POLL: Should the government mandate facial protection in crowded places ?

[Jack0Life]

I just want a YES or NO answer.
Very curious to see people's opinions.

If you haven't notice cases are rising again in 22 states just as the government relax on the quarantine.
For me lately I've noticed when I'm out in public that people aren't adhering to the social distancing and wearing masks as they used to.
My local IKEA which has been closed for until last week. We went in there and it was a freakin zoo. Everyone was tightly packed. ZERO distancing and only 50% had masks on. I was having an anxiety attack inside the store so me and the wife got what we needed and got out of there ASAP. Seems to me people are either ignorant or they aren't taking this seriously. No wonder cases are rising.
I'm just shock that they aren't more stores requiring masks inside. Costco is the biggest retailer that I know of and I love them for it.
Do we need the government step in and say we must wear a mask inside a store or in a crowed venue ? They did it with smoking.
Other countries have proven that they can keep the rate low while operating in a normal state.
Being a leader in so many things, why are Americans so bad at controlling this virus ?? Is it too much freedom ? Too many ignorant people ? What is it ?

[Cranky]

Yes. Its a public health issue.

[Paper Chaser]

Cases are rising, but the number of cases also depends on the amount of testing being done. Most states have ramped up testing leading up to loosening their restrictions, and that continues. So using "cases" as a metric to determine how the virus may/may not be spreading isn't very accurate.

When hospitalizations increase (and I believe there are places where they have), then there's more reason to be concerned. Deaths are probably the clearest way to know, but they seem to lag a couple of weeks, so by the time you notice a trend, that rend may have changed.

For what it's worth, daily deaths continue to decline even a month after some states began to loosen restrictions:
https://dataviz.nbcnews.com/projects/20200122-coronavirus-history-count/bar-deaths-per-day-us.html?initialWidth=760&childId=embed-20200122-coronavirus-united-states-bar&parentTitle=Graphic%3A%20Coronavirus%20deaths%20in%20the%20U.S.%2C%20per%20day&parentUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcnews.com%2Fhealth%2Fhealth-news%2Fcoronavirus-deaths-united-states-each-day-2020-n1177936

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/coronavirus-deaths-united-states-each-day-2020-n1177936

[GuitarStv]

Yep.  It's a public health issue.

[Sibley]

Perfect world? YES.

Real world? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Look, we already have a bunch of people who think it's no big deal, all a scam, etc. There are people who think kids don't get sick with covid! A couple weeks ago there were protests against wearing masks and the shutdowns. Those people haven't all changed their minds.

[DadJokes]

Yes, but there's probably a constitutional problem with that in the US.

[achvfi]

I said yes, if not mandate least government can do is encourage it strongly and put out a consistent message. If I was in charge , I would manufacture and send masks by mail every month to all.

[MudPuppy]

Yes. We already mandate things like shirts and shoes, so it’s not like there’s no precedent.

[Paper Chaser]

Yes. We already mandate things like shirts and shoes, so it’s not like there’s no precedent.

Do we? Perhaps socially there are expectations, and businesses can refuse service for certain reasons related to attire, but I don't think there's a government mandate about personal attire as long as the naughty bits are covered.

[DadJokes]

Yes. We already mandate things like shirts and shoes, so it’s not like there’s no precedent.

Do we? Perhaps socially there are expectations, and businesses can refuse service for certain reasons related to attire, but I don't think there's a government mandate about personal attire as long as the naughty bits are covered.

MudPuppy is confusing the government and individual businesses.

[simonsez]

I assume you mean for the US?

Federal government? No.  By mandate I assume you mean penalties for not doing so.  If you don't pay a fine, what happens?  Does it go to collections?  Does your credit score take a hit?  Can you go to jail?  I'm not comfortable with the long arm of the federal government enacting mandates like this that would hurt poor people proportionally more.  This strikes me as a bit tone deaf given the problems with police being out of touch with the citizens they serve.

State/local government: Sure, if they vote to do so and outline the terms and penalties clearly.  Personally, I prefer this to be more of a local decision but if not enough is deemed to be done in some areas by public health officials, I'd like states to step in appropriately.

