Coronavirus pandemic

[webny99]

It's literally the least one can do, not just to stop the spread of COVID, but also just to signal a general willingness to accept the current situation and the government recommendations that come along with it.

So should people stop wearing masks if they don't necessarily "accept the current situation and the government recommendations that come along with it", even if they otherwise agree with you?

I guess I'm not sure where the distinction comes in. If people aren't accepting of the current situation/restrictions, (a) they wouldn't be wearing masks, and (b) they wouldn't otherwise agree with me.

the government initially lied about the usefulness of masks for the general public, to keep masks available for medical personnel, etc. who most needed them.

To be fair, the situation was evolving very quickly, and it is true that medical personnel needed the masks more than the average citizen. Requiring/recommending masks for the population at large would have drained the already limited supply and created a lot of unnecessary panic in the time frame before supply chains ramped up.

[oscar]

It's literally the least one can do, not just to stop the spread of COVID, but also just to signal a general willingness to accept the current situation and the government recommendations that come along with it.

So should people stop wearing masks if they don't necessarily "accept the current situation and the government recommendations that come along with it", even if they otherwise agree with you?

I guess I'm not sure where the distinction comes in. If people aren't accepting of the current situation/restrictions, (a) they wouldn't be wearing masks, and (b) they wouldn't otherwise agree with me.

People can agree with you that masks are an easy way to "stop the spread of COVID", while dissenting from some other aspects of the conventional wisdom or (to be oxymoronic) "government wisdom" about how to deal with COVID.

Some people may refuse to wear masks to send their own signals (including political ones). I'd rather that people on all sides stop with the signals, so they don't get in the way of the substantive steps they should be taking.

[Sctvhound]

So in March and April, the Northeast and Midwest get hit hard when it's cold and gloomy and everyone wants to be inside. Meanwhile the weather in the South and Southwest is pleasant, and they largely get through without a large outbreak.

Now in June, Texas, Arizona and Florida are getting hit hard when it's hot as heck and everyone wants to be inside. Meanwhile, the Northeast and Midwest finally get some beautiful weather, people want to be outside, and they've largely gotten things under control.

There's just no way that's mere coincidence. There's a strong, direct, relationship between time spent indoors and COVID cases.

Yup. And the beach areas are the ones which have been especially affected over the past couple of weeks as people vacation in those areas from the places where weather isn't as nice.

Like here in South Carolina. The beach areas (Charleston, Beaufort, Horry Counties) have all had surges in cases over this time.

Another major reason why cases are surging in this part of the country is the food and beverage industry. The large majority of those workers are in their 20s and early 30s. Most of them couldn't afford to take a day off of work pre-pandemic. The moment the Governors opened doors back up it was "full steam ahead"  for these places. They'd go to work sick or not feeling well. Restaurants have been closing due to 1 or 2 cases in each.

As some of the northern states start opening back up, I wonder if that will be a trend.

[Duke87]

As I mentioned upthread (somewhere in the vast 4200-post expanse ...), would you claim that "no shirt, no shoes, no service" rules are an infringement of ones freedom? Of course not, and mask wearing is not any different. It's not even like it's all the time, just indoors in stores and when social distancing is impractical.

Shoes and shirts requirements differ from mask requirements in one important way - they are the status quo.

Everyone has been used to wearing shoes and a shirt (and hopefully also pants) whenever they go out in public their whole lives. It doesn't seem onerous because it is merely codifying what has already long been normal behavior. But there has never been any expectation that people cover their faces before - and it thus produces a negative reaction from anyone resistant to change.

If prior to earlier this year it was normal and expected that everyone went to restaurants topless, and then suddenly there was a rule requiring shirts, many of the same people would be up in arms about it.

[Rothman]

If wearing shoes and shirts was commonplace, those signs would be unnecessary.

[Scott5114]

Or try a different type of mask/face covering.

Or even try a different design of the type you've been using. My work mandates everyone wear a company-issued disposable mask (not N95, just the flimsy surgical-style masks, and no bringing cloth masks from home allowed), and I've gotten experienced wildly different comfort from different brands of the same type of mask.

