fadskier said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

fadskier said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

And of course the proof of the origin is there, and that it was from someone not wearing a mask, right?

The events were bad enough. Let's not add to the hysteria with pure speculation. Or better yet, let's accuse all the Capitol entrants of being terrorists that used a deadly bio-weapon.

---

Why not wear a mask if it would obviate these accusations?

Wear the damn mask, dammit

---

This is being used to score political points, not generate safety awareness. What's going to happen is that if this woman gets very ill, they're going to pin it on the attack or non masked Republicans or something similar. I wear a mask even though I know it's very little help. But she just as soon could have gotten it somewhere else. People who don't have Covid don't spread Covid to other people whether wearing a mask or not. If all the unmasked people mentioned are negative, what then?

---

C'mon ATL
Wear a mask
Be polite

---

You talking to me or someone else? I said I wear a mask.

---

ATL
Sorry, didn't mean you. I meant the Republicans should have been masked in order to remove the chance for this accusation

---

The problem is that Jayapal wasn't masked either...

---

I didn't know that

---

Newsweek posted a video and I tried to post a pic...but you can search and she wasn't wearing a mask...don't really blame her for that...if I were in the capitol during that, I would be thinking about a mask...but then I would blame anyone afterwards either

---

She said on TV today that the Capitol Police that led the House members out of the chambers told them to remove their masks so they could put on their gas masks. I can't verify the veracity of that, but that was her explanation.

---

Excet that she didn't put it on....and there are pictures and a video

---

You mean the video where she's holding a gas mask?

---

Yes and I think it is generally accepted that the gas mask only helps when it covers your face. Perhaps she had different information.

---

It may not have been clear from the OP, but the legislators were locked in a secured room for several hours. That was the riskiest time, during which the Republicans refused masks and ridiculed those who offered them. A few seconds of video from earlier in the gallery doesn't prove much.

fadskier said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

fadskier said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

And of course the proof of the origin is there, and that it was from someone not wearing a mask, right?

The events were bad enough. Let's not add to the hysteria with pure speculation. Or better yet, let's accuse all the Capitol entrants of being terrorists that used a deadly bio-weapon.

---

Why not wear a mask if it would obviate these accusations?

Wear the damn mask, dammit

---

This is being used to score political points, not generate safety awareness. What's going to happen is that if this woman gets very ill, they're going to pin it on the attack or non masked Republicans or something similar. I wear a mask even though I know it's very little help. But she just as soon could have gotten it somewhere else. People who don't have Covid don't spread Covid to other people whether wearing a mask or not. If all the unmasked people mentioned are negative, what then?

---

C'mon ATL
Wear a mask
Be polite

---

You talking to me or someone else? I said I wear a mask.

---

ATL
Sorry, didn't mean you. I meant the Republicans should have been masked in order to remove the chance for this accusation

---

The problem is that Jayapal wasn't masked either...

---

I didn't know that

---

Newsweek posted a video and I tried to post a pic...but you can search and she wasn't wearing a mask...don't really blame her for that...if I were in the capitol during that, I would be thinking about a mask...but then I would blame anyone afterwards either

---

She said on TV today that the Capitol Police that led the House members out of the chambers told them to remove their masks so they could put on their gas masks. I can't verify the veracity of that, but that was her explanation.

---

Excet that she didn't put it on....and there are pictures and a video

---

You mean the video where she's holding a gas mask?

---

Yes and I think it is generally accepted that the gas mask only helps when it covers your face. Perhaps she had different information.

---

It may not have been clear from the OP, but the legislators were locked in a secured room for several hours. That was the riskiest time, during which the Republicans refused masks and ridiculed those who offered them. A few seconds of video from earlier in the gallery doesn't prove much.

---

Neither does her "saying" the Republicans refused to wear masks and ridiculed those that did....I choose to believe my eyes where it clearly shows she was unmasked.

---

That's quite a stretch.

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Cheap political ploy. It's that simple. Opinions about masks don't matter.

---

Depending on how the illness affects them, it could be anything but cheap.

---

Then stay at home.

---

Lots of people, including me and my wife because of our age, are staying home because where we live, masks are voluntary so you can't count on people wearing them.

We've saved a hell of a lot of money we used to spend at restaurants and local businesses. We were both surprised at how much. Some of those businesses have closed because people like us don't feel safe to go out. Just about the only place we go is the grocery and a hardware store that does a better job of the Home Depot near us of managing customers by requiring them to wear masks and limiting the number of people in the store.

A mask mandate everybody was required to follow and better guidelines about how to protect people who want to support local businesses from covid might have helped those businesses stay open.

it strikes me as particularly stupid that anyone would say "just stay the **** home" to people who don't want to get covid. Well, okay, we are, but that has a cost.

There was a balance between personal freedom and personal responsibility and we didn't get it right.

---

If you believe you could be at extra risk of severe Covid impact, you should stay home and avoid significant human contact. In this situation, it doesn't matter whether you're wearing a mask or not because people wearing masks are infecting other people wearing masks.

Masks are proving to be minimally effective (better than nothing of course) because the US experiment with the virus wasn't to mask or not to mask, we've actually greatly improved that, it was whether to continue to keep activities and industry going and allow free movement. As the national examples have proven (Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, etc.), the ability to isolate and have forced containment is what stops/slows viral spread. . The ones who have it contained continue 14 day quarantines for anyone new into the country, and remain largely locked down comparatively speaking. Every nation that opens up sees spikes, some dramatically.

The battle over masks in America has turned more political and personal than scientific. The science of isolation is impeccable, but that's an entirely different political and rights battle. The cost of freedom, regardless of masking adherence, can be high as we've shown. So if you fear or are potentially susceptible to the worst of Covid then yeah, "stay the **** home". Otherwise, we'll continue to interact and infect each other masked or unmasked everywhere from the grocery store, gas station, school, home gathering, at work, restaurant, etc., as is bearing out.

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Cheap political ploy. It's that simple. Opinions about masks don't matter.

---

Depending on how the illness affects them, it could be anything but cheap.

---

Then stay at home.

---

Lots of people, including me and my wife because of our age, are staying home because where we live, masks are voluntary so you can't count on people wearing them.