Businesses/workplaces: If they want to enact their own policies, that is their right and I hope most do have sensible polices to mitigate COVID-19 spread.

The country is not homogeneous at all.  Nuanced policies and practices make sense for different places for myriad reasons.  Also, facial protection is just one tool.  I was at an outdoor event last weekend where temperature scanning was required to enter (by the business), masks were not, and then the bleacher seating was every 3rd row (and within each row you weren't near anyone, people seemed to naturally sit diagonally across the entire sections).  I think that worked fine and if I wouldn't have been comfortable with that, I would not have gone.

I was required to wear a mask at the dermatologist's office and the grocery store due to their policies.  Works for me, not sure federal government requirements are needed when more local entities and businesses can make their own rules.  At another grocery store where I live that does not require masks, the mask wearing proportion is near 100% anyway.  Again, this might depend on the area.

[MudPuppy]

It’s a mandate that, for example, restaurant workers wear certain shoes and clothing for health and safety. In certain factory/warehouse conditions, steel toe shoes are required. This isn’t different.

[MilesTeg]

Yes. We already mandate things like shirts and shoes, so it’s not like there’s no precedent.

Do we? Perhaps socially there are expectations, and businesses can refuse service for certain reasons related to attire, but I don't think there's a government mandate about personal attire as long as the naughty bits are covered.

Clothing requirements are not 'social expectations' they are law. The fact that the government can tell you to cover your naughty bits is absolutely precedent for the government telling you to cover your mouth and nose. I am pretty sure the feds don't have authority, but state and local governments do.

[maisymouser]

It’s a mandate that, for example, restaurant workers wear certain shoes and clothing for health and safety. In certain factory/warehouse conditions, steel toe shoes are required. This isn’t different.

I voted no and then read the thread, this especially puts me on the fence.

[John Galt incarnate!]

 The fact that the government can tell you to cover your naughty bits is absolutely precedent for the government telling you to cover your mouth and nose. I am pretty sure the feds don't have authority, but state and local governments do.

You are correct.

There is no federal police power akin to the police power of the States and their political subdivisions under the Tenth Amendment.

AMENDMENT  X [1791]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Under the Tenth Amendment (federalism), the States and their political subdivisions have   the police power, a sweeping  power to enact laws, regulations, and   ordinances that promote the health, safety, and welfare of the community .

The States' police power, and that of their political subdivisions,  is a comprehensive power that authorizes   regulation of  everything from A to Z, from the sale of alcoholic beverages to the caging of dangerous animals in zoos.

Commonwealth v. Alger (1851)

The government's power to enact such regulations for the good and welfare of the community as it sees fit, [is] subject to the limitations that the regulation be both reasonable and constitutional.

 It is much easier to perceive and realize the existence and sources of this power, then to mark its boundaries, or prescribe limits to its exercise.

JACOBSON  v. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS (1905)

The authority of the state to enact this statute is to be referred to what is commonly called the police power,—a power which the state did not surrender when becoming a member of the Union under the Constitution.

Although this court has refrained from any attempt to define the limits of that power, yet it has distinctly recognized the authority of a state to enact quarantine laws and 'health laws of every description;' indeed, all laws that relate to matters completely within its territory and which do not by their necessary operation affect the people of other states.

According to settled principles, the police power of a state must be held to embrace, at least, such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment as will protect the public health and the public safety.

[GuitarStv]

It’s a mandate that, for example, restaurant workers wear certain shoes and clothing for health and safety. In certain factory/warehouse conditions, steel toe shoes are required. This isn’t different.

Also, surgeons and nurses are required to wear masks while operating on a person.  So there's even precedent for mask wearing where it is likely to prevent spread of disease.

[Paper Chaser]

It’s a mandate that, for example, restaurant workers wear certain shoes and clothing for health and safety. In certain factory/warehouse conditions, steel toe shoes are required. This isn’t different.