[formulanone]

Some people may refuse to wear masks to send their own signals (including political ones). I'd rather that people on all sides stop with the signals, so they don't get in the way of the substantive steps they should be taking.

Unfortunately, we all know we're on Candid Camera now: Not to give anyone more attention, but there's always that a loud fraction of a percentage who are agent provocateurs, which is French for "noisy jackass who does it for internet fame". 

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


[photo from 2009]

Either the laws of physics don't exist in Mexico, or you aren't allowed go above 10 mph?

Speaking as a parent, I sincerely hope you don't plan on carrying children in your lap in a moving vehicle anymore. That's just reckless contempt for life.

But it is a common part of life down there in Mexico.  I’m not trying to justify it or say the practice is bad, but that’s a pretty tame example of what is normal down there.  It kind of reminds me of how driving used to be during the 1980s when things like seat belt use wasn’t universally accepted as a truism.  Back in that era even in the United States most would look twice if kids were in the back seat with no belt on or sitting on a parents lap. 

For one thing, traffic generally moves at around 10-20 mph in that town.  But, besides that...  different culture, different norms.  I've sat on the side of a pickup truck bed while being driven down a state highway in Mexico, completely normal there.  When I was in high school, during a Spanish class trip to Mexico, I once sat in a plastic lawn chair in the middle of a conversion van because there weren't enough seats for our whole group.  I believe that, on the day the picture above was taken, there weren't enough seats in the vehicle for all of us, so I had my son sit with me.

Heck, in Mexico, it's common to see on-duty police officers standing up in the back of pickup trucks.

And, anyway, there have been times that my wife breast-fed a baby in the passenger seat while I was driving down the highway here in the US—rather than finding somewhere to park and wasting 15 minutes of drive time.  I also remember once, while my wife was driving south through northern Iowa while one of our sons was potty-training, I crawled into the back of the minivan, got the potty chair out, and had my son use it while we were going 75 mph down the Interstate.  Legal? no.  Safe during a crash? no.  Worth the very slight risk risk, yes.  In my opinion, what's pictured is really safer than putting a kid in a seat on the back of a bicycle and cycling down city streets.

See, I've known (though second-hand) examples of people killed while in moving vehicles because they got up at the wrong time to feed a baby or help a child out. Maybe you hadn't. My point is, that cultural norms shouldn't take precedence over trying to do something carefully instead worrying about what anyone else thinks. We all have personal examples where we do the "right thing" instead of the "popular thing", because those are called "values".

If you can afford to keep your child safe regardless of the additional hassle or loss of time, you do so. Yeah, I'm locking the gate long after the foal left the stable to be a thoroughbred, but you're basically proving the point that it's okay to do things that may not be safe because that's okay in another land.

[Max Rockatansky]

Speaking of "safe"  does anyone know when this whole American cultural preoccupation with "safety"  started?  That's almost the number one thing you hear stated in commercials and/or ads these days.  I want to say it began shifting this way after 9/11 and at least in the context of work places it has really ramped up this last decade.  Now even one of the popular ways to say goodbye to someone is to use the phrase "stay safe."

Speaking of 9/11 the response to in the general population has been very similar.  It started with people yanking all their money out of investments and becoming super obsessed with safety or locking up for a couple months.  Back then the level of fear gradually began to wane as it did now but it took a solid decade for concerns about terrorism not to be an everyday thing. 

[webny99]

Some people may refuse to wear masks to send their own signals (including political ones). I'd rather that people on all sides stop with the signals, so they don't get in the way of the substantive steps they should be taking.

Gotcha. No disagreement there; I guess maybe "signal" was the wrong framing for what I was trying to say. Mask wearing is an appropriate substantive step people should be taking that also happens to be in compliance with what the government recommends, so just manning up and doing it kills two birds with one stone.

[webny99]

Now even one of the popular ways to say goodbye to someone is to use the phrase "stay safe."

I've definitely heard that on the phone and even seen it in people's email signatures. But it's been entirely since the pandemic started. I didn't notice it at all before March.

[webny99]

Shoes and shirts requirements differ from mask requirements in one important way - they are the status quo.