We've saved a hell of a lot of money we used to spend at restaurants and local businesses. We were both surprised at how much. Some of those businesses have closed because people like us don't feel safe to go out. Just about the only place we go is the grocery and a hardware store that does a better job of the Home Depot near us of managing customers by requiring them to wear masks and limiting the number of people in the store.

A mask mandate everybody was required to follow and better guidelines about how to protect people who want to support local businesses from covid might have helped those businesses stay open.

it strikes me as particularly stupid that anyone would say "just stay the **** home" to people who don't want to get covid. Well, okay, we are, but that has a cost.

There was a balance between personal freedom and personal responsibility and we didn't get it right.

---

If you believe you could be at extra risk of severe Covid impact, you should stay home and avoid significant human contact. In this situation, it doesn't matter whether you're wearing a mask or not because people wearing masks are infecting other people wearing masks.

Masks are proving to be minimally effective (better than nothing of course) because the US experiment with the virus wasn't to mask or not to mask, we've actually greatly improved that, it was whether to continue to keep activities and industry going and allow free movement. As the national examples have proven (Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, etc.), the ability to isolate and have forced containment is what stops/slows viral spread. . The ones who have it contained continue 14 day quarantines for anyone new into the country, and remain largely locked down comparatively speaking. Every nation that opens up sees spikes, some dramatically.

The battle over masks in America has turned more political and personal than scientific. The science of isolation is impeccable, but that's an entirely different political and rights battle. The cost of freedom, regardless of masking adherence, can be high as we've shown. So if you fear or are potentially susceptible to the worst of Covid then yeah, "stay the **** home". Otherwise, we'll continue to interact and infect each other masked or unmasked everywhere from the grocery store, gas station, school, home gathering, at work, restaurant, etc., as is bearing out.

---

The science is clear. Masks reduce the spread. A mask mandate would allow more people to shop at local businesses.

---

Depends upon the mask, and how you mask, but generally speaking better than nothing. Studies show 20%-30% improvement if non N95 in lab controlled environments. Have no idea how it would allow more people to shop at local businesses though, unless you're saying personal comfort.

ATL Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Cheap political ploy. It's that simple. Opinions about masks don't matter.

---

Depending on how the illness affects them, it could be anything but cheap.

---

Then stay at home.

---

Lots of people, including me and my wife because of our age, are staying home because where we live, masks are voluntary so you can't count on people wearing them.

We've saved a hell of a lot of money we used to spend at restaurants and local businesses. We were both surprised at how much. Some of those businesses have closed because people like us don't feel safe to go out. Just about the only place we go is the grocery and a hardware store that does a better job of the Home Depot near us of managing customers by requiring them to wear masks and limiting the number of people in the store.

A mask mandate everybody was required to follow and better guidelines about how to protect people who want to support local businesses from covid might have helped those businesses stay open.

it strikes me as particularly stupid that anyone would say "just stay the **** home" to people who don't want to get covid. Well, okay, we are, but that has a cost.

There was a balance between personal freedom and personal responsibility and we didn't get it right.

---

If you believe you could be at extra risk of severe Covid impact, you should stay home and avoid significant human contact. In this situation, it doesn't matter whether you're wearing a mask or not because people wearing masks are infecting other people wearing masks.

Masks are proving to be minimally effective (better than nothing of course) because the US experiment with the virus wasn't to mask or not to mask, we've actually greatly improved that, it was whether to continue to keep activities and industry going and allow free movement. As the national examples have proven (Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, etc.), the ability to isolate and have forced containment is what stops/slows viral spread. . The ones who have it contained continue 14 day quarantines for anyone new into the country, and remain largely locked down comparatively speaking. Every nation that opens up sees spikes, some dramatically.

The battle over masks in America has turned more political and personal than scientific. The science of isolation is impeccable, but that's an entirely different political and rights battle. The cost of freedom, regardless of masking adherence, can be high as we've shown. So if you fear or are potentially susceptible to the worst of Covid then yeah, "stay the **** home". Otherwise, we'll continue to interact and infect each other masked or unmasked everywhere from the grocery store, gas station, school, home gathering, at work, restaurant, etc., as is bearing out.

---

The science is clear. Masks reduce the spread. A mask mandate would allow more people to shop at local businesses.

---

Depends upon the mask, and how you mask, but generally speaking better than nothing. Studies show 20%-30% improvement if non N95 in lab controlled environments. Have no idea how it would allow more people to shop at local businesses though, unless you're saying personal comfort.

---

Comparisons in several states show counties with mask mandates reduced Covid cases compared with those that didn't mandate masks. Here's one from Kansas: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947e2.htm

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

fadskier said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

And of course the proof of the origin is there, and that it was from someone not wearing a mask, right?

The events were bad enough. %A0Let's not add to the hysteria with pure speculation. %A0Or better yet, let's accuse all the Capitol entrants of being terrorists that used a deadly bio-weapon. %A0

---

Why not wear a mask if it would obviate these accusations?

Wear the damn mask, dammit

---

This is being used to score political points, not generate safety awareness. %A0What's going to happen is that if this woman gets very ill, they're going to pin it on the attack or non masked Republicans or something similar. %A0I wear a mask even though I know it's very little help. %A0But she just as soon could have gotten it somewhere else. %A0People who don't have Covid don't spread Covid to other people whether wearing a mask or not. %A0If all the unmasked people mentioned are negative, what then? %A0

---

C'mon ATL
Wear a mask
Be polite

---

You talking to me or someone else? %A0I said I wear a mask. %A0

---

ATL
Sorry, didn't mean you. %A0I meant the Republicans should have been masked in order to remove the chance for this accusation

---

The problem is that Jayapal wasn't masked either...

---

I didn't know that

---

Newsweek posted a video and I tried to post a pic...but you can search and she wasn't wearing a mask...don't really blame her for that...if I were in the %A0capitol during that, I would be thinking about a mask...but then I would blame anyone afterwards either

---

She said on TV today that the Capitol Police that led the House members out of the chambers told them to remove their masks so they could put on their gas masks. I can't verify the veracity of that, but that was her explanation.

---

Excet that she didn't put it on....and there are pictures and a video

---

You mean the video where she's holding a gas mask?

