Is Abbott lifting the state wide mask mandate today?

66,549 Views | 703 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by Captain Pablo
t - cam
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cecil77 • 11:10a, 3/4/21
AG
cecil77 said:
Quote:

"Should you wear a mask? The answer is absolutely yes," Hellerstedt said.

This is absolutely unsupported by decades of peer reviewedscientific research and unconfirmed by worldwide data analyses.

My POV is that masking is one of the biggest frauds ever perpetuated upon society.


Ok, no need to keep banging your head against the wall. Some, as in most, dr.s recommend it. That's good enough for most people. If you are right you will soon be free to choose, as will those who feel they should continue to protect themselves. I'm not sure why you think you need to convince everyone.

Reply Quote
4
Fitch
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Keegan99 • 11:16a, 3/4/21
AG
Keegan99 said:
Plenty disagree. And the consensus as late as January 2020 was that masks are ineffective.

And now that consensus has changed, yet no one can provide evidence that they're effective. We have countless real-world experiments over the last year, and there is no clear-cut evidence that they work. There is plenty of evidence that they don't.

It was to the point that the "scientific community" made tremendous efforts to prevent the publication of the Danish mask study. Why? Because the results did not support mask usage. (So much for the unbiased pursuit of truth,eh? Just fight to silence the research that has outcomes you don't like...)

Then after publication, the LA Times say down, figured out how to spin it, and ran with this freight train of propaganda.

If you would like to go through the effort of spending an afternoon posting various medical journals results pointing to your opinion on the matter, please feel free.
Reply Quote
5
AgsMyDude
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Keegan99 • 11:20a, 3/4/21
AG
Keegan99 said:
So, like I said, he consulted with health officials. Thanks for the confirmation.


To be fair, it was just one health official


Quote:
the governor consulted only one of his four COVID health advisers

Reply Quote
3
Capitol Ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Keegan99 • 11:21a, 3/4/21
AG
Keegan99 said:
Plenty disagree. And the consensus as late as January 2020 was that masks are ineffective.

And now that consensus has changed, yet no one can provide evidence that they're effective. We have countless real-world experiments over the last year, and there is no clear-cut evidence that they work. There is plenty of evidence that they don't.

It was to the point that the "scientific community" made tremendous efforts to prevent the publication of the Danish mask study. Why? Because the results did not support mask usage. (So much for the unbiased pursuit of truth,eh? Just fight to silence the research that has outcomes you don't like...)

Then after publication, the LA Times sat down, figured out how to spin it, and ran with this freight train of propaganda.

So what were these "results" that show we absolutely need a universal mask use? As in forever or just during Covid?
Reply Quote
Bucketrunner
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:24a, 3/4/21
I hope our local media is responsible and publishes a list of all local business who will not be requiring a mask. Those are the ones where I will spend my money, and then those who are still cowering can avoid them. Seems simple to me.
Reply Quote
4
PerpetualLurker
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bucketrunner • 11:37a, 3/4/21
DMN and FW ST published that.

Here in DFW, HEB (thought there can't be many here) and Albertsons/Tom Thumb will not require masks. Kroger, Target, Costco, and others still require it. Some haven't decided.

Would expect this would same in other TX metro areas, too.

You may go where they don't require them. I will go where they still require masks. In either case I hope everyone is respectful to other customers and to staff.

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/local-companies/2021/03/03/do-i-still-have-to-wear-a-mask-d-fw-stores-and-businesses-scramble-after-repeal-of-covid-19-restrictions/

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/coronavirus/article249656878.html
Reply Quote
2
cecil77
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Fitch • 11:39a, 3/4/21
AG
Nope. Look again. The actual, real research says otherwise and always has. Unless physics was completely different starting April 2020. Until that time masking of the general public was absolutely known and proven to be ineffective. It (and those "medical professionals" changed for non science reasons). And many, many did not change, but they are wise enough to only discuss it privately, as it is politically dangerous to do otherwise - although there's plenty out there even now showing that there's not real correlation showing masking of the general public doing net good.
Reply Quote
10
Bucketrunner
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PerpetualLurker • 11:42a, 3/4/21
Thanks! HEB it is. Looking forward to a list of restaurants
Reply Quote
2
Fitch
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cecil77 • 11:45a, 3/4/21
AG
Feel free to believe as you would prefer, but if you have access to the "decades of peer reviewed scientific research and [...] worldwide data analyses" I'd be interested in educating myself as it seems some have rather strong feelings on the subject.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Keegan99
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Fitch • 11:50a, 3/4/21
AG
Here is a paper from 2015 that indicates that - other than protecting from spatter - there is not even good evidence for surgical masks in operating rooms!

