Coronavirus pandemic

[kphoger]

If they aren't masking in their personal workspace, they most certainly do not.  You seemingly work with selfish people. I guess you fit in well.   

No, I work with people who make their own informed decisions about how to conduct their lives.  Their decision doesn't align with yours, but such doesn't make them bad people.

[kphoger]

Well, of course everyone on the "Lockdown Skepticism" board is going to have similar attitudes about mask wearing. No kidding!

I don't think that's necessarily true.  There are plenty of people who have wholeheartedly embraced wearing face masks but think the shutdowns have been a bad idea.

[SEWIGuy]

If they aren't masking in their personal workspace, they most certainly do not.  You seemingly work with selfish people. I guess you fit in well.

Give me a break. Masks are not really needed in workplaces that aren't open to the public. There's a limited number of known people going in and out, and, where I work, we do temperature checks on the way in and you can't enter with a fever.

Temperature checks are worthless.  You can spread it without a fever.  You should wear a mask indoors unless you are in your personal workspace.

If they aren't masking in their personal workspace, they most certainly do not.  You seemingly work with selfish people. I guess you fit in well.   

No, I work with people who make their own informed decisions about how to conduct their lives.  Their decision doesn't align with yours, but such doesn't make them bad people.

Right.  They want to be selfish.  Just like you.

[kphoger]

Temperature checks are worthless.  You can spread it without a fever. 

My problem with temperature checks is that, as has already been pointed out by ... hmmm, I think it was Max Rockatansky ... people's temperature can be elevated for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with the coronavirus.

They want to be selfish.  Just like you.

So the HR director is only out for herself and doesn't care about the well-being of the employees.  Right.

[MikieTimT]

If they aren't masking in their personal workspace, they most certainly do not.  You seemingly work with selfish people. I guess you fit in well.

Give me a break. Masks are not really needed in workplaces that aren't open to the public. There's a limited number of known people going in and out, and, where I work, we do temperature checks on the way in and you can't enter with a fever.

Temperature checks are worthless.  You can spread it without a fever.  You should wear a mask indoors unless you are in your personal workspace.

If they aren't masking in their personal workspace, they most certainly do not.  You seemingly work with selfish people. I guess you fit in well.   

No, I work with people who make their own informed decisions about how to conduct their lives.  Their decision doesn't align with yours, but such doesn't make them bad people.

Right.  They want to be selfish.  Just like you.

And I have a problem with people like you who assume to have all the answers, when the people who actually do this for a living don't.  For all you know, everyone in his office has already had it and has immunity already.  Not only that, a significant portion of the disposable masks that are actually out the available for purchase slough off some of their fibers, which does who knows what to your respiratory system long term.  Some people actually wear glasses at their job, which means if they can't see through fogged up lenses, they can't work.  I just read an article yesterday about "superspreaders" being responsible for over 80% of the infection growth.  There's information all over the place right now, so NO ONE knows for sure anything at the moment.  Quite frankly, all this mask outrage is pretty much how I view the TSA in general: security theatre.

[kphoger]

Quite frankly, all this mask outrage is pretty much how I view the TSA in general: security theatre.

I'm not sure I've heard any expert not recommend wearing a mask.  But masks are primarily effective for up-close situations, which means their effectiveness in other situations is less.  Mask use is not a simple black-and-white thing.  (Which was kind of your point, but kind of not.)

As for the "rage", the only rage I've been hearing has come from one internet forum user.  Even people I personally know who have drastically different opinions on mask wearing don't exhibit "rage".  Heck, the co-worker I share office space with gets frustrated that anyone would go into a gas station without a mask on.  She knows I don't wear one, she rolls her eyes at me, but she certainly doesn't exhibit "rage".

[Max Rockatansky]

California put out a mandatory mask order:

https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/COVID-19/Guidance-for-Face-Coverings_06-18-2020.pdf

Really it's pretty tame all things considered and the order goes into a lot of detail to be really specific when it is/isn't needed. 

[NWI_Irish96]

Why is this really so hard to understand?

(1) The best means of preventing the spread is to not come within 6 feet of others.

