(Don't) Wear a Mask Debate

[thecolonel]

I've not seen the wording of the mask wearing law, but I have a question

Do families have to wear a mask when at home?

And if not, why not?

Does the virus know you're at home, leaves you alone and goes down to the bar or shopping mall(ie a public place) ?

It's been reported especially today that many cases are spread within families so I'm curious as to why masks aren't mandatory in the household? And people encouraged to spend time in different rooms wherever possible etc

As per the car rule, living alone is ok. Not alone, wear a mask.

As I say, not seen the wording






Sent from my M2007J20CT using Tapatalk

[Lost]

The moment masks become mandatory in households is the moment utter ridiculousness has crept into the conversation.

[thecolonel]

The moment masks become mandatory in households is the moment utter ridiculousness has crept into the conversation.

But that's precisely where the virus spreads..... the home.

So why *ONLY* fine people for not wearing masks 'outside'. It's 'inside' that's the problem. And that is the home more than anywhere else by far.

I understand your sentiment, but it's not ridiculous at all.

On the contrary, what's ridiculous is completely ignoring the fact that it is mostly spread at home where people are far more in contact with each other.

Yes I completely get why bars are closed because some of them get very crowded and people get too close( usually to make themselves heard over loud music).

But walking around outside in the open fresh air, on a beach for example, versus being in a confined space with other family members coughing and sneezing all day and night, all touching the same things in the home ..... do me a favour.

Be honest, putting your family needs to one side, where would you truly feel safer?

To be clear, what I'm mainly suggesting is that people shouldn't be fined per se for not wearing a mask simply because they are 'outside of the home' as they could be in a far, FAR safer place than their own home!

But if they are in a high risk area(a small space with other people) then fair enough, fine them.

And, that people should be *encouraged* to wear masks and 'social distance' at home(or visiting) as much as is practically possible. As opposed to being to fined for not doing so.

If you go to say a hospital waiting area you have to social distance, wear a mask and wash your hands or apply gel. Where's the logic that says all that protocol can go out of the window if you're in your home?

Or does the friendly kind virus know not to spread to other family members?!

To just ignore the 'home' completely and focus only on outside the home, wherever that may be, is ridiculous indeed.

Sent from my M2007J20CT using Tapatalk

[Hahuahin]

The moment masks become mandatory in households is the moment utter ridiculousness has crept into the conversation.

But that's precisely where the virus spreads..... the home.

So why *ONLY* fine people for not wearing masks 'outside'. It's 'inside' that's the problem. And that is the home more than anywhere else by far.

I understand your sentiment, but it's not ridiculous at all.

On the contrary, what's ridiculous is completely ignoring the fact that it is mostly spread at home where people are far more in contact with each other.

Yes I completely get why bars are closed because some of them get very crowded and people get too close( usually to make themselves heard over loud music).

But walking around outside in the open fresh air, on a beach for example, versus being in a confined space with other family members coughing and sneezing all day and night, all touching the same things in the home ..... do me a favour.

Be honest, putting your family needs to one side, where would you truly feel safer?

To be clear, what I'm mainly suggesting is that people shouldn't be fined per se for not wearing a mask simply because they are 'outside of the home' as they could be in a far, FAR safer place than their own home!

But if they are in a high risk area(a small space with other people) then fair enough, fine them.

And, that people should be *encouraged* to wear masks and 'social distance' at home(or visiting) as much as is practically possible. As opposed to being to fined for not doing so.

If you go to say a hospital waiting area you have to social distance, wear a mask and wash your hands or apply gel. Where's the logic that says all that protocol can go out of the window if you're in your home?

Or does the friendly kind virus know not to spread to other family members?!

To just ignore the 'home' completely and focus only on outside the home, wherever that may be, is ridiculous indeed.

Sent from my M2007J20CT using Tapatalk

I agree and as far as I know some European countries have under "covid 19 waves" practiced regulations according to what is necessary to stop the infection rate to increase by banning a limit for family members who may be in the same house / building together and of course distancing inside / outside, and many people / families have actually been fined for breaking these rules. How the police find out ... I do not know, but I think it is the "neighborhood jungle phone" that is spying on them.
hahuahin

[HHTel]

Colonel, have you not kept up with the 'bubble' idea which has worked so well elsewhere.