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4480558/


Quote:
What literature that is available on the subject tends to be dated with poorly explained methodology. There is also uncertainty over whether the results of such studies can be extrapolated to current surgical practice given the advent of new antiseptic techniques since they were completed. The evidence base investigating the effects of facemask usage on patient-based outcomes is, in general, more extensive than that of surgeon-centred outcomes. Facemasks do have a clear role in maintaining the social cleanliness of surgical staff, but evidence is lacking to suggest that they confer protection from infection either to patients or to the surgeons that wear them.

Reply Quote
5
1 edit
beerad12man
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Fitch • 11:54a, 3/4/21
AG
He's done it before. I wouldn't put it past him.

Either way, mask mandates do little for community spread unless the population is also going to social distance and wear them in private settings, where the vast majority(likely 90-95%) of the spread occurs. The 7 minute trip to HEB where you aren't even contact with an individual for more than 10-15 seconds, or that 22 second walk to your table in a restaurant only to take it off for the next 45 minutes. There's still zero data they help there, because logic says they don't help there. Why? Because the vast majority of spread comes when you are in an enclosed area with a contagious individual for extended periods of times. Ie, at least 10-15 minutes of exposure, and in most cases longer. That doesn't happen at HEB, it might at restaurants, but the little time you wear it makes no difference.

If you want to argue that a mask can potentially stop viral particles? Go for it. That's easy to show and of course Drs will say that much. I don't need a dr to let me in on that secret. We are talking real world, practicality accounting for human behavior.

The minimal to no benefit you get isn't worth a complete cultural change. Look, I've worn them for a year. Most of us have put up with it, but I've about hit my breaking point, and will certainly NEVER get on board with the few that suggests wearing them moving forward to help with flu and cold season.
Reply Quote
6
t - cam
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PerpetualLurker • 11:55a, 3/4/21
AG
PerpetualLurker said:
DMN and FW ST published that.

Here in DFW, HEB (thought there can't be many here) and Albertsons/Tom Thumb will not require masks. Kroger, Target, Costco, and others still require it. Some haven't decided.

Would expect this would same in other TX metro areas, too.

You may go where they don't require them. I will go where they still require masks. In either case I hope everyone is respectful to other customers and to staff.

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/local-companies/2021/03/03/do-i-still-have-to-wear-a-mask-d-fw-stores-and-businesses-scramble-after-repeal-of-covid-19-restrictions/

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/coronavirus/article249656878.html


HEB is require them but acknowledged they won't be enforcing it rather than having an escalated situation.

Reply Quote
3
beerad12man
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:56a, 3/4/21
AG
If it were up to Drs and scientists, we'd probably mask up the rest of our lives just to be safe.

At some point, you have to live life the way you see fit. Sorry, I don't live through the recommendations of Drs and scientists on every decision I make.
Reply Quote
9
cecil77
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Fitch • 11:57a, 3/4/21
AG
The original April 2020 New England Journal of Medicine literature review was comprehensive and concluded that making health care workers "feel better" was the only benefit. I can't find it online anymore. They modified it to soften their stance throughout the summer.

This link is a dicey source, but they link to good sources.

https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/?fbclid=IwAR0KVtsT7DyGKVzNFTEQyvlPVnTf6yyrHBvzXyxeHPo1-vOWlRRFLygcNW4

There's a ton more....

It's not masking, rather closing society of which masking is a part, but if you've not read the Great Barrington Declaration it's worth the time.

https://gbdeclaration.org/

Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Agthatbuilds
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to t - cam • 11:58a, 3/4/21
They arent requiring them. They are urging them.

And requiring something without threat of enforcement is requiring nothing.
Reply Quote
10
Fitch
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to beerad12man • 12:02p, 3/4/21
AG
Yes, your employer requiring them to be worn all day in a spaced out office setting sounded like a significant overstep.
Reply Quote
J. Walter Weatherman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Fitch • 12:32p, 3/4/21
Fitch said:
Keegan99 said:
Plenty disagree. And the consensus as late as January 2020 was that masks are ineffective.

And now that consensus has changed, yet no one can provide evidence that they're effective. We have countless real-world experiments over the last year, and there is no clear-cut evidence that they work. There is plenty of evidence that they don't.

It was to the point that the "scientific community" made tremendous efforts to prevent the publication of the Danish mask study. Why? Because the results did not support mask usage. (So much for the unbiased pursuit of truth,eh? Just fight to silence the research that has outcomes you don't like...)

