Poll: Masks and Face Shields

[Ken]

Fascinating and detailed study of mask use in the US by location. Click through to see the dynamic maps of the US as I can't hot-link them here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... k-map.html

[Ernie]

I think mandating a future for humans where they can't see each other's faces in public is completely ridiculous. Think about the effects of that long term.

Do your thoughts also apply to humans wearing clear shields or masks with clear material over the mouth?

[Josh]

I think mandating a future for humans where they can't see each other's faces in public is completely ridiculous. Think about the effects of that long term.

Do your thoughts also apply to humans wearing clear shields or masks with clear material over the mouth?

It’s been made rather clear that cloth coverings are required and plastic face shields aren’t acceptable. (At least in California)

[Fidelio]

Further, if they say my breathing can give someone corona if I carry it, then why to test for corona, do they have ram a swab halfway into someone's head via the nasal cavity to get a sample to see if they test positive? Shouldn't one be able to simply breathe or cough onto the swab?

There is way too much about this that just does not make sense.

Right, they have to jam a swab that far back, yet California claims normal singing in church will spread the disease. Hmm.

Meanwhile, these tests have inaccuracy rates around 45%.

When you sneeze or cough or sing, where do you think the air you exhale comes from? From under your tongue or deeper inside your respiratory system?

And yes, you could theoretically obtain a positive sample by coughing on a swab. But if you want to avoid more false-negatives you need to take the sample from the location where you will most likely find the highest concentrations of virus. Which is deeper inside your respiratory system. Unless you are happy with a testing regime that has closer to say 90% false negatives. Or maybe 99% false negatives. The tests are designed for maximum accuracy which requires taking a sample from the sampling location with the highest concentration of virus. Since you can't swab down into the Alveoli deep inside the lungs, going deep into the nasal cavity is the next best thing.

Also remember that the quantity of virus needed to start an infection is only one individual virus. While the quantity needed to obtain a positive test is potentially many millions as the tests need to detect the virus RNA and a single virus would be undetectable. You need enough virus RNA to trigger a positive result in the testing reagent.

You make a good case for the testing protocol, but it also makes a good case that transmission from coughs and sneeses, or breathing or singing is pretty low (perhaps 10% or even 1%). Combine that with whether a person is even infected, so some fraction of that. It does not look like singing is a concern. So it seems to be about as virulent as the average bad flu season, at worst.

[Josh]

There may be serious public health consequences, long term, to indefinite lockdowns, people being unable to see anyone else’s faces, and no school, no church, and no singing in church.

Such as record high murder rates this summer.

[Fidelio]

There may be serious public health consequences, long term, to indefinite lockdowns, people being unable to see anyone else’s faces, and no school, no church, and no singing in church.

Such as record high murder rates this summer.

According to FoxNews: "More than 600 doctors signed onto a letter sent to President Trump Tuesday pushing him to end the "national shutdown" aimed at slowing the spread of the coronavirus, calling the widespread state orders keeping businesses closed and kids home from school a "mass casualty incident" with "exponentially growing health consequences.""

Read the letter here (2 pages plus 8 pages of signatures):

[Ken]

Right, they have to jam a swab that far back, yet California claims normal singing in church will spread the disease. Hmm.

Meanwhile, these tests have inaccuracy rates around 45%.

When you sneeze or cough or sing, where do you think the air you exhale comes from? From under your tongue or deeper inside your respiratory system?

And yes, you could theoretically obtain a positive sample by coughing on a swab. But if you want to avoid more false-negatives you need to take the sample from the location where you will most likely find the highest concentrations of virus. Which is deeper inside your respiratory system. Unless you are happy with a testing regime that has closer to say 90% false negatives. Or maybe 99% false negatives. The tests are designed for maximum accuracy which requires taking a sample from the sampling location with the highest concentration of virus. Since you can't swab down into the Alveoli deep inside the lungs, going deep into the nasal cavity is the next best thing.

Also remember that the quantity of virus needed to start an infection is only one individual virus. While the quantity needed to obtain a positive test is potentially many millions as the tests need to detect the virus RNA and a single virus would be undetectable. You need enough virus RNA to trigger a positive result in the testing reagent.

You make a good case for the testing protocol, but it also makes a good case that transmission from coughs and sneeses, or breathing or singing is pretty low (perhaps 10% or even 1%). Combine that with whether a person is even infected, so some fraction of that. It does not look like singing is a concern. So it seems to be about as virulent as the average bad flu season, at worst.

We are learning more and more about transmission of the virus as time goes by. When the pandemic started there was huge focus on contaminated surfaces. Everything in sight was being sterilized, people were going through hand sanitizer like water. Now most of the evidence is pointing more towards airborne droplets. It doesn't spread to hundreds inside a meat packing plant because they are all touching the same dirty surface or didn't wash their hands. It spreads in the air. And it seems there are also "super-spreaders" who are especially contagious individuals who for whatever reason are especially contagious.

I know I'm changing my behavior as a result, both consciously and unconsciously. I'm less obsessed with hand sanitizer than I was 3 months ago but I'm more cautious about getting close to people I don't know. Especially if they are maskless.

[Josh]

Spreading fear of people we don’t know isn’t healthy for society. Haven’t we been hearing from the liberals on this forum about how bad it is to be afraid of the “other”?

[Robert]

4. I only wear a mask or shield if I think the folks inside the store want me to.

4a. I wear a mask or shield in stores where the practice is required, even if not enforced by law.

6. I have a "medical condition" so I don't wear a mask.

I've seen recent social media posts by well-known Mennos whose ministry gives them a wide audience, suggesting that people exercise a medical exemption, apparently based on nothing more than the argument "well duh, of course masks restrict breathing." This seems deceitful to me. If someone has tried wearing a mask and experiences genuine side effects, or if medical professionals advise them not to based on their condition and medical history, that's certainly legit. But simply not wanting to and using the medical exemption as a loophole (and after all, it's illegal to ask about the details) is not the right approach.

Pretty much where I am at. I am no going against local guidelines and respect the requirements of the stores I shop. Doesn't mean I like it or fully agree, but I accept the requirements and move on. The people working n stores are just going by company guidelines. No sense making their jobs harder. I am not working there all day having to wear one. I can deal with it and try to be polite and kind to all workers. I know they are suffering much more than me.

[Wade]

4. I only wear a mask or shield if I think the folks inside the store want me to.

4a. I wear a mask or shield in stores where the practice is required, even if not enforced by law.

6. I have a "medical condition" so I don't wear a mask.

I've seen recent social media posts by well-known Mennos whose ministry gives them a wide audience, suggesting that people exercise a medical exemption, apparently based on nothing more than the argument "well duh, of course masks restrict breathing." This seems deceitful to me. If someone has tried wearing a mask and experiences genuine side effects, or if medical professionals advise them not to based on their condition and medical history, that's certainly legit. But simply not wanting to and using the medical exemption as a loophole (and after all, it's illegal to ask about the details) is not the right approach.

Agreed it is not the right approach.

The first person I ever met that was Mennonite decent when I was first seeking and hadn't met any Menno's yet, said he had Mennonite cousins and sometimes they connected through Facebook... I looked at him, "Mennonites with Facebook?"
He laughed and said, "Yeah, I guess they aren't real Mennonites."
It is still hard for me come terms with otherwise since pretty well all the Facebook stuff I hear from "Mennonites," is off...