Covid cases, hospitalizations, death trends and other touchy subjects…

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

All that study proves is that if a group of researchers who obviously know what makes a mask safer, makes your masks and trains you how to wear them, you will be, well, safer. I don't think that was ever in question.  It did not test anyone wearing cheap off the shelf masks with gaping gaps that we are regularly told will protect us because [all] "masks" work. 

I wear kn95s to be protected.  

I definitely get more from that study. For one I'm not seeing any part where it says they made masks (the closest was a line saying cloth masks could be more customizable, not that they were in this study) for them and the training was made specifically to be replicable to any country. As in it was general and simply entailed distributing/assuring access to info from the WHO and their national leaders.  

I also now wear a kn95 type mask in large part because of delta and my area's really low adherence to masking. I didn't for most of the pandemic. I went with cloth masks I made for reasons of both access and the ability to make sure it fit my face. I have on bought one that is actually a solid fit that I know use for quick garden excursions on smokey days (super smoke sensitive). My husband wears a surgical and is unopposed to wearing his shop respirator if needed (though his public time is super limited anyways). My daughter will likely have a cloth one for now due to her small face...since she's super young it's largely for practice right now. For many places and demographics, what masks they can have will be limited by cost (any 95 is pricier than most other options), access, and size. This study indicates that even with that, it's worth wearing what you having properly (ie covering mouth and nose and with a decent fit) than it is to do nothing. And that's extremely important for maintaining or making policies to promote public health, particularly in nations that need the most cost effective ways to reduce spread till vaccinations can be made more available. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited September 6, 2021 by BlueDreams

[CV75]

14 hours ago, pogi said:

Must we be perfectly obedient in all prophetic counsel before we can be influential to others in following the more weightier matters of the law?

Shall we compare how much has been said about earrings over the past several decades and how much has been said about masks and vaccines over the last year and a half?  How many church videos have been made about earring?  How many letters sent to the general membership from the first presidency?  How many voices from the apostles?  How many interfaith letters to the world?  How many area presidencies and local leaders have pleaded to only have one set of earrings?  How many lives have been lost in comparison?  How many hospitals overwhelmed?  How many vulnerable people can't go to church because their fellow members have 2 earrings?  

 

I wouldn't expect perfection of anyone in this regard, and it would only help if some grace attended their communication to those they are enticing to change.

I'm not talking about comparing the importance of earrings with vaccinations, or the piles and quality of data pro and con about vaccines.

I am talking about reaching those who are hesitant using this particular rationale that heeding counsel about earrings equals heeding counsel obedience to vaccines. That has been use enough in these threads to warrant some attention. The data wars aren't cutting it. The communication needs to become more foundational to resonate across the board.

[Chum]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

But you wear a N95 which means that you don't believe all masks are effective. That is exactly my point. 

I think the more sound conclusion is this:

Quote

But you wear a N95 which means that you don't believe all masks are equally effective.

 

[CV75]

8 hours ago, Rain said:

 

The follow the prophet thing has been really interesting to me.  All of my life I have seen some people be vocal about following the prophet.  When others haven't they became really judgy.  

So I started to wonder what would happen if the prophet encouraged people to wear a mask.  Would they 'follow the prophet" or not. Generally I see most very vocal follow the prophet people don't wear masks or get vaccinated. 

I talked with the one follow the prophet woman I did know who changed and started wearing masks.  She felt she should follow of the advice of the quote which says something like "as long as you follow the prophet even if he is wrong you are ok."

It makes me wonder if those who are now telling others to "follow the prophet by wearing a mask" were trying to find a more effective way to do it. They knew how strongly these follow the prophet people held to doing that and were consciously or unconsciously hoping this would encourage them to now follow.

Yes, this is the kind of communication I'm talking about, especially using the tone of not being "judgy." Instead of continuing to wear two earrings and telling people to start vaccinating because the prophet said so, invite them to follow the prophet because they can't go wrong. And then when reciprocated with the invitation to repent of negative attitudes about the prophet's counsel to not wear earrings and tattoos, display the same grace.

