Beyond that, it's not clear that mass enforcement of nonpharmaceutical interventions - ie masks, lockdowns, etc - will be a net win for public health. For example, the next winter or two could present a very bad flu season, all due to the mass isolation and hyper-sanitizatoin we've come to be familiar with through the pandemic [1].
[1] The impact of COVID-19 nonpharmaceutical interventions on the future dynamics of endemic infections https://www.pnas.org/content/117/48/30547
There are various studies demonstrating the effectiveness of masks even for those not infected.
Data point: I'm fully vaccinated, and I'm wearing a mask out in public.
Also, big-box hardware stories (at least) have real N95s back in stock (not KN95 substitutes), as of a couple months ago.
Others' perceptions of me are arbitrary and socially defined, and who is so worried about fitting in at the grocery store? If people were grounded in any type of reality, they'd realize that a chemical warzone requires, at minimum, a full face respirator and chemical cartridges.
This gave me a chuckle. I don't think that is common knowledge in this day and age. Does make me wonder if covid can infect through the eyes. Ill make sure to engage my safety squints.
It was never common knowledge. It's a little anti-social to suggest that it's 'common sense' in any way that people would know how to react in a chemical warfare situation.
Anti-social in the sense that implies a lack of understanding of common social knowledge and behaviour.
Staying at home doesn't protect you unless you live in total isolation, and most people don't. 'Family' is in fact a primary vector of spread.
Wearing N100's is also not remotely feasible all of the time, nor will it entirely protect you.
The vaccine gives you almost 100% prevention against death and is by far the best protective measure and it largely frees you from worry, concerns over unwittingly infecting others, and reduces the need to do things like 'total isolation' and 'wear n100 all of the time'.
"If people were grounded in any type of reality" ... there's no reason for anyone to have a realistic understanding of what living in a 'chemical warzone' would be.
Get a vaccine, keep some degree of social distancing, be prepared to wear an n95 sometimes, don't go inside to events with large numbers of people ... if everyone does 'mostly' that we'll be 'mostly fine' over the coming months and can 'mostly' get on with our lives.
Genuinely curious - Did you wear a mask prior? Would you continue to wear a mask past the epidemic, even for the rest of your life, to protect the 3% vulnerable?
Reacting to COVID differently than you react to the flu, or a cold, is a wholly reasonable response.
All I know is brain fog is a career killer and my quality of life would decrease significantly if everything I ate tasted absolutely foul and disgusting. Seems a reasonable precaution to continue wearing a mask when out in public even though I'm completely vaccinated. Note that's a purely selfish argument for the vaccinated to continue mask wearing. The fact I may be saving someone else's life is additional incentive.
It was directed at those that wear a mask because they're helping to save lives.
Did you wore a mask prior to COVID? Will you continue to wear a mask, post COVID, to help save lives?
So even a school mask mandate is entirely useless.
I don't like that as much as the next person, but if I'm visiting a hospital or a nursing home anytime soon, i'll mask up.
If a celebrity many different people per week, 20% vulnerability is still a lot. Its better than no protection, but still put the person at a pretty high risk.
Parties like the above can be problematic in a time of an pandemic even if one disregard covid. Any illness that can spread has the risk of causing additional stress on the health care system. I know for example some sport activities which has decided to reduce activity on the ground that the sport has the potential of accidents which would then put unnecessary pressure on an already heavily pressured health care system.