National Mask Mandate Could Save 5 Percent of GDP, Economists Say 481
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Washington Post: After a late-spring lull, daily coronavirus cases in the United States have again hit record highs, driven by resurgent outbreaks in states such as Florida, Arizona and California. Hospitals in Houston are already on the brink of being overwhelmed, and public health experts worry the pandemic's body count will soon again be climbing in tandem with the daily case load. The dire situation has raised the specter of another round of state-level stay-at-home orders to halt the pandemic's spread and caused a number of governors to pause or reverse their ongoing reopening plans. Against this backdrop, a team of economists at investment bank Goldman Sachs has published an analysis suggesting more painful shutdowns could be averted if the United States implements a nationwide mask mandate.
"A face mask mandate could potentially substitute for lockdowns that would otherwise subtract nearly 5% from GDP," the team, led by the company's chief economist, Jan Hatzius, writes. It's worth noting the authors of the report are economists and not public health experts. Their primary motivation is to protect the economic interests of Goldman Sachs's investors, which is why they're interested in the effects of federal policy on gross domestic product. But their findings are in line with a number of other published studies on the efficacy of masks. The Goldman Sachs report notes the United States is a global outlier with respect to face mask use, which is widespread in Asia and currently mandated in many European countries. Though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention "recommends" the use of masks in public and 20 states plus the District of Columbia have implemented their own mandates, there is no binding national policy, with wide regional variations in mask use around the country. "We estimate that statewide mask mandates gradually raise the percentage of people who 'always' or 'frequently' wear masks by around 25 [percentage points] in the 30+ days after signing," the authors write. "Our numerical estimates are that cumulative cases grow 17.3% per week without a mask mandate but only 7.3% with a mask mandate, and that cumulative fatalities grow 29% per week without a mask mandate but only 16% with a mask mandate."
"A face mask mandate could potentially substitute for lockdowns that would otherwise subtract nearly 5% from GDP," the team, led by the company's chief economist, Jan Hatzius, writes. It's worth noting the authors of the report are economists and not public health experts. Their primary motivation is to protect the economic interests of Goldman Sachs's investors, which is why they're interested in the effects of federal policy on gross domestic product. But their findings are in line with a number of other published studies on the efficacy of masks. The Goldman Sachs report notes the United States is a global outlier with respect to face mask use, which is widespread in Asia and currently mandated in many European countries. Though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention "recommends" the use of masks in public and 20 states plus the District of Columbia have implemented their own mandates, there is no binding national policy, with wide regional variations in mask use around the country. "We estimate that statewide mask mandates gradually raise the percentage of people who 'always' or 'frequently' wear masks by around 25 [percentage points] in the 30+ days after signing," the authors write. "Our numerical estimates are that cumulative cases grow 17.3% per week without a mask mandate but only 7.3% with a mask mandate, and that cumulative fatalities grow 29% per week without a mask mandate but only 16% with a mask mandate."
Seems logical (Score:5, Insightful)
How could a sensible government be against this ?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
How could a sensible government be against this ?
"A sensible government", can't say I have ever seen one of those...
Re:Seems logical (Score:5, Insightful)
The more interesting question is, how could a sensible person be against it? There's a non-invasive method to allow everyone to get back to work, get the economy back online while at the same time staying relatively safe (well, as safe as you can be), provided people use those masks sensibly.
What exactly seems to be the effin' problem?
Re:Seems logical (Score:5, Informative)
What exactly seems to be the effin' problem?
All the idiots.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The more interesting question is, how could a sensible person be against it? There's a non-invasive method to allow everyone to get back to work, get the economy back online while at the same time staying relatively safe (well, as safe as you can be), provided people use those masks sensibly.
What exactly seems to be the effin' problem?
The problem is that you are assuming sensible people. Many on the right truly believe that all of these coronavirus deaths are made up, and that this is all a plot to ensure that their dear leader does not get reelected. To someone who believes those sorts of conspiracy theories, refusing to wear a mask becomes a legitimate political protest against a Democrat hoax.