---

Yes and I think it is generally accepted that the gas mask only helps when it covers your face. %A0Perhaps she had different information.

---

It may not have been clear from the OP, but the legislators were locked in a secured room for several hours. That was the riskiest time, during which the Republicans refused masks and ridiculed those who offered them. A few seconds of video from earlier in the gallery doesn't prove much.

---

Have any of the unmasked legislators been announced as Covid positive? %A0How do we know that this congresswoman wasn't already infected and she was the spreader? %A0

---

We can't know for sure, but she tested negative the day before.

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Cheap political ploy. It's that simple. Opinions about masks don't matter.

---

Depending on how the illness affects them, it could be anything but cheap.

---

Then stay at home.

---

Lots of people, including me and my wife because of our age, are staying home because where we live, masks are voluntary so you can't count on people wearing them.

We've saved a hell of a lot of money we used to spend at restaurants and local businesses. We were both surprised at how much. Some of those businesses have closed because people like us don't feel safe to go out. Just about the only place we go is the grocery and a hardware store that does a better job of the Home Depot near us of managing customers by requiring them to wear masks and limiting the number of people in the store.

A mask mandate everybody was required to follow and better guidelines about how to protect people who want to support local businesses from covid might have helped those businesses stay open.

it strikes me as particularly stupid that anyone would say "just stay the **** home" to people who don't want to get covid. Well, okay, we are, but that has a cost.

There was a balance between personal freedom and personal responsibility and we didn't get it right.

---

You are free to choose to live in fear of viruses, or lightning strikes, or auto accidents, or any other number of things. And, yes, you're right, staying home in fear has consequences (for yourself and others). But saying you otherwise would have frequented businesses if more people had been wearing cloth face coverings like you wanted them to is a "personal responsibility" blame game that can go both directions.

You think more people should have worn cloth on their face and if they had you would have gone to Joe's Diner and kept it in business. I think you could have gone to Joe's Diner and kept it in business by not having irrational fear, and that you should realize that the face masks you blame people for not wearing wouldn't have made a meaningful statistical difference in whether you contracted the virus or not. Staying at home and hiding in your basement would make a statistical difference, but that isn't a life worth living IMO. I think you should resume life, and understand that life involves risks (including you driving to Home Depot, for example) . . . but you obviously can choose to do as you see fit. Just understand that people feel differently than you, and maybe stop pointing fingers.

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Cheap political ploy. It's that simple. Opinions about masks don't matter.

---

Depending on how the illness affects them, it could be anything but cheap.

---

Then stay at home.

---

Lots of people, including me and my wife because of our age, are staying home because where we live, masks are voluntary so you can't count on people wearing them.

We've saved a hell of a lot of money we used to spend at restaurants and local businesses. We were both surprised at how much. Some of those businesses have closed because people like us don't feel safe to go out. Just about the only place we go is the grocery and a hardware store that does a better job of the Home Depot near us of managing customers by requiring them to wear masks and limiting the number of people in the store.

A mask mandate everybody was required to follow and better guidelines about how to protect people who want to support local businesses from covid might have helped those businesses stay open.

it strikes me as particularly stupid that anyone would say "just stay the **** home" to people who don't want to get covid. Well, okay, we are, but that has a cost.

There was a balance between personal freedom and personal responsibility and we didn't get it right.

---

If you believe you could be at extra risk of severe Covid impact, you should stay home and avoid significant human contact. In this situation, it doesn't matter whether you're wearing a mask or not because people wearing masks are infecting other people wearing masks.

Masks are proving to be minimally effective (better than nothing of course) because the US experiment with the virus wasn't to mask or not to mask, we've actually greatly improved that, it was whether to continue to keep activities and industry going and allow free movement. As the national examples have proven (Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, etc.), the ability to isolate and have forced containment is what stops/slows viral spread. . The ones who have it contained continue 14 day quarantines for anyone new into the country, and remain largely locked down comparatively speaking. Every nation that opens up sees spikes, some dramatically.

The battle over masks in America has turned more political and personal than scientific. The science of isolation is impeccable, but that's an entirely different political and rights battle. The cost of freedom, regardless of masking adherence, can be high as we've shown. So if you fear or are potentially susceptible to the worst of Covid then yeah, "stay the **** home". Otherwise, we'll continue to interact and infect each other masked or unmasked everywhere from the grocery store, gas station, school, home gathering, at work, restaurant, etc., as is bearing out.

---

The science is clear. Masks reduce the spread. A mask mandate would allow more people to shop at local businesses.

---

Depends upon the mask, and how you mask, but generally speaking better than nothing. Studies show 20%-30% improvement if non N95 in lab controlled environments. Have no idea how it would allow more people to shop at local businesses though, unless you're saying personal comfort.

---

Comparisons in several states show counties with mask mandates reduced Covid cases compared with those that didn't mandate masks. Here's one from Kansas: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947e2.htm

---

Virus has mutated since then, and this is a finite study. The entire state of California has a mask mandate and has had one since the Summer. It is and has been raging there. We'd be better served with a hand sanitizing mandate, or advanced air filtration mandate for indoor spaces.

ATL Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Cheap political ploy. It's that simple. Opinions about masks don't matter.

---

Depending on how the illness affects them, it could be anything but cheap.

---

Then stay at home.

---

Lots of people, including me and my wife because of our age, are staying home because where we live, masks are voluntary so you can't count on people wearing them.

We've saved a hell of a lot of money we used to spend at restaurants and local businesses. We were both surprised at how much. Some of those businesses have closed because people like us don't feel safe to go out. Just about the only place we go is the grocery and a hardware store that does a better job of the Home Depot near us of managing customers by requiring them to wear masks and limiting the number of people in the store.

A mask mandate everybody was required to follow and better guidelines about how to protect people who want to support local businesses from covid might have helped those businesses stay open.

it strikes me as particularly stupid that anyone would say "just stay the **** home" to people who don't want to get covid. Well, okay, we are, but that has a cost.

There was a balance between personal freedom and personal responsibility and we didn't get it right.

---

If you believe you could be at extra risk of severe Covid impact, you should stay home and avoid significant human contact. In this situation, it doesn't matter whether you're wearing a mask or not because people wearing masks are infecting other people wearing masks.