[Chum]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

we have a world now loudly proclaiming that "masks" will make us safe. 

Those broad, positive generalizations about masking - they are often about preemptively addressing harmful anti-mask propaganda.  Once the health endangering, anti-masking bullhorns are quieter, we're in a better place to discuss which masks better reduce Covid rates.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

I think it’s a bit of incredulity on my end. Though I don’t think i‘Ve directly made the analogy, I know I’ve up scored it or at least smiled a little when I’ve seen it. It’s a little mind bending to watch people who general are more strict around prophetic counsel or at least more outwardly “in line” with what’s been said over the pulpit that are more cultural lines that have little effect outside oneself if your follow them or not. Earrings and tattoos would fall under that category. Some I know have been extremely judgy of those who don’t or at least appear like they don’t (such as some of the accounts from Al Fox on people’s reactions to her tats in the church).

But with something that can literally save lives and protect others, that to me seems like a moral no-brainer, many who fell in the above camp are using messages and reasonings they’ve rarely if ever used in their life to continue going as they are. And it appears to me they’ve done so with barely a missed step. I have two cousins that fall into this category. Both have a trail of online posts that talk about medical freedom, their choice, some quasi-victim posts about how others are seeing them for not getting vaxxed, etc. They’re also both openly religious and have posted at least at points to indicate being active in the church (things like temple pics). Sometimes they have posts that intermingle their political/social stance with religious undertones. When the first Presidency statement came out and without missing a beat they reposted something from a woman who basically said she wasn’t sweating the statement and believed in her own answers. Later in the responses the said author of this post can be seen stating misinformation, several interactions talked about ivermectin as an appropriate counter to vaccines, and some general fear mongering around the vaccine as a whole ensued as reasons for their choices. Which leaves me dumbfounded and, well, incredulous. 
 

It’s not necessarily that they disagree or are moving counter to prophetic counsel. It’s that they tend not to and have likely questioned at times others who do. That they’re using mottos and trumpets to proclaim their position that they previously opposed And even sneered at. Until it’s them on that other side of the fence. It makes me question what is the “spirit” to them? Are they used to it moreso being a source of self-validation than a guidepost to deep and meaningful change? How does one get to trusting political and social talking points over one’s usual religious stances? 

For the record I don’t have more than one piercing and I don’t have tattoos, so your parallel on that one fell a little short for me. But I have definitely had moments of disagreement with statements or talks from prophets and apostles and general church leaders. I’m not one who believes that “follow the prophet” mean do every last tip they suggest for our lives with little questioning.  What this and also the Holland talk controversy brought out of me though is questioning how I disagree. Do I take time to read it through? Do I look fully into “their side” per se on this or that concern? Why am I disagreeing, sometimes reactively…what’s my emotions behind it? And lastly being willing to step back and proverbially ask “is it I?”  As in is it me that’s wrong or overextending my knowledge base and am I sure? Am I really open to the idea or potential that I could be wrong? 
 

 

With luv, 

BD 

In other words, we need to walk in the "other side's" shoes. As part of a conversation about Elder Holland's speech to the YU faculty/staff with someone very upset about it, before getting into the rationale for differing points of view, I suggested an approach I take when someone comes at me upset about something the leaders said or did. In this case, I hadn't read the transcript and hadn't thought about the speech -- the topic was discussed on this board but I don't recall participating, but I was somewhat aware of it -- so having been prepped for lots of trigger points, I shared the following approach:

1.      Read the speech/talk trying to understand the intended message that can be applied by all who hear it (pray first and maintain the companionship of the Holy Ghost).

2.      Read the talk from the point of view of the primary audience (in this case, faculty and staff), and how the secondary audience (in this case, students and others) might follow suit on those points they have in common with the primary audience.

3.      Read the talk and pick out those points reported as problematic and compare with 1 and 2.

4.      Whether speaking or listening, identify feelings concerning the spirit of contention, charity, closeness to the Spirit, the other characteristics in Mosiah 3:19 as a guide to the Lord’s approval of the communication.

