The subjects of the photo are providing an example. Not the photographer.the part about undermining public compliance with public health directives.
In this case, it is an example of know your risk and act accordingly.
The subjects of the photo are providing an example. Not the photographer.the part about undermining public compliance with public health directives.
You sure? I know in Alabama they closed public parks.the directives only apply to indoors.
It was Brietbart that added the text about critics of Fauci and published the picture. It is Breitbart that is responsible for undermining public compliance. It is not that much different than my hypothetical British newspaper undermining public compliance with the blackout in 1939. Very irresponsible.The subjects of the photo are providing an example.
Yes, the parks are closed, but there is no directive saying you much wear a mask in those parks. If you think about it a minute you can easily find other reasons for closing the parks. Think about drinking fountains and bathrooms.You sure? I know in Alabama they closed public parks.
So you are suggesting the bad example by Fauci is Breitbart’s fault for reporting on it? Really??The real problem with this Breitbart posting is that it undermines public compliance with public health directives by downplaying the difference between being outdoors with a couple of close friends and being indoors around many unrelated people.
So says you.I’m saying that’s another example of a situation in which social distancing doesn’t apply.
Here it is again.Remember to social distance! 6 feet!!
And I am saying this business amost for sure does not have the directives you have made up.Keep your social distance. 6 feet! Unless you thin you
are another example of a situation in which social distancing doesn’t apply.
Then I’d say the official are unwise in this regard, because activities cannot be categorized so broadly in terms of risk. Sitting for hours seated next to people, mouths and noses quite close, is risky,. To ignore it because one can categorize it in some way is hurting the effort.But public health officials do think there is a significant contrast between the two, so much so that the directives only apply to indoors.
LeafByNiggle . . .
I’m saying it was not a “bad example” except for the spin put on it by Breitbart. Don’t fall for it. Listen to public health directives and follow them.The real problem with this Breitbart posting is that it undermines public compliance with public health directives by downplaying the difference between being outdoors with a couple of close friends and being indoors around many unrelated people.
Breitbart did not pose for the picture. Fauci did.. It is Breitbart that is responsible for undermining public compliance.
Oh look, another straw man…It is not that much different than my hypothetical…
Why make a directive about a mask in a park when people are not allowed in the park at all?Yes, the parks are closed, but there is no directive saying you much wear a mask in those parks.
No, it would hurt the effort by treating all social systems exactly the same. If the public health guidance said that people should wear masks all the time when in public, even when outdoors, the public would see that as unnecessarily burdensome and would disregard all of it. Public health officials wisely set limits as minimally as possible so as to maximize compliance.LeafByNiggle:![]()
Then I’d say the official are unwise in this regard, because activities cannot be categorized so broadly in terms of risk. Sitting for hours seated next to people, mouths and noses quite close, is risky,. To ignore it because one can categorize it in some way is hurting the effort.But public health officials do think there is a significant contrast between the two, so much so that the directives only apply to indoors.
Agreed. The only issue is the lopsided way the media treats this.This is gotcha culture at its best.
I have been excoriated in other threads for that logic.He said he was drinking, and he tested negative the day before.
My point remains that the public health directives on masks are for indoors only.Why make a directive about a mask in a park when people are not allowed in the park at all?
The mask likely was for pollen.What they really needed was hearing protection.
I wasn’t trying to trap you.My point remains that the public health directives on masks are for indoors only.