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

[OtherJen]

Has this title said "crowed" places the whole time? I just noticed today. Perhaps because I am on the computer, rather than the phone.

In a "crowed" place, a wide brimmed hat is probably a better option than a mask because of the significantly high risk of birdshit.

[Jack0Life]

Has this title said "crowed" places the whole time? I just noticed today. Perhaps because I am on the computer, rather than the phone.

YES. I started this thread. I like someone else explanation of "crowed". Inside an establishment or places where you can't keep social distancing.

[Jack0Life]

The fact that this needs to be legislated and that there’s a debate about it is, frankly, depressing. On this topic, I think the Arnold nailed it: https://twitter.com/Schwarzenegger/status/1273754766787502080?s=20

“The science is unanimous - if we all wear masks, we slow down the spread and can reopen safely. It’s not a political issue. Anyone making it a political issue is an absolute moron who can’t read.”

Big thumbs up !!!
I wish everyone can get onboard and stop making this a "freedom" issue. Its a public health issue.
The faster we can get 100% compliance, the faster we can return to normal lives.

[Fish Sweet]

It might just be the area of Michigan that I live in, but I have seen many people with a mask over the last few months who are clearly just outside for a walk.  At least 50% of people here wear their masks in parking lots too.  I support their right to wear a mask if they want to but that doesn't stop me from thinking that it's stupid.

Uh, why would it be stupid?  You do understand that when wearing a mask, you want to keep touching the mask/your face to a minimum, right?  If someone is walking to the grocery store and pulls on the mask just before stepping in, their face germs are now on their hands-- and on whatever they might touch while browsing.  Similarly, when they step out of the grocery store, they have a whole store's worth of germs on their hands as they're walking home/back to the car.  Just like how you shouldn't give your eyes a good rub at this time, you shouldn't touch the mask until you've had a chance to watch your hands thoroughly.

It's also a matter of courtesy toward other people.  How many of the masked 50% you thought looked stupid might have actually been COVID positive and were doing their part to prevent transmission?  Or perhaps they were just straight up sick with something else - a cold, pinkeye, stomach flu, etc. and didn't want to give it to anyone?  Hell, I'm having a terrible snot-and-wet-cough allergy-filled summer right now, and I wear a mask every time I leave the house so I don't scare the shit out of people when I sneeze five times in a row and then cough like I'm about to toss up a lung.  Sure, it's my AMERICAN RIGHT (TM) to sneeze and cough in the direction of anyone I want, and I'm not gonna get anyone sick from it.  But it would still be a pretty douche move.

[Jack0Life]

Great news in the county where I live in Florida.
Our Mayor Demings just made masks mandatory in Orange County because our Governor DeSantis doesn't have the balls to do it. Good for Mayor Demings. I know its hard to enforce but if enough people are wearing masks, maybe we can public shame on people that don't comply. I hope mayors in other counties will follow suit. We all want to resume normal lives. It can start if we all just comply and protect our fellow citizens. I hope this is picking up steam for all of the US.

Still perplexed as to why our leaders aren't being more proactive.
Doesn't take a genius to figure out a simple face mask will reduce the transmission.
Look at Italy, they had the biggest crisis. Their government mandated masks in all public transportation and inside stores beginning of May and their rates have dropped significantly.

[undercover]

Lots of cities/local governments are already mandating it. Fully enforcing it is still a different reality.

Maybe my math is terrible, but I still see the chance of actually catching it extremely low. If we exclude those under 14, which isn’t totally fair, but doing it anyway, that leaves 253M population. 2.23M current cases. Of course it’s higher so let’s just go crazy and round up to 3M. 3/253 = 1.2 percent of the population. But of course a lot of those are already hospitalized and self-quarantined so that bumps down the chances of running into someone that has it. So in the worst case about 1 in 100 people you see might have it. But that doesn’t even paint the full picture because it’s clearly worse in certain areas than others. The 1 in 100 is even lower in my state and even lower in my county and even lower because I’m in a rural area.

All this is to say that I don’t personally wear a mask because I don’t see the point for me. I live in a rural area and just because you don’t wear a mask also doesn’t mean you’re automatically at a severe risk since you can still social distance and use common sense. I mean the mask isn’t even a big deal, I’ll wear one, I just don’t see the point for myself personally. I was just on a popular hiking trail the other day and a ton of normal looking people were out and exactly none of them had a mask. Not saying that’s a good idea, just saying it was a thing.

I don’t think requiring a mask for people out and about all day long in densely populated places a bad idea at all though.

[Jack0Life]

Lots of cities/local governments are already mandating it. Fully enforcing it is still a different reality.

Maybe my math is terrible, but I still see the chance of actually catching it extremely low. If we exclude those under 14, which isn’t totally fair, but doing it anyway, that leaves 253M population. 2.23M current cases. Of course it’s higher so let’s just go crazy and round up to 3M. 3/253 = 1.2 percent of the population. But of course a lot of those are already hospitalized and self-quarantined so that bumps down the chances of running into someone that has it. So in the worst case about 1 in 100 people you see might have it. But that doesn’t even paint the full picture because it’s clearly worse in certain areas than others. The 1 in 100 is even lower in my state and even lower in my county and even lower because I’m in a rural area.

All this is to say that I don’t personally wear a mask because I don’t see the point for me. I live in a rural area and just because you don’t wear a mask also doesn’t mean you’re automatically at a severe risk since you can still social distance and use common sense. I mean the mask isn’t even a big deal, I’ll wear one, I just don’t see the point for myself personally. I was just on a popular hiking trail the other day and a ton of normal looking people were out and exactly none of them had a mask. Not saying that’s a good idea, just saying it was a thing.

I don’t think requiring a mask for people out and about all day long in densely populated places a bad idea at all though.

Sorry but your post has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
You live in a rural area where you hardly come into contact with anyone where this thread talks about wearing masks inside establishment and places where you can't keep social distancing.

[Jack0Life]

The US saw what was happening to China and Italy and learn little from them.
Great job America. Our rates are going way down......

[darkadams00]

I'm having a terrible snot-and-wet-cough allergy-filled summer right now, and I wear a mask every time I leave the house so I don't scare the shit out of people when I sneeze five times in a row and then cough like I'm about to toss up a lung.  Sure, it's my AMERICAN RIGHT (TM) to sneeze and cough in the direction of anyone I want, and I'm not gonna get anyone sick from it.  But it would still be a pretty douche move.

And you’re still wearing the same mask after all that???? That’s disgusting enough to warrant its own thread.

[undercover]

Lots of cities/local governments are already mandating it. Fully enforcing it is still a different reality.

Maybe my math is terrible, but I still see the chance of actually catching it extremely low. If we exclude those under 14, which isn’t totally fair, but doing it anyway, that leaves 253M population. 2.23M current cases. Of course it’s higher so let’s just go crazy and round up to 3M. 3/253 = 1.2 percent of the population. But of course a lot of those are already hospitalized and self-quarantined so that bumps down the chances of running into someone that has it. So in the worst case about 1 in 100 people you see might have it. But that doesn’t even paint the full picture because it’s clearly worse in certain areas than others. The 1 in 100 is even lower in my state and even lower in my county and even lower because I’m in a rural area.

All this is to say that I don’t personally wear a mask because I don’t see the point for me. I live in a rural area and just because you don’t wear a mask also doesn’t mean you’re automatically at a severe risk since you can still social distance and use common sense. I mean the mask isn’t even a big deal, I’ll wear one, I just don’t see the point for myself personally. I was just on a popular hiking trail the other day and a ton of normal looking people were out and exactly none of them had a mask. Not saying that’s a good idea, just saying it was a thing.

I don’t think requiring a mask for people out and about all day long in densely populated places a bad idea at all though.

Sorry but your post has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
You live in a rural area where you hardly come into contact with anyone where this thread talks about wearing masks inside establishment and places where you can't keep social distancing.

Of course it does. I stated many cities/governments are already doing this. The county with largest population in the area south of me and a city north of me have already mandated it for indoor areas. It’s not going to happen at the federal level as other people have already said.

I stated why I’m not personally wearing a mask because you simply said “government” and I personally think it would be pretty stupid for me to have to wear a mask when my risk is basically zero (even though our Walmart does get fairly crowded still and no one abides by the arrows of course, but whatever). I do think for the general population living in big cities it wouldn’t be a bad idea so my overall answer is “yes”.

Even still, most of the info of my post is still relevant. 1 in 100 is still worse case scenario and that’s assuming you’re up in peoples faces and they’re coughing and sneezing around you. If you are coming into close contact with more than 100 people a day then you should probably wear a mask and shouldn’t need the government to tell you to do so. Many people I see are doing it regardless so that’s good. Again, I don’t see the federal government mandating it so at best your local business will require it.

[Fish Sweet]

I'm having a terrible snot-and-wet-cough allergy-filled summer right now, and I wear a mask every time I leave the house so I don't scare the shit out of people when I sneeze five times in a row and then cough like I'm about to toss up a lung.  Sure, it's my AMERICAN RIGHT (TM) to sneeze and cough in the direction of anyone I want, and I'm not gonna get anyone sick from it.  But it would still be a pretty douche move.

And you’re still wearing the same mask after all that???? That’s disgusting enough to warrant its own thread.

I'm still what?  What a baffling response that has nothing to do with anything in my comment.

[jpdx]

Should the government require seatbelts to be worn while using an automobile?

During a pandemic, states should require masks to be worn in indoor public places.

[Eowyn_MI]

The fact that this needs to be legislated and that there’s a debate about it is, frankly, depressing. On this topic, I think the Arnold nailed it: https://twitter.com/Schwarzenegger/status/1273754766787502080?s=20

“The science is unanimous - if we all wear masks, we slow down the spread and can reopen safely. It’s not a political issue. Anyone making it a political issue is an absolute moron who can’t read.”

Instead of calling people morons or illiterate, can we agree that the early guidance on masks was at minimum, very confusing and at worse, deliberately misleading?

Can we further agree that the government at the federal AND state levels have made at least a few mistakes in their response to covid-19?  Some of the negative feelings towards the government right now are completely understandable if not warranted.

Humans are not robots; you can't program them all to act a certain way.  Most of the people at MMM are looking for constant optimization and all that but a lot of people in the world aren't.  Their feelings matter even if they are factually wrong.  Calling them names is good way to get them to dig into their trenches and double down on their position.

[Eowyn_MI]

I'm having a terrible snot-and-wet-cough allergy-filled summer right now, and I wear a mask every time I leave the house so I don't scare the shit out of people when I sneeze five times in a row and then cough like I'm about to toss up a lung.  Sure, it's my AMERICAN RIGHT (TM) to sneeze and cough in the direction of anyone I want, and I'm not gonna get anyone sick from it.  But it would still be a pretty douche move.

And you’re still wearing the same mask after all that???? That’s disgusting enough to warrant its own thread.

I'm still what?  What a baffling response that has nothing to do with anything in my comment.

Sneezing 5 times into a mask and then coughing up a lung immediately makes that mask gross and disgusting.  Now you are wearing all that gunk on your face.  Unless if you have another mask to change into but that would require you to remove your first mask and touch your face to put on the new one.

I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't wear a mask; I just think that this is what darkadams00 was getting at with their post.

[LennStar]

"100 times or only 20" what? Reduced QALY? 100x the # of cases? Deaths? 100X the economic impact? Why would honestly discussing facts rather than randomly suggested numbers be a moot point? How is determining the truth a moot point? There's an enormous difference between your estimates of 20X and 100X the impact. And both are simply random estimates that cannot be quantified but they can be spread around wrongly as fact and lead to fearful decision making.

People don't need random, off the cuff estimates. They deserve the truth.

It is a moot point because even the most reliable number - deaths - is not comparable to each other because the circumstances (like vaccine) are so different.

You cannot get a number without guessing or estimating a fairly bug bunch of numbers and putting down assumptions. This is medicine we are talking about, not math.
For example the current Covid-19 in Europe and North America is not the same that was in China. There was a mutation making it more infective, which lead it to be the domination streak in a matter of a few weeks.

Maybe my math is terrible, but I still see the chance of actually catching it extremely low.

The most underrated power in the universe is compaund interest.
The chance is low as long as it's low. What do I mean by it?
The difference between of "sinking number of cases" and "health system overwhelmed" is very small in the case of Covid.
For Germany (we never reached the critical point, even with taking patients from other countries) the difference was just 2 weeks.
2 weeks later with the "lockdown" (which wasn't even a real one) and we would have exceeded the manageable amount of cases instead of having just half of them.

In New York the chance of getting the virus 3 month ago was near zero.
Now, just do grocery shopping and you have met several people who already had it (or worse, have it).

[the_gastropod]

Instead of calling people morons or illiterate, can we agree that the early guidance on masks was at minimum, very confusing and at worse, deliberately misleading?

Yea, definitely. The early guidance in March that masks were unnecessary was a bad call and almost certainly resulted in unnecessary death. I think it’s important to remember what was going on in March, though. Grocery stores were being raided, PPE was already running low. I get why this call was made.

Can we further agree that the government at the federal AND state levels have made at least a few mistakes in their response to covid-19?  Some of the negative feelings towards the government right now are completely understandable if not warranted.

Also yes. And perhaps the biggest mistake at the federal level has been the politicization of mask wearing. There will no doubt be investigations into de Blasio’s handling of covid and countless other mayors and governors will be rightly scrutinized as well. But that’s another topic.

Where we are now is with solid scientific agreement that masks work and some hard headed people refusing to wear them. And thinking it’s some brave badge of honor.

Humans are not robots; you can't program them all to act a certain way.  Most of the people at MMM are looking for constant optimization and all that but a lot of people in the world aren't.  Their feelings matter even if they are factually wrong.  Calling them names is good way to get them to dig into their trenches and double down on their position.

America has this individualist libertarian ideal. And that’s perfectly fine and can work when people use their brains and behave with decency under their own volition. But that’s not what we have. Thomas Jefferson said it best: “ If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be”

[Arbitrage]

Well, my state (CA) just mandated facial protection, aside from the normally expected exceptions (outside and maintaining distance, etc).  It's a toothless mandate, naturally, but we'll see if it increases wearing.  Probably what it does more than anything is to give businesses and localities a bit more backing if/when they want to enforce it.

[24andfrugal]

No, another comment by someone young who doesn't think it is their problem.

Mask mandates slow the spread.  It's a public health issue.  Not your health.  Public health.  Everyone else's health.  If you don't want to wear a mask...stay home.

Interesting you say that. I was at a restaurant a couple of weeks ago and got into a discussion with the owner about masks and the mandate. He said his customers who were most annoyed with it, who didn't want to wear it, and who DGAF were his 60+ customers. I am fighting my own mother to social distance in the grocery store. But damn the millennials, right?

I will never cease to be amazed how *I'm* the selfish one, because I want people - all people, not just you, not just me - to have choices. I don't want masks banned. I was wearing them in April, long before we had the mandate, because of what we knew about the virus and the trajectory of cases at the time. I largely don't wear them anymore, because we know more about the virus, the IFR, and where the real dangers are - specifically, in the older, institutionalized population - and because it has pretty much burned through the population where I live, just outside the bounds of the NYC metro area.

