Mask Mandate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by larry_arizona

How accurate do you feel the data is on Covid-19?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Because of the lack of national coordination, each state, county, and locality are reporting numbers in different ways. Without knowing state and local contexts, such reporting is convoluted. Such as, several days ago my county decided they were no longer going to test anyone that was asymptomatic. This undercuts the full scope of knowledge of spread. The backlog of tests being analyzed caused such delays in getting the results that local numbers were 1-2 weeks behind the true mark.

So, until we are testing everyone asymptomatic or not, and have a national set of reporting benchmarks and coordination, I feel the numbers are lower than the true spread of the virus and real case counts.

This article gives a poly-temporal view of of the current cases in the US from March to Nov. 15.
https://apple.news/AqoNvsw1_QFi82UAjxJyizQ

Data takes time to compile, and if you have garbage in, you get garbage out. I would add 10-15% to current case counts to get a valuable reference to where were are at this point in time.

there's a lot that get sick and never get tested and more that carry and never show symptoms so to even say there's a 10 to 15% leeway is still a guess that no one knows for sure if it's even close. it's a good guess just like saying only 5%.
read a story yesterday that says you will likely report negative for your first 3 days of being contagious as it takes time to show up in the body but you can still spread it. this just adds more grey to the information. they had data to back up the story but like all data with the rona, it can be flipped any way you want to read it.

if a pt has cancer and is given a year to live, contracts virus and dies, do you call it rona as the cause or cancer? pt contracts rona, has a heart attack and due to the rona doesn't have a healthy enough system to live. call cause of death heart attack or rona? I would bet in both scenarios states will report differently. more grey...

all I will say is that I have no idea if masks are the end all-be all but I believe they can't hurt and am glad I live in a state that is at least doing something, right or wrong, as opposed to the current state in south dakota.

I just don’t see the possibility of coordinating 50 states to test consistently and report the same where the data is useable.

Heck, 20 years after 9/11 the top government offices still can’t communicate clearly.

Not getting political, but no administration could pull that off without being grossly unconstitutional.

But considering the data is grossly underreported on the number of positive cases and grossly over reported on the number of deaths caused by covid, the death rate from covid must be exponentially lower.

I am not a covid denier, it’s real and it can kill. I wear a good mask properly to protect myself/family and I honestly don’t trust anyone from the government or media on what is reported. I also don’t look for the government to tell me what to do, I rely on common sense and good judgement to survive, including social distancing and avoiding risky behaviors.

If I get it, I did my best and what happens will happen, I do not fall victim to fear or conspiracy.

When the vaccine is available to the general public, I will get it without fear and look forward to a normal life. The ONLY thing I ask of the government is work 25/8 to get these vaccines approved NOW!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sandm

there's a lot that get sick and never get tested and more that carry and never show symptoms so to even say there's a 10 to 15% leeway is still a guess that no one knows for sure if it's even close. it's a good guess just like saying only 5%.
read a story yesterday that says you will likely report negative for your first 3 days of being contagious as it takes time to show up in the body but you can still spread it. this just adds more grey to the information. they had data to back up the story but like all data with the rona, it can be flipped any way you want to read it.

if a pt has cancer and is given a year to live, contracts virus and dies, do you call it rona as the cause or cancer? pt contracts rona, has a heart attack and due to the rona doesn't have a healthy enough system to live. call cause of death heart attack or rona? I would bet in both scenarios states will report differently. more grey...

all I will say is that I have no idea if masks are the end all-be all but I believe they can't hurt and am glad I live in a state that is at least doing something, right or wrong, as opposed to the current state in south dakota.

---

I live in South Dakota. We don’t have a mask “MANDATE” but most of us wear masks.

Meanwhile, earlier on this thread, a post described abysmal mask usage in Nevada, which is a long time mandated state.

My guess is the actual usage in each of these two states is very similar. We aren’t morons, or savages. The appearance that we are is because we lack a “mandate.” The governor doesn’t believe she has the authority, and questions if a mandate changes anything compliance-wise. That’s the real situation. Interpreted in a much more negative way by national media.

She could issue a “mandate” I suppose, legal or not. Maybe it would make people feel better (outside of South Dakota).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by larry_arizona

I just don’t see the possibility of coordinating 50 states to test consistently and report the same where the data is useable.

Heck, 20 years after 9/11 the top government offices still can’t communicate clearly.

Not getting political, but no administration could pull that off without being grossly unconstitutional.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

The National Incident Management System (NIMS) was set up post 9/11 and had some significant tests and lessons learned from hurricane Katrina. Key features are modular response organizations that use common terminology and report to a central coordination center. Most of the public didn’t realized the scale of response during the H1N1 outbreak, which, for the first test of pandemic response went fairly well. The economic crisis shifted funding from training and stockpiling, and a lot of institutional knowledge was lost as a result of attrition.

That being said, some states just won’t get completely on board. I taught a class in Texas and I was using Standard NIMS terminology, and the participants kept getting confused because their state and local terminologies were different.

The national response framework exists. It hasn’t been exercised in a while, and there is a void of strong, experienced, national leadership. The White House has bungled the response. Both legislative houses have been stymied by a lack of central coordination. The CDC and FDA have been essentially thrown in front of a bus as a result. DHS and FEMA are non-existent because they haven’t been given a clear delegation of authority to get in the game. This is why you have 54 regions coordinating individual responses to 50,000 incidents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dakota4ce

I live in South Dakota. We don’t have a mask “MANDATE” but most of us wear masks.

Meanwhile, earlier on this thread, a post described abysmal mask usage in Nevada, which is a long time mandated state.

My guess is the actual usage in each of these two states is very similar. We aren’t morons, or savages. The appearance that we are is because we lack a “mandate.” The governor doesn’t believe she has the authority, and questions if a mandate changes anything compliance-wise. That’s the real situation. Interpreted in a much more negative way by national media.

