, doesn't hurt anything, and isn't really a burden on anyone. The side effects are minimal. Previous studies suggest cloth masks have some small efficacy in reducing the spread from sick people to healthy ones with other airborne viruses, which is different from the CDC recommendation you posted.

No, most of the day, I'm the only person in my work space. I have them available when I go to those places which request or require them. I don't find them onerous, but it seems some people posting in this thread do apparently find them extremely uncomfortable.

 

The more direct way fo ask this is, “Why can’t a governor under emergency powers, close every McDonalds because they want to, but allow the salad place to remain open, because McDonalds is creating a public health problem?” The largest problem in the US by far, actually.

It’s actually a co-morbidity on this virus. American fat asses aren’t going to fare well with this thing. Who’d a’ thunk it?

Or how about define their State’s massive number of DUIs as a public crisis and rescind all liquor licenses? “Emergency!”

The pot shops were open the whole time. They weren’t a virus vector? Essential? Why?

All of those also have negative effects on others in “society” also. Even deaths of others, for two of them. So that’s not a valid argument.

Can a store owner go the opposite way and post signage they don’t allow masks in their store? Why not? Customer can go to another one.

Here’s a fun one. Can someone advertise that there’s a known case of Covid at their house, stop by if you want to get it over with? BYOB! No cover charge? Consenting adults. Sign this waiver. Come on in.

If we are going to control public health “emergencies” why not control all of them? Wouldn’t want 20 years less taxes out of anyone who could diet and exercise. Wasted potential!

 

Most of the people I have discussed them with find them quite uncomfortable to wear for an 8 hour shift.

My objections do not have to do with discomfort. They are two-fold.

Firstly, there are now a whole bunch of people on social media sites trying to act like anyone who doesn't wear a mask is a sociopath. Since I regard the evidence that mask wearing by the general public will help control the spread of Covid-19 as very weak or generously as "mixed", I view that as a form of bullying -- that is -- trying to intimidate or harass people into doing things they do not personally choose to do in public in order to help that person alleviate some fear they have.

Secondly, I also have a very low tolerance for how policy decisions made in this country by politicians often have almost no justification in the actual empirical evidence. I am particularly offended when politicians try to coerce people into doing things without evidence that there is a clear danger of people threatening to or actually harming others.

 

That's why I don't do much social media. Too much BS there by people who are "experts" in everything. You see that here in PoA.

I can't parse that. Some people, prevented from entering a business without masks, have harmed others.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/08/us/coronavirus-masks-dollar-store-shooting-flint-Michigan.html
Or the business following the law:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/06/us/mcdonalds-employees-shot-coronavirus/index.html
So there's a lot of stupidity on both sides of the discussion.

 

I think people shooting each other over a dispute related to Covid-19 is clearly a different situation. The use of deadly force is in my view only justified by private individuals when facing a clear present threat of serious bodily injury or death.

But here is my view of when we are justified coercing other people to do things they don’t want to otherwise do. Perhaps it will help with the parsing of my meaning.

Firstly if someone has harmed others and that is provable beyond a reasonable doubt then we are justified in coercing the aggressor. Secondly if someone is clearly threatening to imminently harm others, we can use the minimal amount of coercion to prevent them from doing so.

In the case of wearing masks and Covid-19, for asymptomatic individuals the risk of them harming someone else in a public place are just too low to justify coercion. Doesn’t meet the standard of clear threat of imminent harm and using minimal coercion to prevent the harm. That is due to a combination of factors - the low rate of catching Covid-19 from casual interactions in the first place, the low infection fatality rate, and the poor evidence that requiring a mask will prevent the infection. The risk of serious harm is about on the order of daily living or lower for someone choosing to interact in public with 1 person per day with unknown infection status (admittedly that is a very rough estimate).

The risks in voluntary interactions, such as businesses, may be different and don’t enter into my evaluation of coercing people to wear masks as those are voluntary interactions.

Someone deliberately choosing to try and infect someone would also be a different case in terms of coercion.

 

I'm not sure that it is more important, but having both worn masks and lost weight, my experience is that the former is much easier than the latter.

 

@denverpilot

The answer is pretty simple.
In almost every example the problem affects the individual. If it affects others, e.g. DUI, we attempt to regulate it.
COVID-19 is not a voluntary choice, and in general affects others not the one who is sick.

Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk

 

Meh....the gummint doesn't need to mandate or regulate masks. They do however need to train....the proper usage and sealing....and get enough supply of N95 for all.

 

@PeterNSteinmetz

Broaden your search. Asia has repeatedly found masks work. This is how with high density cities they have lower COVID-19 and lower influenzas and other respitory spread.
Now, they do not have lab tests to verify. But they have results.

Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk

 

Huh. Nobody you know has ever been killed by a third offense drunk driver, eh? Must be nice in your world.

In either case, drunk driving or Covid, if you’re home the perpetrator has zero effect on you.

The real difference is, and mistake in your description, the drunk knows they’re drunk driving. They are doing something specific to cause harm.

The Covid case, there’s no intent to harm, and we don’t “pre-regulate” people who aren’t doing anything. If they know they’re sick, sure. Quarantine the ill.

Quarantining the healthy isn’t regulating someone for bad behavior. It’s just unnecessary imprisonment.

But you didn’t answer the question posed.

What’s the time critical “emergency” with the hospitals saved that 46 people are in charge and not a representative government?

Emergency is over. Was over a month ago.

Or, all these other things are also “emergencies”. Cancel all the liquor licenses. DUI is killing people. Let one guy, not the legislature, send people with guns to keep the liquor store closed.

In fact only open one “approved” liquor store at the Super Walmart and close the others, make it completely arbitrary.

And keep the pot shop open of course. It’s “essential”.

 

This. Whatever instinct we have as neonates to turn our face away when something covers our nose must have stuck with me big time.

 

When I first wrote this I was looking at preliminary data, and to be honest I simply didn't believe some of the things I was reading. That the virus could be transmitted by otherwise healthy people, or it could remain on surfaces for long periods.

As it turns out I was mistaken on both counts. COVID19 is simply not behaving like most viruses. It is far more easily transmitted than any virus I've seen, and is a major health threat. Thankfully it does not seem to kill the majority of healthy young people, but Americans in mass are neither young nor healthy. This virus could easily overwhelm our medical resources if left unchecked. It is a major health threat, the greatest I've seen in my lifetime. I only hope people react wisely and behave in a fashion that does not promote viral spread once government restrictions are lifted. I have no faith that they'll do any of this and expect a huge resurgence in the fall.

 

Availability Heuristics is driving this train wreck big time.

Ultimately when this thing has burned through the population, you have a 99.7% percent chance of surviving if you are under age 65 and a 99% chance of surviving if you are over age 65. More if you have no underlying conditions.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/

So by all means, lets keep hyping up the media hysteria over this thing.



https://www.verywellmind.com/availability-heuristic-2794824

 

I see that your earlier post was in late February. At that time, I too was hoping that it wouldn't turn out to be all that bad, although in my case it was nothing but hope, rather than any knowledge on my part of how viruses usually work.

 

Missed the point. Alcohol is a choice. It mostly kills the person drinking. On occasion, it kills others. Hence DUI laws where we attempt to regulate the behavior for which kills others.
Same for smoking. Second hand smoke kills others. So the legal focus has been less on stopping people from smoking to instead stopping people from near those who do not want it.
This is a "core" value in the USA.

In the case of COVID-19. There is from a practical standpoint, no choice. That is the delta.

In terms of actual emergency. All I can say is the Federal government failed to be ahead of the game. Look at Taiwan, South Korea, New Zealand, Iceland.... these countries reacted swiftly. In all cases, the shutdowns are significantly more limited in both scope and duration. In the USA, we failed at testing which by law is a federal prerogative, which then gave local/state governments basically a single tool to fight the battle. And the tool is shutdown and social distance; guess what it sucks. It is a horrible tool. In 99% of the country we are using a sledgehammer to swat a fly.
"Western science" failed us big time. In general our media, political and social leaders expect a certain level of precision by science. In this case, the science was all over the map, and they largely refused to give a "definitive" answer. Mostly because we did not have the knowledge or the data to build better predictions. The result, we are way to concerned about getting perfect data, for which did/does not exist on COVID-19. While waiting on perfect data, we are left with only a sledgehammer when we should have been using a scalpel.

Oh, I forget which show I was watching, but had a fascinating interview with a virologist. When asked about the differences between the CDC PCR test and what was being done in South Korea; he was point blank. The CDC test is significantly more accurate, but also significantly more difficult to manufacture. The South Korean initial test had a much higher false positive rate which South Korea was willing to accept; and they gradually improved the accuracy over time. South Korea and the CDC tests both have extremely low false negative rates; which is the real concern from a track/trace perspective. (Assuming I understood, something about verification of two proteins versus three, but do not take my word for it!)

As President Truman said: “imperfect action is better than perfect inaction.”

Tim

 

I have no doubt that this will emerge as a black-market cottage industry if "immunity certificates" or evidence of recovery become mandatory for certain workers (or for everyone) to get on with their lives. People who want to get it out of the way and get back to work will pay other people to deliberately infect them.

