How long can we wait while flattening the curve?

[waltworks]

I'll take my 1/100,000 (per CDC) chance of getting a breakthrough infection while vaccinated (let's be generous and say it's an order of magnitude worse - 1/10,000) and then when I encounter that other vaccinated fellow, his odds are also 1/10,000. So his odds (and mine!) are good - 1/100,000,000 that one of us is infected *and* then infects the other one.

-W

[GuitarStv]

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

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

-W

Of course that doesn't mean that 10% of those who are vaccinated are guaranteed to get infected!  I live in a house with two other people.  The three of us managed to avoid being infected with covid for a year without any vaccine.  Let's see.  0/3 . . . that means that 100% of us are immune to the disease without a vaccine according to the logic you're putting forth!  Seems to be a bit of a problem with your initial assumptions there Walt.

It all has to do with exposure.  A great many of those who have been vaccinated continue to follow guidelines regarding masking and distancing (and are in areas with restrictions that limit transmission of the virus), so infections are naturally going to be much lower as exposure is much lower.  On the other hand, someone who has decided that the pandemic is over and is not distancing/wearing masks anywhere anymore will naturally have a much higher likelihood of infecting others as their exposure will be much higher.


I'm going to refer you to the cdc article that has been linked twice now indicating the effectiveness of the vaccines.  The data isn't really arguable.  The mRNA vaccines are 90% effective 14 days after second dose and 80% after the first.  Making up statistics might make someone feel better about their choices, but isn't going to change the truth.

[mizzourah2006]

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

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

-W

Of course that doesn't mean that 10% of those who are vaccinated are guaranteed to get infected!  I live in a house with two other people.  The three of us managed to avoid being infected with covid for a year without any vaccine.  That means that 100% of us are immune to the disease without a vaccine according to the logic you're putting forth!  Seems to be a bit of a problem with your initial assumptions there Walt.

It all has to do with exposure.  A great many of those who have been vaccinated continue to follow guidelines regarding masking and distancing (and are in areas with restrictions that limit transmission of the virus), so infections are naturally going to be much lower as exposure is much lower.  On the other hand, someone who has decided that the pandemic is over and is not distancing/wearing masks anywhere anymore will naturally have a much higher likelihood of infecting others as their exposure will be much higher.


I'm going to refer you to the cdc article that has been linked twice now indicating the effectiveness of the vaccines.  The data isn't really arguable.  The mRNA vaccines are 90% effective 14 days after second dose and 80% after the first.  Making up statistics might make someone feel better about their choices, but isn't going to change the truth.

Absolutely true and I did it for over a year in a family of 4 with an adult working in an office the entire time and two kids going to daycare. My kids don't wear masks in daycare and my wife only wears a mask in the office when clients come in and works with several other people. So given all of that it should have been virtually impossible that no one in our household contracted covid, yet we didn't.

It seems you are working under the exact opposite logic assuming that you WILL come into contact with Covid if not wearing a mask and at that point you have a 1/10 chance of catching it and transmitting it to others.

Personally I would have worn the mask at the library, but you using data to suggest there's a very good chance OP could still catch and transmit the virus to unvaccinated people if they don't is fear porn IMO.

It's actually kind of an anti-vax or at least put off the vax argument. If I'm hesitant about getting the vaccine why should I get it? I'll just wear a mask after all the CDC seems to believe wearing a mask is just as safe as getting the vaccine from their charts. When I can stop wearing a mask I'll get the vaccine.

* I feel compelled to say I am speaking above as a theoretical. I have been fully vaccinated for over a month and still wear a mask when I am indoors in public establishments.

Reminds me a lot of this article: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/05/liberals-covid-19-science-denial-lockdown/618780/

[GuitarStv]

Personally I would have worn the mask at the library, but you using data to suggest there's a very good chance OP could still catch and transmit the virus to unvaccinated people if they don't is fear porn IMO.

Since Walt claims to be fully vaccinated, his odds of transmitting the disease to a kid are about 10% of what an unvaccinated person would have.  I wouldn't (and didn't) call that 'a very good chance'.  Putting on a mask is such a minor inconvenience that there just doesn't seem to be any good reason not to while there's a large population that cannot be vaccinated.

'Fear porn' is not at all my goal.  Walt was claiming that there is no risk of harm to children by his actions.  I was trying to point out that that is factually incorrect.  A lot of kids who get covid seem to be having long term problems, and vaccination doesn't prevent you from transmitting covid to an unvaccinated kid.  There's no reason for fear - but there is reason for caution.

Reminds me a lot of this article: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/05/liberals-covid-19-science-denial-lockdown/618780/

Yeah, some of the people described in that article seem pretty stupid.  There's little/no reason at all to wear a mask outdoors unless you're packed into a crowd of strangers.  My kid was attending in-person classes here (masked and distanced) until the disease got out of control again and our schools were shut down.

There is a balance to be struck between 'no precaution' and 'way overboard'.  Somehow, wearing a mask around unvaccinated people doesn't seem to be in the latter category to me though.

[mizzourah2006]

Personally I would have worn the mask at the library, but you using data to suggest there's a very good chance OP could still catch and transmit the virus to unvaccinated people if they don't is fear porn IMO.

Since Walt claims to be fully vaccinated, his odds of transmitting the disease to a kid are about 10% of what an unvaccinated person would have.  I wouldn't (and didn't) call that 'a very good chance'.  Putting on a mask is such a minor inconvenience that there just doesn't seem to be any good reason not to while there's a large population that cannot be vaccinated.

But the bolded isn't completely accurate.

according to the CDC most of the cases of those that have contracted covid post vaccine have been mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/cdc-about-5-800-breakthrough-infections-reported-fully-vaccinated-people-n1264186

Knowing what the % breakdown was would be helpful, but if we assume of those it's a 50/50 split we can then look at the research on transmission rates among symptomatic vs. asymptomatic covid cases.

and research suggests you're significantly less likely to spread covid if you are asymptomatic. So the reality is if we work under the assumption that walter has come into contact with Covid, which probably in Utah isn't that high of a probability and that walter is that 1/10 that would test positive there's a good chance walter would be asymptomatic.

According to this meta asymptomatic transmission was 42% lower than symptomatic transmission:

The relative risk (RR) of asymptomatic transmission was 42% lower than that for symptomatic transmission (combined RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.99, p = 0.047).

https://jammi.utpjournals.press/doi/10.3138/jammi-2020-0030

and this study found that asymptomatic household members were roughly 70% less likely to transmit to other household members than symptomatic household members.

Seropositive asymptomatic household members had 69.6% lower odds (95%CrI,33.7-88.1%) of infecting another household member compared to those reporting symptoms

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.04.20225573v2.full.pdf

So it's not quite as simple as saying there is a 10% chance of Walt transmitting Covid to an unvaccinated kid/person. That's literally a worst case scenario if we already assume walt has come into contact with Covid.

[GuitarStv]

Fair enough, I stand corrected.

[waltworks]

Just got back from an exercise class with 40+ people (and another 20+ kids running around). No masks, no distancing, everyone vaccinated.

This has been going on for more than a month here. I'll keep you updated on the massive outbreak that so far hasn't happened.

-W

[former player]

Just got back from an exercise class with 40+ people (and another 20+ kids running around). No masks, no distancing, everyone vaccinated.

This has been going on for more than a month here. I'll keep you updated on the massive outbreak that so far hasn't happened.

-W

I think that's pretty much how people in India were feeling a couple of months ago.

[waltworks]

Just got back from an exercise class with 40+ people (and another 20+ kids running around). No masks, no distancing, everyone vaccinated.

This has been going on for more than a month here. I'll keep you updated on the massive outbreak that so far hasn't happened.

-W

I think that's pretty much how people in India were feeling a couple of months ago.

Well, except for the vaccinated part...

