Captain Cranks
Footballguy
Please explain any difference between your two answers.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Mandates to wear things - A pole (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Captain Cranks
- Start date
AAABatteries
Footballguy
Clothing optional resorts and beaches?
I voted "I disagree" to both.
I voted "I disagree" to both.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
I'll say this much - I never knew I would get so tired of listening to arguing over an inanimate object like I have masks. It's unreal to amount of time and energy devoted to masks and mask discussions the last 18 months. I kind of don't care any more but more just numb to this conversation rather than don't care - I'm rarely out in public, I'm vaccinated, my entire house is vaccinated and I assume we will never have another local mask mandate unless we get some super variant or a new virus. I've long since shifted from Wear the Damn Mask to Get the Damn Vaccine.
djmich
Footballguy
Yep. And amazingly after a 18 months at this I haven't seen a government/cdc report on testing of masks in the field on COVID. A real one, a test and control group or something close not some silly Utah before mask mandate, Utah after mask mandate comparison. Of course if someone has that would love to see it.
supermike80
Footballguy
Oh for crying out loud.
Here's the thing, right now scientists are scrambling to study covid. They aren't going to spend their valuable time and resources on something like this, especially because of the past research that already proves efficacy. It's an all out war on a virus we know little about.
Captain Cranks
Footballguy
djmich
Footballguy
Absolutely not, unprecedented resources are being spent across the world just trying to keep up with covid. My good friend is head of infectious disease at a major university and they are literally not doing anything else right but covid research. He tells me it's the same in most places. All other research has stopped, slowed or been delayed
Captain Cranks
Footballguy
I can understand the general level of exhaustion. I'm unfortunate enough to live in FL where our state king threatened to withhold salaries of school officials who attempted to enact locally approved mask mandates, so it's still a hot topic down here.
My buddy mentioned this analog the other day and I haven't been to able to come up with a legitimate reason for answering differently to the two questions. If you don't think the government has the right to tell you what to wear, you don't think the government has the right to tell you what to wear. The best I could come up with is that alignment with societal norms trumps your supposed freedom to wear what you want, if nothing at all.
The irony to me is that in a lot of these places that are against masks are the first place to rail against inappropriate clothing at school
djmich
Footballguy
OK. So unprecedented amount of resources. This is related to Covid. Tell me why a fraction of a fraction of those unprecedented resources can't go into conducting a test vs control study on the effectiveness of masks with covid transmission.
Lord knows we have enough people willing to be in the placebo group. Maybe we'd learn that sock masks or the $0.25 Costco masks are completely worthless and that its N95 or nothing. I mean, if it showed it was 95% effective...wouldn't that information be valuable? Or maybe we'd learn that there is not discernable impact from mask wearing over the long term (virus gonna virus).
Or simply because "shut up and do what I tell you dummy" has proven to not be an effective marketing tactic.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think because those questions have mostly been answered is my understanding of the literature. N95 is the gold standard. The others, if worn properly can help some but aren't the best.
Now that hasn't been answered for covid as far as I know and covid is particularly virulent virus in the air so there is probably something to learn there. I think it's probably just lowerish priority but you probably will see something in the near future. Masks are also notoriously hard to study in the public because people pick their nose.
I'm not sure what any study does for us at this point anyway. I guess it ends the debate on masks but if masks don't work then you just have to close everything and i don't think anyone wants that. We as a society want to believe that they work for covid.
And I don't disagree with what you are saying, a study would be helpful, I'm just saying I think that it's not a top priority for most. I know my buddy is focusing on potential mutations to the spike protein and the impacts on immune response and lung damage.
Last edited by a moderator:
djmich
Footballguy
To your point directly, one thing it could do is conclude that anything other than N95 is next to useless. Most people don't wear N95 today. If you have any belief that masks have utility...a finding like that would seem monumental. Vs most of the nation running around with crap on their faces.
