Quote Originally Posted by sandm View Post
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