How long can we wait while flattening the curve?

[OtherJen]

No more mask requirements here.  I won’t be wearing one unless where I’m going requires it.  My wife and I have both been vaccinated,  and pretty much everyone by now who wants a shot has had time to get it.

We are going to start traveling again this summer.

Yup, I'm 2 weeks out from my 2nd dose as is the wife and we are extremely healthy anyway. Neither of us even had a reaction to either doses. I'll wear a mask when a business requires it, but we're going back to normal. Going to a baseball game in a week, booked a family trip to Disney in June, going to Six Flags in July, and going on an anniversary trip to Nashville in July.

I am so excited for baseball. My parents are fully vaccinated, and my husband and I will be by the last week of May. I bought us 4 tickets to watch the Tigers vs. the Yankees at Comerica Park on May 30.

[RetiredAt63]

This just breaks my heart.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/sarah-strate-alberta-teen-unexplained-death-after-covid-exposure-1.6008021?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/covid-19-claims-teenagers-life-1.6002023

Our teens are not immune to this disease.

[lost_in_the_endless_aisle]

This just breaks my heart.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/sarah-strate-alberta-teen-unexplained-death-after-covid-exposure-1.6008021?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/covid-19-claims-teenagers-life-1.6002023

Our teens are not immune to this disease.

That first case tested negative for covid twice -- looks like it was something else from the information provided.

[marty998]

I do believe that the CDC is taking a sensible approach, which will result in the end of mask mandates at the federal level soon enough.

But there are a minority of people who think we should have the mask mandates - even outdoors - indefinitely. It's troubling that those people include public health officials with enormous power over our lives.

For example, the shelter-in-place order in my county still requires:

When people need to leave their place of residence for the limited purposes allowed in this Order, they must strictly comply with the following Social Distancing Requirements unless expressly exempted by this Order or the State’s Orders and Guidance:
a.Maintaining at least six-foot social distancing from individuals who are not part of the same household or living unit.
b.Wearing a face covering when outside the home, consistent with the State’s Guidance for the Use of Face Coverings.

(https://covid-19.acgov.org/covid19-assets/docs/shelter-in-place/21-01-social-distancing-eng.pdf)

These orders have no basis in reality.

Well they do have a basis in reality, because do you really want police and officials wasting their time asking maskless people to prove if they have been vaccinated or not? The vaccines have not been proven to be sterilising vaccines (such as the measles or Hep B jabs). So this means you can still catch Covid, and still pass it on and endanger the lives of unvaccinated people, even though your personal risk of illness and death is greatly diminished.

People don't glow green when they get vaccinated, so unless there is another quick and easy way to tell, the safest option for everyone is to continue wearing masks in places where Covid is still spreading (such as the US with 50,000+ per day)

It's not rocket science.

[jehovasfitness23]

I do believe that the CDC is taking a sensible approach, which will result in the end of mask mandates at the federal level soon enough.

But there are a minority of people who think we should have the mask mandates - even outdoors - indefinitely. It's troubling that those people include public health officials with enormous power over our lives.

For example, the shelter-in-place order in my county still requires:

When people need to leave their place of residence for the limited purposes allowed in this Order, they must strictly comply with the following Social Distancing Requirements unless expressly exempted by this Order or the State’s Orders and Guidance:
a.Maintaining at least six-foot social distancing from individuals who are not part of the same household or living unit.
b.Wearing a face covering when outside the home, consistent with the State’s Guidance for the Use of Face Coverings.

(https://covid-19.acgov.org/covid19-assets/docs/shelter-in-place/21-01-social-distancing-eng.pdf)

These orders have no basis in reality.

Well they do have a basis in reality, because do you really want police and officials wasting their time asking maskless people to prove if they have been vaccinated or not? The vaccines have not been proven to be sterilising vaccines (such as the measles or Hep B jabs). So this means you can still catch Covid, and still pass it on and endanger the lives of unvaccinated people, even though your personal risk of illness and death is greatly diminished.

People don't glow green when they get vaccinated, so unless there is another quick and easy way to tell, the safest option for everyone is to continue wearing masks in places where Covid is still spreading (such as the US with 50,000+ per day)

It's not rocket science.

my thoughts

[windytrail]

I do believe that the CDC is taking a sensible approach, which will result in the end of mask mandates at the federal level soon enough.

But there are a minority of people who think we should have the mask mandates - even outdoors - indefinitely. It's troubling that those people include public health officials with enormous power over our lives.

For example, the shelter-in-place order in my county still requires:

When people need to leave their place of residence for the limited purposes allowed in this Order, they must strictly comply with the following Social Distancing Requirements unless expressly exempted by this Order or the State’s Orders and Guidance:
a.Maintaining at least six-foot social distancing from individuals who are not part of the same household or living unit.
b.Wearing a face covering when outside the home, consistent with the State’s Guidance for the Use of Face Coverings.

(https://covid-19.acgov.org/covid19-assets/docs/shelter-in-place/21-01-social-distancing-eng.pdf)

These orders have no basis in reality.

Well they do have a basis in reality, because do you really want police and officials wasting their time asking maskless people to prove if they have been vaccinated or not? The vaccines have not been proven to be sterilising vaccines (such as the measles or Hep B jabs). So this means you can still catch Covid, and still pass it on and endanger the lives of unvaccinated people, even though your personal risk of illness and death is greatly diminished.

People don't glow green when they get vaccinated, so unless there is another quick and easy way to tell, the safest option for everyone is to continue wearing masks in places where Covid is still spreading (such as the US with 50,000+ per day)

It's not rocket science.

My post was specifically about mandates to wear masks outdoors, which have no basis in reality because outdoor transmission happens only very rarely or not at all. You are assuming that outdoor transmission is a concern, but that's what I'm questioning. Do you have any evidence to back up this assumption?

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

Masks outdoors are purely for theater, or to aid people in remembering to wear them in other situations (public transport) where they are actually needed.

Any policy based on pure theatre grates on me.

Also, while teens can die of covid (although it's not happened in my country), teens can also die of the flu. Covid is less deadly than the flu for people <30.

[Cranky]

Very few people here ever wore masks outside, mostly old people like myself.

I'm fully vaccinated, as is ever adult in my extended family, and I'll keep wearing masks inside and will avoid crowds, because - why not? Masks don't seem like that big a deal.

[Abe]

Any bets to how long this debate will continue? My guess is 2023.

[bacchi]

Any bets to how long this debate will continue? My guess is 2023.

2023: "Remember back in 2021 when we lost our freedoms and had to wear masks! If it wasn't for us No-Masker patriots, we'd be in a China factory right now!"

