COVID-19

[Brawndo]

On 5/23/2020 at 11:37 AM, Scottysabres said:

My sister-in-law and her 2 children are covid negative. 3 tests in the past 2 weeks.

So, all 3 tested positive awhile back, Trish is a nurse, she is back working the covid wing. All three had x-rays on their lungs throughout their ordeal, Trish and her son show extensive permanent lung damage, they are now on some type of inhaler. The daughter surprisingly does not.

All 3 are now taking Hydroxiquarquine, Trish tells me every Doctor she knows up at St. Joseph's is quietly telling the staff to do so before they start working with covid patients.

Glad to hear that Your Sister’s Family is doing better. 
 

I would be interested in learning more about the bolded. My Group, including Me on occasion. make up a majority of the Doctors who work at St Joes and none of us are taking HCQ prophylaxis much less recommending other staff to do so. As the protocol to administer to patients requires a minimum of Two EKGs. One to check the QT Interval and at least one after two doses to make sure the interval has not dramatically increased.  Both Catholic Health and Kaleida enough incidents of Side Effects and minimal benefits of HCQ that their pharmacy advisory boards recommended against using it. 
 

It would be interesting to find out the thought process behind the providers recommending it. 

[darksabre]

9 hours ago, Brawndo said:

Glad to hear that Your Sister’s Family is doing better. 
 

I would be interested in learning more about the bolded. My Group, including Me on occasion. make up a majority of the Doctors who work at St Joes and none of us are taking HCQ prophylaxis much less recommending other staff to do so. As the protocol to administer to patients requires a minimum of Two EKGs. One to check the QT Interval and at least one after two doses to make sure the interval has not dramatically increased.  Both Catholic Health and Kaleida enough incidents of Side Effects and minimal benefits of HCQ that their pharmacy advisory boards recommended against using it. 
 

It would be interesting to find out the thought process behind the providers recommending it. 

$$$

[LTS]

On 5/23/2020 at 4:28 PM, Weave said:

The only environment that really matters is proximity and time in enclosed spaces.  Plenty of rural opportunities for that environment too.  And if you are in an enclosed space for a significant amount of time it doesn’t matter if it is a rural Dollar General or a city office space.

I think the key behind any discussion on wearing masks should come with a description of the environments you expect people to wear them.  I don't wear a mask, but I am spending most of time out in the woods these days where I might encounter 5-10 other people the entire couple of hours I am out there. The two times I've worn it were because I had to enter a store and the store required it. I choose to avoid it by avoiding people and enclosed spaces. I, personally, have not become comfortable with wearing a mask, yet. Thankfully I am able to avoid most situations where it would be 100% required.

There is a deeper question at play here as well.  For those that are opining that others wear masks, are you intending for them to be worn until there is a vaccine?  What if there is never a vaccine?  I'm curious to hear those thoughts as well.  I'd ask that of those who don't want to wear masks but I think that reasoning is more self-evident as that was the social norm prior to all of this.  Airborne viral risks, pollution, and other contaminants existed prior to this and most everyone felt comfortable not wearing a mask.

Let's dig deeper into why everyone feels a certain way.  Deeper than the seatbelt argument, which I find intriguing for two reasons.  First, seatbelts are a law, so it's not the perfect analogy.  But second, I used to be wholeheartedly against seat belts, at least so much as it being a law. I certainly felt it was a personal choice, if you don't want to be ejected from a car when you are in an accident, wear it. It's proven to save lives. But if you want to live dangerously, so be it.  Seat belts don't cause accidents, so it's not putting others at risk.  But then one day someone said to me, what if your car is hit by something and because you are wearing your seat belt you remain in your seat and are able to regain control of your car before it hits something/someone else.  That won me over...  after years of conversation someone made a point that changed my mind.  

I think deeper and better understandings can be had with regards to the wearing of masks. It will be tough because the subject is new, it's emotional, and people are already highly irritated and stressed over the situation. It just means we have to work harder to understand each other more.

[Weave]

LTS, you quoted me, but I am not sure you are asking me.

