So about masks and face coverings

[CaliforniaGirl]

22 minutes ago, Redhead14 said:

If wearing masks protects others, it ultimately protects us as well by reducing the contaminants we are exposed to . . . it's a circular benefit. 

This AFAIK is the idea, and only works if everybody in a given area is doing it...

The idea is to reduce, not eliminate (so far that seems to be impossible, and that's only logical) the speed of the spread of 19 in a given area. That's always been the idea. Slowing it, so as not to overwhelm at any one time, in any one area. ("Everywhere" is apparently just too much to ask, so...now we're down to county by county, etc.) Masks were never meant to "completely protect" either the wearer or the exposed from ever getting sick, that was literally never stated that I saw, but reducing can only be a benefit AND it will only help if *both* parties standing near eachother or standing in the same area within a few minutes of one another are wearing the mask.

It's synergistic. Which also is too much to ask...asking people to work together on something they can't immediately, like in that very instant see benefitting them, as individuals, in some direct way. It would mean we would have to act like we're not adolescents. We'd have to see how benefits to others can mean benefits to everyone later on, not four minutes from now.

So nevermind, as Nirvana said.

 

Edited May 19, 2020 by CaliforniaGirl

[sothereiwas]

15 minutes ago, CaliforniaGirl said:

Slowing it, so as not to overwhelm at any one time, in any one area.

Overwhelm what? We've never run out of beds as far as I know - if someplace in the USA has, I'd honestly be interested to know but as far as I know even the hardest hit places like NYC never needed the emergency beds that were set up. So mission accomplished right?

[CaliforniaGirl]

5 minutes ago, sothereiwas said:

Overwhelm what? We've never run out of beds as far as I know - if someplace in the USA has, I'd honestly be interested to know but as far as I know even the hardest hit places like NYC never needed the emergency beds that were set up. So mission accomplished right?

Yes, mission accomplished, so far, with these stop-gaps still in place to varying degrees and beginning to be lifted to varying degrees on the tail of that, isn't that the point? If we're not overwhelming hospitals, doesn't that mean that yes, it's working? And that no, NYC, even as hard hit as it was, and giving our most drastic example, was never overwhelmed to running out of beds, shows that their measures worked to keep them from running out of beds?

If these measures weren't taken isn't it more likely they would have run out of beds, condisering how hard they were actually hit?

You're right, mission accomplished. And now, with states (or counties in states) seeing things going well, reopenings are starting...I mean that was the plan.

Edited May 19, 2020 by CaliforniaGirl

[sothereiwas]

2 minutes ago, CaliforniaGirl said:

If we're not overwhelming hospitals, doesn't that mean that yes, it's working?

Not really definitively. I could wear an eyepatch while sleeping, and after a while with no traffic accidents conclude that wearing that eyepatch is really a safety innovation. Some places like NYC would possibly be worse off, but then again, they could have simply shut down public transpo and likely accomplished as much or more. That's not even touching the vast areas in rural America where it's pretty doubtful medical facilities would have been over run. 

So no, I don't think it's working as such. I think it's a safe bet politically to do what we've done, so who does that benefit. Let me think. In any case, looks like we're possibly coming to our senses now, hopefully not before it was too late. 

[Redhead14]

7 minutes ago, sothereiwas said:

Overwhelm what? We've never run out of beds as far as I know - if someplace in the USA has, I'd honestly be interested to know but as far as I know even the hardest hit places like NYC never needed the emergency beds that were set up. So mission accomplished right?

The point of the measures that were taken was to prevent the hospitals from being overwhelmed.  No one ever though that those measures would eliminate the virus -- just reduce the effect.  Hopsitals in large cities most certainly would have been overwhelmed if the measures we took were taken too late. There was some concern about that. 

And, are you back-handedly criticizing NYC and other large cities for being over prepared?????  If the measures we took hadn't worked well enough, they most certainly would have need the beds.  If this situation had gone the other way, they'd be beat down for not having enough beds.  Sheesh.

[CaliforniaGirl]

9 minutes ago, sothereiwas said:

Not really definitively. I could wear an eyepatch while sleeping, and after a while with no traffic accidents conclude that wearing that eyepatch is really a safety innovation. Some places like NYC would possibly be worse off, but then again, they could have simply shut down public transpo and likely accomplished as much or more. That's not even touching the vast areas in rural America where it's pretty doubtful medical facilities would have been over run. 

So no, I don't think it's working as such. I think it's a safe bet politically to do what we've done, so who does that benefit. Let me think. In any case, looks like we're possibly coming to our senses now, hopefully not before it was too late. 

There's a bit more of a by-the-numbers correlation here than wearing an eyepatch and no traffic accidents. By this logic, we may as well not take cancer drugs since I wore an eyepatch last night and fewer people taking the same type of chemotherapy died last night in my county than the previous night.

Your logic is (sorry) somewhat medieval, and previous to that excepting the Classical era. It's: well, you can't say a certain type of medicine or other innovation worked because some other mundane event also happened, so maybe it was that mundane event that's the cause or else correlation. Or astrological, or otherwise. Such as: maybe it was actually a rainstorm, not taking willow bark that cures headaches.

You don't "think" it's working but you and I and anyone else can "think" anything. We can argue "I think" any way we want, and that's interesting, but it's not really scientific and it's not evidence-based, not even as correlation. 

Edited May 19, 2020 by CaliforniaGirl

[sothereiwas]

2 minutes ago, Redhead14 said:

The point of the measures that were taken was to prevent the hospitals from being overwhelmed.  No one ever though that those measures would eliminate the virus -- just reduce the effect.

Actually at least one person here argued that would work. Maybe more, but I know of one for certain. 

 

2 minutes ago, Redhead14 said:

are you back-handedly criticizing NYC and other large cities for being over prepared?

If they were over prepared they wouldn't have been squealing to the federal government for help. I wouldn't hold NYC results up as any sort of good example in any case, they are so bad they make the state as a whole look worse than any European country I know of. 

[sothereiwas]

1 minute ago, CaliforniaGirl said:

There's a bit more of a by-the-numbers correlation here than wearing an eyepatch and no traffic accidents.

Yes, and I have no doubt it helped in many urban places. I'm equally sure it did little to nothing in places like where I live. 

[CaliforniaGirl]

Just now, sothereiwas said:

Yes, and I have no doubt it helped in many urban places. I'm equally sure it did little to nothing in places like where I live. 

And that makes sense...sort of. There was no way to predict that, and there is also the fact that the place where you live, doesn't, I'm assuming, have giant plexiglass walls preventing anyone from urban places going into it, or you leaving it.

[sothereiwas]

4 minutes ago, CaliforniaGirl said:

There was no way to predict that, and there is also the fact that the place where you live, doesn't, I'm assuming, have giant plexiglass walls preventing anyone from urban places going into it, or you leaving it.

There may have been no way to predict it in the first instant, but it became pretty obvious within a week or maybe two at the most, and at that time things should have changed. As for people from urban places coming here, they are supposed to be sheltered in place right? 

[CaliforniaGirl]

4 minutes ago, sothereiwas said:

There may have been no way to predict it in the first instant, but it became pretty obvious within a week or maybe two at the most, and at that time things should have changed. As for people from urban places coming here, they are supposed to be sheltered in place right? 

How did it become pretty obvious within the first two weeks? Can you be specific?

As far as people from urban places coming to you, whole categories of businesses were still in operation through the entirety of shelter in place, including delivery people and medical workers, and "sheleter in place" was literally never a punishable law showing that nobody could come to you. Or was it? Can you give some support for how people have not been able or allowed in some official sort of way to cross borders and go anywhere?

[sothereiwas]

12 minutes ago, CaliforniaGirl said:

As far as people from urban places coming to you, whole categories of businesses were still in operation through the entirety of shelter in place, including delivery people and medical workers, and "sheleter in place" was literally never a punishable law showing that nobody could come to you.

So are you arguing that it was pointless now? 

In my locale, we don't take turns coughing in each others faces, hanging onto filthy hand grips on public transpo, coughing on previously mentioned hand grips, crowding into tight spaces and other such urban adventuring. We're not like NYC at all. If a few infected tourists get ruel (and I'm sure they did) it's unlikely to be a big deal (as it wasn't) in the overall scheme of things. I'm hoping the next go around we will be more agile and act in a more local fashion. 

[CaliforniaGirl]

8 minutes ago, sothereiwas said:

So are you arguing that it was pointless now? 

In my locale, we don't take turns coughing in each others faces, hanging onto filthy hand grips on public transpo, coughing on previously mentioned hand grips, crowding into tight spaces and other such urban adventuring. We're not like NYC at all. If a few infected tourists get ruel (and I'm sure they did) it's unlikely to be a big deal (as it wasn't) in the overall scheme of things. I'm hoping the next go around we will be more agile and act in a more local fashion. 

Not at all, I am arguing that we have never been "locked down just like we're imprisoned."

In your locale, you don't have to do ANY of those things to unkowingly be carrying a virus. Probably uncoincidentally, that's not required in my locale either, or, to my knowledge, in any locale across the globe.

In my locale, don't know about yours, those "practicing their rights" and "being responsible" ARE the ones standing two inches away from each other out on the street without masks, eating together and organizing stupid "underground parties" that keep getting busted.

[sothereiwas]

1 minute ago, CaliforniaGirl said:

Not at all, I am arguing that we have never been "locked down just like we're imprisoned."

Arguing with ... who?

[CaliforniaGirl]

3 minutes ago, sothereiwas said:

Arguing with ... who?

With those who are claiming we are "in lockdown" and claiming that we have no "rights (as you and I already discussed). As well as claiming it is or was "illegal" to drive places unless one was an essential worker.

[sothereiwas]

18 minutes ago, CaliforniaGirl said:

With those who are claiming we are "in lockdown" and claiming that we have no "rights (as you and I already discussed). As well as claiming it is or was "illegal" to drive places unless one was an essential worker.