The shoes and PPE are often for the protection of the workers. They're often OSHA regs instead of general, public mandates. It's the difference between what kitchen staff are expected to wear in a restaurant (hair coverings, non-slip shoes, long pants/shirt sleeves) vs what servers might wear (usually just non-slip shoes) vs what a host/hostess might wear vs what customers are expected to wear (cover your naughty bits in most cases and you're good). The regulations get more lax the further you get from the food prep in restaurants. They don't apply equally to everybody in the restaurant.

The only mandates that apply equally to everybody in the general public are about covering your naughty bits, and that's based more on "decency" than public health/safety. "Thanks a lot Puritans!"

[MudPuppy]

Of course. These items are required when certain conditions are met. In this case, it would be whatever the definition of “crowded” is according to the government body creating the mandate.

[John Galt incarnate!]

It’s a mandate that, for example, restaurant workers wear certain shoes and clothing for health and safety. In certain factory/warehouse conditions, steel toe shoes are required. This isn’t different.

I voted no and then read the thread, this especially puts me on the fence.

I oppose a blanket commandment that all persons must wear masks in public places.

Let federalism operate to  allow each state, county, city, and town to decide whether universal masking is warranted or not.

[Jack0Life]

I'm surprised there are a lot more NO than what I was expecting.
People that voted NO, can you give us your reasoning ??

Maybe its just me but our country as a whole are too lackadaisical in the prevention of the virus.
Look, the virus might or might not be as serious as we all think.(that's another debate). Whats not debatable is the FEAR in people and fear causes paranoia.
The Asian countries have gone through this before with SARS so they know the problem is real. They are doing a much better job the 2nd time around. I hope the 2nd wave(if there is(hopefully not)) will put a scare into people and we as a society take better precaution in the spreading.

[Jack0Life]

It’s a mandate that, for example, restaurant workers wear certain shoes and clothing for health and safety. In certain factory/warehouse conditions, steel toe shoes are required. This isn’t different.

I voted no and then read the thread, this especially puts me on the fence.

I oppose a blanket commandment that all persons must wear masks in public places.

Let federalism operate to  allow each state, county, city, and town to decide whether universal masking is warranted or not.

The post never said public places. Crowed venues and inside establishments.
Trying to enfore wearing masks when walking out in the streets is a bit too much.

[OtherJen]

I'm surprised there are a lot more NO than what I was expecting.
People that voted NO, can you give us your reasoning ??

Maybe its just me but our country as a whole are too lackadaisical in the prevention of the virus.
Look, the virus might or might not be as serious as we all think.(that's another debate). Whats not debatable is the FEAR in people and fear causes paranoia.
The Asian countries have gone through this before with SARS so they know the problem is real. They are doing a much better job the 2nd time around. I hope the 2nd wave(if there is(hopefully not)) will put a scare into people and we as a society take better precaution in the spreading.

I'm not optimistic that we'll avoid a second wave. Texas and Arizona are both reporting record numbers of COVID-19 hospitalizations this week, and hospitalization numbers are ramping up in other states: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/10/health/us-coronavirus-wednesday/index.html

It's so frustrating, because something as simple as wearing a mask in indoor public spaces can apparently have a significant effect on reducing transmission, yet so many people (who do not have health conditions precluding mask use) refuse to even inconvenience themselves in this minor way.

[Car Jack]

Wear a mask?  How silly?  Next thing I know, they won't let me walk around the park with no pants on.

[MudPuppy]

Wear a mask?  How silly?  Next thing I know, they won't let me walk around the park with no pants on.

Which would ruin my Thursday afternoon plans.

[simonsez]

I'm surprised there are a lot more NO than what I was expecting.
People that voted NO, can you give us your reasoning ??

What do you mean by government?  Any level or federal?  Not that it changes my answer, just curious.

I'm okay with state and local governments enacting policies that they think is best given their situation and the information they have.  If a locality or state decides to leave it up to businesses/institutions/workplaces/individuals to self-manage COVID-19, I am okay with those government entities having that power to make that decision.  Thus, I voted NO.  If your question was "Should the government (any level) have the power to mandate facial protection in crowded places?", I would say YES.

[Alternatepriorities]

No.