I agree that environment and context are important in the mask discussion.  I see people wearing masks while out for a walk in the neighborhood.  Maybe they do so because it gives them comfort.  Maybe they do it simply because they believe that is what they were told to do.  In the case of the first, more power to them and I wouldn’t expect reciprocity because of someone else’s comfort.  In the case of the second, I am led to believe that those people either don’t fully understand the instructions or don’t understand why masks are being used.  Either way, erring on the cautious side makes sense given the many unknowns with this virus.

Regarding what if a vaccine isn’t found?  I believe we need to begin preparing ourselves for a bit of a culture change because I think there is a significant likelihood that this virus is going to be with us long term.  But I am not optimistic that the people of this country are willing to bend to make society as a whole safer.  We’re too selfish a society.  Our comfort and our norms are more important than society.

Ive been very outspoken regarding mask usage, so I’ll provide some context behind my mask usage.  In indoor public settings right now in NY it is pretty much mandated and I agree with it.  So much potential gain for almost non existent effort or drawback.  It makes so much sense given the cost benefit ratio.  But outside?  The benefit is so diminished due to the diminished risk outside that it becomes almost solely a personal preference decision.  I’m assuming non crowded areas and open air here.  The larger the crowds and/or the smaller the area, the more the cost benefit ratio slides towards using masks.  And given the ability for this virus to be spread by asymptotic individuals I find it irresponsible (strong word but I cannot find the word that more accurately describes my thoughts here) for someone to be not using a mask once the risk starts to slide out of “low” and into the realm of “medium”.  The harm in not wearing a mask is to others, not yourself, so the motorcycle helmet analogy doesn’t work well here.  Your mask protects me.  My mask protects you.  We have a duty as libertarians to not allow our actions to be harmful to others.  Self risk is my problem.  Risk becomes your problem.
 

My concern is for when I am back in an office environment.  From what I have read recently, the real virus transmission concerns are focused on time in enclosed environments.  It won’t be practical to wear masks for 8-9hrs in an office environment, so I expect we will be going back into the highest risk environments without mask wearing being practical.  That has second wave written all over it, but I’m not sure there is another good option.

My take on this has modified as more news comes out.  I don’t look so sideways at beach goers now, unless we are talking heavily crowded beaches. And I am ready for an outdoor seat at my favorite brewery and winery.  But I think indoor seating is still too risky.  We met friends at a campsite on Saturday and were comfortable with it.  Outside, keeping reasonable distance is relatively low risk according to the most recent understanding about COVID.  As that changes, our expectations regarding responsible behavior should change as well.

[nfreeman]

I agree with much of @Weave's post above and would just add that I'm not sure when I will feel comfortable getting on a plane again (to say nothing of the NYC subway), or going to a movie theater, an indoor restaurant, an indoor sports event, etc.  The answer really might be "not until there's a widely approved vaccine."

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

22 minutes ago, LTS said:

I think the key behind any discussion on wearing masks should come with a description of the environments you expect people to wear them.  I don't wear a mask, but I am spending most of time out in the woods these days where I might encounter 5-10 other people the entire couple of hours I am out there. The two times I've worn it were because I had to enter a store and the store required it. I choose to avoid it by avoiding people and enclosed spaces. I, personally, have not become comfortable with wearing a mask, yet. Thankfully I am able to avoid most situations where it would be 100% required.

There is a deeper question at play here as well.  For those that are opining that others wear masks, are you intending for them to be worn until there is a vaccine?  What if there is never a vaccine?  I'm curious to hear those thoughts as well.  I'd ask that of those who don't want to wear masks but I think that reasoning is more self-evident as that was the social norm prior to all of this.  Airborne viral risks, pollution, and other contaminants existed prior to this and most everyone felt comfortable not wearing a mask.

Let's dig deeper into why everyone feels a certain way.  Deeper than the seatbelt argument, which I find intriguing for two reasons.  First, seatbelts are a law, so it's not the perfect analogy.  But second, I used to be wholeheartedly against seat belts, at least so much as it being a law. I certainly felt it was a personal choice, if you don't want to be ejected from a car when you are in an accident, wear it. It's proven to save lives. But if you want to live dangerously, so be it.  Seat belts don't cause accidents, so it's not putting others at risk.  But then one day someone said to me, what if your car is hit by something and because you are wearing your seat belt you remain in your seat and are able to regain control of your car before it hits something/someone else.  That won me over...  after years of conversation someone made a point that changed my mind.  