Everyone has been used to wearing shoes and a shirt (and hopefully also pants) whenever they go out in public their whole lives. It doesn't seem onerous because it is merely codifying what has already long been normal behavior. But there has never been any expectation that people cover their faces before - and it thus produces a negative reaction from anyone resistant to change.

If prior to earlier this year it was normal and expected that everyone went to restaurants topless, and then suddenly there was a rule requiring shirts, many of the same people would be up in arms about it.

I get that people don't like change - me included - but mask wearing will soon be the status quo, and I would argue it already is in certain parts of the country. I'm just not sure why anyone would refuse to comply. Grumbling about it is normal and even expected, but you should still do it even if you don't like it. Also, the benefits to public health, safety, and sanitation are pretty clearly more tangible than the shirt and shoes requirements, IMO.

If wearing shoes and shirts was commonplace, those signs would be unnecessary.

Since when is wearing shoes and shirts not commonplace, at least with reference to indoor public places?
My house doesn't have a shoes and shirts requirement, and neither does the local beach, but that's different.

[SEWIGuy]

Speaking of "safe"  does anyone know when this whole American cultural preoccupation with "safety"  started?  That's almost the number one thing you hear stated in commercials and/or ads these days.  I want to say it began shifting this way after 9/11 and at least in the context of work places it has really ramped up this last decade.  Now even one of the popular ways to say goodbye to someone is to use the phrase "stay safe."

Speaking of 9/11 the response to in the general population has been very similar.  It started with people yanking all their money out of investments and becoming super obsessed with safety or locking up for a couple months.  Back then the level of fear gradually began to wane as it did now but it took a solid decade for concerns about terrorism not to be an everyday thing. 

Workplace safety has been a thing for longer than the past decade.  It became a thing when businesses realized that it made more sense to spend more up front on workplace safety than to pay increased liability insurance and OSHA fines.

[kalvado]

Speaking of "safe"  does anyone know when this whole American cultural preoccupation with "safety"  started?  That's almost the number one thing you hear stated in commercials and/or ads these days.  I want to say it began shifting this way after 9/11 and at least in the context of work places it has really ramped up this last decade.  Now even one of the popular ways to say goodbye to someone is to use the phrase "stay safe."

Speaking of 9/11 the response to in the general population has been very similar.  It started with people yanking all their money out of investments and becoming super obsessed with safety or locking up for a couple months.  Back then the level of fear gradually began to wane as it did now but it took a solid decade for concerns about terrorism not to be an everyday thing. 

Workplace safety has been a thing for longer than the past decade.  It became a thing when businesses realized that it made more sense to spend more up front on workplace safety than to pay increased liability insurance and OSHA fines.

Seems to be growing worse with OSHA enforcement of private laws. While it is US approach for a while, things may be going to a snapping point where safety defeats the purpose of it.

[Max Rockatansky]

Speaking of "safe"  does anyone know when this whole American cultural preoccupation with "safety"  started?  That's almost the number one thing you hear stated in commercials and/or ads these days.  I want to say it began shifting this way after 9/11 and at least in the context of work places it has really ramped up this last decade.  Now even one of the popular ways to say goodbye to someone is to use the phrase "stay safe."

Speaking of 9/11 the response to in the general population has been very similar.  It started with people yanking all their money out of investments and becoming super obsessed with safety or locking up for a couple months.  Back then the level of fear gradually began to wane as it did now but it took a solid decade for concerns about terrorism not to be an everyday thing. 

Workplace safety has been a thing for longer than the past decade.  It became a thing when businesses realized that it made more sense to spend more up front on workplace safety than to pay increased liability insurance and OSHA fines.

Ralph Nader and the Occupational Safety Healthy Act of 1970 came to mind when I was writing my post as a more historic starting point.  That OSHA Act was kind of the culmination of abusive and unsafe work practices of the late 19th Century/20th Century.  Unsafe at any Speed really brought how dangerous driving was to light. 