We don't wear a mask at home. My whole family is in a 'bubble'. No-one visits and we visit no-one outside of our bubble. It has worked extremely well in other countries. You can operate a bubble without being told by the government (which would be a good idea)

A bubble is a group of people with whom you have close physical contact.

Bubbles must be "exclusive". Once in one, you can't start another with a different household. If you decide to change your bubble, you should treat your previous bubble as a separate household for 10 days before forming a new one.

People in a bubble can stay overnight in each other's homes, visit outdoors places together and do not have to socially distance.

[thecolonel]

Colonel, have you not kept up with the 'bubble' idea which has worked so well elsewhere.

We don't wear a mask at home. My whole family is in a 'bubble'. No-one visits and we visit no-one outside of our bubble. It has worked extremely well in other countries. You can operate a bubble without being told by the government (which would be a good idea)

A bubble is a group of people with whom you have close physical contact.

Bubbles must be "exclusive". Once in one, you can't start another with a different household. If you decide to change your bubble, you should treat your previous bubble as a separate household for 10 days before forming a new one.

People in a bubble can stay overnight in each other's homes, visit outdoors places together and do not have to socially distance.

Noted.

But I gather its not the rule here and that's my point.

That's where the virus is spreading not some bloke walking on a beach 100 yards from anyone without a mask on.

All depends whether they really want to stop the virus or not?

The reality is, as we all know on here, they like to make laws but very rarely enforce them.

Making rules makes them feel like they are winning the battle.


Sent from my M2007J20CT using Tapatalk

[HHTel]

But I gather its not the rule here and that's my point.

And one of my points was highlighting why we need to have rules, be they good or bad. People should have the ability to think for themselves. There is massive amounts of information about what people should do and shouldn't do.

I'll follow the given rules, because I have to. However, regardless of them I'll also follow my own rules.

Why we need someone in authority (but not necessarily qualified) to tell us what to do is beyond me. We are supposed to be intelligent human beings. (evidence required...lol). We are not schoolchildren.

[handdrummer]

But I gather its not the rule here and that's my point.

And one of my points was highlighting why we need to have rules, be they good or bad. People should have the ability to think for themselves. There is massive amounts of information about what people should do and shouldn't do.

I'll follow the given rules, because I have to. However, regardless of them I'll also follow my own rules.

Why we need someone in authority (but not necessarily qualified) to tell us what to do is beyond me. We are supposed to be intelligent human beings. (evidence required...lol). We are not schoolchildren.

"should" and "supposed" are the operative words. That would be a tough case to prove in court.

[HHTel]

Court doesn't come into it. As I said, I will follow the official rules because I have to! Whether I agree with them or not is a different matter.

[handdrummer]

Business Insider
Staying 6 feet apart indoors does almost nothing to stop the spread of COVID-19, MIT study finds
Marianne Guenot
Mon, April 26, 2021, 6:27 PM
social distancing restaurants
People eating behind individual plastic screens at a restaurant in Bangkok on May 8. REUTERS/Athit Perawongmetha
The widely used 6-foot rule does little to prevent COVID-9 exposure indoors, MIT researchers found.

The risk of exposure from an infected person is similar at 6 feet and 60 feet, one researcher said.

The study said mask-wearing, ventilation, and what a space is used for were bigger variables.

See more stories on Insider's business page.

The widely used rule of staying 6 feet away from others does little to affect the risk of exposure to COVID-19 in indoor spaces, according to a new study out of MIT.

According to MIT researchers, the rule is based on an outdated understanding of how the coronavirus moves in closed spaces.

They said other variables - like the number of people in a space, whether they wear masks, what they are doing, and the level of ventilation - were much more important.

The 6-foot rule is used in various forms around the world: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advises 6 feet of separation indoors and outdoors, while in the UK the figure is 2 meters. In much of Europe, the figure is 1 meter, which is also recommended as a minimum distance by the World Health Organization.