Masks are proving to be minimally effective (better than nothing of course) because the US experiment with the virus wasn't to mask or not to mask, we've actually greatly improved that, it was whether to continue to keep activities and industry going and allow free movement. As the national examples have proven (Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, etc.), the ability to isolate and have forced containment is what stops/slows viral spread. . The ones who have it contained continue 14 day quarantines for anyone new into the country, and remain largely locked down comparatively speaking. Every nation that opens up sees spikes, some dramatically.

The battle over masks in America has turned more political and personal than scientific. The science of isolation is impeccable, but that's an entirely different political and rights battle. The cost of freedom, regardless of masking adherence, can be high as we've shown. So if you fear or are potentially susceptible to the worst of Covid then yeah, "stay the **** home". Otherwise, we'll continue to interact and infect each other masked or unmasked everywhere from the grocery store, gas station, school, home gathering, at work, restaurant, etc., as is bearing out.

---

The science is clear. Masks reduce the spread. A mask mandate would allow more people to shop at local businesses.

---

Depends upon the mask, and how you mask, but generally speaking better than nothing. Studies show 20%-30% improvement if non N95 in lab controlled environments. Have no idea how it would allow more people to shop at local businesses though, unless you're saying personal comfort.

---

Comparisons in several states show counties with mask mandates reduced Covid cases compared with those that didn't mandate masks. Here's one from Kansas: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947e2.htm

---

Virus has mutated since then, and this is a finite study. The entire state of California has a mask mandate and has had one since the Summer. It is and has been raging there. We'd be better served with a hand sanitizing mandate, or advanced air filtration mandate for indoor spaces.

---

In what relevant way has the virus mutated?

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Cheap political ploy. It's that simple. Opinions about masks don't matter.

---

Depending on how the illness affects them, it could be anything but cheap.

---

Then stay at home.

---

Lots of people, including me and my wife because of our age, are staying home because where we live, masks are voluntary so you can't count on people wearing them.

We've saved a hell of a lot of money we used to spend at restaurants and local businesses. We were both surprised at how much. Some of those businesses have closed because people like us don't feel safe to go out. Just about the only place we go is the grocery and a hardware store that does a better job of the Home Depot near us of managing customers by requiring them to wear masks and limiting the number of people in the store.

A mask mandate everybody was required to follow and better guidelines about how to protect people who want to support local businesses from covid might have helped those businesses stay open.

it strikes me as particularly stupid that anyone would say "just stay the **** home" to people who don't want to get covid. Well, okay, we are, but that has a cost.

There was a balance between personal freedom and personal responsibility and we didn't get it right.

---

If you believe you could be at extra risk of severe Covid impact, you should stay home and avoid significant human contact. In this situation, it doesn't matter whether you're wearing a mask or not because people wearing masks are infecting other people wearing masks.

Masks are proving to be minimally effective (better than nothing of course) because the US experiment with the virus wasn't to mask or not to mask, we've actually greatly improved that, it was whether to continue to keep activities and industry going and allow free movement. As the national examples have proven (Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, etc.), the ability to isolate and have forced containment is what stops/slows viral spread. . The ones who have it contained continue 14 day quarantines for anyone new into the country, and remain largely locked down comparatively speaking. Every nation that opens up sees spikes, some dramatically.

The battle over masks in America has turned more political and personal than scientific. The science of isolation is impeccable, but that's an entirely different political and rights battle. The cost of freedom, regardless of masking adherence, can be high as we've shown. So if you fear or are potentially susceptible to the worst of Covid then yeah, "stay the **** home". Otherwise, we'll continue to interact and infect each other masked or unmasked everywhere from the grocery store, gas station, school, home gathering, at work, restaurant, etc., as is bearing out.

---

The science is clear. Masks reduce the spread. A mask mandate would allow more people to shop at local businesses.

---

Depends upon the mask, and how you mask, but generally speaking better than nothing. Studies show 20%-30% improvement if non N95 in lab controlled environments. Have no idea how it would allow more people to shop at local businesses though, unless you're saying personal comfort.

---

Comparisons in several states show counties with mask mandates reduced Covid cases compared with those that didn't mandate masks. Here's one from Kansas: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947e2.htm

---

Virus has mutated since then, and this is a finite study. The entire state of California has a mask mandate and has had one since the Summer. It is and has been raging there. We'd be better served with a hand sanitizing mandate, or advanced air filtration mandate for indoor spaces.

---

In what relevant way has the virus mutated?

---

Extra contagious. UK version and South African version. New strains, similar to UK version, discovered in the US recently at Ohio State. Smaller clusters delivering higher viral load resulting in more likely infection. South African mutation appears most concerning as current vaccines might not work on it. They believe they will on the UK and recent US mutations, but not yet proven.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Cheap political ploy. It's that simple. Opinions about masks don't matter.

---

Depending on how the illness affects them, it could be anything but cheap.

---

Then stay at home.

---

Lots of people, including me and my wife because of our age, are staying home because where we live, masks are voluntary so you can't count on people wearing them.

We've saved a hell of a lot of money we used to spend at restaurants and local businesses. We were both surprised at how much. Some of those businesses have closed because people like us don't feel safe to go out. Just about the only place we go is the grocery and a hardware store that does a better job of the Home Depot near us of managing customers by requiring them to wear masks and limiting the number of people in the store.

A mask mandate everybody was required to follow and better guidelines about how to protect people who want to support local businesses from covid might have helped those businesses stay open.

it strikes me as particularly stupid that anyone would say "just stay the **** home" to people who don't want to get covid. Well, okay, we are, but that has a cost.

There was a balance between personal freedom and personal responsibility and we didn't get it right.

---

If you believe you could be at extra risk of severe Covid impact, you should stay home and avoid significant human contact. In this situation, it doesn't matter whether you're wearing a mask or not because people wearing masks are infecting other people wearing masks.

Masks are proving to be minimally effective (better than nothing of course) because the US experiment with the virus wasn't to mask or not to mask, we've actually greatly improved that, it was whether to continue to keep activities and industry going and allow free movement. As the national examples have proven (Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, etc.), the ability to isolate and have forced containment is what stops/slows viral spread. . The ones who have it contained continue 14 day quarantines for anyone new into the country, and remain largely locked down comparatively speaking. Every nation that opens up sees spikes, some dramatically.