-W

[StashingAway]

Just got back from an exercise class with 40+ people (and another 20+ kids running around). No masks, no distancing, everyone vaccinated.

This has been going on for more than a month here. I'll keep you updated on the massive outbreak that so far hasn't happened.

-W

I think that's pretty much how people in India were feeling a couple of months ago.

Yes, with this virus, that's a risky game to play. Too long of an incubation period to effectively identify and respond to an outbreak.

[waltworks]

Yes, with this virus, that's a risky game to play. Too long of an incubation period to effectively identify and respond to an outbreak.

It'll be interesting to see the political fallout for Modi from not doing better with vaccinations *and* simultaneously running huge rallies, that's for sure.

Unfortunately I think there are enough Modi-loving bigots that he'll probably hold on.

-W

[simonsez]

This is not based on anything other than personal feel but after about two months of adults having access to vaccines, I feel those that want it will have gotten it and those that haven't aren't interested.  Where I live this means early June.  It will vary by area but it does seem that rules still in place at optional leisure activities after that point are pandering to the lowest common denominator (or is veiled as that and really people just like telling other people what to do) rather than operating on common sense.

Specifically, restaurants and sporting events:  if they still have restrictions in place in June, I won't make a big fuss but I will just spend my leisure dollars elsewhere (or not at all and pad the investments).  I'd rather be unencumbered while doing those things - and this is not a anti-mask thing as I hope grocery stores and any healthcare place require them permanently.  I just think it's stupid to have to wear a mask for 10 seconds when you waltz into a restaurant but then somehow it's okay to have it down the entire rest of the time while seated (or eating/drinking if at a game).  Either masks are needed and you can't eat/drink publicly or they're not and you can.

Again, I'm saying this for early June in my area since all adults have had access to free vaccines since early April.  I'm content to keep my own exposure limited for another month or so, even if vaccinated (and will not judge those have their own views and actions).  I've waited this long, what's a few more weeks.  But after that, it'll be a more concerted vote-with-your-dollars approach in this household.

[GuitarStv]

This is not based on anything other than personal feel but after about two months of adults having access to vaccines, I feel those that want it will have gotten it and those that haven't aren't interested.  Where I live this means early June.  It will vary by area but it does seem that rules still in place at optional leisure activities after that point are pandering to the lowest common denominator (or is veiled as that and really people just like telling other people what to do) rather than operating on common sense.

Specifically, restaurants and sporting events:  if they still have restrictions in place in June, I won't make a big fuss but I will just spend my leisure dollars elsewhere (or not at all and pad the investments).  I'd rather be unencumbered while doing those things - and this is not a anti-mask thing as I hope grocery stores and any healthcare place require them permanently.  I just think it's stupid to have to wear a mask for 10 seconds when you waltz into a restaurant but then somehow it's okay to have it down the entire rest of the time while seated (or eating/drinking if at a game).  Either masks are needed and you can't eat/drink publicly or they're not and you can.

Again, I'm saying this for early June in my area since all adults have had access to free vaccines since early April.  I'm content to keep my own exposure limited for another month or so, even if vaccinated (and will not judge those have their own views and actions).  I've waited this long, what's a few more weeks.  But after that, it'll be a more concerted vote-with-your-dollars approach in this household.

Why would masks be permanently required for grocery shopping?  That sounds terrible.

What's your plan for all the kids who can't be vaccinated by June?  If enough uptake happens with adults, it may be safe enough for them . . . but vaccination rates among adults seem to be dropping.

[jrhampt]

On the restaurant masking thing, I don't understand the people who are saying they have them on for 10 seconds and then take them off.  This is not really how it's supposed to work.  The idea is that if you are masked for, say, 25%- 33% of the time while you're at a restaurant, maybe you reduce your risk by 25%-33% and importantly, it's also to help your server while you're interacting with them.  I certainly don't waltz into a restaurant and then immediately unmask when I'm seated.  I keep my mask on until I'm done interacting with the server and the food is actually served and I am ready to eat.  Then between courses and whenever I'm interacting with the server, I put it back on.  It's not just on for 10 seconds.

[mizzourah2006]

On the restaurant masking thing, I don't understand the people who are saying they have them on for 10 seconds and then take them off.  This is not really how it's supposed to work.  The idea is that if you are masked for, say, 25%- 33% of the time while you're at a restaurant, maybe you reduce your risk by 25%-33% and importantly, it's also to help your server while you're interacting with them.  I certainly don't waltz into a restaurant and then immediately unmask when I'm seated.  I keep my mask on until I'm done interacting with the server and the food is actually served and I am ready to eat.  Then between courses and whenever I'm interacting with the server, I put it back on.  It's not just on for 10 seconds.

I put it on when I'm interacting with the server, but I have it off for the entire rest of the time I'm seated. I usually only go out to restaurants on weekends and if I'm at a restaurant I'm having a beer and I'm not putting my mask on between drinks. I was inside in a brewery on Sunday (because it was raining) with a friend and I had it off the entire time and then I put it on to walk 5 ft to the door, only to take it off again when I was outside. I think that's kind of the joke. That 5 ft where I was walking and barely breathing is where I could have spread Covid, but the 45 minutes I was sitting there drinking beer and talking with my friend spread potential was minimal because I was sitting down.

[simonsez]

On the restaurant masking thing, I don't understand the people who are saying they have them on for 10 seconds and then take them off.  This is not really how it's supposed to work.  The idea is that if you are masked for, say, 25%- 33% of the time while you're at a restaurant, maybe you reduce your risk by 25%-33% and importantly, it's also to help your server while you're interacting with them.  I certainly don't waltz into a restaurant and then immediately unmask when I'm seated.  I keep my mask on until I'm done interacting with the server and the food is actually served and I am ready to eat.  Then between courses and whenever I'm interacting with the server, I put it back on.  It's not just on for 10 seconds.

I don't know, that's was just my experience when I went to a place on Sunday regardless of how it's "supposed to work".  Like I said, I'm probably finished with going to places like that until restrictions are lifted.

[GuitarStv]

The idea of going out to a restaurant to eat during covid never really made any sense to me . . . but we only eat out maybe once a year at most during non-pandemic times so it's not an important part of our lives.

[Longwaytogo]

On the restaurant masking thing, I don't understand the people who are saying they have them on for 10 seconds and then take them off.  This is not really how it's supposed to work.  The idea is that if you are masked for, say, 25%- 33% of the time while you're at a restaurant, maybe you reduce your risk by 25%-33% and importantly, it's also to help your server while you're interacting with them.  I certainly don't waltz into a restaurant and then immediately unmask when I'm seated.  I keep my mask on until I'm done interacting with the server and the food is actually served and I am ready to eat.  Then between courses and whenever I'm interacting with the server, I put it back on.  It's not just on for 10 seconds.

That's what I did the first time we went out in like mid February for a late Valentines night; and both our server, the hostess, AND the manager all told me "sir you don't need you mask on once your seated" ???

And since I saw no one else doing it after that time I didn't bother. We didn't eat out again for about 6 weeks and then ate out a few times late March/April and it was just the to/from table and to/from bathroom with masks and un-masked the rest of the time.

-------------

Another good one is my county still has a "6 person table limit" so when we went out for dinner after a softball game with another family the other night they say "no problem we can just put two tables of four really close together"

At this point it seems those going out have accepted the risk and those who are still awaiting vaccines or not ready to go out are staying home; so for those out and about you may as well just go back to normal capacity/rules.

[simonsez]

This is not based on anything other than personal feel but after about two months of adults having access to vaccines, I feel those that want it will have gotten it and those that haven't aren't interested.  Where I live this means early June.  It will vary by area but it does seem that rules still in place at optional leisure activities after that point are pandering to the lowest common denominator (or is veiled as that and really people just like telling other people what to do) rather than operating on common sense.