[StashingAway]

It's not rocket science.

It's no different from rocket science. Rocket science is just science and is, unfortunately for sound bite communication, nuanced. Wearing masks outdoors in an uncrowded area is just as unscientific as not wearing them in a crowded bar. In rocket science, it's about mitigating the largest risks to ensure a safe mission. At some point, spending more money and doing more testing has diminishing returns and increasing costs to the point that you won't get a rocket off the ground. Statistics lay the groundwork for analyzing risk here.

The absolute best way to stop COVID is for the whole planet to wear 100% PPE and not go outside for a year. But both of those things are technically correct in isolation, but overall do not progress humanity. There are inevitably health and social downsides to wearing masks for too long(especially outside). Nothing comes without a cost.

You can push for masks outside if you wish; that's your prerogative. BUT you cannot claim to be any more scientific about it than those who don't wear them inside.

[GuitarStv]

It's not rocket science.

It's no different from rocket science. Rocket science is just science and is, unfortunately for sound bite communication, nuanced. Wearing masks outdoors in an uncrowded area is just as unscientific as not wearing them in a crowded bar. In rocket science, it's about mitigating the largest risks to ensure a safe mission. At some point, spending more money and doing more testing has diminishing returns and increasing costs to the point that you won't get a rocket off the ground. Statistics lay the groundwork for analyzing risk here.

The absolute best way to stop COVID is for the whole planet to wear 100% PPE and not go outside for a year. But both of those things are technically correct in isolation, but overall do not progress humanity. There are inevitably health and social downsides to wearing masks for too long(especially outside). Nothing comes without a cost.

You can push for masks outside if you wish; that's your prerogative. BUT you cannot claim to be any more scientific about it than those who don't wear them inside.

I'm struggling to understand what it was that marty wrote that you're arguing about:

Well they do have a basis in reality, because do you really want police and officials wasting their time asking maskless people to prove if they have been vaccinated or not? The vaccines have not been proven to be sterilising vaccines (such as the measles or Hep B jabs). So this means you can still catch Covid, and still pass it on and endanger the lives of unvaccinated people, even though your personal risk of illness and death is greatly diminished.

People don't glow green when they get vaccinated, so unless there is another quick and easy way to tell, the safest option for everyone is to continue wearing masks in places where Covid is still spreading (such as the US with 50,000+ per day)

It's not rocket science.

Despite protests to the contrary, there's precious little nuance to mask wearing.

Where you're able to distance yourself from others more than 6ft there's little/no reason to wear a mask outdoors.  It's much less likely that you'll catch covid from someone else outdoors because of the increased ventilation - so leaving space is typically enough to prevent transmission of covid outdoors.  But if you're shoulder to shoulder with a large number of other people outside, you should probably be wearing a mask because transmission can and does occur (https://www.healio.com/news/infectious-disease/20201207/transmission-of-respiratory-illnesses-outdoors-definitely-happens-but-less-than-indoors).

These findings, as well as reports of influenza outbreaks and adenovirus outbreaks in outdoor bodies of water, suggest that while outdoor transmission is less common than indoor, it is not impossible. Case reports identified after our review had been completed provide further evidence that high-density outdoor gatherings, particularly with low mask use, may lead to higher transmission rates. Miron et al noted that incidence of COVID-19 cases was significantly higher in 14 out of 20 counties that had a large outdoor gathering 15 days prior [26]. Dave et al estimated that in the 3 weeks following the start of the Sturgis motorcycle rally on 7 August 2020, in South Dakota, a multiday event with 500 000 participants, cases grew more in counties with weak mitigation policies than those with strong mitigation policies (such as closure of restaurants and bars, or mask-wearing mandates) as participants returned to their homes [27]. In contrast, although COVID-19 rates increased in the 3 weeks following the mass protests in the United States [28], the uptick in cases due to these events was less than expected because social distancing and masking measures were more widespread [29]. The importance of protective measures is further exemplified by the outdoor outbreak that occurred at the White House Rose Garden event on 26 September 2020, where few of the 200 attendees were wearing masks or maintaining social distancing measures [30].

- https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/223/4/550/6009483

[windytrail]

In other news of failed health guidelines, the six-foot rule seems to have been completely noneffective. Did you see the MIT study? (https://www.pnas.org/content/118/17/e2018995118)

The current revival of the American economy is being predicated on social distancing, specifically the Six-Foot Rule, a guideline that offers little protection from pathogen-bearing aerosol droplets sufficiently small to be continuously mixed through an indoor space. The importance of airborne transmission of COVID-19 is now widely recognized. While tools for risk assessment have recently been developed, no safety guideline has been proposed to protect against it. We here build on models of airborne disease transmission in order to derive an indoor safety guideline that would impose an upper bound on the “cumulative exposure time,” the product of the number of occupants and their time in an enclosed space. We demonstrate how this bound depends on the rates of ventilation and air filtration, dimensions of the room, breathing rate, respiratory activity and face mask use of its occupants, and infectiousness of the respiratory aerosols.

So much for all those floor circles at the grocery store.

Indoor transmission is the primary driver of infection. Outdoor transmission is negligible:

Studies have also confirmed the presence of infectious SARS-CoV-2 virions in respiratory aerosols (31) suspended in air samples collected at distances as large as 16 ft from infected patients in a hospital room (3). Further evidence for the dominance of indoor airborne transmission has come from an analysis of 7,324 early cases outside the Hubei Province, in 320 cities across mainland China (32). The authors found that all clusters of three or more cases occurred indoors, 80% arising inside apartment homes and 34% potentially involving public transportation; only a single transmission was recorded outdoors. Finally, the fact that face mask directives have been more effective than either lockdowns or social distancing in controlling the spread of COVID-19 (22, 33) is consistent with indoor airborne transmission as the primary driver of the global pandemic.

[the_fixer]

It's not rocket science.

There are inevitably health and social downsides to wearing masks for too long(especially outside). Nothing comes without a cost.

Please elaborate what the health and social downsides are and their cost / impact please.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mm1970]

It's not rocket science.

There are inevitably health and social downsides to wearing masks for too long(especially outside). Nothing comes without a cost.

Please elaborate what the social downsides are and their cost / impact please.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I want to know the health risks?  I'm in semiconductors, and I wore masks at work for a couple of decades, 30-50 hours a week.

[MudPuppy]

People wear masks for long hours daily in so many jobs. Hurting your feelings doesnt count as a health risk.

[OtherJen]

My 69-year-old mom has been wearing a mask and goggles 40 hours per week at work and whenever else she's had to go out in public for the last year. The only consequence is that she's the only person in her office who didn't get COVID. Her boss nearly died.