The battle over masks in America has turned more political and personal than scientific. The science of isolation is impeccable, but that's an entirely different political and rights battle. The cost of freedom, regardless of masking adherence, can be high as we've shown. So if you fear or are potentially susceptible to the worst of Covid then yeah, "stay the **** home". Otherwise, we'll continue to interact and infect each other masked or unmasked everywhere from the grocery store, gas station, school, home gathering, at work, restaurant, etc., as is bearing out.

---

The science is clear. Masks reduce the spread. A mask mandate would allow more people to shop at local businesses.

---

Depends upon the mask, and how you mask, but generally speaking better than nothing. Studies show 20%-30% improvement if non N95 in lab controlled environments. Have no idea how it would allow more people to shop at local businesses though, unless you're saying personal comfort.

---

Comparisons in several states show counties with mask mandates reduced Covid cases compared with those that didn't mandate masks. Here's one from Kansas: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947e2.htm

---

Virus has mutated since then, and this is a finite study. The entire state of California has a mask mandate and has had one since the Summer. It is and has been raging there. We'd be better served with a hand sanitizing mandate, or advanced air filtration mandate for indoor spaces.

---

In what relevant way has the virus mutated?

---

Extra contagious. UK version and South African version. New strains, similar to UK version, discovered in the US recently at Ohio State. Smaller clusters delivering higher viral load resulting in more likely infection.

---

Which means what in terms of masks?

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Cheap political ploy. It's that simple. Opinions about masks don't matter.

---

Depending on how the illness affects them, it could be anything but cheap.

---

Then stay at home.

---

Lots of people, including me and my wife because of our age, are staying home because where we live, masks are voluntary so you can't count on people wearing them.

We've saved a hell of a lot of money we used to spend at restaurants and local businesses. We were both surprised at how much. Some of those businesses have closed because people like us don't feel safe to go out. Just about the only place we go is the grocery and a hardware store that does a better job of the Home Depot near us of managing customers by requiring them to wear masks and limiting the number of people in the store.

A mask mandate everybody was required to follow and better guidelines about how to protect people who want to support local businesses from covid might have helped those businesses stay open.

it strikes me as particularly stupid that anyone would say "just stay the **** home" to people who don't want to get covid. Well, okay, we are, but that has a cost.

There was a balance between personal freedom and personal responsibility and we didn't get it right.

---

If you believe you could be at extra risk of severe Covid impact, you should stay home and avoid significant human contact. In this situation, it doesn't matter whether you're wearing a mask or not because people wearing masks are infecting other people wearing masks.

Masks are proving to be minimally effective (better than nothing of course) because the US experiment with the virus wasn't to mask or not to mask, we've actually greatly improved that, it was whether to continue to keep activities and industry going and allow free movement. As the national examples have proven (Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, etc.), the ability to isolate and have forced containment is what stops/slows viral spread. . The ones who have it contained continue 14 day quarantines for anyone new into the country, and remain largely locked down comparatively speaking. Every nation that opens up sees spikes, some dramatically.

The battle over masks in America has turned more political and personal than scientific. The science of isolation is impeccable, but that's an entirely different political and rights battle. The cost of freedom, regardless of masking adherence, can be high as we've shown. So if you fear or are potentially susceptible to the worst of Covid then yeah, "stay the **** home". Otherwise, we'll continue to interact and infect each other masked or unmasked everywhere from the grocery store, gas station, school, home gathering, at work, restaurant, etc., as is bearing out.

---

The science is clear. Masks reduce the spread. A mask mandate would allow more people to shop at local businesses.

---

Depends upon the mask, and how you mask, but generally speaking better than nothing. Studies show 20%-30% improvement if non N95 in lab controlled environments. Have no idea how it would allow more people to shop at local businesses though, unless you're saying personal comfort.

---

Comparisons in several states show counties with mask mandates reduced Covid cases compared with those that didn't mandate masks. Here's one from Kansas: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947e2.htm

---

Virus has mutated since then, and this is a finite study. The entire state of California has a mask mandate and has had one since the Summer. It is and has been raging there. We'd be better served with a hand sanitizing mandate, or advanced air filtration mandate for indoor spaces.

---

In what relevant way has the virus mutated?

---

Extra contagious. UK version and South African version. New strains, similar to UK version, discovered in the US recently at Ohio State. Smaller clusters delivering higher viral load resulting in more likely infection.

---

Which means what in terms of masks?

---

Even less effectiveness.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Cheap political ploy. It's that simple. Opinions about masks don't matter.

---

Depending on how the illness affects them, it could be anything but cheap.

---

Then stay at home.

---

Lots of people, including me and my wife because of our age, are staying home because where we live, masks are voluntary so you can't count on people wearing them.

We've saved a hell of a lot of money we used to spend at restaurants and local businesses. We were both surprised at how much. Some of those businesses have closed because people like us don't feel safe to go out. Just about the only place we go is the grocery and a hardware store that does a better job of the Home Depot near us of managing customers by requiring them to wear masks and limiting the number of people in the store.

A mask mandate everybody was required to follow and better guidelines about how to protect people who want to support local businesses from covid might have helped those businesses stay open.

it strikes me as particularly stupid that anyone would say "just stay the **** home" to people who don't want to get covid. Well, okay, we are, but that has a cost.

There was a balance between personal freedom and personal responsibility and we didn't get it right.

---

If you believe you could be at extra risk of severe Covid impact, you should stay home and avoid significant human contact. In this situation, it doesn't matter whether you're wearing a mask or not because people wearing masks are infecting other people wearing masks.

Masks are proving to be minimally effective (better than nothing of course) because the US experiment with the virus wasn't to mask or not to mask, we've actually greatly improved that, it was whether to continue to keep activities and industry going and allow free movement. As the national examples have proven (Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, etc.), the ability to isolate and have forced containment is what stops/slows viral spread. . The ones who have it contained continue 14 day quarantines for anyone new into the country, and remain largely locked down comparatively speaking. Every nation that opens up sees spikes, some dramatically.