Specifically, restaurants and sporting events:  if they still have restrictions in place in June, I won't make a big fuss but I will just spend my leisure dollars elsewhere (or not at all and pad the investments).  I'd rather be unencumbered while doing those things - and this is not a anti-mask thing as I hope grocery stores and any healthcare place require them permanently.  I just think it's stupid to have to wear a mask for 10 seconds when you waltz into a restaurant but then somehow it's okay to have it down the entire rest of the time while seated (or eating/drinking if at a game).  Either masks are needed and you can't eat/drink publicly or they're not and you can.

Again, I'm saying this for early June in my area since all adults have had access to free vaccines since early April.  I'm content to keep my own exposure limited for another month or so, even if vaccinated (and will not judge those have their own views and actions).  I've waited this long, what's a few more weeks.  But after that, it'll be a more concerted vote-with-your-dollars approach in this household.

Why would masks be permanently required for grocery shopping?  That sounds terrible.

What's your plan for all the kids who can't be vaccinated by June?  If enough uptake happens with adults, it may be safe enough for them . . . but vaccination rates among adults seem to be dropping.

To each their own, I've really enjoyed that aspect of masks, same for other places like the DMV and dentist.  I have to go to grocery stores.  I don't have to go to restaurants.  I like having a little more space in line or giving people more of a wide berth when passing them in an aisle.  That already happened naturally at restaurants unless you're sitting at the bar immediately next to someone.  Once the restrictions drop, I will likely continue to mask and give some distance at grocery stores.  If that's terrible for you, don't do it.

I don't have kids and don't know any information about what their COVID risks are.  Generally speaking, if our society didn't prioritize them to have access to the vaccine at the same time as adults, I would imagine their risks are lower?  Am I wrong in that assumption?  If I'm wrong then I would think either there need to be rules preventing children from doing activities or requiring them to still be masked for awhile longer until they've had adequate vaccine access. 

[frugalnacho]

On the restaurant masking thing, I don't understand the people who are saying they have them on for 10 seconds and then take them off.  This is not really how it's supposed to work.  The idea is that if you are masked for, say, 25%- 33% of the time while you're at a restaurant, maybe you reduce your risk by 25%-33% and importantly, it's also to help your server while you're interacting with them.  I certainly don't waltz into a restaurant and then immediately unmask when I'm seated.  I keep my mask on until I'm done interacting with the server and the food is actually served and I am ready to eat.  Then between courses and whenever I'm interacting with the server, I put it back on.  It's not just on for 10 seconds.

That's what I did the first time we went out in like mid February for a late Valentines night; and both our server, the hostess, AND the manager all told me "sir you don't need you mask on once your seated" ???

And since I saw no one else doing it after that time I didn't bother. We didn't eat out again for about 6 weeks and then ate out a few times late March/April and it was just the to/from table and to/from bathroom with masks and un-masked the rest of the time.

-------------

Another good one is my county still has a "6 person table limit" so when we went out for dinner after a softball game with another family the other night they say "no problem we can just put two tables of four really close together"

At this point it seems those going out have accepted the risk and those who are still awaiting vaccines or not ready to go out are staying home; so for those out and about you may as well just go back to normal capacity/rules.

And when they banned indoor dining altogether many places just moved outside.  But it was rainy so they put a temporary roof up.  It was still cold, so they put up temporary walls and added heaters.  Now you could jam as many people as you want in your heated, sheltered, "outdoor" area and technically be following the law. 

[frugalnacho]

This is not based on anything other than personal feel but after about two months of adults having access to vaccines, I feel those that want it will have gotten it and those that haven't aren't interested.  Where I live this means early June.  It will vary by area but it does seem that rules still in place at optional leisure activities after that point are pandering to the lowest common denominator (or is veiled as that and really people just like telling other people what to do) rather than operating on common sense.

Specifically, restaurants and sporting events:  if they still have restrictions in place in June, I won't make a big fuss but I will just spend my leisure dollars elsewhere (or not at all and pad the investments).  I'd rather be unencumbered while doing those things - and this is not a anti-mask thing as I hope grocery stores and any healthcare place require them permanently.  I just think it's stupid to have to wear a mask for 10 seconds when you waltz into a restaurant but then somehow it's okay to have it down the entire rest of the time while seated (or eating/drinking if at a game).  Either masks are needed and you can't eat/drink publicly or they're not and you can.

Again, I'm saying this for early June in my area since all adults have had access to free vaccines since early April.  I'm content to keep my own exposure limited for another month or so, even if vaccinated (and will not judge those have their own views and actions).  I've waited this long, what's a few more weeks.  But after that, it'll be a more concerted vote-with-your-dollars approach in this household.

Why would masks be permanently required for grocery shopping?  That sounds terrible.

What's your plan for all the kids who can't be vaccinated by June?  If enough uptake happens with adults, it may be safe enough for them . . . but vaccination rates among adults seem to be dropping.

To each their own, I've really enjoyed that aspect of masks, same for other places like the DMV and dentist.  I have to go to grocery stores.  I don't have to go to restaurants.  I like having a little more space in line or giving people more of a wide berth when passing them in an aisle.  That already happened naturally at restaurants unless you're sitting at the bar immediately next to someone.  Once the restrictions drop, I will likely continue to mask and give some distance at grocery stores.  If that's terrible for you, don't do it.

I don't have kids and don't know any information about what their COVID risks are.  Generally speaking, if our society didn't prioritize them to have access to the vaccine at the same time as adults, I would imagine their risks are lower?  Am I wrong in that assumption?  If I'm wrong then I would think either there need to be rules preventing children from doing activities or requiring them to still be masked for awhile longer until they've had adequate vaccine access.

They didn't prioritize them because they didn't do any trials on children so they didn't get approval for that age range.  Canada just recently authorized Pfizer for age 12-15.  I expect more countries will follow shortly, and then younger age groups will be approved after that as they complete trials demonstrating its safety. 

[GuitarStv]

I don't have kids and don't know any information about what their COVID risks are.  Generally speaking, if our society didn't prioritize them to have access to the vaccine at the same time as adults, I would imagine their risks are lower?  Am I wrong in that assumption?  If I'm wrong then I would think either there need to be rules preventing children from doing activities or requiring them to still be masked for awhile longer until they've had adequate vaccine access.

We were just discussing that.  Kids are at very low risk of dying due to covid and that's why testing focused on adults initially.  The latest research seems to show that around 17-20% of kids who get covid still have symptoms and health problems more than 5 weeks after the infection is gone though.  There's the issue of adults who are vaccinated but still able to transmit the virus to their kids (the best vaccines out there still fail one in ten times to prevent covid infection in fully vaccinated people).

[mizzourah2006]

The idea of going out to a restaurant to eat during covid never really made any sense to me . . . but we only eat out maybe once a year at most during non-pandemic times so it's not an important part of our lives.

We've been out to eat maybe 6-8 times total during Covid. We also don't go out to eat much, but in actuality I've craved it more during Covid. I work from home and during non-Covid times I could get my "people" fix by just going over to a friends for BBQ and beers on the weekend. Since that wasn't an option I actually wanted to go out more often to literally interact with people. I'm the only one in my family that has been locked in my house throughout all of this with no human interaction and I'm a very social person.

[lutorm]

Me and my wife are fully vaccinated, our kid (obviously) isn't. I think it's a fair compromise to have him in preschool, where there are the same two adults present all the time, but that doesn't mean I want him around random unmasked adults. (That opinion takes into account that people who won't wear masks in indoor public settings are, in my opinion, also more likely to be the covid-deniers/anti-vaxxers who won't get the vaccine either.)

People are focused on deaths, but like GuitarStv I agree that it seems we're getting more and more evidence that there are non-negligible long-term health effects from getting Covid, both in adults and kids, that warrant caution until there's a vaccine for kids.

If vaccine uptake among adults was close to 100%, I might feel differently. But this is not the world we live in.

