The behaviors they studied cost nothing and are equally available and beneficial to the rich and poor alike so it's odd that it has any correlation to income at all.
If instead you're working 10+ hours a day somewhere near people, you're probably tired of wearing the damn mask, the mask might be wet with condensation in cold climates, etc.
There are several buckets of people in those groups and they're pretty sizable. Crosses several races and several age groups.
EDIT: got some downvotes on this. Probably mentioning words like "race" and "age" which is a no-no for some people.
To clarify the intent of my comment - I think in order to provide a better response to a pandemic I think it is important to understand those groups which would be better served with different communications.
If you don't care about the risk of STDs or an unplanned pregnancy or your faith in God is the primary driver of your health and well-being response, you probably aren't going to care as much as others about wearing a mask.
I had one young pregnant acquaintance of ours, who lives with her grandmother, tell my wife that she knows she will be ok because of her faith in God. This young woman had at least one large family gathering. She didn't quarantine or test before seeing people. Her fiance was actually going to the gym regularly. Her grandmother got covid and luckily she made it.
Repeating all the same directives (social distance, mask, wash hands) has clearly NOT worked. Even saying the hospitals are overwhelmed hasn't seemed to matter.
I don't think you can prepare a good response without difficult conversations and an understanding of why people might do what they do and how that perspective developed.
And politicians would rather speak vaguely and not make tough calls lest they inflame some of their supporters.
>If you don't care about the risk of STDs or an unplanned pregnancy or your faith in God is the primary driver of your health and well-being response, you probably aren't going to care as much as others about wearing a mask.
So people in committed relationships, homosexuals and people above the age where pregnancy is possible?
Because those are the groups of people who use condoms the least and at least one of them is certainly not letting religion inform their sexual habits.
I wasn't speaking in an absolute, because almost nothing is absolute.
I probably should have said "I also have a theory that those that don't wear condoms or use protection are significantly less likely to wear masks over the general public. And that a large percentage of the more religious are less likely to wear masks."
Since you went there, I'll try to be more concrete.
Committed relationships across any sub-group you'd like to slice = no. Homosexuals that aren't in committed relationships = yes as they would be in the general non-committed bucket. No risk of pregnancy of course but obviously STD. Above the age of pregnancy? If not committed relationship = yes. Again, still risk of STDs, in fact quite high for the age group most younger people don't want to think of as having sex.
Above the age of pregnancy would have the kicker bonus of less likely to care due to being older and cynical. Once you've seen a lot of crazy things maybe this doesn't phase you? Can't tell you how many that have been fortunate to escape cancers or other more challenging problems only to go carefree on coronavirus which they have more control over. It's an odd thing. Especially because those are higher risk and the ones that still have parents alive are in the highest risk category.
> at least one of them is certainly not letting religion inform their sexual habits.
The condoms and religion in my theory need not crossover. Although I would guess the center of that Venn diagram would skew even less likely to wear a mask.
Where I live, we have more or less universal mask wearing in stores, but the only reason people wear masks outside is that they are about to head into a business or are just leaving one. What's the point of wearing a mask outside?
> • Sitting or standing outside alone or with people you live with (such as picnicking outside) and you are more than 6 feet from others; • When eating or drinking alone or with people you live with, and nobody else is within 6 feet; • Exercising outdoors alone or with people who live with you (walking, hiking, bicycling, or running) and no one else is within 6 feet
Realistically though, there is no enforcement anywhere outside. If you want to go walking or running around outside on the sidewalk without a mask, nobody is going to stop you. You might get a funny look. If you crowd someone's personal space without a mask they might be uncomfortable.
Please wear your mask if you plan to spend extended stretches of time near other people.
Yes. In my area it's required by law.
What's the point of wearing a mask outside?
Basically nothing other than signalling, with possible exceptions for crowded environments. Overall I expect outdoor mask mandates to be harmful on balance, by causing people to shift from outdoor to indoor gatherings.
I'd have no issue walking around unmasked if you were out in the middle of the night and you were the only one around, though. But the days are so crowded it's pretty much an indoor environment.