This has, of course, been made worse by right-wing media outlets that have systematically supported and even promoted such insane conspiracy t
Re:Seems logical (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that you are assuming sensible people. Many on the right truly believe that all of these coronavirus deaths are made up, and that this is all a plot to ensure that their dear leader does not get reelected. To someone who believes those sorts of conspiracy theories, refusing to wear a mask becomes a legitimate political protest against a Democrat hoax.
If people are that easily deluded it should be entirely possible to step it up a notch and convince the right that things like cancer screening, prophylactic heart medications, and regular checkups are all part of a liberal plot as well. Might as well play to your enemies weaknesses.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is trust much more than stupidity. And the lack of trust of people in government is not simply caused by right wing media outlets, it is more a symptom of government becoming less trustworthy.
The election of trump is in that respect a symptom - more than it being the problem - and it certainly isn't the solution that some voters hoped it to be.
Re: (Score:3)
The more interesting question is, how could a sensible person be against it?
I found this argument to be quite particularly convincing [youtube.com]. It's the nuance she conveys that really gets me, although the overall sophistication of the argument is deep, yet accessible to the common listener, without any scientific expertise in virology.
Re: (Score:3)
What exactly seems to be the effin' problem?
Because selfishness has been confused with freedom in America. Acting selfishly demonstrates an ability to exercise one's freedom, and therefore viewed as patriotic.
Acting selfishly may be your right, but it certainly isn't patriotic to harm your fellow citizen.
Re:Seems logical (Score:4, Interesting)
In America it's been turned into a political football. And politics is completely septic and caustic in America.
There are literally people that believe, truly, that since someone they disagree with politically wears masks most of the time they are in public, that they can't POSSIBLY be seen wearing one or someone might believe they're "on the same team." And we can't have that.
Literally everything for some folks comes down to political lines.
Then we also have those that just hang on Trump's every word and he's been saying, and is still saying, that masks just don't matter. That the virus really isn't that bad. That it's either all made up, or it's being inflated by the media to make him look bad. Because everything is about him and how it reflects on him. Not the number of folks infected. Not the number of folks dying or dead. Not the number of folks hospitalized or missing the chance at medical treatment for other illnesses because hospitals are full. It's all about him.
And for the trifecta of fail, we've also got a large number of folks in this country that just plain don't give a damn in any way, shape, or form. It's summer, and they want to party. Damn the consequences.
This pandemic hit among the perfect storm. Science deniers will put absolute blind faith in whatever sounds best to them and fits their preconceived inner dialog. And there are those who try to research things and just see completely mixed signals from every direction and end up frustrated and giving up. There's no strong message from leadership. There's so little faith in our government that even when they do try to take a positive step you have nearly half the population screaming bloody murder over it.
It's up to us as individuals to do the right thing in this moment. And sadly, we're witnessing what happens when we leave the big decisions that affect us as a society up to individuals.
I think it's going to get worse before it gets better. We're just not equipped as a country to weather this storm with the right attitude. Too many people too scared by any rule coming from any direction to ever follow them. Even the simple ones. There are even people that truly believe that wearing a mask will kill you. How do you work with someone that's taken that stance? How do you even try to inform them when all factual information hits the wall of "but I already KNOW this!"?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it starts at the top and if they don't want to wear masks, well, that convinces a lot of people to not do it as well. Leading by example, really.
And it doesn't help that
Re:Seems logical (Score:4, Informative)
The other fact perhaps to consider is whether it makes sense to argue about this at all or whether we should look at the hard data:
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/da... [jhu.edu]
UK + US + Sweden all countries not effected by COVID at the beginning (unlike Italy and Spain) with limited coordinated responses (staying home, wearing masks, physical distancing, testing and contact tracing) and a highly "individualist" mindset, make the "top 10"
Death's per 100K
UK: 65 (4th worst)
Sweden: 53 (7th worst)
USA: 38 (9th worst)
By contrast Countries with quick non politicized, expert based response, with a more collaborative culture:
Canada: 23 (almost 1/2 the deaths per 100K of the USA)
Germany: 11 (almost a 1/4 the deaths per 100K of the USA)
Taiwan: 0.03 (almost a 1/1000! the deaths per 100K of the USA)
If you think about it instead of 125K dead Americans if the USA had done as well as the Canadians (and they had issues with their old age homes) there could be
60.000 Less dead mothers, fathers, grandparents, nieces, nephews etc...
With numbers like that you should put you mask on even if there might be some uncertainty about how much a mask protects you.