[waltworks]

Unfortunately the best case scenario for most of the US might be 70% of adults vaccinated (and probably fewer kids). A lot of places won't hit 50%, I bet.

Some portion of those folks who refuse are partially motivated by the "even if I'm vaccinated I have to wear a mask? Forget it!" logic that I find stupid... but is actually how they think. So I do wonder if the "stay masked up even after vaccination" folks are doing more harm than good at this point.

I'd love to see big concerts, sports events, etc come back with vaccination requirements.

In the meantime a lot of people are going to have to decide how they want to live (perhaps indefinitely) once vaccinated, if 1/3 of their neighbors aren't.

-W

[mm1970]

“Those who are vaccinated on the left seem to think overcaution now is the way to go, which is making people on the right question the effectiveness of the vaccines,”

Is this true of all liberals?  Or just some?  Or just some that we see in the media?  (Well known).

Because, that's not how I am.  Nor most of my friends.  I've planned summer travel (but not on a plane - my kids aren't vaccinated yet, and the 8 yo not likely to be any time soon).  I've planned (but not booked) Christmas travel, but whether or not we STAY with our elderly parents when visiting remains to be seen.  We are going to see how things are about a month before we go.  I don't wear a mask while outdoors anymore.  I have a friend who has an immunocompromised friend, and SHE is not willing to interact unmasked with the unvaccinated.  I can see that.

Just got back from an exercise class with 40+ people (and another 20+ kids running around). No masks, no distancing, everyone vaccinated.

This has been going on for more than a month here. I'll keep you updated on the massive outbreak that so far hasn't happened.

-W

I think that's pretty much how people in India were feeling a couple of months ago.

Yes, with this virus, that's a risky game to play. Too long of an incubation period to effectively identify and respond to an outbreak.

I'm pretty much with Walt on this one.  At least, I HOPE there are no big outbreaks...that's now how this is supposed to work.  I'd be disappointed if there's an outbreak.

I am PERSONALLY not willing to work out at the gym in a big group unmasked (even though I'm fully vaxxed tomorrow), but I *am* willing to start (tomorrow) booking myself a lane in the indoor pool.  6 lanes, one person per lane.

(Part of that is that my husband and I have been lifting weights together in the mornings and I'm really enjoying it!!)

[simonsez]

Thanks for the extra info on kids, that makes sense.

I think I'm just ignorant when it comes to issues dealing with kids simply because they're not in my bubble normally, at least not in any major way.  I see my nephew maybe an hour or two each month and the occasional friend's kid.  All the adults in these situations or the ones I see with any type of frequency are known vaccinated entities (which is what people have been saying it might be different if all adults in society were).  So of my monthly hours, I am around children <1% of the time and when I am, it's not like I'm right next to them for that entire visit.  Out of sight, out of mind I suppose.

I am certainly open to being convinced that I could be masked up more in public for the time being due to exposure of children.  I just don't want to be if I don't have to be for my leisure time activities (assuming it's relatively safe of course).  I'll go along with whatever the rules are or just not do certain things.

[lutorm]

Some portion of those folks who refuse are partially motivated by the "even if I'm vaccinated I have to wear a mask? Forget it!" logic that I find stupid... but is actually how they think. So I do wonder if the "stay masked up even after vaccination" folks are doing more harm than good at this point.

Well, the argument is "even if you are vaccinated, you have to wear a mask until you've helped convince everyone else to also get vaccinated". But I guess that's too much thinking of others for these people.

[Longwaytogo]

Just got back from an exercise class with 40+ people (and another 20+ kids running around). No masks, no distancing, everyone vaccinated.

This has been going on for more than a month here. I'll keep you updated on the massive outbreak that so far hasn't happened.

-W

I think that's pretty much how people in India were feeling a couple of months ago.

I didn't think many people in India were vaccinated so that doesn't seem like an apt comparison??

Just got back from an exercise class with 40+ people (and another 20+ kids running around). No masks, no distancing, everyone vaccinated.

This has been going on for more than a month here. I'll keep you updated on the massive outbreak that so far hasn't happened.

-W

I think that's pretty much how people in India were feeling a couple of months ago.

Yes, with this virus, that's a risky game to play. Too long of an incubation period to effectively identify and respond to an outbreak.

I'm pretty much with Walt on this one.  At least, I HOPE there are no big outbreaks...that's now how this is supposed to work.  I'd be disappointed if there's an outbreak.

Agree, if we can't "get back to normal" with everyone vaccinated then I don't really understand the point of the Vaccines. 

I haven't been back to any gym classes (never went to any before...) but we are back to seeing friends on weekends, some restraunts, traveled with a bunch more travel planned, etc.

“Those who are vaccinated on the left seem to think overcaution now is the way to go, which is making people on the right question the effectiveness of the vaccines,”

Is this true of all liberals?  Or just some?  Or just some that we see in the media?  (Well known).

Because, that's not how I am.  Nor most of my friends.  I've planned summer travel (but not on a plane - my kids aren't vaccinated yet, and the 8 yo not likely to be any time soon).  I've planned (but not booked) Christmas travel, but whether or not we STAY with our elderly parents when visiting remains to be seen.  We are going to see how things are about a month before we go.  I don't wear a mask while outdoors anymore.  I have a friend who has an immunocompromised friend, and SHE is not willing to interact unmasked with the unvaccinated.  I can see that.

I don't know, I think it's the Liberal politicians mostly that are urging the over caution.

I still think it's odd how this Covid has been split so much down party lines. In my little circle it's not been like that at all. Some of my most liberal friends did kids sports all Winter, having friends/family over etc. and one of my most hard core republican friends has barely left his house in a year!

Most people I know seemed to have weighed their own personal health (mental and physical) their job exposure, whether they see elderly relatives often, etc amongst other factors on how they would handle the covid/lockdowns and political party seemed to have little to nothing to do with it.

Some portion of those folks who refuse are partially motivated by the "even if I'm vaccinated I have to wear a mask? Forget it!" logic that I find stupid... but is actually how they think. So I do wonder if the "stay masked up even after vaccination" folks are doing more harm than good at this point.

Well, the argument is "even if you are vaccinated, you have to wear a mask until you've helped convince everyone else to also get vaccinated". But I guess that's too much thinking of others for these people.

Seems to me saying "Once your vaccinated you can stop wearing a mask" would be a HUGE way to convince everyone to get vaccinated. I work in construction with LOTS of hard core anti mask Trumpers and knuckleheads and most of them were sort of on the fence and indifferent about the Vaccine and many said "I'll probably get it just so we can be done with this shit"  Now the last couple months it's turned to " well they won't let us do anything if we get it anyway so why bother"

Also as a side note I've barley seen a mask on the construction site since about mid February. Majority of the people on site seem to either be sick of them, not care/never wore one, or have already had covid so figure they have some immunity.

[Abe]

I was one of the first group to get vaccinated outside of a clinical trial and wore a mask for several months afterwards as a gesture of solidarity, and in case the vaccine data tanked in post-trial analysis (happens often with drugs, so a legitimate concern). Now I feel that most people who want to be vaccinated have received it (at least around here-my neighborhood has >90% vaccine rate since so many work in hospitals and the remainder are sufficiently scared by our stories), the holdouts would only see my mask-wearing as libtard virtue-signaling (I think that’s the correct term), it is freaking hot and humid outdoors, and the vaccines’ efficacy is holding in post-authorization surveillance cohorts. Now I wear it at crowded playgrounds and at all times indoors except at home. So there a mix of risk tolerance and nihilism driving my behavior. If I lived in a low-vaccine trumpistan county or an area with limited vaccine supply, then I’d be definitely still be wearing a mask outdoors, evidence or not, because it’s literally just a piece of cloth so the risk is 0% and the benefit may be 0.01% (i.e. 1/10000 risk). The benefit to me is still higher in that scenario.

On a more societal level - it is unlikely our healthcare system will get overwhelmed at this point (minus all our PTSD). The curve has been flattened and now it’s just the usual poor foresight (e.g. motorcycle riding without a helmet) jerks that we can handle.

[lutorm]

Seems to me saying "Once your vaccinated you can stop wearing a mask" would be a HUGE way to convince everyone to get vaccinated. I work in construction with LOTS of hard core anti mask Trumpers and knuckleheads and most of them were sort of on the fence and indifferent about the Vaccine and many said "I'll probably get it just so we can be done with this shit"  Now the last couple months it's turned to " well they won't let us do anything if we get it anyway so why bother"

Oh I agree. I would love to be done, too. I just don't think the facts support that.

That said, I think at this point saying that you can't be in a park unless you're exercising and wearing a mask, which seems to be the local county regulation currently, is pretty ridiculous. I don't understand why we at this point worry about outdoor environments where you don't spend more than a few seconds within 6ft of someone when all the evidence point to this being a non-issue. We WANT people to be outside, not inside.

[habanero]

Likewise - members of 'essential services' (including liquor stores!)

It's pretty popular to mock the inclusion of liquor stores in "essential services". Ours closed as part of a general closure of "non-essential shops" but they were reopened the day after, mainly on information from the health authorities. Why? Because alcohol abstinence is one of very few abstinences that can actually be leathal. And a certain proportion of the population have a very, very serious drinking problem and they can die if they don't get their fix on a regular basis or do very, very bad stuff to themselves (or others). And given how much you need to drink if in such a bad situation, only liquour does the trick due to the sheer quantity needed.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

Likewise - members of 'essential services' (including liquor stores!)

It's pretty popular to mock the inclusion of liquor stores in "essential services". Ours closed as part of a general closure of "non-essential shops" but they were reopened the day after, mainly on information from the health authorities. Why? Because alcohol abstinence is one of very few abstinences that can actually be leathal. And a certain proportion of the population have a very, very serious drinking problem and they can die if they don't get their fix on a regular basis or do very, very bad stuff to themselves (or others). And given how much you need to drink if in such a bad situation, only liquour does the trick due to the sheer quantity needed.

Then make it a medical exemption. There was a medical exemption system. Add liquor stores to that list.

Other things on the list included greyhound racing and building and construction. Again, not sure how those are essential.

And if you are going to allow liquor stores on that premise, you should have allowed sole traders working alone, but they were still banned from attending their businesses.

In summary:
- You're an alcoholic - go and drive/walk to the liquor store and physically buy the liquor you want. It's okay.
- You run your own business and rent an office - you cannot drive or walk to your office to do any work.

[StashingAway]

If I lived in a low-vaccine trumpistan county or an area with limited vaccine supply, then I’d be definitely still be wearing a mask outdoors, evidence or not, because it’s literally just a piece of cloth so the risk is 0% and the benefit may be 0.01% (i.e. 1/10000 risk). The benefit to me is still higher in that scenario.

Then, in my opinion of course, you aren't looking at the big picture when analyzing the two categories. There is very little personal "risk" to wearing a mask. But it isn't zero. There are absolutely, 100% health effects with wearing one. You are changing your physical interaction with the world, obviously there are intended and unintended consequences. For some people there are health benefits (seasonal allergies?). But the negative effects are NOT 0%. Can't be. It's mathematically and scientifically impossible to have zero effect. What those effects are may not be known for years or decades. Some may be physical, some psychological.

We are social creatures. Wearing a mask might limit your communication capabilities. We absorb non-verbal communication from each other all the time. Covering that up may have some downside.

What if not wearing a mask encouraged more people to get vaccinated? What if not wearing a mask encouraged more people to work together to solve differences? If you wear a mask when it doesn't make rational sense for most people, then you may be signaling to them that you are unwilling to compromise on even the smallest of issues. Especially in "Trump country".

I'm not saying these things from my perspective. When I see someone wearing a mask outdoors these days I give them the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps they are immunocompromised or perhaps they just like it (introverts?). Some people like feeling like they're running around like a ninja. Whatever, I don't care. I realize that we will always have some mask wearers because of their cultural normalcy now.

But the negative effects are not 0% of wearing one. That is unscientific in the most basic sense of science.

[RetiredAt63]

Our governments are not being open about plans for lifting restrictions once we get to a certain unknown % vaccination.  But right now we are way below where we would need to be to lift most restrictions. Vaccine shortage more than unwillingness, although there is some of that.  Having vaccines approved for 12+ (here now) will help, because there is a big difference between 70% of the population vaccinated and 70% of adults vaccinated.

Since we are supposed to have enough vaccine to have everyone vaccinated by summer (not sure if they mean 1 or 2 doses, I think we can do 1 by July and 2 by fall) some of the groups I am in are starting to discuss outdoor plans for the summer and indoor/outdoor plans for the fall. 

[Cranky]

On the restaurant masking thing, I don't understand the people who are saying they have them on for 10 seconds and then take them off.  This is not really how it's supposed to work.  The idea is that if you are masked for, say, 25%- 33% of the time while you're at a restaurant, maybe you reduce your risk by 25%-33% and importantly, it's also to help your server while you're interacting with them.  I certainly don't waltz into a restaurant and then immediately unmask when I'm seated.  I keep my mask on until I'm done interacting with the server and the food is actually served and I am ready to eat.  Then between courses and whenever I'm interacting with the server, I put it back on.  It's not just on for 10 seconds.

That's what I did the first time we went out in like mid February for a late Valentines night; and both our server, the hostess, AND the manager all told me "sir you don't need you mask on once your seated" ???

And since I saw no one else doing it after that time I didn't bother. We didn't eat out again for about 6 weeks and then ate out a few times late March/April and it was just the to/from table and to/from bathroom with masks and un-masked the rest of the time.

-------------

Another good one is my county still has a "6 person table limit" so when we went out for dinner after a softball game with another family the other night they say "no problem we can just put two tables of four really close together"

At this point it seems those going out have accepted the risk and those who are still awaiting vaccines or not ready to go out are staying home; so for those out and about you may as well just go back to normal capacity/rules.

And when they banned indoor dining altogether many places just moved outside.  But it was rainy so they put a temporary roof up.  It was still cold, so they put up temporary walls and added heaters.  Now you could jam as many people as you want in your heated, sheltered, "outdoor" area and technically be following the law.

That's pretty much how it worked here, because lots of restaurants had already put up "outdoor" dining areas when indoor smoking was banned, and then made them pretty much "indoors". Honestly, I don't think there's anyway to make indoor dining safe so I think that the message should just be "not safe, but that's on you." Restaurants here seem to be packed and have been for a while.

I do feel bad for the servers. I do not feel bad for all the restaurants whining about not being able to hire employees.

I didn't love restaurants before Covid, so I'm not the person keen to rush back.

[former player]

If I lived in a low-vaccine trumpistan county or an area with limited vaccine supply, then I’d be definitely still be wearing a mask outdoors, evidence or not, because it’s literally just a piece of cloth so the risk is 0% and the benefit may be 0.01% (i.e. 1/10000 risk). The benefit to me is still higher in that scenario.

Then, in my opinion of course, you aren't looking at the big picture when analyzing the two categories. There is very little personal "risk" to wearing a mask. But it isn't zero. There are absolutely, 100% health effects with wearing one. You are changing your physical interaction with the world, obviously there are intended and unintended consequences. For some people there are health benefits (seasonal allergies?). But the negative effects are NOT 0%. Can't be. It's mathematically and scientifically impossible to have zero effect. What those effects are may not be known for years or decades. Some may be physical, some psychological.

We are social creatures. Wearing a mask might limit your communication capabilities. We absorb non-verbal communication from each other all the time. Covering that up may have some downside.

