Well, some surprising news. Had my physical, labs, drug test, my N95 mask, TB stick, and dtap as I was overdue. Came home and got a call from my new boss who offered me the job full time. And, a little more $ as well. It may have been my Captain America blood that convinced them.
As, DW is at least a year away from retirement, I'll take the 4 day, 10 hour work days and then switch back to PRN. It feels good to be wanted.
Too many variables is right, but I think we can definitely say the masks don't hurt. Most of the cases I've heard of anecdotally have been transmission within a household or out somewhere with no masks. But you are right in that the masks don't work by themselves. It needs to be all parties wearing them for one, but being socially distant is also probably the most important.
Outside of the study on bandannas and neck gaiters, masks can be effective. Can masks hurt? Not the way we think of. There are some who will not physically distance because they think a mask helps. Some throw their used masks in grocery carts or roadside, which could hurt whoever has to remove them. As for wearing them correctly, it could also include how often they touch them with their hands or don't change them after each use. Everyone I encounter is wearing their mask and has been doing so for quite some time, yet the cases just continue to increase. I don't think we focused enough on a quarentine of the sick or unhealthy people.
Good point.
What would you see as a more reasonable method? Curbside pickup of groceries only, maybe? But then that would probably increase the amount of staff needed. I guess there probably aren't any easy answers.
There are no easy answers. Even if the military had been deployed in hazmat suits and made home deliveries, food and supplies still go thru factory production and then transported from DCs. If the government forces businesses to close, then all those impacted should be compensated. That may have helped them to think it thru in the initial planning phase.
Not sure what you're saying here. I get that you're lamenting the lack of science behind the decisions, but where would it come from? Usually (always?) it comes from testing, but wouldn't you have to test each space? With varying numbers of positive and negative caseloads and amounts? I'm just thinking that getting the science you're asking for may not be possible?
Week 1: Restaurants open 50% capacity.
Week 2: Restaurants closed.
Week 3: Restaurants can open for outdoor dining with tents.
Week 4: Tents only permitted with two door flaps open.
The science would have to be a measuring of the moisture particles that spread with 1 door, 2 door, and 3 doors open on the tent, along with different external temperatures and wind speeds accounted for. I guess the capacity issue was scientifically determined, although, maybe not. There wasn't enough time to run those experiments to reach conclusions. Thus, it's not science. It's arbitrary government control.
It's been shown that masks are effective at reducing the likelihood of transmission, but not effective at eliminating it. So... I don't understand why people balk at reducing their likelihood of catching (or spreading, really) the virus.
It's been shown some of the masks reduce moisture particles. It's been shown bandannas and neck gaiters increase moisture particles.
How does anyone live up there?
Watch Mountain Men?
Very familiar with that phenomenon.
