Coronavirus
2,004,838 Views |
19855 Replies |
Last: 2 hrs ago by Werewolf
Texas was just the first to get the ball rolling on repealing mask mandates, so they just happen to be whom we are discussing. I disagree with Mississippi and any one else that is repealing them. I do not think the data shows that we are ready for that yet. I think wait till vaccination rates are closer to 50% (preferably higher, but I am willing to compromise) of the population in question. Wait till transmission rates, hospitalizations and deaths are at a more tolerable level. To me, that is not too much to ask. I do NOT agree with continued business closures. I think opening up businesses is perfectly fine just to make that clear. I live in a rural area with about 70% of voters registered as Republicans (the party that tends to not like the masks due to government asking them to wear it). We still have individuals that come into our medical office refusing to wear a mask. We have to refuse to see them based on our own beliefs and company policy. So I do not believe, at least in my little area, that a majority of individuals would still wear their mask unless they are forced to. That has shaped my beliefs tremendously on the mask mandates.packgrad said:PackPA2015 said:But that's the point of the study to try to address that question, if you remove this variable or this one and still have this variable present, what happens?wilmwolf80 said:
To be honest, I don't care to read any of the articles or studies. I don't see how you can eliminate enough variables to say definitively that the mandate is what changed numbers. Most mask mandates I know of coincided with other measures, capacity, travel, school etc. It was also during a period of time when a large number of people shifted to working from home. You also had a large number of people masking on their own. Is there correlation there between mandates and lowering numbers? I guess. There's just a lot of variables there. There are also plenty of spikes that happened post mask mandates too. Mask mandates also don't cover the most likely transmission scenarios, which is mostly sitting in your home with someone who is sick. You'll never convince me that a bunch of people were saved from getting the virus walking down the grocery store aisle because they were wearing masks, because the science says the risk of getting the virus by just walking past someone is extremely unlikely. I'm with Wayland, I'm against dealing in absolutes in scenarios with so many unknowns and variables.
So if we do open businesses 100% and we get away from social distancing and we go back to school, what happens if we leave the mask mandates as is? What happens if we repeal the mask mandates? I do not want to be a part of the real life study of removing everything and seeing what happens, but that's just me. 2020 was horrific enough as is.
Because the mandates are not necessary. Businesses can still require it if they so desire. You currently have 40 some states sharing your uniformity of thought so far with the handling of the virus. Why are you opposed to Texas making the decision for themselves?
I don't know that you are necessarily inferring that I disagree because it's a Republican governor, but if you are, that is incorrect. I am a registered Republican with fiscal and social conservative beliefs, for the most part. I am just trying to practice medicine based on evidence and data and not political beliefs.
Absolutely. I really want to believe that people, even when disagreeing or when not required, will continue to wear them until we are in the clear. I just don't have local evidence to suggest that, unfortunately.Mormad said:PackPA2015 said:But that's the point of the study to try to address that question, if you remove this variable or this one and still have this variable present, what happens?wilmwolf80 said:
To be honest, I don't care to read any of the articles or studies. I don't see how you can eliminate enough variables to say definitively that the mandate is what changed numbers. Most mask mandates I know of coincided with other measures, capacity, travel, school etc. It was also during a period of time when a large number of people shifted to working from home. You also had a large number of people masking on their own. Is there correlation there between mandates and lowering numbers? I guess. There's just a lot of variables there. There are also plenty of spikes that happened post mask mandates too. Mask mandates also don't cover the most likely transmission scenarios, which is mostly sitting in your home with someone who is sick. You'll never convince me that a bunch of people were saved from getting the virus walking down the grocery store aisle because they were wearing masks, because the science says the risk of getting the virus by just walking past someone is extremely unlikely. I'm with Wayland, I'm against dealing in absolutes in scenarios with so many unknowns and variables.
So if we do open businesses 100% and we get away from social distancing and we go back to school, what happens if we leave the mask mandates as is? What happens if we repeal the mask mandates? I do not want to be a part of the real life study of removing everything and seeing what happens, but that's just me. 2020 was horrific enough as is.
You're absolutely correct that the studies try to control for variables, but it's tough to do. You and I understand the concerns these guys have i think. The encouraging thing to me is that even the guys that oppose the mandates are doing their part and wearing their masks appropriately based on their comments. If that's true of our society as a whole, then i think we're still moving quickly towards winning this war and getting our ever loving lives back.
While I believe Texas, Mississippi and the other states should have waited a few months to take the steps they just took, I think I understand why they did it. The leadership and messaging from the federal government and key health leaders (Dr. Fauci, CDC director, etc) has been so bad, they are fed up. While other countries have been focusing on all the things you can do once vaccinated, we have Dr. Fauci and others focusing on all the things you still can not do once vaccinated. They went on national television yesterday and lied (some would say mislead) about what the data says with regards to cases and deaths.
Instead of setting clear goals for reopening, the federal government and leading health officials have not given us any clear goals or metrics. Even this week, President Biden said he did not expect us to return to normal until this time NEXT YEAR. I'm sorry, but it is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that we have these highly effective vaccines, some of the most effective medical science has ever created, and the leadership wants to suggest that it will take a year to return to normal.
Here's an example of how ridiculous the messaging has gotten. The CDC says you don't have to quarantine after Covid exposure once vaccinated, but only for 90 days post vaccination? Where is the science behind that policy? It is almost like they are making stuff up and people can see through it. This type of messaging and behavior is not a way to get people to buy in and agree with what you are saying.
Counter to this is Utah. They have set a clear goal for opening up and it seems reasonable. The have said eight weeks after the federal allocation of vaccination doses covers 70% of the eligible population, they will open up businesses, remove restrictions, and lift mask mandates. This is a clearly stated goal and it gives people hope. The federal government has not provided any of this type of guidance. All we get is, "we don't know if the vaccines will prevent transmission, so we have to continue to wear a mask and keep businesses closed."
There is a reason why corporations have Marketing departments and why they do not put the finance department and the engineers in charge of corporate messaging. As I mentioned the other day, the Biden Administration has budgeted $1B to communicate the importance of being vaccinated. They have spent absolutely none of this money.
It is completely unrealistic to expect that states will keep their restrictions in place for the rest of the year. It is utterly ridiculous for teacher's unions and school boards to keep kids out of in-person classrooms any longer. Instead of acknowledging that these policies can not continue and putting in clear targets for ending the restrictions (like other countries like the UK have done), our federal leaders are overly cautious on the effectiveness of vaccines to the point it has become ridiculous.
Sorry for the rant, but I am fed up at this point with the leadership (or lack of) coming out of Washington and many of the state governments. I can see the data on vaccines and I can recognize they will get us out of this pandemic. I can see the trends in current Covid statistics and recognize things have improved drastically from where we were just a couple of months ago. We are very close to returning to normal and all we hear from Washington is that people who believe we should open up are "Neanderthals." Maybe instead of calling people names, you and your administration could give people hope and clear metrics on how this will all end.
Instead of setting clear goals for reopening, the federal government and leading health officials have not given us any clear goals or metrics. Even this week, President Biden said he did not expect us to return to normal until this time NEXT YEAR. I'm sorry, but it is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that we have these highly effective vaccines, some of the most effective medical science has ever created, and the leadership wants to suggest that it will take a year to return to normal.
Here's an example of how ridiculous the messaging has gotten. The CDC says you don't have to quarantine after Covid exposure once vaccinated, but only for 90 days post vaccination? Where is the science behind that policy? It is almost like they are making stuff up and people can see through it. This type of messaging and behavior is not a way to get people to buy in and agree with what you are saying.
