Kolek planning to go pro
Marshall, MN...couple wears swastika masks to Walmart.https://m.startribune.com/couple-flaunts-swastika-facemasks-at-marshall-walmart/571909142/
Freedom of speech, no?
I support their right to wear offensive masks. I also support the right of people to be upset and speak out against it.
These companies already have designated minimum wage workers as "essential", now your asking them to remind people to wear masks. Asking them to enforce that is putting them in the way of both physical harm, and a risk to their health. In the case of Walmart (and probably most larger stores), the employees are supposed to report non-maskers to their superiors. I'm sure that gets to store security which is responsible for enforcement.
Y were you surprised to see that?
Now, I understand that the ventilator allows "unfiltered" air out, and that *could* be bad. But a cloth mask also allows a lot of unfiltered air out - and that's why they're more comfortable. But - this should only matter if the virus is airborne - correct? Both the cloth mask, and ventilated 95 stop a majority of "droplets" which is their purpose.
Hm, looking for opinions here...lately folks have been latching onto the idea that masks with ventilators are bad (including my workplace). Here's an example:https://healthnewshub.org/health-news-hub/top-news/do-not-use-a-mask-with-a-filtered-valve-it-can-spread-covid-19/Now, I understand that the ventilator allows "unfiltered" air out, and that *could* be bad. But a cloth mask also allows a lot of unfiltered air out - and that's why they're more comfortable. But - this should only matter if the virus is airborne - correct? Both the cloth mask, and ventilated 95 stop a majority of "droplets" which is their purpose. I mentioned in another thread, I have a couple ventilated N95's, and I'm not trying to be a jerk by wearing them. Am I being jerk? I feel like this guidance is going overboard, and the only risk of using a ventilated mask (or cloth mask) is in "sterile" environments.
If you're referring to the article guru posted, it's understandable. These companies already have designated minimum wage workers as "essential", now your asking them to remind people to wear masks. Asking them to enforce that is putting them in the way of both physical harm, and a risk to their health. In the case of Walmart (and probably most larger stores), the employees are supposed to report non-maskers to their superiors. I'm sure that gets to store security which is responsible for enforcement.
Agree 100%.This is why the obvious follow-up question when the purported leader of our nation was calling the confederate flag a "freedom of speech" issue was, "How would you feel if they were flying flags with swastikas?" I'd have loved to have heard his answer. And then the follow-up to that would be, "Why do you criticize kneeling ahtletes, the vast majority of whom are Black, for peacefully expressing their freedom of speech? Didn't you say in a national speech that you're 'an ally of all peaceful protesters'? Was that lip service or do you really mean it?"Agree 100%. A shelf-stocker or cashier at Walmart or Target or Lowes or Kroger didn't sign up to be an enforcer. I don't want some 17-year-old kid or some 70-year-old woman (or anybody in between) to get seriously hurt or killed because he or she confronted a selfish, law-breaking mouth-breather. Report it to a supervisor, who then can call in those who are paid to enforce store rules and/or state laws.
This is why national, state, or municipal policy is so important in this context. They can be the unseen bad guy. 'I'm sorry, but the state is telling me you can't come in here without a mask', is a different confrontation.Also, if anyone wants to talk about what 'freedom' means in the context of a civilized citizens, it's not getting to make choices that deny others' right to make my own. Just a harrowing read.https://nyti.ms/3g1o1CP
Because people in every city I've been to in Wisconsin outside of Milwaukee have been blatantly disregarding mask recommendations.Anecdotal but that's been my experience.
Another question which again, I am not looking to start an argument by any means, just want your opinion..Using the CDC #'s we see that Milwaukee county has 37.4% of the States cases a total of 17,537 cases and 422 deaths(.02%). The next closest is Dane county with 8% of the total cases statewide(3732 total) and 33 deaths (.008%). There are only 8 counties in the entire state that have over 1,000 cases, and those same 8 are the only ones with 20+ deaths. In fact you see the drop off in death total from #1 Milwaukee county(422), to the next closest being Dane county(33), that's pretty stark.So my question is, isn't it reasonable to assume(based on the data/science) that in a vast majority of counties in Wisconsin, the cases/deaths are so low per 100,000, that masks really won't accomplish much anyway?? Point being, the spread doesn't seem to be terrible to begin with, nor is the death count(though 1 is too many), so in studying the data it would appear that as a whole Wisconsin hasn't been terrible to begin with since covid started, are masks serving any purpose in some areas or is it more "out of abundance of caution"??
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/24/business/masks-walmart-home-depot-lowes-cvs/index.html
To be fair...a lot of you get your news from CNN, and I just wish you'd call them what they arehttps://www.projectveritas.com/news/exposecnnpart1/
Guru - Masks are not going to save any one person. The issue with this thing is not any-ONE. It is solely an issue of collective spread. This issue is compounded by the fact that you are contagious before you feel sick - if you feel sick at all. Said a different way, I dont care if you get it, but I do care that you will likely infect three people who then infect three people, etc.So, based on what we now know, it is not reasonable to think that you shouldn't wear a mask if you are going to be in contact with people you are not podding with indoors or close proximity for long periods of time. If you are in a rural area, you are probably lower risk of becoming a vector for spread, but when the virus comes, like it has in many rural counties, you will extend the lifetime of the epidemic.
I think you come to a conclusion on this based on why are you wearing a mask. If you believe masks are there to lower your risk You fall one way. If you are trying to stop collective spread, you fall elsewhere. Or of course you just didn’t know. I will tell you we had a friend go into a health clinic and they would not allow that mask for the reason in the article. Gave her a new surgical mask instead.
If you can properly social distance should masks still be a necessity?? I understand both have their place, but I guess I've never heard it really stated that IF it were too be one or the other(ie masks or social distancing), what is MORE effective?? I hear people talk about wearing masks with the caveat "if you can't properly social distance", so if you can, a mask isn't necessarily needed/required??
Right, and I knew some unfiltered air was getting out, but like I said - it's the same with a surgical mask. Scientifically - I don't see the difference, and I'd be interested to see a study on "droplet release" from both kinds of masks.I will be nice and comply with my work and any other requirements (I mostly wear cloth there anyway - the breath much easier! Hah.). But I'm not sure the science is adding up on this one.