People behave worse when they feel anonymous. The long term damage to social trust outweighs the benefits. Especially since neither the CDC nor WHO has been consistent on how effective masks are and who should wear them.

[Buffaloski Boris]

An emphatic NO.

Look, I'm all for wearing masks.  I do so myself.  I encourage everyone to wear one. And wear it correctly. I think you're a damn fool if you don't wear a mask and distance yourself.  And I'm not interested in going into a store where masks aren't worn.  But once you start issuing legal edicts for relatively minor behavioral transgressions it starts begging the question: how are you planning to enforce it?  What lengths are you willing to go to in order to enforce the edict?  And what are you going to do in the cases where the person won't wear the mask properly?  I've seen plenty of people with a mask on their chin, not covering their nose, etc.   

You hand a law to law enforcement and guess what?  They're going to enforce it. Let's not forget that Eric Garner was choked over bootleg cigarettes.  George Floyd got a knee to the neck over a fake $20 bill.  If you want to start forcing people to do something, then there are going to be people who refuse to go along.  And in some cases that's going to mean people getting cuffed or clubbed or maced or choked.  It isn't worth it to me.       

[scottish]

No, it's very hard to enforce.   The NYPD won't do it FFS, and they've been told to.

You'll get sporadic enforcement with disproportionate use of force, or you'll get general non-compliance.   Both will weaken the effective authority of public health officials.

[Steeze]

I'm surprised there are a lot more NO than what I was expecting.
People that voted NO, can you give us your reasoning ??

Maybe its just me but our country as a whole are too lackadaisical in the prevention of the virus.
Look, the virus might or might not be as serious as we all think.(that's another debate). Whats not debatable is the FEAR in people and fear causes paranoia.
The Asian countries have gone through this before with SARS so they know the problem is real. They are doing a much better job the 2nd time around. I hope the 2nd wave(if there is(hopefully not)) will put a scare into people and we as a society take better precaution in the spreading.

I voted “No” - not a big fan of government mandates. Empower businesses to refuse service to those not wearing a mask? Ok. Recommend people wear masks? Ok. Educate people why masks are important? Ok. Provide access to free masks? Ok. Mask requirement at government facilities? Ok. Social & media campaigns to make mask wearing normal? Ok.

Who is the government and what is a crowded place? No thanks. I’ll take my chances outside with the people and the virus. They told us in March that no masks required they are not effective, remember that? Now you want mandatory masks? How about the government start by ensuring masks are available when we actually wanted to wear them and buy them. They tell you the truth when it’s convenient.

I wore a mask all of March April and May. I’m over it - as far as I’m concerned the pandemic is over. This thing wasn’t as bad as we thought and is going to keep coming back for years to come probably. Might as well get used to it and move on. We all did what was needed to prevent the health care system from being overwhelmed and buy time to procure PPE. Now that is done we have to accept a base line case count and death rate just like anything else. Hopefully society will adjust with as few mandates as possible.

[js82]

You hand a law to law enforcement and guess what?  They're going to enforce it. Let's not forget that Eric Garner was choked over bootleg cigarettes.  George Floyd got a knee to the neck over a fake $20 bill.  If you want to start forcing people to do something, then there are going to be people who refuse to go along.  And in some cases that's going to mean people getting cuffed or clubbed or maced or choked.  It isn't worth it to me.     

This is very topical.

To expand on this thought: If you could trust law enforcement to enforce the laws in a sensible, unbiased manner it'd be one thing.  But if there's one thing that recent history has illustrated, it's that law enforcement doesn't always enforce the laws in a uniform manner.

Do YOU trust the police to be even-handed in enforcing mask-wearing laws?  I know I don't.


Ultimately, I'm torn on this one.  Not wearing masks in crowded (particularly indoor) public places is dumb if you live in an area where the infection rate is non-neglegible.  But the secondary consequences of giving police the discretionary power to write someone a ticket because their mask isn't covering their nose may well outweigh any good such a mandate would do.

[MilesTeg]

I'm surprised there are a lot more NO than what I was expecting.
People that voted NO, can you give us your reasoning ??