I agree. It would be nice to know. Lots of people just walk around with their shirt pulled up or a bandana on their face which we already know doesn't work at all. We have N95s because they are the only thing that really has been proven to work for other very tough viruses.
Navin Johnson
Footballguy
djmich
Footballguy
shadrap
Footballguy
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
Right now per the voting, I would be less ok to go out without a mask than clothing.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I voted agree/disagree.
During a legit health emergency, I think mask mandates are something reasonable for the government to consider. I supported them last year. But absent extraordinary circumstances, I don't think the government should be able to tell you what to wear.
Bans on public nudity are obviously fine for hygeine, safety, privacy, and general grossness.
A better analogy would be that the government can require clothing, but can't require cargo shorts, masks, or jorts.
During a legit health emergency, I think mask mandates are something reasonable for the government to consider. I supported them last year. But absent extraordinary circumstances, I don't think the government should be able to tell you what to wear.
Bans on public nudity are obviously fine for hygeine, safety, privacy, and general grossness.
A better analogy would be that the government can require clothing, but can't require cargo shorts, masks, or jorts.
Last edited by a moderator:
zoonation
Footballguy
I had a flight from Dubai to Frankfurt delayed recently because this very upset American gentleman refused to wear a mask on the plane. I didn't see the whole thing go down, but the flight attendant came up and told us that he said that in America no one can tell him to wear a mask and no one was going to tell him on this plane that he had to wear one. So he got hauled off screaming and yelling. Our flight was delayed 45 minutes because of this dude's ignorance and entitlement, however, in typical German fashion, the pilot made the time up in the air.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
In other words, what you wear is your business, and the state rightly needs a compelling reason to tell you what to wear.
"You need to wear pants" easily clears that bar. "You need to wear a mask" cleared that bar in 2020, but not in 2019.
"You need to wear pants" easily clears that bar. "You need to wear a mask" cleared that bar in 2020, but not in 2019.
Captain Cranks
Footballguy
I guess I'm confused why you answered the questions differently then. Was it because I didn't specify that the mask mandate was for health concerns in 2020?
ETA - I see you targeting the pants, perhaps rightfully so, but what about a woman's freedom to go topless?
Last edited by a moderator:
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
Italians might make the trains run on time, but it takes a German to make a plane run on time.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
It is because of ethical concerns that we dont have controlled studies.
There is currently a study going on in canada. One hospital wears N95 masks exclusively. One wears surgical masks with face shields for everything except for the made up concept of aerosol generating procedures.
There is a lot of outrage over the second hospital being guinea pigs.
djmich
Footballguy
I get it, but why does it have to be just in that environment. We have a few hundred million people here running around maskless and about as many vaccine-less.
Also, isn't everyone a guinea pig in any test like this. People were vaccine guinea pigs. Why draw the line with masks.
I'm not sure how you'd keep the control and test groups identical or even close. How do you control for behavior, fit, removal of masks, etc.?
djmich
Footballguy
There are a ton of ways you could design it, to capture different test scenarios.
The control would never wear a mask. You don’t have to worry about them other than that.
As an example, in one test group they would receive instructions similar to a mask mandate today, say fir a school. You’d let them implement however they want…meaning how they would in real life. This test group would most closely mirror a real world test group.
In theory you can then create other test groups. N95, etc.
You don’t just snap your fingers and have a scientific study completed. But I’ve heard that covid is a big deal and that masks might be important…so maybe someone can consider obtaining some data.
Last edited by a moderator:
BassNBrew
Footballguy
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/05/10/flu-cases-historically-low-during-covid-what-expect-fall/7088318002/
Obviously not Covid related but I think this makes a pretty good case that something is better than nothing. If 10% of us are wearing 95% masks, 40% wearing 50% effective masks, and 50% wearing 10% effective "masks" that may be enough to stop some of these viruses in their tracks. If anyone had predicted 2038 flu cases for an entire flu season they would have been called crazy.