I think deeper and better understandings can be had with regards to the wearing of masks. It will be tough because the subject is new, it's emotional, and people are already highly irritated and stressed over the situation. It just means we have to work harder to understand each other more.

Let's look at the mask argument...

They say that the mask doesn't really protect you from getting the virus but keeps you from spreading it more so. If this is true, then the analogy would go something like this.... 

Your not wearing a mask (just because you don't feel comfortable) and have the virus while not showing symptoms. You go to church and everyone is wearing one but you. You talk to some people around you, maybe sneeze, sing a little, congregate with others at the bake sale. Now, let's say you just introduced that virus to 40 people and 3 end up dead because of you. Isn't that in a sense "involuntary manslaughter"?

All those people were wearing masks protecting you and yet you see yourself as the one being inconvenienced. How would you feel if the shoe were on the other foot or if your negligence killed one of your family members?

Allot of Frontline workers are experiencing PTSD dealing with patients that they don't really even know dying. Imagine the effects it has on families that can't even get in to say goodbye to loved one and can't have a respectful burial. Maybe their body gets put on an island in NYC in basically a dumpsite unable to visit a proper gravesite.

Hopefully this can get you thinking along with others too. You also don't know what will become of this long term. People who have "recovered" are having permanent damage to organs. Those people who may have been like yourself are in the "with underlying conditions" status now.

The "herd" mentality may seem reasonable now, but how will you feel when you become one of those rejected by the herd?

[Weave]

2 hours ago, nfreeman said:

I agree with much of @Weave's post above and would just add that I'm not sure when I will feel comfortable getting on a plane again (to say nothing of the NYC subway), or going to a movie theater, an indoor restaurant, an indoor sports event, etc.  The answer really might be "not until there's a widely approved vaccine."

I've still got tickets for a show in late August.  It hasn't been postponed or cancelled yet.  No way short of a vaccine that I am comfortable flying to or being at that concert.  I really hope it cancels.  And I am really glad I live in an area that doesn't require public transit to get around efficiently. 

 

 

[Scottysabres]

14 hours ago, Brawndo said:

Glad to hear that Your Sister’s Family is doing better. 
 

I would be interested in learning more about the bolded. My Group, including Me on occasion. make up a majority of the Doctors who work at St Joes and none of us are taking HCQ prophylaxis much less recommending other staff to do so. As the protocol to administer to patients requires a minimum of Two EKGs. One to check the QT Interval and at least one after two doses to make sure the interval has not dramatically increased.  Both Catholic Health and Kaleida enough incidents of Side Effects and minimal benefits of HCQ that their pharmacy advisory boards recommended against using it. 
 

It would be interesting to find out the thought process behind the providers recommending it. 

I don't know, I'll ask her the next time I get a chance.

[nfreeman]

Moved some posts to the politics club.

[Taro T]

On 5/23/2020 at 11:37 AM, Scottysabres said:

My sister-in-law and her 2 children are covid negative. 3 tests in the past 2 weeks.

So, all 3 tested positive awhile back, Trish is a nurse, she is back working the covid wing. All three had x-rays on their lungs throughout their ordeal, Trish and her son show extensive permanent lung damage, they are now on some type of inhaler. The daughter surprisingly does not.

All 3 are now taking Hydroxiquarquine, Trish tells me every Doctor she knows up at St. Joseph's is quietly telling the staff to do so before they start working with covid patients.

Glad your SIL, niece, & nephew are over the disease.  Saddened that 2 have long damage.  Hoping the "permanent" damage isn't exactly permanent.

[LTS]

On 5/25/2020 at 10:23 AM, Weave said:

LTS, you quoted me, but I am not sure you are asking me.