[kalvado]

Speaking of "safe"  does anyone know when this whole American cultural preoccupation with "safety"  started?  That's almost the number one thing you hear stated in commercials and/or ads these days.  I want to say it began shifting this way after 9/11 and at least in the context of work places it has really ramped up this last decade.  Now even one of the popular ways to say goodbye to someone is to use the phrase "stay safe."

Speaking of 9/11 the response to in the general population has been very similar.  It started with people yanking all their money out of investments and becoming super obsessed with safety or locking up for a couple months.  Back then the level of fear gradually began to wane as it did now but it took a solid decade for concerns about terrorism not to be an everyday thing. 

Workplace safety has been a thing for longer than the past decade.  It became a thing when businesses realized that it made more sense to spend more up front on workplace safety than to pay increased liability insurance and OSHA fines.

Ralph Nader and the Occupational Safety Healthy Act of 1970 came to mind when I was writing my post as a more historic starting point.  That OSHA Act was kind of the culmination of abusive and unsafe work practices of the late 19th Century/20th Century.  Unsafe at any Speed really brought how dangerous driving was to light.

A lot of practices we now despise could easily be the best ones at the time when they were used, and the government wasn't the main driving force behind improvements. An interesting graph showing technology advances behind mine safety:


Interestingly enough, the number of workplace death in US is essentially flat for a few years. Coupled with a lot of outsourcing of manual labor jobs, one may assume that things are actually getting worse. My strong impression is that the bureaucratic approach is now the king, without regard to actual work conditions - and that covers multiple federal agencies. I can dig out my rant about how FDA and CDC handled start of COVID - and I still didn't change my mind that some high ranked officials are to be held personally criminally liable.

[hbelkins]

...but also just to signal a general willingness to accept the current situation and the government recommendations that come along with it.

This hints at my biggest problems with this whole deal.

For years, we've been conditioned to believe that it's acceptable to question and challenge government edicts. Everyone is always opposed to some government decision. One former first lady, U.S. senator, secretary of state, and twice-failed presidential candidate even went on an epic screeching rant about it.

But now, we're supposed to accept what the government says without question? Just happily comply without a word of opposition? Smile and say "thank you sir, may I have another?" Why is it so terrible to question the government's actions about this, while it's actually encouraged to protest other acts?

We don't need "a new normal." We need "normal" with the understanding that things happen. There's an assumption of risk for everything one does in life. It's cloudy outside today with a chance of storms. I could get in the shower and then get electrocuted if lightning strikes the ground near my home and the current is conducted through the pipes and the water. I could get hit by a car when I go out to vote later today.

There's been so much conflicting information put out about masks and their effectiveness that why wouldn't someone with discernment be skeptical?

Everyone has probably seen the "blonde joke" meme about the woman wearing a crocheted mask. It's tempting to get one and wear it to comply with the letter of the directives. And everyone has probably seen the "putting up chain link fence to keep mosquitoes out" meme as well.

My position is this: If you want to wear a mask to protect yourself, feel free. If you think you've been exposed and want to wear a mask to keep your germs to yourself, feel free. But if you haven't been exposed, there's no good reason for you to wear a mask.

The desperation Kentucky's governor is showing in his semi-weekly live updates/press conferences (I think he knows the people are growing weary of him; he's cut from seven days a week to five, then to four, and now he's just doing two or three a week) is comical. Every day his pleadings get more frantic, "I'm not seeing enough people wearing masks, too many people aren't wearing masks, please please please do what I say!" It's funny yet sad to watch his influence evaporate.

Now even one of the popular ways to say goodbye to someone is to use the phrase "stay safe."

I've definitely heard that on the phone and even seen it in people's email signatures. But it's been entirely since the pandemic started. I didn't notice it at all before March.

I have a co-worker who's been saying that for 15 years, anytime she parts company with me, in person or on the phone.

[Roadgeekteen]

...but also just to signal a general willingness to accept the current situation and the government recommendations that come along with it.

This hints at my biggest problems with this whole deal.

For years, we've been conditioned to believe that it's acceptable to question and challenge government edicts. Everyone is always opposed to some government decision. One former first lady, U.S. senator, secretary of state, and twice-failed presidential candidate even went on an epic screeching rant about it.