She could issue a “mandate” I suppose, legal or not. Maybe it would make people feel better (outside of South Dakota).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I won’t say abysmal mask usage in Nevada. I will say the wearing masks properly is abysmal, because there is no local or national message focusing on the why and how to properly utilize a mask. Education would go a long ways.

The problem comes to enforcement of the mask mandate. My wife and I went to a local tavern to have some expensive craft drinks. They are only seating on the patio. We remained masked while ordering our drinks, and lowered our masks only to drink. Out of 12 other individuals seated at this tavern, we were the only ones that were doing this, even though at each table there was a notice that this was the expected behavior. Staff was uninterested in intervening.

This morning while picking up a mobile order at Starbucks, I saw a guy seated at a table, maskless, for my duration of 10 minutes while I waited for my order. He was not actively eating or drinking, just sitting there. Signage at each entrance is clearly posted that you must remain masked unless actively eating or drinking. Staff, again, is unwilling to enforce.

Local code enforcement is following up on complaints of businesses not enforcing mask mandates by employees, and doing spot checks. Washoe and Clark counties are the only ones doing this kind of enforcement, and it is limited due to personnel. The mask mandates for employees can be enforced because they meet OSHA criteria under respiratory protection and employer-employee protection requirements under SARA title 3.

Local law enforcement is unwilling to act as enforcers unless there is a physical or verbal disturbance. This is the sticky wicket of constitutionality. The only method we have for enforcing masks is social and economic pressure. So, is the mandate a mandate if it can’t be applied to one and the whole? And how long does it take, or at which tipping point does it become social convention? And at what point does public health endangerment supersede a perceived right of personal expression?

Back to the point, I wouldn’t call mask use in Nevada abysmal, I would call it inconsistent. The inconsistency occurs because the levels of enforcement are ill-informed on what their responsibilities are, and are catering to other sets of responsibilities.

The state has failed in its guidance and education with regard to setting expectations for mask use. How can you fault an ill informed public? And how can you truly fault the state when it took early and decisive action with what info it had in that space and time?

Now, I can fully say the state has failed in its messaging and expectations. Can restaurants stay open? Yes, as long as clear expectations of behavior are set. But currently, there are outdated expectations without defined responsibilities for enforcement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dakota4ce

Meanwhile, earlier on this thread, a post described abysmal mask usage in Nevada, which is a long time mandated state.

---

nevada, like I am guessing other states, has 2 areas that are at opposite ends of the spectrum. in las vegas, I can't go anywhere without seeing masks. I have yet to go into a walmart or getting gas on the bike and not see everyone masking-up when entering a store. I have heard in the reno/tahoe area it's hit or miss and it was very loose when in ely/wells getting fuel 2 months ago.
my last jaunt to idaho was similar. Boise was required and saw them everywhere but when we gassed up in twin falls, no one had them on anywhere.

south dakota was one of the best states in the US during the first 6 months. wonder if it has anything to do with it being a lot more rural and took longer to travel? is mask usage heavier in the populous areas vs rural so it was slower to spread?

it is interesting seeing 2 sides to society. I dropped off my slot machine hopper for some maintenance at a guys house that does work on the side. he wouldn't get within 10feet of me until I put one on. going to the centurion demo days a week later, I was around 30 people-ish and not a mask to be seen anywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sandm

nevada, like I am guessing other states, has 2 areas that are at opposite ends of the spectrum. in las vegas, I can't go anywhere without seeing masks. I have yet to go into a walmart or getting gas on the bike and not see everyone masking-up when entering a store. I have heard in the reno/tahoe area it's hit or miss and it was very loose when in ely/wells getting fuel 2 months ago.
my last jaunt to idaho was similar. Boise was required and saw them everywhere but when we gassed up in twin falls, no one had them on anywhere.

south dakota was one of the best states in the US during the first 6 months. wonder if it has anything to do with it being a lot more rural and took longer to travel? is mask usage heavier in the populous areas vs rural so it was slower to spread?

it is interesting seeing 2 sides to society. I dropped off my slot machine hopper for some maintenance at a guys house that does work on the side. he wouldn't get within 10feet of me until I put one on. going to the centurion demo days a week later, I was around 30 people-ish and not a mask to be seen anywhere.

---

Complete opposite experience in similar travels. When we bought our boat in Boise, hardly a mask to be seen. I think we were there within a couple of weeks of Sandm. We went to McCall, and all except the tourists were wearing masks, Cascade and Donnelly, no one wore a mask.

In Reno, mask compliance is ok. Carson Valley, poor as poor could be. Tahoe, being that it is multi state, multi county jurisdictional mess, it depends on where you are.

Rural is the ultimate social distancing, but if you don’t follow the recommendations when venturing into urbania, all bets are off. Plus, add in the statistical prevalence of risk factors in rural areas, and limited exposure to other pathogens that can provide a more consolidated immune response, someone who lives rurally will have low probability of acquiring the virus, but higher probability of adverse outcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2in2out

Complete opposite experience in similar travels. When we bought our boat in Boise, hardly a mask to be seen.

Rural is the ultimate social distancing, but if you don’t follow the recommendations when venturing into urbania, all bets are off. Plus, add in the statistical prevalence of risk factors in rural areas, and limited exposure to other pathogens that can provide a more consolidated immune response, someone who lives rurally will have low probability of acquiring the virus, but higher probability of adverse outcome.

---

we were in tyrell's shop and ya, no masks but most of the other places we went they had them on. stores, gas stations, etc...

spot on with the rural statement and I still guess that's why the dakota's/montana were some of the best states and now blowing up. all it takes is one group to head into fargo/missoula/sioux city and bam. the entire county has it in a matter of weeks.