I agree that environment and context are important in the mask discussion.  I see people wearing masks while out for a walk in the neighborhood.  Maybe they do so because it gives them comfort.  Maybe they do it simply because they believe that is what they were told to do.  In the case of the first, more power to them and I wouldn’t expect reciprocity because of someone else’s comfort.  In the case of the second, I am led to believe that those people either don’t fully understand the instructions or don’t understand why masks are being used.  Either way, erring on the cautious side makes sense given the many unknowns with this virus.

Regarding what if a vaccine isn’t found?  I believe we need to begin preparing ourselves for a bit of a culture change because I think there is a significant likelihood that this virus is going to be with us long term.  But I am not optimistic that the people of this country are willing to bend to make society as a whole safer.  We’re too selfish a society.  Our comfort and our norms are more important than society.

Ive been very outspoken regarding mask usage, so I’ll provide some context behind my mask usage.  In indoor public settings right now in NY it is pretty much mandated and I agree with it.  So much potential gain for almost non existent effort or drawback.  It makes so much sense given the cost benefit ratio.  But outside?  The benefit is so diminished due to the diminished risk outside that it becomes almost solely a personal preference decision.  I’m assuming non crowded areas and open air here.  The larger the crowds and/or the smaller the area, the more the cost benefit ratio slides towards using masks.  And given the ability for this virus to be spread by asymptotic individuals I find it irresponsible (strong word but I cannot find the word that more accurately describes my thoughts here) for someone to be not using a mask once the risk starts to slide out of “low” and into the realm of “medium”.  The harm in not wearing a mask is to others, not yourself, so the motorcycle helmet analogy doesn’t work well here.  Your mask protects me.  My mask protects you.  We have a duty as libertarians to not allow our actions to be harmful to others.  Self risk is my problem.  Risk becomes your problem.
 

My concern is for when I am back in an office environment.  From what I have read recently, the real virus transmission concerns are focused on time in enclosed environments.  It won’t be practical to wear masks for 8-9hrs in an office environment, so I expect we will be going back into the highest risk environments without mask wearing being practical.  That has second wave written all over it, but I’m not sure there is another good option.

My take on this has modified as more news comes out.  I don’t look so sideways at beach goers now, unless we are talking heavily crowded beaches. And I am ready for an outdoor seat at my favorite brewery and winery.  But I think indoor seating is still too risky.  We met friends at a campsite on Saturday and were comfortable with it.  Outside, keeping reasonable distance is relatively low risk according to the most recent understanding about COVID.  As that changes, our expectations regarding responsible behavior should change as well.

I looked for ways to shorten your response to reduce scrolling on people, but it seems I can't..  I quoted you so you'd get credit for bringing up environment with regards to mask wearing.  I agreed 100% with you.

I don't like office environments overall. I'm glad I don't work in one except when I need to visit corporate HQ once per month (and naturally that has not happened the past few months). I'm not yet sure on where I would fall if I had to go back to one.

I will address more on the mask wearing below.

On 5/25/2020 at 10:41 AM, nfreeman said:

I agree with much of @Weave's post above and would just add that I'm not sure when I will feel comfortable getting on a plane again (to say nothing of the NYC subway), or going to a movie theater, an indoor restaurant, an indoor sports event, etc.  The answer really might be "not until there's a widely approved vaccine."

I'm not sure about the plane either. I think it really corresponds more to my deeper thinking on the overall virus situation.  Which I will touch on below.

On 5/25/2020 at 10:50 AM, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

Let's look at the mask argument...

They say that the mask doesn't really protect you from getting the virus but keeps you from spreading it more so. If this is true, then the analogy would go something like this.... 

Your not wearing a mask (just because you don't feel comfortable) and have the virus while not showing symptoms. You go to church and everyone is wearing one but you. You talk to some people around you, maybe sneeze, sing a little, congregate with others at the bake sale. Now, let's say you just introduced that virus to 40 people and 3 end up dead because of you. Isn't that in a sense "involuntary manslaughter"?

All those people were wearing masks protecting you and yet you see yourself as the one being inconvenienced. How would you feel if the shoe were on the other foot or if your negligence killed one of your family members?