Then after publication, the LA Times say down, figured out how to spin it, and ran with this freight train of propaganda.

If you would like to go through the effort of spending an afternoon posting various medical journals results pointing to your opinion on the matter, please feel free.


Whether or not masks work on an individual basis is basically irrelevant from a policy standpoint. The broader data shows that no mitigation efforts governments took actually impacted the spread. The only steps that ever should have been taken include temporary restrictions on large indoor events and isolating nursing homes, and older populations as much as possible. Everything else was pointless theater.
Reply Quote
15
1 edit
agsalaska
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to J. Walter Weatherman • 12:43p, 3/4/21
AG
J. Walter Weatherman said:
Fitch said:
Keegan99 said:
Plenty disagree. And the consensus as late as January 2020 was that masks are ineffective.

And now that consensus has changed, yet no one can provide evidence that they're effective. We have countless real-world experiments over the last year, and there is no clear-cut evidence that they work. There is plenty of evidence that they don't.

It was to the point that the "scientific community" made tremendous efforts to prevent the publication of the Danish mask study. Why? Because the results did not support mask usage. (So much for the unbiased pursuit of truth,eh? Just fight to silence the research that has outcomes you don't like...)

Then after publication, the LA Times say down, figured out how to spin it, and ran with this freight train of propaganda.

If you would like to go through the effort of spending an afternoon posting various medical journals results pointing to your opinion on the matter, please feel free.


Whether or not masks work on an individual basis is basically irrelevant from a policy standpoint. The broader data shows that no mitigation efforts governments took actually impacted the spread. The only steps that ever should have been taken include temporary restrictions on large indoor events and isolating nursing homes, and older populations as much as possible. Everything else was pointless theater.
DING DING DING!!

There is a plethora(been wanting to use that word all day) of data showing it doesnt work. Its all over the place. The number of comparables across the country and the world are endless.

I think some people have a hard time understanding the difference between lab controlled environments and real world policy applications.

Do masks work in a controlled environment? according to my doc they do. Do they work as a policy across the country? Absolutely 100% obvious without a doubt no. If you still believe they work as a policy you are just ignoring reality.

Reply Quote
6
aTm2004
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to t - cam • 12:47p, 3/4/21
AG
t - cam said:
cecil77 said:
Quote:

"Should you wear a mask? The answer is absolutely yes," Hellerstedt said.

This is absolutely unsupported by decades of peer reviewedscientific research and unconfirmed by worldwide data analyses.

My POV is that masking is one of the biggest frauds ever perpetuated upon society.


Ok, no need to keep banging your head against the wall. Some, as in most, dr.s recommend it. That's good enough for most people. If you are right you will soon be free to choose, as will those who feel they should continue to protect themselves. I'm not sure why you think you need to convince everyone.
My SIL is a PA in the ED with a state that removed it's mask mandate before Texas, and she is happy she doesn't have to wear one outside of work.
Reply Quote
3
Fitch
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cecil77 • 12:56p, 3/4/21
AG
cecil77 said:
The original April 2020 New England Journal of Medicine literature review was comprehensive and concluded that making health care workers "feel better" was the only benefit. I can't find it online anymore. They modified it to soften their stance throughout the summer.

This link is a dicey source, but they link to good sources.

https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/?fbclid=IwAR0KVtsT7DyGKVzNFTEQyvlPVnTf6yyrHBvzXyxeHPo1-vOWlRRFLygcNW4

There's a ton more....

It's not masking, rather closing society of which masking is a part, but if you've not read the Great Barrington Declaration it's worth the time.

https://gbdeclaration.org/
Yes, I'm familiar with the GBD.

While I'm sure it came from a sincere place the underlying premise was always about controlling the disease proliferation, which as many have pointed out here and elsewhere, is a bit of wishful thinking. Nice to have if it aligns with one's world views but rather irrelevant if it's not practically implementable.
Reply Quote
1
Keegan99
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Fitch • 1:01p, 3/4/21
AG
It's absolutely implementable.

The key component - missed by most - was for young, healthy people to live normally and shorten the timeline of the pandemic.

Instead, we had everyone attempt to mitigate, lengthening the pandemic and increasing the burden on the vulnerable.
Reply Quote
11
BohunkAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jetch17 • 1:03p, 3/4/21
AG
jetch17 said:
TWO WEEKS TOO EARLY!
underrated comment
Reply Quote
2
cecil77
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Fitch • 1:16p, 3/4/21
AG
Quote:
the underlying premise was always about controlling the disease proliferation,

No! The premise was flatten the curve to ensure that everyone who needed medical care could get it.

