No Shoes , No Shirt , No entry store policy : Should it also include ...
- Thread starter odie
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted by Reddy45
Mandatory masks for all = Joke
Change our culture so that people who are sick wear masks in public to not make others sick = Perfectly reasonable
That doesn't work either. Many carriers have little to no symptoms. "Most" who end up with symptoms, were contagious before the symptoms were significant enough to notice, over say, a common cold, or common flu or whatever other ailments, which are not going to stop happening just because there's a new virus too.
At the same time, how about "don't go out at all if you're potentially contagious". I don't for one second believe that masks alone would stop *everyone* from getting their hands infected and spreading it that way. I recognize that some people don't have a support system so they must go out to get needed food/supplies, so there's another thing our society could improve upon, a better network of assistance to those in need.
Quote
You could also watch the news less. You aren't more informed by watching the news. You're just more paranoid.
I agree that the news I've seen, is excessively redundant, but every now and then, a tidbit of new information accidentally slips out.
Mandatory masks for all = Joke
Change our culture so that people who are sick wear masks in public to not make others sick = Perfectly reasonable
That doesn't work either. Many carriers have little to no symptoms. "Most" who end up with symptoms, were contagious before the symptoms were significant enough to notice, over say, a common cold, or common flu or whatever other ailments, which are not going to stop happening just because there's a new virus too.
At the same time, how about "don't go out at all if you're potentially contagious". I don't for one second believe that masks alone would stop *everyone* from getting their hands infected and spreading it that way. I recognize that some people don't have a support system so they must go out to get needed food/supplies, so there's another thing our society could improve upon, a better network of assistance to those in need.
Quote
You could also watch the news less. You aren't more informed by watching the news. You're just more paranoid.
I agree that the news I've seen, is excessively redundant, but every now and then, a tidbit of new information accidentally slips out.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by old1
There are laws to make people wear seat belts in cars, and speed limits on public roads. Seat belts basically are to protect the wearer, and speed limit and other traffic laws are to protect everybody. Mask laws would be to protect other people. Someone without a mask, and is an unknown carrier, could cause the death of many. I hate government telling me what to do as much as the next guy, maybe more, but I also don't want to possibly die because of someone not using what I would call common sense.
Being thoughtful of others well being . Humanity .
There are laws to make people wear seat belts in cars, and speed limits on public roads. Seat belts basically are to protect the wearer, and speed limit and other traffic laws are to protect everybody. Mask laws would be to protect other people. Someone without a mask, and is an unknown carrier, could cause the death of many. I hate government telling me what to do as much as the next guy, maybe more, but I also don't want to possibly die because of someone not using what I would call common sense.
Being thoughtful of others well being . Humanity .
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Lolvoguy
Originally Posted by SLO_Town
Originally Posted by CharlieJ
No. Now why isn't this thread locked like all the rest?
Because skyactiv posted a pretty picture!!!
Now that I look closer, considering the frilly bits on that mask, isn't it simply a single cup from a bra that's been modified into a mask?
Regardless, I like it
What the heck, Lolvoguy?! You caught the fact that there were no cars in my backyard picture, but you missed the mask picture? Really?!
Not throwing stones, smiling at ya,
Scott
Originally Posted by SLO_Town
Originally Posted by CharlieJ
No. Now why isn't this thread locked like all the rest?
Because skyactiv posted a pretty picture!!!
Now that I look closer, considering the frilly bits on that mask, isn't it simply a single cup from a bra that's been modified into a mask?
Regardless, I like it
What the heck, Lolvoguy?! You caught the fact that there were no cars in my backyard picture, but you missed the mask picture? Really?!
Not throwing stones, smiling at ya,
Scott
Originally Posted by odie
NO MASK , No entry ? Encountered many without masks while grocery shopping and some also within a feet without a mask .
Seriously? Because wearing a mask will completely solve the Covid-19 pandemic?
It won't because you cannot fix STUPID! As in your next post:
Originally Posted by odie
One person removed their mask and sneezed several times .
NO MASK , No entry ? Encountered many without masks while grocery shopping and some also within a feet without a mask .
Seriously? Because wearing a mask will completely solve the Covid-19 pandemic?
It won't because you cannot fix STUPID! As in your next post:
Originally Posted by odie
One person removed their mask and sneezed several times .