Allot of Frontline workers are experiencing PTSD dealing with patients that they don't really even know dying. Imagine the effects it has on families that can't even get in to say goodbye to loved one and can't have a respectful burial. Maybe their body gets put on an island in NYC in basically a dumpsite unable to visit a proper gravesite.

Hopefully this can get you thinking along with others too. You also don't know what will become of this long term. People who have "recovered" are having permanent damage to organs. Those people who may have been like yourself are in the "with underlying conditions" status now.

The "herd" mentality may seem reasonable now, but how will you feel when you become one of those rejected by the herd?

The efficacy of masks is of great debate.  By accounts I have seen, masks offer a small percentage improvement at best.  I think far more study has to happen for me to believe they are nothing more than a way to placate people's fears.  In enclosed environments where virus concentrations will be heaviest, masks allow air to slip in around the edges.  Airflow seeks the path of least resistance and so cloth masks, with their poor seal, do little to moderate the ingestion of the virus.  Other studies have shown that masks may shorten the distance the virus travels when expelled, but even then, in a normal airflow situation, the virus will be carried around.  Air circulation systems will see to that.

All of that to say, in your church scenario, why would anyone want to be there unless they are willing to take the risks?  If a person entering that church scenario knew they would have an 85% chance of being exposed to the virus, would they still go?  What about 50%?  By choosing to interact with people, especially indoors, we are all accepting a heightened risk of exposure, masks or not. As for me, I would not be in the church, so I would not contribute to that situation.

However, I am very much not afraid of the virus.  I have accepted I will be exposed to it. Just like I am exposed to many other things on a daily basis. How it will impact me will be what it will be.  If I am damaged by it, so be it. If I am killed, then that's the end of my line. Death comes for us all in the end. I don't go seeking it, nor looking to increase its chances. You won't find me running parkour on the edge of a skyscraper.  If my family dies, they die.  I don't want for it, not in the slightest, but I am also not naive to its inevitability.

Weave brings up the libertarian viewpoint.  I agree.  My personal choice is to not wear a mask, but I am respectful of the remainder of society so I also choose to limit where I go. I have worn a mask, and I will do so.  Not because I think it's effective, but because I think it keeps the masses calmed.  I will wear a mask when I take my car into the mechanic tomorrow morning.

There is a flip side to not putting others at risk and that's the point at which I give up so much of how I live just so someone else who has a genetic predisposition to this virus might have a greater chance of survival.  Everyone has that point where they are giving up too much living to worry about prevent dying, their own or others. Where is that point is going to be the great debate in our society.

I ask the question, not because I have an answer, I don't. I currently don't think we know enough to be informed of anything. I also think that if we don't increase our risk of exposure we will be facing greater problems than just a virus.  When will violent confrontation plague our headlines? We've seen people trample each other to get a cheap TV. I have no doubt that society will do much worse with this virus. Whether it's violent protesting to obtain a perceived "freedom" or a violent response by someone to stop their perceived "risk".

Politicians are not going to be our saviors. They need to get re-elected and will quickly backpedal from the right decision if the public demands it, if business demands it. The NCAA didn't open up all collegiate sports, it opened up football and men's and women's basketball.  The biggest money making sports colleges can have.  These sports put sweaty, heavy breathing people in close contact for prolonged periods.  Football increases risk with numbers, though mostly outdoors.  Basketball is indoors, in a localized space. Money wins... it would seem.

For now I wait and discuss, thankful that I am able to do so.

 

[nfreeman]

So yesterday was a beautiful, sunny, breezy day around here.  I took my daughter to an ice cream stand that is somewhat of a local institution (it's affiliated with a local dairy farm), has been closed for the past 2-3 years, and somehow reopened about a month ago in what I took as a sign that the people are resilient and are going to come back from this GD pandemic.

It's the kind of place where you line up outside, order at the window, pick up your food (they also have burgers, fries and similar grub) at a different window and then sit at various picnic tables and benches that are scattered around the property.  There is no indoor area that is accessible to the public.

Yesterday, there were about 10 people in 2 different outdoor lines, with social distancing stickers on the pavement to keep everyone appropriately separated.

