Pretty much. The only way to avoid a contagion that spreads easily is to avoid it. Pulling your shirt over your face in a large crowd isn’t doing much.
should and can are not the same thing. state governments, unless they’ve banned it from themselves in state constitutions, have the police powers. my personal belief is they should refrain from using them as much as possible and leave it at the county/city level. the choice is ultimately theirs (the state), and then the peoples
No heart attack for me. But as a Covid survivor still dealing with some breathing issues, breathing recycled air is difficult for me. Sometimes triggering a gag reflex. I cheat as much as possible to get fresh air.
What about proving to the citizens with science and stats and good faith debating, letting all sides present their cases, that the masks some have been using actually work to reduce the spread, and letting people make what they believe are the most logical choices.
Why is that not also “a chance”?
Stamping out dissent is not going to win hearts and minds.
Not effective.
Not very effective.
Very effective.
Does “not very effective” mean “not effective?” Is a preventative measure which is “not very effective” the same as a preventative measure which is “not effective?” Is the argument that unless something is “very effective” it shouldn’t be done?
Mask mandates were associated with a 0.5 percentage point decrease (p = 0.02) in daily COVID-19 case growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.1, 1.5, 1.7, and 1.8 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all) (Table 1) (Figure). Mask mandates were associated with a 0.7 percentage point decrease (p = 0.03) in daily COVID-19 death growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.0, 1.4, 1.6, and 1.9 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all).