[Cranky]

Honestly, wearing a mask is so much a normal part of life for my 5 yo grandson, that we have to remind him to take it off when he gets home.

[By the River]

There are inevitably health and social downsides to wearing masks for too long(especially outside). Nothing comes without a cost.

Please elaborate what the health and social downsides are and their cost / impact please.

I agree that nothing comes without a cost. (TNSTAAFL)  A couple of examples:
health https://ktvz.com/news/coronavirus/2021/04/26/summit-hs-runner-collapses-at-finish-line-coach-calls-for-revised-mask-mandate/
social https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/how-wearing-a-mask-at-school-can-impact-a-child-s-development-1.5105832

What is the total cost/impact?  I'm sure the total cost/impact is the subject of many academic studies just like many other aspects of Covid are. We'll know better in a few years.

[GuitarStv]

There are inevitably health and social downsides to wearing masks for too long(especially outside). Nothing comes without a cost.

Please elaborate what the health and social downsides are and their cost / impact please.

I agree that nothing comes without a cost. (TNSTAAFL)  A couple of examples:
health https://ktvz.com/news/coronavirus/2021/04/26/summit-hs-runner-collapses-at-finish-line-coach-calls-for-revised-mask-mandate/
social https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/how-wearing-a-mask-at-school-can-impact-a-child-s-development-1.5105832

What is the total cost/impact?  I'm sure the total cost/impact is the subject of many academic studies just like many other aspects of Covid are. We'll know better in a few years.

I'd argue that the people in your first example there were being phenomenally stupid about masking.  There's no reason for a single athlete running on a track outdoors to be wearing a mask, and restricting airflow during maximum physical exertion is really, really dumb.  This isn't an example of 'negatives of masking' just 'negatives of idiocy'.  The athletes should wear masks if/when they're close to one another while waiting for their turn to run, remove their mask and do their turn, then put their mask on while waiting again.  No negatives at all if they followed common sense.

The second article you link is certainly a potential problem.  If people vaccinate in good numbers we're not going to be wearing masks after the end of next year though, so I suspect that the potential social cue damage being done to young children will be limited and quickly reverse.

[Cool Friend]

Honestly, wearing a mask is so much a normal part of life for my 5 yo grandson, that we have to remind him to take it off when he gets home.

This is the future liberals want!!!!! /s

I've been getting zits in my mask area, that's a pretty devastating health risk to my beautiful, flawless complexion. ;)

[GuitarStv]

Honestly, wearing a mask is so much a normal part of life for my 5 yo grandson, that we have to remind him to take it off when he gets home.

This is the future liberals want!!!!! /s

I've been getting zits in my mask area, that's a pretty devastating health risk to my beautiful, flawless complexion. ;)

Me too, but that's the beauty of wearing a mask - nobody can see your facial blemishes.  :P

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

It's not rocket science.

There are inevitably health and social downsides to wearing masks for too long(especially outside). Nothing comes without a cost.

Please elaborate what the health and social downsides are and their cost / impact please.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Anything that is stated to be required when it's not really required has a social downside - we are perpetuating an untruth. This is why I didn't support our mask mandate that required you to wear a mask while hiking outdoors (with someone else, or even when alone). Thankfully it's been loosened now.

Generally, I think the tendency to treat people "equally" has led to many inaccurate covid policies. We should have been cracking down harder on people who actually were high risk (large families, people who travel for work, people who work indoors in mixed conditions, people who proposed to return from overseas hotspots) and less hard on people in low risk environments (those who spend time outdoors by themselves or with only one other person). Instead we kind of treated everyone similarly, meaning those at low risk were over-policed and those at high risk were under-policed. Quite tragic.

[StashingAway]

There are inevitably health and social downsides to wearing masks for too long(especially outside). Nothing comes without a cost.

Please elaborate what the health and social downsides are and their cost / impact please.

What is the total cost/impact? I'm sure the total cost/impact is the subject of many academic studies just like many other aspects of Covid are. We'll know better in a few years.

+1

I'm not saying don't wear a mask (despite some folks on here desperately trying to paint boxes around this whole thing).

I wear a mask without complaints. I do so indoors. I do so outdoors in crowded areas. I work in a basically empty huge warehouse with one co-worker and extremely small amount of human interaction. I have had my two shots of Moderna yet I still wear the mask in the warehouse because it's company policy and I can handle the discomfort. Mind you, this is without air conditioning and doing physical labor (~30 hours a week). And I'm fine with it! I'm sure I put up with more discomfort than most of those pointing fingers around here.

What I am saying is basically this:

Anything that is stated to be required when it's not really required has a social downside - we are perpetuating an untruth. This is why I didn't support our mask mandate that required you to wear a mask while hiking outdoors (with someone else, or even when alone). Thankfully it's been loosened now.

Generally, I think the tendency to treat people "equally" has led to many inaccurate covid policies. We should have been cracking down harder on people who actually were high risk (large families, people who travel for work, people who work indoors in mixed conditions, people who proposed to return from overseas hotspots) and less hard on people in low risk environments (those who spend time outdoors by themselves or with only one other person). Instead we kind of treated everyone similarly, meaning those at low risk were over-policed and those at high risk were under-policed. Quite tragic.

Normalizing shame for not following policy that doesn't make scientific sense puts me on edge. Some people wear a mask because they don't want to be mistaken for a hard-core GOP person. I don't like the idea of putting all of my cards on the table from simple apparel. In general I support liberal policies. But I do so when they are rationally based. Wearing a mask outdoors is not rationally based with our current understanding of the virus (At the beginning it was all hands on deck and I was OK with that).

One of the biggest defenses of the virus seems to be being outside from the data we are seeing. Naturally acquired vitamin D and external environments seem to really slow the virus spread. Throwing carrots at people to go outside should be encouraged: "Hey, if you go for a hike, you don't have to wear a mask like you would in a movie theatre!" In colder climates your face is often your only uncovered area of skin and it gains incredible benefit from being exposed to the sun.

There are no records of super spreader events from all of the outdoor protests last summer that I know of. If the virus transmitted outside, we would have been seeing predictable spikes all over the place.

I'm going on rants and tangents here. Basically the theme for me is, for the self-appointed political "party of science", policy should be scientifically based.

[chemistk]

How can you justify this without institutionalizing mandatory truthful self-identification?

I agree that wearing masks outdoors on a hike is ridiculous, but just like those faking the religious/personal vaccine exemption in poor faith because they personally believe they shouldn't need to do something even if it helps the common good, how can you realistically expect to create a well-structured set of mask rules that people aren't going to follow?

