TexasCHLforum.com

parabelum wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 12:37 pm

THE ENGINEER wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 12:26 pm

parabelum wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 12:19 pm Why is that nobody seems to answer question/apology posed, do you support lowering the speed limit significantly to mitigate the risk of people dying in car accidents? You can’t just pick and choose your definition of risk mitigation and what level is appropriate as well as who gets to decide. Point that I have been trying to make is that we as a society accept certain degree of risk for freedoms and convenience. You think this is the first and last pandemic? Moreover, you think that surgical masks are the end all be all. Granted in the hospital ORs they are used, but freaking walking down the street or grocery aisle, at the government’s so called order? Do you know how and when the surgical masks are supposed to be disposed? Who will ensure that John Doe isn’t wearing same masks he wore for the last year?
Again, way too politicized.

Actions such as drastically reducing the speed limit would very likely reduce traffic fatalities, however doing so so would have a significant negative impact at a global level. Wearing a mask has minimal negative global impact while potentially significantly reducing the number of deaths due to the virus. There is no one size fits all approach.

Fair point. But what is considered “drastic”? One could say that a parent who watched their kid’s mangled body get pulled out of a wreck may not consider such measure drastic, potentially.
And we can all agree that when taken as a global statistic, number of deaths in cars far surpasses the number of deaths from covid. So, we accept then that our children, parents, friends etc. may die a gruesome death so that we are not crippled by drastic speed reduction. Forget the “global” for the moment, right now, I am talking about United States and if you want to wear a mask I support you. I myself wear one when I’m around elderly as a choice. I do not want some bureaucrat telling me that I have to, I’d like to keep our freedoms you know.

“ Liberty once lost is lost forever. When the People once surrender their share in the Legislature, and their Right of defending the Limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every Encroachment upon them, they can never regain it.”

John Adams

I agree that the definition of drastic will vary from person to person. That will always be an issue.

I meant “global” as meaning on a large scale. With respect to your example of reducing speed limits to save lives that would be the difference between lowering all street and highway speed limits versus lowering the speed limit only in areas with high occurrences of accidents. Reducing speed limits only in high risk sections of road eliminates a large number of injuries and deaths, while causing minimal large scale or global negative impact. This won’t please everyone, however most would agree doing would be an appropriate or reasonable action.

Taking this approach with mask wearing would be similar to requiring masks in high risk areas such as indoor spaces where risk of transmitting an infection is high when compared to other environments, and not requiring masks in areas where risk is much lower such as uncrowded outdoor spaces. The negative impact is relatively small while the potential benefit is relatively large.

parabelum wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 12:19 pm Why is that nobody seems to answer question/apology posed, do you support lowering the speed limit significantly to mitigate the risk of people dying in car accidents? You can’t just pick and choose your definition of risk mitigation and what level is appropriate as well as who gets to decide. Point that I have been trying to make is that we as a society accept certain degree of risk for freedoms and convenience. You think this is the first and last pandemic? Moreover, you think that surgical masks are the end all be all. Granted in the hospital ORs they are used, but freaking walking down the street or grocery aisle, at the government’s so called order? Do you know how and when the surgical masks are supposed to be disposed? Who will ensure that John Doe isn’t wearing same masks he wore for the last year?
Again, way too politicized.

Actions such as drastically reducing the speed limit would very likely reduce traffic fatalities, however doing so so would have a significant negative impact at a global level. Wearing a mask has minimal negative global impact while potentially significantly reducing the number of deaths due to the virus. There is no one size fits all approach.

flechero wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:45 am My issue with your analogy was that improperly worn paper or cotton masks are way less effective than a improperly stored condom. Condoms are the n-95 of b/c. They are VERY effective when worn properly. The paper or cotton masks (even worn right and washed frequently) are way less effective.


I'm regurgitating this because I'm not a Dr - but my circle of friends are- 2 are ortho surgeons, a Dir of the ER, an Internal Med Dr., an ENT and an Anesthesiologist. (I've literally heard this stuff ad nauseam) they say the decorative cotton and the "surgical masks" people are wearing are an absolute joke and most are not even real surgical masks. Even the real ones are to prevent whiskers and other debris in surgery from HEALTHY Dr. and HEALTHY Patients.

