Can anyone explain what the benefit can possibly be of wearing masks for a while, then making them optional for a couple of months, then making them mandatory again? I feel like if the correct masks, and correct mask protocol isn't used from the start, then this is utterly pointless.
Flip-flopping on mask mandates
3,809 Views |
35 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by TexasAggie008
Forget mask protocol....masks are essentially useless
Covid is sly and will get you when you least expect it.
Kinda like the robber hiding in the shadows; Covid plans it's attack.
Kinda like the robber hiding in the shadows; Covid plans it's attack.
If you are Elite, you don't need a mask. Just make sure that all the peasants around you are wearing a mask. This let's everyone know that you are Elite.
You know how sometimes the speed limit changes and decreases when you go into a city, and then goes back higher when you get out in the country?
Funny how that happens.
There are a lot of reasons to dispute and question mask mandates, but changing requirements based upon infection rates isn't one of them.
Funny how that happens.
There are a lot of reasons to dispute and question mask mandates, but changing requirements based upon infection rates isn't one of them.
Speed limits actually matter based on road characteristics. Masks are pointless theater. I hope that helps.
You can rationalize removing mask mandates when the COVID activity in the region is very low. The threshold when the benevolent dictators decide it is time to remask is not written in stone and varies from state to state.
Many of the mandate folks were using % positive in the past, where if > 5% of submitted test were positive then you can mask mandate. Here is the CDC website with a map with pretty blue colors. CDC COVID Data Tracker
I think % positive is a dumb metric especially when people are getting tested due to employee mandates or travel requirements and aren't even sick.
Anyway I'm against all mask mandates but that is the metric they are using. So if your % positive is < 5% you can walk around and cough on everyone, if it starts to climb you need a chin diaper.
Many of the mandate folks were using % positive in the past, where if > 5% of submitted test were positive then you can mask mandate. Here is the CDC website with a map with pretty blue colors. CDC COVID Data Tracker
I think % positive is a dumb metric especially when people are getting tested due to employee mandates or travel requirements and aren't even sick.
Anyway I'm against all mask mandates but that is the metric they are using. So if your % positive is < 5% you can walk around and cough on everyone, if it starts to climb you need a chin diaper.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Well none of that matters because masks don't work. You might as well have everyone wear yellow shoes.
Thanks for reading my entire post, Captain Condescension.GAC06 said:
Speed limits actually matter based on road characteristics. Masks are pointless theater. I hope that helps.
Like I said (and you ignored) there are a lot of reasons to dislike mask mandates, but the OPs reason isn't one of them.
Infection rates are a terrible reason, even if masks did anything. If they actually worked, something like hospital capacity would make sense. But they don't so it's pointless theater.
When the premise is flawed to begin with, yes it is.Aston94 said:
You know how sometimes the speed limit changes and decreases when you go into a city, and then goes back higher when you get out in the country?
Funny how that happens.
There are a lot of reasons to dispute and question mask mandates, but changing requirements based upon infection rates isn't one of them.
When you don't believe tee government has any authority to begin with on what people have to wear, be it masks, pants, shirt, anything, at a private business, yes it is. This is what makes the flip flopping unbearable. Because it gives credence to forever masking, and forever the potential for the mandate.
I'm just glad we are immune while eating. Because that would suck.
Conversely, if we weren't immune while eating then people would be afraid to eat which would lead to many people losing weight. Fat people are most at risk for COVID so if they lost weight then COVID impacts would fall dramatically, and we could move on.
So, maybe we should start a campaign that eating increases the likelihood of catching COVID so we can hasten it's demise?
Conversely, if we weren't immune while eating then people would be afraid to eat which would lead to many people losing weight. Fat people are most at risk for COVID so if they lost weight then COVID impacts would fall dramatically, and we could move on.
So, maybe we should start a campaign that eating increases the likelihood of catching COVID so we can hasten it's demise?
Randolph is SA reinstated all masks indoors for the 4th time since March 2020…I just stop going there…this time however the complaining was loud and everywhere (happened to get caught as they started it like at noon on Monday…before that we were all impervious to the capricious bug!)
If masks worked, why haven't they worked? If only they did.