I could say if you don't like other people making decisions about their own actions, maybe you should stay inside. Or, better yet, stay home if you want, go out if you want, wear a mask if you want, don't if you don't want, try to give people some space and generally coexist with people who may or may not agree with you on everything. That's the only way this works.

[the_gastropod]

No, another comment by someone young who doesn't think it is their problem.

Mask mandates slow the spread.  It's a public health issue.  Not your health.  Public health.  Everyone else's health.  If you don't want to wear a mask...stay home.

Interesting you say that. I was at a restaurant a couple of weeks ago and got into a discussion with the owner about masks and the mandate. He said his customers who were most annoyed with it, who didn't want to wear it, and who DGAF were his 60+ customers. I am fighting my own mother to social distance in the grocery store. But damn the millennials, right?

I will never cease to be amazed how *I'm* the selfish one, because I want people - all people, not just you, not just me - to have choices. I don't want masks banned. I was wearing them in April, long before we had the mandate, because of what we knew about the virus and the trajectory of cases at the time. I largely don't wear them anymore, because we know more about the virus, the IFR, and where the real dangers are - specifically, in the older, institutionalized population - and because it has pretty much burned through the population where I live, just outside the bounds of the NYC metro area.

I could say if you don't like other people making decisions about their own actions, maybe you should stay inside. Or, better yet, stay home if you want, go out if you want, wear a mask if you want, don't if you don't want, try to give people some space and generally coexist with people who may or may not agree with you on everything. That's the only way this works.

What’re your thoughts about smoking on airplanes? Maybe people just shouldn’t fly if they’re uncomfortable with letting others do what they want?

How do you feel about shitting in a swimming pool? Maybe you shouldn’t go swimming if you’re uncomfortable letting others decide whether they want to shit or not.

How do you feel about residential speed limits? Maybe you should just stay inside if you’re uncomfortable in the streets around your house.

[Eowyn_MI]

Where we are now is with solid scientific agreement that masks work and some hard headed people refusing to wear them. And thinking it’s some brave badge of honor.

America has this individualist libertarian ideal. And that’s perfectly fine and can work when people use their brains and behave with decency under their own volition. But that’s not what we have. Thomas Jefferson said it best: “ If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be”

It sounds like we agree on most things.

I understand that the science is saying that masks reduce transmission to some degree that makes it better than no masks.  I wear a mask in indoor public spaces out of respect for other people.  I imagine that those who don't wear a mask aren't thinking that its a badge of honor but are more likely thinking that this is the most visible protest that they can make against the government's abuse of power in these last three months.

Benjamin Franklin said: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."  One could argue that he wasn't living during a global pandemic when he said that but no one can argue that the last three months was anything other than giving up essential liberty in order to purchase a little temporary safety.
 

[Jack0Life]

And the great state of Florida. Yet the ball-less governor won't take any action and blame it on more testing. Its bullshit. Testing has been readily available for months now. People don't go get tested if they don't feel sick. i went and got tested 6 weeks ago and it took about 40 mins, FREE.

[bbqbonelesswing]

Benjamin Franklin said: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."  One could argue that he wasn't living during a global pandemic when he said that but no one can argue that the last three months was anything other than giving up essential liberty in order to purchase a little temporary safety.

And yet, Benjamin Franklin was a scientist who supported taking preventative measures to prevent disease. He became a strong advocate of vaccination after his own son died of smallpox. I imagine he would support the use of masks in crowded public spaces.

https://www.chop.edu/news/feature-article-ben-franklin-pro-vaccine-vaccines-were-invented

[LennStar]

I imagine that those who don't wear a mask aren't thinking that its a badge of honor but are more likely thinking that this is the most visible protest that they can make against the government's abuse of power in these last three months.

Benjamin Franklin said: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."  One could argue that he wasn't living during a global pandemic when he said that but no one can argue that the last three months was anything other than giving up essential liberty in order to purchase a little temporary safety.

Whe have two basic misconceptions right here. A stupididly wrong framing, may I say so?

First, ordering people to wear masks during a pandemic is not a "government's abuse of power". It is a government doing it's job - protecting it's citizens. It is the core of what a government has to do.

Same goes to "essential liberty". It is in no way essential liberty to have a mask-free face. Quite contrary, in most cases being forbidden to wear a mask is when the liberty is damaged.

[simonsez]

This thread seems to be a lot of agreement with slight disagreement at the margins.

Yes, take precautions in crowded places.  Yes, masks specifically are pretty decent at reducing the airborne pathogens being expelled and at least do something when it comes to filtering in.  Anyone who doesn't think that has never seen someone sneeze in the sunlight while wearing a mask vs. not.

The disagreeing comes with the execution of the facial protection.  With a mandate from a level of government, who enforces it?  What are the penalties?  What is defined as a public health issue?  When is something no longer a public health issue?  When does a facial protection mandate no longer need to be in place, if ever?  When can a business that doesn't work well with masks (like a restaurant) be back to normal, if ever?  These are hard questions to answer, and only gets harder to be practical and effective the farther you move away from the individual toward the national level.

I definitely think our leadership at the national level, be it health professionals or politicians, have totally botched the facial protection game with misinformation, confusion, unfortunate politicking, ignorance, and pure obstinacy.  Just imagine if most people were wearing a mask in March at the grocery store while things were shutting down initially!  I don't recall that at all, just things were closing down and we were to stay at home to flatten the curve.  Thus, I think anything being mandated to individuals regarding facial protection at the national level has the lowest chance for compliance as well as enforcement.  The state level is slightly better as a governor will (or should) know the constituents better (compared to the national level) and can make informed decisions.  There is still a complicated matter of enforcement and how long guidelines will be in place (like states with plans in phases) but I would guess compliance would be slightly higher.  The county or city/mayoral level is better still.  I think citizens would pay a good amount of heed with mandates/guidelines at this level even if the enforcement isn't there.  It's nuanced and it's easier to relate to since it is a person's livelihood.

However, I think the key is businesses both in terms of forcing patrons to comply as well as a legitimate "penalty" (i.e. not being able to enter if not complying).  Whether this is something businesses decide on their own, or is forced upon them by some level of government - I think this is the best way to go about it.  From a 'don't tread on me' perspective, I'd personally rather have a business tell me that if I want to enter I need to follow their rules (even if that indirectly comes from the govt) rather than something handed down from the government to me as an individual.  Police need not be involved and also poor people wouldn't be disproportionately penalized by fines.

Granted, if guidelines are being followed by such a low proportion that for a business to enact some type of strict compliance policy to enter the premises would be devastating for that business - then some level of government should absolutely step in.  The enforcement would then become the main issue.  I'm already dreading the stories that will come out this summer as a result of a lack of compliance with masks mixed with overzealous enforcement.

If you are waiting for your President or governor to tell you to wear a mask in crowded areas before you would wear one regardless of how virulent the situation is where you live, that's just exasperating.

[24andfrugal]

What’re your thoughts about smoking on airplanes? Maybe people just shouldn’t fly if they’re uncomfortable with letting others do what they want?

How do you feel about shitting in a swimming pool? Maybe you shouldn’t go swimming if you’re uncomfortable letting others decide whether they want to shit or not.

How do you feel about residential speed limits? Maybe you should just stay inside if you’re uncomfortable in the streets around your house.

The difference with mandated mask wearing is that everyone is assumed to be sick and treated accordingly. A more apt comparison would be something like "We're making you wear a butt plug if you want to swim, because you might be one of those people who craps in the pool". 99% of the people don't crap in the pool (are healthy) 99% of the time, but everyone has to wear a butt plug (a mask) on the off chance someone craps in the pool (is actually infectious). That's what I object to. Now should you go in the pool if your intestines have been rumbling all day? No. Would I be willing to wear a butt plug to the pool on the off chance I suddenly develop explosive diarrhea? No, lol. Would you?

[Edit: I am not familiar with the particulars of butt plugs and don't care to be, so if there is a specific detail that's wrong - maybe butt plugs make diarrhea more likely - I do not need that information. For the sake of argument, let butt plugs work the way one would assume they do.]

But as to your questions, in all seriousness - once in a great while, someone is going to crap in the pool, rules or not, intentionally or not. Stuff happens. There are rules against peeing in the pool and my understanding is that people, especially kids, do that fairly frequently. It's difficult to enforce so it doesn't get enforced. If you are utterly terrified of that to the point where you don't want to take that risk, then yes, you should not go to the pool. There is no way to quash the risk entirely. You either live with it and go swimming or you don't.

#1 - I'd be fine with smoking planes and non-smoking planes. I'm old enough to remember "smoking or non-smoking?" when we'd book hotel rooms.
#3 - I don't think there are any speed limit signs in my neighborhood (if there are I haven't noticed), nor are there any lines painted. People self-govern and seem to get along fine.

[MudPuppy]

what do you think butt plugs do?

[mm1970]

No, another comment by someone young who doesn't think it is their problem.

Mask mandates slow the spread.  It's a public health issue.  Not your health.  Public health.  Everyone else's health.  If you don't want to wear a mask...stay home.

Interesting you say that. I was at a restaurant a couple of weeks ago and got into a discussion with the owner about masks and the mandate. He said his customers who were most annoyed with it, who didn't want to wear it, and who DGAF were his 60+ customers. I am fighting my own mother to social distance in the grocery store. But damn the millennials, right?

I will never cease to be amazed how *I'm* the selfish one, because I want people - all people, not just you, not just me - to have choices. I don't want masks banned. I was wearing them in April, long before we had the mandate, because of what we knew about the virus and the trajectory of cases at the time. I largely don't wear them anymore, because we know more about the virus, the IFR, and where the real dangers are - specifically, in the older, institutionalized population - and because it has pretty much burned through the population where I live, just outside the bounds of the NYC metro area.

I could say if you don't like other people making decisions about their own actions, maybe you should stay inside. Or, better yet, stay home if you want, go out if you want, wear a mask if you want, don't if you don't want, try to give people some space and generally coexist with people who may or may not agree with you on everything. That's the only way this works.

No.
This is a public health issue.
If you are indoors, wear a mask, for everyone else - it's not about YOU.  It's about THEM.

I work with at least 12 people who are of the age 64-75, and nowhere near retirement.  Two with pre-existing conditions and auto-immune diseases.  These folks STILL have to go to the grocery store, MANY of them still have to physically go to work.  They can't just avoid going outside forever.

In my neighborhood, 2/3 of my best friends are between the ages of 62 and 70.

My kids attend schools where some of the teachers are over 60.

Where I live (So Cal), there is ZERO correlation between age and mask wearing "philosophy".  There are an equal number of cranky old boomers saying that masks are stupid as there are millennials who "aren't worried because my age group is safe".  Probably a few X-ers too but I don't know that many - most of them, like me, have aging parents we are worried about - not to mention ourselves.  It might not kill me or my husband - but it could.  Or it could make us very sick or with permanent organ damage.  Our kids are 14 and 7, we have RESPONSIBILITIES.  In our city, MOST of the new cases, however, are in the millennial age group because they are the ones most likely to be out and about, not wearing masks because "I'm not going to die."

Early on, the hardest people to get to take this seriously WERE the in-laws (late 70s/early 80s) because they are retired, wanted to live their lives, go golfing, keep going to the grocery store 2x a week, etc.  THEN their friends started to DIE.  Now they take it seriously. 

NOW the people who are having the hardest time in my area ARE the millennial folks who are CHOMPING AT THE BIT because the whole town was shut down for 3 months and now they have FREEDOM.  NO, FREEDOM COMES WITH RESPONSIBILITY TO OTHERS.

Repeat after me: it's a public health issue.  It is YOUR responsibility to consider the health of OTHERS.  It's not rocket science.  Wearing masks indoors and in crowded public spaces reduces the spread and reduces deaths.

[24andfrugal]

No.
This is a public health issue.
If you are indoors, wear a mask, for everyone else - it's not about YOU.  It's about THEM.

I work with at least 12 people who are of the age 64-75, and nowhere near retirement.  Two with pre-existing conditions and auto-immune diseases.  These folks STILL have to go to the grocery store, MANY of them still have to physically go to work.  They can't just avoid going outside forever.

In my neighborhood, 2/3 of my best friends are between the ages of 62 and 70.

My kids attend schools where some of the teachers are over 60.

Where I live (So Cal), there is ZERO correlation between age and mask wearing "philosophy".  There are an equal number of cranky old boomers saying that masks are stupid as there are millennials who "aren't worried because my age group is safe".  Probably a few X-ers too but I don't know that many - most of them, like me, have aging parents we are worried about - not to mention ourselves.  It might not kill me or my husband - but it could.  Or it could make us very sick or with permanent organ damage.  Our kids are 14 and 7, we have RESPONSIBILITIES.  In our city, MOST of the new cases, however, are in the millennial age group because they are the ones most likely to be out and about, not wearing masks because "I'm not going to die."

Early on, the hardest people to get to take this seriously WERE the in-laws (late 70s/early 80s) because they are retired, wanted to live their lives, go golfing, keep going to the grocery store 2x a week, etc.  THEN their friends started to DIE.  Now they take it seriously. 

NOW the people who are having the hardest time in my area ARE the millennial folks who are CHOMPING AT THE BIT because the whole town was shut down for 3 months and now they have FREEDOM.  NO, FREEDOM COMES WITH RESPONSIBILITY TO OTHERS.

Repeat after me: it's a public health issue.  It is YOUR responsibility to consider the health of OTHERS.  It's not rocket science.  Wearing masks indoors and in crowded public spaces reduces the spread and reduces deaths.

Maybe it's because we're in different parts of the country, but in the places I have been, it has skewed middle aged and up. The people who were agitating to get their businesses opened in May were mostly Gex X, I would say, or perhaps older millennials.

I am also not often in "crowded public spaces indoors". I go to the grocery store when crowds are sparse, I haven't done a ton of other shopping but when I do, I go when the stores are not busy. I dislike "swarmy" environments in general (like the IKEA in the OP) and so I don't go to them. If there are 10 people in the entire supermarket an hour before close, no, I do not really feel the need to wear a mask. If I found myself in a very busy environment, I would be more inclined to just leave.

And again, I don't necessarily disagree about whether people *should* wear masks; I am pretty much neutral on that. I don't think it should be mandated is all, including when the mandate is not enforced by any law enforcement body (which it logistically cannot be).

[Eowyn_MI]

I imagine that those who don't wear a mask aren't thinking that its a badge of honor but are more likely thinking that this is the most visible protest that they can make against the government's abuse of power in these last three months.

Benjamin Franklin said: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."  One could argue that he wasn't living during a global pandemic when he said that but no one can argue that the last three months was anything other than giving up essential liberty in order to purchase a little temporary safety.

Whe have two basic misconceptions right here. A stupididly wrong framing, may I say so?

First, ordering people to wear masks during a pandemic is not a "government's abuse of power". It is a government doing it's job - protecting it's citizens. It is the core of what a government has to do.

