Red Mosquito

B wrote:What's the problem with face shields?

To add to the confusion, in earlier guidelines, the CDC already said that vaccinated people could meet indoors without masks even if one of the households had unvaccinated members.
It’s confusing to say that vaccinated people can meet indoors without masks with unvaccinated people in one guideline, but that they should wear masks outdoors in a crowd in another guideline, without further explanation of why.
If the idea is that, in crowds, we should keep masks for everyone because of sociological reasons, to avoid the awkwardness of selective mask enforcement, the CDC should just say so.

What about rules for vaccinated people indoors, then?
One could argue that the science is already fairly strong that the vaccinated are likely fine even indoors, especially if community transmission isn’t very high, and that the CDC guidelines implicitly assume this.
That said, one can concede that this part of the empirical record is still evolving.
However, that’s not currently relevant for public rules and behavior, because just like we can’t tell only the sick to wear masks, we cannot tell only the vaccinated to chuck their masks indoors—a grocery-store clerk shouldn’t have to police this.
For now, indoor spaces have to keep masks as a rule simply for sociological reasons.
We should make that explicit too.

4/5 wrote:

oasisfan35 wrote:

JuanHamm wrote:

4/5 wrote:

spike wrote:but masks are annoying

Am I allowed to admit that I'm dreading the thought of being fully vaccinated but having to wear a mask while I try to teach next school year?

Yes, it's fine to feel however you'd like. Just don't be a massive prick about it.

If you stick to the front of the classroom, assuming there is a fair distance, would you consider dropping the mask and using a face-shield? I do this when I started running tours again at the brewery.

edit: dropping the mask as in pulling it down to your chin available to put back on in close proximity to others.

Our school district has a no face mask or gaitor policy currently. I would prefer either of those to a mask. I mean, really, I'd hope that I can just be a person, but if not hopefully they adjust that policy. *shrug*

verb_to_trust wrote:

B wrote:What's the problem with face shields?

They don't do anything

oasisfan35 wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

B wrote:What's the problem with face shields?

They don't do anything

Well that's moronic.

The Town wrote:If you aren't familiar with Zeynep Tufekci, you should really check out her twitter feed and blog.
In the past day she's pretty much hit on all of RM's questions about masks.


Seriously just read this twitter thread or one of the articles she's released in the past day:

The Atlantic: The CDC Is Still Repeating Its Mistakes

To add to the confusion, in earlier guidelines, the CDC already said that vaccinated people could meet indoors without masks even if one of the households had unvaccinated members.
It’s confusing to say that vaccinated people can meet indoors without masks with unvaccinated people in one guideline, but that they should wear masks outdoors in a crowd in another guideline, without further explanation of why.
If the idea is that, in crowds, we should keep masks for everyone because of sociological reasons, to avoid the awkwardness of selective mask enforcement, the CDC should just say so.

What about rules for vaccinated people indoors, then?
One could argue that the science is already fairly strong that the vaccinated are likely fine even indoors, especially if community transmission isn’t very high, and that the CDC guidelines implicitly assume this.
That said, one can concede that this part of the empirical record is still evolving.
However, that’s not currently relevant for public rules and behavior, because just like we can’t tell only the sick to wear masks, we cannot tell only the vaccinated to chuck their masks indoors—a grocery-store clerk shouldn’t have to police this.
For now, indoor spaces have to keep masks as a rule simply for sociological reasons.
We should make that explicit too.

and

Her blog post that kind of brings it all together in one place:
https://www.theinsight.org/p/on-masks-and-outdoors


edit:
specifically for Verb

Bammer wrote:

The Town wrote:If you aren't familiar with Zeynep Tufekci, you should really check out her twitter feed and blog.
In the past day she's pretty much hit on all of RM's questions about masks.


Seriously just read this twitter thread or one of the articles she's released in the past day:

The Atlantic: The CDC Is Still Repeating Its Mistakes

To add to the confusion, in earlier guidelines, the CDC already said that vaccinated people could meet indoors without masks even if one of the households had unvaccinated members.
It’s confusing to say that vaccinated people can meet indoors without masks with unvaccinated people in one guideline, but that they should wear masks outdoors in a crowd in another guideline, without further explanation of why.
If the idea is that, in crowds, we should keep masks for everyone because of sociological reasons, to avoid the awkwardness of selective mask enforcement, the CDC should just say so.

What about rules for vaccinated people indoors, then?
One could argue that the science is already fairly strong that the vaccinated are likely fine even indoors, especially if community transmission isn’t very high, and that the CDC guidelines implicitly assume this.
That said, one can concede that this part of the empirical record is still evolving.
However, that’s not currently relevant for public rules and behavior, because just like we can’t tell only the sick to wear masks, we cannot tell only the vaccinated to chuck their masks indoors—a grocery-store clerk shouldn’t have to police this.
For now, indoor spaces have to keep masks as a rule simply for sociological reasons.
We should make that explicit too.

and

Her blog post that kind of brings it all together in one place:
https://www.theinsight.org/p/on-masks-and-outdoors


edit:
specifically for Verb

So... she’s an ophthalmologist?

verb_to_trust wrote:

Bammer wrote:

The Town wrote:If you aren't familiar with Zeynep Tufekci, you should really check out her twitter feed and blog.
In the past day she's pretty much hit on all of RM's questions about masks.


Seriously just read this twitter thread or one of the articles she's released in the past day:

The Atlantic: The CDC Is Still Repeating Its Mistakes

To add to the confusion, in earlier guidelines, the CDC already said that vaccinated people could meet indoors without masks even if one of the households had unvaccinated members.
It’s confusing to say that vaccinated people can meet indoors without masks with unvaccinated people in one guideline, but that they should wear masks outdoors in a crowd in another guideline, without further explanation of why.
If the idea is that, in crowds, we should keep masks for everyone because of sociological reasons, to avoid the awkwardness of selective mask enforcement, the CDC should just say so.

What about rules for vaccinated people indoors, then?
One could argue that the science is already fairly strong that the vaccinated are likely fine even indoors, especially if community transmission isn’t very high, and that the CDC guidelines implicitly assume this.
That said, one can concede that this part of the empirical record is still evolving.
However, that’s not currently relevant for public rules and behavior, because just like we can’t tell only the sick to wear masks, we cannot tell only the vaccinated to chuck their masks indoors—a grocery-store clerk shouldn’t have to police this.
For now, indoor spaces have to keep masks as a rule simply for sociological reasons.
We should make that explicit too.

and

Her blog post that kind of brings it all together in one place:
https://www.theinsight.org/p/on-masks-and-outdoors


edit:
specifically for Verb

So... she’s an ophthalmologist?

Dude please stfu and just simp for that blue check mark

JuanHamm wrote:Poor The Town still thinks there's any point to arguing with Verb. There isn't. He has absolutely nothing of value to say about anything . It doesn't matter how many facts you present him with he's just going to dismiss them with an unfunny ad hominem attack.

The board would be a lot better off if everyone just foed him and forgot he existed. If you feel the need for an intelligent debate with someone with a more conservative point of view try Bi3 or Simple schoolboy. You won't get a debate or intelligence from verb.

verb_to_trust wrote:
I'm sorry I don't take the board more seriously. I'll try and do better.

Bi_3 wrote:...which should be enough evidence for us to adopt East-Asian style usage of masks in the winter: