Would you wear a mask every time you were outside your cabin?

[clo]

1 minute ago, RocketMan275 said:

I thought the idea behind wearing a mask was to protect others.  So how is not wearing a mask linked to being on a ventilator?

Well, second of all, TPTB are no longer saying that. But first of all if you're wearing a mask to protect others couldn't you have/get it and then need a ventilator. And third of all, it's called "dark humor."

[RocketMan275]

Just now, clo said:

Well, second of all, TPTB are no longer saying that. But first of all if you're wearing a mask to protect others couldn't you have/get it and then need a ventilator. And third of all, it's called "dark humor."

Wearing a mask is ineffective in protecting others if one already has the virus. 

 

[navybankerteacher]

16 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

Wearing a mask is ineffective in protecting others if one already has the virus. 

 

 

16 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

Wearing a mask is ineffective in protecting others if one already has the virus. 

 

What ???? 

 

Stop and think:  the primary purpose of wearing a mask is to prevent passing on a virus. 

Are you suggesting that only people who know they are NOT infected should wear a mask, and that those who know they ARE infected need not bother?

[RocketMan275]

14 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

 

What ???? 

 

Stop and think:  the primary purpose of wearing a mask is to prevent passing on a virus. 

Are you suggesting that only people who know they are NOT infected should wear a mask, and that those who know they ARE infected need not bother?

I made a mistake.  I meant to say pretty much the opposite of what I said. 

 

Thanks for pointing out my mistake.

 

 

Edited June 18, 2020 by RocketMan275

[clo]

5 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

I made a mistake.  I meant to say pretty much the opposite of what I said. 

 

Instead of saying: "Wearing a mask is ineffective in protecting others if one already has the virus."

I meant to say: "Wearing a mask is ineffective in protecting others unless one already has the virus. "

 

Thanks for pointing out my mistake.

 

 

Actually the recommendation for some time now is that everyone wear masks.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover.html

[RocketMan275]

25 minutes ago, clo said:

Actually the recommendation for some time now is that everyone wear masks.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover.html

Not everyone.   "In light of this new evidence, CDC recommends wearing cloth face coverings in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain (e.g., grocery stores and pharmacies) especially in areas of significant community-based transmission."

 

Excellent article in Wall Street Journal about how we should be tailoring protocols to protect the most vulnerable rather than imposing blanket rules on everyone.   

 

[RonOhio]

25 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

I made a mistake.  I meant to say pretty much the opposite of what I said. 

 

Thanks for pointing out my mistake.

 

 

Unless you're a mutant, you can't know that you're not infected. It's tautological that humans have no sensory ability to detect asymptomatic infections. While both CDC and WHO have recently stated that transmission from asymptomatic individuals is rare, transmission from individuals with subclinical symptoms is common (duh, you can't have a pandemic if only acutely ill individuals are infectious). Like the Korean guy that went to 6 or 9 bars and left a trail of new infections, obviously, the guy didn't feel acutely ill - what fun is barhopping if you feel like crap. That's the guy that's going to infect a whole ship, the guy that wakes up feeling just a little bit off his game this morning but not really sick. 

[clo]

2 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

Not everyone.   "In light of this new evidence, CDC recommends wearing cloth face coverings in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain (e.g., grocery stores and pharmacies) especially in areas of significant community-based transmission."

 

Excellent article in Wall Street Journal about how we should be tailoring protocols to protect the most vulnerable rather than imposing blanket rules on everyone.   

 

Right. But it's for everyone to wear masks. I wasn't talking about anything other than that.

[clo]

1 minute ago, RonOhio said:

Unless you're a mutant

LOL. 

[RonOhio]

5 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

Not everyone.   "In light of this new evidence, CDC recommends wearing cloth face coverings in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain (e.g., grocery stores and pharmacies) especially in areas of significant community-based transmission."

 

Excellent article in Wall Street Journal about how we should be tailoring protocols to protect the most vulnerable rather than imposing blanket rules on everyone.   