Maybe its just me but our country as a whole are too lackadaisical in the prevention of the virus.
Look, the virus might or might not be as serious as we all think.(that's another debate). Whats not debatable is the FEAR in people and fear causes paranoia.
The Asian countries have gone through this before with SARS so they know the problem is real. They are doing a much better job the 2nd time around. I hope the 2nd wave(if there is(hopefully not)) will put a scare into people and we as a society take better precaution in the spreading.

I voted “No” - not a big fan of government mandates. Empower businesses to refuse service to those not wearing a mask? Ok. Recommend people wear masks? Ok. Educate people why masks are important? Ok. Provide access to free masks? Ok. Mask requirement at government facilities? Ok. Social & media campaigns to make mask wearing normal? Ok.

Who is the government and what is a crowded place? No thanks. I’ll take my chances outside with the people and the virus. They told us in March that no masks required they are not effective, remember that? Now you want mandatory masks? How about the government start by ensuring masks are available when we actually wanted to wear them and buy them. They tell you the truth when it’s convenient.

I wore a mask all of March April and May. I’m over it - as far as I’m concerned the pandemic is over. This thing wasn’t as bad as we thought and is going to keep coming back for years to come probably. Might as well get used to it and move on. We all did what was needed to prevent the health care system from being overwhelmed and buy time to procure PPE. Now that is done we have to accept a base line case count and death rate just like anything else. Hopefully society will adjust with as few mandates as possible.

To sum up: "I'd rather people die unnecessarily than be inconvenienced."

[MudPuppy]

The police argument is probably the best one I’ve ever heard for the no side.

[bmjohnson35]

I initially read facial recognition, instead of facial protection......but I would vote no either way.

Although I try to consistently wear a mask when inside stores, I'm not convinced it prevents much. I wear one out of respect more than belief that it helps much.  Personally, I would rather people respect the social distancing more than wear a mask.  If you go inside stores locally, most don't wear masks and many are not trying to distance themselves any longer.  Since you are dealing with the masses, you typically have to keep it simple and a bit overkill. 

I personally believe that washing your hands regularly, trying to maintain distance from others and making a conscious effort to not touch your face is your best defense.  Of course, don't go out into crowded areas anymore than required. 

In the end, I tend to be against any more laws or "rules" by our government.  I think we have more than we need already.  Furthermore, as someone already said, you are placing more burden on police officers to enforce yet another law.


BJ

[Steeze]

I'm surprised there are a lot more NO than what I was expecting.
People that voted NO, can you give us your reasoning ??

Maybe its just me but our country as a whole are too lackadaisical in the prevention of the virus.
Look, the virus might or might not be as serious as we all think.(that's another debate). Whats not debatable is the FEAR in people and fear causes paranoia.
The Asian countries have gone through this before with SARS so they know the problem is real. They are doing a much better job the 2nd time around. I hope the 2nd wave(if there is(hopefully not)) will put a scare into people and we as a society take better precaution in the spreading.

I voted “No” - not a big fan of government mandates. Empower businesses to refuse service to those not wearing a mask? Ok. Recommend people wear masks? Ok. Educate people why masks are important? Ok. Provide access to free masks? Ok. Mask requirement at government facilities? Ok. Social & media campaigns to make mask wearing normal? Ok.

Who is the government and what is a crowded place? No thanks. I’ll take my chances outside with the people and the virus. They told us in March that no masks required they are not effective, remember that? Now you want mandatory masks? How about the government start by ensuring masks are available when we actually wanted to wear them and buy them. They tell you the truth when it’s convenient.

I wore a mask all of March April and May. I’m over it - as far as I’m concerned the pandemic is over. This thing wasn’t as bad as we thought and is going to keep coming back for years to come probably. Might as well get used to it and move on. We all did what was needed to prevent the health care system from being overwhelmed and buy time to procure PPE. Now that is done we have to accept a base line case count and death rate just like anything else. Hopefully society will adjust with as few mandates as possible.

To sum up: "I'd rather people die unnecessarily than be inconvenienced."

Good luck preventing every death. I expect you to never drive a car again. Also, please stop using all forms of energy, plastic, electronics, etc.