It'd be great to live in a society where we don't have to cater to the lowest common denominators among us, but that's just not realistic. You will end up with exactly the same BS we saw in the US last year during state-mandated lockdowns - suddenly, nearly everyone (or at least businesses) found a way to justify that they were essential. Those are two separate arguments rooted in the same mindset - if you create the loopholes, those who don't want to comply with a rule will find every way to justify why they are special and don't have to.

[StashingAway]

It'd be great to live in a society where we don't have to cater to the lowest common denominators among us, but that's just not realistic. You will end up with exactly the same BS we saw in the US last year during state-mandated lockdowns - suddenly, nearly everyone (or at least businesses) found a way to justify that they were essential. Those are two separate arguments rooted in the same mindset - if you create the loopholes, those who don't want to comply with a rule will find every way to justify why they are special and don't have to.

I don't think the lock downs were managed in a rational way, either. People "found loopholes" because their livelihoods depended on it. The government basically said, "You're on your own for two weeks. No, make that four. No wait, indefinitely" and people threw in the towel. We were/are told that we are all in this together, but some people lost everything and others made out like bandits. It was/is every person for themselves. That's not a loophole, that's just basic survival.

Our small company didn't need the gov't assistance loan because our operations didn't slow much, but we took one anyway at the advice of our tax accountant. THEN, 6 months later, it turned into a grant. Free money! Where TF is the rationality behind stuff like that? If we had acted "for the greater good" we would have been penalized in thousands of dollars. The loopholes are the least of my concerns. It's the overall message.

There was no decipherable long term plan. It was a tragedy of the commons. Voluntarily following covid rules hurt the individual business immensely but didn't appear to help the community at the same rate, so the incentives were all in the wrong spot. Large businesses created plans that were approved by the state that smaller ones weren't allowed to participate in (see LA Fitness in Arizona opening while small gyms stayed closed). Most of the players aren't bad guys here. They're playing a rigged game so making do with what they can.

This was said early, EARLY, on, even in places like New York where covid was running rampant. There was no meaningful goalpost, just political posturing. Not much different from weird mask restrictions.

Mind you, this is completely separate discussion from those folks who refuse to wear masks in businesses or get kicked out by acting like privileged children. Or bars that open mask less or people holding giant indoor weddings. Those are the highlight reels that most people envision when they think of anti-mask individuals. I find those people to be just as insufferable. But they are individuals often with bad luck in life (whether that be upbringing or social circles or sometimes simple genetics).

I don't think we can make policy based on the lowest common denominator. We should make policy that benefits the majority of society while mitigating the effects of bad luck on individuals.

[mizzourah2006]

How can you justify this without institutionalizing mandatory truthful self-identification?

I agree that wearing masks outdoors on a hike is ridiculous, but just like those faking the religious/personal vaccine exemption in poor faith because they personally believe they shouldn't need to do something even if it helps the common good, how can you realistically expect to create a well-structured set of mask rules that people aren't going to follow?

It'd be great to live in a society where we don't have to cater to the lowest common denominators among us, but that's just not realistic. You will end up with exactly the same BS we saw in the US last year during state-mandated lockdowns - suddenly, nearly everyone (or at least businesses) found a way to justify that they were essential. Those are two separate arguments rooted in the same mindset - if you create the loopholes, those who don't want to comply with a rule will find every way to justify why they are special and don't have to.

We can take this to its logical extreme and just lock people in their homes unless they have a government issued pass though. because after all some people will not comply with any mandates, look at a large swath of the pro-Trump crowd. You're absolutely right that some people will take advantage, that's why we need to decide when enforcing it is actually worthwhile and when it isn't. IMO businesses should enforce the mandates and most do. Our state mandate has been lifted for about a month but I've yet to see a business that doesn't have a mask mandate on their door and for the most part outside of the usual suspects (like Bass Pro Shops) I'd say it's still fairly well followed. I think there is a difference between wearing a mask at a crowded outdoor social event (like a parade or a rally/protest) and hiking or walking around your neighborhood, or even a semi-busy street. Also, there is always the option of if you feel uncomfortable don't go there or wear a mask and avoid people without masks. Unless someone is standing on top of you for several minutes and breathing directly into your face unmasked it's highly unlikely you'd contract the virus from them while wearing a mask yourself if you are outdoors. To the earlier posters point, if spread was common outdoors, even in crowded areas amongst people we'd know it from the protests. Almost every picture I've seen I could point out several people that weren't wearing masks or were wearing them entirely inappropriately and those protests were about as close as you can get to someone outside.

I just find the general argument of people will always cheat the system to actually be a very Republican argument. We need to lock down voting because some people cheat the system. We need to lock down unemployment and food stamps because some people cheat the system. We need to lockdown mask wearing because some people cheat the system.....

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

What really annoyys me is that we told people to wear masks and fined them for not wearingg masks...but we were happy to let people with huge families just interact howsoever they pleased as long as it was with their nuclear household.

In other words - single person living alone. Low risk. You have to stay isolated and live alone. You can't visit others. You have to wear a mask outdoors. You can't travel to your solo place of business (that might entail unnecessary mingling even if you just drive both ends).

But, person living in large household of 10. Do whatever you want. Just don't associate with other singles/households but as a family knock yourself out. No talk of having to wear masks inside among other family members.

Likewise - members of 'essential services' (including liquor stores!) - drive as far as you want to work. Work at multiple stores if you like. It's okay!

But white collar worker who runs a business? Sorry, you can't visit that place of business. Work from home or otherwise miss out.

Just crazy, crazy messaging - and heavily predicated on optics. It's easy to tell singles and white collar workers what to do; harder to ask large families to voluntarily take some measures like wearing masks indoors or limiting contact within the household.

 

[windytrail]

This article from the Atlantic is spot-on regarding the real consequences of arbitrary, unscientific restrictions (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/05/liberals-covid-19-science-denial-lockdown/618780/):

For many progressives, extreme vigilance was in part about opposing Donald Trump. Some of this reaction was born of deeply felt frustration with how he handled the pandemic. It could also be knee-jerk. “If he said, ‘Keep schools open,’ then, well, we’re going to do everything in our power to keep schools closed,” Monica Gandhi, a professor of medicine at UC San Francisco, told me. Gandhi describes herself as “left of left,” but has alienated some of her ideological peers because she has advocated for policies such as reopening schools and establishing a clear timeline for the end of mask mandates. “We went the other way, in an extreme way, against Trump’s politicization,” Gandhi said.
[...]
“Those who are vaccinated on the left seem to think overcaution now is the way to go, which is making people on the right question the effectiveness of the vaccines,” Gandhi told me. Public figures and policy makers who try to dictate others’ behavior without any scientific justification for doing so erode trust in public health and make people less willing to take useful precautions. The marginal gains of staying shut down might not justify the potential backlash.

