Statistical data vs emotion -

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Because the data that says it will help get us back to normal is incomplete and wearing a mask is not returning to normalcy, it's a deviation from it to the absurd.  

 

And, in this country, we have a stubborn streak of enjoying freedom in the face of tyranny. 

Wearing a mask for a while is not tyranny.  Normalcy may look different for a while until we get treatments, vaccines, etc.  

[Boatdrinks]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Restaurants and movie theatres? How about flying on airlines? Not sure people would even come back. Schools? Sporting events? 

If Lord Cuomo said it was okay, I’d go to a restaurant or sporting event tomorrow. I’ll get on a flight as soon as restrictions are lifted for travel to my favorite vacation Island . If there is more space between seats and more expensive tickets that’s fine. Not big on movie theaters, but I never have been. Couple times a year proposition for me, but others feel differently. Schools are probably okay now, but shelve it until the fall if they want to. 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

Wearing a mask for a while is not tyranny.  Normalcy may look different for a while until we get treatments, vaccines, etc.  

 

Forcing people to wear masks when the data is incomplete is tyranny by any definition. 

 

Freedom isn't risk free. It never is and never will be.

[Boatdrinks]

Just now, oldmanfan said:

Wearing a mask for a while is not tyranny.  Normalcy may look different for a while until we get treatments, vaccines, etc.  

It is to me,  and I wear a covering now only in protest. Face covering( not a mask) with various messages - I have a few of them. Also either a Trump hat or a **** Cuomo hat. Freedoms / rights should never be surrendered lightly imo. 

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Why not a burka?  I always want my government mandating what I need to wear to go out in public.

 

 

1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Why not a burka?  I always want my government mandating what I need to wear to go out in public.

 

A mask helps you not transmit the virus, and helps you be safe from others transmitting the virus to you.  I would rather our citizens use their head and help each other out, but in my rare forays out into public it is clear some folks don’t want to do so.  So governors at some point in the interest of public health may have to make a difficult call to balance opening up our communities in a way that is safe.  As I said above the legality of that would have to be addressed.

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

 

A mask helps you not transmit the virus, and helps you be safe from others transmitting the virus to you.  I would rather our citizens use their head and help each other out, but in my rare forays out into public it is clear some folks don’t want to do so.  So governors at some point in the interest of public health may have to make a difficult call to balance opening up our communities in a way that is safe.  As I said above the legality of that would have to be addressed.

 

Making recommendations is fine. Forcing the issue through fiat, when the data is incomplete, is tyrannical. 

[oldmanfan]

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Forcing people to wear masks when the data is incomplete is tyranny by any definition. 

 

Freedom isn't risk free. It never is and never will be.

I would much rather the public use our collective heads and help each other out.

 

So let’s say you are an asymptomatic carrier (which you could be).  You go out without a mask, transmit to someone.  Say it’s a 79 year old who then dies.  Or a 25  year old who develops a clotting disorder and loses a leg. Are you saying that your rights trample their health? 

[Boatdrinks]

Just now, oldmanfan said:

I would much rather the public use our collective heads and help each other out.

 

So let’s say you are an asymptomatic carrier (which you could be).  You go out without a mask, transmit to someone.  Say it’s a 79 year old who then dies.  Or a 25  year old who develops a clotting disorder and loses a leg. Are you saying that your rights trample their health? 

Dangerous territory. Simply existing in an area should not be considered an act of intent vs someone else’s health. Individual rights stand above all. No one has a right to perfect health. Vagaries of nature exist. Someone can get influenza and die; they certainly got it from someone else. Again not saying this is influenza, but the idea is the same. We must take ultimate responsibility for our own health, even if that means avoiding certain situations for some people. 

[Big Gun]

3 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

 

A mask helps you not transmit the virus, and helps you be safe from others transmitting the virus to you.  I would rather our citizens use their head and help each other out, but in my rare forays out into public it is clear some folks don’t want to do so.  So governors at some point in the interest of public health may have to make a difficult call to balance opening up our communities in a way that is safe.  As I said above the legality of that would have to be addressed.

Governors need to open their economies, if a business owner isn't comfortable with the current state of events they do not need to open. Civilians do not need to leave their house or leave their house without a mask if they so choose not to. It's all about freedom of choice, but keeping everything locked down is hurting more than it's helping and the numbers back that up. 

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I would much rather the public use our collective heads and help each other out.

 

So let’s say you are an asymptomatic carrier (which you could be).  You go out without a mask, transmit to someone.  Say it’s a 79 year old who then dies.  Or a 25  year old who develops a clotting disorder and loses a leg. Are you saying that your rights trample their health? 

 

You've shifted your position. I have no problem with people doing what they feel is right. I have a big problem with the government mandating something when the data used to make that declaration is specious and/or incomplete. 

 

I'm immunosuppressed despite not having any other risk factors of age or health. I'm responsible for my own health, no one else. Thus, I take it seriously, and have/am continuing to follow the most stringent guidelines. But it's my choice to do so as a free person. I don't begrudge someone for making their own choices. Hence my point about tyranny vs freedom. Freedom is hard. It's not easy. And I'm not a fan of giving up fundamental rights and liberties just because my government is telling me to be afraid of something. 

 

That NEVER works out well for the people in the long run. Ever. 

[Taro T]

4 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

A mask helps you not transmit the virus, and helps you be safe from others transmitting the virus to you.  I would rather our citizens use their head and help each other out, but in my rare forays out into public it is clear some folks don’t want to do so.  So governors at some point in the interest of public health may have to make a difficult call to balance opening up our communities in a way that is safe.  As I said above the legality of that would have to be addressed.