The battle over masks in America has turned more political and personal than scientific. The science of isolation is impeccable, but that's an entirely different political and rights battle. The cost of freedom, regardless of masking adherence, can be high as we've shown. So if you fear or are potentially susceptible to the worst of Covid then yeah, "stay the **** home". Otherwise, we'll continue to interact and infect each other masked or unmasked everywhere from the grocery store, gas station, school, home gathering, at work, restaurant, etc., as is bearing out.

---

The science is clear. Masks reduce the spread. A mask mandate would allow more people to shop at local businesses.

---

Depends upon the mask, and how you mask, but generally speaking better than nothing. Studies show 20%-30% improvement if non N95 in lab controlled environments. Have no idea how it would allow more people to shop at local businesses though, unless you're saying personal comfort.

---

Comparisons in several states show counties with mask mandates reduced Covid cases compared with those that didn't mandate masks. Here's one from Kansas: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947e2.htm

---

Virus has mutated since then, and this is a finite study. The entire state of California has a mask mandate and has had one since the Summer. It is and has been raging there. We'd be better served with a hand sanitizing mandate, or advanced air filtration mandate for indoor spaces.

---

In what relevant way has the virus mutated?

---

Extra contagious. UK version and South African version. New strains, similar to UK version, discovered in the US recently at Ohio State. Smaller clusters delivering higher viral load resulting in more likely infection.

---

Which means what in terms of masks?

---

Even less effectiveness.

---

Do you have a source and a mechanism for that? And does it apply to all mitigation measures, or only masks? Should we stop social distancing because of higher viral loads too?

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Cheap political ploy. It's that simple. Opinions about masks don't matter.

---

Depending on how the illness affects them, it could be anything but cheap.

---

Then stay at home.

---

Lots of people, including me and my wife because of our age, are staying home because where we live, masks are voluntary so you can't count on people wearing them.

We've saved a hell of a lot of money we used to spend at restaurants and local businesses. We were both surprised at how much. Some of those businesses have closed because people like us don't feel safe to go out. Just about the only place we go is the grocery and a hardware store that does a better job of the Home Depot near us of managing customers by requiring them to wear masks and limiting the number of people in the store.

A mask mandate everybody was required to follow and better guidelines about how to protect people who want to support local businesses from covid might have helped those businesses stay open.

it strikes me as particularly stupid that anyone would say "just stay the **** home" to people who don't want to get covid. Well, okay, we are, but that has a cost.

There was a balance between personal freedom and personal responsibility and we didn't get it right.

---

If you believe you could be at extra risk of severe Covid impact, you should stay home and avoid significant human contact. In this situation, it doesn't matter whether you're wearing a mask or not because people wearing masks are infecting other people wearing masks.

Masks are proving to be minimally effective (better than nothing of course) because the US experiment with the virus wasn't to mask or not to mask, we've actually greatly improved that, it was whether to continue to keep activities and industry going and allow free movement. As the national examples have proven (Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, etc.), the ability to isolate and have forced containment is what stops/slows viral spread. . The ones who have it contained continue 14 day quarantines for anyone new into the country, and remain largely locked down comparatively speaking. Every nation that opens up sees spikes, some dramatically.

The battle over masks in America has turned more political and personal than scientific. The science of isolation is impeccable, but that's an entirely different political and rights battle. The cost of freedom, regardless of masking adherence, can be high as we've shown. So if you fear or are potentially susceptible to the worst of Covid then yeah, "stay the **** home". Otherwise, we'll continue to interact and infect each other masked or unmasked everywhere from the grocery store, gas station, school, home gathering, at work, restaurant, etc., as is bearing out.

---

The science is clear. Masks reduce the spread. A mask mandate would allow more people to shop at local businesses.

---

Depends upon the mask, and how you mask, but generally speaking better than nothing. Studies show 20%-30% improvement if non N95 in lab controlled environments. Have no idea how it would allow more people to shop at local businesses though, unless you're saying personal comfort.

---

Comparisons in several states show counties with mask mandates reduced Covid cases compared with those that didn't mandate masks. Here's one from Kansas: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947e2.htm

---

Virus has mutated since then, and this is a finite study. The entire state of California has a mask mandate and has had one since the Summer. It is and has been raging there. We'd be better served with a hand sanitizing mandate, or advanced air filtration mandate for indoor spaces.

---

In what relevant way has the virus mutated?

---

Extra contagious. UK version and South African version. New strains, similar to UK version, discovered in the US recently at Ohio State. Smaller clusters delivering higher viral load resulting in more likely infection.

---

Which means what in terms of masks?

---

Even less effectiveness.

---

Do you have a source and a mechanism for that? And does it apply to all mitigation measures, or only masks? Should we stop social distancing because of higher viral loads too?

---

I didn't say stop anything, but all mitigation efforts except sanitizing (all types), which kills the virus, and isolation, would have lowered effectiveness. That's the essence of why/how something becomes more transmissible person to person.

EDIT: If you were looking for citation on the strain it is the B117 version (UK), and one of the key mutations is N501Y which binds to human cells tighter than prior strains.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Cheap political ploy. It's that simple. Opinions about masks don't matter.

---

Depending on how the illness affects them, it could be anything but cheap.

---

Then stay at home.

---

Lots of people, including me and my wife because of our age, are staying home because where we live, masks are voluntary so you can't count on people wearing them.

We've saved a hell of a lot of money we used to spend at restaurants and local businesses. We were both surprised at how much. Some of those businesses have closed because people like us don't feel safe to go out. Just about the only place we go is the grocery and a hardware store that does a better job of the Home Depot near us of managing customers by requiring them to wear masks and limiting the number of people in the store.

A mask mandate everybody was required to follow and better guidelines about how to protect people who want to support local businesses from covid might have helped those businesses stay open.

it strikes me as particularly stupid that anyone would say "just stay the **** home" to people who don't want to get covid. Well, okay, we are, but that has a cost.

There was a balance between personal freedom and personal responsibility and we didn't get it right.

---

If you believe you could be at extra risk of severe Covid impact, you should stay home and avoid significant human contact. In this situation, it doesn't matter whether you're wearing a mask or not because people wearing masks are infecting other people wearing masks.

