Mandatory mask poll

  • Thread starter Thread starter jgaw1234
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it would be interesting to take a poll of my Facebook friends or in a separate thread on this forum, asking: “since this pandemic has started, how many of you know someone personally (friend, relative, aquaintence, co-worker, fellow parishioner, etc.) who has tested positive for Covid-19?” I find it odd that I do not personally know anyone who has tested positive. I do homecare for one of the largest homecare agencies in the nation and I have yet to have a covid-19 positive patient or a patient who knows someone who has tested positive…which makes me skeptical when thinking about how to respond to my state’ s (Michigan) mandatory mask wearing mandate.
You can be charged with a misdemeanor carrying a monetary penalty for a person willfully not complying And a penalty (suspension of business and fine) can be imposed on businesses for not enforcing the mask mandate.
I know Covid-19 is real, is more contagious than the typical seasonal flu, and can potentially be fatal. But, the only actual illness I have seen since the pandemic started have been not from actual virus infection. Just many friends, family, and fellow parishoners suffering from moderate to severe psychological illnesses from the mixed-up, over-reacting hoopla spewed out 24/7 by the media, politicians, and community leaders.
 
Last edited:
Yes, fully agree. This is a minor inconvenience during the pandemic. Do not understand the resistance by some
 
tuffsmurf said:
if a mask has larger holes that allows aerosols to pass through, the mask will not be as effective.
Click to expand...
Maybe, and also the respect of hygiene by the person who wear a mask.

If someone touch the mask, re use it more than one time, remoove the mask to cought (yes, some do it!) the efficiency seems far less…if not negative at all…

Wearing a mask make people more confident, but it does not replace /no contact rules.
 
Last edited:

A video from Florida Atlantic University demonstrating the effectiveness of masks.

It you still don’t think masks are helpful, there’s nothing that will convince you otherwise.
 
I don’t personally know anyone who’s had it.

But my family, especially my kids, missed out on some of the most significant moments of their lives, and they can’t be replaced. Namely, spring of high school senior year and graduation and spring of college senior year and graduation.

If I were to come down with Covid at this point, after all their heartbreak, any anti-masker who crosses my path will have a whole lot more to worry about than whether his constitutional rights are being violated.
 
vz71 said:
40.png
27lw:
Masks -67% decreased risk of spread. From pubmed
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7263820/
Click to expand...
Actually, no.
Read before you repeat.
In this case, Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection for prevention of COVID-19
Click to expand...
I’m afraid it is you who didn’t read far enough. The 67% figure is in the fourth paragraph.

Also, @Peeps is “The Lancet” authoritative enough for you?
 
Last edited:
27lw said:
I’m afraid it is you who didn’t read far enough. The 67% figure is in the fourth paragraph.
Click to expand...
Do you really want to go this route?
The 67 does not refer to effectiveness for covid.
In fact, the entire study is for h1n1.

Which actually explains why it’s results look so different from the others you have posted.
 
vz71 said:
40.png
27lw:
I’m afraid it is you who didn’t read far enough. The 67% figure is in the fourth paragraph.
Click to expand...
Do you really want to go this route?
The 67 does not refer to effectiveness for covid.
In fact, the entire study is for h1n1.

Which actually explains why it’s results look so different from the others you have posted.
Click to expand...
Really? It’s about H1N1?

Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection for prevention of COVID-19​

C Raina MacIntyrea and Quanyi Wangb

Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer

This article has been corrected. See Lancet. 2020; 395(10242): 1972.

See “Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis” in Lancet , volume 395 on page 1973.

The choice of various respiratory protection mechanisms, including face masks and respirators, has been a vexed issue, from the 2009 H1N1 pandemic to the west African Ebola epidemic of 2014,1 to the current COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 guidelines issued by WHO, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other agencies have been consistent about the need for physical distancing of 1–2 m but conflicting on the issue of respiratory protection with a face mask or a respirator.2 This discrepancy reflects uncertain evidence and no consensus about the transmission mode of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). For eye protection, data are even less certain. Therefore, the systematic review and meta-analysis by Derek Chu and colleagues in The Lancet [3]
(Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection for prevention of COVID-19) is an important milestone in our understanding of the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and physical distancing for COVID-19. No randomised controlled trials were available for the analysis, but Chu and colleagues systematically reviewed 172 observational studies and rigorously synthesised available evidence from 44 comparative studies on SARS, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), COVID-19, and the betacoronaviruses that cause these diseases.
 