I mean think about it in terms of if someone else wearing a mask could reduce the number of sick and dead, and save the life of someone _you_ love,
wouldn't you do the same for them? (Pretty much everyone has Parents, Siblings, Children, Nieces Nephews, friends etc... they care about).
If you don't want to wear the mask for yourself then wear it for them.
And oh wash your fricken hands... like your mom told you to when you were growing up.
Re:Seems logical (Score:4, Informative)
Sure it can - with exactly the same carrot / stick approach used to raise the drinking age to 21 - deny federal funding to states that do not comply with a mask mandate.
Watch how quickly all 50 get on board when their access to the federal tit is cut off.
Re:Seems logical (Score:5, Funny)
Wake up sheeple. It's time to move on and get back to work and back to living.
Hi, Donald !
Re:Seems logical (Score:5, Informative)
It is not good for public health. It negatively impacts the health of the wearer, and does *absolutely nothing* to curb the spread of any pathogen.
Citation needed. Except for people with COPD and other similar illnesses, there is no evidence that wearing masks all day is harmful to health, much less wearing them only while you're shopping or whatever.
- it can be demonstrated that simply wearing even a cloth mask reduces your O2 to below minimum OSHA safety levels--which is bad for your brain to say the very least... - wearing a mask is strapping a petri dish to your face, and re-inhaling all the virus and bacteria that your immune system *already worked* to expel--increasing the lead on your immune system
No, your immune system did not work to expel it. Your cough did. Your immune system just bundled it up. And what you breathe back in, you'll also breathe back out again a few seconds later.
- it has been shown that cloth masks, if worn at all, become so saturated with pathogens that they should be changed every *20 minutes*
Only if you're so sick that you should have stayed home.
- no one, it seems, understands masks: An N95 mask does *zero filtration* on exhale. It allows *everything* exhaled to pass directly through. Protecting no one from the wearer.
Wrong again. Most respirators have filtered vents, and most masks don't have vents at all. Only a few N95 masks designed for woodworking have the issue that you're complaining about, and not even a signifiant percentage of those. Also, you can fix that problem with a small piece of tape.
An N95 mask does filter what is breathed *in*--unfortunately, not down to a particle size small enough to prevent SARS-CoV-2 from passing directly through it. Therefore *** an N95 mask does nothing to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 ***
Also not true. An N95 mask filters out more than 90% of particles the size of the virus itself [nih.gov], much less the droplets of liquid that the virus is typically suspended in.
The smallest of droplets that still contain SARS-CoV-2 will *evaporate* nearly *instantly* and leave the virus particles bare floating in the air which will still *pass directly through* even a surgical mask
At which point the virus is almost instantaneously rendered inert. Viruses tolerate neither drying out nor significant amounts of UV light.
And lastly, how about that makeshift cloth mask that grandma made for you out of your old undies? - well, they do even less than surgical masks, so, see above.
But still about 30% filtration.
Here's the part you apparently don't understand. To get sick with SARS-CoV2, you typically need to be exposed to about one MILLION virus particles. This isn't an exact number, but if you're exposed to a tenth that much, you almost certainly aren't going to get sick, and if you get exposed to a few orders of magnitude more than that, your case will be so severe that you will probably die. For this reason, lowering the exposure amount, even if it resulted in no fewer total cases, would still dramatically lower the fatality rate.
And of course, if you were right at the one million count without a mask and you now breathed in 700k particles, congrats, you just avoided getting sick. So masks, even if their effectiveness is absolutely terrible, will still significantly lower the rate of illness. And this has been proven repeatedly, by study after study.