Counter to this is Utah. They have set a clear goal for opening up and it seems reasonable. The have said eight weeks after the federal allocation of vaccination doses covers 70% of the eligible population, they will open up businesses, remove restrictions, and lift mask mandates. This is a clearly stated goal and it gives people hope. The federal government has not provided any of this type of guidance. All we get is, "we don't know if the vaccines will prevent transmission, so we have to continue to wear a mask and keep businesses closed."
There is a reason why corporations have Marketing departments and why they do not put the finance department and the engineers in charge of corporate messaging. As I mentioned the other day, the Biden Administration has budgeted $1B to communicate the importance of being vaccinated. They have spent absolutely none of this money.
It is completely unrealistic to expect that states will keep their restrictions in place for the rest of the year. It is utterly ridiculous for teacher's unions and school boards to keep kids out of in-person classrooms any longer. Instead of acknowledging that these policies can not continue and putting in clear targets for ending the restrictions (like other countries like the UK have done), our federal leaders are overly cautious on the effectiveness of vaccines to the point it has become ridiculous.
Sorry for the rant, but I am fed up at this point with the leadership (or lack of) coming out of Washington and many of the state governments. I can see the data on vaccines and I can recognize they will get us out of this pandemic. I can see the trends in current Covid statistics and recognize things have improved drastically from where we were just a couple of months ago. We are very close to returning to normal and all we hear from Washington is that people who believe we should open up are "Neanderthals." Maybe instead of calling people names, you and your administration could give people hope and clear metrics on how this will all end.
No argument here, Davie. Well said brother.
I saw that about Utah a bit ago and should of pointed it out. Whether or not I agree with all their metrics (honestly I didn't give the specifics a whole lot of thought). I thought I had read there was some county level metrics as well? But either way, I applaud their leadership for setting ACTUAL benchmarks that need to be achieved and not just relying on "when we feel like it". It seems such a reasonable course of action and yet they seem to be alone in using this strategy.Daviewolf83 said:
While I believe Texas, Mississippi and the other states should have waited a few months to take the steps they just took, I think I understand why they did it. The leadership and messaging from the federal government and key health leaders (Dr. Fauci, CDC director, etc) has been so bad, they are fed up. While other countries have been focusing on all the things you can do once vaccinated, we have Dr. Fauci and others focusing on all the things you still can not do once vaccinated. They went on national television yesterday and lied (some would say mislead) about what the data says with regards to cases and deaths.
Instead of setting clear goals for reopening, the federal government and leading health officials have not given us any clear goals or metrics. Even this week, President Biden said he did not expect us to return to normal until this time NEXT YEAR. I'm sorry, but it is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that we have these highly effective vaccines, some of the most effective medical science has ever created, and the leadership wants to suggest that it will take a year to return to normal.
Here's an example of how ridiculous the messaging has gotten. The CDC says you don't have to quarantine after Covid exposure once vaccinated, but only for 90 days post vaccination? Where is the science behind that policy? It is almost like they are making stuff up and people can see through it. This type of messaging and behavior is not a way to get people to buy in and agree with what you are saying.
Counter to this is Utah. They have set a clear goal for opening up and it seems reasonable. The have said eight weeks after the federal allocation of vaccination doses covers 70% of the eligible population, they will open up businesses, remove restrictions, and lift mask mandates. This is a clearly stated goal and it gives people hope. The federal government has not provided any of this type of guidance. All we get is, "we don't know if the vaccines will prevent transmission, so we have to continue to wear a mask and keep businesses closed."
There is a reason why corporations have Marketing departments and why they do not put the finance department and the engineers in charge of corporate messaging. As I mentioned the other day, the Biden Administration has budgeted $1B to communicate the importance of being vaccinated. They have spent absolutely none of this money.
It is completely unrealistic to expect that states will keep their restrictions in place for the rest of the year. It is utterly ridiculous for teacher's unions and school boards to keep kids out of in-person classrooms any longer. Instead of acknowledging that these policies can not continue and putting in clear targets for ending the restrictions (like other countries like the UK have done), our federal leaders are overly cautious on the effectiveness of vaccines to the point it has become ridiculous.
Sorry for the rant, but I am fed up at this point with the leadership (or lack of) coming out of Washington and many of the state governments. I can see the data on vaccines and I can recognize they will get us out of this pandemic. I can see the trends in current Covid statistics and recognize things have improved drastically from where we were just a couple of months ago. We are very close to returning to normal and all we hear from Washington is that people who believe we should open up are "Neanderthals." Maybe instead of calling people names, you and your administration could give people hope and clear metrics on how this will all end.
I didn't bring politics into it at all. Your last 2 words say it all though, and that's why mask wearing has become compared to a crime. Because supposedly Republicans are against masks for political beliefs.PackPA2015 said:Texas was just the first to get the ball rolling on repealing mask mandates, so they just happen to be whom we are discussing. I disagree with Mississippi and any one else that is repealing them. I do not think the data shows that we are ready for that yet. I think wait till vaccination rates are closer to 50% (preferably higher, but I am willing to compromise) of the population in question. Wait till transmission rates, hospitalizations and deaths are at a more tolerable level. To me, that is not too much to ask. I do NOT agree with continued business closures. I think opening up businesses is perfectly fine just to make that clear. I live in a rural area with about 70% of voters registered as Republicans (the party that tends to not like the masks due to government asking them to wear it). We still have individuals that come into our medical office refusing to wear a mask. We have to refuse to see them based on our own beliefs and company policy. So I do not believe, at least in my little area, that a majority of individuals would still wear their mask unless they are forced to. That has shaped my beliefs tremendously on the mask mandates.packgrad said:PackPA2015 said:But that's the point of the study to try to address that question, if you remove this variable or this one and still have this variable present, what happens?wilmwolf80 said:
To be honest, I don't care to read any of the articles or studies. I don't see how you can eliminate enough variables to say definitively that the mandate is what changed numbers. Most mask mandates I know of coincided with other measures, capacity, travel, school etc. It was also during a period of time when a large number of people shifted to working from home. You also had a large number of people masking on their own. Is there correlation there between mandates and lowering numbers? I guess. There's just a lot of variables there. There are also plenty of spikes that happened post mask mandates too. Mask mandates also don't cover the most likely transmission scenarios, which is mostly sitting in your home with someone who is sick. You'll never convince me that a bunch of people were saved from getting the virus walking down the grocery store aisle because they were wearing masks, because the science says the risk of getting the virus by just walking past someone is extremely unlikely. I'm with Wayland, I'm against dealing in absolutes in scenarios with so many unknowns and variables.
So if we do open businesses 100% and we get away from social distancing and we go back to school, what happens if we leave the mask mandates as is? What happens if we repeal the mask mandates? I do not want to be a part of the real life study of removing everything and seeing what happens, but that's just me. 2020 was horrific enough as is.
Because the mandates are not necessary. Businesses can still require it if they so desire. You currently have 40 some states sharing your uniformity of thought so far with the handling of the virus. Why are you opposed to Texas making the decision for themselves?
I don't know that you are necessarily inferring that I disagree because it's a Republican governor, but if you are, that is incorrect. I am a registered Republican with fiscal and social conservative beliefs, for the most part. I am just trying to practice medicine based on evidence and data and not political beliefs.
Also, your definition of tolerable is not universal. Clearly these other states disagree with your level of tolerance. We have been told bogus timetables for 1 year that continuously get rolled back until we meet some mythological level of tolerance. The president is now saying we're still a year out. Just a little longer rings hollow to many.
Restaurants are a great example of opening to 100%. I've gone to restaurants since they've been opened. I don't believe that I am unsafe on the walk to the table whereby I need to wear a mask to protect myself and others, but miraculously safe for myself and others once I sit down. There has not been a huge influx of virus cases due to restaurants opening for dining inside. If you are fine with opening to 100%, are you also fine with full restaurants where people wear masks while they walk in the door, and go to the bathroom, but then take them off once they sit down? Same with breweries. Same with bars. Does the act of sitting down suddenly provide safety from the virus whereby these businesses can open to 100%? I don't believe that has anything to do with evidence or data if you believe that is safe for these businesses to be open to 100% now, but only if we have a mask mandate. I just don't believe that people really are for opening to 100% while still having a mask mandate. It doesn't make sense. It sounds like a talking point that no one really believes, or hasn't thought through.