In that situation, I would not generally wear a mask, as the risk of infecting anyone or getting infected while outdoors and socially distanced is, as I understand it, minute.

Everyone there -- in line or waiting on the side for his/her food -- was wearing a mask.  I wore mine so as not to cause anyone any agita, but it seemed kinda silly to me.

[SABRES 0311]

10 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

So yesterday was a beautiful, sunny, breezy day around here.  I took my daughter to an ice cream stand that is somewhat of a local institution (it's affiliated with a local dairy farm), has been closed for the past 2-3 years, and somehow reopened about a month ago in what I took as a sign that the people are resilient and are going to come back from this GD pandemic.

It's the kind of place where you line up outside, order at the window, pick up your food (they also have burgers, fries and similar grub) at a different window and then sit at various picnic tables and benches that are scattered around the property.  There is no indoor area that is accessible to the public.

Yesterday, there were about 10 people in 2 different outdoor lines, with social distancing stickers on the pavement to keep everyone appropriately separated.

In that situation, I would not generally wear a mask, as the risk of infecting anyone or getting infected while outdoors and socially distanced is, as I understand it, minute.

Everyone there -- in line or waiting on the side for his/her food -- was wearing a mask.  I wore mine so as not to cause anyone any agita, but it seemed kinda silly to me.

Where I’m at they have stickers on the floor and you have to wear a mask. It is what it is I guess. 

[Sabres Fan in NS]

We have stickers everywhere, entrances to store that are separate from exits (before it was a coming and going free for all), if the COVID won't kill us all then the cleaning chemicals surely will ... it's all madness, I say.

As far as masks go, our medical people have now made it pretty much manditory if you are in a setting where physical distancing (I like that term better, it's sexier) is not practical.  What in blazes does that mean?  We are still supposed to be staying the blazes home (pretty much).  Masks are only goingto protect someone from getting COVID from you.  They do very little to prevent you from getting it, especially when I see everyone and their dogs constantly adjusting their masks with their crubby paws, you damn dirty ape (opps ... wrong scene).  I swear, I'm a gonna find my old time goaler mask and wear it around.  That'll scare 'em all away.

Speaking of sexy ... I have some photos of a real sexy woman wearing a real freakin' sexy mask to show you, but I was sworn to secrecy.

[PASabreFan]

56 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

So yesterday was a beautiful, sunny, breezy day around here.  I took my daughter to an ice cream stand that is somewhat of a local institution (it's affiliated with a local dairy farm), has been closed for the past 2-3 years, and somehow reopened about a month ago in what I took as a sign that the people are resilient and are going to come back from this GD pandemic.

It's the kind of place where you line up outside, order at the window, pick up your food (they also have burgers, fries and similar grub) at a different window and then sit at various picnic tables and benches that are scattered around the property.  There is no indoor area that is accessible to the public.

Yesterday, there were about 10 people in 2 different outdoor lines, with social distancing stickers on the pavement to keep everyone appropriately separated.

In that situation, I would not generally wear a mask, as the risk of infecting anyone or getting infected while outdoors and socially distanced is, as I understand it, minute.

Everyone there -- in line or waiting on the side for his/her food -- was wearing a mask.  I wore mine so as not to cause anyone any agita, but it seemed kinda silly to me.

But you want to help keep the workers safe. When you got to the window, was there some kind of barrier?

I also don't wear a mask when I'm walking alone outside. Still, the activity momentarily brings me pretty close to other people, and I worry a little about what effect the wind could have. I think it's a very remote way of catching the virus.

[PASabreFan]

2 hours ago, LTS said:

I looked for ways to shorten your response to reduce scrolling on people, but it seems I can't..  I quoted you so you'd get credit for bringing up environment with regards to mask wearing.  I agreed 100% with you.

I don't like office environments overall. I'm glad I don't work in one except when I need to visit corporate HQ once per month (and naturally that has not happened the past few months). I'm not yet sure on where I would fall if I had to go back to one.

I will address more on the mask wearing below.

I'm not sure about the plane either. I think it really corresponds more to my deeper thinking on the overall virus situation.  Which I will touch on below.