Overwhelmed? (Score:5, Informative)
Hospitals in Houston are already on the brink of being overwhelmed
Hospitals in Houston have repeatedly stated they are not close to being overwhelmed. [memorialhermann.org] In fact, the article linked here by TFA [khou.com] says the same thing, nice job Washington Post.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ya, well, both articles are dated June 25, that's five days ago as I post this. Nice job scrounging dated info and passing it off as somehow relevant.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What's the current info then?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Hospitals in Houston have repeatedly stated they are not close to being overwhelmed. [memorialhermann.org]
This was 6 days ago, an eternity when you have exponential growth. Just ask some Italian cities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Overwhelmed? (Score:5, Informative)
According to: ...at least one hospital is back to shutting down other services to make way for Covid patients. Not sure if that's "overwhelmed", but it's not good for patients.
https://www.npr.org/transcript... [npr.org]
"So when we were at the point where the volumes of COVID were down, we were able to open up many of our other services. And what we found when we opened up a lot of our services is that many people had waited for a very long time to seek medical care, and they were very sick. And so we were able to treat many of those patients both in clinics and in the hospital and in all of our services.
We kind of looked at each other and said we should never do that again. We should never close down all of our services because it was detrimental to the health of Houston. It was dangerous for people to wait to seek needed care. And so what's been very hard is to, you know, yesterday, send out yet another series of notes closing down services further because we have no choice because we have to transition units into COVID to take care of the population.
So do we have the beds? Yes. Fortunately, at this point, we have not had to put up tents or field hospitals. But each day it's more and more."
Don't wear a mask in public? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here in Canada some of us call such people 'covidiots'. There would be some comfort at seeing this as evolution in action if it weren't for the fact that they're endangering the health and possibly the lives of the rest of us.
There may be an unrecognized factor that makes people who don't wear masks even more likely to get sick and to spread the virus. I suspect a lot of them also engage in other risky behaviour, such as not practicing good hand sanitation and not quarantining or cleaning everything that comes into the house.
Re: (Score:2)
For the record, I have mild COPD, and I manage to wear a mask in public just fine. I don't like it, but I do wear it.
If everyone who could, would wear a mask in public for a month this whole pandemic would likely be over.
Re: (Score:3)
Here in the US, that sort of talk leads many people to say "fuck it then, I'm not wearing one".
Hacking up their lungs to spite their... what? Do they also refuse to wear a hard hat and safety shoes when they're at a construction site or on a factory floor? Of course in those instances they're risking harm only to themselve. I know... do they refuse to stop their cars when the traffic light turns red, just because 'the law' tells them to do so? I suspect not, or we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. What's the difference between that and wearing a mask? Is it that the odds seem better in the
This is America where GDP lives (Score:2)
It could potentially save many lives too, and a lot of time being sick and hospitalized (which will get people back to work faster). But, being America, gains in GDP are far more important than ensuring the health of our "human capital stock".
Re: This is America where GDP lives (Score:2)
No greater than sign in post titles, eh? What backwards-ass crap is that? This is 2020!
That should read, "This is America where GDP > lives"
Not at Trump rallies (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Will republicans wear masks now ? (Score:3)
Now that the money speaks will the republicans accept that basic hygiene measure ? Judging by the paranoid comments i juts read in this thread i doubt it. I like it here in Texas. Big salary, low taxes, good private schools. But regarding pandemics we totally suck and behave like little children. Asians must make fun of us.
Trump sux (Score:2)
unconstitutional (Score:2)
>"National Mask Mandate Could Save 5 Percent of GDP, Economists Say"
Only problem being that it would be unconstitutional (in the USA). It is not a Federal power. Of course, that fact never seems to stop much of anything...
Re: (Score:2)
Technically true... but if you are in public, you do not have exclusive control over how far away from you anyone else might get. It's true that the briefer the period of contact between two people is, the less social distancing actually matters, it is still not known exactly what level of exposure is really required to be a carrier of this disease.