What if not wearing a mask encouraged more people to get vaccinated? What if not wearing a mask encouraged more people to work together to solve differences? If you wear a mask when it doesn't make rational sense for most people, then you may be signaling to them that you are unwilling to compromise on even the smallest of issues. Especially in "Trump country".

I'm not saying these things from my perspective. When I see someone wearing a mask outdoors these days I give them the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps they are immunocompromised or perhaps they just like it (introverts?). Some people like feeling like they're running around like a ninja. Whatever, I don't care. I realize that we will always have some mask wearers because of their cultural normalcy now.

But the negative effects are not 0% of wearing one. That is unscientific in the most basic sense of science.

What if wearing a mask saves tens of thousands of lives by reducing flu transmission?  Does that outweigh those potential but almost entirely insignificant for most people negatives?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/flu-has-disappeared-worldwide-during-the-covid-pandemic1/

[windytrail]

Around here, so-called "COVID experts" now openly admit that they disregard science and try to one-up each other in virtuousness in continuing to wear masks outdoors: (https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/article/Will-you-stop-wearing-a-mask-outdoors-Here-s-16154515.php)

Peter Chin-Hong, infectious disease expert at UCSF...Chin-Hong said his personal behavior hasn’t changed much since the state issued its new mask guidelines. When he’s outdoors, he generally carries his mask and makes sure he has it on most of the time. In some ways, it’s become more of an etiquette thing and a social practice than a means to control risk outside.

“If I don’t have it on, I feel almost naked,” he said. “I almost feel guilty, or like I’m being daring by not wearing my mask, despite knowing what the science is and what the guidance is."

 Denise Herd, professor and director of health and social behavior at UC Berkeley...When she’s outside, she still masks up, especially if she’s around crowds or people whom she doesn’t know. If she’s walking alone and isn’t near people, or if they’re widely spread, she doesn’t always wear a mask. But if she walks by someone who is wearing one, she’ll pull her mask up, mostly as a courtesy.

Monica Gandhi, infectious disease expert at UCSF...For Gandhi, it wasn’t any of the ordinances that cemented her views on outdoor coronavirus transmission — it was the studies that show how rare it is.

The one that convinced her the most came from Wuhan, China. The researchers did careful contact tracing and found that among more than 7,324 infections, only one could be traced to the outside.

So, even before the new mandate, Gandhi didn’t think it was necessary to mask outside, but did so because it was a guideline in San Francisco. But now that the outdoor mask mandate has been lifted, she no longer wears masks outside unless she’s in a large group scenario like a stadium or a protest, which aligns with CDC guidelines.

“If everyone is masked (outdoors), I’m going to put on my mask,” she said. “But if I’m walking around and people are passing me on the sidewalk, I’m done with my mask.”

Shannon Bennett, chief of science and associate curator of microbiology at the California Academy of Sciences...Even though the outdoor mask mandate has lifted, Bennett is still staying on the conservative side — and even beyond that, she’s embraced mask-wearing as a lifestyle...“I just feel like it’s become a pro-social signal of caring,” she said, adding that she does it more often than others because of how safe it makes her — and the people she encounters — feel.

Monica Gandhi is the only one quoted who is rigorously following the science.

I disagree that virtue signaling is an effective way to change societal behavior. Instead, it tends to further polarize society into tribes with unnecessary masking as a way to express belonging to an exclusive group. As others have pointed out, Republicans who may be on the fence about getting the vaccine are repulsed by this behavior because they feel like they are being excluded as "others." They may behave more recklessly as a way to overcompensate for the virtue signaling on the other political side. This polarization, without a doubt, has contributed to the high rate of vaccine hesitancy among Republicans.

[frugalnacho]

So basically cry babies that aren't going to get vaccinated because some people choose to wear masks on their own faces outdoors when it may not actually be necessary? And intentionally engage in reckless and dangerous behavior to over compensate someone else's virtue signaling, I guess just out of spite? Talk about being a delicate snowflake. 

[jrhampt]

So basically cry babies that aren't going to get vaccinated because some people choose to wear masks on their own faces outdoors when it may not actually be necessary? And intentionally engage in reckless and dangerous behavior to over compensate someone else's virtue signaling, I guess just out of spite? Talk about being a delicate snowflake.

Hahaha!!!  Yeah, they really weren't going to get vaccinated anyway, were they?

For what it's worth, now that I am fully vaccinated, I do not wear masks outdoors (except in crowds).  I see my vaccinated friends in person, indoors and outdoors, without masks.  I even ate inside a restaurant for the first time in well over a year.  I haven't been back to the gym yet, but I'll get there eventually.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

I'm not getting covid vaccinated unless it's mandatory (I'll probably get the vaccine right before our passports become useful again, since it'll be mandatory in order to travel). I don't get a flu vaccination ever, so I don't see the point in getting a covid vaccination either. That said, the situation in Australia is well under control so it's different from the States. Only over-50's and front line workers here are getting vaccinated.

[the_fixer]

Around here, so-called "COVID experts" now openly admit that they disregard science and try to one-up each other in virtuousness in continuing to wear masks outdoors: (https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/article/Will-you-stop-wearing-a-mask-outdoors-Here-s-16154515.php)

Peter Chin-Hong, infectious disease expert at UCSF...Chin-Hong said his personal behavior hasn’t changed much since the state issued its new mask guidelines. When he’s outdoors, he generally carries his mask and makes sure he has it on most of the time. In some ways, it’s become more of an etiquette thing and a social practice than a means to control risk outside.

“If I don’t have it on, I feel almost naked,” he said. “I almost feel guilty, or like I’m being daring by not wearing my mask, despite knowing what the science is and what the guidance is."

 Denise Herd, professor and director of health and social behavior at UC Berkeley...When she’s outside, she still masks up, especially if she’s around crowds or people whom she doesn’t know. If she’s walking alone and isn’t near people, or if they’re widely spread, she doesn’t always wear a mask. But if she walks by someone who is wearing one, she’ll pull her mask up, mostly as a courtesy.

Monica Gandhi, infectious disease expert at UCSF...For Gandhi, it wasn’t any of the ordinances that cemented her views on outdoor coronavirus transmission — it was the studies that show how rare it is.

The one that convinced her the most came from Wuhan, China. The researchers did careful contact tracing and found that among more than 7,324 infections, only one could be traced to the outside.

So, even before the new mandate, Gandhi didn’t think it was necessary to mask outside, but did so because it was a guideline in San Francisco. But now that the outdoor mask mandate has been lifted, she no longer wears masks outside unless she’s in a large group scenario like a stadium or a protest, which aligns with CDC guidelines.

“If everyone is masked (outdoors), I’m going to put on my mask,” she said. “But if I’m walking around and people are passing me on the sidewalk, I’m done with my mask.”

Shannon Bennett, chief of science and associate curator of microbiology at the California Academy of Sciences...Even though the outdoor mask mandate has lifted, Bennett is still staying on the conservative side — and even beyond that, she’s embraced mask-wearing as a lifestyle...“I just feel like it’s become a pro-social signal of caring,” she said, adding that she does it more often than others because of how safe it makes her — and the people she encounters — feel.

Monica Gandhi is the only one quoted who is rigorously following the science.

I disagree that virtue signaling is an effective way to change societal behavior. Instead, it tends to further polarize society into tribes with unnecessary masking as a way to express belonging to an exclusive group. As others have pointed out, Republicans who may be on the fence about getting the vaccine are repulsed by this behavior because they feel like they are being excluded as "others." They may behave more recklessly as a way to overcompensate for the virtue signaling on the other political side. This polarization, without a doubt, has contributed to the high rate of vaccine hesitancy among Republicans.

Sounds like it is their personal choice not something they are trying to force on others or against health / safety rules.

