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

[pris993]

1 hour 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

 I will be doing what I have been doing all long. when out side walking will put mask on if I see someone coming my direction,  I put mask on when I go into a building.   When driving I do not wear a mask, fogs my glasses.     We are opening up for folks to eat outside, hair dressers may be open next week, so think that is what this is all about.  Nothing really different here.  Newsom put out stuff like this almost daily. 

[clo]

11 minutes ago, pris993 said:

Newsom put out stuff like this almost daily. 

Mandating? And I know that the SFBA has had stringent rules for a long time. We have friends in SF and SM.

[lenquixote66]

There are stores in the area where I reside that will not let people enter if they are not wearing masks.

[pris993]

1 minute ago, clo said:

Mandating? And I know that the SFBA has had stringent rules for a long time. We have friends in SF and SM.

I live in San Mateo... like I say nothing new here, I heard on my local news.   

A lot noise about nothing, Newsom wants to run for President some day. 

[slidergirl]

3 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

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?)

don't be so quick to say that it's just the old and infirm who should be locked up?    Right now, Florida posted their highest number of people who tested positive.  You say - well, Florida is full of old folks who moved from the North to retire.  Well, the median age of the positive tests was 37.  So, f you want to either lock up the old folks or just let them die to protect the economy, you had better lock up all the people over 35, also.  

[navybankerteacher]

9 minutes ago, slidergirl said:

don't be so quick to say that it's just the old and infirm who should be locked up?    Right now, Florida posted their highest number of people who tested positive.  You say - well, Florida is full of old folks who moved from the North to retire.  Well, the median age of the positive tests was 37.  So, f you want to either lock up the old folks or just let them die to protect the economy, you had better lock up all the people over 35, also.  

Sadly there are a lot of people who fail to grasp the seriousness of the situation - including some governors of some states.

[RocketMan275]

7 minutes ago, slidergirl said:

don't be so quick to say that it's just the old and infirm who should be locked up?    Right now, Florida posted their highest number of people who tested positive.  You say - well, Florida is full of old folks who moved from the North to retire.  Well, the median age of the positive tests was 37.  So, f you want to either lock up the old folks or just let them die to protect the economy, you had better lock up all the people over 35, also.  

No one is suggesting that we let the 'old folks die to protect the economy'.   We can protect the 'old folks' while we return to a normal economy.  

 

It appears that the younger you are the less the less likely there will be severe impacts from the virus.  The older you are the more likely you will experience those severe impacts.  As reported in the Wall Street Journal: "For most people under the age of 65, the study found, the risk of dying from Covid-19 isn’t much higher than from getting in a car accident driving to work. In California and Florida, the fatality risk for the under-65 crowd is about equal to driving 16 to 17 miles per day. While higher in hot spots like New York (668 miles) and New Jersey (572 miles), the death risk is still lower than the public perceives." Also: "About 80% of Americans who have died of Covid-19 are older than 65, and the median age is 80. "  Or, IOW, the ones who need protecting are those over sixty-five with co-modalities.  

[RocketMan275]

5 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

Sadly there are a lot of people who fail to grasp the seriousness of the situation - including some governors of some states.

It's even more sad when some governors fail to understand the importance of restoring the economy which can be done while protecting the most vulnerable.  That doesn't require lock downs.  Nor does it required masking everywhere.  Studies indicate that spreading the virus requires continuous (some say 15 minutes others say 30 minutes) exposure to infected persons in a poorly ventilated enclosed space.  One simply isn't going to catch the virus walking down the aisle of a Walmart.  

[navybankerteacher]

5 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

...

Studies indicate that spreading the virus requires continuous (some say 15 minutes others say 30 minutes) exposure to infected persons in a poorly ventilated enclosed space.  One simply isn't going to catch the virus walking down the aisle of a Walmart.  