(2) When that is impossible or impractical, the next best means of preventing the spread is to wear a face covering, and because it can spread asymptomatically, it is beneficial for everybody to wear face coverings.

(3) Choosing not to wear face coverings even when asymptomatic increases the chances of infecting someone else. On an individual level, the difference is small, but multiplied by hundreds of millions of contacts by millions of people every day, it becomes substantial.

(4) Temperature checks at the entry to buildings where people will be within 6 feet of each other, even if masks are required, are beneficial because (1) and yes, some negative people will fail temperature checks but that's the cost of catching people who are positive and don't know it.

(5) Denying any or all of these things isn't your opinion, it's willful disregard for scientific data for the sake of convenience.

[webny99]

Well, of course everyone on the "Lockdown Skepticism" board is going to have similar attitudes about mask wearing. No kidding!

I don't think that's necessarily true.  There are plenty of people who have wholeheartedly embraced wearing face masks but think the shutdowns have been a bad idea.

Poor phrasing on my part. I should have said, of course there are going to be plenty of people that are against mask wearing on that type of board. There may be people that are for it, too, or don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, but people that are against it will certainly be prevalent. "Lockdown Skepticism" is a pretty broad brush that's going to attract anti-mask folks in addition to anti-lockdown folks.

Temperature checks are worthless.  You can spread it without a fever. 

My problem with temperature checks is that, as has already been pointed out by ... hmmm, I think it was Max Rockatansky ... people's temperature can be elevated for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with the coronavirus.

It's not perfect, by any means, but it still makes sense. You probably shouldn't be coming to work with a fever regardless of whether you have COVID or not.

[kphoger]

Why is this really so hard to understand?

(1) The best means of preventing the spread is to not come within 6 feet of others.

(2) When that is impossible or impractical, the next best means of preventing the spread is to wear a face covering, and because it can spread asymptomatically, it is beneficial for everybody to wear face coverings.

(3) Choosing not to wear face coverings even when asymptomatic increases the chances of infecting someone else. On an individual level, the difference is small, but multiplied by hundreds of millions of contacts by millions of people every day, it becomes substantial.

(4) Temperature checks at the entry to buildings where people will be within 6 feet of each other, even if masks are required, are beneficial because (1) and yes, some negative people will fail temperature checks but that's the cost of catching people who are positive and don't know it.

(5) Denying any or all of these things isn't your opinion, it's willful disregard for scientific data for the sake of convenience.

All of what you just said is true of any and every communicable respiratory disease.  Yet, for some reason, people are allowed the dignity of making their own informed decisions at other times but not now.  Masks, social distancing, frequent hand washing, temperature checks:  all of these things would be indisputably advantageous at all times, not just now.  But, presumably, it was OK for people to not do all those things five years ago, and it will be OK for people to not do all those things five years from now as well.  The risk of this virus is greater than that of other outbreaks, and this has caused most people to take steps they don't typically take in order to prevent spread, but the exact steps each person takes is naturally going to be unique to their own determination.

Re:  (1)  –  The six-foot rule, AIUI, was based on a decades-old study of large-droplet dispersion.  Considering that this virus can spread on much smaller droplets, it's likely that a six-foot radius is too small to keep everyone out of the zone.  I think it's much better to suggest people simply stay as far apart as reasonable, rather than giving them the false impression 70 inches is too close but 75 inches is just fine and dandy.

Re:  (5)  –  "That's the cost of..." is not scientific data.  It's your opinion.  Other than that one point, I agree that every point you made is more or less scientifically uncontestable.  That doesn't mean, however, that every person should come to the same conclusion when reviewing the scientific data and applying it to their daily life.

[Max Rockatansky]

Well, of course everyone on the "Lockdown Skepticism" board is going to have similar attitudes about mask wearing. No kidding!

I don't think that's necessarily true.  There are plenty of people who have wholeheartedly embraced wearing face masks but think the shutdowns have been a bad idea.