But while such distancing rules are easy to remember, and purport to suit any situation, the new study says they may not be that useful.

The study was released online ahead of its publication in the peer-reviewed journal PNAS on Tuesday.

It says a better way of controlling indoor exposure is to do individual calculations based on variables for that space.

In some cases, the exposure level might be the same at 6 feet as at 60 feet, one of the study authors has said.

Martin Bazant and John Bush, both MIT professors in applies mathematics, developed a formula to estimate how long it would take for a person to hit dangerous levels of exposure from one infected person entering a room.

The calculation is more sophisticated version of the traffic-light system previously proposed by MIT. It takes into account the number of people in the room, the size of the space, what they are doing, whether masks are being worn, and what kind of ventilation is in place.

Using this calculation, it could be that the level of exposure is high in some spaces even if people are more than 6 feet away. It could also be lower than expected.

"The distancing isn't helping you that much, and it's also giving you a false sense of security because you're as safe at 6 feet as you are at 60 feet if you're indoors. Everyone in that space is at roughly the same risk, actually," Bazant told CNBC.

Scientific understanding of how the coronavirus moves in the air has challenged earlier assumptions about how best to adapt to minimize its spread.

At the beginning of the pandemic, it was widely believed that the virus traveled via heavier droplets ejected during exhalation, sneezing, or speaking.

But evidence has long suggested that the virus instead floats around on lighter aerosol droplets that can stay suspended in the air and travel much farther than first thought.

In their calculation, the MIT researchers took into account the effect of having people in the room, and their behavior, on how long the virus would stay suspended in the air.

In a calm environment, these particles would slowly drift to the ground, the researchers said in their study.

But in an environment in which the air is moving around the room and people are talking, eating, singing, and sneezing, the drops can be suspended in the airflow and mixed throughout the room longer.

The effect can be counteracted by ventilation or filtration to get the virus particles out of circulation in the room.

A website made available by the researchers shows how this model works in different scenarios.

For example, if an infected person walks into a classroom hosting 25 people, none wearing masks and all speaking, everyone would be at risk from the coronavirus within 36 minutes, the website says. It doesn't matter if they follow the 6-foot rule.

By contrast, if all 25 people in that room were wearing a mask, the air would be safe to breathe for 20 hours, it said.

If they were all singing without a mask, they be at risk from the virus within three minutes.

Public-health bodies have started to acknowledge that the 6-foot rule is not a catchall. In March, the CDC advised that the 6-foot rule could be brought down to 3 feet in K-12 schools.

This weekend, the CDC also updated social-distancing guidance for children in summer camps, saying they can be within 3 feet of one another except when eating or drinking.

It also suggested that disinfection of surfaces might not be necessary in public spaces, urging an end to what some have called "hygiene theater."

As for rules dictating social distancing outdoors, Bazant said they are "kind of crazy," CNBC reported. The infected air "would be swept away," Bazant said, making the rule irrelevant.

Unless the space outdoors is crowded, Bazant said, he would feel comfortable being as close as 3 feet even without masks.

Experts have told Insider that when it is possible to stay more than 6 feet away from people, wearing a mask outside is not always necessary.

[handdrummer]

Court doesn't come into it. As I said, I will follow the official rules because I have to! Whether I agree with them or not is a different matter.

You don't "have to." You choose to. You don't "have" to do anything, nor can anyone make you do anything. We are responsible for what we do and we make the choice to do it or not. Even if you point at gun at my head and threaten to shoot me if I don't obey, it's still my choice to obey or not.

[HHTel]

Okay. I'll rephrase it. "I will follow the law so as not to be a 'lawbreaker' and face consequences"

[handdrummer]

Okay. I'll rephrase it. "I will follow the law so as not to be a 'lawbreaker' and face consequences"

That makes sense.

[Big Boy]

[Felipesed1]

A detailed study from Denmark on mask wearing concluding that they are not really much use:
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

Read it and make your own decisions.