But now, we're supposed to accept what the government says without question? Just happily comply without a word of opposition? Smile and say "thank you sir, may I have another?" Why is it so terrible to question the government's actions about this, while it's actually encouraged to protest other acts?

We don't need "a new normal." We need "normal" with the understanding that things happen. There's an assumption of risk for everything one does in life. It's cloudy outside today with a chance of storms. I could get in the shower and then get electrocuted if lightning strikes the ground near my home and the current is conducted through the pipes and the water. I could get hit by a car when I go out to vote later today.

There's been so much conflicting information put out about masks and their effectiveness that why wouldn't someone with discernment be skeptical?

Everyone has probably seen the "blonde joke" meme about the woman wearing a crocheted mask. It's tempting to get one and wear it to comply with the letter of the directives. And everyone has probably seen the "putting up chain link fence to keep mosquitoes out" meme as well.

My position is this: If you want to wear a mask to protect yourself, feel free. If you think you've been exposed and want to wear a mask to keep your germs to yourself, feel free. But if you haven't been exposed, there's no good reason for you to wear a mask.

The desperation Kentucky's governor is showing in his semi-weekly live updates/press conferences (I think he knows the people are growing weary of him; he's cut from seven days a week to five, then to four, and now he's just doing two or three a week) is comical. Every day his pleadings get more frantic, "I'm not seeing enough people wearing masks, too many people aren't wearing masks, please please please do what I say!" It's funny yet sad to watch his influence evaporate.

Now even one of the popular ways to say goodbye to someone is to use the phrase "stay safe."

I've definitely heard that on the phone and even seen it in people's email signatures. But it's been entirely since the pandemic started. I didn't notice it at all before March.

I have a co-worker who's been saying that for 15 years, anytime she parts company with me, in person or on the phone.

You wear a mask to protects others too.

[SEWIGuy]

...but also just to signal a general willingness to accept the current situation and the government recommendations that come along with it.

But now, we're supposed to accept what the government says without question? Just happily comply without a word of opposition? Smile and say "thank you sir, may I have another?" Why is it so terrible to question the government's actions about this, while it's actually encouraged to protest other acts?

I am cutting most of this post out because you can't seem to not "go political."

But as far as your bolded item, no one is suggesting that you accept what the government says without question.  The appropriate question are, why should I wear a mask?  Or, why would wearing a mask help?

Then the government could point to numerous studies that show that wearing masks prevents the spread of the disease.  For instance, here is a meta-analysis of 172 studies that shows that masking is an important way to stop the spread by the Lancet.  And the Lancet is one of the most respected, peer reviewed medical journals around.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext

So yes HB.  Ask all the questions you want.  But in the end, those questions will be answered with facts.  And the facts support the position that wearing a mask is important.

But that really isn't your problem.  You don't want to ask questions and have them answered with facts.  You simply don't want to wear a mask and are using a dippy "freedom" argument to justify it.

[J N Winkler]

A lot of practices we now despise could easily be the best ones at the time when they were used, and the government wasn't the main driving force behind improvements. An interesting graph showing technology advances behind mine safety:

The trouble with graphs such as this is that they can be less than illuminating as to the underlying causal relationships.  For example, this one is consistent with mine owners resisting upgrades from the Davy lamp (the main means of preventing mine explosions in the nineteenth century) because there was no federal oversight to require them to use better equipment.

[GaryV]

But if you know you haven't been exposed, there's no good reason for you to wear a mask.

FIFY.

Question is, how do you know?

[corco]

But if you know you haven't been exposed, there's no good reason for you to wear a mask.

FIFY.

Question is, how do you know?

Maybe HB only leaves his house once every fourteen days and interacts with no other humans.

As far as the mask debate - I actually also oppose mandating masks, but also recognize that with freedom comes responsibility and duty to community. Freedom doesn't come without sacrifice, and I love my country and am more than willing to make the tiniest of stupid little sacrifices by wearing a mask if it seems to help my community.

