BLV

“Leave the criticism of science to scientists”. Part II. An open letter signed by 1200 medical experts from most esteemed universities. Pardon me for not taking any of your “scientists” seriously.




https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Jyf...3ys1b7K1A/view

Doppy

I'm in favor of making any and all restrictions, masks or otherwise, as narrowly tailored as possible based on science and human behavior. Masks in wide open spaces seem stupid to me and counterproductive.

On the other hand, in public transportation, most stores, airplanes - six feet of distance is unlikely, and especially on planes, you're going to be siting next to someone for at 1-15 hours. I'd rather have the inconvenience of a mask and keep those things operating than end up with them being shut down.

I was skeptical of masks at the beginning, but we've learned a lot over the past few months, including asymptomatic transmission and superspreaders.

radonc1

Sure
Change the goal posts

My daddy told me "Son, never wrestle with a pig. All that happens is that you get dirty and he enjoys it".

I deal with patients every day with the same behavior. I have long since given up debating their treatment with them. They can and do choose as they please, and I am happy for them.

You have no cites, which is obvious. There are none. Believe what you choose.

Doppy

In general I agree that people are tired of lockdowns and will resist their return. On the other hand, if another city starts to have a New York-like situation, overflowing hospitals, high death rate, it will be very hard to avoid putting in place some serious restrictions.

jmastron

Oh come on -- very few are arguing that masks are required 100% of the time when people are *strictly* 6 feet apart. Yes, distance is the most effective tool, and that may be why some were reluctant to recommend masks early on for fear people wouldn’t ever get the distance concept too (in addition to fearing people would hoard the N95 masks that had much more value in health care settings). The problem is that:

1) There are many places where you can’t maintain that 6 foot distance constantly. I measured walking next to a wall, and my mouth was 18 inches from the wall. So unless every grocery aisle, sidewalk, or other walkway is 9+ feet wide, two people passing aren’t 6 feet apart. One person passing one other person one time may be lowish risk, but hundreds of people passing hundreds of others all day long is what we’re trying to reduce.

2) I see many people *think* they’re keeping 6 foot distance, but are really standing more like 4 feet apart then each leaning in a foot or so at various times to talk, handing things to each other, etc.

3) There are some instances where people may expel farther -- biking, running, singing, shouting, where 6 feet may not be enough. In those cases I’d agree it’s better to just have more space; our county guidelines specifically request for example cyclists and runners to pass with even more space and not be right behind each other.

And that’s the point -- don’t wear a mask when you know *for certain* you can maintain 6+ feet of distance at all times. That’s true for walks in my neighborhood, with no sidewalks and low traffic so plenty of room to pass. But when going to a store, or to a more crowded trail or walkway, having a mask ready for incidental proximity is important. Yes, because people can't comprehend that concept some guidelines have been written with farther distance guidelines, with the idea that if you're going to be that close to a crowd it's inevitable that you'll end up closer at times.

And the beauty of wearing a mask to protect *others* is that you can touch it and take it on and off as needed, since you’re not as worried about the virus being on *your* mask (if it is you’re infected anyway); it’s the *other guy’s* mask that’s protecting you. Just don’t touch his mask :-)

I’d also argue that wearing a mask when you’re going to be walking by and breathing near things that others will be touching and bringing home (e.g. the grocery store) is an additional benefit.

Smiley90

I still find it unbelievable that even the tiniest bit of inconvenience, putting on a facemask, is a step too far to protect your fellow citizens from dying for some people. Just unbelievable. I don't even wanna imagine what their response would've been when legislation against drunk driving was introduced.

This goes DOUBLY so if you're advocating for re-opening ASAP.

exp

Someone should compile statistics on mask-compliance and then compare that to case and death numbers across countries.

It won't convince the anti-mask people but might be a good way to minimize risk for overseas travel.

littlefish

Various reasons ... some of them sensible, others probably less so.
With good incidence data and highest severity masking rules ..... from that start point even the most prudent might be able to relax mask wearing to high-contact situations only (meaning 'masks come off' would be partly true but not wholly the situation).
In that scenario, even with a 1 in 5,000 incidence in a 500,000 county ; it would be a reasonable de-levering of the overall transmission mitigations. At 1 in 50,000 plainly even clearer.
The real world doesn't have that data and neither usually the will to nuance the risk mitigation measures to match the risk in different scenarios (back to Public transport, indoor gathering, shopping etc).

A poorer reason would be authorities removing the mask mitigation on Transport and Shops in the hope community spread is about to reduce and without some kind of clue as to the current incidence data and risk of rapid undetected spread (even just for two or three days). So, a mainly political judgement.
In that second scenario, personally, if the true incidence was even as low as 1 in 500 ... I'd be worried enough to take extra personal measures (especially in shops and on public transport and in an office or restaurant).

Smiley90

The harm from that 1:5000 chance is infinitely higher than the harm from continued mask use because there is none.

littlefish

No ... I don't see it would be infinitely higher. Remember a whole load of collectively successful measures have got the community down to a very low transmission rate (but not Nil). The question at some point must be what mitigations are no longer reasonable or needed.
In the scenario painted the virus is well under control and a point has come where, for example, reducing mask requirements to Public Transport and a few high contact / hard to distance situations would not risk a loss of control or rapid undetected uptick. But sure, some may prefer to wait til 1:10,000, 1:50,000 ... yet others will be seeing 1:1,000 as a fair trigger point.
Waiting to Nil of the 500,000 makes no sense at all to me.

Badenoch

Masks are the new virtue signalling for the social justice warriors. They have replaced owning a hybrid, not eating meat and reading the books of Noam Chomsky. Unless, of course, they are protesting on behalf of BLM in which case masks and protecting "your fellow citizens" are of secondary importance.

nk15

It is exhausting arguing with the flat-earthers anti-science types...when it is combined with cultural insensitivity (to put it mildly), then you have the worst combo, and no surprise it is usually the same people.

LonghornDXB

But that has become law in most Gulf countries. Even if you are in wide open spaces, as long as you are outside your home you are supposed to wear a mask or risk getting fined from 800$ (Dubai) up to 50,000$ (Qatar)

And those govts also have their "advisors" who will argue that it is "science" to wear masks outside the home

jmastron

You've said this multiple times, but it seems Dubai amended that order at least 2 weeks ago, and masks are not required outside the home when exercising, when alone, driving alone or with your household, and a number of other scenarios. https://www.thenational.ae/uae/gover...blic-1.1027115

Just because some places in the world have (or had in this case) arguably more draconian mask requirements than necessary, that doesn't negate reasonable mask requirements -- i.e. when there's a likelihood of reduced social distancing.

LonghornDXB

The official rules state "strenuous exercise" which is subject to discretion.

As for the driving bit, fines for not wearing mask when driving are given without stopping a car or without a policeman taking a picture, which means if someone is fined even if he is driving with family members, the onus will be on him prove that he was not with someone who was not his household member. People I know have been fined even when they were with members of the same household, and getting such a fine reversed is next to impossible.

When it comes to driving alone there is no need to wear a mask but given the amount (800$), poorer income workers such as van drivers are mostly wearing a mask even when driving alone, as its not worth the risk to get a wrong fine which would be near their monthly salary...

I agree with masks in closed and congested environments - public transports, groceries etc.