Without a mask mandate, your business still has the same right to refuse service to the 70% Republicans that refuse to wear masks when they come to your office. Same as any other businesses that requires them for entry.
Well stated, and I would be completely in line with that type of methodology for reopening, assuming we had leadership and media that did not juke the stats.
packgrad said:I didn't bring politics into it at all. Your last 2 words say it all though, and that's why mask wearing has become compared to a crime. Because supposedly Republicans are against masks for political beliefs.PackPA2015 said:Texas was just the first to get the ball rolling on repealing mask mandates, so they just happen to be whom we are discussing. I disagree with Mississippi and any one else that is repealing them. I do not think the data shows that we are ready for that yet. I think wait till vaccination rates are closer to 50% (preferably higher, but I am willing to compromise) of the population in question. Wait till transmission rates, hospitalizations and deaths are at a more tolerable level. To me, that is not too much to ask. I do NOT agree with continued business closures. I think opening up businesses is perfectly fine just to make that clear. I live in a rural area with about 70% of voters registered as Republicans (the party that tends to not like the masks due to government asking them to wear it). We still have individuals that come into our medical office refusing to wear a mask. We have to refuse to see them based on our own beliefs and company policy. So I do not believe, at least in my little area, that a majority of individuals would still wear their mask unless they are forced to. That has shaped my beliefs tremendously on the mask mandates.packgrad said:PackPA2015 said:But that's the point of the study to try to address that question, if you remove this variable or this one and still have this variable present, what happens?wilmwolf80 said:
To be honest, I don't care to read any of the articles or studies. I don't see how you can eliminate enough variables to say definitively that the mandate is what changed numbers. Most mask mandates I know of coincided with other measures, capacity, travel, school etc. It was also during a period of time when a large number of people shifted to working from home. You also had a large number of people masking on their own. Is there correlation there between mandates and lowering numbers? I guess. There's just a lot of variables there. There are also plenty of spikes that happened post mask mandates too. Mask mandates also don't cover the most likely transmission scenarios, which is mostly sitting in your home with someone who is sick. You'll never convince me that a bunch of people were saved from getting the virus walking down the grocery store aisle because they were wearing masks, because the science says the risk of getting the virus by just walking past someone is extremely unlikely. I'm with Wayland, I'm against dealing in absolutes in scenarios with so many unknowns and variables.
So if we do open businesses 100% and we get away from social distancing and we go back to school, what happens if we leave the mask mandates as is? What happens if we repeal the mask mandates? I do not want to be a part of the real life study of removing everything and seeing what happens, but that's just me. 2020 was horrific enough as is.
Because the mandates are not necessary. Businesses can still require it if they so desire. You currently have 40 some states sharing your uniformity of thought so far with the handling of the virus. Why are you opposed to Texas making the decision for themselves?
I don't know that you are necessarily inferring that I disagree because it's a Republican governor, but if you are, that is incorrect. I am a registered Republican with fiscal and social conservative beliefs, for the most part. I am just trying to practice medicine based on evidence and data and not political beliefs.
Also, your definition of tolerable is not universal. Clearly these other states disagree with your level of tolerance. We have been told bogus timetables for 1 year that continuously get rolled back until we meet some mythological level of tolerance. The president is now saying we're still a year out. Just a little longer rings hollow to many.
Restaurants are a great example of opening to 100%. I've gone to restaurants since they've been opened. I don't believe that I am unsafe on the walk to the table whereby I need to wear a mask to protect myself and others, but miraculously safe for myself and others once I sit down. There has not been a huge influx of virus cases due to restaurants opening for dining inside. If you are fine with opening to 100%, are you also fine with full restaurants where people wear masks while they walk in the door, and go to the bathroom, but then take them off once they sit down? Same with breweries. Same with bars. Does the act of sitting down suddenly provide safety from the virus whereby these businesses can open to 100%? I don't believe that has anything to do with evidence or data if you believe that is safe for these businesses to be open to 100% now, but only if we have a mask mandate. I just don't believe that people really are for opening to 100% while still having a mask mandate. It doesn't make sense. It sounds like a talking point that no one really believes, or hasn't thought through.
Without a mask mandate, your business still has the same right to refuse service to the 70% Republicans that refuse to wear masks when they come to your office. Same as any other businesses that requires them for entry.
I really believe our opinions are not that far apart on these issues. I agree wholeheartedly about the timetables being misinformed or misconstrued. It is wrong by our current administration to lie to us about that. It is also wrong for governors to lie and say we are out of the pandemic.
In my experience, the Republicans that have refused to wear a mask into our medical office, when asked, would state directly it was due to basically the government telling them what to do and that they didn't believe they worked anyways. Our office requires an actual medical mask which we provide if need be to enter. When I go to the grocery store or whatnot with my mask on, in most places in our county, masking is probably less than 50%. This is with large signs outside of every business stating masks are required. Heck, I even had to ask my own parents to wear a mask when they were out at church or wherever. We had a long discussion. Their reason why they did not want to wear masks - because the Governor is a Democrat and masks don't actually work. I just don't see this improving without a mandate and that risks going backwards and delaying really being done with masks and everything else with the pandemic. Businesses in our county do not enforce the mask rule, obviously. The owners are part of our same mostly Republican community. I know many of them and know their political stances on the subject. I am not trying to equate not wearing a mask as a crime at all. Some may, but I am not. All I'm saying is, in my experience, people will only wear them when truly forced to.
This may be only in my area and may be better served by a county mandate vs. a state mandate. Our current board is 100% Republican and likely would not touch that subject.
Now, to your question about restaurants. Yes, I fully support opening them to 100% capacity. The data has not shown a huge influx of cases from increasing capacity, no. There is data that has shown that there is an increased risk of catching COVID-19 if eating out in a restaurant. The purpose of wearing it to your seat is to prevent possible spread before you get there when you pass others whom you have had no contact with previously or spreading it to the waiter or waitress. I do think restaraunts/bars in particular could lower mask requirements pretty quickly if we continue on the trend we are going on. Inconvenience, yes. Is there data to show that it does lower risk somewhat, yes.
ETA: this will be my last post on the subject for a while. You may still reply. I just know y'all don't want to read my long opinions every third post.
More CDC rules are coming in the next day or so:
"The following is an excerpt from an article in WebMD:"
"The CDC will recommend that vaccinated people try to only socialize with other vaccinated people at home. They should still wear masks elsewhere while observing other safety measures, such as social distancing, reported Politico, citing two unnamed senior administration officials."
My wife has now gotten her first vaccine dose and I will likely not get mine until Phase 5 (sometime in April?). I just told her I have to move out so I do not violate the latest rules from CDC.
When do fully vaccinated people get to stop wearing a mask in public?
"The following is an excerpt from an article in WebMD:"
"The CDC will recommend that vaccinated people try to only socialize with other vaccinated people at home. They should still wear masks elsewhere while observing other safety measures, such as social distancing, reported Politico, citing two unnamed senior administration officials."
My wife has now gotten her first vaccine dose and I will likely not get mine until Phase 5 (sometime in April?). I just told her I have to move out so I do not violate the latest rules from CDC.
When do fully vaccinated people get to stop wearing a mask in public?
TheStorm said:And I think you will be wrong, but I know that you can't help yourself. HUGE!SexualChocolate said:
I'm not saying this is right or wrong but let's look at the numbers in 2 weeks. I assume you will see a huge spike in cases.