Masks are proving to be minimally effective (better than nothing of course) because the US experiment with the virus wasn't to mask or not to mask, we've actually greatly improved that, it was whether to continue to keep activities and industry going and allow free movement. As the national examples have proven (Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, etc.), the ability to isolate and have forced containment is what stops/slows viral spread. . The ones who have it contained continue 14 day quarantines for anyone new into the country, and remain largely locked down comparatively speaking. Every nation that opens up sees spikes, some dramatically.

The battle over masks in America has turned more political and personal than scientific. The science of isolation is impeccable, but that's an entirely different political and rights battle. The cost of freedom, regardless of masking adherence, can be high as we've shown. So if you fear or are potentially susceptible to the worst of Covid then yeah, "stay the **** home". Otherwise, we'll continue to interact and infect each other masked or unmasked everywhere from the grocery store, gas station, school, home gathering, at work, restaurant, etc., as is bearing out.

---

The science is clear. Masks reduce the spread. A mask mandate would allow more people to shop at local businesses.

---

Depends upon the mask, and how you mask, but generally speaking better than nothing. Studies show 20%-30% improvement if non N95 in lab controlled environments. Have no idea how it would allow more people to shop at local businesses though, unless you're saying personal comfort.

---

Comparisons in several states show counties with mask mandates reduced Covid cases compared with those that didn't mandate masks. Here's one from Kansas: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947e2.htm

---

Virus has mutated since then, and this is a finite study. The entire state of California has a mask mandate and has had one since the Summer. It is and has been raging there. We'd be better served with a hand sanitizing mandate, or advanced air filtration mandate for indoor spaces.

---

In what relevant way has the virus mutated?

---

Extra contagious. UK version and South African version. New strains, similar to UK version, discovered in the US recently at Ohio State. Smaller clusters delivering higher viral load resulting in more likely infection.

---

Which means what in terms of masks?

---

Even less effectiveness.

---

Do you have a source and a mechanism for that? And does it apply to all mitigation measures, or only masks? Should we stop social distancing because of higher viral loads too?

---

I didn't say stop anything, but all mitigation efforts except sanitizing (all types), which kills the virus, and isolation, would have lowered effectiveness. That's the essence of why/how something becomes more transmissible person to person.

EDIT: If you were looking for citation on the strain it is the B117 version (UK), and one of the key mutations is N501Y which binds to human cells tighter than prior strains.

---

I was looking for a study showing that mask mandates no longer reduce covid cases because of the mutation, which is what your response to JBK seemed to imply.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Cheap political ploy. It's that simple. Opinions about masks don't matter.

---

Depending on how the illness affects them, it could be anything but cheap.

---

Then stay at home.

---

Lots of people, including me and my wife because of our age, are staying home because where we live, masks are voluntary so you can't count on people wearing them.

We've saved a hell of a lot of money we used to spend at restaurants and local businesses. We were both surprised at how much. Some of those businesses have closed because people like us don't feel safe to go out. Just about the only place we go is the grocery and a hardware store that does a better job of the Home Depot near us of managing customers by requiring them to wear masks and limiting the number of people in the store.

A mask mandate everybody was required to follow and better guidelines about how to protect people who want to support local businesses from covid might have helped those businesses stay open.

it strikes me as particularly stupid that anyone would say "just stay the **** home" to people who don't want to get covid. Well, okay, we are, but that has a cost.

There was a balance between personal freedom and personal responsibility and we didn't get it right.

---

If you believe you could be at extra risk of severe Covid impact, you should stay home and avoid significant human contact. In this situation, it doesn't matter whether you're wearing a mask or not because people wearing masks are infecting other people wearing masks.

Masks are proving to be minimally effective (better than nothing of course) because the US experiment with the virus wasn't to mask or not to mask, we've actually greatly improved that, it was whether to continue to keep activities and industry going and allow free movement. As the national examples have proven (Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, etc.), the ability to isolate and have forced containment is what stops/slows viral spread. . The ones who have it contained continue 14 day quarantines for anyone new into the country, and remain largely locked down comparatively speaking. Every nation that opens up sees spikes, some dramatically.

The battle over masks in America has turned more political and personal than scientific. The science of isolation is impeccable, but that's an entirely different political and rights battle. The cost of freedom, regardless of masking adherence, can be high as we've shown. So if you fear or are potentially susceptible to the worst of Covid then yeah, "stay the **** home". Otherwise, we'll continue to interact and infect each other masked or unmasked everywhere from the grocery store, gas station, school, home gathering, at work, restaurant, etc., as is bearing out.

---

The science is clear. Masks reduce the spread. A mask mandate would allow more people to shop at local businesses.

---

Depends upon the mask, and how you mask, but generally speaking better than nothing. Studies show 20%-30% improvement if non N95 in lab controlled environments. Have no idea how it would allow more people to shop at local businesses though, unless you're saying personal comfort.

---

Comparisons in several states show counties with mask mandates reduced Covid cases compared with those that didn't mandate masks. Here's one from Kansas: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947e2.htm

---

Virus has mutated since then, and this is a finite study. The entire state of California has a mask mandate and has had one since the Summer. It is and has been raging there. We'd be better served with a hand sanitizing mandate, or advanced air filtration mandate for indoor spaces.

---

In what relevant way has the virus mutated?

---

Extra contagious. UK version and South African version. New strains, similar to UK version, discovered in the US recently at Ohio State. Smaller clusters delivering higher viral load resulting in more likely infection.

---

Which means what in terms of masks?

---

Even less effectiveness.

---

Do you have a source and a mechanism for that? And does it apply to all mitigation measures, or only masks? Should we stop social distancing because of higher viral loads too?

---

I didn't say stop anything, but all mitigation efforts except sanitizing (all types), which kills the virus, and isolation, would have lowered effectiveness. That's the essence of why/how something becomes more transmissible person to person.

EDIT: If you were looking for citation on the strain it is the B117 version (UK), and one of the key mutations is N501Y which binds to human cells tighter than prior strains.

---

I was looking for a study showing that mask mandates no longer reduce covid cases because of the mutation, which is what your response to JBK seemed to imply.