Continued

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Chu and colleagues also report that respirators and multilayer masks are more protective than are single layer masks. This finding is vital to inform the proliferation of home-made cloth mask designs, many of which are single-layered. A well designed cloth mask should have water-resistant fabric, multiple layers, and good facial fit.12 This study supports universal face mask use, because masks were equally effective in both health-care and community settings when adjusted for type of mask use. Growing evidence for presymptomatic and asymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-213 further supports universal face mask use and distancing. In regions with a high incidence of COVID-19, universal face mask use combined with physical distancing could reduce the rate of infection (flatten the curve), even with modestly effective masks.14 Universal face mask use might enable safe lifting of restrictions in communities seeking to resume normal activities and could protect people in crowded public settings and within households. Masks worn within households in Beijing, China, prevented secondary transmission of SARS-CoV-2 if worn before symptom onset of the index case.15 Finally, Chu and colleagues reiterate that no one intervention is completely protective and that combinations of physical distancing, face mask use, and other interventions are needed to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic until we have an effective vaccine. Until randomised controlled trial data are available, this study provides the best specific evidence for COVID-19 prevention.
 
on_the_hill said:
If I were to come down with Covid at this point, after all their heartbreak, any anti-masker who crosses my path will have a whole lot more to worry about than whether his constitutional rights are being violated.
Click to expand...
As long as I’m free to choose, I’ll choose not to wear a mask. It has nothing to do with “constitutional rights” since there is no such thing.
 
on_the_hill said:
If I were to come down with Covid at this point, after all their heartbreak, any anti-masker who crosses my path will have a whole lot more to worry about than whether his constitutional rights are being violated.
Click to expand...
My, won’t you feel silly having carried out such threats against someone that may not be able to wear a mask.

Perhaps it would be best not to judge until you actually have the rest of the information.
 
27lw said:
Also, @Peeps is “The Lancet” authoritative enough for you?
Click to expand...
Sorry, in and out today (my husband’s parents are having some health crises).

Perhaps you posted it, but I have missed it in this thread. 😦 I would love to see what The Lancet says about herd immunity and COVID-19. I’m guessing that they probably agree with what our infectious disease specialists, who work with our microbiology supervisor and techs, say about the necessity for either a vaccine and/or herd immunity, in order to see an ending to the world-wide pandemic. In fact, I’m guessing that our infectious disease docs get their information from journals like Lancet, Mortality and Morbidity, etc. Thanks!

Until we have a vaccine and/or herd immunity, I have no objection to mask-wearing, except that I simply cannot wear it over my nose. It makes me panic and start gasping for breath. But I am not attending any big gatherings, including church, and I don’t go to bars, and our restaurants in our state are only allowed 25% capacity of indoor diners–so I think others are pretty safe from me. No one at the hospital has objected yet to those of us who wear the mask under our noses, and so far, no one has contracted COVID-19 in our lab staff (and we are pretty isolated from the rest of the hospital, other than the phlebotomy crew, who are headquartered separately than the rest of the lab).
 
Last edited:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31483-5/fulltext

In conclusion, our study provides nationwide and regional estimates of SARS-CoV-2 dissemination in Spain, showing remarkable differences between higher and lower prevalence areas. One in three infections seems to be asymptomatic, while a substantial number of symptomatic cases remained untested. Despite the high impact of COVID-19 in Spain, prevalence estimates remain low and are clearly insufficient to provide herd immunity. This cannot be achieved without accepting the collateral damage of many deaths in the susceptible population and overburdening of health systems. In this situation, social distance measures and efforts to identify and isolate new cases and their contacts are imperative for future epidemic control.
 
I find it ironic that the same people who cry at the top of their lungs that their rights are being infringed upon by being forced to wear a mask in the sake of public health, have no qualms about severely limiting the rights of women (getting rid of the freedom of choice) and LBGTQ (the right to marry and live a normal life).

It is one thing to be against these in your personal convictions, due to religious beliefs, etc, but it is quite another to suggest that the government should impose them on all of its people.
 
ForeverLearn said:
I find it ironic that the same people who cry at the top of their lungs that their rights are being infringed upon by being forced to wear a mask in the sake of public health, have no qualms about severely limiting the rights of women (getting rid of the freedom of choice) and LBGTQ (the right to marry and live a normal life).

It is one thing to be against these in your personal convictions, due to religious beliefs, etc, but it is quite another to suggest that the government should impose them on all of its people.
Click to expand...
It’s actually precisely because the people wanting me to wear a mask believe that the ‘right’ to bodily automony supercedes the right to life that I object to them.
 
Elf01 said:
It’s actually precisely because the people wanting me to wear a mask believe that the ‘right’ to bodily automony supercedes the right to life that I object to them.
Click to expand...
So let’s fight a contradictory idea with another contradictory idea. The “leadership” of this president seems to be wearing off on people. The promotion of sophomoric ideas has this country in a hole.

There is however, one important distinction when referring to your comparison. When a woman decides abortion in her best option, that decision affects no one else outside of her family. The refusal to adhere to public health restriction potentially endangers many, many people DIRECTLY in many ways.
 
Here’s how I see it.

I’ll wear a mask to protect myself from others who may have CV-19; not because the government or some other entity wants/requires me to.

It is not my responsibility to protect others from me. If I choose not to wear a mask and someone else gets upset because they are afraid of catching something from me, too bad. They need to make the effort to protect themselves; not demand that others keep them safe.

My two-cents.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top