You should be on TV. CNN would probally love you.
I would definitely be better than that idiot Cuomo.
SexualChocolate said:TheStorm said:And I think you will be wrong, but I know that you can't help yourself. HUGE!SexualChocolate said:
I'm not saying this is right or wrong but let's look at the numbers in 2 weeks. I assume you will see a huge spike in cases.
You should be on TV. CNN would probally love you.
I would definitely be better than those Cuomo idiots.
ftfy
PackPA2015 said:packgrad said:I didn't bring politics into it at all. Your last 2 words say it all though, and that's why mask wearing has become compared to a crime. Because supposedly Republicans are against masks for political beliefs.PackPA2015 said:Texas was just the first to get the ball rolling on repealing mask mandates, so they just happen to be whom we are discussing. I disagree with Mississippi and any one else that is repealing them. I do not think the data shows that we are ready for that yet. I think wait till vaccination rates are closer to 50% (preferably higher, but I am willing to compromise) of the population in question. Wait till transmission rates, hospitalizations and deaths are at a more tolerable level. To me, that is not too much to ask. I do NOT agree with continued business closures. I think opening up businesses is perfectly fine just to make that clear. I live in a rural area with about 70% of voters registered as Republicans (the party that tends to not like the masks due to government asking them to wear it). We still have individuals that come into our medical office refusing to wear a mask. We have to refuse to see them based on our own beliefs and company policy. So I do not believe, at least in my little area, that a majority of individuals would still wear their mask unless they are forced to. That has shaped my beliefs tremendously on the mask mandates.packgrad said:PackPA2015 said:But that's the point of the study to try to address that question, if you remove this variable or this one and still have this variable present, what happens?wilmwolf80 said:
To be honest, I don't care to read any of the articles or studies. I don't see how you can eliminate enough variables to say definitively that the mandate is what changed numbers. Most mask mandates I know of coincided with other measures, capacity, travel, school etc. It was also during a period of time when a large number of people shifted to working from home. You also had a large number of people masking on their own. Is there correlation there between mandates and lowering numbers? I guess. There's just a lot of variables there. There are also plenty of spikes that happened post mask mandates too. Mask mandates also don't cover the most likely transmission scenarios, which is mostly sitting in your home with someone who is sick. You'll never convince me that a bunch of people were saved from getting the virus walking down the grocery store aisle because they were wearing masks, because the science says the risk of getting the virus by just walking past someone is extremely unlikely. I'm with Wayland, I'm against dealing in absolutes in scenarios with so many unknowns and variables.
So if we do open businesses 100% and we get away from social distancing and we go back to school, what happens if we leave the mask mandates as is? What happens if we repeal the mask mandates? I do not want to be a part of the real life study of removing everything and seeing what happens, but that's just me. 2020 was horrific enough as is.
Because the mandates are not necessary. Businesses can still require it if they so desire. You currently have 40 some states sharing your uniformity of thought so far with the handling of the virus. Why are you opposed to Texas making the decision for themselves?
I don't know that you are necessarily inferring that I disagree because it's a Republican governor, but if you are, that is incorrect. I am a registered Republican with fiscal and social conservative beliefs, for the most part. I am just trying to practice medicine based on evidence and data and not political beliefs.
Also, your definition of tolerable is not universal. Clearly these other states disagree with your level of tolerance. We have been told bogus timetables for 1 year that continuously get rolled back until we meet some mythological level of tolerance. The president is now saying we're still a year out. Just a little longer rings hollow to many.
Restaurants are a great example of opening to 100%. I've gone to restaurants since they've been opened. I don't believe that I am unsafe on the walk to the table whereby I need to wear a mask to protect myself and others, but miraculously safe for myself and others once I sit down. There has not been a huge influx of virus cases due to restaurants opening for dining inside. If you are fine with opening to 100%, are you also fine with full restaurants where people wear masks while they walk in the door, and go to the bathroom, but then take them off once they sit down? Same with breweries. Same with bars. Does the act of sitting down suddenly provide safety from the virus whereby these businesses can open to 100%? I don't believe that has anything to do with evidence or data if you believe that is safe for these businesses to be open to 100% now, but only if we have a mask mandate. I just don't believe that people really are for opening to 100% while still having a mask mandate. It doesn't make sense. It sounds like a talking point that no one really believes, or hasn't thought through.
Without a mask mandate, your business still has the same right to refuse service to the 70% Republicans that refuse to wear masks when they come to your office. Same as any other businesses that requires them for entry.
I really believe our opinions are not that far apart on these issues. I agree wholeheartedly about the timetables being misinformed or misconstrued. It is wrong by our current administration to lie to us about that. It is also wrong for governors to lie and say we are out of the pandemic.
In my experience, the Republicans that have refused to wear a mask into our medical office, when asked, would state directly it was due to basically the government telling them what to do and that they didn't believe they worked anyways. Our office requires an actual medical mask which we provide if need be to enter. When I go to the grocery store or whatnot with my mask on, in most places in our county, masking is probably less than 50%. This is with large signs outside of every business stating masks are required. Heck, I even had to ask my own parents to wear a mask when they were out at church or wherever. We had a long discussion. Their reason why they did not want to wear masks - because the Governor is a Democrat and masks don't actually work. I just don't see this improving without a mandate and that risks going backwards and delaying really being done with masks and everything else with the pandemic. Businesses in our county do not enforce the mask rule, obviously. The owners are part of our same mostly Republican community. I know many of them and know their political stances on the subject. I am not trying to equate not wearing a mask as a crime at all. Some may, but I am not. All I'm saying is, in my experience, people will only wear them when truly forced to.
This may be only in my area and may be better served by a county mandate vs. a state mandate. Our current board is 100% Republican and likely would not touch that subject.
Now, to your question about restaurants. Yes, I fully support opening them to 100% capacity. The data has not shown a huge influx of cases from increasing capacity, no. There is data that has shown that there is an increased risk of catching COVID-19 if eating out in a restaurant. The purpose of wearing it to your seat is to prevent possible spread before you get there when you pass others whom you have had no contact with previously or spreading it to the waiter or waitress. I do think restaraunts/bars in particular could lower mask requirements pretty quickly if we continue on the trend we are going on. Inconvenience, yes. Is there data to show that it does lower risk somewhat, yes.
ETA: this will be my last post on the subject for a while. You may still reply. I just know y'all don't want to read my long opinions every third post.
If in your county less than 50% of people wear masks in public and cases aren't exploding , that sounds like evidence masks are unnecessary.
But look at California and New York with their superior humans that wear masks religiously and their TOTAL control of the virus. SCIENCE!!
packgrad said:PackPA2015 said:packgrad said:I didn't bring politics into it at all. Your last 2 words say it all though, and that's why mask wearing has become compared to a crime. Because supposedly Republicans are against masks for political beliefs.PackPA2015 said:Texas was just the first to get the ball rolling on repealing mask mandates, so they just happen to be whom we are discussing. I disagree with Mississippi and any one else that is repealing them. I do not think the data shows that we are ready for that yet. I think wait till vaccination rates are closer to 50% (preferably higher, but I am willing to compromise) of the population in question. Wait till transmission rates, hospitalizations and deaths are at a more tolerable level. To me, that is not too much to ask. I do NOT agree with continued business closures. I think opening up businesses is perfectly fine just to make that clear. I live in a rural area with about 70% of voters registered as Republicans (the party that tends to not like the masks due to government asking them to wear it). We still have individuals that come into our medical office refusing to wear a mask. We have to refuse to see them based on our own beliefs and company policy. So I do not believe, at least in my little area, that a majority of individuals would still wear their mask unless they are forced to. That has shaped my beliefs tremendously on the mask mandates.packgrad said:PackPA2015 said:But that's the point of the study to try to address that question, if you remove this variable or this one and still have this variable present, what happens?wilmwolf80 said:
To be honest, I don't care to read any of the articles or studies. I don't see how you can eliminate enough variables to say definitively that the mandate is what changed numbers. Most mask mandates I know of coincided with other measures, capacity, travel, school etc. It was also during a period of time when a large number of people shifted to working from home. You also had a large number of people masking on their own. Is there correlation there between mandates and lowering numbers? I guess. There's just a lot of variables there. There are also plenty of spikes that happened post mask mandates too. Mask mandates also don't cover the most likely transmission scenarios, which is mostly sitting in your home with someone who is sick. You'll never convince me that a bunch of people were saved from getting the virus walking down the grocery store aisle because they were wearing masks, because the science says the risk of getting the virus by just walking past someone is extremely unlikely. I'm with Wayland, I'm against dealing in absolutes in scenarios with so many unknowns and variables.
So if we do open businesses 100% and we get away from social distancing and we go back to school, what happens if we leave the mask mandates as is? What happens if we repeal the mask mandates? I do not want to be a part of the real life study of removing everything and seeing what happens, but that's just me. 2020 was horrific enough as is.
Because the mandates are not necessary. Businesses can still require it if they so desire. You currently have 40 some states sharing your uniformity of thought so far with the handling of the virus. Why are you opposed to Texas making the decision for themselves?
I don't know that you are necessarily inferring that I disagree because it's a Republican governor, but if you are, that is incorrect. I am a registered Republican with fiscal and social conservative beliefs, for the most part. I am just trying to practice medicine based on evidence and data and not political beliefs.
Also, your definition of tolerable is not universal. Clearly these other states disagree with your level of tolerance. We have been told bogus timetables for 1 year that continuously get rolled back until we meet some mythological level of tolerance. The president is now saying we're still a year out. Just a little longer rings hollow to many.
Restaurants are a great example of opening to 100%. I've gone to restaurants since they've been opened. I don't believe that I am unsafe on the walk to the table whereby I need to wear a mask to protect myself and others, but miraculously safe for myself and others once I sit down. There has not been a huge influx of virus cases due to restaurants opening for dining inside. If you are fine with opening to 100%, are you also fine with full restaurants where people wear masks while they walk in the door, and go to the bathroom, but then take them off once they sit down? Same with breweries. Same with bars. Does the act of sitting down suddenly provide safety from the virus whereby these businesses can open to 100%? I don't believe that has anything to do with evidence or data if you believe that is safe for these businesses to be open to 100% now, but only if we have a mask mandate. I just don't believe that people really are for opening to 100% while still having a mask mandate. It doesn't make sense. It sounds like a talking point that no one really believes, or hasn't thought through.
Without a mask mandate, your business still has the same right to refuse service to the 70% Republicans that refuse to wear masks when they come to your office. Same as any other businesses that requires them for entry.
I really believe our opinions are not that far apart on these issues. I agree wholeheartedly about the timetables being misinformed or misconstrued. It is wrong by our current administration to lie to us about that. It is also wrong for governors to lie and say we are out of the pandemic.
In my experience, the Republicans that have refused to wear a mask into our medical office, when asked, would state directly it was due to basically the government telling them what to do and that they didn't believe they worked anyways. Our office requires an actual medical mask which we provide if need be to enter. When I go to the grocery store or whatnot with my mask on, in most places in our county, masking is probably less than 50%. This is with large signs outside of every business stating masks are required. Heck, I even had to ask my own parents to wear a mask when they were out at church or wherever. We had a long discussion. Their reason why they did not want to wear masks - because the Governor is a Democrat and masks don't actually work. I just don't see this improving without a mandate and that risks going backwards and delaying really being done with masks and everything else with the pandemic. Businesses in our county do not enforce the mask rule, obviously. The owners are part of our same mostly Republican community. I know many of them and know their political stances on the subject. I am not trying to equate not wearing a mask as a crime at all. Some may, but I am not. All I'm saying is, in my experience, people will only wear them when truly forced to.
This may be only in my area and may be better served by a county mandate vs. a state mandate. Our current board is 100% Republican and likely would not touch that subject.
Now, to your question about restaurants. Yes, I fully support opening them to 100% capacity. The data has not shown a huge influx of cases from increasing capacity, no. There is data that has shown that there is an increased risk of catching COVID-19 if eating out in a restaurant. The purpose of wearing it to your seat is to prevent possible spread before you get there when you pass others whom you have had no contact with previously or spreading it to the waiter or waitress. I do think restaraunts/bars in particular could lower mask requirements pretty quickly if we continue on the trend we are going on. Inconvenience, yes. Is there data to show that it does lower risk somewhat, yes.
ETA: this will be my last post on the subject for a while. You may still reply. I just know y'all don't want to read my long opinions every third post.
If in your county less than 50% of people wear masks in public and cases aren't exploding , that sounds like evidence masks are unnecessary.
To be fair, that depends on a lot of variables doesn't it? Just like the studies he cited that some admit they don't read because you can't control for all the variables that affect the outcome? Big difference between mecklenburg county and a little mountain county i suspect. If he's in a bustling county and there are lots of gatherings and going out and hanging out without masks and cases are low, then yep i agree. That's evidence that in his particular county masks aren't necessary until they are. And then I'm moving there, because I'm tired of this sht.
Daviewolf83 said:
More CDC rules are coming in the next day or so:
"The following is an excerpt from an article in WebMD:"
"The CDC will recommend that vaccinated people try to only socialize with other vaccinated people at home. They should still wear masks elsewhere while observing other safety measures, such as social distancing, reported Politico, citing two unnamed senior administration officials."
My wife has now gotten her first vaccine dose and I will likely not get mine until Phase 5 (sometime in April?). I just told her I have to move out so I do not violate the latest rules from CDC.
When do fully vaccinated people get to stop wearing a mask in public?
I suspect the answer is: 1. When there is a better understanding that the vaccines actually reduce transmission, and 2. When most public interactions are between vaccinated people. At least that's when i can see there being a published or written statement that we can throw these things away.
Mormad said:packgrad said:PackPA2015 said:packgrad said:I didn't bring politics into it at all. Your last 2 words say it all though, and that's why mask wearing has become compared to a crime. Because supposedly Republicans are against masks for political beliefs.PackPA2015 said:Texas was just the first to get the ball rolling on repealing mask mandates, so they just happen to be whom we are discussing. I disagree with Mississippi and any one else that is repealing them. I do not think the data shows that we are ready for that yet. I think wait till vaccination rates are closer to 50% (preferably higher, but I am willing to compromise) of the population in question. Wait till transmission rates, hospitalizations and deaths are at a more tolerable level. To me, that is not too much to ask. I do NOT agree with continued business closures. I think opening up businesses is perfectly fine just to make that clear. I live in a rural area with about 70% of voters registered as Republicans (the party that tends to not like the masks due to government asking them to wear it). We still have individuals that come into our medical office refusing to wear a mask. We have to refuse to see them based on our own beliefs and company policy. So I do not believe, at least in my little area, that a majority of individuals would still wear their mask unless they are forced to. That has shaped my beliefs tremendously on the mask mandates.packgrad said:PackPA2015 said:But that's the point of the study to try to address that question, if you remove this variable or this one and still have this variable present, what happens?wilmwolf80 said:
To be honest, I don't care to read any of the articles or studies. I don't see how you can eliminate enough variables to say definitively that the mandate is what changed numbers. Most mask mandates I know of coincided with other measures, capacity, travel, school etc. It was also during a period of time when a large number of people shifted to working from home. You also had a large number of people masking on their own. Is there correlation there between mandates and lowering numbers? I guess. There's just a lot of variables there. There are also plenty of spikes that happened post mask mandates too. Mask mandates also don't cover the most likely transmission scenarios, which is mostly sitting in your home with someone who is sick. You'll never convince me that a bunch of people were saved from getting the virus walking down the grocery store aisle because they were wearing masks, because the science says the risk of getting the virus by just walking past someone is extremely unlikely. I'm with Wayland, I'm against dealing in absolutes in scenarios with so many unknowns and variables.