You wear a mask to protect others in the eventuality that you are sick and do not know it. Full stop.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
...it is still not known exactly what level of exposure is really required to be a carrier of this disease.
From what I've read, the minimum time of normal exposure is belived to be 10-15 minutes within 6 feet of an infected person. So passing someone on the sidewalk is pretty much zero risk if they don't cough or sneeze in your face.
Re:what a load of shit (Score:5, Insightful)
True if you pass one person. But if thousands of people pass thousands of other people, transmission will occur just from passing in the street. And if you yourself pass hundreds of people over the course of a week, your risk is definitely non-zero. It’s a numbers game.
Re: (Score:2)
If a man does not wear a mask in the woods, and there's nobody around to report it, does it matter?
Not exactly a koan, but in its essence basically what this is about. If you're alone in the woods, who should care whether you wear a mask? Have it with you to put it on in case you see someone else, what's the problem?
Re: what a load of shit (Score:2)
If you are talking to someone outdoors I would disagree. The 6ft rule is bs. The distance indoors your droplets can spread when talking or coughing is 23 feet. Confirmed. Tested. A mask reduces velocity significantly so the 6ft rule is actually useful. Outdoors it dissipates much more easily and cannot travel 23ft. However, outdoor activities, in groups, can easily spread the virus. There have been documented exposures linked to single outdoor gatherings. Especially when alcohol is involved. When you drink
Re: (Score:2)
If you are outside with nobody around, then don’t worry, go mask free! Of course, once people are within about 15-20’ you should be putting your mask on... further away if you are coughing, breathing heavily, or sneezing.
The real question to me is what incremental value the masks do have outside with incidental contact with others within say a 3’ boundary. Incidental as in less than 30 seconds.
Re: (Score:2)
The real question to me is what incremental value the masks do have outside with incidental contact with others within say a 3’ boundary. Incidental as in less than 30 seconds.
From what I've read, basically zero, since the risk of infection from that little exposure is already pretty much zero.
Re: (Score:2)
Medical problem, NOT political or economic (Score:3)
Please don't propagate FP BS Subjects.
Back on the ACTUAL topic, Covid-19 is NOT an economic problem. Not even a political problem pasted on top of an economic problem.
Covid-19 is a MEDICAL problem and should have been handled as a medical crisis. We are just extremely lucky the crisis isn't much worse. Tweak the parameters a bit and we would be in much worse shape. Imagine if the mortality was higher and it was slightly more contagious... Not a pretty picture. And NOT the last disease that's going to come a
Re: (Score:2)
Proper strategy: Focus on the disease and freeze the economy for later. Obvious examples: Rent, mortgage, and loan repayment holidays. Keep the hospitals running. Keep the food moving. Essential public services. Then you can start considering which parts of the economy can operate safely under the new conditions.
With the exception of your holidays, that's exactly what was attempted. You can reasonably say the strategy wasn't executed properly, but that doesn't mean most governments weren't attempting to follow it.
Re: (Score:2)
https://youtu.be/433b5RJ9BME [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
How is not wearing a mask when I'm not near anyone going to cause death? By the way, my wife and I were wearing mask and gloves when grocery shopping BEFORE any requirement because it's what the asian grocery store people and customers were doing already since part of their culture. But there is zero reason for that shit when I'm out exercising alone.
Re:what a load of shit (Score:5, Informative)
A national mandate would be similar to states that already mandate it. In cases where you are out in public but no one is around you, you don't need to wear a mask. If however you enter a store like you mentioned, or are outside and around people where its difficult to socially distance, then you would need to wear a mask.
Not sure whats so difficult about that. If your already wearing a mask in those cases then good job in looking out for others. It's the idiots that gather in large groups and don't distance or wear a mask that are causing problems and need to be forced into common sense.
Re: (Score:3)
It's the idiots that gather in large groups and don't distance or wear a mask that are causing problems and need to be forced into common sense.
So, the "peaceful protesters" then?
I don't like wearing my mask (Score:5, Interesting)
At the moment I'm standing in line at Walmart. I'm wearing my mask, which I don't particularly like. As you said, me wearing my mask doesn't protect me very much.