---

His study was from a June/July window. Much has changed, including viral mutation since then. There were mutations before these latest mutations. One thing is for certain is that the virus has rapidly gotten more contagious. It's too early in the process to know just how less effective certain mitigation efforts are, but the most concerning issue will be impact to vaccine efficacy.

bearassnekkid said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Good grief. We're pointing fingers and blaming people who aren't wearing ineffective masks and claiming that we "got the disease" from that person . . .even though that person has never had a symptom and never tested positive for the disease. We're also saying if people had just worn the ineffective mask they wouldn't have given folks the "ammunition" to make such ridiculous accusations. All the while also ignoring that the some of the most strict mask policy and mask shaming areas are the ones who have experienced the most prevalent spread. Or at the very least similar spread to areas with significantly less strict mask policy/social shaming.

---

Thailand, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan and a handful of other APAC countries disagree. The difference in the areas I just mentioned are that people seem to have a stronger sense of community and responsibility for the people around them, and they all have more trust in their government. Probably a big reason why they beat Covid, and the US didn't.

Here we are bickering about why people should wear masks, and nobody trusts the science (or even knows the science) behind it. Everyone seems to have given themselves science degrees, and then tries to tell everyone else how to live based on the fake news they're reading. Complete stupidity and completely unorganized. There's no leadership, and no trust in the leadership in the US. Good luck, only gonna get worse. Everyone's emotions have lowered their IQ's by 20 points in the US. I'm amazed at the stupidity. The whole world is.

---

lololol. Please make the argument that the nations you listed have fared well on a relative basis to other nations because of cloth face coverings. Please. I dare you.

At least you and I are both amazed at all the stupidity . . . so we've got that.

---

I'm the one located in a country that beat Covid and has 99.9% mask compliance, adheres to social distancing, makes use of QR codes to enter stores, govt buildings etc so that they can track and trace Covid outbreaks.

So yes, those things are obviously working here. Where are you? How's your part of the world doing?

COVID Lockdowns Have No Clear Benefit vs Other Voluntary Measures, International Study Shows

Quote:

---

Anew study evaluating COVID-19 responses around the world found that mandatory lockdown orders early in the pandemic did not provide significantly more benefits to slowing the spread of the disease than other voluntary measures, such as social distancing or travel reduction.

The peer reviewed study, which was conducted by a group of Stanford researchers and published in the Wiley Online Library on January 5, analyzed coronavirus case growth in 10 countries in early 2020.
The study compared cases in England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and the U.S. all countries that implemented mandatory lockdown orders and business closures to South Korea and Sweden, which implemented less severe, voluntary responses. It aimed to analyze the effect that less restrictive or more restrictive measures had on changing individual behavior and curbing the transmission of the virus.

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Cheap political ploy. It's that simple. Opinions about masks don't matter.

---

Depending on how the illness affects them, it could be anything but cheap.

---

Then stay at home.

---

Lots of people, including me and my wife because of our age, are staying home because where we live, masks are voluntary so you can't count on people wearing them.

We've saved a hell of a lot of money we used to spend at restaurants and local businesses. We were both surprised at how much. Some of those businesses have closed because people like us don't feel safe to go out. Just about the only place we go is the grocery and a hardware store that does a better job of the Home Depot near us of managing customers by requiring them to wear masks and limiting the number of people in the store.

A mask mandate everybody was required to follow and better guidelines about how to protect people who want to support local businesses from covid might have helped those businesses stay open.

it strikes me as particularly stupid that anyone would say "just stay the **** home" to people who don't want to get covid. Well, okay, we are, but that has a cost.

There was a balance between personal freedom and personal responsibility and we didn't get it right.

---

You are free to choose to live in fear of viruses, or lightning strikes, or auto accidents, or any other number of things. And, yes, you're right, staying home in fear has consequences (for yourself and others). But saying you otherwise would have frequented businesses if more people had been wearing cloth face coverings like you wanted them to is a "personal responsibility" blame game that can go both directions.

You think more people should have worn cloth on their face and if they had you would have gone to Joe's Diner and kept it in business. I think you could have gone to Joe's Diner and kept it in business by not having irrational fear, and that you should realize that the face masks you blame people for not wearing wouldn't have made a meaningful statistical difference in whether you contracted the virus or not. Staying at home and hiding in your basement would make a statistical difference, but that isn't a life worth living IMO. I think you should resume life, and understand that life involves risks (including you driving to Home Depot, for example) . . . but you obviously can choose to do as you see fit. Just understand that people feel differently than you, and maybe stop pointing fingers.

---

Son wearing a mask and wanting other people to wear a mask is not living in fear. It's common sense and also basic consideration for people more likely to die if they get Covid, which is unpredictable.

Anybody you know died of Covid or lost a family member? If any of those deaths could have been prevented by people wearing masks, it's worth it.

Jacques Strap said:

---

COVID Lockdowns Have No Clear Benefit vs Other Voluntary Measures, International Study Shows

Quote:

---

Anew study evaluating COVID-19 responses around the world found that mandatory lockdown orders early in the pandemic did not provide significantly more benefits to slowing the spread of the disease than other voluntary measures, such as social distancing or travel reduction.

The peer reviewed study, which was conducted by a group of Stanford researchers and published in the Wiley Online Library on January 5, analyzed coronavirus case growth in 10 countries in early 2020.
The study compared cases in England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and the U.S. all countries that implemented mandatory lockdown orders and business closures to South Korea and Sweden, which implemented less severe, voluntary responses. It aimed to analyze the effect that less restrictive or more restrictive measures had on changing individual behavior and curbing the transmission of the virus.

---

---

Another Ioannidis article, so I'd expect a thorough rebuttal as soon as the underlying data comes out. It's probably significant that they don't tell us the time period for the study. If you look at current case numbers, Sweden is now worse off than any of the other countries except the US and the Netherlands.

Carlos Safety said:

---

The House of Representatives = hundreds of people breathing and talking in a closed space. And this woman thinks she can pin her illness on a Republican? I wonder if the Dems had any caucus meetings and /or parties during the past couple of weeks. What a stupid conversation and topic this woman has brought up.

---

What's even somehow more stupid are most all on this thread besides you ole buddy