Originally Posted by Jarlaxle
No. Masks are ridiculous...and accomplish-exactly-nothing.
If I am forced to wear a mask, I cannot see. (My glasses fog over.)
Loosen it at the bottom so you breathe out there instead.
The point of these is to get you to reduce your radius of breath output, if you're getting it on your chest, that's still pretty good.
No. Masks are ridiculous...and accomplish-exactly-nothing.
If I am forced to wear a mask, I cannot see. (My glasses fog over.)
Loosen it at the bottom so you breathe out there instead.
The point of these is to get you to reduce your radius of breath output, if you're getting it on your chest, that's still pretty good.
No! The mask wearing was to lower the curve. That is all. Unless you are high risk you should not be wearing one. Remember the first guidelines? They were correct. Then politicians got involved.
Originally Posted by Jarlaxle
...If I am forced to wear a mask, I cannot see. (My glasses fog over.)
That should occur only shortly after you've just walked into a warmer area, or if the edge of your mask doesn't fit properly just below your eyes. Neither of those conditions is an intractable problem.
...If I am forced to wear a mask, I cannot see. (My glasses fog over.)
That should occur only shortly after you've just walked into a warmer area, or if the edge of your mask doesn't fit properly just below your eyes. Neither of those conditions is an intractable problem.
Is here. Can not go anywhere w/o a mask. Imo its absolutely stupid and driven by other reasons We are not allowed to discuss on this forum.
Originally Posted by Blkstanger
No! The mask wearing was to lower the curve. That is all. Unless you are high risk you should not be wearing one. Remember the first guidelines? They were correct. Then politicians got involved.
No, then science got involved. Normally people don't spread viruses until they're sick but it appears people are spreading this one before they have symptoms so people didn't know they were sick a few days before they have symptoms. The mask is really to stop people from spreading it and if you don't know if you're sick or not, then it makes sense for everyone to wear it. And right, if they don't know how to wear it right, it's still going to spread.
No one ever claimed that masks would stop it 100%. I don't know where that comes from. Likes others said, there's lots of stupid people out there and that accounts for those that don't wear it properly but you hope that a high enough percentage do it correctly to reduce the number, not just give up and do nothing because there are too many stupid people out there.
As for the topic, a few cities have a local rule that requires masks to go inside and I've seen one person thrown out because they didn't have a mask on them. Other cities don't. At least the guy was polite about it, he just told the guy he couldn't be in the store if he didn't have a mask on.
The basic point is that it's still better than nothing. But some seem to prefer nothing.
No! The mask wearing was to lower the curve. That is all. Unless you are high risk you should not be wearing one. Remember the first guidelines? They were correct. Then politicians got involved.
No, then science got involved. Normally people don't spread viruses until they're sick but it appears people are spreading this one before they have symptoms so people didn't know they were sick a few days before they have symptoms. The mask is really to stop people from spreading it and if you don't know if you're sick or not, then it makes sense for everyone to wear it. And right, if they don't know how to wear it right, it's still going to spread.
No one ever claimed that masks would stop it 100%. I don't know where that comes from. Likes others said, there's lots of stupid people out there and that accounts for those that don't wear it properly but you hope that a high enough percentage do it correctly to reduce the number, not just give up and do nothing because there are too many stupid people out there.
As for the topic, a few cities have a local rule that requires masks to go inside and I've seen one person thrown out because they didn't have a mask on them. Other cities don't. At least the guy was polite about it, he just told the guy he couldn't be in the store if he didn't have a mask on.
The basic point is that it's still better than nothing. But some seem to prefer nothing.
- Joined
- May 28, 2014
- Messages
- 2,261
My choice is I won't be wearing one.
Have a nice day, it's gorgeous outside, enjoy the sunshine!
Have a nice day, it's gorgeous outside, enjoy the sunshine!
If there was much attention paid to widespread testing, to identify who has it, or who had it and is (probably) immune, as there has been to masks & social distancing-this mess would be under control already! IBTL!
Originally Posted by bullwinkle
If there was much attention paid to widespread testing, to identify who has it, or who had it and is (probably) immune, as there has been to masks & social distancing-this mess would be under control already! IBTL!
While true, there's not much the average person can do to get a test or make it more accessible whereas the average person can get a mask and practice social distancing. They're also starting up contract tracing too which should have been there at the beginning. Hard to do contact tracing if you don't know who has it though.
