What reaction? Shutting things down to prevent the spread?
Allan
1 Like
This is part of the reason that California is failing.
I thought we were told that if it was outside it didn;'t count. Or is that only when its a left wing mob.
Wear a mask if you’re going outside. Personally, I would avoid the crowd altogether. People are not treating this virus seriously enough.
1 Like
Who told you that? All of the medical experts I’ve heard said that masks and social distancing, indoor and outdoor are what will protect you.
[quote=“NebraskaFootball, post:341, topic:233745, full:true”]
I have heard that many times, as part justification of why the mobs aren’t spreading the disease. It only takes a second. I’m sure you can find many more. You will even see it as some posters have argued this…outside protests good…inside rallies bad.
“For the most part, we’re not going to see a big increase [in cases] because people are wearing masks and they’re being held outside,” said Dr. Eric Bing, professor of global health at Southern Methodist University.”
[quote=“DougBH, post:342, topic:233745, full:true”]
People are wearing masks. From your own link.
For the most part, we’re not going to see a big increase [in cases] because people are wearing [masks]
1 Like
Wearing masks and they are being held outside. I included both, yes. This is an “expert” at a big university and therefore could not possibly be influenced by politics. Why do you think he thought it was relevant that it was outside?
At least, when you quote, try to include the entire sentence. It’s a good look.
Because it isn’t as easy to transmit it outdoors as it is indoors. Classes aren’t held outdoors
He should have supported the change from Do not need a mask to “cloth face coverings” on April 4th after yelling at the lab coats to make up their damn minds.
He should have left the details to the lab coats and stick to high level.
He needs to learn how to talk.
He needs to stop making promises.
Tangibles?
Not exactly correct. The transmisibility is the same. Outside, there is a better chance for dispersal, but the same amount gets out.
Which in turn means that the chance of transmitting it to others is lower outdoors
Transmit - to pass or spread (disease, infection, etc) to another
It depends on whether or not it is actually dispersed and how.
If you are in the middle of 100,000 people, it’s not going to do you any good.
Your quoted/reply to my original post was all kinds of messed up. Before getting on to me for failing to properly quote, perhaps fix your own mistakes first?
The point of the issue is that wearing masks is what makes the difference. Along with social distancing. Both indoors and outdoors. You claimed that you heard being outdoors makes the virus non-transmittable. I asked who told you that because it is not accurate. This was in reply to @calirepub link showing people in California outside at a big church event without any masks on. Make sense now?
Reilly and Jonesy!
They’re the best.
I showed you that it was accurate that outside v inside was one factor. No, not the only. Distancing (certainly not used in mobs) is another differences. Masks is another. They have all been used. Do you seriously not remember people arguing that Trump having his Tulsa meeting inside was more dangerous because it was inside, as opposed to protestors who were outside? Go with that, then.
I remember people saying that having an indoor rally without masks and social distancing was an abysmal idea. And that protesters wearing masks outside was better than being indoors without a mask.
Personally, they are both horrible life choices for people to make right now.
Not according to the experts.