Same goes to "essential liberty". It is in no way essential liberty to have a mask-free face. Quite contrary, in most cases being forbidden to wear a mask is when the liberty is damaged.

I think that the misconception here is that I was referring to the entire covid-19 situation in my post including all the lockdown orders.  Since this thread is about government mandates of facial protection I can see where that might have been confusing.  That's my error.

To clarify, I don't think that a government mandate to wear a mask right now is specifically an abuse of power.  I do think that it could easily lead to abuses of power depending on how it is enforced.  I also think that there have been many government abuses of power in the last few months with regard to the lockdown rules.  I hope that a mask mandate does not lead to more of the same.

[dogboyslim]

This is a public health issue that disproportionately impacts minorities.  There is another issue that is also disproportionately impacting minorities, and that's police misconduct.  To mandate is to give police a reason to stop someone.  So mandating masks gives cover to police to act badly, so I will never support a mandate for mask wearing.

Do I wear a mask in public?  Yes.  Do I think everyone should?  Yes.

But to assume I'm a moron because I look outside the issue to other damage caused by the question at hand...that's simply myopic.

[beltim]

Lots of cities/local governments are already mandating it. Fully enforcing it is still a different reality.

Maybe my math is terrible, but I still see the chance of actually catching it extremely low. If we exclude those under 14, which isn’t totally fair, but doing it anyway, that leaves 253M population. 2.23M current cases. Of course it’s higher so let’s just go crazy and round up to 3M. 3/253 = 1.2 percent of the population. But of course a lot of those are already hospitalized and self-quarantined so that bumps down the chances of running into someone that has it. So in the worst case about 1 in 100 people you see might have it. But that doesn’t even paint the full picture because it’s clearly worse in certain areas than others. The 1 in 100 is even lower in my state and even lower in my county and even lower because I’m in a rural area.

All this is to say that I don’t personally wear a mask because I don’t see the point for me. I live in a rural area and just because you don’t wear a mask also doesn’t mean you’re automatically at a severe risk since you can still social distance and use common sense. I mean the mask isn’t even a big deal, I’ll wear one, I just don’t see the point for myself personally. I was just on a popular hiking trail the other day and a ton of normal looking people were out and exactly none of them had a mask. Not saying that’s a good idea, just saying it was a thing.

I don’t think requiring a mask for people out and about all day long in densely populated places a bad idea at all though.

Sorry but your post has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
You live in a rural area where you hardly come into contact with anyone where this thread talks about wearing masks inside establishment and places where you can't keep social distancing.

Of course it does. I stated many cities/governments are already doing this. The county with largest population in the area south of me and a city north of me have already mandated it for indoor areas. It’s not going to happen at the federal level as other people have already said.

I stated why I’m not personally wearing a mask because you simply said “government” and I personally think it would be pretty stupid for me to have to wear a mask when my risk is basically zero (even though our Walmart does get fairly crowded still and no one abides by the arrows of course, but whatever). I do think for the general population living in big cities it wouldn’t be a bad idea so my overall answer is “yes”.

Even still, most of the info of my post is still relevant. 1 in 100 is still worse case scenario and that’s assuming you’re up in peoples faces and they’re coughing and sneezing around you. If you are coming into close contact with more than 100 people a day then you should probably wear a mask and shouldn’t need the government to tell you to do so. Many people I see are doing it regardless so that’s good. Again, I don’t see the federal government mandating it so at best your local business will require it.

Maybe there's a 1% chance a given person you run into today has COVID-19.  But those infected are contagious for days, and possibly even weeks.  But most of those infectious aren't very symptomatic - maybe they have a cough or fever, but maybe they don't.  And coughs spread the virus quickly, but even talking or breathing is sufficient to spread the virus.  See for example an early case study where one person who was asymptomatic ate at a restaurant, and within two weeks four others from his table and five people from adjacent tables were infected: https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/10-guests-at-restaurant-in-china-got-covid-19-researchers-blaming-the-ac-unit/507-8a34e90d-f738-4150-829c-a257040d3601
That 1% today could turn into 20% in a month if people don't take precautions to reduce the spread of the virus.  And it's worth noting that in the US cases are going up again because people aren't taking sufficient precautions, unlikely other countries that were hit as early or earlier but had more effective responses, like Italy, France, Germany, or Switzerland.

[Jack0Life]

What’re your thoughts about smoking on airplanes? Maybe people just shouldn’t fly if they’re uncomfortable with letting others do what they want?

How do you feel about shitting in a swimming pool? Maybe you shouldn’t go swimming if you’re uncomfortable letting others decide whether they want to shit or not.

How do you feel about residential speed limits? Maybe you should just stay inside if you’re uncomfortable in the streets around your house.

The difference with mandated mask wearing is that everyone is assumed to be sick and treated accordingly. A more apt comparison would be something like "We're making you wear a butt plug if you want to swim, because you might be one of those people who craps in the pool". 99% of the people don't crap in the pool (are healthy) 99% of the time, but everyone has to wear a butt plug (a mask) on the off chance someone craps in the pool (is actually infectious). That's what I object to. Now should you go in the pool if your intestines have been rumbling all day? No. Would I be willing to wear a butt plug to the pool on the off chance I suddenly develop explosive diarrhea? No, lol. Would you?

[Edit: I am not familiar with the particulars of butt plugs and don't care to be, so if there is a specific detail that's wrong - maybe butt plugs make diarrhea more likely - I do not need that information. For the sake of argument, let butt plugs work the way one would assume they do.]

But as to your questions, in all seriousness - once in a great while, someone is going to crap in the pool, rules or not, intentionally or not. Stuff happens. There are rules against peeing in the pool and my understanding is that people, especially kids, do that fairly frequently. It's difficult to enforce so it doesn't get enforced. If you are utterly terrified of that to the point where you don't want to take that risk, then yes, you should not go to the pool. There is no way to quash the risk entirely. You either live with it and go swimming or you don't.

#1 - I'd be fine with smoking planes and non-smoking planes. I'm old enough to remember "smoking or non-smoking?" when we'd book hotel rooms.
#3 - I don't think there are any speed limit signs in my neighborhood (if there are I haven't noticed), nor are there any lines painted. People self-govern and seem to get along fine.

Did you just actually used "crapping in the pool" as a comparison to spreading a deadly disease ??
Last time I checked, if you crap in the pool while I'm in it, there is 100% chance I won't die. Can you say that if you pass the virus on to me ??

[24andfrugal]

Did you just actually used "crapping in the pool" as a comparison to spreading a deadly disease ??
Last time I checked, if you crap in the pool while I'm in it, there is 100% chance I won't die. Can you say that if you pass the virus on to me ??

...did you read the post I was quoting? I went off one of their examples. I thought it was rather odd as well, but when in Rome...

[Jack0Life]

This is a public health issue that disproportionately impacts minorities.  There is another issue that is also disproportionately impacting minorities, and that's police misconduct.  To mandate is to give police a reason to stop someone.  So mandating masks gives cover to police to act badly, so I will never support a mandate for mask wearing.

Do I wear a mask in public?  Yes.  Do I think everyone should?  Yes.

But to assume I'm a moron because I look outside the issue to other damage caused by the question at hand...that's simply myopic.

Please explain how mandatory mask wearing affect minority.  If you put on a mask where you're suppose to have it on, how does that affect you if you black, white, red or yellow ??
If you think that, wouldn't that applied to wearing seat belts or smoking ?? Those 2 policies were enforced and I don't see police beating down people.
We have bad polices, and when and if they want to stop you, they will do it and I don't need mask as a reason.

[MudPuppy]

I believe that the poster meant that the virus is disproportionately affecting minorities. The Navajo nation is one sobering example.

