Red Mosquito

Bi_3 wrote:I believe we've had some commentary on this before, but the tactics used against COVID-19 were highly effective in saving lives from Influenza as well, which should be enough evidence for us to adopt East-Asian style usage of masks in the winter:


https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -pandemic/

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.
...

Spoiler: show

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?

Spoiler: show

She's a sociology professor and journalist who's broad interests include understanding the pandemic we're all living through.
Certainly not an epidemiologist or doctor or ophthalmologist hah

She's a curator of information that's already out there and, because of her track record throughout the pandemic, has the respect of public health and medical professionals.
Regarding a pandemic–She seems to know how to interpret scientific studies(background in statistics and scholarship), has previously researched and been interested in pandemics, and communicates the arguments public health and medical professionals are having clearly.

/I'm gonna step back from the edge of my evangelizing cliff now lol

verb_to_trust wrote:Nobody thinks the data on flu deaths could be a little noisy due to covid being the world's muse for the last year and a half?

surfndestroy wrote: You know, if we made people wear bike helmets at all times, not only would we save lives but also on hair product and upkeep.

spike wrote:yeah i don't see masks catching on en masse; i guess they're too annoying.

what would be good to see is a shift in the show up for work even if i'm sick mindset in america. WFH becoming more normalized could help with this some.

Bammer wrote:

spike wrote:yeah i don't see masks catching on en masse; i guess they're too annoying.

what would be good to see is a shift in the show up for work even if i'm sick mindset in america. WFH becoming more normalized could help with this some.

I got these blue light glasses since I’m on so many zoom calls now and half the time I put the fucking mask on for a call instead of the glasses, or the glasses to go down the hall to take a piss rather than the mask. So fkn annoying.

spike wrote:

Bammer wrote:

spike wrote:yeah i don't see masks catching on en masse; i guess they're too annoying.

what would be good to see is a shift in the show up for work even if i'm sick mindset in america. WFH becoming more normalized could help with this some.

I got these blue light glasses since I’m on so many zoom calls now and half the time I put the fucking mask on for a call instead of the glasses, or the glasses to go down the hall to take a piss rather than the mask. So fkn annoying.

user error

spike wrote:yeah i don't see masks catching on en masse; i guess they're too annoying.

what would be good to see is a shift in the show up for work even if i'm sick mindset in america. WFH becoming more normalized could help with this some.

B wrote:I still want to know why 4/5's school district banned face shields.

Can children or staff wear face shields instead of a face covering?

No. Face shields are less effective than commercial and cloth face coverings and may not be used by any persons to comply with Emergency Policy 2170, except under the following limited circumstances:

Face shields may be worn when used in addition to an approved face covering to protect eyes, as well.

Medical Certification: A face shield may be worn in lieu of other approved face coverings by persons who are observing physical distancing and present school officials with a certification from a health care provider that the person has a medical, physical or psychological contraindication that prevents the person from being able to safely wear an approved face covering; or,

Instruction: Face shields may be used by school District employees in situations where physical distancing is observed and it is important for students to see how the instructor pronounces words (e.g., English Learners, early childhood instruction, speech therapy, foreign language, etc.) and/or an instructor may wear a clear mask (which is not a face shield) when it is important for a student to observe the instructor’s mouth.

4/5 wrote:

B wrote:I still want to know why 4/5's school district banned face shields.

I looked up the policy just for you, B.

Can children or staff wear face shields instead of a face covering?

No. Face shields are less effective than commercial and cloth face coverings and may not be used by any persons to comply with Emergency Policy 2170, except under the following limited circumstances:

Face shields may be worn when used in addition to an approved face covering to protect eyes, as well.

Medical Certification: A face shield may be worn in lieu of other approved face coverings by persons who are observing physical distancing and present school officials with a certification from a health care provider that the person has a medical, physical or psychological contraindication that prevents the person from being able to safely wear an approved face covering; or,

Instruction: Face shields may be used by school District employees in situations where physical distancing is observed and it is important for students to see how the instructor pronounces words (e.g., English Learners, early childhood instruction, speech therapy, foreign language, etc.) and/or an instructor may wear a clear mask (which is not a face shield) when it is important for a student to observe the instructor’s mouth.

verb_to_trust wrote:I think people just don't want an inferior vaccine here. We can give the junk brand away.