5.      Assume that the person with an opposing view has prayed about their position, believes and acts in good faith, and that God loves them, is with them, and is guiding them into His fold.

I am sure something helpful can be added to this this, but I think the approach favors mutual human empathy over competing data points and the assumption that the other is wrong, or has something wrong with them, period.

[CV75]

25 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

I wasn’t sure whether or not you were vaccinated, but it sounded like you thought many people who follow the prophet in vaccines do not follow him on other things. In case you were still wavering, and needed to find someone who follows the prophet on both vaccines and piercings/tattoos, I offered myself as an example. If you are vaccinated, then so much the better. 

My remarks are not about me wavering in making a decision, but about the best approach (the what and the how) for influencing decisions and behavior, in this case, for the vaccine hesitant.

[Chum]

17 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I’m kinda surprised this research hasn’t made the rounds yet: https://www.poverty-action.org/study/impact-mask-distribution-and-promotion-mask-uptake-and-covid-19-bangladesh

It has but it's an extremely comprehensive study and comes with a lot of nuance.

My uneducated understanding is that the enormous sample size (350k participants) was required to reach a threshold (P-value of less than .05) where the observations could be confirmed as sound and well represented by the data.

[Robert J Anderson]

19 hours ago, Teancum said:

Study away!  If they are effective then use it. Problem is ivermectin has not been through any rigorous blind studies.  People scream about the vaccine.  Well guess what?  Billions have been vaccinates.  Hundreds of millions in the US. Very few problems.  Yet you are promoting horse de wormer and it has not been through any substantive clinical trials for Covid treatment.  Yet ant vaxxers are drinking this stuff.  You cannot  make  this stuff up.

I got vaccinated but am wondering why the bad press over a possible non-vaccine cure.  The Tokyo Medical Association recommends it.  https://halturnerradioshow.com/index.php/en/news-page/world/breaking-news-chairman-of-tokyo-medical-association-tells-doctors-to-prescribe-ivermectin-for-covid-treatment

India had great results using ivermectin:  https://www.thedesertreview.com/news/national/ivermectin-obliterates-97-percent-of-delhi-cases/article_6a3be6b2-c31f-11eb-836d-2722d2325a08.html

Recently Joe Rogan got covid and used ivermectin among other medications and was over it in a couple of days.

At a proper dose, it is both safe and seems to be effective.  Yet the media is beside itself when it is discussed as if it is being paid by their biggest advertiser to fight against the competition.  https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/gunshot-victims-horse-dewormer-ivermectin-oklahoma-hospitals-covid-1220608/  

Shouldn't we be looking everywhere for a solution to this?  Everywhere except that devil ivermectin that doesn't have any adverse side effects and is cheap?  I'd rather not go on the booster shot treadmill if there is an alternative.  So, study away is the correct thing to do and while scientists are at it, perhaps they should study why the safe and effective vaccine needs booster shots.

 

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

But you wear a N95 which means that you don't believe all masks are effective. That is exactly my point. 

To be clear, I believe any mask is better than no mask.  I also believe that covering my mouth when I sneeze or cough is good manners because it stops some germs.  I don’t need my techniques to be 💯 % to be considerate or worthy of use.  To use nothing says volumes IMO. 
 

I use N95 because I believe they are the most effective.  If I were in charge I’d provide the world with N95s and require them In all public spaces no exceptions. 

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

To be clear, I believe any mask is better than no mask.  I also believe that covering my mouth when I sneeze or cough is good manners because it stops some germs.  I don’t need my techniques to be 💯 % to be considerate or worthy of use.  To use nothing says volumes IMO. 
 

I use N95 because I believe they are the most effective.  If I were in charge I’d provide the world with N95s and require them In all public spaces no exceptions. 

Exactly, and when we sneeze we're told to do it in the crook of our elbow, not our hands or fists. I like to inside my shirt, hoping that will keep more in, the spray. So while a homemade mask, or even one from Old Navy isn't an N95, it does some good, or maybe enough to do real good. 

[MustardSeed]

51 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I wouldn't expect perfection of anyone in this regard, and it would only help if some grace attended their communication to those they are enticing to change.

