Coronovirus IV

[jamil]

In my view compliance makes a segment of the population feel better. If one were to review the progression of mask use it was not driven by science and medicine, it was driven by do-gooders on social media, then picked up as a narrative by the media, (that became hell bent on making Trump wear one) then the democrats tagged onto the issue. These groups went after corporations and started the mask wars then they all went after the politicians not onboard and forced them to issue orders. Some corporations used masks as a way to skirt distancing rules and keep their stores full, looking at you Menards...

I never said nor implied it was for conditioning purposes, just virtue signaling, and an expression of power that "we can make you wear a mask"...

Okay. Some have said that though. There seems to be a fair segment of INGO who claim it’s all about compliance and some of those have expressed that it’s “conditioning” so that’s where I got that.

So I think I know what you’re saying. Maybe it’s kinda like a groupthink sort of thing, where the mob thinks everyone should do what they do, and so they put social pressure on people to do it. And if it’s that, I do think that’s true for a lot of people. I’ve seen that. People like to say the science says more than it says, and that justifies making it the right thing to do, so therefore everyone should do it.

That’s not the whole story though. There is some science that suggests it could help. Strong enough evidence to mandate masks? I don’t think so. But it’s enough to make a lot of people legitimately (not virtue-signaling ) believe wearing masks is the right thing to do. Many people on INGO who have expressed a belief that wearing masks is helpful. Is that all about compliance too?

I also think if I’m understanding you correctly, labeling it as “compliance” makes the thing you’re trying to say confusing. It makes it sound very tin foil.

 

[jamil]

The Canadians aren't messing around.

https://www.npr.org/2020/08/25/9058...ing-canadas-covid-19-rules-faces-560-000-fine

A lot of Karens in Canada.

 

[foszoe]

I thought that all employees under the executive branch serve at the pleasure of the president. A president who became famous for the line you're fired. So today I learned apparently he can't fire people.

 

[T.Lex]

Well, it sounded like the implication was that Trump is setting the CDC's policies now. I doubt that's the case. Yes, they're under his purview, but I don't believe he sets policy with regards to medical/health issues.

It was an accurate statement. The CDC is part of Trump's administration. It is Trump's. Just like it was Obama's, etc.

While I don't think Trump personally sets the policies (although some of his statements/tweets could suggest that he does), his administration set the policies.

Quick googling reminded me of this example:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-data-cdc-hospitals-trump-administration/

Trump's executive authority allowed him (or his appointees acting on his behalf) to substantively change policy on reporting. I'm not even saying whether that was a good or bad policy move, just saying that as chief executive, he has that authority.

 

[JettaKnight]

The onus of definition lies with those levying fines and criminal penalties. This is precisely the problem. The force of law is being placed behind poorly defined edicts. This makes enforcement arbitrary and capricious.

Also, it is not pragmatism, it is authoritarianism.

I don't think you're getting what I'm saying.


They have defined something, but that something isn't good enough for Ingomike. And at least here in IN, there's no criminal penalties. There's not even much, if any, force of law.


The edict is, "just put on a damned mask. That's it. It's not complicated."
It's pragmatic because it takes in to consideration that even some that simple is too hard for some people, and to try and ask for more is foolish.

The contrived naivety is funny. You probably can explain it better than I...

I'm actually trying to have a serious conversation about that.


I can see where someone might claim that the pandemic is a ruse. That's at least logical.
I just don't see how the masking component is ruse, by itself.


So just explain it to me like I'm five.

 

[jamil]

So this makes no sense. Trump's CDC is now saying that people exposed to people who have tested positive "do not necessarily" need to be tested if they are otherwise asymptomatic and do not have underlying risk factors.

https://www.wthr.com/article/news/h...gust/507-45662cba-9d22-4840-a818-f31a5e95a5a6

If we're at all concerned about preventing community spread, I don't see how this helps.

How does this involve Trump? I really haven’t seen a lot of evidence that Trump has much sway on what CDC guidelines go out. It seems more likely that it’s yet another case of modifying guidelines based on previously faulty information.

 

[Alpo]

I thought that all employees under the executive branch serve at the pleasure of the president. A president who became famous for the line you're fired. So today I learned apparently he can't fire people.

I think the "I quit " is a lot more prevalent than "You're fired".

 

[T.Lex]

How does this involve Trump? I really haven’t seen a lot of evidence that Trump has much sway on what CDC guidelines go out. It seems more likely that it’s yet another case of modifying guidelines based on previously faulty information.

Two different things in play there: Trump involvement and whether the change in CDC guidelines is an evolution based on information.

Trump involvement - I didn't post this link because it is NPR.
https://www.npr.org/2020/07/08/888898194/trump-blasts-expensive-cdc-guidelines-for-reopening-schools

I disagree with @CDCgov on their very tough & expensive guidelines for opening schools. While they want them open, they are asking schools to do very impractical things. I will be meeting with them!!!

Regardless, the CDC is part of the Trump administration. It is Trump's CDC. Truly, I do not know to what extent Trump is personally involved. But, that doesn't make it any less of Trump's CDC.

CDC evolution on testing
From what I can tell, the CDC has not explained why exposed people may not necessarily be tested. That doesn't comport with the information about asymptomatic spreading and contact tracing. That's why it doesn't make sense.

 

[Ingomike]

I thought that all employees under the executive branch serve at the pleasure of the president. A president who became famous for the line you're fired. So today I learned apparently he can't fire people.

Anyone classified as a civil service employee is not under the purview of the executive branch. A President cannot fire all the FDA, CDC, etc. employees as they wish. Heck, he cannot even fire the people from national security that work in the White House, (think Vindman), he is limited to asking his appointees to try to find cause to get rid of them.

That is what makes it so tough for Republican Presidents, many of the employees do not want to execute their agenda and do everything in their power to slow or delay the policy, just waiting out the Presidents term. That is exactly part of what they are referring to as the swamp. They leak to democrats and opponents of the policy making it difficult to move policies forward.

So when Obama was in the EPA was all about furthering his opposition to the Keystone pipeline. When Trump wanted to get the pipeline done the EPA was part of the opposition against him. Only the department head worked for Trump and furthering his policies.

Anyone that believes that a President can make a difference to the swamp in a term just does not understand how it works or wants to blame a President for something beyond to power of any President...

 

[nonobaddog]

Anyone classified as a civil service employee is not under the purview of the executive branch. A President cannot fire all the FDA, CDC, etc. employees as they wish. Heck, he cannot even fire the people from national security that work in the White House, (think Vindman), he is limited to asking his appointees to try to find cause to get rid of them.

That is what makes it so tough for Republican Presidents, many of the employees do not want to execute their agenda and do everything in their power to slow or delay the policy, just waiting out the Presidents term. That is exactly part of what they are referring to as the swamp. They leak to democrats and opponents of the policy making it difficult to move policies forward.

So when Obama was in the EPA was all about furthering his opposition to the Keystone pipeline. When Trump wanted to get the pipeline done the EPA was part of the opposition against him. Only the department head worked for Trump and furthering his policies.

Anyone that believes that a President can make a difference to the swamp in a term just does not understand how it works or wants to blame a President for something beyond to power of any President...

I suspect those blaming Trump know this but are being disingenuous because of their TDS.

 

[BugI02]

If the only purpose for mandating masks were to condition people to comply, then mandating more standards would be unnecessary. Okay. So that sounds kinda valid. The conclusion follows the premise. I could buy that logic if not the premise.

If the purpose for mandating masks were to limit the spread of covid, and the authorities mandating the masks believe that worn masks could be full of virus which could be spread if handled improperly, then authorities would mandate the handling of masks too. That one is not so valid because the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premise. Even if authorities believe handling masks improperly would spread covid, there may be many more reasons why they wouldn't mandate that too.

So what makes you think that the purpose is to condition people to be compliant? Several of you guys repeat this claim often enough. I'd like to hear an explanation of why it has to be about compliance? What is your evidence for that? How have you ruled out all the other possible reasons for mandating masks?

You probably also believe you're not f***ed 'in the unlikely event of a water landing' of your flight, too, because your seat cushion can serve as a flotation device. Just how would you characterize forcing people to adopt a prophylaxis that can at best be described as better than nothing, that will in no way serve the purpose they extol to the extent they are allowing the public to believe. Is it not analagous to allowing and encouraging people to believe that enacting gun free zones will keep them safe from guns?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

You probably also believe you're not f***ed 'in the unlikely event of a water landing' of your flight, too, because your seat cushion can serve as a flotation device. Just how would you characterize forcing people to adopt a prophylaxis that can at best be described as better than nothing, that will in no way serve the purpose they extol to the extent they are allowing the public to believe. Is it not analagous to allowing and encouraging people to believe that enacting gun free zones will keep them safe from guns?

No, it's not... and I would refer you to the ACS Nano testing of various cloth masks along with surgical and N95 masks for filtering capability. Basically, they setup the apparatus that certifies N95 masks as 95%, and performed the same testing on surgical masks and a host of different fabric mask combinations.

Certain fabric combinations (some synthetic fiber content was key for, presumably, electrostatic filtering) and 3-ply surgical masks, if worn to avoid air leaks, are much better than "better than nothing"... in fact, surprisingly close to N95's especially for particles the size of aerosols.

On a different subject, back to Sweden...