Poor phrasing on my part. I should have said, of course there are going to be plenty of people that are against mask wearing on that type of board. There may be people that are for it, too, or don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, but people that are against it will certainly be prevalent. "Lockdown Skepticism" is a pretty broad brush that's going to attract anti-mask folks in addition to anti-lockdown folks.

Temperature checks are worthless.  You can spread it without a fever. 

My problem with temperature checks is that, as has already been pointed out by ... hmmm, I think it was Max Rockatansky ... people's temperature can be elevated for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with the coronavirus.

It's not perfect, by any means, but it still makes sense. You probably shouldn't be coming to work with a fever regardless of whether you have COVID or not.

The main problem is that at least in the United States you often run into problems if you call out too much or perceived as lazy even if you are legitimately sick.  I've told my people for years not to come in if they have a fever or strong cold symptoms but they still end up doing it anyways.  They even have sick hours to back them up even.  When I ask them why they didn't take the day off they tell me that they are afraid of being written up.  It's so engrained in work place culture that calling sick is bad that even me literally telling my staff they won't get in trouble isn't enough to convince them that they won't. 

[webny99]

The main problem is that at least in the United States you often run into problems if you call out too much or perceived as lazy even if you are legitimately sick.  I've told my people for years not to come in if they have a fever or strong cold symptoms but they still end up doing it anyways.  They even have sick hours to back them up even.  When I ask them why they didn't take the day off they tell me that they are afraid of being written up.  It's so engrained in work place culture that calling sick is bad that even me literally telling my staff they won't get in trouble isn't enough to convince them that they won't. 

Definitely true here moreso than in other countries. "Calling in sick" has a lot of negative connotations, especially on Mondays and on holiday weekends, when a lot of people would rather just come in half sick than have people assume you were partying or hung over or who knows what else. 

If anything, this pandemic has shaken that up, though, because everyone would be so mad if you had COVID and kept coming to work.

[webny99]

They want to be selfish.

Analogy time!

Common cold is to COVID-19  as  selfishness is to self-righteousness.

[1995hoo]

The main problem is that at least in the United States you often run into problems if you call out too much or perceived as lazy even if you are legitimately sick.  I've told my people for years not to come in if they have a fever or strong cold symptoms but they still end up doing it anyways.  They even have sick hours to back them up even.  When I ask them why they didn't take the day off they tell me that they are afraid of being written up.  It's so engrained in work place culture that calling sick is bad that even me literally telling my staff they won't get in trouble isn't enough to convince them that they won't. 

Definitely true here moreso than in other countries. "Calling in sick" has a lot of negative connotations, especially on Mondays and on holiday weekends, when a lot of people would rather just come in half sick than have people assume you were partying or hung over or who knows what else. 

If anything, this pandemic has shaken that up, though, because everyone would be so mad if you had COVID and kept coming to work.

Some businesses will not pay an employee for a paid holiday if he takes sick leave the day before or the day after the holiday (or holiday weekend) unless he produces a doctor's note.

[jmacswimmer]

The main problem is that at least in the United States you often run into problems if you call out too much or perceived as lazy even if you are legitimately sick.  I've told my people for years not to come in if they have a fever or strong cold symptoms but they still end up doing it anyways.  They even have sick hours to back them up even.  When I ask them why they didn't take the day off they tell me that they are afraid of being written up.  It's so engrained in work place culture that calling sick is bad that even me literally telling my staff they won't get in trouble isn't enough to convince them that they won't. 

Definitely true here moreso than in other countries. "Calling in sick" has a lot of negative connotations, especially on Mondays and on holiday weekends, when a lot of people would rather just come in half sick than have people assume you were partying or hung over or who knows what else. 

If anything, this pandemic has shaken that up, though, because everyone would be so mad if you had COVID and kept coming to work.

^^^This.  As my company prepares to start bringing us back to the office, they've been emphasizing repeatedly to stay home if you're sick, be it COVID-19 or something/anything else.  I'm hoping that the rise in telework will help change that negative mentality around "calling in sick".  Speaking as someone who's worked thru colds in the past, I know I would feel a lot less guilty if I felt sick and simply worked from home rather than using sick leave.  But of course, not every profession has the ability to telework.

