dialamah

I don't feel safe being within 2 meters of people, masked or not. This includes people in my "bubble"; I maintain that distance with them, even if they are masked.

Some of the time was "select places", which likely means "where I'm forced to". Even including them, its not 99%. Realistically, 55% of people wear masks regularly enough to be effective, 45% do not and 13% probably throw a hissy fit when asked to mask.

From Cite: that 55% fell into the mask-wearing category; 20% stated that they wear one “always, everywhere I go,” and 35% wear one “most of the time, anywhere that I know there will be people around.” 55% does not equal 99%, math wizard (not!).

Wearing a mask is destroying your life? Doesn't that seem just a little bit silly?

Dr. Evans now thinks masks are useful and more than just a psychological comfort. "I don't think there's any question there's a role for masks," said Dr. Evans. "Masks when combined with a lot of the other measures that we have, including physical distancing and restricting some socialization events, is going to be important." Perhaps his new support for masks is bevause, as he notes in the article you cited: "Things are changing all the time. We just keep getting more evidence and more data,” Evans said. Maybe you could consider following his example.

I read the cite and I did respond. I'll even repeat my response: I'll continue to follow the recommendations of the majority of experts rather than the small minority who claim something else. To do otherwise would make me as dumb as anti-vaxxers.

She's a pediatrician. I (and most sane people) will continue to rely on highly trained experts in the field of epidemiology, including researchers trained in cellular biology, molecular biology, chemistry, biochemistry, and microbiology. You can continue to rely on medical professionals in unrelated fields who support your views.

I appreciate the clarification on your thoughts, and I agree with you more than disagree.

That's true. Not really. ETA: Oh wait. Do you mean that when moderate right- wingers leave its because one or two disruptive influences make the forum not worthwhile, but when moderate left wingers leave, its because they don't want to engage in conversation or find compromises? If that is what you mean, my suspicion that you are driven by partisanship is increased. Do you want to clarify?

True. I haven't found that to be true. I've seen respectful dialogue between people with different political beliefs as the rule, rather than the exception, in other places. People can make their own decisions about how useful, for them, a forum is. This forum cannot "hear anything but themselves", and demonizing liberals/progressives/democrsts is rampant. It seems to me that several of the more centrist conservative posters have also left this site since the "flight of the lefties". Why is that, do you suppose?

They don't count every Covid death, because some people die at home. We'll never know for sure how many actually died from Covid, and we won't know for a while what the actual fatality rate is, or how many survivors suffer long term effects. There's way more we don't know than do know, at the moment.

Because they got tired of the conspiracy-laden, science-denying, immigrant-bashing, victim-claiming of the majority of the right-wing on this forum.

I was at the dentist today to have my teeth cleaned. The hygienist wore a mask and a face shield; I asked her if she found the mask uncomfortable and she said - yes, especially in hot weather. I asked if she ever felt faint or lightheaded, and she laughed and said no. The dentist showed up in a face shield and, beneath that, a respirator mask - he told me it was an N100. I asked him if it was comfortable, and he said - with emphasis - not at all, but necessary. I asked if he ever felt light headed/faint, and said no and kind of rolled his eyes. So, anecdotal - but certainly in line with experts. Or maybe they are part of the 'grand conspiracy', lied to me and are regularly passing out while working. What makes the most sense here?

The more effective a mask is, the more difficult it is to breathe through. The best mask for stopping viruses, the N-95, reduces oxygen levels by up to 20%.

@cannuck Didn't want to quote your whole post to say I thought it was a really good explanation of masks. But I still give mask-wearing a higher grade than you apparently do, due to the known effect it has on reducing spread. We even have an example in Richmond, BC. While cases were spiking in BC, rates in Richmond remained at half the rate in Vancouver, and one-third the rate of the rest of Canada. "There were early fears that Richmond – the most ethnically Chinese city in the world outside Asia – could have been a potential hotspot for the disease because of a large population of frequent travellers to and from China. The city is also home to Vancouver International Airport. But Richmond residents were also early to take Covid-19 seriously and adopted social distancing measures long before being advised by authorities to do so. By late January, many residents were wearing face masks and many of Richmond’s Chinese shopping malls and restaurants were largely deserted, which even prompted a short-lived government campaign encouraging people to return. Some Lunar New Year events were cancelled and by February 11, Richmond’s Lingyen Mountain Buddhist Temple had closed its doors, citing coronavirus concerns." There's also the story, out of Missouri I think, where two hairdressers, with symptoms, continued working while they waited for their (positive) test results. They, and their clients, wore masks and not one of their 139 clients subsequently tested positive. And of course, there are numerous studies that back up these anecdotal examples. Nobody claims that masks are the perfect solution, or that they replace other things like space and hand washing - they're an extra tool. Objecting to masks because people may not use them perfectly every time is like objecting to hand washing because people may not always take the full 20 seconds, or objecting to social distancing because sometimes people might be 1.5 meters apart instead of 2. Humans aren't perfect, but information/education help. Also, I don't see any relationship between substance abuse and mask wearing among medical professionals. An impaired person using PPE is still safer than an impaired person without PPE.