If there was much attention paid to widespread testing, to identify who has it, or who had it and is (probably) immune, as there has been to masks & social distancing-this mess would be under control already! IBTL!
While true, there's not much the average person can do to get a test or make it more accessible whereas the average person can get a mask and practice social distancing. They're also starting up contract tracing too which should have been there at the beginning. Hard to do contact tracing if you don't know who has it though.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8249973/States-fastest-spreading-COVID-19-cases-Data.html
^ Lotsa cool charts to ponder over.
An infection rate under 1.00 means it's under control, over means it's not.
Getting people who don't want to wear masks to do so anyway may be just the aggregate action needed to tip things under 1.00.
^ Lotsa cool charts to ponder over.
An infection rate under 1.00 means it's under control, over means it's not.
Getting people who don't want to wear masks to do so anyway may be just the aggregate action needed to tip things under 1.00.
food for thought:
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-per...utm_term=0_8d0d062dbd-16227c1111-2890801
some excerpts:
Quote
...in response to the stream of misinformation and misunderstanding about the nature and role of masks and respirators as source control or personal protective equipment (PPE), we critically review the topic to inform ongoing COVID-19 decision-making that relies on science-based data and professional expertise....
...Sweeping mask recommendations—as many have proposed—will not reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission, as evidenced by the widespread practice of wearing such masks in Hubei province, China, before and during its mass COVID-19 transmission experience earlier this year. Our review of relevant studies indicates that cloth masks will be ineffective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, whether worn as source control or as PPE.
Surgical masks likely have some utility as source control (meaning the wearer limits virus dispersal to another person) from a symptomatic patient in a healthcare setting to stop the spread of large cough particles and limit the lateral dispersion of cough particles. They may also have very limited utility as source control or PPE in households....
...These recommendations are based on a review of available literature and informed by professional expertise and consultation. We outline our review criteria, summarize the literature that best addresses these criteria, and describe some activities the public can do to help "flatten the curve" and to protect frontline workers and the general public.
...Cloth Masks as Source Control
A historical overview of cloth masks notes their use in US healthcare settings starting in the late 1800s, first as source control on patients and nurses and later as PPE by nurses.20
Kellogg,21 seeking a reason for the failure of cloth masks required for the public in stopping the 1918 influenza pandemic, found that the number of cloth layers needed to achieve acceptable efficiency made them difficult to breathe through and caused leakage around the mask. We found no well-designed studies of cloth masks as source control in household or healthcare settings.
In sum, given the paucity of information about their performance as source control in real-world settings, along with the extremely low efficiency of cloth masks as filters and their poor fit, there is no evidence to support their use by the public or healthcare workers to control the emission of particles from the wearer....
...Surgical Masks as Source Control
Household studies find very limited effectiveness of surgical masks at reducing respiratory illness in other household members.22-25
Clinical trials in the surgery theater have found no difference in wound infection rates with and without surgical masks.26-29 Despite these findings, it has been difficult for surgeons to give up a long-standing practice.30
There is evidence from laboratory studies with coughing infectious subjects that surgical masks are effective at preventing emission of large particles31-34 and minimizing lateral dispersion of cough particles, but with simultaneous displacement of aerosol emission upward and downward from the mask.35
There is some evidence that surgical masks can be effective at reducing overall particle emission from patients who have multidrug-resistant tuberculosis,36 cystic fibrosis,34 and influenza.33 The latter found surgical masks decreased emission of large particles (larger than 5 µm) by 25-fold and small particles by threefold from flu-infected patients.33 Sung37 found a 43% reduction in respiratory viral infections in stem-cell patients when everyone, including patients, visitors, and healthcare workers, wore surgical masks.
In sum, wearing surgical masks in households appears to have very little impact on transmission of respiratory disease. One possible reason may be that masks are not likely worn continuously in households. These data suggest that surgical masks worn by the public will have no or very low impact on disease transmission during a pandemic.
There is no evidence that surgical masks worn by healthcare workers are effective at limiting the emission of small particles or in preventing contamination of wounds during surgery.
There is moderate evidence that surgical masks worn by patients in healthcare settings can lower the emission of large particles generated during coughing and limited evidence that small particle emission may also be reduced...