[bigblock440]

What’re your thoughts about smoking on airplanes? Maybe people just shouldn’t fly if they’re uncomfortable with letting others do what they want?

How do you feel about shitting in a swimming pool? Maybe you shouldn’t go swimming if you’re uncomfortable letting others decide whether they want to shit or not.

How do you feel about residential speed limits? Maybe you should just stay inside if you’re uncomfortable in the streets around your house.

The difference with mandated mask wearing is that everyone is assumed to be sick and treated accordingly. A more apt comparison would be something like "We're making you wear a butt plug if you want to swim, because you might be one of those people who craps in the pool". 99% of the people don't crap in the pool (are healthy) 99% of the time, but everyone has to wear a butt plug (a mask) on the off chance someone craps in the pool (is actually infectious). That's what I object to. Now should you go in the pool if your intestines have been rumbling all day? No. Would I be willing to wear a butt plug to the pool on the off chance I suddenly develop explosive diarrhea? No, lol. Would you?

[Edit: I am not familiar with the particulars of butt plugs and don't care to be, so if there is a specific detail that's wrong - maybe butt plugs make diarrhea more likely - I do not need that information. For the sake of argument, let butt plugs work the way one would assume they do.]

But as to your questions, in all seriousness - once in a great while, someone is going to crap in the pool, rules or not, intentionally or not. Stuff happens. There are rules against peeing in the pool and my understanding is that people, especially kids, do that fairly frequently. It's difficult to enforce so it doesn't get enforced. If you are utterly terrified of that to the point where you don't want to take that risk, then yes, you should not go to the pool. There is no way to quash the risk entirely. You either live with it and go swimming or you don't.

#1 - I'd be fine with smoking planes and non-smoking planes. I'm old enough to remember "smoking or non-smoking?" when we'd book hotel rooms.
#3 - I don't think there are any speed limit signs in my neighborhood (if there are I haven't noticed), nor are there any lines painted. People self-govern and seem to get along fine.

Did you just actually used "crapping in the pool" as a comparison to spreading a deadly disease ??
Last time I checked, if you crap in the pool while I'm in it, there is 100% chance I won't die. Can you say that if you pass the virus on to me ??

What if the crapper had c.diff?  Then it's not 100% anymore.

[bigblock440]

This thread seems to be a lot of agreement with slight disagreement at the margins.

Yes, take precautions in crowded places.  Yes, masks specifically are pretty decent at reducing the airborne pathogens being expelled and at least do something when it comes to filtering in.  Anyone who doesn't think that has never seen someone sneeze in the sunlight while wearing a mask vs. not.

The disagreeing comes with the execution of the facial protection.  With a mandate from a level of government, who enforces it?  What are the penalties?  What is defined as a public health issue?  When is something no longer a public health issue?  When does a facial protection mandate no longer need to be in place, if ever? When can a business that doesn't work well with masks (like a restaurant) be back to normal, if ever?  These are hard questions to answer, and only gets harder to be practical and effective the farther you move away from the individual toward the national level.

I definitely think our leadership at the national level, be it health professionals or politicians, have totally botched the facial protection game with misinformation, confusion, unfortunate politicking, ignorance, and pure obstinacy.  Just imagine if most people were wearing a mask in March at the grocery store while things were shutting down initially!  I don't recall that at all, just things were closing down and we were to stay at home to flatten the curve.  Thus, I think anything being mandated to individuals regarding facial protection at the national level has the lowest chance for compliance as well as enforcement.  The state level is slightly better as a governor will (or should) know the constituents better (compared to the national level) and can make informed decisions.  There is still a complicated matter of enforcement and how long guidelines will be in place (like states with plans in phases) but I would guess compliance would be slightly higher.  The county or city/mayoral level is better still.  I think citizens would pay a good amount of heed with mandates/guidelines at this level even if the enforcement isn't there.  It's nuanced and it's easier to relate to since it is a person's livelihood.

However, I think the key is businesses both in terms of forcing patrons to comply as well as a legitimate "penalty" (i.e. not being able to enter if not complying).  Whether this is something businesses decide on their own, or is forced upon them by some level of government - I think this is the best way to go about it.  From a 'don't tread on me' perspective, I'd personally rather have a business tell me that if I want to enter I need to follow their rules (even if that indirectly comes from the govt) rather than something handed down from the government to me as an individual.  Police need not be involved and also poor people wouldn't be disproportionately penalized by fines.

Granted, if guidelines are being followed by such a low proportion that for a business to enact some type of strict compliance policy to enter the premises would be devastating for that business - then some level of government should absolutely step in.  The enforcement would then become the main issue.  I'm already dreading the stories that will come out this summer as a result of a lack of compliance with masks mixed with overzealous enforcement.

If you are waiting for your President or governor to tell you to wear a mask in crowded areas before you would wear one regardless of how virulent the situation is where you live, that's just exasperating.

Apparently it should always have been mandatory and should always be mandatory.  75% of the cases of influenza are asymptomatic, and could be out there spreading it around.  The flu kills young people as well, especially the particularly bad season that killed 80k Americans a few years ago, though it kills elderly at a much higher rate.  It also can cause longer term after effects to other organs.  As long as that's still around, a face covering mandate must stand, and anyone who refuses, or wears it incorrectly should be arrested and charged with attempted murder.

[MudPuppy]

We have flu vaccines, hth

[Shane]

I voted NO.

When I'm inside businesses, I always wear a mask and have no problem with that. To me, it seems like a reasonable precaution to take, and I think of it more as a courtesy to essential workers, than as a way to, necessarily, protect myself. If my wearing a mask makes essential workers feel a little safer doing their jobs, then I'm more than happy to do that for them. It's not a big deal.

Outside, I don't wear a mask, even when walking around relatively crowded parts of the city. I can always cross the street if I see people coming towards me on the sidewalk and it doesn't look like there's going to be enough room to get by without coming uncomfortably close.

In my personal experience in our neighborhood, our mostly professional, middle-class, white neighbors are all following social distancing and mask wearing recommendations being promoted by our governor and his secretary of health, without having to be *forced* to do so by a government "mandate."

Somewhat ironically, since it sounds like they are being disproportionately negatively affected by covid, poor black people are the ones in our neighborhood most likely to not be wearing masks and not be social distancing. Some poor, black neighbors have had loud parties during the lockdown. Poor black people, not wearing masks, of course, are the only ones who regularly approach me on the sidewalks asking if I have an extra $0.75 to spare. Poor blacks are the ones I see standing on the corner smoking a joint and passing it back and forth. Comically, some of these people are wearing masks. It's funny, in a sad sort of way, to watch them pull down their masks in order to take a hit off the joint, then put their masks back on.

Guaranteed, if there were an actual law mandating the wearing of masks, the ones who would be disproportionately negatively affected by that law would be my poor, black neighbors. I'm not in favor of ANY new laws being enforced by white cops against poor black folks. If my poor, black neighbors don't want to social distance and don't feel like wearing a mask, I'm fine with that. It should be up to them to decide.

[darkadams00]

I'm having a terrible snot-and-wet-cough allergy-filled summer right now, and I wear a mask every time I leave the house so I don't scare the shit out of people when I sneeze five times in a row and then cough like I'm about to toss up a lung.  Sure, it's my AMERICAN RIGHT (TM) to sneeze and cough in the direction of anyone I want, and I'm not gonna get anyone sick from it.  But it would still be a pretty douche move.

And you’re still wearing the same mask after all that???? That’s disgusting enough to warrant its own thread.

I'm still what?  What a baffling response that has nothing to do with anything in my comment.