Everybody should take the "extra precaution" of wearing a mask in public indoor spaces to avoid infecting the "vulnerable". Masks protect others much more than they protect the wearer. So which is it? We - everybody - takes precautions, Covid infections remain low and we don't have to shut things down again (as some places are already doing); OR Vulnerable people take precautions that protect others, Covid infection rates rise, hospitals are overwhelmed, people die, restrictions are increased, impacting the economy and creating mental health issues from job loss and vulnerable people being stuck home alone.

People who get old, who are born with compromised immune systems or who develop them, people who have cancer or COPD, hypothroidism, diabetes or a plethora of other diseases - all expendable, all to blame for being at risk of dying of Covid. Also, how come so many of the folks who said "lets get back to work while protecting the vulnerable" also tend to be the ones who object to wearing a mask? Can only be some massive plot by pro-eugenics people to eliminate undesirable characteristics - like being old, fat or sick. They don't actually care about mental health; its just a ploy to make themselves look like they care beyond their personal and immediate convenience.

It's on plenty of news media outlets, just not in Canada apparently.

I think the planning and organization required to pull off a world wide pandemic in order to implement (Fascism? Socialism? Communism?) in Canada is well beyond the capabilities of our Government, or any government for that matter. Even if Canada isn't the sole target of this conspiracy, its hard to imagine that every government in the world agreed to this plan, allowing 100,000s of people to die and their economies to be severely impacted. This plot would require the active participation of tens of thousands of people, from government leaders, to scientists, doctors and the media. And for what, exactly? To make us wear masks and accept money to stay home.

You didn't read the link, did you. The data is from January of this year, compared to the same time period in previous years. They aren't comparing flu cases so far this year to all flu cases in other years.

Flu deaths are down, as are other communicable diseases - mitigating for Covid transmission also mitigates for other diseases.

You mean, no doctor or nurse who ever steps into an operating room or even an examination room could ever have asthma? Or any form of COPD? How likely is that? Anyway, there've been studies. There's plenty more, if you'd do a little research instead of going with the first thing that hit your Facebook feed. Indeed - remarkably simple thinking. "I'm a bullheaded male from Alberta who's going to go with the minority (1 "expert") who says masks pose more problems than they solve". Yup, simple-minded thinking at it's best. You mean the people who are too self-centered to wear a mask, despite the many studies that confirm mask wearing helps protect from viruses.

I put my mask on at the first store I go to. If I'm going to another store, I leave it on in the car, even when I'm by myself, because as per best practices, the less fiddling with it, the better. Maybe he's also following best practices. I've learned how to put on a mask so that doesn't happen. Maybe he has too. Here's where you lost all credibility because ... Do you worry about these people getting light-headed?

I read the Quillette article, and do not entirely disagree with what it's saying. Our culture, as a whole, has had certain gender expectations and while female gender role-change has had support over the last few decades, the resultant changes in male gender roles hasn't had the same level of support, or even interest. I believe this has left many men feeling lost and confused, even devalued. Especially since many of the gender stereotypes from the past are still prevalent in our belief system. Men are told, from a young age, that their job is to be provider and protector; to be tough and strong. In my opinion, this harms both men and women - women because they are expected to be 'helpless' and men because they are expected to take on the more dangerous jobs in life, whether it's carpenter, garbage collector or soldier and, that while they can express anger and lust, emotions such as fear, sorrow, grief, pain are to be hidden - it makes them 'weak'. It's not that men don't feel these things, but the expression of them is discouraged. I don't believe this issue an either/or male vs. female proposition. The same forces that create differences in income between men and women, and a double standard for sexual behavior also result in men being more prone to suicide, violence, incarceration and earlier death. In my opinion, there needs to be more latitude in gender roles for men, and more support for men in terms of their emotional health.