Rather, me wearing my mask protects YOU.
It's a little uncomfortable for me, but it protects you and your family from dying or having life-long medical problems from lung damage.
You wearing yours protects my family.
Kinda like we don't run red lights or drive drunk. Those laws aren't primarily to protect me from hurting myself, they are to protect you from me hurting you.
Re:I don't like wearing my mask (Score:5, Interesting)
I never could have imagined that so many people could be so selfish that they won't even put up with the smallest inconvenience if it doesn't directly benefit them. What's really disturbing is that so many of them are openly hostile to those who wear masks without complaint!
I can't understand it. I can kinda understand selfish assholes, we've all been selfish at one time or another. Anger directed at someone else for not being a selfish asshole as well, however, is completely beyond me.
It's like being angry at a fire fighter for rescuing your dog.
Re: (Score:3)
When Africa had their ebola outbreak, there were armed groups attacking healthcare workers and W.H.O. clinics because "they brought the virus".
What it is, is agitated people without a firm grasp of reality. The U.S. in yet another area declines to the level of a third world country. Can we stop this shit already?
Re: I don't like wearing my mask (Score:5, Insightful)
So giving a crap about not infecting others around you and following proven scientific evidence is tantamount to being subservient to facists now?
This might be the dumbest thing I've read all day, and that's really saying something. It's also the very definition of being a selfish asshole.
Re: I don't like wearing my mask (Score:3)
They donâ(TM)t reduce the risk of getting the virus, they reduce the risk of transmitting it.
Re: (Score:3)
I see other people wearing masks when they are walking their dog or driving solo on the freeway. That is just stupid.
I believe the idea in those situations is that you may go from one 'mask needed' situation to another, with a 'no mask needed' situation in the middle. By keeping your mask on in the middle situation, there's less hand to face contact.
Re: what a load of shit (Score:3)
Seriously. When people talk stuff comes out of their mouths. If there is something in front of their mouth it will catch a lot of it. Not exactly rocket science.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, then let's regulate it for a sue-happy society, shall we? How do you want to word how and where masks are to be worn without giving every shyster a free pass to sue whoever they feel like?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How is not wearing a mask when I'm not near anyone going to cause death?
I'm sure it won't, so long as you are not spewing virus particles on shared infrastructure that others shortly behind you may touch, like park benches, railings, mailboxes, etc, etc. Also keeping in mind if you are exercising hard enough to breathe heavily your droplet range will be greatly increased.
Re: (Score:3)
The US has 4.2% of the world population and 25% of its COVID deaths
Sure, but we also have 25% of the world's herd immunity.
Don't be so negative. The glass is half full.
Re: what a load of shit (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, except by not wearing a mask, you're not putting yourself at risk as much as you're putting others at risk. So, that should read: this is 'Murica, where you can contribute to the sickness and possible death of your fellow citizens just to remain "free". Fuck yeah!
Re: what a load of shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah yes, good ol' "screw you, I got mine" mentality at work.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What America was built on
Re: what a load of shit (Score:4, Insightful)
It is happening in Texas, and I'm sure will continue to happen.
But you realize that's just as atrocious as I'm sure Texans were saying "it's right and proper it was happening in NY" (or now California, or whatever)
Colorado here - obviously we're the best at everything with no flaws, and I would say it's right and proper it's happening/ened everywhere except here. (See how cunt-y that is? Saying it's right and proper people are suffering and dying?)
Re: what a load of shit (Score:3)
Doesn't work that way. The mask primeraly protects others from the wearer.
Re:what a load of shit (Score:4, Insightful)
Because he didn't read the article. No were does it say "outdoors".
Wearing a mask inside or when really close to others (like an outdoor concert or protest) save lives.
My wife is pregnant and in a high risk category. Please put on a mask before our right of remaining healthy is impeded by some one else's hubris.
Re:what a load of shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Because he didn't read the article. No were does it say "outdoors".