I guess I do not understand why this is an issue?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mizzourah2006]

Around here, so-called "COVID experts" now openly admit that they disregard science and try to one-up each other in virtuousness in continuing to wear masks outdoors: (https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/article/Will-you-stop-wearing-a-mask-outdoors-Here-s-16154515.php)

Peter Chin-Hong, infectious disease expert at UCSF...Chin-Hong said his personal behavior hasn’t changed much since the state issued its new mask guidelines. When he’s outdoors, he generally carries his mask and makes sure he has it on most of the time. In some ways, it’s become more of an etiquette thing and a social practice than a means to control risk outside.

“If I don’t have it on, I feel almost naked,” he said. “I almost feel guilty, or like I’m being daring by not wearing my mask, despite knowing what the science is and what the guidance is."

 Denise Herd, professor and director of health and social behavior at UC Berkeley...When she’s outside, she still masks up, especially if she’s around crowds or people whom she doesn’t know. If she’s walking alone and isn’t near people, or if they’re widely spread, she doesn’t always wear a mask. But if she walks by someone who is wearing one, she’ll pull her mask up, mostly as a courtesy.

Monica Gandhi, infectious disease expert at UCSF...For Gandhi, it wasn’t any of the ordinances that cemented her views on outdoor coronavirus transmission — it was the studies that show how rare it is.

The one that convinced her the most came from Wuhan, China. The researchers did careful contact tracing and found that among more than 7,324 infections, only one could be traced to the outside.

So, even before the new mandate, Gandhi didn’t think it was necessary to mask outside, but did so because it was a guideline in San Francisco. But now that the outdoor mask mandate has been lifted, she no longer wears masks outside unless she’s in a large group scenario like a stadium or a protest, which aligns with CDC guidelines.

“If everyone is masked (outdoors), I’m going to put on my mask,” she said. “But if I’m walking around and people are passing me on the sidewalk, I’m done with my mask.”

Shannon Bennett, chief of science and associate curator of microbiology at the California Academy of Sciences...Even though the outdoor mask mandate has lifted, Bennett is still staying on the conservative side — and even beyond that, she’s embraced mask-wearing as a lifestyle...“I just feel like it’s become a pro-social signal of caring,” she said, adding that she does it more often than others because of how safe it makes her — and the people she encounters — feel.

Monica Gandhi is the only one quoted who is rigorously following the science.

I disagree that virtue signaling is an effective way to change societal behavior. Instead, it tends to further polarize society into tribes with unnecessary masking as a way to express belonging to an exclusive group. As others have pointed out, Republicans who may be on the fence about getting the vaccine are repulsed by this behavior because they feel like they are being excluded as "others." They may behave more recklessly as a way to overcompensate for the virtue signaling on the other political side. This polarization, without a doubt, has contributed to the high rate of vaccine hesitancy among Republicans.

Sounds like it is their personal choice not something they are trying to force on others or against health / safety rules.

I guess I do not understand why this is an issue?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the point is it's literally the exact behavior that republicans got demonized for in reverse. They refused to wear masks even though science supported it's use, hence anti-science. Now many liberals refuse to take off the mask even though science supports that it's useless, hence anti-science. Both sides are virtue signaling.

Now you could argue that the behavior of the the non-maskers could impact others and that's probably true, but it doesn't change the fact that both behaviors are not rooted in what our current understanding of the science supports. Hence both are anti-science. One in a conservative way the other in a liberal way....only in these instances the two groups are flipped. Kind of ironic if you think about it.

[the_fixer]

Around here, so-called "COVID experts" now openly admit that they disregard science and try to one-up each other in virtuousness in continuing to wear masks outdoors: (https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/article/Will-you-stop-wearing-a-mask-outdoors-Here-s-16154515.php)

Peter Chin-Hong, infectious disease expert at UCSF...Chin-Hong said his personal behavior hasn’t changed much since the state issued its new mask guidelines. When he’s outdoors, he generally carries his mask and makes sure he has it on most of the time. In some ways, it’s become more of an etiquette thing and a social practice than a means to control risk outside.

“If I don’t have it on, I feel almost naked,” he said. “I almost feel guilty, or like I’m being daring by not wearing my mask, despite knowing what the science is and what the guidance is."

 Denise Herd, professor and director of health and social behavior at UC Berkeley...When she’s outside, she still masks up, especially if she’s around crowds or people whom she doesn’t know. If she’s walking alone and isn’t near people, or if they’re widely spread, she doesn’t always wear a mask. But if she walks by someone who is wearing one, she’ll pull her mask up, mostly as a courtesy.

Monica Gandhi, infectious disease expert at UCSF...For Gandhi, it wasn’t any of the ordinances that cemented her views on outdoor coronavirus transmission — it was the studies that show how rare it is.

The one that convinced her the most came from Wuhan, China. The researchers did careful contact tracing and found that among more than 7,324 infections, only one could be traced to the outside.

So, even before the new mandate, Gandhi didn’t think it was necessary to mask outside, but did so because it was a guideline in San Francisco. But now that the outdoor mask mandate has been lifted, she no longer wears masks outside unless she’s in a large group scenario like a stadium or a protest, which aligns with CDC guidelines.

“If everyone is masked (outdoors), I’m going to put on my mask,” she said. “But if I’m walking around and people are passing me on the sidewalk, I’m done with my mask.”

Shannon Bennett, chief of science and associate curator of microbiology at the California Academy of Sciences...Even though the outdoor mask mandate has lifted, Bennett is still staying on the conservative side — and even beyond that, she’s embraced mask-wearing as a lifestyle...“I just feel like it’s become a pro-social signal of caring,” she said, adding that she does it more often than others because of how safe it makes her — and the people she encounters — feel.

Monica Gandhi is the only one quoted who is rigorously following the science.

I disagree that virtue signaling is an effective way to change societal behavior. Instead, it tends to further polarize society into tribes with unnecessary masking as a way to express belonging to an exclusive group. As others have pointed out, Republicans who may be on the fence about getting the vaccine are repulsed by this behavior because they feel like they are being excluded as "others." They may behave more recklessly as a way to overcompensate for the virtue signaling on the other political side. This polarization, without a doubt, has contributed to the high rate of vaccine hesitancy among Republicans.

Sounds like it is their personal choice not something they are trying to force on others or against health / safety rules.

I guess I do not understand why this is an issue?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the point is it's literally the exact behavior that republicans got demonized for in reverse. They refused to wear masks even though science supported it's use, hence anti-science. Now many liberals refuse to take off the mask even though science supports that it's useless, hence anti-science. Both sides are virtue signaling.

Now you could argue that the behavior of the the non-maskers could impact others and that's probably true, but it doesn't change the fact that both behaviors are not rooted in what our current understanding of the science supports. Hence both are anti-science. One in a conservative way the other in a liberal way....only in these instances the two groups are flipped. Kind of ironic if you think about it.

That is a twisted way of looking at it not sure how anyone could compare the two situations in an honest manner and come to that conclusion.

Hard to believe we are still talking about a stupid mask and arguing about it.

First world problems for sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GuitarStv]

I think the point is it's literally the exact behavior that republicans got demonized for in reverse. They refused to wear masks even though science supported it's use, hence anti-science. Now many liberals refuse to take off the mask even though science supports that it's useless, hence anti-science. Both sides are virtue signaling.

Now you could argue that the behavior of the the non-maskers could impact others and that's probably true, but it doesn't change the fact that both behaviors are not rooted in what our current understanding of the science supports. Hence both are anti-science. One in a conservative way the other in a liberal way....only in these instances the two groups are flipped. Kind of ironic if you think about it.

Not sure that there's much irony there.  I think wearing a mask outside is kind of goofy.  The chance of transmission if you're not close to someone else is vanishingly small.