I'm not talking about comparing the importance of earrings with vaccinations, or the piles and quality of data pro and con about vaccines.

I am talking about reaching those who are hesitant using this particular rationale that heeding counsel about earrings equals heeding counsel obedience to vaccines. That has been use enough in these threads to warrant some attention. The data wars aren't cutting it. The communication needs to become more foundational to resonate across the board.

I personally do leave a lot of space for people who have chosen not to get the vax to also disagree with the prophets council.  **I don’t see it as a sin to not get the vax. ** I still disagree with most of the rationale, and *sort of* like you, I find it curious that so many black and white true blue mo types who have typically been pro prophet are dropping like flies over this issue (anecdotally, no  CFR).  

[MustardSeed]

51 minutes ago, Chum said:

I think the more sound conclusion is this:

 

Yes

[juliann]

55 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I definitely get more from that study. For one I'm not seeing any part where it says they made masks (the closest was a line saying cloth masks could be more customizable, not that they were in this study) for them and the training was made specifically to be replicable to any country. As in it was general and simply entailed distributing/assuring access to info from the WHO and their national leaders.  

I also now wear a kn95 type mask in large part because of delta and my area's really low adherence to masking. I didn't for most of the pandemic. I went with cloth masks I made for reasons of both access and the ability to make sure it fit my face. I have on bought one that is actually a solid fit that I know use for quick garden excursions on smokey days (super smoke sensitive). My husband wears a surgical and is unopposed to wearing his shop respirator if needed (though his public time is super limited anyways). My daughter will likely have a cloth one for now due to her small face...since she's super young it's largely for practice right now. For many places and demographics, what masks they can have will be limited by cost (any 95 is pricier than most other options), access, and size. This study indicates that even with that, it's worth wearing what you having properly (ie covering mouth and nose and with a decent fit) than it is to do nothing. And that's extremely important for maintaining or making policies to promote public health, particularly in nations that need the most cost effective ways to reduce spread till vaccinations can be made more available. 

 

With luv,

BD

From the study, pg 9:

Quote

 The cloth mask had an exterior layer of 100% non-woven polypropylene (70 grams/square meter [gsm]), two interior layers of 60% cotton / 40% polyester interlocking knit (190 gsm), an elastic loop that goes around the head above and below the ears, and a nose bridge. The surgical mask had three layers of 100% non-woven polypropylene (the exterior and interiors were spunbond and the middle layer was meltblown), elastic ear loops, and a nose bridge. The filtration efficiency was 37% (standard deviation [SD] = 6%) for the cloth masks, and 95% (SD = 1%) for the surgical masks (manuscript forthcoming).3 The filtration efficiency of the surgical masks after washing them 10 times with bar soap and water was 76% (manuscript forthcoming). Surgical masks were outfitted with a sticker that had a logo of a mask with an outline of the Bangladeshi flag and a phrase in Bengali that noted the mask could be washed and reused. The project cloth masks were produced by Bangladeshi garment factories within 6 weeks after ordering.

Also,

Quote

To emphasize the importance of mask-wearing, we prepared a brief video of notable public figures discussing why, how, and when to wear a mask. The video was shown to each household during the mask distribution visit and featured the Honorable Prime Minister of Bangladesh Sheikh Hasina, the head of the Imam Training Academy, and the national cricket star Shakib Al Hasan. During the distribution visit, households also received a brochure based on WHO materials depicting proper mask-wearing.

And,

Quote

Our intervention combined multiple distinct elements: we provided people with free masks; we provided information about why mask-wearing is important; we had mask promoters reinforce the importance of mask-wearing by stopping individuals in public places who were not wearing 24 masks, reminding them about the importance of mask-wearing, and giving them a mask if they did not have one; we partnered with local leaders to encourage mask-wearing at mosques and markets; and in some villages we provided a variety of reminders and commitment devices as well as incentives for village leaders.

I cannot see how this comes close to our situation where masks are unregulated, untested, and people aren't given one to one instruction on how to wear them, let alone handed out effective masks and then approached by these "mask promoters" to make sure they were wearing them after they agreed to. I don't think many would contest that effective masks, worn properly and consistently, make a difference.

