Mask poll

[GGG]

Originally Posted by MacFlame

Its not about what people are saying...it's what people are doing and will do. (ie my politician story)


I used to work in a lab. On the front of the door was a big yellow sign that said "AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL ONLY". the authorized personnel were me and one other person.

After an internal audit, it was decided to put another sign on the door, one that read " CAUTION: There may be water on the floor"

When I asked why we are putting up another sign for people who wouldn't be in the lab in the first place, the response was essentially that if people pass through the lab, the water poses a danger. In other words, the sign was for people who broke the first rule.

I'm concerned that the same thing is being appled here to be honest. The increase in numbers seems to be from friend and family gatherings. Yet with those rise in numbers, the automatic conclusion from some has been "make masks mandatory". If people are going to break the first rule (ie. social distancing) then they're not going to follow the mask rule either.

The question I keep coming back to is: Are people contracting the virus from public spaces even if they are socially distacing? " If the answer is "no", then Im not sure why there is a concern with it. I'm not arguing that masks dont work when people are close together (ie. a train), its more so places like malls and such. I doubt it will have any meaningful impact.

Look, I hope the cases drop as a result of mask usage. I hope I'm wrong.

I think our collective assumptions around where spread is occurring changes how effective one believes masks will be.

It would be interesting to compare Mask bylaws and results holding masks as the independent variable. So is the correlation in the US between masks and transmission rates a result of mask policy or is it a result of places with mask policies also having better social compliance and other additional restrictions around restaurants and bars and other higher transmission areas.

[MacFlame]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think our collective assumptions around where spread is occurring changes how effective one believes masks will be.

100% agree. Thanks for this.

[CroFlames]

I want to know what Theo thinks of all this.

Until I know exactly what the masks are made of, where they are made, when they were made, who made them, and who their families and friends are, I will not wear one.

[Ryan Coke]

I was in the pro mask side before the government was, but I do agree that many people are now expecting far more benefit from it than the data has shown is likely.

As MacFlame said, people gather in bars and private parties and spread the virus around, and we think putting a mask on in the grocery stores will make a significant impact? You can use the “it can’t hurt”, and I do agree. But it isn’t really addressing where the need is at this point.

It’s like saying everyone should wear one outside at all times, “just in case”. Except all the current evidence points to that being virtually pointless, so let’s expend our time, energy, and enforcement on the things that will actually make a difference, and not a popular panacea to make ourselves feel better that at least we’re doing “something”.

Again, I’m fine with it, and am happy that it will be mandated in areas where it really will help (public transit). And I will be very happy if it provides better results than I am expecting in other areas (I don’t hope for things to be worse in order to be proven right, like some seem to). I would just prefer that we target things that the data supports will make the biggest differences, and spend our time and energy on those things.

[MacFlame]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

I was in the pro mask side before the government was, but I do agree that many people are now expecting far more benefit from it than the data has shown is likely.

As MacFlame said, people gather in bars and private parties and spread the virus around, and we think putting a mask on in the grocery stores will make a significant impact? You can use the “it can’t hurt”, and I do agree. But it isn’t really addressing where the need is at this point.

It’s like saying everyone should wear one outside at all times, “just in case”. Except all the current evidence points to that being virtually pointless, so let’s expend our time, energy, and enforcement on the things that will actually make a difference, and not a popular panacea to make ourselves feel better that at least we’re doing “something”.

Again, I’m fine with it, and am happy that it will be mandated in areas where it really will help (public transit). And I will be very happy if it provides better results than I am expecting in other areas (I don’t hope for things to be worse in order to be proven right, like some seem to). I would just prefer that we target things that the data supports will make the biggest differences, and spend our time and energy on those things.

You say it much more eloquently than I. Totally agree.

[Jiri Hrdina]

See I don't see that. I see people thinking it is a reasonable and common sense step to take - not a silver bullet at all. In fact, I think many would want to see more done. But this is a sensible step in the right direction. Those on the anit-mask side, seem to be over-stating what the pro mask side is expecting in terms of impact.

[MacFlame]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

See I don't see that. I see people thinking it is a reasonable and common sense step to take - not a silver bullet at all. In fact, I think many would want to see more done. But this is a sensible step in the right direction. Those on the anit-mask side, seem to be over-stating what the pro mask side is expecting in terms of impact.

My inlaws literally ask every time I see them in a social setting (outside, and distancing of course) if they can hug the family if they wear a mask.

Jiri, you may not think it s a silver bullet. But I guarantee you there are people who think it is.

[tvp2003]

I think you need to differentiate between those who oppose the bylaw because it doesn't go far enough, and those who oppose the bylaw because it goes too far. Because those are two different arguments/positions.

It sounds like many think it should better target the higher risk activities, like bars and exercise facilities. Which is a valid point, but if the choice is between having this mask bylaw or not having any mask bylaw, I think the former would be the overwhelming winner.

[MacFlame]

Originally Posted by tvp2003

but if the choice is between having this mask bylaw or not having any mask bylaw, I think the former would be the overwhelming winner.

But what if the mask bylaw doesn't address the problem? It doesnt address gathering in bars, which is one of the major points of infection. I simply cant support a bylaw that doesn't address a problem.

[PepsiFree]

Nailed it.

I'm for the mask bylaw 100%, as at best we see some limits on transmission, and at worst things stay the same.

I'm also 100% for the provincial government doing much, much more than it is currently doing. I think they were doing a fine job before, but all that is being quickly forgotten.