Even as the very effective COVID-19 vaccines have become widely accessible, many progressives continue to listen to voices preaching caution over relaxation. Anthony Fauci recently said he wouldn’t travel or eat at restaurants even though he’s fully vaccinated, despite CDC guidance that these activities can be safe for vaccinated people who take precautions. California Governor Gavin Newsom refused in April to guarantee that the state’s schools would fully reopen in the fall, even though studies have demonstrated for months that modified in-person instruction is safe. Leaders in Brookline, Massachusetts, decided this week to keep a local outdoor mask mandate in place, even though the CDC recently relaxed its guidance for outdoor mask use. And scolding is still a popular pastime. “At least in San Francisco, a lot of people are glaring at each other if they don’t wear masks outside,” Gandhi said, even though the risk of outdoor transmission is very low.

[PoutineLover]

It's so complicated to get people to do the right thing, that in some cases the governments overshot what was needed, partly because it made enforcement easier, but also because they knew people would break the rules somewhat anyway. If the rule is max 6 people can gather, you'll end up with 10+, so maybe they made it only 2 so that it ends up at 6. In my area the curfew seems to exist only so that police have an excuse to stop anyone and night and demand a reason to be out, even though there's obviously no difference in transmission after 8pm.

Outdoor mask mandates bother me because there's basically no evidence to back them up (except in large crowds), and I don't see the point in wearing something without any purpose, but I have no problem wearing a mask indoors because I do believe that it helps prevent transmission. My local government has done a shit job of communicating the rules, the necessity for the rules, and the timelines that they will be in place, so people are understandably getting fed up and we have regular protests against the restrictions.

I do believe that if the messaging had been coherent and cohesive once we started learning real facts, we wouldn't have ended up here, with yet another wave, continued lockdown and curfew, and no end in sight.

[chemistk]

I just find the general argument of people will always cheat the system to actually be a very Republican argument. We need to lock down voting because some people cheat the system. We need to lock down unemployment and food stamps because some people cheat the system. We need to lockdown mask wearing because some people cheat the system.....

This made me laugh, actually (in a good way). I have extended family who wears ratty, cut up disposable masks deliberately because they're borderline Covid deniers. Multiple family members, actually. All are very much "election was stolen people".

It's those people for whom I envision a universal mask mandate. Not that they'd follow it necessarily, but just because it would prevent them entry from places and generally make their lives harder.

More generally, I am personally very aware it's nearly a lost cause. I'd rather just give everyone the benefit of the doubt and let them use their own judgement - masks, vaccines, etc. Chalk me up to jaded though - my and my wife's parents told us to our face that they sincerely hope we don't get the vaccine since "we don't need to". We won't cut ties with them (feel about that however you will), but we're also both fully vaccinated and had to hide that fact from them. So, to us, the world is full of people who need the lowest common denominator treatment.

[waltworks]

I got a full cuss-out from a ~80 year old today in the library (in front of my 2 year old) because I wasn't wearing a mask (they're no longer required here, the county is at ~85% vaccinated and the folks who aren't are the ones who have chosen not to).

I tried to point out to him that I was vaccinated, he was vaccinated (his response: "what if I wasn't?!?"), and that he had APPROACHED ME in the children's area to yell at me.

WTF!

Sorry, needed to rant.

-W

[GuitarStv]

I got a full cuss-out from a ~80 year old today in the library (in front of my 2 year old) because I wasn't wearing a mask (they're no longer required here, the county is at ~85% vaccinated and the folks who aren't are the ones who have chosen not to).

I tried to point out to him that I was vaccinated, he was vaccinated (his response: "what if I wasn't?!?"), and that he had APPROACHED ME in the children's area to yell at me.

WTF!

Sorry, needed to rant.

-W

Masks aren't required by law in Utah (except in schools or large gatherings), but are strongly recommended - particularly in places with children.

- No vaccine is currently authorized for anyone younger than 16.
- Children can get sick from COVID and have long-term effects.
- Children can get COVID, not feel sick, and transmit the illness to people at home who aren’t vaccinated yet.

https://governor.utah.gov/2021/04/10/utahs-statewide-mask-mandate-ends-today-heres-what-you-need-to-know/#:~:text=Under%20this%20new%20law%2C%20counties,a%20mask%2C%20wear%20a%20mask.

[waltworks]

So you think he was being reasonable? Serious question. Because if you can't unmask somewhere with 85% vaccination, I'm not sure we ever can. Most of the US will never get close to that.

Most days here we have zero new cases. When there are one or two, they are always:
-Folks that refused to be vaccinated from the east/conservative side of the county because freedom.
-Hispanic people who are afraid of interacting with the medical/legal system because deportation.

We can probably reach the second group (progress is being made) but not the first. In many places that group is a majority of the population. Are you proposing that we never return to unmasked/normal life if those rednecks won't get a shot?

-W

[scottish]

This article from the Atlantic is spot-on regarding the real consequences of arbitrary, unscientific restrictions (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/05/liberals-covid-19-science-denial-lockdown/618780/):

For many progressives, extreme vigilance was in part about opposing Donald Trump. Some of this reaction was born of deeply felt frustration with how he handled the pandemic. It could also be knee-jerk. “If he said, ‘Keep schools open,’ then, well, we’re going to do everything in our power to keep schools closed,” Monica Gandhi, a professor of medicine at UC San Francisco, told me. Gandhi describes herself as “left of left,” but has alienated some of her ideological peers because she has advocated for policies such as reopening schools and establishing a clear timeline for the end of mask mandates. “We went the other way, in an extreme way, against Trump’s politicization,” Gandhi said.
[...]
“Those who are vaccinated on the left seem to think overcaution now is the way to go, which is making people on the right question the effectiveness of the vaccines,” Gandhi told me. Public figures and policy makers who try to dictate others’ behavior without any scientific justification for doing so erode trust in public health and make people less willing to take useful precautions. The marginal gains of staying shut down might not justify the potential backlash.

Even as the very effective COVID-19 vaccines have become widely accessible, many progressives continue to listen to voices preaching caution over relaxation. Anthony Fauci recently said he wouldn’t travel or eat at restaurants even though he’s fully vaccinated, despite CDC guidance that these activities can be safe for vaccinated people who take precautions. California Governor Gavin Newsom refused in April to guarantee that the state’s schools would fully reopen in the fall, even though studies have demonstrated for months that modified in-person instruction is safe. Leaders in Brookline, Massachusetts, decided this week to keep a local outdoor mask mandate in place, even though the CDC recently relaxed its guidance for outdoor mask use. And scolding is still a popular pastime. “At least in San Francisco, a lot of people are glaring at each other if they don’t wear masks outside,” Gandhi said, even though the risk of outdoor transmission is very low.