Yup. Masking mandates opened Pandora's box unfortunately and it will be a LOOOONG while before we get that back closed again, if ever. Here in McKinney/Prosper/Frisco area, it still baffles me how many voluntarily wear the stupid things. If you are that worried, don't go out. Otherwise, outside of the very small number that actually might have a compromised immune system enough to wear one (and there just aren't enough of these people to force a policy at this point in time), there just is 0 reason to still be wearing masks.beerad12man said:When the premise is flawed to begin with, yes it is.Aston94 said:
You know how sometimes the speed limit changes and decreases when you go into a city, and then goes back higher when you get out in the country?
Funny how that happens.
There are a lot of reasons to dispute and question mask mandates, but changing requirements based upon infection rates isn't one of them.
When you don't believe tee government has any authority to begin with on what people have to wear, be it masks, pants, shirt, anything, at a private business, yes it is. This is what makes the flip flopping unbearable. Because it gives credence to forever masking, and forever the potential for the mandate.
Do you also think counties "flip flop" on burn bans depending on whether there's drought or not?
Or if you live in Houston, do you "flip flop" on hurricane preparedness by using up your stash of batteries and water in the winter and then buying fresh supplies in the Spring?
This is risk management 101. No one bothers to mitigate for risks that aren't likely to occur.
You can be mad at the government for a lot of things, but this isn't "flip flopping."
Or if you live in Houston, do you "flip flop" on hurricane preparedness by using up your stash of batteries and water in the winter and then buying fresh supplies in the Spring?
This is risk management 101. No one bothers to mitigate for risks that aren't likely to occur.
You can be mad at the government for a lot of things, but this isn't "flip flopping."
deadbq03 said:
Do you also think counties "flip flop" on burn bans depending on whether there's drought or not?
Or if you live in Houston, do you "flip flop" on hurricane preparedness by using up your stash of batteries and water in the winter and then buying fresh supplies in the Spring?
This is risk management 101. No one bothers to mitigate for risks that aren't likely to occur.
You can be mad at the government for a lot of things, but this isn't "flip flopping."
In this case however, mask mandates do nothing to stop the spread of covid. Flip flipping only serves to create distrust and doubt in govt edicts and policy.
I can somewhat get the changes. What doesn't make sense at all (well, masks don't make sense at all) is that in CA we never had a statewide mandate for Delta, but now we have one for Omicron.
I disagree. If you think masks don't work, you should be mad at your government officials for thinking they do work.Agthatbuilds said:deadbq03 said:
Do you also think counties "flip flop" on burn bans depending on whether there's drought or not?
Or if you live in Houston, do you "flip flop" on hurricane preparedness by using up your stash of batteries and water in the winter and then buying fresh supplies in the Spring?
This is risk management 101. No one bothers to mitigate for risks that aren't likely to occur.
You can be mad at the government for a lot of things, but this isn't "flip flopping."
In this case however, mask mandates do nothing to stop the spread of covid. Flip flipping only serves to create distrust and doubt in govt edicts and policy.
But if your officials think they work (or if they're pandering to a populace that does), it's highly logical for them to reinstate them when the risk is high and let them go when the risk is low.
deadbq03 said:
Do you also think counties "flip flop" on burn bans depending on whether there's drought or not?
Or if you live in Houston, do you "flip flop" on hurricane preparedness by using up your stash of batteries and water in the winter and then buying fresh supplies in the Spring?
This is risk management 101. No one bothers to mitigate for risks that aren't likely to occur.
You can be mad at the government for a lot of things, but this isn't "flip flopping."
But there just isn't a need to mask. Or better put, there isn't a need to mandate masks. So there is that. So how is this quality risk management?
Also, hurricanes and fires are real threats. Covid isn't at this point to the vast majority of society.
deadbq03 said:I disagree. If you think masks don't work, you should be mad at your government officials for thinking they do work.Agthatbuilds said:deadbq03 said:
Do you also think counties "flip flop" on burn bans depending on whether there's drought or not?
Or if you live in Houston, do you "flip flop" on hurricane preparedness by using up your stash of batteries and water in the winter and then buying fresh supplies in the Spring?
This is risk management 101. No one bothers to mitigate for risks that aren't likely to occur.
You can be mad at the government for a lot of things, but this isn't "flip flopping."
In this case however, mask mandates do nothing to stop the spread of covid. Flip flipping only serves to create distrust and doubt in govt edicts and policy.
But if your officials think they work (or if they're pandering to a populace that does), it's highly logical for them to reinstate them when the risk is high and let them go when the risk is low.