Can you verify that in any way?  Suppose someone who just walked down the aisle ahead of you was heavily infected and sneezed - leaving many virus-bearing droplets in the air — which you inhale.  Because you do not know who can be dangerous you do distance — period.

 

Why don’t we see how the next few weeks play out - comparing states like Florida and Texas - which seem to believe their populations are invulnerable - witn New York and Connecticut, which seem to have survived the initial onslaught and are now re-opening - with common sense  precautions remaining in place.

 

It is not just increased testing which leads to higher reported cases - it is actual increased hospitalizations - and some more deaths.

Edited June 19, 2020 by navybankerteacher

[slidergirl]

2 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Can you verify that in any way?  Suppose someone who just walked down the aisle ahead of you was heavily infected and sneezed - leaving many virus-bearing droplets in the air — which you inhale.  Because you do not know who can be dangerous you do distance — period.

 

Why don’t we see how the next few weeks play out - comparing states like Florida and Texas - which seem to believe their populations are invulnerable - witn New York and Connecticut, which seem to have survived the initial onslaught and are now re-opening - with common sense  precautions remaining in place.

 

It is not just increased testing which leads to higher reported cases - it is actual increased hospitalizations - and some more deaths.

Don't forget watching the numbers in Oklahoma.  As someone who lives in a house that is white said today, some people wear masks because they do not like the President.  Some people will not wear masks because the President refuses to wear one. So, even masks have become political 😷

 

The testing is actually counterintuitive. As testing increases, you want less positive cases, which shows the virus is lessening.  Saying increased testing is the reason for the increase in reported is a bogus rationale.  If you didn't test more, you would have the same amount of people positive, just no one would know.  

 

Rocket: Locking down nursing homes only protects those in nursing homes.  What do you suggest the other "old folk" who live out in the real world do to allow total opening of the economy?   Put a special patch on our clothes so we can be identified and led elsewhere?  Put armed guards outside our doors? As for no one suggesting let old folks die for the economy, I remember the Lt. Gov of Texas saying just that.  I'm sorry, but when people start saying things about it's only old people and lock 'em up, it really bothers me.  

Edited June 19, 2020 by slidergirl

[clo]

11 minutes ago, slidergirl said:

Don't forget watching the numbers in Oklahoma.  As someone who lives in a house that is white said today, some people wear masks because they do not like the President.  Some people will not wear masks because the President refuses to wear one. So, even masks have become political 😷

 

The testing is actually counterintuitive. As testing increases, you want less positive cases, which shows the virus is lessening.  Saying increased testing is the reason for the increase in reported is a bogus rationale.  If you didn't test more, you would have the same amount of people positive, just no one would know.  

 

Rocket: Locking down nursing homes only protects those in nursing homes.  What do you suggest the other "old folk" who live out in the real world do to allow total opening of the economy?   Put a special patch on our clothes so we can be identified and led elsewhere?  Put armed guards outside our doors? As for no one suggesting let old folks die for the economy, I remember the Lt. Gov of Texas saying just that.  I'm sorry, but when people start saying things about it's only old people and lock 'em up, it really bothers me.  

WOW! And thank you. You're my hero.

[ilikeanswers]

4 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

It appears that the younger you are the less the less likely there will be severe impacts from the virus.  

 

This is old news you need to keep up 😉. Heart disease, kidney disease increased likelihood of strokes, kawasaki like disease in children are all serious long term impacts for younger victims and as we all know a sick population is no good for the economy either😜. 

[RocketMan275]

9 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Can you verify that in any way?  Suppose someone who just walked down the aisle ahead of you was heavily infected and sneezed - leaving many virus-bearing droplets in the air — which you inhale.  Because you do not know who can be dangerous you do distance — period.

 

Why don’t we see how the next few weeks play out - comparing states like Florida and Texas - which seem to believe their populations are invulnerable - witn New York and Connecticut, which seem to have survived the initial onslaught and are now re-opening - with common sense  precautions remaining in place.