...Conclusions
While this is not an exhaustive review of masks and respirators as source control and PPE, we made our best effort to locate and review the most relevant studies of laboratory and real-world performance to inform our recommendations. Results from laboratory studies of filter and fit performance inform and support the findings in real-world settings.
Cloth masks are ineffective as source control and PPE, surgical masks have some role to play in preventing emissions from infected patients, and respirators are the best choice for protecting healthcare and other frontline workers, but not recommended for source control. These recommendations apply to pandemic and non-pandemic situations...
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-per...utm_term=0_8d0d062dbd-16227c1111-2890801
some excerpts:
Quote
...in response to the stream of misinformation and misunderstanding about the nature and role of masks and respirators as source control or personal protective equipment (PPE), we critically review the topic to inform ongoing COVID-19 decision-making that relies on science-based data and professional expertise....
...Sweeping mask recommendations—as many have proposed—will not reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission, as evidenced by the widespread practice of wearing such masks in Hubei province, China, before and during its mass COVID-19 transmission experience earlier this year. Our review of relevant studies indicates that cloth masks will be ineffective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, whether worn as source control or as PPE.
Surgical masks likely have some utility as source control (meaning the wearer limits virus dispersal to another person) from a symptomatic patient in a healthcare setting to stop the spread of large cough particles and limit the lateral dispersion of cough particles. They may also have very limited utility as source control or PPE in households....
...These recommendations are based on a review of available literature and informed by professional expertise and consultation. We outline our review criteria, summarize the literature that best addresses these criteria, and describe some activities the public can do to help "flatten the curve" and to protect frontline workers and the general public.
...Cloth Masks as Source Control
A historical overview of cloth masks notes their use in US healthcare settings starting in the late 1800s, first as source control on patients and nurses and later as PPE by nurses.20
Kellogg,21 seeking a reason for the failure of cloth masks required for the public in stopping the 1918 influenza pandemic, found that the number of cloth layers needed to achieve acceptable efficiency made them difficult to breathe through and caused leakage around the mask. We found no well-designed studies of cloth masks as source control in household or healthcare settings.
In sum, given the paucity of information about their performance as source control in real-world settings, along with the extremely low efficiency of cloth masks as filters and their poor fit, there is no evidence to support their use by the public or healthcare workers to control the emission of particles from the wearer....
...Surgical Masks as Source Control
Household studies find very limited effectiveness of surgical masks at reducing respiratory illness in other household members.22-25
Clinical trials in the surgery theater have found no difference in wound infection rates with and without surgical masks.26-29 Despite these findings, it has been difficult for surgeons to give up a long-standing practice.30
There is evidence from laboratory studies with coughing infectious subjects that surgical masks are effective at preventing emission of large particles31-34 and minimizing lateral dispersion of cough particles, but with simultaneous displacement of aerosol emission upward and downward from the mask.35
There is some evidence that surgical masks can be effective at reducing overall particle emission from patients who have multidrug-resistant tuberculosis,36 cystic fibrosis,34 and influenza.33 The latter found surgical masks decreased emission of large particles (larger than 5 µm) by 25-fold and small particles by threefold from flu-infected patients.33 Sung37 found a 43% reduction in respiratory viral infections in stem-cell patients when everyone, including patients, visitors, and healthcare workers, wore surgical masks.
In sum, wearing surgical masks in households appears to have very little impact on transmission of respiratory disease. One possible reason may be that masks are not likely worn continuously in households. These data suggest that surgical masks worn by the public will have no or very low impact on disease transmission during a pandemic.
There is no evidence that surgical masks worn by healthcare workers are effective at limiting the emission of small particles or in preventing contamination of wounds during surgery.
There is moderate evidence that surgical masks worn by patients in healthcare settings can lower the emission of large particles generated during coughing and limited evidence that small particle emission may also be reduced...
...Conclusions
While this is not an exhaustive review of masks and respirators as source control and PPE, we made our best effort to locate and review the most relevant studies of laboratory and real-world performance to inform our recommendations. Results from laboratory studies of filter and fit performance inform and support the findings in real-world settings.
Cloth masks are ineffective as source control and PPE, surgical masks have some role to play in preventing emissions from infected patients, and respirators are the best choice for protecting healthcare and other frontline workers, but not recommended for source control. These recommendations apply to pandemic and non-pandemic situations...
Last edited:
A million bottles of beer on the wall....a million bottles of beer.....
- Status
