Coronavirus in Massachusetts (Boston: Home Depot, neighborhood, live)

[MassVt]

Originally Posted by lrfox

Yes to all of this. I was the Chelsea Market Basket last weekend - just about 100% compliance (the exceptions being visible notices and one loud cell phone talker).

My experiences with the worst compliance have been high school and college aged kids (everywhere from low-income urban neighborhoods to high wealth 'burbs) and more surprisingly, the late 50s-70s crowd largely in 'burbs. We stopped at the Hanover Target on the way home from Plymouth on Sunday and I saw more exposed noses and masks around chins than I've seen in at the Target in Everett. The culprits were a handful of teens and two separate groups of 60-somethings. The biggest difference was the parking lot - masks were off as soon as people exiting crossed the threshold, and people entering waited until the last possible moment. Any stores around here, people are putting masks on in the car. It was clear that deeper in the 'burbs, masks are not second nature the way they are in the city.

I'd have to agree with this. For many suburbanites, the masks only go when they're about to enter a store. And there are quite a few senior citizens who aren't wearing anything when walking around town. Pretty disappointing behavior, and evidence that some aren't taking this seriously..

[Bridge781]

Originally Posted by MassVt

I'd have to agree with this. For many suburbanites, the masks only go when they're about to enter a store. And there are quite a few senior citizens who aren't wearing anything when walking around town. Pretty disappointing behavior, and evidence that some aren't taking this seriously..

Ive mentioned before that I don’t wear a mask when I’m walking my dog in my neighborhood. There’s no one else walking with me. I rarely walk by anyone. I think it comes down to common sense. If you live in a populated area-wear a mask.

Another thing that seems silly is that you have to wear a mask when entering a restaurant. Yet as soon as you sit down you can take it off? That makes no sense.

I absolutely think they should be worn in a store or in a restaurant. I don’t want to be eating indoors at a restaurant personally. But some of the mask rules do seem ridiculous. Particularly the indoor dining one. If someone had corona and was wearing a mask upon entering yet took the mask off when they sat down what good does this do?

[BostonMike7]

Originally Posted by Bridge781

Particularly the indoor dining one. If someone had corona and was wearing a mask upon entering yet took the mask off when they sat down what good does this do?

Exactly.

But the only solution is to close up restaurants since many do not have outdoor season, or it's not an option with the coming cooler weather.

However, that would just drive up unemployment and shutter more struggling businesses, so the health dept looks the other way. It's basically an assumed risk.

It's why I haven't eaten out (indoors or outdoors) since Feb.

[NewfieMama]

Just curious if anybody's employer is offering the option to work a reduced schedule?

I was candid with my boss and told him that if schools went remote, there was a very real possibility that I would need to resign. Our company recently announced that if a reduced schedule is needed, it's an option to talk through with your manager.

Is anybody seriously considering resigning or working a reduced schedule? I am so stressed about this.

[redplum33]

IMO, there shouldn't be any indoor dining.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by lrfox

Yes to all of this. I was the Chelsea Market Basket last weekend - just about 100% compliance (the exceptions being visible notices and one loud cell phone talker).

My experiences with the worst compliance have been high school and college aged kids (everywhere from low-income urban neighborhoods to high wealth 'burbs) and more surprisingly, the late 50s-70s crowd largely in 'burbs. We stopped at the Hanover Target on the way home from Plymouth on Sunday and I saw more exposed noses and masks around chins than I've seen in at the Target in Everett. The culprits were a handful of teens and two separate groups of 60-somethings. The biggest difference was the parking lot - masks were off as soon as people exiting crossed the threshold, and people entering waited until the last possible moment. Any stores around here, people are putting masks on in the car. It was clear that deeper in the 'burbs, masks are not second nature the way they are in the city.

Masks are PPE (personal protective equipment) and one of the first things you learn about PPE is that it's a last-resort measure. Masks likely prevent the spread in close quarters, but do not reduce the risk from 100% to 0%. Especially not the cloth masks that most people are wearing (there is some evidence neck goiters are actually worse than just not wearing anything).

The best measure one can take is to avoid other people, especially indoors, and especially in areas with high rates of infection. Going to the Target in Everett, even with everyone wearing a mask, is probably more dangerous than standing outside of the Target in Plymouth (assuming normal outside Target people density), even if most people don't have masks. Hiking or walking outside, either on a trail in the sparse suburbs, is less risky than walking around a crowded city, mask or no mask.

People have varying levels of comfort with risk, but the assumption that mask = safe and no mask = unsafe isn't likely consistent with the actual levels of risk. It would be nice to have studies that better quantify levels of risk. Something like 12 (or 18 or 24) feet away without a mask is about equivalent to 6 feet with a cloth mask, or 3 feet with a surgical mask, but I haven't found any credible studies. I'm also sure that those numbers would vary with activity type, such as slowly walking around target vs. running on an indoor treadmill. There are studies that suggest indoor transmission is FAR more prevalent than outdoor transmission.