Well it's not "just like we're imprisoned", it's "just like we COULD BE imprisoned" if we drive around. 

[CaliforniaGirl]

8 minutes ago, sothereiwas said:

Well it's not "just like we're imprisoned", it's "just like we COULD BE imprisoned" if we drive around. 

This is what I'm saying...the things we complain about...we think we know what a tough life is...we think we know what it is to do without, to have no freedoms...we have no clue. I am embarrased for this nation, to an extent. I wish we had behaved better than some of us had. I didn't want to know this about us. I have always loved my country. And I"m embarrassed and ashamed.

We are so soft and so coddled. We complain and rant about hypotheticals as if we're being held down and waterboarded. 

[basil67]

2 hours ago, sothereiwas said:

2 hours ago, Redhead14 said:

The point of the measures that were taken was to prevent the hospitals from being overwhelmed.  No one ever though that those measures would eliminate the virus -- just reduce the effect.

Actually at least one person here argued that would work. Maybe more, but I know of one for certain. 

I've probably said that locking down completely would eliminate the virus, but my words need to be taken in context of where I live and when I said it.

The lock downs were started here to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed.  Which is what Redhead is saying.   Then we discovered that the lock downs were so successful that it looked like the virus could be eliminated from our country.  At this time, I could well have written about lock downs and elimination.    Yesterday Australia had 8 new confirmed cases (with record testing levels), and most are from known sources so given enough time, elimination would be achievable.   But we're opening up now, so it will spike back up..

 

[sothereiwas]

5 hours ago, CaliforniaGirl said:

we know what it is to do without, to have no freedoms

As I said, 30 days in jail and/or up to a $1250 fine for exercising a natural right. It's not Khmer Rouge but it's not right. 

[SincereOnlineGuy]

On 5/15/2020 at 6:35 PM, Juha said:

 

If your eyes are not covered by a plastic shield a mask does not do a whole lot of good to protect you since your eyes are opne 

and the virus can get into there much easier than your mouth or nose.

As I said there is zero scientific evidence showing wearing a mask stops virus spread, it is pseudo science.

 

 

LOL -  there is zero scientific evidence that you understand what the mask is for.

 

The mask is to protect everyone else from you.

 

 

[SincereOnlineGuy]

31 minutes ago, sothereiwas said:

As I said, 30 days in jail and/or up to a $1250 fine for exercising a natural right. 

By that logic, going naked through society is a natural right...  yet most western civilizations don't permit as much.

 

 

[sothereiwas]

8 hours ago, SincereOnlineGuy said:

By that logic, going naked through society is a natural right...  yet most western civilizations don't permit as much.

The freedom to travel unmolested is also an enumerated right in the 5th. 

 

[carhill]

Clever tactic though, putting onus on business, through fines and license action, similar to how they have business by the balls over tax withholding, easier to control when money is involved. Government holds sword over business' head, business is 'private' and can enact any policies they choose as long as applied uniformly and can deny admittance to anyone not masked, in this case. I was surprised that the post office didn't require masks to be inside the worker counter lobby. They didn't, at least at the one in my dusty town. No signs, nothing.

One funny nuance is that if I were wearing my work respirator people would think that's OK, but it's really not since the outflow valve is completely unimpeded, moisture and particles flow freely out of it. The respirator with those multi-layer ginormous cartridges is designed to protect me from hazardous particles and fumes and vapors and whatever else is in the environment. I could be spewing virus everywhere, theoretically.

I only wore it in public once, early on in the lockdown, when putting an oxygen distribution and recovery system in the attic of a veterinary hospital. The staff kinda looked at me funny, none of them wore masks, but they probably don't know what nastiness is in building attics like I do. Their only protocol for distancing was no people in the building, they picked the animals up outside. That was in mid-March.

[sothereiwas]

2 minutes ago, carhill said:

One funny nuance is that if I were wearing my work respirator people would think that's OK, but it's really not since the outflow valve is completely unimpeded, moisture and particles flow freely out of it.

It sounds like the one I wear, an older 3M respirator with sort of rectangular cartridges and a rubberized face piece. Those breathe so easily, and look like they're doing the business but yeah, like the old N95 masks I have had forever (also 3M) the exhaust port doesn't filter much. I guess the mask physically would catch some. I was told that some of these type appliances have a small screen on the exhaust port - I've not checked any of mine. 

[carhill]

Yes, older units, IIRC about 10-15 years old, 6000 series half and full face, currently running 6001 primaries and N95 prefilters. I also have some P95 prefilters but stuck the N95's in for the last job due to the particulate suspects in the 70yo attic. I originally bought them to use in organic chemical vapor work, mostly petrochemical and agricultural chemical work. Most likely a similar unit to yours, the cartridges are like a truncated triangle. I just checked the outflow valve on the 6500 and it is baffled but not screened. IOW, the outflow is turned and dispersed, not exhaled in a straight line.