 

It is not just increased testing which leads to higher reported cases - it is actual increased hospitalizations - and some more deaths.

Perspective

Universal Masking in Hospitals in the Covid-19 Era

New England Journal of Medicine

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372

 

"We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic."

 

There are multiple sources for that information.  This is just one example.

 

Whether some protocols are 'common sense' depends upon the effectiveness of the protocols.  There are many who insist any protocol is 'common sense' if it even helps a very small bit.  Politicians are very sensitive to complaints they're not doing enough which leads to imposition of 'common sense' protocols that are only symbolic (read the last sentence of the article posted).  People/organizations want to be seen as doing something even if something isn't effective.  Other articles state that wearing masks is largely 'symbolic'.  

 

 

 

[RocketMan275]

5 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

This is old news you need to keep up 😉. Heart disease, kidney disease increased likelihood of strokes, kawasaki like disease in children are all serious long term impacts for younger victims and as we all know a sick population is no good for the economy either😜. 

And, extremely rare.  We can't shut down the economy for every extremely rare risk.  

[ontheweb]

12 hours 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.

In my e-mail this morning there were several petitions that I was asked to sign; this was one of them. (And no I did not sign it.)

 

https://www.gopetition.com/petitions/we-oppose-mandatory-mask-orders-in-orange-county-ca-and-support-the-recent-removal-of-the-mandate.html?utm_source=marketing&utm_medium=email

[ontheweb]

10 hours ago, slidergirl said:

don't be so quick to say that it's just the old and infirm who should be locked up?    Right now, Florida posted their highest number of people who tested positive.  You say - well, Florida is full of old folks who moved from the North to retire.  Well, the median age of the positive tests was 37.  So, f you want to either lock up the old folks or just let them die to protect the economy, you had better lock up all the people over 35, also.  

Well, we used to say "don't trust anyone over 30." I guess with inflation it should now be 35.

 

I know I found the saying ironic when I realized I had a son over 30 (now over 40).

[2wheelin]

9 hours ago, slidergirl said:

Don't forget watching the numbers in Oklahoma.  As someone who lives in a house that is white said today,    WHAT???? REALLY???some people wear masks because they do not like the President.  Some people will not wear masks because the President refuses to wear one. So, even masks have become political 😷

 

The testing is actually counterintuitive. As testing increases, you want less positive cases, which shows the virus is lessening.  Saying increased testing is the reason for the increase in reported is a bogus rationale.  If you didn't test more, you would have the same amount of people positive, just no one would know.  

 

.  

As testing increases, less positive would be nice but that would show that asymptomatic people really did not test positive, along with a possible real decrease in cases. If asymptomatic and presymptomatic people test positive, then testing more people will necessarily result in increases in positive results. Your last statement is correct which is exactly why we are testing more and why there are more positives. So increased testing will mathematically result in more positive. Absolutely does not automatically equate to more infection.

[ilikeanswers]

2 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

And, extremely rare.  We can't shut down the economy for every extremely rare risk.  

 

Again old news. The results coming in from UK, Italy, Spain, South Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong are showing it is far more common than first thought. A four fold increase in heart attacks is not something an economy can tolerate.

Edited June 19, 2020 by ilikeanswers

[navybankerteacher]

2 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

And, extremely rare.  We can't shut down the economy for every extremely rare risk.  

Over a hundred thousand dead is not the sign of an “extremely rare risk”.

 

   No one responsible is arguing that the economy should be shut down -rather that responsible efforts be made to contain contagion.

 

But someone who argues that the increase in cases is just the result of increased testing —- while ignoring the increase in hospitalizations - is probably going to refuse to reconsider his position, so go ahead - I will not attempt any more.

[RocketMan275]

18 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

Over a hundred thousand dead is not the sign of an “extremely rare risk”.

 

   No one responsible is arguing that the economy should be shut down -rather that responsible efforts be made to contain contagion.