Most of the current masking policies are based on politics, nothing more.
Y'all are debating things that are outside the issue posed by the OP.
Whether the risk is real or not is a different debate.
Whether masking is an effective mitigation or not is a different debate.
If government officials perceive the threat is real and that masks work, it is appropriate for them to turn masking on when the risk appears higher (through facts, fear, or both) and turn masking off when it appears lower.
Whether the risk is real or not is a different debate.
Whether masking is an effective mitigation or not is a different debate.
If government officials perceive the threat is real and that masks work, it is appropriate for them to turn masking on when the risk appears higher (through facts, fear, or both) and turn masking off when it appears lower.
Appropriate? I'd argue no. I get what you are saying overall. It leaders think it's necessary or they see a political angle that they can take to appear to a voting subset that they "care" than sure. But appropriate here, the way you are defining it isn't really relevant here...Again, my cynical side tends to believe that most leaders pushing for masking mandates are doing so with a political agenda in mind, not actual safety of the population that they are charged with representing...deadbq03 said:
Y'all are debating things that are outside the issue posed by the OP.
Whether the risk is real or not is a different debate.
Whether masking is an effective mitigation or not is a different debate.
If government officials perceive the threat is real and that masks work, it is appropriate for them to turn masking on when the risk appears higher (through facts, fear, or both) and turn masking off when it appears lower.
deadbq03 said:
Y'all are debating things that are outside the issue posed by the OP.
Whether the risk is real or not is a different debate.
Whether masking is an effective mitigation or not is a different debate.
If government officials perceive the threat is real and that masks work, it is appropriate for them to turn masking on when the risk appears higher (through facts, fear, or both) and turn masking off when it appears lower.
Negative. If the foundation for such decisions is inherently flawed, it's never appropriate for govt to use such a heavy hand for political purposes.
I'll grant that the if first time they tried it positive results were shown, then turning on and off a mandate might be proper. But, seeing a govt not make result based decisions only undermines the authority of said govt.
Agthatbuilds said:deadbq03 said:
Y'all are debating things that are outside the issue posed by the OP.
Whether the risk is real or not is a different debate.
Whether masking is an effective mitigation or not is a different debate.
If government officials perceive the threat is real and that masks work, it is appropriate for them to turn masking on when the risk appears higher (through facts, fear, or both) and turn masking off when it appears lower.
Negative. If the foundation for such decisions is inherently flawed, it's never appropriate for govt to use such a heavy hand for political purposes.
I'll grant that the if first time they tried it positive results were shown, then turning on and off a mandate might be proper. But, seeing a govt not make result based decisions only undermines the authority of said govt.
Agreed. The last entity you want making decisions based on an unsubstantiated foundation is the government.
That just means tyranny is likely.
YouBet said:Agthatbuilds said:deadbq03 said:
Y'all are debating things that are outside the issue posed by the OP.
Whether the risk is real or not is a different debate.
Whether masking is an effective mitigation or not is a different debate.
If government officials perceive the threat is real and that masks work, it is appropriate for them to turn masking on when the risk appears higher (through facts, fear, or both) and turn masking off when it appears lower.
Negative. If the foundation for such decisions is inherently flawed, it's never appropriate for govt to use such a heavy hand for political purposes.
I'll grant that the if first time they tried it positive results were shown, then turning on and off a mandate might be proper. But, seeing a govt not make result based decisions only undermines the authority of said govt.
Agreed. The last entity you want making decisions based on an unsubstantiated foundation is the government.
That just means tyranny is likely.
Bingo!
[Check your email. - Staff]
Aston94 said:Thanks for reading my entire post, Captain Condescension.GAC06 said:
Speed limits actually matter based on road characteristics. Masks are pointless theater. I hope that helps.
Like I said (and you ignored) there are a lot of reasons to dislike mask mandates, but the OPs reason isn't one of them.
My reason is perfectly valid.
Masks do not work, mostly because people wear whatever BS thing they have handy and then touch their face all day anyways.
For masks to actually make a difference, everyone needs to be in N95, wear them properly, and change them out as reccomended. Having mandates for a little while, then turning that knob to optional, then back to mandatory whenever you get scared as a
mask are useless. If somehow they make you feel like a better human for others then go ahead be ******ed and wear a mask.
Problem is that besides having a compromised immune system, being overweight is one if the highest risks for having a bad outcome with Covid. Look around at all of the overweight folks in Texas. It is a pretty high percentage.Capitol Ag said:Yup. Masking mandates opened Pandora's box unfortunately and it will be a LOOOONG while before we get that back closed again, if ever. Here in McKinney/Prosper/Frisco area, it still baffles me how many voluntarily wear the stupid things. If you are that worried, don't go out. Otherwise, outside of the very small number that actually might have a compromised immune system enough to wear one (and there just aren't enough of these people to force a policy at this point in time), there just is 0 reason to still be wearing masks.beerad12man said:When the premise is flawed to begin with, yes it is.Aston94 said:
You know how sometimes the speed limit changes and decreases when you go into a city, and then goes back higher when you get out in the country?
Funny how that happens.
There are a lot of reasons to dispute and question mask mandates, but changing requirements based upon infection rates isn't one of them.
When you don't believe tee government has any authority to begin with on what people have to wear, be it masks, pants, shirt, anything, at a private business, yes it is. This is what makes the flip flopping unbearable. Because it gives credence to forever masking, and forever the potential for the mandate.
Overweight and obese are right behind age as factors leading to serious complications/death no doubt. But there is a vaccine now too that I feel is very effective at doing what it is supposed to do and people have the choice to take. Masking, imo, is not needed as such anymore. And given there never has really been any true definitive proof that masking helps in a large open society, it would seem logical to go ahead and maybe acknowledge potential for protection but not mandating a policy without any proof it truly helps anything.murphyag said:Problem is that besides having a compromised immune system, being overweight is one if the highest risks for having a bad outcome with Covid. Look around at all of the overweight folks in Texas. It is a pretty high percentage.Capitol Ag said:Yup. Masking mandates opened Pandora's box unfortunately and it will be a LOOOONG while before we get that back closed again, if ever. Here in McKinney/Prosper/Frisco area, it still baffles me how many voluntarily wear the stupid things. If you are that worried, don't go out. Otherwise, outside of the very small number that actually might have a compromised immune system enough to wear one (and there just aren't enough of these people to force a policy at this point in time), there just is 0 reason to still be wearing masks.beerad12man said:When the premise is flawed to begin with, yes it is.Aston94 said:
You know how sometimes the speed limit changes and decreases when you go into a city, and then goes back higher when you get out in the country?
Funny how that happens.
There are a lot of reasons to dispute and question mask mandates, but changing requirements based upon infection rates isn't one of them.
When you don't believe tee government has any authority to begin with on what people have to wear, be it masks, pants, shirt, anything, at a private business, yes it is. This is what makes the flip flopping unbearable. Because it gives credence to forever masking, and forever the potential for the mandate.
If CDC/White House/Fauci/media want to gain just a tiny bit of credibility back - start with saying at the very least - no one needs to be wearing a mask if they are in a car by themselves (it is ridiculous that we still see people doing that). No one needs to be wearing a mask out doors. At least start with that. But they don't - which tells you they want people still scared.
ORAggieFan said:
I can somewhat get the changes. What doesn't make sense at all (well, masks don't make sense at all) is that in CA we never had a statewide mandate for Delta, but now we have one for Omicron.
Doesn't make sense? Newsom was up for recall at that time and was afraid of losing. It is as simple as that for why. Don't wear one. I have been in multiple places since Wednesday around San Diego and no one has said a thing. I would say at least 1/3 of the people around RB & Poway are ignoring it.
Scotty Appleton said:ORAggieFan said:
I can somewhat get the changes. What doesn't make sense at all (well, masks don't make sense at all) is that in CA we never had a statewide mandate for Delta, but now we have one for Omicron.
Doesn't make sense? Newsom was up for recall at that time and was afraid of losing. It is as simple as that for why. Don't wear one. I have been in multiple places since Wednesday around San Diego and no one has said a thing. I would say at least 1/3 of the people around RB & Poway are ignoring it.
I haven't worn one yet. Costco in CMR handed me one. I put it in my pocket. I live nearby in PQ.
Did the same thing at the RB Costco. Well done!
Featured Stories
See All
Scouting Report: No. 10 Texas A&M at No. 17 Oklahoma
by Tom Schuberth
A&M's growing 2026 class features pledges from across the country
by Ryan Brauninger
8:10
11h ago
895
7:00
11h ago
3.6k
Members of A&M's 2025 signing class officially make Aggieland home
by Ryan Brauninger