I also remember from this study that they didn't account for distancing.

[MustardSeed]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

. I don't think many would contest that effective masks, worn properly and consistently, make a difference.

Widespread consistent education from a universally trusted source would be fantastic.  Fantasy? Fantastic? Fabulous. 

[Chum]

4 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said:

I got vaccinated but am wondering why the bad press over a possible non-vaccine cure. 

Some studies posit that Ivermectin might reduce infection. None that I've seen claim it's a cure.

The bad press is in response to a variety of scenarios. eg: Using a theoretical treatment after Covid is doing it's damage instead of preventing the damage thru vaccinations. eg: Covid conspiracy theorists touting veterinary ivermectin.

14 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said:

The Tokyo Medical Association recommends it. 

'Recommends' might be a little strong. The quote from Dr. Haruo Ozaki is:

Quote

We cannot say that Ivermectin is absolutely not effective. I think we are in a situation where we can afford to give them this treatment.

which comes across more like 'We're screwed anyway. Why not?' than a ringing endorsement (perhaps a cultural vibe is muting the message).

34 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said:

India had great results using ivermectin: 

A small study in India, done Sept 2020, showed that ivermectin may reduce the duration of (and potentially the damage from) Covid infections. As a small study, it's value is to indicate that a larger study ought to be worthwhile to pursue.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

I think the more sound conclusion is this:

 

I think equivocating between effective and equally effective is semantics. Again, would you send your child into a situation where they had a 75% chance of being hurt? Would you call any stategy that gave your child a one in four chance of escaping injury to be effective? I cannot think of one instance where we would be sending people into such a situation while insisting it made them safe. 

I think the refusal of health officials/leaders to put this problem front and center in any discussion of masks before mandating anything anybody choses to call a mask is criminal. 

[strappinglad]

12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/

I clicked on  ' countries ' and got the stats on all 223 countries . The countries are ranked by total number of cases. Just looked for China. 

Gee, they are almost perfect with a total of only about 95,000 total cases with a pop. of well over a billion. I wonder what they are doing to keep the numbers so low? Things that make you go HMMM !

[juliann]

https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2021/airlines-and-some-countries-are-now-banning-cloth-masks-should-the-us/

With so much heated debate about the efficacy of masks, you would think we would have clear and convincing details about which masks work and which ones are fairly worthless.

Some international airlines are now banning cloth masks. European governments encourage people to wear medical masks, but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention dissuades Americans from using N95 masks to ensure there will be enough of them for medical workers. The CDC also does not say to ditch cloth masks as other countries are doing.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

The data suggests that mandates work.  My son is in kindergarten.  It is not as bad as you make it out to be, at least here where my son goes to school.  The few kids who do wear masks, wear them well.  It is not as hard as you think to teach a 5 year old to wear a mask properly.  From my observation, most children wear masks better than adults, quite honestly.

We’ve hashed and rehashed over the rest of your post. Not much more to say there, so I will respond to this because I have first hand knowledge of the situation. You have come into my pickup cab.

Have you observed a classroom of kindergartners for a full day during COVID restrictions? Does your child bring home his/her mask at the end of the day so you see what condition it is in or is it disposed of before leaving school?

Putting the mask on and taking it off is easy to teach and enforce. But wear them well? Not so. It goes downhill rapidly after they are in place. For example, what would you do when a child sneezes, coughs, or throws up into the mask? We multiply the multiplicity of complications when there are 15 or more kids in the class. 

My wife, her three k teacher colleagues, the cadre of district-wide kindergarten teachers with whom they collaborate on a regular basis, and at least 7 other primary grade teachers in their school have a year’s experience teaching young kids with the mask mandates in place. They would disagree with your facile assessment. Now that we are starting a new year with in-person schooling, new mask mandates, and DeltaCOVID (which appears to target younger folks), protocols in schools are going to need to be revisited. Unless, of course, we just pay lip service there as we are doing everywhere else.

