adventurous said:
Bullsback said:
Materially - They have looked at it and when both people wear masks, the rate of infection drops significantly. Most of the masks do very little in preventing you from getting the virus (unless you are wearing some of the higher end masks with much stronger filters), however, all of the masks do a statistically significant job of stopping symptomatic and asymptomatic people from spreading the disease to others.
Wearing the mask is to protect everyone else from getting the virus (yourself included) by preventing those with the infection from spreading the virus. And the data backs this up...as does common sense. If a disease is largely spread from droplets and the use of a mask significantly reduces the risk of those droplets being in the air....well....what does that mean? Hmmm....doesn't take a rocket science, but keep using mixed messaging from our government (which has failed at containing this virus more so than pretty much every other developed country in this world despite having more resources than most developed nations).
Oh and you want some other stats, look below. Proof is in the pudding here:
Over the last 2 weeks, cases have risen by 84% in states that don't require wearing masks in public. In states where mask wearing is mandatory, cases have fallen by 25%.
Who are "
they"?
is there a difference between the street riots and sporting event from the virus protection standpoint? Why one is encourages, while the other one is punished?
Which states are we talking about?
I'll ignore your first question - cause you clearly don't want to look into anything. On your 2nd question, I am 100% supportive of anyone's right to protest. I won't talk about the street riots because I don't believe that to be reflective of the majority of the protesters and I do think that the protesters should have done a much better job and the governments should have enforced better social distancing. In fact - I would argue the protest would have been more powerful - spread everyone out 6 feet apart in all the various downtowns across the country and you literally would be taking up multiple city blocks.
In terms of sporting events, if it is indoor - I think it just is going to be limited - you can't afford to create mass spread events that could hinder and cause us to shutdown the economy. My view is, you need to manage this in the best possible way to manage hospitals, manage loss of lives (note: I said manage...cause loss of lives to some extent is inevitable), as well as to manage the economy. The worst thing that could happen is if things spike and everything shuts back down. Shutdowns aren't effective over days, they take multiple weeks, so I'd ask, would you rather have 90% of the businesses open and rolling with a pretty high probability that they stay rolling or would you want 100% knowing that the risk that you have to reshut down (once, if not twice) while also causing a significant death toll is much higher (I don't know what that stat is, but the data analysts and scientist should).
On the outdoor front, you probably can actually have some fans attend (space out Dodger stadium and you could probably operate fairly safely in that open air setting. Probably pretty limited concession stands, stricter rules about people being able to roam the stadium, etc, but big 50K stadiums can still handle 5-10K in fans (the only major issue is probably going to be the logistics of getting people in through the gates, etc).
And for any of those limited businesses that aren't declared safe to open for the next 6-12 months, now that you have drastically reduced that number down to more isolated segments of the broader free enterprise system, you could do some pretty targeted stimulus that focused on propping up those businesses (including pass through to the businesses employees).