I don't know that anyone predicted exactly 2038 cases, as that would be kind of like guessing the number of jelly beans in the jar, but tons of people predicted that flu season would be much lower than usual due to the COVID mitigation strategies.z
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
The original question and original post didn't limit the scope of the question to "in public" or anything else so the correct answer must be that they cannot be allowed to mandate such things. If you start adding conditions like being around others then the answer can of course change. But absent those specific conditions even "in public" is too broad.
"The government" is a bit ambiguous. In most cases, I don't think the federal government has such power, but state and local governments do.
E Street Brat
Footballguy
IvanKaramazov said:
From my cold dead legs............
Stealthycat
Footballguy
The Government meaning Fed doesn't have any say in any of that.
Local/city/community/businesses and even arguable state ... but Federal has no rights to demand that of citizens IMO
Local/city/community/businesses and even arguable state ... but Federal has no rights to demand that of citizens IMO
djmich said:
NBC reported that N95 masks were 95% effective, surgical masks 50% and cloth masks 20% effective. I think it was just one expert's opinion, but, it passes the common sense smell test so it's good enough for me. The cloth masks they made us wear for months and months didn't do much as some of us predicted.
Last edited by a moderator:
AAABatteries
Footballguy
IvanKaramazov said:
I am so confused by the wording of the question - shouldn't you be disagree/agree??
Either way, I took the 2nd question to be more around that you have to wear SOMETHING not what to wear (i.e. - you can't wear a Nazi t-shirt)
Last edited by a moderator:
djmich
Footballguy
Here's the other thing that people smarter than me can probably answer but we seem to not bother understanding when we say something like 20% effective. What the heck does 20% mean.
If I bump into you and say hi and we're both wearing cloth masks and you have covid...does that mean I have a 20% less chance of getting covid from you in that singular interaction.
What if I sit down in a classroom with you for 8hrs. Is that 20% but the dice is rolled 10 times or 100 times due to the length of exposure.
If this works like russian roulette 20% means crap, and really so does 50%....eventually (and sooner than later) you are going to draw the chamber with the bullet.
Hygiene? It's nudity, not running around pissing on things.IvanKaramazov said:
I prefer state laws that are written outlawing obscene rather than nudity. It's actions and intent that is the problem, not nakedness. It's crazy to think about states that you could get labeled a sex offender for just being naked in your back yard.
It simply means that you take one out of every 5 people wearing cloth masks out of the equation.
If you think about what we are trying to accomplish, for example covid spreading in classrooms, reducing the effective number of children down to 24 from 30. Without any other measures that would not stop an outbreak from happening.
ETA: N95 masks on the other hand would reduce the effective number down to 1.5. That would stop an outbreak especially if those two kids happen to sit on opposite ends of the classroom.
ETA2: Actually that’s not quite right. Statistically the two kids would be the average distance between all the kids, so not opposite ends of the classroom but for sure more than 6 feet.
Last edited by a moderator:
djmich
Footballguy
I'm not sure it works that way. That would seem possible/intuitive in terms of how vaccine immunity could work (it either works for you or for the 1 in 5 person it doesn't).
But masks aren't necessarily more effective for me or for you. They block covid particles. This seems to be much more about the mask than the person.
I took it to mean the 20% assumed everyone “in the room” is wearing cloth masks. Obviously it’s even less effective if unmasked people or people are wearing masks incorrectly. Therefore there is no me or you, it’s statistical probability of transmission.
Pretty sure it means "blocks N% of particles/droplets". In practicality, what that means for infection is tough to say and likely depends on individual circumstance (passing in a grocery aisle versus sitting in a crowded room for hours).
johnnycakes
Footballguy
If I have had both my shots, I don't think I should be mandated to wear the mask.
gianmarco
Footballguy
It's unfortunate that a worldwide community of physicians, researchers, etc. isn't as smart as you and that your ability to know better isn't more widely available.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Well it was a community of aerosol scientists that actually released data regarding this.
They might know a thing or two about this topic.