If they were to follow CDC guidelines on mask wearing (the science) they would need piles of extra masks, constant sanitizing of hands and surfaces, and approved safe systems of disposing hazardous waste. They would spend all their time dealing with mask issues. In other words, it’s not as easy as you think for kids to wear masks properly.   

Everything looks good on paper until little Latoya or Ethan spews vomit all over the workstation and their seat mates. 

 

[Chum]

22 minutes ago, juliann said:

I think equivocating between effective and equally effective is semantics.

I didn't equivocate; I qualified effective with equally.

edit: My expansion on this was clunky. Ditching it.

Edited September 6, 2021 by Chum

[Bernard Gui]

On 9/6/2021 at 1:34 PM, juliann said:

https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2021/airlines-and-some-countries-are-now-banning-cloth-masks-should-the-us/

With so much heated debate about the efficacy of masks, you would think we would have clear and convincing details about which masks work and which ones are fairly worthless.

Some international airlines are now banning cloth masks. European governments encourage people to wear medical masks, but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention dissuades Americans from using N95 masks to ensure there will be enough of them for medical workers. The CDC also does not say to ditch cloth masks as other countries are doing.

🙃 alert. 

The science is settled. There is worldwide consensus. There is no confusion.  Ignore that man behind the curtain. 

Edited September 8, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[Robert J Anderson]

36 minutes ago, Chum said:

Some studies posit that Ivermectin might reduce infection. None that I've seen claim it's a cure.

The bad press is in response to a variety of scenarios. eg: Using a theoretical treatment after Covid is doing it's damage instead of preventing the damage thru vaccinations. eg: Covid conspiracy theorists touting veterinary ivermectin.

'Recommends' might be a little strong. The quote from Dr. Haruo Ozaki is:

which comes across more like 'We're screwed anyway. Why not?' than a ringing endorsement (perhaps a cultural vibe is muting the message).

A small study in India, done Sept 2020, showed that ivermectin may reduce the duration of (and potentially the damage from) Covid infections. As a small study, it's value is to indicate that a larger study ought to be worthwhile to pursue.

Something else is going on here, especially given how poorly the vaccines are working against the delta variant.  If someone is facing a potentially death causing illness and at that point the vaccine won't/can't save you and you may have already got the vaccine, so why not try something that is already approved?  Haha, it is also a horse de-wormer, haha, and billy bob might have taken it, hoho hehe.  But there are doctors that believe and have patients to prove that it works.  Why not let them take it?  What harm is there to you to let someone, after informed consent, to be part of an ivermectin experiment with their doctor?  We applauded those in the vaccine trials.  Who cares if someone in Alabama uses this or that, so long as they are informed by a doctor and the doctor prescribes it?  Yet, there is this concerted effort to dissuade use simply because it is cheap and might convince some otherwise healthy people to not get vaccinated.  I say let the people control their own health in concert with their doctor.  This campaign against ivermectin is clearly because of the fear of competition with the vaccine narrative.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

We’ve hashed and rehashed over the rest of your post. Not much more to say there, so I will respond to this because I have first hand knowledge of the situation. You have come into my pickup cab.

Have you observed a classroom of kindergartners for a full day during COVID restrictions? Does your child bring home his/her mask at the end of the day so you see what condition it is in or is it disposed of before leaving school?

Putting the mask on and taking it off is easy to teach and enforce. But wear them well? Not so. It goes downhill rapidly after they are in place. For example, what would you do when a child sneezes, coughs, or throws up into the mask? We multiply the multiplicity of complications when there are 15 or more kids in the class. 

My wife, her three k teacher colleagues, the cadre of district-wide kindergarten teachers with whom they collaborate on a regular basis, and at least 7 other primary grade teachers in their school have a year’s experience teaching young kids with the mask mandates in place. They would disagree with your facile assessment. Now that we are starting a new year with in-person schooling, new mask mandates, and DeltaCOVID (which appears to target younger folks), protocols in schools are going to need to be revisited. Unless, of course, we just pay lip service there as we are doing everywhere else.