I also think that that eventuality is why politicians, in a rare manifestation of mere imbecility as opposed to their usual idiocy, haven't yet codified that idea into law.

Rich

 

I made that post because the things I was reading seemed hysterical. To my dismay they were nothing of the sort. The real problem isn't the mortality, though that's pretty bad. Also, otherwise healthy people die of this, though it isn't common. The real problem is this puts 20% of its victims in the hospital. If 20% of Americans wind up in the hospital there won't be any facilities left to treat anyone else, meaning if you have some sort of life-threatening event or illness you could die due to lack of medical resources. And that is frightening.

 

I’m going with no, we let drunk drivers out the next day, they’re driving immediately again, and we allow numerous infractions before we actually restrict their actions.

We never require proof of true rehabilitation or abstinence. The process takes years.

We place the functional alcoholics right to work well above the welfare of the general public ALL the time. If there’s a “core value”, that’s certainly it.

But yes, they’re identical in that on exceedingly rare occasion, both kill others.

So it’s a pretty poor example. And wasn’t what was asked anyway. The question asked was can a Governor of their own accord, decide DUI is a big enough problem to declare it an “emergency” and close the liquor stores without legislative oversight or approval?

It’s already illegal to drink and drive, and already illegal to know you have Covid and go spit on someone. The question was about the so-called “emergency”.

I doubt there’s anything so time sensitive at this point that State legislators can’t go back to work handling the virus rules, laws, appropriations, and even authorize the individual Governors to handle whatever the legislature likes, with full legislative approval and oversight.

Certainly no “emergency” in most areas.

Define the “emergency” and a measure of when the services of a single man or woman handling it, is no longer necessary. Because I’m not seeing any reason only 46 people need to be in charge of anything in our representative democracy at this point.

If legislatures want to enact lockup laws, by all means, they should. They don’t need the Governors doing it with or without their approval at this point. They have as much access to information as the Governors do.

If they want a Governor to continue to manage all or part of it, authorize them to do so with a proper vote. Same with appropriations.

There’s no particular time sensitive actions they can’t authorize properly if desired.

Crisis avoided. Hospitals saved. Time to return to representatives representing constituents.

We don’t do “edicts” and “proclamations” here. We do voting and representatives.

Answer the question posed, it’s already illegal to knowingly harm another. We let people do it repetitively all the time. “Three strikes” rules have been ubiquitous nearly everywhere for decades.

 

Boy, I sure wouldn't take advantage of that, even if I were young. I've been seeing reports of the virus messing up various organs in ways that may not lead to death, but may have life-long consequences. I think there are still too many unknowns to take such a chance.

 

@denverpilot

Emergency measures are by law limited in length. If memory servers correctly, most states cap the emergency measure at 25 or 60 days. So, yes in most states a governor could likely close all liquor stores for a period.
But the governor will be overridden by the state legislature. And the difference so far is 6 weeks for COVID-19 vs 52 to compare current mortality. Give it a few months, and COVID=19 will likely be a multiple of DUI related death rates.

Tim

 

Where does the "20% of its victims in the hospital" number come from? We have nowhere near the amount of correct data to say that is low or high at this point. I personally know of people who, going back to winter and through to now, VERY likely had this thing and just recovered from it like they would a regular flu or cold bug - as in, they tested for every flu strain they could, every other standard URI type issue and nothing came back positive. Those people aren't tracked in any sort of numbers at all, so how can we ever say that 20% of everyone that gets this, goes to the hospital? The more I dig into numbers and reports, the only number that is getting bigger is the denominator - not the numerator.

 

Per this(https://www.azdhs.gov/preparedness/...se-epidemiology/covid-19/dashboards/index.php), 12% of positive tests are hospitalized.

The last estimate I have seen is that there are roughly 10x the number of cases that are not "tested/confirmed positive" so conservatively 1.2% of cases are hospitalized.

And it is likely considerably lower than that.....

 

Why all the fuss about a mask when you have a hood like that you can wear around?

 

The sunglasses are surely an important part of that setup.

After all, you wouldn’t want anyone to see your eyes as you drift away from asphyxiation.

 

Is there data that proves this statement or is this just someones opinion?

I haven't had had a flu shot since high school and I'm not a germ-a-phobe, so I don't (until just recently) wash my hands frequently or specifically worry much about germs. The last time I got sick was in 1991 when I was burning candles at both ends, going to work and studying and flying for my instrument, which I completed in about 3 weeks. The point is, I pushed to hard and my body was warn out, my immune system was weakened.

