This is largely an academic debate as I do wear a mask in public, but from my understanding in your prior post, if someone is a carrier their snot droplets will adhere to my mask and give me a greater chance of infection. If I misunderstood that, then I am just wrong.
So I guess the calculus would be, if I am already a carrier, then I’m infected so it doesn’t benefit numero uno to wear a mask. If I am not infected, then wearing a mask only increases my chances of getting infected because of the aforementioned snot particles on my mask so in either scenario, I don’t benefit from a mask. But others do. However, I (the general I) am a selfish prick who won’t wear a mask. A prisoner’s dilemma.
I’m pretty sure the longer you wear a mask without changing it, the more concentration of moisture (yours and others) is accumulated. I’m sure there’s a point where the mask would be so saturated, migration through the cloth would occur and you’d be getting absolutely no benefit from the mask. But I don’t know if there’s a point where you’d have inhaled/ingested a higher viral load because of a soaked mask than you would have done without the mask. I suspect that would depend on a) how well the mask fits and covers mouth and nose, b) how long you wear it, and c) environmental factors like relative humidity and temperature.
In any case, I believe the medical consensus is that you do get some individual protection from wearing a surgical or cloth mask, but the biggest benefit of mask wearing is to protect everyone else from infected persons’ exhalations.
In the case of N95 masks, those are respirators and actively filter out the virus, so wearers of those get more protection. -They are not recommended for non-healthcare workers, because they’re harder to breathe through, and some of them are valved to release unfiltered exhalations, giving no benefit to the rest of the crowd. (Your selfish hypothetical prick would probably choose one of those.)
If you aren’t a carrier and don’t wear a mask, then any aerosols or droplets from an infected person goes straight in your nose or mouth. If you do have a mask, some of those particles can get in around the edges or eventually migrate through the mask. But both those paths are more difficult than the case where you aren’t wearing a mask at all. The benefit of wearing a mask when you aren’t infected is probably positive, and certainly not negative.
Then I think you have missed the point of this thread. It was started by an OP who found the efforts to stop physical distancing efforts under the guise of religious freedom disturbing. In fact, very few Oregonians disagree with the physical distancing rules being used as a tool to hold spread of CV-19 to a minimum. It has worked very well.
Governor Brown says that her orders were issued under ORS 401.165, which does not place time constraints on her executive orders related to a state of emergency. So you’ll have to make your arguments about dictatorship or monarchy with that in mind.
Well aware on both counts. Do you factually know that she has not issued a proclamation convening the Legislative Assembly? I don’t. I would say if she has, she undercuts her own argument about the statute under which she acted.
I’ll allow that I am not confident her argument to the Oregon Supreme Court is rested on sound legal ground. But neither do I feel that the Oregon State legislature has acted in good faith over the past couple of years since they started this nonsense. What they did during the regular legislative session was shameful, and it wasn’t only Democrats who saw it that way. Like it or not, Democrats represent the majority of citizens in this state.
We only need one more Democratic senator for a quorum in the 2021 session. I hope we get that person with the 2020 election.
And the Court will have to rule on whether that takes precedence over the constitutional provision. (Which sounds to me like the lawmakers in Oregon got sloppy – if a constitutional amendment passes, it behooves them to go over related statutes to make sure they all square with it and if there are going to be exceptions, they must be explicit.)
First, like all states in the union, Oregon is a constitutional republic. It does not run on opinion polls. It runs by written law.
Second, although I am far from an expert on Oregon law, this seems like a classic non-delegation issue. If the Oregon Legislature is tasked by the Constitution to review a Governor’s emergency declaration after thirty days, it cannot shirk that duty by passing a statute which purports to give the Governor an eternal dictatorial power, no matter how many legislators support it, or no matter what the public opinion polls say.
It would be no different than if the legislature passed a law saying that the Governor could set the state budget or appropriate funds as she sees fit. The state Constitution assigns this power to the legislature and it must act accordingly, not pass it off.
And if some Republican members are doing this or that, then have the sergeant at arms arrest them and compel their attendance. Don’t just complain that those meany Republicans won’t come to the state house. Those rules are written for these reasons.
Yes, I agree with this, which is why I said I wasn’t confident in her argument.
Still, I think what she wants to accomplish is to have a little more time to get these important decisions right that affect all of her citizens. The Oregon Supreme Court may have given her that breathing room by granting her stay.
Hopefully the entire matter will be moot by the time it is heard.
Well, so just support the position that gives a Governor the power to flout the Constitution because you agree with that position for today. Just don’t complain when in 2045 and Donald Trump IV is governor and he uses the power set by the precedent you argue.
How many times do you have to be told that the masks help prevent you from spreading the disease, not getting the disease, before it finally sinks in? :smack:
So how do you explain the people who DIDN’T have any known respiratory or immune deficiencies and ended up in hospital (or the morgue) anyway? Would they have benefited from wearing a mask, or would the people around them have benefited if they’d worn a mask? Why or why not?
How do you figure that a hundred million masks a month is adequate to provide reasonable quantities of masks for the ones who would benefit most from them? That hundred million has to be spread among health care workers, military personnel, police and prison workers, nursing home attendants, nursing home residents, vulnerable adults in the community, etc., etc., so how many people do you figure qualify, and how many masks are you allocating to each?
Do you know how many deaths due to COVID-19 Oregon has suffered?
4 today. 7 on their worst day.
This does not sound like a situation where a governor gets to be a dictator.
How many deaths have happened and will happen because people are not going to prior but cancelled appointments? There is no way to know as far as I am aware. But a discussion may be legitimately held, and claiming opponents want people to die is one sorry refutation.
You’re trying to use an argument of absolutism. You can’t apply that to anything. No vaccine is 100%. No medical treatment is 100%.
the numbers I cited were additional masks needed in the short term. It does not represent the sum total being produced. Since very few people are actually likely to die from the virus that just leaves the few who are vulnerable.
You’re not being rational in this discussion. People will die from this just as they die from the flu and a host of other diseases every day. We’re not trying to save everyone. We’re trying to keep a health care system from collapsing. We’re also trying to keep an economy from collapsing because we need the taxes to survive. That’s reality. We’ve done a tremendous amount of financial damage to prevent the health care system from collapsing.
At some point the reality of the suicides and drug overdosesfrom this are going to sink in. You don’t seem to give a damn about these people but it’s going to happen.
Texas Rs played hardball with Texas Ds a few years ago, sending Texas Rangers(?) to a neighboring state to arrest D legislators who were refusing to join a quorum call! When are Ds going to start playing hardball like the Rs do?
Y’know this is an interesting side-debate but I don’t think the constitutionality or non constitutionality of a statute is dependent upon whether it is scientifically “right” to carry it out. Those Schooled in the Law may correct me on that.
>Originally Posted by sps49sd
>Do you know how many deaths due to COVID-19 Oregon has suffered?
4 today. 7 on their worst day.
How may any of us know anything, when the Universe is divided between the word within our head and the world outside our head?
Those numbers com from here and here.
It’s really easy to find information like this. Do I know, absolutely, “this”? No. But unless and until I get better information, sources like I provided will have to do.
Note: The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at UW site gave actual numbers yesterday, not 'per 100,000, but those capable of math will see the numbers are the same.