Wearing a mask inside or when really close to others (like an outdoor concert or protest) save lives.
My wife is pregnant and in a high risk category. Please put on a mask before our right of remaining healthy is impeded by some one else's hubris.
No one has a right to remain healthy, unfortunately. Though common decency dictates that one should do everything they can from inflicting illness to another. There's certainly no reason to refuse to wear a mask.
Re:what a load of shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Your rights to remain healthy ends at your property line.
That's the dumbest thing I've heard all week, and there have been a lot of dumb things this week.
What do you even base that on? Is there some law that says, "you can only remain healthy if you stay on your property?" Is it based on the natural law that god gave you?
Nah, you didn't base it on anything, except that you don't like masks. DIAF.
Re:what a load of shit (Score:4, Interesting)
You're right, it doesn't end at the property line. It ends when you start impeding other's rights, such as forcing someone to wear a face mask.
Well, I hope dumb self-centered pieces of shit like you get forced at gunpoint to wear a mask. Because that is actually the right approach to people that insist on spreading sickness.
Re:what a load of shit (Score:5, Informative)
You're wrong, plain and simple. The Supreme Court has ruled on this before and it is they, as spelled out in the Constitution, that determine the actual Constitutionality of these things -- whether or not you like or agree with them.
Throughout American history, quarantine orders have been upheld as valid exercises of the police power possessed by state and local governments. Not long after the Revolutionary War, Philadelphia imposed a quarantine to stop the spread of yellow fever. In 1799, Congress, by statute, recognized the power of states to impose quarantines. In 1926, the Supreme Court ruled that "a state, in the exercise of its police power, may establish quarantines against human beings, or animals, or plants." Most recently, in 2016, a federal district court in New Jersey upheld a quarantine order for a nurse who had returned from Africa after treating Ebola patients.
The most relevant decision for today was issued in Jacobson vs. Massachusetts in 1905. In that case, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a state law requiring compulsory vaccinations against smallpox. The court declared, "Upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members."
The court explicitly rejected the claim that "liberty" under the Constitution includes the right of individuals to make decisions about their own health in instances where those decisions could endanger others. But the court also made clear that restrictions imposed by the government to control communicable diseases must have a "real or substantial relation" to protecting public health.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-04-20/government-can-restrict-your-liberty-to-protect-public-health-courts-have-made-that-clear [latimes.com]
However, I (IANAL) personally believe the Federal Gov't would be restricted to an order covering Federal property only. That is, Federal lands like parks, the District of Columbia, foreign military bases and embassies, and Federal buildings, which probably includes Post Offices.
Other than that, it would be a State power to mandate masks in their State, or delegate that power to their sub-regions, like counties and/or municipalities.
Re: (Score:3)
According to the CDC, https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine... [cdc.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
"Your rights to remain healthy ends at your property line."
Wow, really?
She does stay inside our home. However, I have go out and shop for food and every time some fuck like you is mouth breathing behind me at the grocery line without a mask. I'm terrified of becoming a vector that causes her a fever that ultimately kills or mains my child.
So yeah, don't were a mask, be a vector. Kill my children. Do you want that guilt on your shoulders? What is so bad about wearing a face mask?
Re:what a load of shit (Score:4, Insightful)
A black and white world view that is self-evidently contradictory. They wear seatbelts. They (mostly) stop at red lights. They don’t believe in Free the Nipple. When they get hospitalized, they hang on to the doctors’ expertise for dear life. The mask is just something else to get wound up about.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides the dumb and disgustingly selfish aspect of the post, i must add that COVID-19 immunity is by no means a given. Recent work hints it could last as little as two months. No herd immunity with that.
Virologists will explain to you that the immunity from coronavirus infections usually do not last long. A good example being the common colds: you can get several the same year.
Re: (Score:2)
Where did you get the absolute right to infect other people with a potentially deadly disease, inside or outside any property lines?
Re: (Score:2)
This is so dumb, I do not even know where to start commenting....
Re: (Score:2)
A mask is now the sign of the beast? Please.