The premise was NEVER supposed to be controlling the proliferation, indeed, at the outset it was "we're pretty much all going to get this and the vast majority of us will be fine".

Governments ONLY job was to ensure enough public information for individuals to make their choices.

It is chilling that a mayor or county judge can (and it's immoral IMO) declare that some people are "essential" and others aren't. And yes, that's precisely what they did, if you say that my livelihood - the way I shelter and house my family, i.e my life - isn't "essential" that is immorality of a high order.

And I'll add this, 500,000 deaths is specious. When the number of total deaths in the USA for 2020 is released, that's total humans that died for any reason or circumstance, the number isn't gonna be 500,000 more than 2019. Not even close. I'd bet money it's closer to 50,000, where a 20k increase per year would have been more normal. And when you look at the demographics of those deaths, as sad as any death is on a human basis, the societal impact will be negligible compared to the societal impacts of the "solution".
Reply Quote
15
1 edit
BohunkAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cecil77 • 1:22p, 3/4/21
AG
cecil77 said:
Are Face Masks Effective. The Evidence
I thought you had passed, sir.
Reply Quote
BohunkAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Marissa99 • 1:30p, 3/4/21
AG
Marissa99 said:
I'm with you on this. I truly feel like we're rounding the corner.

I actually would have been on board if Abbott had outlined a plan to re-open in line with guidance from health officials.
My problem with this (and I live with someone who has boots on the ground in this) is that the "health officials" that everyone has been listening to are administrators who haven't seen a patient in years. Paper pushers. Most of whom have an agenda. You aren't going to get good data from them. They want to keep their position....or tell whoever they are beholden to what they want to hear.

It is getting better (this isn't anecdotal), people are getting vaccinated, and at some point we are going to have to take this step. Some of these metrics people are pushing (positivity rate is one) are BS. It's been hashed and rehashed why. It's been a rough year for everyone. And for the most part, I think this is a good discussion.
Reply Quote
4
BohunkAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to barbacoa taco • 1:32p, 3/4/21
AG
larry culpepper said:
I am also concerned about the Karens who will come out of the woodwork and throw a hissy fit when asked to wear a mask at an establishment that still requires them. They'll probably berate those 17 year old employees to kingdom come in the name of muhhhh freeeeeeedomm
How in the world does that concern you? People need to stick to worrying about themselves and this would be a lot better world.
Reply Quote
14
agsalaska
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cecil77 • 1:52p, 3/4/21
AG
cecil77 said:
Quote:
the underlying premise was always about controlling the disease proliferation,

No! The premise was flatten the curve to ensure that everyone who needed medical care could get it.

The premise was NEVER supposed to be controlling the proliferation, indeed, at the outset it was "we're pretty much all going to get this and the vast majority of us will be fine".

Governments ONLY job was to ensure enough public information for individuals to make their choices.

It is chilling that a mayor or county judge can (and it's immoral IMO) declare that some people are "essential" and others aren't. And yes, that's precisely what they did, if you say that my livelihood - the way I shelter and house my family, i.e my life - isn't "essential" that is immorality of a high order.

And I'll add this, 500,000 deaths is specious. When the number of total deaths in the USA for 2020 is released, that's total humans that died for any reason or circumstance, the number isn't gonna be 500,000 more than 2019. Not even close. I'd bet money it's closer to 50,000, where a 20k increase per year would have been more normal. And when you look at the demographics of those deaths, as sad as any death is on a human basis, the societal impact will be negligible compared to the societal impacts of the "solution".
I think y'all are saying the same thing right there.
Reply Quote
Gilligan
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to agsalaska • 1:58p, 3/4/21
AG
agsalaska said:
cecil77 said:
Quote:
the underlying premise was always about controlling the disease proliferation,

No! The premise was flatten the curve to ensure that everyone who needed medical care could get it.

The premise was NEVER supposed to be controlling the proliferation, indeed, at the outset it was "we're pretty much all going to get this and the vast majority of us will be fine".

Governments ONLY job was to ensure enough public information for individuals to make their choices.

It is chilling that a mayor or county judge can (and it's immoral IMO) declare that some people are "essential" and others aren't. And yes, that's precisely what they did, if you say that my livelihood - the way I shelter and house my family, i.e my life - isn't "essential" that is immorality of a high order.

