My sister is overall mostly neurotypical, but she gets uncontrollable panic attacks whenever something is covering her face. We don’t know why, but it’s happened ever since she was an infant, before she could talk.
And yes, there are lots and lots of medical conditions that are worse than COVID-19.
I can imagine that someone who has problems regulating their body temperature might find them more uncomfortable than someone without this problem. Impaired thermoregulation is a symptom you often find with MS and Parkinson’s.
But I can see this only rising to the level of health concern if such a person was already in a high risk situation, like being stuck in a warm, muggy room. Also, a person with this condition would probably suffer more with homemade cloth masks than lightweight surgical masks.
@monstro
The correlation between initial viral load and disease severity has not been firmly established, afaik. Evidence both ways so far.
The benefits of flossing haven’t been firmly established yet either.
And yet I still floss every night since the harm of flossing hasn’t been established. (Also there’s ancillary benefits to flossing beyond dental health–like not having to worry about people being grossed out by the big chunks of food stuck in my teeth.)
No, it’s not like flossing. Some diseases it matters, some it doesn’t.
We will see, won’t we?
If I’m wrong and masks don’t confer any personal protection, then will I look foolish? I don’t think so, at least not to a reasonable person. Because there is good reason to believe that anything covering your face will block droplets containing viral particles.
But if the scientific consensus does settle on a finding that masks–even homemade cloth masks–protect users, then the folks out here not wearing masks will be the ones who look like fools. They would be the same kind of fools who think drinking liters of diet soda every day is safe since the science on artificial sugars is mixed. If we all waited for the science to become “unmixed” before making certain health decisions, we would be much more a hot mess as a populace than we already are.
To me, the only mask-wearers that risk looking like fools once research points to clear answers are the ones who wear masks and don’t do anything else to mitigate their risk, like keeping distance from other people and hand-washing. But they would be fools even if they weren’t wearing masks.
To be clear, my question is not, “Why are there people who are not wearing masks?”
My question is, “The state’s order allows exemption for people with conditions who cannot wear masks–what conditions are those”? My question is not a challenge to those who do not wear masks, but rather a tribute to my lack of imagination.
If you knew, with 100% certainty that you did not have it, then no, you wouldn’t need one since you’re not going to spread it to others. That, of course, isn’t counting the minimal protection you get from wearing one, making it more likely for you to catch it and spread it. But no, you wouldn’t.
It would be the same as testing negative for all STDs and having unprotected sex. If you’re not worried about catching something, that’s up to you, but you can be certain you’re not going to get your partner sick.
However, even if you tested negative this morning, it doesn’t mean you’re not already carrying, and spreading the virus and it’s just too soon to for a positive result.
Yes, apologies for the hijack.
If someone has a breathing condition so bad where they can’t wear a mask, one wonders why they are out risking getting the virus. Of course, from this thread, there may be psychological reasons why they can’t wear a mask.
And, false negatives may be as high as 30%. That’s the number my daughter was told by her doctor.
There was a situation where two hairstylists worked on customers while they were clinically ill with corona. Between the two of them they cut 140 clients hair.
Not one case of transmission has been documented. Everyone was masked.
They might not have a choice. They might work at an essential job, for which working remotely is not possible. They might not have anyone they can call on to help with essential errands. They might have a job which isn’t deemed “essential” in the eyes of society, but which is essential to them, because they need the money, and if they don’t show up, they’ll be fired.
Another possibility is that they might have to let “essential people” into their home. I had a plumber in my home just a few days ago. While he was working on my sink, I wore a mask and so did he.
Yeah. When I said “If you knew, with 100% certainty that you did not have it”, I was trying to get the point across that I wasn’t getting into false negatives or any other reasons why you might have it but might not know it, just that you someone magically 100% positive that you don’t have it…then you could go without a mask and without being concerned that you’re spreading it.
Also, even if you knew with 100% certainty that you were uninfected, how would all the people around you know that? Wearing a mask is a way of signalling that you care about not spreading the infection, and of normalizing mask-wearing.
Not having it is not a guarantee that you can’t catch it five minutes after you are tested and then spread it before you get your next test.
The reality of improvised masks is that they are providing limited protection against spreading the virus. Do not make the false assumption that the masks are significantly blocking the virus. That’s especially true when improvised masks are made with all kinds of fabrics which provide minimal filtering ability. Some masks have exhaust ports which allow the exhaled air to escape unfiltered. And also consider how poorly masks are worn by the general public, where there are major gaps around the edges, the mask sits below their nose, and they pull the mask down to talk to people. This means that many times, someone wearing a bad mask is almost like they are wearing nothing at all. This poor implementation of mask usage means those innocent women, men and children need to protect themselves from other people because the public won’t necessarily make the effort to protect them. I agree with the academic point that everyone should wear a mask, but the implementation is so terrible that we should act as if no one is wearing a mask and take whatever precautions we need to keep ourselves safe.
From my quote “However, even if you tested negative this morning, it doesn’t mean you’re not already carrying, and spreading the virus and it’s just too soon to for a positive result.”
I was trying to make that statement catch all those cases. People that have it, but not for long enough to test positive, people that tested negative and then got it, any other cases where you had a negative result but still have it.
Again, my point was that if you don’t have it, not if you were tested and got a negative result, not if you don’t have symptoms, that you somehow know for a 100% fact that you don’t have it…you’re not going to spread it.
Not to downplay that, since it’s seemingly good news, but it should be noted that only 46 have been tested, the remaining 94 are simply asymptomatic.
Or possibly worse than nothing at all, because the frequent adjustment means frequent face-touching.
You stated something as fact when it is very much an open question. That’s all I objected to.