So if we do open businesses 100% and we get away from social distancing and we go back to school, what happens if we leave the mask mandates as is? What happens if we repeal the mask mandates? I do not want to be a part of the real life study of removing everything and seeing what happens, but that's just me. 2020 was horrific enough as is.
Because the mandates are not necessary. Businesses can still require it if they so desire. You currently have 40 some states sharing your uniformity of thought so far with the handling of the virus. Why are you opposed to Texas making the decision for themselves?
I don't know that you are necessarily inferring that I disagree because it's a Republican governor, but if you are, that is incorrect. I am a registered Republican with fiscal and social conservative beliefs, for the most part. I am just trying to practice medicine based on evidence and data and not political beliefs.
Also, your definition of tolerable is not universal. Clearly these other states disagree with your level of tolerance. We have been told bogus timetables for 1 year that continuously get rolled back until we meet some mythological level of tolerance. The president is now saying we're still a year out. Just a little longer rings hollow to many.
Restaurants are a great example of opening to 100%. I've gone to restaurants since they've been opened. I don't believe that I am unsafe on the walk to the table whereby I need to wear a mask to protect myself and others, but miraculously safe for myself and others once I sit down. There has not been a huge influx of virus cases due to restaurants opening for dining inside. If you are fine with opening to 100%, are you also fine with full restaurants where people wear masks while they walk in the door, and go to the bathroom, but then take them off once they sit down? Same with breweries. Same with bars. Does the act of sitting down suddenly provide safety from the virus whereby these businesses can open to 100%? I don't believe that has anything to do with evidence or data if you believe that is safe for these businesses to be open to 100% now, but only if we have a mask mandate. I just don't believe that people really are for opening to 100% while still having a mask mandate. It doesn't make sense. It sounds like a talking point that no one really believes, or hasn't thought through.
Without a mask mandate, your business still has the same right to refuse service to the 70% Republicans that refuse to wear masks when they come to your office. Same as any other businesses that requires them for entry.
I really believe our opinions are not that far apart on these issues. I agree wholeheartedly about the timetables being misinformed or misconstrued. It is wrong by our current administration to lie to us about that. It is also wrong for governors to lie and say we are out of the pandemic.
In my experience, the Republicans that have refused to wear a mask into our medical office, when asked, would state directly it was due to basically the government telling them what to do and that they didn't believe they worked anyways. Our office requires an actual medical mask which we provide if need be to enter. When I go to the grocery store or whatnot with my mask on, in most places in our county, masking is probably less than 50%. This is with large signs outside of every business stating masks are required. Heck, I even had to ask my own parents to wear a mask when they were out at church or wherever. We had a long discussion. Their reason why they did not want to wear masks - because the Governor is a Democrat and masks don't actually work. I just don't see this improving without a mandate and that risks going backwards and delaying really being done with masks and everything else with the pandemic. Businesses in our county do not enforce the mask rule, obviously. The owners are part of our same mostly Republican community. I know many of them and know their political stances on the subject. I am not trying to equate not wearing a mask as a crime at all. Some may, but I am not. All I'm saying is, in my experience, people will only wear them when truly forced to.
This may be only in my area and may be better served by a county mandate vs. a state mandate. Our current board is 100% Republican and likely would not touch that subject.
Now, to your question about restaurants. Yes, I fully support opening them to 100% capacity. The data has not shown a huge influx of cases from increasing capacity, no. There is data that has shown that there is an increased risk of catching COVID-19 if eating out in a restaurant. The purpose of wearing it to your seat is to prevent possible spread before you get there when you pass others whom you have had no contact with previously or spreading it to the waiter or waitress. I do think restaraunts/bars in particular could lower mask requirements pretty quickly if we continue on the trend we are going on. Inconvenience, yes. Is there data to show that it does lower risk somewhat, yes.
ETA: this will be my last post on the subject for a while. You may still reply. I just know y'all don't want to read my long opinions every third post.
If in your county less than 50% of people wear masks in public and cases aren't exploding , that sounds like evidence masks are unnecessary.
To be fair, that depends on a lot of variables doesn't it? Just like the studies he cited that some admit they don't read because you can't control for all the variables that affect the outcome? Big difference between mecklenburg county and a little mountain county i suspect. If he's in a bustling county and there are lots of gatherings and going out and hanging out without masks and cases are low, then yep i agree. That's evidence that in his particular county masks aren't necessary until they are. And then I'm moving there, because I'm tired of this sht.
Sure. But if your opinion is based on evidence and data as he said, then the data he presented for his county is evidence that perhaps masks are unnecessary, and even moreso that a mandate is worthless. If less than 50% have been wearing masks the entire pandemic, I would say that is even more evidence.
This isn't scientific by any means, but back when we had early morning temps in the low 20s and you could easily see your breath in the outdoor lighting, I put on a mask to observe the difference. This was a normal adjustable cloth mask, not an N95 mask. While it clearly didn't stop all condensation from being released, it also clearly reduced the radius of the cloud by quite a bit.
So my conclusion - non-medical and non-scientific - was that, since COVID is spread mainly by aerosols, masks probably do make a difference in settings where people are in transient contact, like grocery stores and spaces with a lot of people passing through. But I doubt they do much where you have a group of people together for a long time, like in a conference room or a small restaurant or a house with visitors.
I have mixed feelings about lifting business restrictions. With things trending in the right direction and no more big gathering-type holidays in the near future, and with vaccines rolling out, it feels like we should be able to ease up. But without knowing for sure what total normalcy will do, I'd really really hate to see us go backwards a second or third time just as we seem to be exiting the tunnel. I guess Texas and Mississippi will be the test beds.
So my conclusion - non-medical and non-scientific - was that, since COVID is spread mainly by aerosols, masks probably do make a difference in settings where people are in transient contact, like grocery stores and spaces with a lot of people passing through. But I doubt they do much where you have a group of people together for a long time, like in a conference room or a small restaurant or a house with visitors.
I have mixed feelings about lifting business restrictions. With things trending in the right direction and no more big gathering-type holidays in the near future, and with vaccines rolling out, it feels like we should be able to ease up. But without knowing for sure what total normalcy will do, I'd really really hate to see us go backwards a second or third time just as we seem to be exiting the tunnel. I guess Texas and Mississippi will be the test beds.
How do we measure the first point and will the CDC accept studies and evidence from other countries that might be ahead of the US in getting shorts in arms? To test if vaccines reduce transmission, I would think you have to measure this with people who are not wearing masks, otherwise the fact a mask was worn biases the study. I am just wondering how the studies to show this would be setup and how quickly should we expect to get to some conclusion on this point. Many of the reports I read quoting people familiar with the vaccines and how they work think it is highly unlikely the vaccines will not reduce transmission.Mormad said:Daviewolf83 said:
More CDC rules are coming in the next day or so:
"The following is an excerpt from an article in WebMD:"
"The CDC will recommend that vaccinated people try to only socialize with other vaccinated people at home. They should still wear masks elsewhere while observing other safety measures, such as social distancing, reported Politico, citing two unnamed senior administration officials."
My wife has now gotten her first vaccine dose and I will likely not get mine until Phase 5 (sometime in April?). I just told her I have to move out so I do not violate the latest rules from CDC.
When do fully vaccinated people get to stop wearing a mask in public?
I suspect the answer is: 1. When there is a better understanding that the vaccines actually reduce transmission, and 2. When most public interactions are between vaccinated people. At least that's when i can see there being a published or written statement that we can throw these things away.