 

The tailored protocol to protect the most vulnerable would be to lock down those with risk factors and force everybody else spend the day together at Yankee Stadium or Churchill Downs or some other packed venue. Given a few weeks for the disease to run its course and, viola, instant herd immunity, maybe a bit tough on those previously healthy that die or suffer long term sequelae.   

[clo]

22 minutes ago, RonOhio said:

viola

LOL!

[pris993]

3 hours ago, clo said:

Again, let's make a distinction. A "cafeteria" equivalent that gave you probably all the choice of a "buffet" the difference being staff serves your plate with what and how much you want and then hands it to you.

This is important to you, not me.  I don't care whether it is self serve or served... believe HAL, which I have cruised on serves buffet items, Celebrity has done so in the past on some items too.  I want another option beside MDR or Crown Grill.  I trust the cruise lines to figure this out with public health officials.    That is why I will wait til 2022 to cruise most likely.  By then it is either figured out to my satisfaction or I stay home.  That the choice we will all be making one way or another. 

[clo]

2 minutes ago, pris993 said:

 I don't care whether it is self serve or served...

Sorry. I thought you were talking about a buffet where you serve yourself. I can't imagine any cruise line not having a non-MDR venue. When we were on Oceania, after two occasions where bailed on the MDR, we had all our meals in their Terrace Cafe (cafeteria style with some cooked to order egg and meat/fish dishes). Except for their specialty restaurants. Here was one of my husband's dinner there.

 

[RocketMan275]

1 hour ago, RonOhio said:

The tailored protocol to protect the most vulnerable would be to lock down those with risk factors and force everybody else spend the day together at Yankee Stadium or Churchill Downs or some other packed venue. Given a few weeks for the disease to run its course and, viola, instant herd immunity, maybe a bit tough on those previously healthy that die or suffer long term sequelae.   

The tailored protocols did not include measures to produce herd immunity.  Those tailored protocols emphasized the protection of those most vulnerable to the virus while minimizing the impact on those with minimal vulnerability.  

 

An example of tailored protocols was discussed on CC a few weeks ago where those over a certain age would be required to provide a doctors assessment of their vulnerabilities, ie, co-modalities.  Many of those posting about the need social distancing, wearing masks, etc., were some of the most vehemently against these tailored protocols.  Some claim that it is selfish to refuse to wear a mask to protect the most vulnerable.  They do not seem to notice their own selfishness not to be inconvenienced by a trip to a doctor for an assessment.

 

The bottom line is this:  the current protocols can not be sustained much longer without further devastating the economy.  Some have noted that the loss of jobs has resulted in increases in suicides, spouse abuse, other forms of violence, etc. 

 

Of course some insist that we maintain these protocols only until a vaccine is available.  How long that will take or even if a vaccine is every available is uncertain.  The devastation of the current protocols is certain. 

 

There is also the fact that some choose to ignore that the patience of the average person for these protocols is growing thin.  Already some politicians have resorted to police powers to ensure compliance.  Creating a new breed of those with criminal records for not wearing a mask does not seem desirable.   Perhaps the best course of action for those who are afraid of the virus would be to stay home and not rely upon others for their safety.

[RocketMan275]

1 hour ago, RonOhio said:

Unless you're a mutant, you can't know that you're not infected. It's tautological that humans have no sensory ability to detect asymptomatic infections. While both CDC and WHO have recently stated that transmission from asymptomatic individuals is rare, transmission from individuals with subclinical symptoms is common (duh, you can't have a pandemic if only acutely ill individuals are infectious). Like the Korean guy that went to 6 or 9 bars and left a trail of new infections, obviously, the guy didn't feel acutely ill - what fun is barhopping if you feel like crap. That's the guy that's going to infect a whole ship, the guy that wakes up feeling just a little bit off his game this morning but not really sick. 

So you have no problem with making millions of the uninfected follow these protocols when they pose no risk to others? 

Do you think the devastating effects of these protocols on the economy is justified in protecting the very few who are most vulnerable? 

Would it not have been better to lock down the nursing homes where the highest percentages of illness and deaths did occur rather than locking down the economy? (Or, simply avoiding the shipment of thousands of infected patients to those nursing homes?)