And I'll add this, 500,000 deaths is specious. When the number of total deaths in the USA for 2020 is released, that's total humans that died for any reason or circumstance, the number isn't gonna be 500,000 more than 2019. Not even close. I'd bet money it's closer to 50,000, where a 20k increase per year would have been more normal. And when you look at the demographics of those deaths, as sad as any death is on a human basis, the societal impact will be negligible compared to the societal impacts of the "solution".
I think y'all are saying the same thing right there.
There's eleven pages of the same thing so far. When will it end?
Reply Quote
2
Fitch
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cecil77 • 2:16p, 3/4/21
AG
cecil77 said:
Quote:
the underlying premise was always about controlling the disease proliferation,
No! The premise was flatten the curve to ensure that everyone who needed medical care could get it.

The premise was NEVER supposed to be controlling the proliferation, indeed, at the outset it was "we're pretty much all going to get this and the vast majority of us will be fine".

Governments ONLY job was to ensure enough public information for individuals to make their choices.

It is chilling that a mayor or county judge can (and it's immoral IMO) declare that some people are "essential" and others aren't. And yes, that's precisely what they did, if you say that my livelihood - the way I shelter and house my family, i.e my life - isn't "essential" that is immorality of a high order.

And I'll add this, 500,000 deaths is specious. When the number of total deaths in the USA for 2020 is released, that's total humans that died for any reason or circumstance, the number isn't gonna be 500,000 more than 2019. Not even close. I'd bet money it's closer to 50,000, where a 20k increase per year would have been more normal. And when you look at the demographics of those deaths, as sad as any death is on a human basis, the societal impact will be negligible compared to the societal impacts of the "solution".
I think you're mistaking what I said - the underlying concept of the GBD was about guiding disease proliferation into segments of the population who were less likely to die, while sheltering (somehow) the 30-50% of the population who were more likely to have a more severe course of disease...disregarding that course of action by itself would constitute a greater disenfranchisement of those individuals and, given human nature, likely result fewer people taking the measures meant to protect that population seriously and result in lower overall efficacy and higher mortality...

Moreover, the proposition was centered on an axiom that at-risk populations could be shuttered away for some period of time, but the fact remains no one definitively knows who will or won't have a severe course of disease (though there are now many guesses), and that it necessarily meant a higher count of severe disease or deaths in a different segment of the population, albeit not at the same rate as at the older ends of the population. So there again you have outside parties making decisions about people's livelihoods and health, but with a less "kum ba yah" spin.

If they had argued at the start that it would be better to have no protocols and let the disease burn through all of the population as fast as possible, acknowledging that would likely entail a short period of overburdened hospitals and mass causalities, that would have at least been genuine.

As for the case fatalities, well I have no comment. Believe what you will.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Omnipotent Bob
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:18p, 3/4/21
The problem with scientists is that when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Not only do they believe every problem can be fixed with science, their livelihoods depend on keeping people convinced that they can be. Not every problem can be fixed with science, particularly ones of human emotion and interaction. That's why even if the science is right and masks help prevent the virus, that's not the only concern. Human interaction and freedom is not a question for science.
Reply Quote
19
BohunkAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Omnipotent Bob • 2:20p, 3/4/21
AG
Omnipotent Bob said:
The problem with scientists is that when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Not only do they believe every problem can be fixed with science, their livelihoods depend on keeping people convinced that they can be. Not every problem can be fixed with science, particularly ones of human emotion and interaction. That's why even if the science is right and masks help prevent the virus, that's not the only concern. Human interaction and freedom is not a question for science.
Well said
Reply Quote
7
Keegan99
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Fitch • 2:29p, 3/4/21
AG

Quote:
constitute a greater disenfranchisement of those individuals

How would nursing home residents have been disenfranchised more than they have been?
Reply Quote
4
Fitch
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Keegan99 • 2:32p, 3/4/21
AG
Probably very little. But there again what % of the elevated risk population do they make up? I would hazard not a lot.
Reply Quote
agsalaska
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:36p, 3/4/21
AG
Can someone please post data showing that mask policies work. We have had 50 different states do 50 different things. Surely this has been studied at this point.

Thanks
Reply Quote
1
cecil77
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Fitch • 2:37p, 3/4/21
AG

Quote:
But there again what % of the elevated risk population do they make up? I would hazard not a lot.

Elevated risk of infection or elevated risk of consequences once infected?

OK rereading your post I understand. However I think it's more like 15-30% at elevated risk of consequences.
Reply Quote
1
2 edits
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.