I do think that the closest thing in the US to apples to apples comparison with Sweden would be NYC. DumbAssio was so late in taking action, and the city is so densely populated - you cannot go anywhere in NYC without being in a sea of humanity - that IMO there would be similar per capita EXPOSURE in NYC as in Sweden. Thoughts?

 

[BugI02]

I thought that all employees under the executive branch serve at the pleasure of the president. A president who became famous for the line you're fired. So today I learned apparently he can't fire people.

Appointees serve at the pleasure, run of the mill GS types have protections that date all the way back to the Grant presidency, designed to limit patronage

 

[Ingomike]

No, it's not... and I would refer you to the ACS Nano testing of various cloth masks along with surgical and N95 masks for filtering capability. Basically, they setup the apparatus that certifies N95 masks as 95%, and performed the same testing on surgical masks and a host of different fabric mask combinations.

Certain fabric combinations (some synthetic fiber content was key for, presumably, electrostatic filtering) and 3-ply surgical masks, if worn to avoid air leaks, are much better than "better than nothing"... in fact, surprisingly close to N95's especially for particles the size of aerosols.

And now we are back to my point of no standards diminishing the effectiveness and further limiting why we even do it...

About a quarter are wearing masks with vents to allow exhalation to get out...

 

[BugI02]

No, it's not... and I would refer you to the ACS Nano testing of various cloth masks along with surgical and N95 masks for filtering capability. Basically, they setup the apparatus that certifies N95 masks as 95%, and performed the same testing on surgical masks and a host of different fabric mask combinations.

Certain fabric combinations (some synthetic fiber content was key for, presumably, electrostatic filtering) and 3-ply surgical masks, if worn to avoid air leaks, are much better than "better than nothing"... in fact, surprisingly close to N95's especially for particles the size of aerosols.

On a different subject, back to Sweden...

I do think that the closest thing in the US to apples to apples comparison with Sweden would be NYC. DumbAssio was so late in taking action, and the city is so densely populated - you cannot go anywhere in NYC without being in a sea of humanity - that IMO there would be similar per capita EXPOSURE in NYC as in Sweden. Thoughts?

You make our points for us. Please direct me to any government PSAs or regulations coaxing or directing people how to make and how to properly wear effective cloth masks. I'll wait

'Certain fabric combinations and 3-ply surgical masks, worn to avoid leaks, are much better than 'better than nothing' but how many people are actually wearing such? A strap on inflatable life jacket would be much more effective in that 'unlikely' water landing scenario, too, but ...

 

[jamil]

I thought that all employees under the executive branch serve at the pleasure of the president. A president who became famous for the line you're fired. So today I learned apparently he can't fire people.

Who said that?

 

[jamil]

It is a federal agency under the Health and Human Services Department. There's probably an org chart available out on the interwebz, if you need it.

He's the chief executive of the federal agencies.

It's my understanding that Trump can't fire federal employees. He can fire appointees. And the president can't always fire appointees.

If you think an appointee should be fired, make your case. Just a few days ago weren't we talking about how it's okay that the CDC changes its mind often? The argument was made that the more that's learned about the virus, the more recommendations will adjust to the new information. So now is that no longer the case? Because it sounds an awful lot like you're saying that the reason the CDC changes its mind so much is because it's Trump's CDC. So what are you saying?

So this makes no sense. Trump's CDC is now saying that people exposed to people who have tested positive "do not necessarily" need to be tested if they are otherwise asymptomatic and do not have underlying risk factors.

https://www.wthr.com/article/news/h...gust/507-45662cba-9d22-4840-a818-f31a5e95a5a6

If we're at all concerned about preventing community spread, I don't see how this helps.

 

[foszoe]

Who said that?

Probably some guy In a bar

 

[bobzilla]

You probably also believe you're not f***ed 'in the unlikely event of a water landing' of your flight, too, because your seat cushion can serve as a flotation device. Just how would you characterize forcing people to adopt a prophylaxis that can at best be described as better than nothing, that will in no way serve the purpose they extol to the extent they are allowing the public to believe. Is it not analagous to allowing and encouraging people to believe that enacting gun free zones will keep them safe from guns?

I believe that wonder drug was called Phalanx(?) in the book wwz.

 

[OakRiver]

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/depa...ates-issued-covid-19-orders-may-have-resulted

"Department of Justice Requesting Data From Governors of States that Issued COVID-19 Orders that May Have Resulted in Deaths of Elderly Nursing Home Residents
Data will help inform whether the Department of Justice will initiate investigations under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA) regarding New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Michigan’s response to COVID-19 in public nursing homes

Today the Justice Department requested COVID-19 data from the governors of states that issued orders which may have resulted in the deaths of thousands of elderly nursing home residents. New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Michigan required nursing homes to admit COVID-19 patients to their vulnerable populations, often without adequate testing. "