My work requires I travel commercially several times a year, and additionally I fly for a living, so that puts me in very close proximity to others, who are often sick, yet I don't get sick. When I feel a little off I drink a ton of water and make sure I get good solid nights sleep and I wake up feeling great.

Every person I know who gets a flu shot, gets sick almost every year. I do neither!

Since CV-19 my life style hasn't really changed much except it's slowed down to about half. Half the travel, half the work, etc. I eat out more than I prefer, I shop, I go jeeping with friends, I help others with projects they need help with, I still shake people hands when offered and I occasionally get hugs from people. In other words, I'm not hiding in my house, I'm out in public when I need to be and I don't wear a mask but I do wash my hands when I can. Lot's of times I can't. I try to remember not to touch my face, and still, I don't get sick.

I can't help but feel that whatever I'm doing, seems to be working for me.

 

I never said it would be smart.

Rich

 

On the other hand, there's nothing to recommend NOT wearing the maskes.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm

The above CDC article says that while vaccine effectiveness can vary, recent studies show that flu vaccination reduces the risk of flu illness by between 40% and 60% among the overall population during seasons when most circulating flu viruses are well-matched to the flu vaccine.

Flu vaccine prevents millions of illnesses and flu-related doctor’s visits each year. For example, during 2017-2018, flu vaccination prevented an estimated 6.2 million influenza illnesses, 3.2 million influenza-associated medical visits, 91,000 influenza-associated hospitalizations, and 5,700 influenza-associated deaths.

There are lots of statistics in the article, but my guess is it's TL,DR for most people.

I've gotten a flu shot every year for decades and haven't ever gotten sick, so I don't know what else to say about everybody you know who gets a flu shot getting sick. I just can't relate to that. For many years I traveled internationally for work about 50% of the time.

Great!

 

If you make the choice to wear a mask to protect yourself from me, I support that.

I deserve to have a choice to not wear one.

We deserve a choice. Stay in or go out, wear a face condom or leave it off.

Fly a scary airplane, or drive a car. Your choice.

While some folks stay inside bleating about the danger and demanding someone else pay their bills, others choose to eschew the government teat and go out every day to make a living for their family. That’s a choice many will fight to keep.

 

Actually one might want to see the expert comments in the BMJ commentary I cited. Several of them are concerned precisely about the possible negative consequences of making a general recommendation to wear cloth masks. That is why some scientists believe such a general recommendation should not be made.

 

Hi Tim. I am familiar with that literature. I do not regard it as particularly persuasive on this point for a variety of reasons and continue to agree with the conclusion of the Brainerd et al review that the totality of the evidence does not support issuing a recommendation to the general public to wear cloth masks.

This is in agreement with the recommendation of the World Health Organization but at variance with the recommendation by the US CDC.

Overall, there simple is not scientific consensus on this point at this time. And frankly I don’t know that there will be without further empirical studies.

 

I didn't mean to imply that you did.

 

I don't see a mask requirement as much of an imposition for me. It's certainly not on the same scale as being mostly cooped up at home. Even in places where it's not mandatory, I'm willing to do it because the lack of symptoms in some of the infected people means that I have no way of knowing whether I'm infected and contageous. Considering the dire consequences for some, I would hate to be responsible for giving it to someone. "Your mileage may vary."

As for whether we have a right to not wear a mask, I choose to not get into the politics of that on this forum.

 

FWIW: For someone who dodges direct questions and defines individual rights as "politics" perhaps you missed your calling in life.

 

While I agree that wearing a mask could be problematic if done incorrectly, a lot of that (user education) problem could be solved by some well promoted, humorous viral videos done by celebrities. There is certainly some good material work work with there, pun intended.

 

I was thinking about this more today on my walk and it occurs to me that much of the ire about whether other people should wear masks can hopefully largely go away when an adequate supply of N95s and respirators is available.

I mean if you can protect yourself at the level you desire in public relatively easily then what business should it then be of yours whether someone else wants to wear a mask or not?

So maybe this is a fairly temporary issue.

 

That level of protection is a new mask and disposal after each sojourn.
If you have done the research you state you would know first that n95 is not panacea but one piece of the puzzle.
Second, the cost at 15 each in bulk would consume a very significant percentage of the income for those who can least afford it.
While a simple cloth mask is reusable and costs a couple bucks.

Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk

 

why new mask with each use?....proper detox after each use should do it.

In our home we have a procedure for mask wearing....and it involves how to remove and clean the mask when "dirty".

 

The super majority of N95 masks are not reusable, and most when you reuse you degrade the mask. That was the premise.

Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk

 

you do realize....although they were not "meant" for reuse...the lack there of has forced hospitals to clean and reuse their equipment.