Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As much as we hope this is over, it might be with us in some shape / fashion for a long long time. Masks are probably going to be the norm for quite a while.
I don’t know the future. It is not over now, nor nearly over, that’s for sure. The latest prediction I heard was that the pandemic will last through 2021. I have no idea how long we will have to distance. But I think our economy will suffer. The longer we have to distance, the greater the loss of jobs and businesses.
I don’t know the future. It is not over now, nor nearly over, that’s for sure. The latest prediction I heard was that the pandemic will last through 2021. I have no idea how long we will have to distance. But I think our economy will suffer. The longer we have to distance, the greater the loss of jobs and businesses.
I don't think it will be that dire. There are enough promising vaccines that it should help things get to mostly normal.
However, there will still be pockets of outbreaks and such, that is why wearing masks will the new norm to prevent outbreaks from getting worse. In the long run it will reduce colds / flu's as well so it will be a net positive compared to pre-pandemic.
I understand what you're saying, and I won't say that you don't have a point.
When I became the principal of my school, I wanted to broaden the decision making process to include teachers. Well, that didn't go well. There was always an attempt to broaden the rules and regulations for students to the point of codifying every possible infraction. For example, they wanted a rule that if a student chewed gum that he/she would be suspended out of school for 3 days...despite the fact that a third of the faculty admitted they chewed gum in school.
There is a tendency for people to want to codify things. But part of the reason for that is that we have a degree of selfishness in this country that -- in my view -- is unprecedented in our history. I don't remember another time in my 71 years when there is more of an attitude of "I wanna do what I wanna do, when I wanna do it". There was a time -- admittedly not always perfect -- when people did things for the "good of society". And that meant, for the good of other people. It didn't always work well, but overall it was better than what we have today.
Living in Arizona, we just went from a high of over 5,000 new Covid cases in a day, back down to around 1,5000 new cases a day when mask requirements went back into effect and bars were closed (along with a few other things). If I can save a few people from getting terribly ill by not publicly drinking, I'll do it. If I can save a few more -- including myself -- by wearing a mask, I'll do it. Unfortunately, the whiners can't do what's right because they have their rights.
I am your age. Disagree. Do you seriously think that the 60's were an era for the "good of society" and not "I'm going to do what I want to do"?
I am your age. Disagree. Do you seriously think that the 60's were an era for the "good of society" and not "I'm going to do what I want to do"?
You have a point. But I'll tell you what I think the difference was, and it was sort of a balancer -- the idea still alive in the 1960s that we could solve problems and do great things.
I don't think it will be that dire. There are enough promising vaccines that it should help things get to mostly normal.
However, there will still be pockets of outbreaks and such, that is why wearing masks will the new norm to prevent outbreaks from getting worse. In the long run it will reduce colds / flu's as well so it will be a net positive compared to pre-pandemic.
There is no guarantee a vaccine will be all that effective. We have 6 candidates in phase 3 testing right now. Phase 3 is the biggest do or die test, and we are compressing a timeline of years into months, further increasing the uncertainty of how well they work.
A vaccine for covid19 is unlikely to be a magic potion, something that gives "sterilizing immunity" like the Polio vaccine or something. It will help reduce spread, hopefully, but it is unlikely to resolve everything in short order.
It's rational, as FDR put it, to fear unchecked fear. Unchecked fear allows the goalposts to shift indefinitely (or, in your case, balks at any discussion that urges establishing goalposts in the first place). Unchecked fear is what finds us trading fantastical rumors about reinfection as though this virus will somehow prove to be the first ever to defeat our immune systems monolithically. Unchecked fear leads to sloppy policy decisions that have no easy off ramps. Unchecked fear ruled the day after 9/11 and in the runup to the Iraq war and we're all the worse off for it.
I dislike unchecked fear and you should too.
What FDR means is put on a mask and go out and spend because staying home or keeping others homebound is bad for the nation.
What FDR means is put on a mask and go out and spend because staying home or keeping others homebound is bad for the nation.
I am quite sure that all of the following distinctions would have been permissible, lest one run astray of the "don't fear fear" principle:
We don't need masks all the time outdoors, only in dense situations with sustained contact.
Medical exemptions can be appropriate where (truly) necessary indoors, given the risk-return trade-offs.