"Better than nothing" is what I used to argue. Their response- When they see patients with Covid or suspected of covid they either wear the "moon suit" or at a MINIMUM an n-95 plus a face shield, gown and gloves. Why? Because sometimes "better than nothing isn't really much better than nothing."

For the record, I'm not against masks. Properly rated and worn masks are proven very effective... but that's not part of any local mandate. I'm against mandates for things that don't help. A unwashed, 20 times used bandana on someone's chin and bottom lip doesn't help. 1/2 the people I see have a mask not covering the nose... That is not better than nothing.

I have a decent supply of N-95's. I wear them when going into crowded areas or when I can't distance. Otherwise, just the ineffective "surgical mask" to comply with mandates.

My first-hand experience is that surgical masks are effective in slowing the spread of the virus. I, like many at our facility work around the same large number of folks on a daily basis, often in relatively close proximity to one another. Everyone wears a mask at all times unless eating or drinking. While eating or drinking we are sitting at least 6 feet apart. We are not wearing N95 masks. We are wearing the readily available surgical masks or fabric masks.

We have had folks test positive, however we have never had two or more people who sit or work closely together test positive for the virus. This indicates folks are most likely picking the virus outside of our facility and not infecting others within the facility.

This supports that wearing a cheap surgical mask or fabric mask is effective in slowing or stopping the transmission of the virus. This is also why I support mandates that require properly worn masks in public places, and don’t view such actions as an attack on my freedom or rights.

The risk I see with mandates is that the wrong people will create them so they wind up ineffective or they do truly infringe on a person’s rights. In the case of an infectious disease, doctors, scientists, and engineers should create the protocol, not politicians.

As Rob mentioned, this is not about eliminating the threat. This is about mitigating the risks.

This has nothing to do with hiding in a basement, giving up freedom, or living as sheep. It’s the irrational thought that everything being asked of a person is an attack on their freedom or rights that’s contributing to the situation we are now in. Making temporary sacrifices for the overall greater good is far more patriotic than arguing over silly things like wearing a mask while in public places. There are many smart people in this world who have dedicated their lives to solving complex problems. Trump could have collaborated with them and developed a more responsible and reasonable plan than he chose.

Carry on folks. I’m off to enjoy this nice weather.

I feel folks have chosen to abandon reasonable and logical approaches to helping slow the spread of this virus because of politics. Many only see red or blue, they fail to see the rest of the spectrum. They’ve limited their ability to gather their own facts and analyze them. They have chosen to only believe what the red side says or what the blue side says.

Trump is the President of the United States. He could have easily obtained N95 masks or better all day long for himself and staff. Would masks alone have been enough, probably not. Would more drastic or intelligent measures taken in addition to consistently wearing proper masks have been enough, quite possibly. As the POTUS, protecting himself should have been a greater priority than he made it though. At the end of the day Trump had access to the smartest people not only in our country, but other countries as well. If he had chosen to utilize those resources in a truly collaborative effort we would all be better off than we are now.

The POTUS,FLOTUS, and multiple other staffers close to the president becoming infected should be a wake call that the approach taken thus far has been ineffective and a new strategy is needed.

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 11:11 am

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 8:48 am

Rob72 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 8:42 am

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 8:17 am

Grayling813 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 7:32 am A positive test doesn’t make the President or First Lady sick. It’s just a test result, they are not feeling sick according to White House doctor.
Remain calm.

Exactly! But the positive test, symptoms or not, have a huge impact on his ability to campaign at a very crucial point in the process. MSM is already pumping the angle of him not wearing a mask. What a bunch of jerks!

"Pumping," or not, it is a fact. Leadership carries risks, if you do in fact, lead from the front, but this was a high-risk decision.

No it was not. A mask WOULD NOT have prevented him getting Covid. A mask is at best thought to possibly prevent one from spreading it. Again! A MASK DOES NOT PREVENT YOU FROM GETTING COVID!

Yes, sir, by the CDC's own guidelines, you are correct. Only a properly worn mask DESIGNED to exclude virus particles will aid in prevention for the wearer. The other masks people are urged to wear are to help prevent THEM from potentially spreading it to others via droplets if they are infected but do not know it.

If wearing a cheap mask prevents the spread of Covid by an infected person, and an N95 or similar mask prevents the wearer from contracting (and spreading) Covid the end result should be far fewer infections if everyone wore a mask of some sort. So how is asking everyone to wear a mask a bad thing?