Someone out there is probably dying a horrible death to cancer right now because of mining the metals required to build the phone I’m using which is also powered by the burning of fossil fuels and stored in heavy metal solution.

To sum up - your actions, everyone’s actions, cause people to die unnecessarily everyday. The only thing that is unique about this is that it is new and there is a test for it.

[Buffaloski Boris]

You hand a law to law enforcement and guess what?  They're going to enforce it. Let's not forget that Eric Garner was choked over bootleg cigarettes.  George Floyd got a knee to the neck over a fake $20 bill.  If you want to start forcing people to do something, then there are going to be people who refuse to go along.  And in some cases that's going to mean people getting cuffed or clubbed or maced or choked.  It isn't worth it to me.     

This is very topical.

To expand on this thought: If you could trust law enforcement to enforce the laws in a sensible, unbiased manner it'd be one thing.  But if there's one thing that recent history has illustrated, it's that law enforcement doesn't always enforce the laws in a uniform manner.

Do YOU trust the police to be even-handed in enforcing mask-wearing laws?  I know I don't.


Ultimately, I'm torn on this one.  Not wearing masks in crowded (particularly indoor) public places is dumb if you live in an area where the infection rate is non-neglegible.  But the secondary consequences of giving police the discretionary power to write someone a ticket because their mask isn't covering their nose may well outweigh any good such a mandate would do.

And I'll let your imagination wander as to exactly which groups of people would get tickets and handcuffs and which groups would get let off with a polite warning.

When it comes to public policy, I think we as Americans really need to think through the cultural aspects.  This is not, repeat NOT a culture that does obedience well.  So if you're going to tell people to do "X" , you'd better darn well make sure it's worth it to you when people end up not doing what you want and you end up having all sorts of horrible, unintended consequences when you try to force compliance. 

I think most of us would agree that cocaine and meth are bad things.  I don't want to see people being addicted.  And no doubt the Georgia Legislature thought that when they decided to make possession and sale a felony.  I also doubt that they thought that the eventual price tag for that law would include large percentages of their population being felons, or that flash-bang grenades would end up being thrown into baby's cribs.*.

*(yeah, it happened. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ex-georgia-deputy-acquitted-after-flash-bang-grenade-hurts-toddler-n479361)   

[MudPuppy]

I'm surprised there are a lot more NO than what I was expecting.
People that voted NO, can you give us your reasoning ??

Maybe its just me but our country as a whole are too lackadaisical in the prevention of the virus.
Look, the virus might or might not be as serious as we all think.(that's another debate). Whats not debatable is the FEAR in people and fear causes paranoia.
The Asian countries have gone through this before with SARS so they know the problem is real. They are doing a much better job the 2nd time around. I hope the 2nd wave(if there is(hopefully not)) will put a scare into people and we as a society take better precaution in the spreading.

I voted “No” - not a big fan of government mandates. Empower businesses to refuse service to those not wearing a mask? Ok. Recommend people wear masks? Ok. Educate people why masks are important? Ok. Provide access to free masks? Ok. Mask requirement at government facilities? Ok. Social & media campaigns to make mask wearing normal? Ok.

Who is the government and what is a crowded place? No thanks. I’ll take my chances outside with the people and the virus. They told us in March that no masks required they are not effective, remember that? Now you want mandatory masks? How about the government start by ensuring masks are available when we actually wanted to wear them and buy them. They tell you the truth when it’s convenient.

I wore a mask all of March April and May. I’m over it - as far as I’m concerned the pandemic is over. This thing wasn’t as bad as we thought and is going to keep coming back for years to come probably. Might as well get used to it and move on. We all did what was needed to prevent the health care system from being overwhelmed and buy time to procure PPE. Now that is done we have to accept a base line case count and death rate just like anything else. Hopefully society will adjust with as few mandates as possible.

To sum up: "I'd rather people die unnecessarily than be inconvenienced."

Good luck preventing every death. I expect you to never drive a car again. Also, please stop using all forms of energy, plastic, electronics, etc.

Someone out there is probably dying a horrible death to cancer right now because of mining the metals required to build the phone I’m using which is also powered by the burning of fossil fuels and stored in heavy metal solution.

To sum up - your actions, everyone’s actions, cause people to die unnecessarily everyday. The only thing that is unique about this is that it is new and there is a test for it.

We’ve run this circle in so many other threads, so I’ll briefly summarize. Just because you can’t prevent every death doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to prevent some. We heavily regulate lots of things for safety. To lick one item off your very melodramatic list, things like seatbelts, airbags, speed limits, unleaded fuel, and requiring people to have licenses and insurance are all for safety and risk mitigation during vehicle operation.

[Steeze]

By making it illegal to go outside without a mask?

[MudPuppy]

That’s not the premise of the OP. The OP asks if we would support the requirement of wearing masks in crowded places.

[Fish Sweet]

I voted Yes, based on the premise of the poll.  I think that state government/city officials in especially COVID impacted places should mandate that crowded places (for example: a mall) require facial protection to allow people in, and empower businesses to turn away people who aren't wearing facial coverings.  Though I do think wearing a mask whenever you're out would be ideal, I don't think it should be legally mandated and certainly shouldn't be enforceable by police action (as seen by the biased standards of policing and lackadaisal police adherence to facial protection.)

It's interesting and rather worrying seeing Americans still going back and forth about wearing masks.  I'm a first gen immigrant in the US from a heavily populated east Asian country (not China) that managed to quash and minimize the outbreak very quickly and effectively.  Most of my family is overseas, where it was common sense to wear a mask everywhere during the worst of the pandemic and anytime someone is sick.  Their reaction to the ah, general American response to COVID is one of horrified bewilderment.

[Paper Chaser]

So how do we practically determine what a "crowded" place is? Is it number of people per sq meter or something? Are outdoor places like beaches given more leeway than indoor places where the air is recirculated and contained? Whose responsibility is it to keep track of the number of people in a given area to know when it's officially become "crowded" enough to require masks, and how would that be communicated?

[OtherJen]

So how do we practically determine what a "crowded" place is? Is it number of people per sq meter or something? Are outdoor places like beaches given more leeway than indoor places where the air is recirculated and contained? Whose responsibility is it to keep track of the number of people in a given area to know when it's officially become "crowded" enough to require masks, and how would that be communicated?

Probably a combination of a percentage of the existing building capacity as per the fire code and the ventilation system. Communication of this limit would use the same channels through which all other communications are sent. Why complicate the issue?

After reading others' thoughtful posts regarding the obvious potential issues with law enforcement, I agree that law enforcement on this issue is not the best option in the USA. However, I think that businesses should be legally allowed to set and enforce their own policies and should be supported by the local government when people try to argue or defy those policies.

[GuitarStv]

I'd define a crowded place as a place where it's not possible to maintain 6 ft distance from other people.

[Wrenchturner]

I'd define a crowded place as a place where it's not possible to maintain 6 ft distance from other people.

That's a pretty general criteria.  Does a grocery store count?  Sometimes people pass each other at <6ft, or I go past something in an aisle and have to move relatively close to grab something I missed.

I voted Yes in the poll but it was tentative since I don't know what a crowded space is, or how that will be consistently defined, or how enforcement will occur when an establishment suddenly becomes much busier(like a grocery store at rush hour).

In principle it seems pretty reasonable though, that issue aside.

I also don't know if research has been done to assess how much cross contamination comes from people's cell phones, or touching their face to put on/adjust their mask, etc. 

[MudPuppy]

The fire Marshall already makes capacity determinations for buildings. The operators of those buildings are expected to monitor to makes sure they are in compliance. It doesn’t seem a leap to think they could just declare a certain capacity percentage to be the “safe” number.

[Wrenchturner]

The fire Marshall already makes capacity determinations for buildings. The operators of those buildings are expected to monitor to makes sure they are in compliance. It doesn’t seem a leap to think they could just declare a certain capacity percentage to be the “safe” number.

So there would be a "mask marshall" attending every location who enforces--say--hundreds of people to suddenly don their masks when the capacity hits n+1?  It's not going to happen.