The government doesn't have any business regulating whether people wear masks in their own homes.
People on Zoom calls (if those existed back then) shouldn't be mandated to wear masks, and indeed would look very silly if they chose to.
Universal mask-wearing for the healthy is not a desirable permanent transformation and we must identify numeric end goals that will trigger lifting these mandates.
Yet, popular opinion is bent enormously against these distinctions. If you'd like, I can show you municipalities that mandate universal outdoor masks no matter what; comments sections of articles where parents of special-needs children who can't wear masks are pilloried against; municipal mandates that are starting to veer into regulating in-home mask usage; organizations (taxpayer funded) that mandate mask usage on Zoom calls; and (within this very thread) dismissal of the mere question as to when the mask-wearing can end as delusional paranoia.
Like I said: fear is in charge here and it shows no sign of stopping. As long as that's the case, expect masks to stick around. They've taken on the role of something of a religious talisman. Such societal safety rituals tend to become deeply embedded.
I am quite sure that all of the following distinctions would have been permissible, lest one run astray of the "don't fear fear" principle:
We don't need masks all the time outdoors, only in dense situations with sustained contact. -which governing bodies say otherwise?
Medical exemptions can be appropriate where (truly) necessary indoors, given the risk-return trade-offs.- most businesses, etc. already recognize this
The government doesn't have any business regulating whether people wear masks in their own homes.- where's that happening, I haven't heard about it at all, anywhere.
People on Zoom calls (if those existed back then) shouldn't be mandated to wear masks, and indeed would look very silly if they chose to. -private entities can make silly rules, it doesn't have anything to do with any kind of gov't mandate or law that we'll be doomed to masks forever
Universal mask-wearing for the healthy is not a desirable permanent transformation and we must identify numeric end goals that will trigger lifting these mandates.-This is what I see as fear of fear, fearing something that has no basis in anything but speculation.
Yet, popular opinion is bent enormously against these distinctions. If you'd like, I can show you municipalities that mandate universal outdoor masks no matter what; comments sections of articles where parents of special-needs children who can't wear masks are pilloried against; municipal mandates that are starting to veer into regulating in-home mask usage; organizations (taxpayer funded) that mandate mask usage on Zoom calls; and (within this very thread) dismissal of the mere question as to when the mask-wearing can end as delusional paranoia.
Like I said: fear is in charge here and it shows no sign of stopping. As long as that's the case, expect masks to stick around. They've taken on the role of something of a religious talisman. Such societal safety rituals tend to become deeply embedded.
Maybe this one will be different. Let's hope so.
It's NOT a dismissal of the 'mere' question as to when the mask wearing can end. It is a claim that asking for a set in concrete number, at this point, is unrealistic. One side of the mouth says no we can't develop a safe vaccine this quickly, while the other side says that we want a an answer as to when masks will end RIGHT NOW.
It's NOT a dismissal of the 'mere' question as to when the mask wearing can end. It is a claim that asking for a set in concrete number, at this point, is unrealistic. One side of the mouth says no we can't develop a safe vaccine this quickly, while the other side says that we want a an answer as to when masks will end RIGHT NOW.
You've been unable to offer a "trigger point" as to when a "set-in concrete number" becomes fair to ask for, or justification as to why no number can be availed earlier than that point.
By bringing up a vaccine, are you postulating that the masks have to stay until there's a vaccine? I'm fine with that so long as you can account for:
- what happens if a vaccine takes longer than we hope for
- what happens if a vaccine never happens (I think this is extremely unlikely, but this is how risk planning works: at this broad of a level, you don't leave stones unturned)
- what it is that you need a vaccine to do
The reason I am being such an anal retentive stickler about this is that I do not want a scenario where a vaccine happens and the goal posts move even further. Masks can go away once a vaccine does what? Ends the pandemic per the CDC definition? (but what if it "technically" ends earlier than that?) Brings the population to 65% immunity? Ensures that deaths stay below a certain level for a certain period of time? Ends all cases/transmission of the virus forever?
Either we have an end goal or we don't. And heck, I'm doing all the legwork for you, here. Just pick one and move on. If you can't, then what you're saying is "the exit criteria for mask mandates is once I feel safer".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