[webny99]

Some businesses will not pay an employee for a paid holiday if he takes sick leave the day before or the day after the holiday (or holiday weekend) unless he produces a doctor's note.

Interesting that you mention that, as my company does just that. You can, of course, still schedule the day off in advance, but no pay if you call in sick without a doctor's note.

[kphoger]

The PTO issue gets even muddier when the person has kids at home.  The more dependents at home who might get sick, the thinner your PTO gets spread.  Some parents, therefore, will go to work with an illness in order to still have PTO to use when their kid is sick.

Plus, not everyone is a salaried or hourly employee.  For example, all of my company's field techs are contractors who get paid not just per job, but per point based on what work the job entailed.  If they don't run a route, then they don't get paid for that day.  Guys will keep pushing through an illness in order to finish their route, because every job they can't complete is money lost.  That mentality may have changed somewhat recently, but I can't imagine it could ever be eliminated entirely.

[kalvado]

If they aren't masking in their personal workspace, they most certainly do not.  You seemingly work with selfish people. I guess you fit in well.

Give me a break. Masks are not really needed in workplaces that aren't open to the public. There's a limited number of known people going in and out, and, where I work, we do temperature checks on the way in and you can't enter with a fever.

Temperature checks are worthless.  You can spread it without a fever.  You should wear a mask indoors unless you are in your personal workspace.

It is all about risks and it all adds up. Like driving sober and fastening seat belt - those are two complimentary measures....

[kphoger]

That's such a crock.  When the swine flu was going around, I assume you didn't claim that people "stopped caring for others" because they walked around without masks on.  But now suddenly, because there's something going around that's worse than the swine flu, you feel justified in claiming that.  Not wearing a mask doesn't mean someone "stopped caring for others".  It just means they don't think it's necessary.

Just touching a hot topic...
When slavery was going around in 1800, I assume you didn't claim that people "stopped caring for others" because they owned slaves.  But in 1860s suddenly, because there's something going around, people feel justified in claiming that.  Owning a slave in 1800 doesn't mean someone "stopped caring for others".  It just means they don't think it's an issue. Fast forward to 2020 - well, it was a shame even in 1800!

I'm not entirely clear what you were getting at.  So, my reply will either reinforce your point or argue against it. 

Considering that slavery in some form existed in nearly every ancient civilization we know of since the Neolithic Revolution, and that the earliest extant law code (written more than 4000 years ago) treats it as an established institution, and that it has existed in nearly every corner of the globe–well, I think it would be quite ethnocentric to claim that the world as a whole, throughout history, "didn't care" about people.  That is obviously not to say I think slavery is a good thing, but rather that there is a fundamental problem with viewing other cultures and times through the colored lens of 21st-Century America.  I guarantee that there is something about each of us that, when looked back upon 100 years from now by people who live in a different society than we, will be indicative of our heartlessness.  That doesn't make us heartless.

But I'm not entirely sure how this relates to a virus.  Slavery didn't "go around".  Accepting or rejecting slavery is not equivalent to choosing to or choosing not to take a certain preventive measure against the spread of disease.

[kalvado]

That's such a crock.  When the swine flu was going around, I assume you didn't claim that people "stopped caring for others" because they walked around without masks on.  But now suddenly, because there's something going around that's worse than the swine flu, you feel justified in claiming that.  Not wearing a mask doesn't mean someone "stopped caring for others".  It just means they don't think it's necessary.

Just touching a hot topic...
When slavery was going around in 1800, I assume you didn't claim that people "stopped caring for others" because they owned slaves.  But in 1860s suddenly, because there's something going around, people feel justified in claiming that.  Owning a slave in 1800 doesn't mean someone "stopped caring for others".  It just means they don't think it's an issue. Fast forward to 2020 - well, it was a shame even in 1800!

I'm not entirely clear what you were getting at.  So, my reply will either reinforce your point or argue against it. 