[agulati]

Putting on a mask bylaw also enforces the true seriousness of the second wave. I have friends/people I know who had started taking this lightly, and almost returning to normal life. This bylaw has become a point of conservation this morning due to it passing and people are at least talking about needing to start taking more precautions (Following through is a different ball-game) There are not many people who follow the day to day spread of the disease, and a law being passed definitely helps in awareness as well.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by MacFlame

But what if the mask bylaw doesn't address the problem? It doesnt address gathering in bars, which is one of the major points of infection. I simply cant support a bylaw that doesn't address a problem.

Just because it doesn't address the biggest problem doesn't mean it doesn't address a problem. The problem is the spread of COVID-19. Masks in indoor spaces, even if it's not all indoor spaces, partially addresses that problem.

The other side of the issue is that sure, bars (for example) are the biggest problem area right now, but if allowed to continue without restriction, those problem areas will spread. Masks slow the spread from those high-problem areas to places where you don't seem to be concerned about.

Right now, a person might go to the bar and contract coronavirus. They could also then go to the grocery store and spread it there, or to a fast food place and spread it there, etc. etc. Requiring masks does not stop them from getting it at the bar, but it makes it much less likely they will then spread it in grocery store, or fast food places, etc.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Anecdotally, I knew a lot of people who said they would only wear one if required. They didn’t want to seem “afraid” or “paranoid” or any of the other ridiculous descriptors we’ve seen mask wearers called in YouTube videos etc. So you give credibility to those on the fence once a rule is imposed, and get a little more buy in.

[agulati]

Well put! It is not an all or nothing situation. Every action/decision (or lack of) impacts the spread of the disease. It helps with their ability to contact-trace as well, since it potentially limits the points/locations of spread.

Bars and gyms need to have more stringent requirements though, and hopefully the province steps up.

[MacFlame]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The problem is the spread of COVID-19. Masks in indoor spaces, even if it's not all indoor spaces, partially addresses that problem.

Have you heard of multiple customers contracting the disease at a grocery store in calgary? Home depot? I haven't. If you have, I'm listening. Honestly. I haven't heard that yet. So, I just don't see where the correlation with this is. I'm not trying to be obtuse man. I seriously do not understand where this concern is coming from.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Right now, a person might go to the bar and contract coronavirus. They could also then go to the grocery store and spread it there, or to a fast food place and spread it there, etc. etc.

Have you heard of that happening with social distancing measures in place? What does a mask do in a grocery store in your scenario do that social distancing has not achieved? If there's a media article on it, I could have missed it. I just haven't heard of that scenario at all.

[agulati]

Originally Posted by MacFlame

Have you heard of that happening with social distancing measures in place? What does a mask do in a grocery store in your scenario do that social distancing has not achieved? If there's a media article on it, I could have missed it. I just haven't heard of that scenario at all.

I don’t know what the buy-in for social distancing is, but from my limited experience in indoor spaces since the pandemic, it doesn’t appear to be as good as it needs to be. It is also something more difficult to enforce. Masks on the other hand, are probably easier (though obviously people can “cheat” and take them off).

[SportsJunky]

I wore a mask today while running errands to different stores. Not bad. I think I'll get used to it.

[MacFlame]

Originally Posted by agulati

I don’t know what the buy-in for social distancing is, but from my limited experience in indoor spaces since the pandemic, it doesn’t appear to be as good as it needs to be. It is also something more difficult to enforce. Masks on the other hand, are probably easier (though obviously people can “cheat” and take them off).

okay. Even if people havent been social distancing to perfection in indoor settings (my observation has been that most have been pretty good with it, but I agree that its not perfect), I have yet to see any evidence that customers have been getting infected in the manner that people have concerns about. I simply havent heard it.

If there were multiple customers from say, a home depot, that all contracted this disease at the same time/location, this would be in the media and likely brought up by Hinshaw. I simply havent heard this , so I really just don't understand where concerns like this are coming from.

We can agree to disagree, just trying to understand the positions is all.

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by MacFlame

If there was a number of people who contracted the virus from the same place, (ie. How Depot) we would know it. My guess is that a number of the "non-traceable" cases likely know how they got it...dont want to admit it. But, that's just my gut feeling/opinion.

I just don't like jumping to conclusions that the REASON cases are on the rise are due to people not wearing masks (when there has been no indication of any large number of people contracting the virus from the same public place by not wearing a mask), an opinion I see shared by many.

Or occasionally someone picks up from somewhere and they weren't sure where. Then they spread it to family and friends in an indoor setting like you're speaking about. One extra case turns into a bunch very quickly.

[agulati]

Originally Posted by MacFlame

okay. Even if people havent been social distancing to perfection in indoor settings (my observation has been that most have been pretty good with it, but I agree that its not perfect), I have yet to see any evidence that customers have been getting infected in the manner that people have concerns about. I simply havent heard it.

If there were multiple customers from say, a home depot, that all contracted this disease at the same time/location, this would be in the media and likely brought up by Hinshaw. I simply havent heard this , so I really just don't understand where concerns like this are coming from.

We can agree to disagree, just trying to understand the positions is all.

My concern is that we do have a lot of cases on unknown origin. At times like these, we can have a risk of things skyrocketing out of control and mitigating risk of spread from different vectors is important.

But yes, at least in Calgary/Alberta I dont know of any specific cases of store based spread. Not sure if that is the case globally.