I saw that.   They're living up to the stories republicans tell about them.     That was a crazy story.

[SunnyDays]

It's so complicated to get people to do the right thing, that in some cases the governments overshot what was needed, partly because it made enforcement easier, but also because they knew people would break the rules somewhat anyway. If the rule is max 6 people can gather, you'll end up with 10+, so maybe they made it only 2 so that it ends up at 6. In my area the curfew seems to exist only so that police have an excuse to stop anyone and night and demand a reason to be out, even though there's obviously no difference in transmission after 8pm.

Outdoor mask mandates bother me because there's basically no evidence to back them up (except in large crowds), and I don't see the point in wearing something without any purpose, but I have no problem wearing a mask indoors because I do believe that it helps prevent transmission. My local government has done a shit job of communicating the rules, the necessity for the rules, and the timelines that they will be in place, so people are understandably getting fed up and we have regular protests against the restrictions.

I do believe that if the messaging had been coherent and cohesive once we started learning real facts, we wouldn't have ended up here, with yet another wave, continued lockdown and curfew, and no end in sight.

I agree there’s no difference in transmission after 8 PM, but OTOH, don’t you think that the reason lots of people go out in the evening is to socialize?  Which does cause increased transmission, at least indoors.

[PoutineLover]

It's so complicated to get people to do the right thing, that in some cases the governments overshot what was needed, partly because it made enforcement easier, but also because they knew people would break the rules somewhat anyway. If the rule is max 6 people can gather, you'll end up with 10+, so maybe they made it only 2 so that it ends up at 6. In my area the curfew seems to exist only so that police have an excuse to stop anyone and night and demand a reason to be out, even though there's obviously no difference in transmission after 8pm.

Outdoor mask mandates bother me because there's basically no evidence to back them up (except in large crowds), and I don't see the point in wearing something without any purpose, but I have no problem wearing a mask indoors because I do believe that it helps prevent transmission. My local government has done a shit job of communicating the rules, the necessity for the rules, and the timelines that they will be in place, so people are understandably getting fed up and we have regular protests against the restrictions.

I do believe that if the messaging had been coherent and cohesive once we started learning real facts, we wouldn't have ended up here, with yet another wave, continued lockdown and curfew, and no end in sight.

I agree there’s no difference in transmission after 8 PM, but OTOH, don’t you think that the reason lots of people go out in the evening is to socialize?  Which does cause increased transmission, at least indoors.

I know that that's why they put it in, but in reality it just doesn't leave a lot of time for necessary errands after work, resulting in more people crammed into stores, and it makes it illegal to go out for a walk unless you have a dog, which is bad for mental health. I guess my issue is that it's a very strong handed way of solving a problem that doesn't take into account the negative effects, and people who would hang out indoors are doing so anyway, and just sleeping over or doing it earlier in the day. It's already illegal to gather, so adding a curfew on top of that seems like overkill and not all that effective.

[GuitarStv]

So you think he was being reasonable? Serious question. Because if you can't unmask somewhere with 85% vaccination, I'm not sure we ever can. Most of the US will never get close to that.

I don't know if he was being reasonable or not.  (Although, I lean towards not . . . it's rare that I've encountered someone swearing at another person who seemed reasonable.)

If you're wandering through the kids section unmasked with your unmasked kid while there are other children there . . . you were putting other people at risk and ignoring the state recommendations.  I wouldn't 'cuss you out' myself (when you start swearing at a person there's very little chance of discussion), but I'd certainly think that your actions were a bit reckless.

After all, your county isn't at 85% vaccination right now.  According to the website you posted earlier (https://summitcountyhealth.org/coronavirus/), 82% of people who are eligible to receive the vaccine have received a single dose.  So roughly 1 in 5 adults are still at risk, and 100% of children (who typically make up around 22% of the population in the US).

Sounds like mid-60 percent is a more likely number to claim - and that's ignoring the fact that a percentage of those haven't been fully vaccinated.  That's still a pretty good number, and well ahead of the US average.

Most days here we have zero new cases. When there are one or two, they are always:
-Folks that refused to be vaccinated from the east/conservative side of the county because freedom.
-Hispanic people who are afraid of interacting with the medical/legal system because deportation.

We can probably reach the second group (progress is being made) but not the first. In many places that group is a majority of the population. Are you proposing that we never return to unmasked/normal life if those rednecks won't get a shot?

-W

Nope.

I'm proposing that you follow the state recommendations regarding masking around people under 16 while they remain unprotected.  After they've had the chance to be vaccinated as well, then I think it's very reasonable to do away with mask wearing altogether.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

^ I don't agree with the above. Children are low vectors for transmission. The OP was vaccinated. Therefore low risk all around.

OP was doing everything right.

Like car insurance, it's up to you to self-insure, not others to proactively go out of their way to insure (although Waltworks had done that in this situation anyway, by getting vaccinated).

[waltworks]

Kids are ultra low risk for both illness and transmission. All adults who want to (here) are vaccinated (and no, it doesn't matter if they've only had one shot, Britain has quite conclusively proven that). IMO at that point there's no reason to wear a mask or do anything differently than you did pre-pandemic.

I guess some people will take a while to reset their personal comfort level with a lot of this stuff, and you're welcome to wear a mask as much as you want, of course. But for those of us who like actual evidence-based public policy, in places like where I live, the pandemic is over - and I won't be bothering to mask up unless the specific business/facility asks me to.

Put another way: I'm happy to wear a mask to *protect* you. I'm not going to spend any particular effort to keep you from feeling *uncomfortable* though. If you can't handle it, don't come to the library.

-W

[GuitarStv]

Kids are ultra low risk for both illness and transmission. All adults who want to (here) are vaccinated (and no, it doesn't matter if they've only had one shot, Britain has quite conclusively proven that). IMO at that point there's no reason to wear a mask or do anything differently than you did pre-pandemic.

I guess some people will take a while to reset their personal comfort level with a lot of this stuff, and you're welcome to wear a mask as much as you want, of course. But for those of us who like actual evidence-based public policy, in places like where I live, the pandemic is over - and I won't be bothering to mask up unless the specific business/facility asks me to.

Put another way: I'm happy to wear a mask to *protect* you. I'm not going to spend any particular effort to keep you from feeling *uncomfortable* though. If you can't handle it, don't come to the library.

-W

The latest data from the CDC shows that full mRNA vaccination prevents contracting (and being able to spread covid) at about 90% effectiveness.  One in five people who are not fully vaccinated can still be infected with the disease.  (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7013e3.htm?s_cid=mm7013e3_w).


Kids are ultra low risk of dying.  Illness though?  That's not what the data suggests.

In the UK they're seeing about one in seven of children from 2 - 16 with long term problems associated with contracting Covid: (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/962830/s1079-ons-update-on-long-covid-prevalence-estimate.pdf)

This study from Italy highlights similar problems:

We assessed persistent symptoms in pediatric patients previously diagnosed with COVID-19. More than a half reported at least one persisting symptom even after 120 days since COVID-19, with 42.6% being impaired by these symptoms during daily activities. Symptoms like fatigue, muscle and joint pain, headache, insomnia, respiratory problems and palpitations were particularly frequent, as also described in adults.

The evidence that COVID-19 can have long-term impact children as well, including those with asymptomatic/paucisymptomatic COVID-19, highlight the need for pediatricians, mental health experts and policy makers of implementing measures to reduce impact of the pandemic on child’s health.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.23.21250375v1.full-text


I'm glad that you've mentioned that you're happy to wear a mask to protect others.  Now that you've been made aware of the facts, you should probably start doing so.

[waltworks]

Feel free to keep masking up, like I said. I am not worried about my kids (who have been in school/sports/etc for the last year) and don't know of any kids here who have even had symptoms, let alone ended up in the hospital. I'm not sure more than a few in the whole *state* have been hospitalized.

-W

[GuitarStv]

I'm happy to wear a mask to *protect* you.

The story seems to have completely changed when protecting others comes at the price of mild inconvenience.

[mizzourah2006]

I got a full cuss-out from a ~80 year old today in the library (in front of my 2 year old) because I wasn't wearing a mask (they're no longer required here, the county is at ~85% vaccinated and the folks who aren't are the ones who have chosen not to).

I tried to point out to him that I was vaccinated, he was vaccinated (his response: "what if I wasn't?!?"), and that he had APPROACHED ME in the children's area to yell at me.

WTF!

Sorry, needed to rant.

-W

Masks aren't required by law in Utah (except in schools or large gatherings), but are strongly recommended - particularly in places with children.

- No vaccine is currently authorized for anyone younger than 16.
- Children can get sick from COVID and have long-term effects.
- Children can get COVID, not feel sick, and transmit the illness to people at home who aren’t vaccinated yet.

https://governor.utah.gov/2021/04/10/utahs-statewide-mask-mandate-ends-today-heres-what-you-need-to-know/#:~:text=Under%20this%20new%20law%2C%20counties,a%20mask%2C%20wear%20a%20mask.

So are you saying that the two year old should have been wearing a mask or that the OP should have been wearing a mask even after being vaccinated because they could spread covid to unvaccinated children? Is there research that suggests that vaccinated individuals are common vectors for spread?

[waltworks]

Don't bother. There is no level of safety that will satisfy GuitarStv. I know other folks like this, it is what it is.

-W

[GuitarStv]

I got a full cuss-out from a ~80 year old today in the library (in front of my 2 year old) because I wasn't wearing a mask (they're no longer required here, the county is at ~85% vaccinated and the folks who aren't are the ones who have chosen not to).

I tried to point out to him that I was vaccinated, he was vaccinated (his response: "what if I wasn't?!?"), and that he had APPROACHED ME in the children's area to yell at me.

WTF!

Sorry, needed to rant.

-W

Masks aren't required by law in Utah (except in schools or large gatherings), but are strongly recommended - particularly in places with children.

- No vaccine is currently authorized for anyone younger than 16.
- Children can get sick from COVID and have long-term effects.
- Children can get COVID, not feel sick, and transmit the illness to people at home who aren’t vaccinated yet.

https://governor.utah.gov/2021/04/10/utahs-statewide-mask-mandate-ends-today-heres-what-you-need-to-know/#:~:text=Under%20this%20new%20law%2C%20counties,a%20mask%2C%20wear%20a%20mask.

So are you saying that the two year old should have been wearing a mask or that the OP should have been wearing a mask even after being vaccinated because they could spread covid to unvaccinated children? Is there research that suggests that vaccinated individuals are common vectors for spread?

Neither.  I'm saying it's situationally dependent - depending on what makes sense from a safety perspective.  If there are no other unvaccinated kids/people around, then there's little reason for anyone to be wearing masks.  If there are unvaccinated children in the area though then wearing a mask seems prudent.

As the most up to date research (that I already posted) shows, about one in ten people who are fully vaccinated with the mRNA vaccines can still get/transmit covid.  This doubles to one in five people when for folks who have only received one of the two shots.  (These numbers are also both higher for the AZ and J+J vaccines.)  This is still good news!  It's much reduced transmission from being unvaccinated . . . but it still makes sense to err on the side of caution given the information we have about the large number of children who develop persistent health problems from exposure (even if they show little initial indication of getting very sick from covid), the fact that wearing a mask in a library is an extremely minor inconvenience, and the fact that we are likely going to finish testing and start approving vaccines for use with children this year.

There does exist the problem of people who choose not to vaccinate themselves or their children.  While it would be great to be able to protect these people too, it's unreasonable to expect everyone else to remain masked permanently to do so.  I'd expect that once vaccination is commonly available to everyone that people will return to normal unmasked life and the folks who choose not to vaccinate will have to live with that decision.

[mizzourah2006]

I got a full cuss-out from a ~80 year old today in the library (in front of my 2 year old) because I wasn't wearing a mask (they're no longer required here, the county is at ~85% vaccinated and the folks who aren't are the ones who have chosen not to).

I tried to point out to him that I was vaccinated, he was vaccinated (his response: "what if I wasn't?!?"), and that he had APPROACHED ME in the children's area to yell at me.

WTF!

Sorry, needed to rant.

-W

Masks aren't required by law in Utah (except in schools or large gatherings), but are strongly recommended - particularly in places with children.

- No vaccine is currently authorized for anyone younger than 16.
- Children can get sick from COVID and have long-term effects.
- Children can get COVID, not feel sick, and transmit the illness to people at home who aren’t vaccinated yet.

https://governor.utah.gov/2021/04/10/utahs-statewide-mask-mandate-ends-today-heres-what-you-need-to-know/#:~:text=Under%20this%20new%20law%2C%20counties,a%20mask%2C%20wear%20a%20mask.

So are you saying that the two year old should have been wearing a mask or that the OP should have been wearing a mask even after being vaccinated because they could spread covid to unvaccinated children? Is there research that suggests that vaccinated individuals are common vectors for spread?

Neither.  I'm saying it's situationally dependent - depending on what makes sense from a safety perspective.  If there are no other unvaccinated kids/people around, then there's little reason for anyone to be wearing masks.  If there are unvaccinated children in the area though then wearing a mask seems prudent.

As the most up to date research (that I already posted) shows, about one in ten people who are fully vaccinated with the mRNA vaccines can still get/transmit covid.  This doubles to one in five people when for folks who have only received one of the two shots.  (These numbers are also both higher for the AZ and J+J vaccines.)  This is still good news!  It's much reduced transmission from being unvaccinated . . . but it still makes sense to err on the side of caution given the information we have about the large number of children who develop persistent health problems from exposure (even if they show little initial indication of getting very sick from covid), the fact that wearing a mask in a library is an extremely minor inconvenience, and the fact that we are likely going to finish testing and start approving vaccines for use with children this year.

There does exist the problem of people who choose not to vaccinate themselves or their children.  While it would be great to be able to protect these people too, it's unreasonable to expect everyone else to remain masked permanently to do so.  I'd expect that once vaccination is commonly available to everyone that people will return to normal unmasked life and the folks who choose not to vaccinate will have to live with that decision.

Can you point me to the research that shows 1/10 people are actually transmitting covid. I'd like to read it.

[waltworks]

Of the 95,000,000 people currently vaccinated (no idea how that breaks down by specific vaccine) in the US, 9,245 have subsequently tested positive for Covid19 (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html)

That doesn't mean that others aren't potentially infected too, but I have a hard time believing it's 1/10, given that the known number is 1/100,000.

-W

[mizzourah2006]

Of the 95,000,000 people currently vaccinated (no idea how that breaks down by specific vaccine) in the US, 9,245 have subsequently tested positive for Covid19 (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html)

That doesn't mean that others aren't potentially infected too, but I have a hard time believing it's 1/10, given that the known number is 1/100,000.

-W

But, most of the research I read showed that when you factor in that early research look at asymptomatic cases was confounding true asymptomatic with pre-symptomatic and when you split those out asymptomatic people were far less likely to actually spread the virus than those that were pre-symptomatic.

So when you factor in the fact that closer to 1/50,000 who are vaccinated are contracting Covid and that it's in most cases people that are asymptomatic the probability of actually spreading the virus as a vaccinated individual is tiny and that of course assumes you have already come into contact with the virus itself. So, back of the napkin math suggests that a random person at the library with their 2 year old, assuming they don't go clubbing or bar hopping most nights probably has about a 1 in 1-10 million chance of spreading the virus to someone else while in the library and unmasked and probably a 1 in 20-50 million chance of spreading it if you wear a mask because masks aren't full proof either, especially the commonly used cloth and surgical masks.

[GuitarStv]

I got a full cuss-out from a ~80 year old today in the library (in front of my 2 year old) because I wasn't wearing a mask (they're no longer required here, the county is at ~85% vaccinated and the folks who aren't are the ones who have chosen not to).

I tried to point out to him that I was vaccinated, he was vaccinated (his response: "what if I wasn't?!?"), and that he had APPROACHED ME in the children's area to yell at me.

WTF!

Sorry, needed to rant.

-W

Masks aren't required by law in Utah (except in schools or large gatherings), but are strongly recommended - particularly in places with children.

- No vaccine is currently authorized for anyone younger than 16.
- Children can get sick from COVID and have long-term effects.
- Children can get COVID, not feel sick, and transmit the illness to people at home who aren’t vaccinated yet.

https://governor.utah.gov/2021/04/10/utahs-statewide-mask-mandate-ends-today-heres-what-you-need-to-know/#:~:text=Under%20this%20new%20law%2C%20counties,a%20mask%2C%20wear%20a%20mask.

So are you saying that the two year old should have been wearing a mask or that the OP should have been wearing a mask even after being vaccinated because they could spread covid to unvaccinated children? Is there research that suggests that vaccinated individuals are common vectors for spread?

Neither.  I'm saying it's situationally dependent - depending on what makes sense from a safety perspective.  If there are no other unvaccinated kids/people around, then there's little reason for anyone to be wearing masks.  If there are unvaccinated children in the area though then wearing a mask seems prudent.

As the most up to date research (that I already posted) shows, about one in ten people who are fully vaccinated with the mRNA vaccines can still get/transmit covid.  This doubles to one in five people when for folks who have only received one of the two shots.  (These numbers are also both higher for the AZ and J+J vaccines.)  This is still good news!  It's much reduced transmission from being unvaccinated . . . but it still makes sense to err on the side of caution given the information we have about the large number of children who develop persistent health problems from exposure (even if they show little initial indication of getting very sick from covid), the fact that wearing a mask in a library is an extremely minor inconvenience, and the fact that we are likely going to finish testing and start approving vaccines for use with children this year.

There does exist the problem of people who choose not to vaccinate themselves or their children.  While it would be great to be able to protect these people too, it's unreasonable to expect everyone else to remain masked permanently to do so.  I'd expect that once vaccination is commonly available to everyone that people will return to normal unmasked life and the folks who choose not to vaccinate will have to live with that decision.

Can you point me to the research that shows 1/10 people are actually transmitting covid. I'd like to read it.

There is no research that shows that 1/10 people are transmitting covid after vaccination.  That's definitely not what you quoted me saying above.

Under real-world conditions, mRNA vaccine effectiveness of full immunization (≥14 days after second dose) was 90% against SARS-CoV-2 infections regardless of symptom status; vaccine effectiveness of partial immunization (≥14 days after first dose but before second dose) was 80%.

- from the CDC link previously posted (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7013e3.htm?s_cid=mm7013e3_w).)

This is very good news.  It means that the mRNA vaccines are working really, really well (the J+J and AZ vaccines also work, but at lower rates).  But fully vaccinated people can still get the virus and people who have the covid virus can transmit it.  So while we have large populations who cannot get the vaccine (like those under 16 at the moment) we still need to protect them.  Being vaccinated doesn't prevent you from transmitting the virus to others.  Vaccination reduces transmission odds from what an unvaccinated person would have because 9/10 times the vaccinated person won't get the virus - and thus won't be transmitting it.

This is the whole reason we are pushing for herd immunity.  The more people who get vaccinated, the less likely it becomes that a person will come into contact with the disease.  As long as there is high chance of exposure we need caution.  This is true even for vaccinated people (especially when they stop taking all precautions as Walt has indicated he's doing) as they are still a vector for the disease.