Considering that slavery in some form existed in nearly every ancient civilization we know of since the Neolithic Revolution, and that the earliest extant law code (written more than 4000 years ago) treats it as an established institution, and that it has existed in nearly every corner of the globe–well, I think it would be quite ethnocentric to claim that the world as a whole, throughout history, "didn't care" about people.  That is obviously not to say I think slavery is a good thing, but rather that there is a fundamental problem with viewing other cultures and times through the colored lens of 21st-Century America.  I guarantee that there is something about each of us that, when looked back upon 100 years from now by people who live in a different society than we, will be indicative of our heartlessness.  That doesn't make us heartless.

But I'm not entirely sure how this relates to a virus.  Slavery didn't "go around".  Accepting or rejecting slavery is not equivalent to choosing to or choosing not to take a certain preventive measure against the spread of disease.

Just saying that standards change. Not wearing a mask 10 years ago was the norm - and maybe unfortunate norm from today's perspective. But one need to move along and change some habits - be it owning a slave like 200 years ago, driving without seatbelt like 50 years ago  or walking around with bare face like 10 years ago.

[kphoger]

Just saying that standards change. Not wearing a mask 10 years ago was the norm - and maybe unfortunate norm from today's perspective. But one need to move along and change some habits - be it owning a slave like 200 years ago, driving without seatbelt like 50 years ago  or walking around with bare face like 10 years ago.

I wear a seat belt, but I don't disparage those who choose not to.

[Max Rockatansky]

Just saying that standards change. Not wearing a mask 10 years ago was the norm - and maybe unfortunate norm from today's perspective. But one need to move along and change some habits - be it owning a slave like 200 years ago, driving without seatbelt like 50 years ago  or walking around with bare face like 10 years ago.

I wear a seat belt, but I don't disparage those who choose not to.

That said, in most circumstances I would make a passenger put one on because I don't want to be responsible for what happens in an accident.  Down in Mexico it was a far different norm with something we consider as routine as wearing seat belts.  Down there isn't uncommon to see a bunch of dudes in the back of a truck, I've transported family as such numerous times.  That's an interesting example of how expectations might be one way in one place and entirely different in another.  The same thing is starting to happen with mask wearers and non mask wearers. 

[kphoger]

Yeah, I don't do this in the USA, but no problem in Mexico!


[photo from 2009]

[jeffandnicole]

Temperature checks are worthless.  You can spread it without a fever. 

My problem with temperature checks is that, as has already been pointed out by ... hmmm, I think it was Max Rockatansky ... people's temperature can be elevated for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with the coronavirus.

There's almost going to be nothing that is 100% perfect in detection.  But people try their dammest to discount everything.

The likelihood of someone not being sick yet have a temperature over 100 degrees is close to nill.  There may be a small percentage of the population that has a condition that causes this, and they probably already know who they are.  If not, maybe this would be a good time for them to see a doc to find out!

There's a more likelihood that someone registers a close-to-normal temp but has the virus and doesn't know it.  That's where the masks and other protections come in.

[Max Rockatansky]

Temperature checks are worthless.  You can spread it without a fever. 

My problem with temperature checks is that, as has already been pointed out by ... hmmm, I think it was Max Rockatansky ... people's temperature can be elevated for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with the coronavirus.

There's almost going to be nothing that is 100% perfect in detection.  But people try their dammest to discount everything.

The likelihood of someone not being sick yet have a temperature over 100 degrees is close to nill.  There may be a small percentage of the population that has a condition that causes this, and they probably already know who they are.  If not, maybe this would be a good time for them to see a doc to find out!

There's a more likelihood that someone registers a close-to-normal temp but has the virus and doesn't know it.  That's where the masks and other protections come in.

We have half a dozen workers show up every day with a temperatures at 100F or higher.  We typically sit them in a cool area for 5 minutes and rescan.  In the two months we have been scanning we have only had one person rescan at over 100F.  The summer sun does play a huge factor in environments like where I live when it gets above 100F daily.  When we first got the scanners I had myself tested eight times through the day.  I even scanned over 100F myself after going for a 5 minute walk outside.  To that end the temperature scan IMO is the least effective measure we do and something that I think we could cease doing given how ineffective it has been.