The efficacy of masks is of great debate.  By accounts I have seen, masks offer a small percentage improvement at best.  I think far more study has to happen for me to believe they are nothing more than a way to placate people's fears.  In enclosed environments where virus concentrations will be heaviest, masks allow air to slip in around the edges.  Airflow seeks the path of least resistance and so cloth masks, with their poor seal, do little to moderate the ingestion of the virus.  Other studies have shown that masks may shorten the distance the virus travels when expelled, but even then, in a normal airflow situation, the virus will be carried around.  Air circulation systems will see to that.

All of that to say, in your church scenario, why would anyone want to be there unless they are willing to take the risks?  If a person entering that church scenario knew they would have an 85% chance of being exposed to the virus, would they still go?  What about 50%?  By choosing to interact with people, especially indoors, we are all accepting a heightened risk of exposure, masks or not. As for me, I would not be in the church, so I would not contribute to that situation.

However, I am very much not afraid of the virus.  I have accepted I will be exposed to it. Just like I am exposed to many other things on a daily basis. How it will impact me will be what it will be.  If I am damaged by it, so be it. If I am killed, then that's the end of my line. Death comes for us all in the end. I don't go seeking it, nor looking to increase its chances. You won't find me running parkour on the edge of a skyscraper.  If my family dies, they die.  I don't want for it, not in the slightest, but I am also not naive to its inevitability.

Weave brings up the libertarian viewpoint.  I agree.  My personal choice is to not wear a mask, but I am respectful of the remainder of society so I also choose to limit where I go. I have worn a mask, and I will do so.  Not because I think it's effective, but because I think it keeps the masses calmed.  I will wear a mask when I take my car into the mechanic tomorrow morning.

There is a flip side to not putting others at risk and that's the point at which I give up so much of how I live just so someone else who has a genetic predisposition to this virus might have a greater chance of survival.  Everyone has that point where they are giving up too much living to worry about prevent dying, their own or others. Where is that point is going to be the great debate in our society.

I ask the question, not because I have an answer, I don't. I currently don't think we know enough to be informed of anything. I also think that if we don't increase our risk of exposure we will be facing greater problems than just a virus.  When will violent confrontation plague our headlines? We've seen people trample each other to get a cheap TV. I have no doubt that society will do much worse with this virus. Whether it's violent protesting to obtain a perceived "freedom" or a violent response by someone to stop their perceived "risk".

Politicians are not going to be our saviors. They need to get re-elected and will quickly backpedal from the right decision if the public demands it, if business demands it. The NCAA didn't open up all collegiate sports, it opened up football and men's and women's basketball.  The biggest money making sports colleges can have.  These sports put sweaty, heavy breathing people in close contact for prolonged periods.  Football increases risk with numbers, though mostly outdoors.  Basketball is indoors, in a localized space. Money wins... it would seem.

For now I wait and discuss, thankful that I am able to do so.

Which masks are you questioning the efficacy of? An N95 mask is an extremely effective way of preventing healthcare workers from getting infected. An antibody study of downstate healthcare workers found only 12% had antibodies. I would assume those masks are also very effective at limiting what you spew out. Surgical masks are said to reduce your risk to 30% of what it would be without one. Cloth masks even less of course. No one said they were the answer, just that they help, probably a lot.

You're not mentioning that studies show that masks not only reduce the distance droplets can travel, but the number of droplets themselves. You're also not putting the church choir event in context. It was early in the pandemic, and they thought they were doing everything right by standing apart and cleaning their hands, etc. The CDC was not recommending masks at that time. They thought they were safe.

It's so odd. What is it that people so object to about wearing a mask when they and others are at real risk? Are we nothing more than adult children who have to defy our parents? Is it vanity? Machismo? Politics? Paranoia?

Edited May 26, 2020 by PASabreFan

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Again, masks, any mask is designed to prevent the wearer from infecting others.

I do wear a proper (and sexy) mask for the once a month adventure to the grocery store.

At all other times I wear my Bankrobber mask ...

Paging @Sabel79 to the COVID thread and bring your Bankrobber mask ...

