sfgiants13

Oh I’m aware. I expect a few deep blue areas to follow. I expect compliance to be minimal and zilch for enforcement though.

vanillabean

https://abc7.com/los-angeles-county-...nsit/11779646/

How about something like this? 👀

Tim_T

Over here in the U.K. we had different masking rules between England, Scotland and Wales. Taking a train between the two resulted in a tannoy announcement stating “we are about to enter xxxx, you are now required to wear a mask”

t325

Philadelphia already rescinded theirs 4 days after it went into effect. I'm hoping these prove to be so unpopular everywhere regardless of political demographic that any future mandates are quickly walked back.

The LA mandate is especially absurd. AFAIK it only applies to transit and LAX and not any other building. So you can go to a Lakers game or concert at Staples Center, be shoulder to shoulder indoors with 20,000 screaming or singing fans and not need a mask, but you do on the bus to and from the Staples Center or while in LAX. Makes zero sense.

js1993

Makes perfect sense. The Important People™ go to Lakers games and concerts at Staples Center. Now they won't have to deal with those annoying "governor spotted without mask at Lakers game" articles.

js1993

It's also an odd argument since finding kids under 20 who have died of Covid — and who weren't already dying of cancer — is extremely difficult.

Based on UNICEF's numbers, it's a statistical certainty that far more healthy kids under 20 have died in car accidents since March 2020 than from Covid. (An estimated 3,700 people per day are killed on the world's roads.)

GrayAnderson

With respect, the government "asking" me to do something I'd rather not do because the government is indicating that it won't act promptly to deal with the underlying issue is something that needles hard. This is, of course, setting aside the extreme lack of deaths among younger children who didn't already have significant underlying conditions. The significant number of unvaccinated preteens is arguably also an issue...but at that point you're looking at their parents/guardians having made a (hopefully informed) decision one way or another.

The fact that the Pfizer (IIRC) shot worked "as desired" for the lower portion of the age range also doesn't help here...really, but for some blundering government decisions we'd basically be down to a very narrow (and steadily shrinking) window of folks not eligible. But the bottom line is that between the exceedingly limited number of serious-skewing cases (in Virginia, since there's easy access to the DOH's age breakdown, in the age bracket of 0-9 (there's not a 0-5 or 0-4 bracket), there have been just over 82k reported cases in the last six months, of which 459 ended up in the hospital and 2 died. So that's a 1-in-200 (or 0.5%) chance of a tested-and-reported case (i.e. we're ignoring cases which were either home-tested and not reported or simply written off as a head cold...my best guess over the last six months is that at least half of cases got missed in this age cohort given the degree to which testing services were overwhelmed) sending someone to the hospital and less than a 1-in-40,000 chance of them dying. And frankly, given all of the issues of reporting standards, I'm not sure how reliably you could even attribute those two deaths to the virus versus "other stuff that had them in the hospital" (i.e. were they even in the hospital for the virus, or were they in because of something else and "popped hot" for it?).

The TL;DR here is that based on the data I have from that department, in that age bracket the risk of hospitalization is marginal, the risk of death is negligible, and given that hospitalization/death rates decline into the 10-19 cohort (and did so pre-vaccine availability as well) both are (very likely) concentrated on the younger end and relate more closely to background infant mortality and so on than to anything virus-related (again, I don't know whether the system is bothering to differentiate "tested positive for virus when brought in after being in car crash and died from car crash injuries" from more clearly-attributable cases).

T-15.01

How is the LA mandate going to apply? All LAX and BUR departures requiring it until out of LA airspace, then it's removal time? And on approaches into LA airspace they'll make an announcement telling you to put them on? I'm assuming if the crew do this to 'enforce' the rules they'll equally laugh along with those who don't comply. Seems about as silly as it could be.

stupidhead

I'm going to hazard a guess and say "masks optional" the second the doors close assuming the FAs actually play along.

That cat ain't going back in the bag.

T-15.01

Flying to canada....in US airspace......and entire plane forced to wear masks. No US law makes it necessary. But there you go. The madness continues.

United Airlines for whatever it may be worth.

volabam

And with some hope, traffic and revenue to decrease at those airports, motivating them to reevaluate "the science"

GrayAnderson

The general rule seems to be "Whatever the destination says, goes". So I suspect that a flight from JFK-YUL [on a US airline] would be forced to mask, but YUL-JFK wouldn't.

rickfromla

The rental car shuttle had zero enforcement today and half of the TSA agents weren't wearing masks at LAX this morning either. Oddly enough, I was given a mask (and told I HAD to put it on to walk from the check-in counter at my gate to the plane, but I could take it off as soon as I'm on the plane. Explain the thought process behind that one and have it make sense.

sfgiants13

Looks like BART might be bringing back masks. At least from what I’ve read in the media. Wonder if that extends county wide to transit or just Bart.

ksucats

I am a little jealous that my wife got to take a flight before me after this mandate is finally over. (she only travels about once a year without me & I travel all of the time without her) I dropped her off at 5:15 for her 6:00 am flight this morning and had to get out of the car to poke my head in. It was great - not a mask in sight.