Sneezing 5 times into a mask and then coughing up a lung immediately makes that mask gross and disgusting.  Now you are wearing all that gunk on your face.  Unless if you have another mask to change into but that would require you to remove your first mask and touch your face to put on the new one.

I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't wear a mask; I just think that this is what darkadams00 was getting at with their post.

Yes. My quoted post was intended to highlight that this hyperbole--as real as it could possibly be--illustrates one of several typically unanticipated real-world behaviors that run afoul of mask ordinances. Did I just put all of that mess in my mask? But now I don't have another one! Did I raise my mask and turn my head because I only have one? Then why am I wearing a mask anyway? There are many situations to consider besides just breathing normally. If you take off your mask "because it was nasty" and finish shopping, how would the store/law enforcement handle that? Would a store manager be deemed diligent, understanding, or negligent based on the choice to say/not say "You should have brought an extra" and then ask you to leave? Aren't you as potentially contagious if you continue to shop for 20 more minutes "just to finish up" than if you had walked in the store just for 20 minutes to shop originally? The virus has no idea if, why, or when you took off your mask. Just one scenario that should spark some thought about blanket mandates because coughing and sneezing (and for kids--chewing, licking, and drooling) are normal behaviors that instantly render a mask useless for most people and occur more frequently in certain seasons. I agree with a previous poster that hyperbole such as this one example I called out makes any related argument sound like virtue signaling rather than well-informed rationale.

On a more general note--Mask wearing has become a flash point of conversation in my area, especially as it relates to reopening schools. A local city just mandated masks in public places but excluded children < 12 which pretty much includes all elementary-aged children. By that logic, any conversation about implementing masks for elementary students should certainly be off the table now, but there are still heated, board-level conversations about masks for all students in the fall. Posters here can argue about medically helpful/not helpful as much as they wish, but what I'm seeing is simply this--inconsistent and inexplicable decisions and rationale offered by state/local government leaders (I'm less concerned about the feds). And this isn't based on casual observations now vs observations back in early March. This is based on official press releases and actual governor/mayor/council/board interviews and actions this week vs last week vs two weeks ago. Leaders should not pick and choose to require masks (or access during stay at home, but I digress) for one indoor/outdoor gathering over another, children in one setting but not another, walking on a sidewalk but not on a greenway, in one type of business (bars in a restaurant) vs another similar business (bars), for gyms but not for public swimming pools, etc. And the willingness/unwillingness of public leaders to condone/condemn behaviors following equally consistent logic only makes matters worse and the public less willing to comply unless already of the same opinion. Broad, sweeping "all public places" mandates might be the headline, but the footnotes contain enough exceptions to obscure any relationship between the issue at hand and the ordinance decreed to address it.

[simonsez]

It's funny, in a sad sort of way, to watch them pull down their masks in order to take a hit off the joint, then put their masks back on.

I know, right?  Edibles seem like the more appropriate choice while wearing a mask.

[Fish Sweet]

I'm having a terrible snot-and-wet-cough allergy-filled summer right now, and I wear a mask every time I leave the house so I don't scare the shit out of people when I sneeze five times in a row and then cough like I'm about to toss up a lung.  Sure, it's my AMERICAN RIGHT (TM) to sneeze and cough in the direction of anyone I want, and I'm not gonna get anyone sick from it.  But it would still be a pretty douche move.

And you’re still wearing the same mask after all that???? That’s disgusting enough to warrant its own thread.

I'm still what?  What a baffling response that has nothing to do with anything in my comment.

Sneezing 5 times into a mask and then coughing up a lung immediately makes that mask gross and disgusting.  Now you are wearing all that gunk on your face.  Unless if you have another mask to change into but that would require you to remove your first mask and touch your face to put on the new one.

I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't wear a mask; I just think that this is what darkadams00 was getting at with their post.

Yes. My quoted post was intended to highlight that this hyperbole--as real as it could possibly be--illustrates one of several typically unanticipated real-world behaviors that run afoul of mask ordinances. Did I just put all of that mess in my mask? But now I don't have another one! Did I raise my mask and turn my head because I only have one? Then why am I wearing a mask anyway? There are many situations to consider besides just breathing normally. If you take off your mask "because it was nasty" and finish shopping, how would the store/law enforcement handle that? Would a store manager be deemed diligent, understanding, or negligent based on the choice to say/not say "You should have brought an extra" and then ask you to leave? Aren't you as potentially contagious if you continue to shop for 20 more minutes "just to finish up" than if you had walked in the store just for 20 minutes to shop originally? The virus has no idea if, why, or when you took off your mask. Just one scenario that should spark some thought about blanket mandates because coughing and sneezing (and for kids--chewing, licking, and drooling) are normal behaviors that instantly render a mask useless for most people and occur more frequently in certain seasons. I agree with a previous poster that hyperbole such as this one example I called out makes any related argument sound like virtue signaling rather than well-informed rationale.

I'm just really confused as to why you'd get on my case for being ~disgusting enough to warrant its own thread~ based on your imaginary hyperbole.  And I'm also confused as to what you think the alternative should be.  Yes, it sucks having terrible allergies.  Yes, wearing a mask while going through a sneezing/coughing fit feels pretty gross and also sucks.  Yes, on really bad days I either don't go out if I can help it, or carry an extra mask + hand sanitizer if I do.  It is inconvenient and sometimes kinda gross.

Of course, I or people in my situation could always just say 'fuck it, y'all can just deal with it' and go forth into the world coughing and sneezing and dripping onto anything and anyone without a care.  Anyone who's scared of getting a little snot on them can just stay home.  If that's the better solution in your eyes because there are so many 'what ifs' related to mask wearing, you may as well just say so.

[scottish]

What are the specifications for the government mandated masks?   I understand they are now (or will shortly be) mandatory for public transit in Ontario.

If I go and buy a mask online, how do I know if it will provide adequate protection for whoever might be close to me?   

We have a small package of surgical masks that we've been using when required but they're running low.   Presumably surgical masks should be saved for the medical community.

These guys have some nice designs, and they claim they are PM 2.5 with a filter.   
https://www.weddingstar.ca/protective-face-masks

But when I look up PM 2.5 on the web, many sites claim that they don't do anything to prevent the spread of the virus.

[MudPuppy]

There’s a spectrum of protection. ANYTHING is better than NOTHING. Various weaves, etc protect Bette for worse. For masks, your “best” bet is a fit tested N95 or a CAPR/PAPR. For non-work use, I have a couple surgical masks from Before Times that I used to use during cleaning or yard work that I “clean” in direct sunlight for a couple days. If I don’t have time to put them in the sun after use, I’ll use my single tight-weave cloth mask.


Full disclosure, I work in healthcare, and hadnt been going in public at all until last weekend, only to medical appts and to use drive throughs.

[js82]

There’s a spectrum of protection. ANYTHING is better than NOTHING. Various weaves, etc protect Bette for worse. For masks, your “best” bet is a fit tested N95 or a CAPR/PAPR. For non-work use, I have a couple surgical masks from Before Times that I used to use during cleaning or yard work that I “clean” in direct sunlight for a couple days. If I don’t have time to put them in the sun after use, I’ll use my single tight-weave cloth mask.


Full disclosure, I work in healthcare, and hadnt been going in public at all until last weekend, only to medical appts and to use drive throughs.

From a scientific perspective, just about anything will be pretty good at stopping large respiratory droplets(assuming you wear it over your nose/mouth).  These droplets have significant momentum and will simply travel forward, hit the material, go splat, and stay.  Smaller/Aerosol droplets are where the masks are likely to differ in performance - small droplets are more likely to follow air streamlines, and hence have some of them sneak out through cracks - as well as (potentially) find their way through a mask's weave.  For these droplets, it's a combination of the fraction of the air(and hence droplets) that go through the mask, and the filtration efficiency of the mask itself that result in its effectiveness.