That said, wearing a mask outside is supported by science.  The effectiveness of wearing a mask to prevent covid transmission doesn't stop because there are fewer droplets containing covid hanging around in the air.  It's still (infinitesimally) safer than not and doesn't hurt anyone else.  While I don't support rules that require people to wear masks in these conditions (as the science doesn't say there's significant benefit), I don't understand why anyone would be upset that someone else chooses to do it.  I mean . . . believing in a God is anti-science . . . but if it doesn't hurt anyone else I'm happy to let someone who wants to partake in that anti-science behaviour do what they want.  Same deal - kinda goofy but harmless.

This is very different than not wearing a mask indoors and near others during a pandemic.  This latter behaviour puts others at serious risk.

[jrhampt]

Yeah, people refusing to wear masks are spreading plague, while people who are refusing not to wear masks are being....overly cautious.  Totally different consequences. 

[waltworks]

So basically cry babies that aren't going to get vaccinated because some people choose to wear masks on their own faces outdoors when it may not actually be necessary? And intentionally engage in reckless and dangerous behavior to over compensate someone else's virtue signaling, I guess just out of spite? Talk about being a delicate snowflake.

That's all true, but let me make a quick analogy. I train a lot of engineers. Inevitably, we end up talking about some product/device/fix that they implemented that didn't work right because the users screwed up, didn't read the manual, didn't understand, tried to use it the old way, etc, etc.

You have to accept the world as it is, though. You're going to have untrained yahoos messing up no matter what. So you have to design for that, and make it really hard to install wrong/use wrong/whatever. Sometimes that means it's more expensive or less elegant or harder to design or more annoying. But that's what you have to do.

Rednecks who don't want a vaccine because it makes liberals happy are morons. But if telling them they don't have to wear masks once they're vaccinated (which they really don't, to be fair, and besides they're not wearing them anyway) is what it takes, that's what you do. Ostentatious displays of no-mask-wearing by vaccinated people actually might help get some of these folks off the fence.

-W

[mizzourah2006]

I think the point is it's literally the exact behavior that republicans got demonized for in reverse. They refused to wear masks even though science supported it's use, hence anti-science. Now many liberals refuse to take off the mask even though science supports that it's useless, hence anti-science. Both sides are virtue signaling.

Now you could argue that the behavior of the the non-maskers could impact others and that's probably true, but it doesn't change the fact that both behaviors are not rooted in what our current understanding of the science supports. Hence both are anti-science. One in a conservative way the other in a liberal way....only in these instances the two groups are flipped. Kind of ironic if you think about it.

Not sure that there's much irony there.  I think wearing a mask outside is kind of goofy.  The chance of transmission if you're not close to someone else is vanishingly small.

That said, wearing a mask outside is supported by science.  The effectiveness of wearing a mask to prevent covid transmission doesn't stop because there are fewer droplets containing covid hanging around in the air.  It's still (infinitesimally) safer than not and doesn't hurt anyone else.  While I don't support rules that require people to wear masks in these conditions (as the science doesn't say there's significant benefit), I don't understand why anyone would be upset that someone else chooses to do it.  I mean . . . believing in a God is anti-science . . . but if it doesn't hurt anyone else I'm happy to let someone who wants to partake in that anti-science behaviour do what they want.  Same deal - kinda goofy but harmless.

This is very different than not wearing a mask indoors and near others during a pandemic.  This latter behaviour puts others at serious risk.

I literally said that exact same thing.

[GuitarStv]

I think the point is it's literally the exact behavior that republicans got demonized for in reverse. They refused to wear masks even though science supported it's use, hence anti-science. Now many liberals refuse to take off the mask even though science supports that it's useless, hence anti-science. Both sides are virtue signaling.

Now you could argue that the behavior of the the non-maskers could impact others and that's probably true, but it doesn't change the fact that both behaviors are not rooted in what our current understanding of the science supports. Hence both are anti-science. One in a conservative way the other in a liberal way....only in these instances the two groups are flipped. Kind of ironic if you think about it.

Not sure that there's much irony there.  I think wearing a mask outside is kind of goofy.  The chance of transmission if you're not close to someone else is vanishingly small.

That said, wearing a mask outside is supported by science.  The effectiveness of wearing a mask to prevent covid transmission doesn't stop because there are fewer droplets containing covid hanging around in the air.  It's still (infinitesimally) safer than not and doesn't hurt anyone else.  While I don't support rules that require people to wear masks in these conditions (as the science doesn't say there's significant benefit), I don't understand why anyone would be upset that someone else chooses to do it.  I mean . . . believing in a God is anti-science . . . but if it doesn't hurt anyone else I'm happy to let someone who wants to partake in that anti-science behaviour do what they want.  Same deal - kinda goofy but harmless.

This is very different than not wearing a mask indoors and near others during a pandemic.  This latter behaviour puts others at serious risk.

I literally said that exact same thing.

You dismissed the risk to others as a trivial point.  I argued that the risk to others radically changes the whole conversation.

You also argued that wearing a mask is somehow 'anti-science'.  I pointed out that it's not 'anti-science' at all.  Science indicates that mask wearing is safer - regardless of where it's done.  Not sure I'm seeing the similarity.

Ostentatious displays of no-mask-wearing by vaccinated people actually might help get some of these folks off the fence.

I have my doubts.

How exactly are the hesitant folks supposed to tell the 'ostentatious display no-mask wearing vaccinated people' apart from the 'no-mask wearing moron anti-vaxxers'?  Seems just as likely that the latter group of morons would claim victory at the evident rising number of supporters and feel more vindicated in their choices.

[mizzourah2006]

I think the point is it's literally the exact behavior that republicans got demonized for in reverse. They refused to wear masks even though science supported it's use, hence anti-science. Now many liberals refuse to take off the mask even though science supports that it's useless, hence anti-science. Both sides are virtue signaling.

Now you could argue that the behavior of the the non-maskers could impact others and that's probably true, but it doesn't change the fact that both behaviors are not rooted in what our current understanding of the science supports. Hence both are anti-science. One in a conservative way the other in a liberal way....only in these instances the two groups are flipped. Kind of ironic if you think about it.

Not sure that there's much irony there.  I think wearing a mask outside is kind of goofy.  The chance of transmission if you're not close to someone else is vanishingly small.

That said, wearing a mask outside is supported by science.  The effectiveness of wearing a mask to prevent covid transmission doesn't stop because there are fewer droplets containing covid hanging around in the air.  It's still (infinitesimally) safer than not and doesn't hurt anyone else.  While I don't support rules that require people to wear masks in these conditions (as the science doesn't say there's significant benefit), I don't understand why anyone would be upset that someone else chooses to do it.  I mean . . . believing in a God is anti-science . . . but if it doesn't hurt anyone else I'm happy to let someone who wants to partake in that anti-science behaviour do what they want.  Same deal - kinda goofy but harmless.

This is very different than not wearing a mask indoors and near others during a pandemic.  This latter behaviour puts others at serious risk.

I literally said that exact same thing.

You dismissed the risk to others as a trivial point.  I argued that the risk to others radically changes the whole conversation.

You also argued that wearing a mask is somehow 'anti-science'.  I pointed out that it's not 'anti-science' at all.  Science indicates that mask wearing is safer - regardless of where it's done.  Not sure I'm seeing the similarity.

Ostentatious displays of no-mask-wearing by vaccinated people actually might help get some of these folks off the fence.

I have my doubts.

How exactly are the hesitant folks supposed to tell the 'ostentatious display no-mask wearing vaccinated people' apart from the 'no-mask wearing moron anti-vaxxers'?  Seems just as likely that the latter group of morons would claim victory at the evident rising number of supporters and feel more vindicated in their choices.

I said that wearing a mask outdoors in isolated areas reducing the spread of covid isn't supported by scientific evidence. You can show me where it is and I'd be happy to admit that I am wrong. Like someone else pointed out it's akin to believing in a god being anti-science. I readily admit that analogy is a good one. But my point was just on the irony of all the people that were #science and are now ignoring the science and still masking up while outside, seemingly to prove some point. That's literally the only point I was trying to make.