[redplum33]

Originally Posted by BostonMike7

But the only solution is to close up restaurants since many do not have outdoor season, or it's not an option with the coming cooler weather.

Curbside pickup and delivery are fine.

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by Bridge781

Another thing that seems silly is that you have to wear a mask when entering a restaurant. Yet as soon as you sit down you can take it off? That makes no sense.

It makes sense. The primary function of the fabric mask is to trap the droplets the wearer releases when talking/coughing/sneezing, etc. When you're standing face to face with the host and walking by strangers at other tables on the way to yours, the mask helps prevent your droplets from coming in contact with all of those people. When you're at your table, you're theoretically spaced far enough from strangers that the droplets won't carry that far.

Obviously the effectiveness depends on the details. Are the restaurants actually spacing tables out enough? Are people putting masks on when they get up to go to the bathroom or out for a smoke (they should be)? Are servers wearing masks correctly, standing back far enough, and are patrons being considerate (putting masks on) when the server approaches the table? The answers in my experience depend on the individual restaurants. I've had servers with noses hanging out, I've seen tables too close, I've seen mixed results with people wearing masks to the bathrooms, and I've only seen a handful of places ask patrons to put masks on when serves come to the table (and even fewer where people actually did it).

Originally Posted by jayrandom

Masks are PPE (personal protective equipment) and one of the first things you learn about PPE is that it's a last-resort measure. Masks likely prevent the spread in close quarters, but do not reduce the risk from 100% to 0%. Especially not the cloth masks that most people are wearing (there is some evidence neck goiters are actually worse than just not wearing anything).

The best measure one can take is to avoid other people, especially indoors, and especially in areas with high rates of infection. Going to the Target in Everett, even with everyone wearing a mask, is probably more dangerous than standing outside of the Target in Plymouth (assuming normal outside Target people density), even if most people don't have masks. Hiking or walking outside, either on a trail in the sparse suburbs, is less risky than walking around a crowded city, mask or no mask.

People have varying levels of comfort with risk, but the assumption that mask = safe and no mask = unsafe isn't likely consistent with the actual levels of risk. It would be nice to have studies that better quantify levels of risk. Something like 12 (or 18 or 24) feet away without a mask is about equivalent to 6 feet with a cloth mask, or 3 feet with a surgical mask, but I haven't found any credible studies. I'm also sure that those numbers would vary with activity type, such as slowly walking around target vs. running on an indoor treadmill. There are studies that suggest indoor transmission is FAR more prevalent than outdoor transmission.

This is all true (though neck goiters is a great typo - I know what you meant). However, I don't believe that anyone assumes that the mask=safe 100% of the time. My comments are an observation on the general willingness to comply with mask requirements. In the city, it's a lot better than elsewhere. I know that doesn't mean the city is safer (data would agree that it isn't), but I'm still surprised at the unwillingness to wear a mask in many places and the downright hostility toward them elsewhere. Driving down Thames St. in Newport was jarring when I was there in July. Maybe 50% of tourists were wearing masks walking down the crowded, narrow street. Same for a number of the state parks and beaches I've visited outside of Boston. Not enough room to ensure constant spacing and very little mask wearing (in spite of signs directing people to do so). My daily bike ride from Someville-Lexington on the Minuteman is different - just about everyone wearing masks and spacing as much as possible.

[NewfieMama]

Originally Posted by redplum33

IMO, there shouldn't be any indoor dining.

If indoor dining were an issue here, wouldn't it be reflected in the data by now?

[BostonMike7]

Originally Posted by NewfieMama

Just curious if anybody's employer is offering the option to work a reduced schedule?

I was candid with my boss and told him that if schools went remote, there was a very real possibility that I would need to resign. Our company recently announced that if a reduced schedule is needed, it's an option to talk through with your manager.

Is anybody seriously considering resigning or working a reduced schedule? I am so stressed about this.

Not reducing, but adjusting my hours and when I need to WFH. Already gave my boss the heads up and am planning on doing a good chunk of my work in the evening, and possibly even on the weekends. I normally work with asia, so it's not unusual for me to be on calls with them from 8-11PM anyway. This just means I would try and make it a more regular occurrence and multitask with the other work I usually do during the day

I've had one of my employees ask for a lenient schedule due to schooling and granted them some flexibility. My other employees do not have children so not an issue there. A few coworkers have kids, and they are planning for a more flexible work schedule as well.

And like I mentioned before, my wife nearly took a 1yr leave of absence from her teaching job to home school. It was a serious discussion in our household for about 2 weeks, and in the 11th hour we decided to not pursue that.