That’s highly dependent on where you are. In Minneapolis everyone is wearing them, but drive out a little bit and many aren’t.
There’s still a huge number of people in complete denial that this is real.
There’s still a huge number of people in complete denial that this is real.
Beginning of August the deaths per capita in the 7 county Twin Cities area were four times the rate of the rest of the State. It has reduced to only 2.5 times now.
Basically for the first seven months, the COVID fatality rate in the rest of the State was comparable to the 17-18 flu season, perhaps a little better. Folks would reasonably ask why worry...
Given the Twin Cities have had over twice the COVID fatalities per capita is spite of an arguably superior health care system, the city folks themselves aren’t in much of a position to preach what works...
As to the rest of your point, yes, in a large urban area the virus will spread faster and sooner than out-state. However, I've been watching the weekly change per-capita per-county map in the Star Tribune and Hennepin county has been lagging everywhere else for quite some time now, so I think we are in fact in a position to preach about what works.
Similarly one can know it's real but have a different perception of risk.
For instance, a recently published controlled trial doesn't show a statistically significant difference between mask wearers and non.
I don't think you're taking away the complete story of the paper you mention. There are two fundamentally different ways in which masks could help: protecting the wearer from others, or protecting others from the wearer.
They state:
"These findings do offer evidence about the degree of protection mask wearers can anticipate in a setting where others are not wearing masks and where other public health measures, including social distancing, are in effect. The findings, however, should not be used to conclude that a recommendation for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections, because the trial did not test the role of masks in source control of SARS-CoV-2 infection. During the study period, authorities did not recommend face mask use outside hospital settings and mask use was rare in community settings (22). This means that study participants' exposure was overwhelmingly to persons not wearing masks."
By suggesting that this paper concludes that masks don't help much, it totally ignores the community benefit of widespread mask-wearing.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/04/dont-wear...
I think it is harmful to say that masks protect the wearer (unless they are N95 or better). This is a big and easily attacked surface that only serves to obscure and discredit the real point of wearing masks.
Instead the messaging should focus solely on the fact that they protect others from the infection carried (likely without knowledge) by the wearer, and that people without symptoms can be contagious.
This point needs to be drilled into people's heads until everyone gets it. People also need to be taught to wear masks properly. Wearing one with nose sticking out is darn near useless.
Given the prevailing attitude towards personal freedom and personal responsibility in the US, I wonder what sort of an effect would such explicit messaging would have on the level of mask wearing.
Umm...doesn't show a statistically significant difference between recommending mask wearing or not.
Ironically, when that study was posted here (yesterday?) people were saying in the comments the 'anti-maskers' would jump on it to 'prove' mask wearing wasn't effective.