 

But someone who argues that the increase in cases is just the result of increased testing —- while ignoring the increase in hospitalizations - is probably going to refuse to reconsider his position, so go ahead - I will not attempt any more.

The 'extremely rare risk' has nothing to do with a "hundred thousands deaths".  The "extremely rare risk" referred to some 'extremely rare' effects on children.  

Efforts are only "responsible" when they are tailored and proportional to the risks.

The protocols were implemented to flatten the curve and to ensure that hospitals were not overloaded.  The hospitalization rates do not show an overload.

Some want to minimize the effects of the virus.  Others see that as an unreasonable objective when the effects of the protocols on the economy are considered.  These protocols are not free, they impose costs on all of us.  Some think those costs should be considered.  One cannot avoid tradeoffs.

Edited June 19, 2020 by RocketMan275

[RocketMan275]

1 hour ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

Again old news. The results coming in from UK, Italy, Spain, South Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong are showing it is far more common than first thought. A four fold increase in heart attacks is not something an economy can tolerate.

How more common is 'far more common'?

How many of those heart attacks stem from the effects of the lockdowns-lost jobs, and financial ruin?

[clo]

28 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

is probably going to refuse to reconsider his position,

A closed mind is a hopeless cause.

 

Speaking of masks, has anyone mentioned that United has announced that if a passenger refuses to wear a mask they'll be put on a lifetime "no fly" list?

[pacruise804]

19 hours ago, chipmaster said:

 

I wear a N95 ( with valve ) so it is to protect me, lot of stupid and inconsiderate people as we can just look around and see.  

 

So yup I wear it to lower my probability how ever small to not end up on a ventilator.

 

When you have a society that buys in to a little self sacrifice it is true I wear a mask to protect you from being on the ventilator.

Are you aware that wearing a N95 (with valve) is making you inconsiderate of others?  You are protecting yourself, but those masks are supposed to be reserved for frontline workers and the valve makes them not filter the virus if you are a carrier.

 

19 hours ago, 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."

The powers that be?  Which are they no longer saying - that masks are not to protect others?  I haven't seen that yet.

 

 

15 hours 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.

Congratulations, but I thought you were a US Citizen.  If that is the case you can add KBE to your name, but not use Sir as a title.  Of course in the US we often address with respect "yes, Sir" or "no, ma'am" but Sir Lenquioxte66 would not be appropriate unless/until you are a British Citizen. 

[ilikeanswers]

24 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

How more common is 'far more common'?

How many of those heart attacks stem from the effects of the lockdowns-lost jobs, and financial ruin?

 

The data is still being examined but my point is that we are constantly re evaluating this disease so to say the risks are low or minimal is naive. We started out thinkng COVID 19 is a respitory illness now it it looking more like a vascualr illness. We thought children were completely safe now we are finding it is effecting their bodies. The original advice said people with asthma were high risk turns they are low risk and high blood pressure is dangerous. Zika was underestimated too, they said it was harmless illness that people quickly got over, only old people and the sick had to worry about it. Now Brazil has to bare the economic burden of supporting the health and welfare of all the Zika babies and their families. The worst thing you can do is to underestimate a disease especially when so little is known about it. Health care costs countries a lot of money you don't want to burden the system more because of some long term treatment that is needed because we didn't know COVID 19 did this to someones body till it was too late😳. Lock downs obviously can't last forever but that doesn't mean we should throw caution to the wind either.

Edited June 19, 2020 by ilikeanswers

[chipmaster]

36 minutes ago, pacruise804 said:

Are you aware that wearing a N95 (with valve) is making you inconsiderate of others?  You are protecting yourself, but those masks are supposed to be reserved for frontline workers and the valve makes them not filter the virus if you are a carrier.

 

The powers that be?  Which are they no longer saying - that masks are not to protect others?  I haven't seen that yet.

 

 

Well if nobody else around me is wearing a mask what should I do?  I wear my mask, LOL

 

 

Edited June 19, 2020 by chipmaster