All masks are pretty good against large droplets; against small droplets medical-grade, fitted masks will be much better, but even generic DIY masks will stop a non-trivial fraction of small droplets if you're wearing them.

And given that respiratory infection is typically dependent on total viral exposure, this amounts to a pretty straightforward, first-principles argument to be made as to why one would expect masks to help curve transmission of respiratory diseases.

[MudPuppy]

I don’t disagree!


We try to limit our HCW to <30 min per interaction with COVID pts because evidence says that’s best

[pmac]

First it was "Stay home, stay safe for two weeks"


Then it was, "Stay home two more weeks"


Then it was, "Another two weeks"


Then, "6 feet apart social distancing"


Now Masks?????

I don't believe them anymore.... Go on and live your life. This has been a hoax from the beginning.

[Jack0Life]

First it was "Stay home, stay safe for two weeks"


Then it was, "Stay home two more weeks"


Then it was, "Another two weeks"


Then, "6 feet apart social distancing"


Now Masks?????

I don't believe them anymore.... Go on and live your life. This has been a hoax from the beginning.

Yup its all a hoax.
Months long shut down. Most people aren't even back to their normal routines. At least half of the population are wearing masks. Yet we have >115K dead in about 4 months. Wonder how high that number if we have ZERO of those prevention measures.
And for everyone still think its just a flu. Average dead for flu has been 24k to 56k with 56k being the highest ever and this is with a flu vaccines readily available. Over 115k in 4 months with all the preventions.
Yeah its all a hoax.

[ixtap]

First it was "Stay home, stay safe for two weeks"


Then it was, "Stay home two more weeks"


Then it was, "Another two weeks"


Then, "6 feet apart social distancing"


Now Masks?????

I don't believe them anymore.... Go on and live your life. This has been a hoax from the beginning.

Yup its all a hoax.
Months long shut down. Most people aren't even back to their normal routines. At least half of the population are wearing masks. Yet we have >115K dead in about 4 months. Wonder how high that number if we have ZERO of those prevention measures.
And for everyone still think its just a flu. Average dead for flu has been 24k to 56k with 56k being the highest ever and this is with a flu vaccines readily available. Over 115k in 4 months with all the preventions.
Yeah its all a hoax.

Don't forget that we are on track to exceed the high end of the world annual flu range by the end of the month.

But this is clearly and American liberal hoax.

[darkadams00]

I'm having a terrible snot-and-wet-cough allergy-filled summer right now, and I wear a mask every time I leave the house so I don't scare the shit out of people when I sneeze five times in a row and then cough like I'm about to toss up a lung.  Sure, it's my AMERICAN RIGHT (TM) to sneeze and cough in the direction of anyone I want, and I'm not gonna get anyone sick from it.  But it would still be a pretty douche move.

And you’re still wearing the same mask after all that???? That’s disgusting enough to warrant its own thread.

I'm still what?  What a baffling response that has nothing to do with anything in my comment.

Sneezing 5 times into a mask and then coughing up a lung immediately makes that mask gross and disgusting.  Now you are wearing all that gunk on your face.  Unless if you have another mask to change into but that would require you to remove your first mask and touch your face to put on the new one.

I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't wear a mask; I just think that this is what darkadams00 was getting at with their post.

Yes. My quoted post was intended to highlight that this hyperbole--as real as it could possibly be--illustrates one of several typically unanticipated real-world behaviors that run afoul of mask ordinances. Did I just put all of that mess in my mask? But now I don't have another one! Did I raise my mask and turn my head because I only have one? Then why am I wearing a mask anyway? There are many situations to consider besides just breathing normally. If you take off your mask "because it was nasty" and finish shopping, how would the store/law enforcement handle that? Would a store manager be deemed diligent, understanding, or negligent based on the choice to say/not say "You should have brought an extra" and then ask you to leave? Aren't you as potentially contagious if you continue to shop for 20 more minutes "just to finish up" than if you had walked in the store just for 20 minutes to shop originally? The virus has no idea if, why, or when you took off your mask. Just one scenario that should spark some thought about blanket mandates because coughing and sneezing (and for kids--chewing, licking, and drooling) are normal behaviors that instantly render a mask useless for most people and occur more frequently in certain seasons. I agree with a previous poster that hyperbole such as this one example I called out makes any related argument sound like virtue signaling rather than well-informed rationale.

I'm just really confused as to why you'd get on my case for being ~disgusting enough to warrant its own thread~ based on your imaginary hyperbole.  And I'm also confused as to what you think the alternative should be.  Yes, it sucks having terrible allergies.  Yes, wearing a mask while going through a sneezing/coughing fit feels pretty gross and also sucks.  Yes, on really bad days I either don't go out if I can help it, or carry an extra mask + hand sanitizer if I do.  It is inconvenient and sometimes kinda gross.

Of course, I or people in my situation could always just say 'fuck it, y'all can just deal with it' and go forth into the world coughing and sneezing and dripping onto anything and anyone without a care.  Anyone who's scared of getting a little snot on them can just stay home.  If that's the better solution in your eyes because there are so many 'what ifs' related to mask wearing, you may as well just say so.

I just commented on your post because it seemed like such an over-the-top anecdote used to prove your point when all that needed to be said was "I still wear a mask because I go out in public when I'm sick, and even though I feel bad, I survive just fine." Your colorful verbiage painted a mental image that I just imagined happening in the aisle of a grocery store, so I responded succinctly. The picture just played itself out as I was reading. Of course, if all that's going on in your head, you should probably stay home, order your groceries delivered, and steer clear of any discretionary public activities. Your first paragraph basically said conscientious people should use hand sanitizer between touches of every surface from home to car to store back to car and so on regardless. And then you capped it off with that illustration. If you feel so strongly about your Paragraph #1, then your Paragraph #2 would almost certainly warrant you leave the public place immediately to take care of all that fallout. That is, you have to assume you're asymptomatic (or why wear a mask?), and face it--cleaning that up sufficiently is going to take a while if you trying to return to a germ-free state.

The short of it is that the "what if's" constitute a significant portion of reality that is frequently ignored. I deal with data every day, and exceptions can dominate bad, ill-thought rules. I've been dealing with 'experts' in their field who've operated off gut instincts for more than two decades, and they've been given high praise by others for work deemed well done. However, a review of the data often shows that they completely missed the mark--not true every time but true often enough to give one pause. Policymakers in my city/state are not behaving rationally and are not making decisions based on data. They're reporting figures that are misleading at best and usually without sufficient context to support the interpretation they offer. Our state health website won't let you look at trends more than two weeks ago to understand how May/June really compare to March/April locally. Many people around me who don't work in stats, models, reports, etc just see "the pretty pictures" and hear the words and take policy at face value "from the experts." They don't understand that a small but workable number of hospitalizations in July is the result of an actual projection government leaders showed in March! This projection was used to support the original stay-at-home order to prevent overwhelming the medical care facilities! Instead, local politicians are now trumpeting "highest number of hospitalizations thus far" to justify a need to mandate masks. A stable but manageable number of hospitalizations was the original intent of the stay-at-home order as declared by local leaders. Inconsistencies such as these and others I mentioned earlier make politicians sound so much like motorists who hate cyclists--decisions made more on emotion and one's perception of what constitutes safety rather than well-documented and readily available facts and figures. Local government here has not proven itself capable of making good decisions, so I prefer to make my own. After all--the original question in this thread is "Should the government mandate facial protection in crowded places" not "Should facial protection be worn in crowded places."