Additionally, even if they don't reduce transmission, but they significantly reduce hospitalizations and severe illness, would this not be enough to open back up, since the whole purpose of restricting activities in the first place was to reduce these things.
As far as point two is concerned, how much is "most"? I project by late May, half of the eligible (aged 18+) population of NC will have received at least one dose and they should be fully vaccinated by late June. Is this enough? I think we will eventually get to 70-ish% vaccinated and then hit somewhat of a wall. Do we have to wait to get to 70% (probably in the Fall, since rate of vaccination will slow) or could we remove masks after 50%?
I personally believe it is going to be more and more difficult to ask people to wear a mask and social distance once half the population is fully vaccinated.
Dang it, Packgrad, you pulled me back in!packgrad said:Mormad said:packgrad said:PackPA2015 said:packgrad said:I didn't bring politics into it at all. Your last 2 words say it all though, and that's why mask wearing has become compared to a crime. Because supposedly Republicans are against masks for political beliefs.PackPA2015 said:Texas was just the first to get the ball rolling on repealing mask mandates, so they just happen to be whom we are discussing. I disagree with Mississippi and any one else that is repealing them. I do not think the data shows that we are ready for that yet. I think wait till vaccination rates are closer to 50% (preferably higher, but I am willing to compromise) of the population in question. Wait till transmission rates, hospitalizations and deaths are at a more tolerable level. To me, that is not too much to ask. I do NOT agree with continued business closures. I think opening up businesses is perfectly fine just to make that clear. I live in a rural area with about 70% of voters registered as Republicans (the party that tends to not like the masks due to government asking them to wear it). We still have individuals that come into our medical office refusing to wear a mask. We have to refuse to see them based on our own beliefs and company policy. So I do not believe, at least in my little area, that a majority of individuals would still wear their mask unless they are forced to. That has shaped my beliefs tremendously on the mask mandates.packgrad said:PackPA2015 said:But that's the point of the study to try to address that question, if you remove this variable or this one and still have this variable present, what happens?wilmwolf80 said:
To be honest, I don't care to read any of the articles or studies. I don't see how you can eliminate enough variables to say definitively that the mandate is what changed numbers. Most mask mandates I know of coincided with other measures, capacity, travel, school etc. It was also during a period of time when a large number of people shifted to working from home. You also had a large number of people masking on their own. Is there correlation there between mandates and lowering numbers? I guess. There's just a lot of variables there. There are also plenty of spikes that happened post mask mandates too. Mask mandates also don't cover the most likely transmission scenarios, which is mostly sitting in your home with someone who is sick. You'll never convince me that a bunch of people were saved from getting the virus walking down the grocery store aisle because they were wearing masks, because the science says the risk of getting the virus by just walking past someone is extremely unlikely. I'm with Wayland, I'm against dealing in absolutes in scenarios with so many unknowns and variables.
So if we do open businesses 100% and we get away from social distancing and we go back to school, what happens if we leave the mask mandates as is? What happens if we repeal the mask mandates? I do not want to be a part of the real life study of removing everything and seeing what happens, but that's just me. 2020 was horrific enough as is.
Because the mandates are not necessary. Businesses can still require it if they so desire. You currently have 40 some states sharing your uniformity of thought so far with the handling of the virus. Why are you opposed to Texas making the decision for themselves?
I don't know that you are necessarily inferring that I disagree because it's a Republican governor, but if you are, that is incorrect. I am a registered Republican with fiscal and social conservative beliefs, for the most part. I am just trying to practice medicine based on evidence and data and not political beliefs.
Also, your definition of tolerable is not universal. Clearly these other states disagree with your level of tolerance. We have been told bogus timetables for 1 year that continuously get rolled back until we meet some mythological level of tolerance. The president is now saying we're still a year out. Just a little longer rings hollow to many.
Restaurants are a great example of opening to 100%. I've gone to restaurants since they've been opened. I don't believe that I am unsafe on the walk to the table whereby I need to wear a mask to protect myself and others, but miraculously safe for myself and others once I sit down. There has not been a huge influx of virus cases due to restaurants opening for dining inside. If you are fine with opening to 100%, are you also fine with full restaurants where people wear masks while they walk in the door, and go to the bathroom, but then take them off once they sit down? Same with breweries. Same with bars. Does the act of sitting down suddenly provide safety from the virus whereby these businesses can open to 100%? I don't believe that has anything to do with evidence or data if you believe that is safe for these businesses to be open to 100% now, but only if we have a mask mandate. I just don't believe that people really are for opening to 100% while still having a mask mandate. It doesn't make sense. It sounds like a talking point that no one really believes, or hasn't thought through.
Without a mask mandate, your business still has the same right to refuse service to the 70% Republicans that refuse to wear masks when they come to your office. Same as any other businesses that requires them for entry.
I really believe our opinions are not that far apart on these issues. I agree wholeheartedly about the timetables being misinformed or misconstrued. It is wrong by our current administration to lie to us about that. It is also wrong for governors to lie and say we are out of the pandemic.
In my experience, the Republicans that have refused to wear a mask into our medical office, when asked, would state directly it was due to basically the government telling them what to do and that they didn't believe they worked anyways. Our office requires an actual medical mask which we provide if need be to enter. When I go to the grocery store or whatnot with my mask on, in most places in our county, masking is probably less than 50%. This is with large signs outside of every business stating masks are required. Heck, I even had to ask my own parents to wear a mask when they were out at church or wherever. We had a long discussion. Their reason why they did not want to wear masks - because the Governor is a Democrat and masks don't actually work. I just don't see this improving without a mandate and that risks going backwards and delaying really being done with masks and everything else with the pandemic. Businesses in our county do not enforce the mask rule, obviously. The owners are part of our same mostly Republican community. I know many of them and know their political stances on the subject. I am not trying to equate not wearing a mask as a crime at all. Some may, but I am not. All I'm saying is, in my experience, people will only wear them when truly forced to.
This may be only in my area and may be better served by a county mandate vs. a state mandate. Our current board is 100% Republican and likely would not touch that subject.
Now, to your question about restaurants. Yes, I fully support opening them to 100% capacity. The data has not shown a huge influx of cases from increasing capacity, no. There is data that has shown that there is an increased risk of catching COVID-19 if eating out in a restaurant. The purpose of wearing it to your seat is to prevent possible spread before you get there when you pass others whom you have had no contact with previously or spreading it to the waiter or waitress. I do think restaraunts/bars in particular could lower mask requirements pretty quickly if we continue on the trend we are going on. Inconvenience, yes. Is there data to show that it does lower risk somewhat, yes.
ETA: this will be my last post on the subject for a while. You may still reply. I just know y'all don't want to read my long opinions every third post.
If in your county less than 50% of people wear masks in public and cases aren't exploding , that sounds like evidence masks are unnecessary.
To be fair, that depends on a lot of variables doesn't it? Just like the studies he cited that some admit they don't read because you can't control for all the variables that affect the outcome? Big difference between mecklenburg county and a little mountain county i suspect. If he's in a bustling county and there are lots of gatherings and going out and hanging out without masks and cases are low, then yep i agree. That's evidence that in his particular county masks aren't necessary until they are. And then I'm moving there, because I'm tired of this sht.
Sure. But if your opinion is based on evidence and data as he said, then the data he presented for his county is evidence that perhaps masks are unnecessary, and even moreso that a mandate is worthless. If less than 50% have been wearing masks the entire pandemic, I would say that is even more evidence.