The overwhelming body of data shows that wearing a mask is at least marginally "better" than not wearing a mask for the broader community, so I freely choose to wear a mask. The people that actually know what they are talking about in my community (not pseudo-scientists on the internet) recommend wearing a face covering, and they're the people who my community has placed faith and confidence in, so I trust those people to be giving the best available advice, even if it's imperfect. If that guidance changes down the line that doesn't mean those people were "wrong" - that's not how this works - our epidemiologists and public health leaders are providing the best information they have based on what they know. Because we've never seen anything like this before what we "know" is going to change and evolve every day. And that's fine!

To me the question really comes down to "Do you believe that public health officials are acting in good faith to make their communities a better place or do you believe that public health officials have some nefarious secondary agenda?" I choose to believe the former.

The decision to wear a mask is one I make freely. I also freely negatively judge people who do not wear masks and freely do not spend money at establishments that don't freely choose to be good neighbors and take this seriously. If you accept the premise that public health officials are generally acting in good faith, this has nothing to do with questioning authority and everything to do with being a good neighbor.

[kalvado]

A fascinating story I didn't know, despite the entire thing discovered in 2005:
It is pretty possible that humans already went through a carbon copy of today's situation.
One of today's common cold coronaviruses -  HCoV-OC43 - split from bovine coronavirus in about 1890. It coincides with a pandemic of "Russian flu" of 1889-90. There is no specific evidence, but that was not the common flu - it had unusually high mortality and neurologic complications.

A bit more details:  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/31/did-a-coronavirus-cause-the-pandemic-that-killed-queen-victorias-heir
and the original research paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC544107/

[kalvado]

A lot of practices we now despise could easily be the best ones at the time when they were used, and the government wasn't the main driving force behind improvements. An interesting graph showing technology advances behind mine safety:

The trouble with graphs such as this is that they can be less than illuminating as to the underlying causal relationships.  For example, this one is consistent with mine owners resisting upgrades from the Davy lamp (the main means of preventing mine explosions in the nineteenth century) because there was no federal oversight to require them to use better equipment.

I would relate this to the mask issue  and another reply on this page:

The overwhelming body of data shows that wearing a mask is at least marginally "better" than not wearing a mask for the broader community, so I freely choose to wear a mask. The people that actually know what they are talking about in my community (not pseudo-scientists on the internet) recommend wearing a face covering, and they're the people who my community has placed faith and confidence in, so I trust those people to be giving the best available advice, even if it's imperfect. If that guidance changes down the line that doesn't mean those people were "wrong" - that's not how this works - our epidemiologists and public health leaders are providing the best information they have based on what they know. Because we've never seen anything like this before what we "know" is going to change and evolve every day. And that's fine!

A pretty comparable situation IMHO - a good argument that something is safer goes a long way. New approaches may still have some people resisting the change, but at some point things just settle. In case of business -  rumors about unsafe conditions, and eventually liability would come into play. Can we assume that insurance company, qualified engineers fleeing and lack of risky workforce would do the same with non-compliant mine owner?

[Eth]

The decision to wear a mask is one I make freely. I also freely negatively judge people who do not wear masks and freely do not spend money at establishments that don't freely choose to be good neighbors and take this seriously. If you accept the premise that public health officials are generally acting in good faith, this has nothing to do with questioning authority and everything to do with being a good neighbor.

This is a big reason why the bad advice early on about not wearing masks was so damaging. In that particular instance, they arguably weren't acting in good faith (more concerned about the mask supply chain instead of overall effectiveness), which has unfortunately made it harder for many to trust them now. As a result, we all suffer, because insufficient precautions being taken means the virus doesn't go away, in turn meaning we all, regardless of how much we trust/distrust the government or public health officials, have to continue dealing with the situation far longer than we would have needed to.

[jeffandnicole]

Speaking of "safe"  does anyone know when this whole American cultural preoccupation with "safety"  started?

If I were to take a guess at this question, it would be when cars went into hyper-mode to be safe, which would be the advent of the airbag.  While seatbelts became mandatory first, the laws concentrated on those in the front seat, and the penalties were a slap on the risk and only enforced when another violation was noticed first.  When auto manufacturers had to chose between automatic seat belts or airbags, the overwhelming majority went with airbags.  And after that is when you saw a serious increase in the yearn for safety.