 

Edited May 26, 2020 by New Scotland (NS)

[SwampD]

15 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Which masks are you questioning the efficacy of? An N95 mask is an extremely effective way of preventing healthcare workers from getting infected. An antibody study of downstate healthcare workers found only 12% had antibodies. I would assume those masks are also very effective at limiting what you spew out. Surgical masks are said to reduce your risk to 30% of what it would be without one. Cloth masks even less of course. No one said they were the answer, just that they help, probably a lot.

You're not mentioning that studies show that masks not only reduce the distance droplets can travel, but the number of droplets themselves. You're also not putting the church choir event in context. It was early in the pandemic, and they thought they were doing everything right by standing apart and cleaning their hands, etc. The CDC was not recommending masks at that time. They thought they were safe.

It's so odd. What is it that people so object to about wearing a mask when they and others are at real risk? Are we nothing more than adult children who have to defy our parents? Is it vanity? Machismo? Politics? Paranoia?

It's not like we're being asked to eat spiders, ffs.

Other than nothing, is there any less someone could to help potentially save a life than wear a mask? And they're cheap.

[Sabel79]

1 hour ago, New Scotland (NS) said:

Again, masks, any mask is designed to prevent the wearer from infecting others.

I do wear a proper (and sexy) mask for the once a month adventure to the grocery store.

At all other times I wear my Bankrobber mask ...

Paging @Sabel79 to the COVID thread and bring your Bankrobber mask ...

 

I wear my bank robber mask at work... which is hilarious if you think about what I do for a living... 

Please, no comments on my do-it-yourself hairdo... still gonna be awhile before I’m in the barbershop.  

[Sabres Fan in NS]

19 minutes ago, Sabel79 said:

I wear my bank robber mask at work... which is hilarious if you think about what I do for a living... 

Please, no comments on my do-it-yourself hairdo... still gonna be awhile before I’m in the barbershop.  

What hair?

That's NOT a Bankrobber mask.  I'll get Joe on the line.  He'll set you up.

That is what I would call a very sexy mask.  I could tell you stories, my friend, but ...

[Brawndo]

People wearing masks cuts down on the amount of time I spend having to wear this so it is greatly appreciated. 

 

 

[Ducky]

Manitoba has zero people in the hospital (7 deaths) because of the virus and the dentists still are not opening. There are16 active cases and 269 individuals who have recovered from COVID-19.

Outdoor patios just opened and I hear they are being run smartly.

It will be a LONG time before I enter a restaurant of any sort.

Edited May 26, 2020 by Ducky

[Taro T]

35 minutes ago, Ducky said:

Manitoba has zero people in the hospital (7 deaths) because of the virus and the dentists still are not opening. There are16 active cases and 269 individuals who have recovered from COVID-19.

Outdoor patios just opened and I hear they are being run smartly.

It will be a LONG time before I enter a restaurant of any sort.

Totally get dentist offices trying to remain closed.  There is no way for a hygienist to clean your teeth without having you breathing all over them.  Wouldn't be at all surprised to see people having to show up an hour early once the rapid tests become more available before dentists go back to normal hours.

[Ogre]

3 hours ago, Brawndo said:

People wearing masks cuts down on the amount of time I spend having to wear this so it is greatly appreciated. 

 

 

Dude! You look like you’re ready to grab a helldog and go busting rivets on some old crusty bridge...You’re hired! (May be safer than what you’re doing right now)

I am familiar with your PPE and think it’s bad ass that you have a mask over the exhaust. I appreciate you, man.

This is my instructing mask. I found it in a box of 25 year old PPE I use for my OSHA stuff. It has an excellent seal and the way it is pleated makes it easy to talk and not lose the seal. I know @PASabreFan was interested in a mask of that nature. I’ll look it up and share more about it tomorrow. Not even sure they still make these.

[Sabel79]

4 hours ago, New Scotland (NS) said:

What hair?

That's NOT a Bankrobber mask.  I'll get Joe on the line.  He'll set you up.

That is what I would call a very sexy mask.  I could tell you stories, my friend, but ...

First bolded: How dare you, Sir?

Second bolded: This is not that kind of forum my friend.  You're looking for Penthouse...