If they were to follow CDC guidelines on mask wearing (the science) they would need piles of extra masks, constant sanitizing of hands and surfaces, and approved safe systems of disposing hazardous waste. They would spend all their time dealing with mask issues. In other words, it’s not as easy as you think for kids to wear masks properly.   

Everything looks good on paper until little Latoya or Ethan spews vomit all over the workstation and their seat mates. 

 

 

You have never once addressed how your approach is effective at inspiring others to mask properly.  If you truly believe that masks work and can save lives, how is your naysaying approach helpful?  You rip on the approach of incapable politicians, but I don't see how you are any better than them in helping the mask cause.  If anything you are sewing more doubt with your antagonistic approach and whining about inconsistent mandates and hypocritical politicians and how that makes it sooooooooooooooo hard to just wear a mask.  It hasn't made it hard for most of us.  Regardless of what politicians say or do, you can always decide to do what is right and wear a mask.   You don't even try to hide the fact that it is politics which is getting in the way for you to support masks and become an ally.  This is the American cause.   Yes, politicians suck on both sides.  That is settled.  Now lets just do what is right (regardless of what they say or do) and support the American cause of masks (which implies wearing a mask properly). 

Yes, my wife has observed the class the entire day, which is only 3 hours.  The kids that wear masks do very, very well.  I have seen the same at church in primary.  they do better than most adults I see at church.  My son wears a fabric mask to school and it is in great condition every day he brings it home. He is not coughing and sneezing (for the most part) or throwing up, except when he is sick - in which case we keep him home.   We have several masks that we rotate and wash.  No problem whatsoever. 

Bernard, it is better that the children cough and sneeze in the masks - that is kind of the point of them.  If they catch droplets and snot/mucus from flying across the room, on their hands, door knobs etc - awesome!  They are working.   Truth is, if a kid is constantly coughing sneezing or needs to throw up, they shouldn't be at school in the first place!  Easy fix.  Most kindergarteners are not slimy slugs slithering around and dripping with snot and throw up as you make them out to be.   I am laughing at your characterization.  Mostly, kids are healthy without congestion and mucous.   If they are not, they shouldn't be at school.   I think you are WAY unrealistic as to the general health and respiratory condition of kindergarteners.  Kindergarteners are much more likely to obey in keeping their masks over their mouth and nose and leaving it on all day than adults are, from my observation.  

All that mess is better in their mask than out.  Simple as that. 

 

Edited September 6, 2021 by pogi

[pogi]

21 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said:

Something else is going on here, especially given how poorly the vaccines are working against the delta variant.  If someone is facing a potentially death causing illness and at that point the vaccine won't/can't save you and you may have already got the vaccine, so why not try something that is already approved?  Haha, it is also a horse de-wormer, haha, and billy bob might have taken it, hoho hehe.  But there are doctors that believe and have patients to prove that it works.  Why not let them take it?  What harm is there to you to let someone, after informed consent, to be part of an ivermectin experiment with their doctor?  We applauded those in the vaccine trials.  Who cares if someone in Alabama uses this or that, so long as they are informed by a doctor and the doctor prescribes it?  Yet, there is this concerted effort to dissuade use simply because it is cheap and might convince some otherwise healthy people to not get vaccinated.  I say let the people control their own health in concert with their doctor.  This campaign against ivermectin is clearly because of the fear of competition with the vaccine narrative.

Do you really believe that vaccines are not effective against the delta variant?  Do you really not read the news about what is happening in hospitals and what populations are filling the beds and dying?  

Robert, if this was not an infectious disease, I would agree with you - your health is your business.  

I agree, that whatever you decide to do it should be in concert with you doctor.  That recommendation alone should largely put an end to this mess of people choosing Ivermectin over a vaccine.  

You are correct that we are concerned about competition against the vaccine.  Simply because it is misguided and ignorant and may lead to more hospitalizations (which we see happening at alarming rates) than it will prevent. 

This is what unfortunately happens when you fight vaccines:

https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2021/08/29/3rd-conservative-radio-host-who-condemned-vaccines-dies-of-covid-1390555

Too many come to regret it on their death bed. 

Edited September 6, 2021 by pogi