[lenquixote66]

4 hours ago, clo said:

I just have to share this 🙂

 

"If you hate wearing a mask, you're really not going to like a ventilator."

- source unknown.

That was said by Mohammed Safa a UN delegate. I did what you always do,I looked it up.

It is quite profound .It should be on signs all over the country.

[clo]

2 minutes ago, lenquixote66 said:

That was said by Mohammed Safa a UN delegate. I did what you always do,I looked it up.

It is quite profound .It should be on signs all over the country.

Sir, you are brilliant! Thanks.

 

[lenquixote66]

Just now, clo said:

Sir, you are brilliant! Thanks.

 

Feel free to address me as Sir anytime you wish.I was knighted in 1994.This is the first time I have posted this on CC.

[clo]

Just an fyi. California has now MANDATED masks, with some exceptions.

 

https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH Document Library/COVID-19/Guidance-for-Face-Coverings_06-18-2020.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1duxy1xzMrcziveZp5LQWiVVDgi2WoGGtpdv2slot0Dk9aY1w5tArWy-c

[clo]

1 minute ago, lenquixote66 said:

Feel free to address me as Sir anytime you wish.I was knighted in 1994.This is the first time I have posted this on CC.

Do I bow or curtsy? That's great!

[lenquixote66]

1 minute ago, clo said:

Do I bow or curtsy? That's great!

Neither is necessary 😀

[ontheweb]

15 minutes ago, clo said:

Just an fyi. California has now MANDATED masks, with some exceptions.

 

https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH Document Library/COVID-19/Guidance-for-Face-Coverings_06-18-2020.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1duxy1xzMrcziveZp5LQWiVVDgi2WoGGtpdv2slot0Dk9aY1w5tArWy-c

And what is the penalty for non-compliance? Are they going to make a new criminal class like marijuana users used to be?

 

I'm not saying they are not reasonable requirements, but I do not know how to enforce this.

Edited June 18, 2020 by ontheweb
added users to make more sense

[clo]

4 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

And what is the penalty for non-compliance? Are they going to make a new criminal class like marijuana used to be?

 

I'm not saying they are not reasonable requirements, but I do not know how to enforce this.

Good point. Here's a quote from a news article:

"The state's news release announcing the mask order didn't say how it would be enforced or what the penalty would be for people who don't comply. Kate Folmar, a spokeswoman for the California Health and Human Services agency, said violating the order could bring a misdemeanor charge, a fine, or other penalties, or that California's Division of Occupational Safety and Health could take action against businesses."

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/california-orders-people-wear-masks-indoor-spaces-71327757

 

Perhaps it's going to give merchants and others the ability to say no more easily. I hope Nevada does the same.

[ontheweb]

4 minutes ago, clo said:

Good point. Here's a quote from a news article:

"The state's news release announcing the mask order didn't say how it would be enforced or what the penalty would be for people who don't comply. Kate Folmar, a spokeswoman for the California Health and Human Services agency, said violating the order could bring a misdemeanor charge, a fine, or other penalties, or that California's Division of Occupational Safety and Health could take action against businesses."

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/california-orders-people-wear-masks-indoor-spaces-71327757

 

Perhaps it's going to give merchants and others the ability to say no more easily. I hope Nevada does the same.

What does take action against the business mean? If it applies to employees not following the law, ok I can accept that. But are you really going to fine a businessman if some of his customers refuse to comply with the law?

 

I just think this whole thing may seem like a good idea, but it is unenforceable.

[clo]

47 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

What does take action against the business mean? If it applies to employees not following the law, ok I can accept that. But are you really going to fine a businessman if some of his customers refuse to comply with the law?

 

I just think this whole thing may seem like a good idea, but it is unenforceable.

I don't disagree with you but if a business can now say "sorry, it's the law, I think it will let them off the hook. And allow their front end employees some, what?, clout. Like, hey, it's not me; it's the state. I bet if the casino I was in yesterday were under that new law there would have been more masks. We'll see.