We definitely had explosions of cases and our cases/hospitalizations/deaths were delayed so we are dealing with it longer than on average as compared to the rest of NC. So, no, on the contrary, masks were necessary and people still refused and lost family members and friends to COVID. We were running a 22%-25% positivity rate for about 3-4 months straight. It was awful. We were way above the NC average for a while. Vaccination rates have improved (no thanks to the local health department) which has decreased that positivity rate, but we still have a ways to go. So while other counties may be enjoying lower numbers, we are about 2-3 months behind them because of the lack of masking and other recommendations. We were top 5 of counties in NC in per capita cases, hospitalizations, and deaths for quite some time. I think that has improved, but not by much.
ETA: just looked it up, we are currently top 20 in # of deaths with a population 1/4 of the size of some of those counties.
This issue is so fraught because mask efficacy is not universally believed.
Few would make a similar argument (anymore) about secondhand smoking or other analogies that involve the liberty for one person to make a personal conduct decision that has negative health impacts on others around them.
That's a much less compelling analogy if a person believe that their mask-wearing doesn't potentially impact someone else's health.
Few would make a similar argument (anymore) about secondhand smoking or other analogies that involve the liberty for one person to make a personal conduct decision that has negative health impacts on others around them.
That's a much less compelling analogy if a person believe that their mask-wearing doesn't potentially impact someone else's health.
packgrad said:
I use that quote all the time about State sports.
I will say, I really appreciate the back and forth on this thread. We don't always agree, but you guys research good sources and make strong points and that makes the conversation much more enjoyable for all. I have gleaned some really good info and opinions from this thread over the past year. Just want to say thanks.
Thanks for posting this is definitely a very positive development, considering over 40% of deaths in NC have come from nursing homes residents and other LTC facilities. For example, of the 47 deaths "reported" today by NCDHHS, 23 of these deaths came from congregate facilities. Likely a lot of these are aged deaths, considering the deaths reported today extend back to May of 2020.statefan91 said:
Thought this was a pretty solid thing to see progress on.
statefan91 said:
Thought this was a pretty solid thing to see progress on.
Great to see.
Although there is a still massive amounts of lag in the overall statewide death reporting from DHHS (a death from May 11, 2020 was just reported TODAY), I have started to see a recent trending down in percent of deaths overall coming from congregate settings.
I have been watching the daily hospital admissions and the age demographics around these numbers. The graphs below show clearly how the daily hospital admissions are falling, in line with what we see with overall hospitalization numbers.
You can see from the second graph posted that the 80+ age group seems to be the biggest contributor to this decline. In fact, the other key age groups (50-59, 60-69, and 70-79) are flat to trending slightly up. I really do believe the decline in the 80+ age group hospitalization is directly related to the vaccinations taking place in this age group. I am not sure why you are not seeing a similar drop in the 70-79 age group, but it could be the possibility that more of this age group is likely to live outside of LTC facilities. As vaccinations continue to increase, I would expect the trends for the age group to also turn around.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, NC has seen approximately 56% of the 65+ age group receive their first dose of the vaccine. As we get closer to the end of April, I expect this will be closer to 70-80%.
Daily Hospital Admissions (Data Source: NCDHHS):
Daily Hospital Admissions by Select Age Groups (Data Source: NCDHHS):
The 80+ age group has been highlighted to aid readability.
You can see from the second graph posted that the 80+ age group seems to be the biggest contributor to this decline. In fact, the other key age groups (50-59, 60-69, and 70-79) are flat to trending slightly up. I really do believe the decline in the 80+ age group hospitalization is directly related to the vaccinations taking place in this age group. I am not sure why you are not seeing a similar drop in the 70-79 age group, but it could be the possibility that more of this age group is likely to live outside of LTC facilities. As vaccinations continue to increase, I would expect the trends for the age group to also turn around.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, NC has seen approximately 56% of the 65+ age group receive their first dose of the vaccine. As we get closer to the end of April, I expect this will be closer to 70-80%.
Daily Hospital Admissions (Data Source: NCDHHS):
Daily Hospital Admissions by Select Age Groups (Data Source: NCDHHS):
The 80+ age group has been highlighted to aid readability.
I believe I have seen you post that you are in support of opening up 100% but mandate masks. If this is the case I am curious about a few things. If not sorry I may have the wrong person.Civilized said:
This issue is so fraught because mask efficacy is not universally believed.
Few would make a similar argument (anymore) about secondhand smoking or other analogies that involve the liberty for one person to make a personal conduct decision that has negative health impacts on others around them.
That's a much less compelling analogy if a person believe that their mask-wearing doesn't potentially impact someone else's health.
Why should mask efficacy be believed? I am not arguing the logic of something in front of your face should slow down transmission of "whatever" from you nose and mouth.
My concern is more that there is no standards around masks. The only place I ever see type of mask restrictions is with airlines. And even on airlines you get numerous types of masks.
Without a standard you are going to have numerous levels of mask efficacy with a large amount of variation? Agree?
With that much variation how can you support 100% opening with a mask mandate but no standard mask? That seems scientifically flawed.
Per PackPa I appreciate the banter for a topic we all wish was never around.
Arizona lifting restrictions on businesses and ending mask mandate.
Cthepack said:I believe I have seen you post that you are in support of opening up 100% but mandate masks. If this is the case I am curious about a few things. If not sorry I may have the wrong person.Civilized said:
This issue is so fraught because mask efficacy is not universally believed.
Few would make a similar argument (anymore) about secondhand smoking or other analogies that involve the liberty for one person to make a personal conduct decision that has negative health impacts on others around them.
That's a much less compelling analogy if a person believe that their mask-wearing doesn't potentially impact someone else's health.
Why should mask efficacy be believed? I am not arguing the logic of something in front of your face should slow down transmission of "whatever" from you nose and mouth.
My concern is more that there is no standards around masks. The only place I ever see type of mask restrictions is with airlines. And even on airlines you get numerous types of masks.
Without a standard you are going to have numerous levels of mask efficacy with a large amount of variation? Agree?
With that much variation how can you support 100% opening with a mask mandate but no standard mask? That seems scientifically flawed.
Per PackPa I appreciate the banter for a topic we all wish was never around.
I appreciate the banter too.
A mask standard would be great to increase the aggregate quality of masks that are out there. I just feel like it would be time consuming to test and come up with, time consuming to get into production, impossible to enforce, all while the marginal benefit of going from masks to "even better masks" may not be where the action is. I think that within reason, having any reasonable barrier in front of your mouth and nose where virus gets projected from is the biggest deal.
I agree that as it stands, there are likely variations and sometimes wide variations, in mask efficacies.
Many businesses, especially small businesses, are hurting badly and it's time that they be given the opportunity to open fully.
I feel like when all the benefits and costs are weighed - economic, health, and emotional - at this point, with vaccines being widely and quickly distributed; cases, hospitalizations, and deaths all trending in a very positive direction; and severe fatigue with the virus and its direct and indirect effects setting in, it's the appropriate time to open back up.
When doing so, we just need to still be doing what we reasonably can to mitigate bad outcomes and wearing a mask is a clear part of that mitigation strategy.
Masks are all upside. People not wearing them are some version of "they're uncomfortable," "they don't work," or "nobody's gonna tell me what to do."
I said this many times on here but I just don't understand the logic.
If they don't work, you're occasionally wearing something (likely for not more than another three or four months) for no reason that's mildly uncomfortable.
If they do work, you're putting peoples lives at risk by not wearing one.
I hope we see that virtually everyone in Texas and other states that drop their mandates understands this and behaves accordingly.
Featured Stories
See All
IPS LIVE: NC State Baseball Weekly Podcast
by James Henderson
COMMIT ALERT: Louisville Guard Mike James Picks NC State
by James Henderson
IPS IN 5: The Evolution Of The Guard Position
by James Henderson
IPS TAKE: Dontrez Styles Transfer Decision
by James Henderson
IPS INTEL: Transfer Portal Guard On Campus
by James Henderson