I side with George Carlin on symbols [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
What better proof of far right being stupid than saying that masks are there sign of the beast?
Re: (Score:2)
but deaths nationwide are going down to a trickle.... maybe upsurge mostly tens of millions of tests now being done, and media can't hype death any more so now "cases" are the boogeyman word. Looks like a bunch of ignorant fearmongering to me.
Re:Own goal - Upsurge two weeks after demonstratio (Score:5, Insightful)
Deaths are down because deaths lag 2 weeks behind infections. Remember how infections were down 2 weeks ago? And how everyone thought that it's over? That's why. In other words, expect deaths to recover in a fortnight.
Re: (Score:2)
the data isn't showing any new spike in deaths from the riots and openings two weeks ago. nice try with your fear mongering, but you might want to pry your head out of your ass and stop parroting the media B.S.
Re: (Score:3)
Let's continue this in 2 weeks, shall we?
Re: (Score:2)
“It’s not coincidental that two weeks after demonstrations happen here in Miami-Dade County, a lot by young people, that we’ve had this spike.” [upi.com]
It probably is coincidental. Plenty of protests around here, and the number of confirmed cases has continued to go down. The positive test rate has been holding steady at about 2% for a couple weeks.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that wasn’t the intended message, but it was the one that was received
The messaging has been truly appalling. The good news is that a wearing mask is very small sacrifice and probably co-operation will be high if it is recommended/mandated. But politicians and the media both squandered what little credibility they had for short-term impacts. Gaining the public's trust is part of their job and they have failed, whether out of selfishness, cowardice, or incompetence. Now we have no leaders we can trust, no media we can trust, no experts we can trust, and we never trusted ec
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Racism is a smaller problem, but it's not a non-problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The problem is Trump (Score:5, Funny)
We need a hero [youtube.com].
(Do not watch at work. Or with someone else around. Or while logged into YouTube. You might get ... strange ... suggestions otherwise)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is too much a macho man for facemasks.
Well... he's concerned that his manly bronzer/makeup will rub off on them anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Whoo hoo! In economic terms that is a win-win!
I doubt very much anybody is spending 5% of their income on PPE... even on unemployment that would be about $50/week.
Re: (Score:3)
The left and the right are going back and forth, screaming about Masks vs No Masks. The smart people are going long on PPE manufacturers.
Re: (Score:3)
Why yes, that very same Bezos. However, he has professionals running the WPost, he doesn't exert any editorial control. Not everyone is a lizard.
Re:5 percent, what a joke (Score:5, Insightful)
In that case you should ask why your government decided to bail out the corporations instead of the small businesses. Like they did in Europe, where the economy is by far not as damaged as in the US, despite longer and more severe lockdowns.
One has to wonder whether you might be barking up the wrong tree...
Re: (Score:3)
There's two solutions to any problem for a politician in the United States.
1. Give more money to corporations and multi-millionaires
2. Bomb the hell out of some other country
And since Trump hasn't been able to convince enough of the other critters in Washington that China should be bombed, we went route number 1.
I do agree that our government bailout was an absolute joke. Even the small business targeted funds were ultimately funneled into large corporations or sports teams rather than the small busines
Retards (Score:5, Informative)
The CDC Tweet you're sharing is before new research became available that showed that the benefits of wearing a mask outweigh the risks.
The REAL risks of wearing a mask, according to the WHO, are that you're likely to give yourself a virus by touching the mask and your face while having virus on your hands. None of the stupid shit you mentioned is true.
Re: (Score:3)
If you are sick and wear a mask you will amplify the virus in your lungs via positive feedback
That is the single dumbest thing I've ever heard. The typical anti-vaxx mercury will kill us all bullshit is more intelligent than this statement. You seem to have no clue about virology, the human body, or biology in general. Please don't ever speak on this topic again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Not unlike wearing a condom in public. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, you only have to be around some loudmouth without as mask for a few seconds to get infected.
https://youtu.be/NnVX3F5zkS0 [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think I've EVER seen a (Score:-1, Funny) before.