 

A N95 mask properly fitted and worn DOES help prevent the spread of the virus from you to the surrounding population.  Few in the general public have access to masks of that quality.

 

A cloth bandana strung across ones face like a 19th century train robber might reduce the velocity with which the virus expels from you but doesn't keep it out of the air.  It provides minimal reduction of transmission at best and at worst creates a false sense of security for those around the wearer.  THAT is what most places are considering effective masks.  Just because they're effectively ineffective is no reason not to wear them though, right?

[Boatdrinks]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You've shifted your position. I have no problem with people doing what they feel is right. I have a big problem with the government mandating something when the data used to make that declaration is specious and/or incomplete. 

 

I'm immunosuppressed despite not having any other risk factors of age or health. I'm responsible for my own health, no one else. Thus, I take it seriously, and have/am continuing to follow the most stringent guidelines. But it's my choice to do so as a free person. I don't begrudge someone for making their own choices. Hence my point about tyranny vs freedom. Freedom is hard. It's not easy. And I'm not a fan of giving up fundamental rights and liberties just because my government is telling me to be afraid of something. 

 

That NEVER works out well for the people in the long run. Ever. 

I agree steadfastly with your position. I also wish you the best of health and good fortune. 

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, Boatdrinks said:

Dangerous territory. Simply existing in an area should not be considered an act of intent vs someone else’s health. Individual rights stand above all. No one has a right to perfect health. Vagaries of nature exist. Someone can get influenza and die; they certainly got it from someone else. Again not saying this is influenza, but the idea is the same. We must take ultimate responsibility for our own health, even if that means avoiding certain situations for some people. 

Dangerous to be sure and I don’t bring it up lightly.  To me if we want our entire society to get back to normal (and again normal may look different for a while) we need arrangements that help get everyone back out there.  If we all join hands and wear masks I think that would be a key step.

 

I have patients desperate to start families I can’t see right now.  I have a daughter whose senior year in high school is ruined and doesn’t know if she will be able to start college, an older daughter who is laid off and worried if her job will be there.  We all have similar experiences.  Is it too much to ask of us as a public to unite and do some things for now that we may not like that much but that would benefit society as a whole?  I don’t like wearing a mask in public but it helps my neighbor.

[SoCal Deek]

10 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I would much rather the public use our collective heads and help each other out.

 

So let’s say you are an asymptomatic carrier (which you could be).  You go out without a mask, transmit to someone.  Say it’s a 79 year old who then dies.  Or a 25  year old who develops a clotting disorder and loses a leg. Are you saying that your rights trample their health? 

And there’s the point. Old people and those who have underlying health issues of any significance need to be careful. It’s not unlike the AIDS epidemic was. We didn’t lock down all of America for that, and there’s still no vaccine even today.

[oldmanfan]

3 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

A N95 mask properly fitted and worn DOES help prevent the spread of the virus from you to the surrounding population.  Few in the general public have access to masks of that quality.

 

A cloth bandana strung across ones face like a 19th century train robber might reduce the velocity with which the virus expels from you but doesn't keep it out of the air.  It provides minimal reduction of transmission at best and at worst creates a false sense of security for those around the wearer.  THAT is what most places are considering effective masks.  Just because they're effectively ineffective is no reason not to wear them though, right?

The cloth masks are imperfect true.  But my understanding is they would reduce aerosol transmission from you to another.

[Boatdrinks]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

Dangerous to be sure and I don’t bring it up lightly.  To me if we want our entire society to get back to normal (and again normal may look different for a while) we need arrangements that help get everyone back out there.  If we all join hands and wear masks I think that would be a key step.

 

I have patients desperate to start families I can’t see right now.  I have a daughter whose senior year in high school is ruined and doesn’t know if she will be able to start college, an older daughter who is laid off and worried if her job will be there.  We all have similar experiences.  Is it too much to ask of us as a public to unite and do some things for now that we may not like that much but that would benefit society as a whole?  I don’t like wearing a mask in public but it helps my neighbor.

If it’s an ask and not a requirement I’m all for it. I won’t begrudge anyone exercising their personal choice, whatever that is. 

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Is it too much to ask of us as a public to unite and do some things for now that we may not like that much but that would benefit society as a whole?

 

It might be if the data isn't complete or accurate. Making decisions based in fear is how more people end up dead or a bad problem gets much worse. 

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

And there’s the point. Old people and those who have underlying health issues of any significance need to be careful. It’s not unlike the AIDS epidemic was. We didn’t lock down all of America for that, and there’s still no vaccine even today.

With HIV it was fairly quickly determined the virus was predominantly in the gay population and the transmission by sexual contact or contaminated needles/blood.  Coronavirus in comparison is spread more Asoka and in a much larger population.

[Boatdrinks]

2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

And there’s the point. Old people and those who have underlying health issues of any significance need to be careful. It’s not unlike the AIDS epidemic was. We didn’t lock down all of America for that, and there’s still no vaccine even today.

While that’s not spread casually ( as we know) I agree. Polio has been brought up in some threads. I wasn’t around during the time of Polio , but I’m pretty certain there were sporting events, restaurants, bars etc. Current generations have largely been shielded from infectious illnesses, and that seems to have led to mindless panic and governmental overreach in some places. 

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

It might be if the data isn't complete or accurate. Making decisions based in fear is how more people end up dead or a bad problem gets much worse. 

I would argue that the social distancing policies that the public health authorities have recommended have been the most significant reason we have only 50k deaths vs.  many more.  I think the public health experts would tell you that.