Sort of what happens in parks: at first everyone leaves plenty of space.  At some point, someone arrives who creates an over-capacity situation and bends the rules.  Then several more arrive, and continue to bend the rules, and pretty soon you have a park full of people not distancing adequately.

[MudPuppy]

That’s not what happens with the fire marshal

[Wrenchturner]

That’s not what happens with the fire marshal

What happens with a fire marshal is that you have a hard line of capacity that never gets crossed.  The issue of this "percentage" that you suggest is that it requires a dynamic enforcement depending on the number participants.

The problem is the marginal events on the tail, not the middle where everything happens predictably.  Masks would be required in trains but optional on golf courses.  Those aren't the concern with this idea.

[GuitarStv]

I'd define a crowded place as a place where it's not possible to maintain 6 ft distance from other people.

That's a pretty general criteria.  Does a grocery store count?  Sometimes people pass each other at <6ft, or I go past something in an aisle and have to move relatively close to grab something I missed.

I voted Yes in the poll but it was tentative since I don't know what a crowded space is, or how that will be consistently defined, or how enforcement will occur when an establishment suddenly becomes much busier(like a grocery store at rush hour).

In principle it seems pretty reasonable though, that issue aside.

I also don't know if research has been done to assess how much cross contamination comes from people's cell phones, or touching their face to put on/adjust their mask, etc.

I'd argue that a supermarket is a place where a mask should be worn . . . for the reasons you mentioned.  It's not possible to always maintain 6' distance.

[MudPuppy]

That’s not what happens with the fire marshal

What happens with a fire marshal is that you have a hard line of capacity that never gets crossed.  The issue of this "percentage" that you suggest is that it requires a dynamic enforcement depending on the number participants.

The problem is the marginal events on the tail, not the middle where everything happens predictably.  Masks would be required in trains but optional on golf courses.  Those aren't the concern with this idea.

What happens for the most part is that the operators pinky swear not to allow more than the designated capacity to occupy the building. It would be fairly straightforward to have the building operators to plan for operation at less than the designated “safe” capacity %, or they are unwilling or unable to operate that way, require people to wear masks inside.

[Wrenchturner]

I'd define a crowded place as a place where it's not possible to maintain 6 ft distance from other people.

That's a pretty general criteria.  Does a grocery store count?  Sometimes people pass each other at <6ft, or I go past something in an aisle and have to move relatively close to grab something I missed.

I voted Yes in the poll but it was tentative since I don't know what a crowded space is, or how that will be consistently defined, or how enforcement will occur when an establishment suddenly becomes much busier(like a grocery store at rush hour).

In principle it seems pretty reasonable though, that issue aside.

I also don't know if research has been done to assess how much cross contamination comes from people's cell phones, or touching their face to put on/adjust their mask, etc.

I'd argue that a supermarket is a place where a mask should be worn . . . for the reasons you mentioned.  It's not possible to always maintain 6' distance.

"Should be" or "mandated"?  Just trying to be clear here, not trying for a gotcha.  Rules have to be clear.

I think they could be mandated for grocery stores without too much issue, save for disabled people who can't easily put on a mask, I suppose.  Not sure if this would pass some type of constitutional challenge or charter challenge though.

A tougher one--convenience stores.  Will compliance be very low?  Probably.  Would it require some sort of private security to enforce?  Likely.  Still not sure it would work.

"But I was just stopping in quickly to grab some milk and I don't feel sick so I'm not a risk", etc. 

As we've seen through this whole pandemic, many people have a hard time seeing themselves as a participant in a group so they don't see the risk of group problems that manifest from individual disobedience.  Prisoner's dilemma/moral hazard.

What happens for the most part is that the operators pinky swear not to allow more than the designated capacity to occupy the building. It would be fairly straightforward to have the building operators to plan for operation at less than the designated “safe” capacity %, or they are unwilling or unable to operate that way, require people to wear masks inside.

If I'm interpreting you correctly, then I agree with this solution.  Either mandate mask-wearing or mandate a limited capacity to create a similar prophylaxis.