Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
So a Person Is Vulnerable to the Virus; What’s Their Responsibility?
There’s a letter to the editor published in the Fairbanks News Miner by an elderly individual with bad lungs, which makes her (the name is Robin; could be a guy) vulnerable to the virus.
She was on a rant that the in the store she entered, Fred Meyer, one of the brands that the Kroger chain runs, had many people running around without masks. I go into that store every few days, and I confirm that roughly half the customers aren’t wearing masks. I’ll add that the vast majority of those, are wearing cloth masks, which the CDC says is better than nothing (which equals a false sense of security).
I did reply in the comments section that the store she went into has a program where you can order their stuff online, park at the store in a designated spot, and they will deliver the items to your car (or for a lot of us in Fairbanks, your pickup truck). I also said that they also have a phone number, and you can talk to a real person. (I think; I hope that the local number isn’t a digital menu.) Fairbanks is a smallish town. I posit that there probably isn’t a business here that won’t deliver purchases to the parking lot if you call and ask, especially if you explain you are vulnerable if you catch the virus.
The big point I wanted to make is that she has to take responsibility for her own health, and that includes asking for help if she needs it.
In a town like Fairbanks, with a low population density, a person can walk outside and easily maintain the 6ft social distance when they encounter people here and there. And you can get the essentials of life, and also non-essentials, without entering a store. You can do it with a dumb phone, though it helps to have a smartphone, tablet, or computer to go online.
People talk about protecting the vulnerable as if they have to be coddled, and they have to be isolated. Well, it depends. A lot don’t need coddling, and the isolation need not be restricted to their own homes. They can still get about, and not depend on everyone to wear masks.
It’s probably that way in the suburbs too. But they have to take responsibility too.
Published in General
I’m “vulnerable” because I’m 74 and take immunosuppressant. I agree with you 100%. Stop coddling me.
I’m one of the vulnerable. We went shooting up in the canyon last week. It was great to get out! Unfortunately, the weather changed.
It’s not a false sense of security. That’s just incorrect.
We get some reduction in spread if everyone covers their face. It’s not perfect but it helps.
Studies have shown it can help as much as 80%.
So if you aren’t wearing a mask in public, you are part of the problem.
Preach it!
“studies”.
A month ago they were telling us masks wouldn’t help.
I guess I’m a problem.
In the great land of Austin, TX where face masks are now mandatory, the fines can be up to $1000 and 180 days in jail if you do not comply. Unless you’re homeless. Then you’re fine. Don’t worry about it.
They were lying. The N95 masks will protect you, if handled correctly. The common surgical masks or imitations thereof are mostly about protecting others from your output, but offer some marginal protection as well.
Fred Meyers East or West?
I agree with and appreciate your post, @alsparks, but mostly I just wanted to give a shout-out to your local paper. The News-Miner is a superb name.
I am 57 with a few health conditions that depending on who is talking may make me susceptible to this virus. Far as I am concerned we can open the economy up with the provision that allowances need to be made where possible to help those at risk (work at home, home delivery, etc). I have the exactly the same chance of dying today that I had yesterday, last month, last year, and tomorrow. As long as we are willing to help each other we should be fine.
Interestingly, I just got back from my weekly shopping trip to Fred Meyer. About half of the people in the store at around 9:30AM were wearing masks, most of the ones I saw looked like homemade garbage, nothing up to the N-95 standard. I saw several people who were obviously not relatives, two of them guys restocking the beer fridge, standing and talking in close proximity, obviously not thinking that they were in any danger. There were others doing the same thing. Most people were using the basic social distancing of 6 or more feet. Saniwipes are provided at the entrances. Most employees are wearing masks of the “decorator” type, paisleys, whatever. There have only been 27 diagnosed cases of Covid-19 in my area with a population of around 40,000 many of whom would use the shopping area in which the Fred Meyer is located. There is also a Safeway closeby and several other stores of different varieties.
As far as the masks are concerned, their effectiveness is largely dependent on their being used properly and how long they are in use. In an environment like the one I live in, it is questionable how needed they are. There were very few people in the grocery store when I was there. Maintaining distance takes no work at all. That is why I shop on Thursdays and at an early hour. On Tuesday I went to Costco. I had tried going there two weeks ago when they opened the store an hour early so that seniors could shop. The number of people lined up outside of the store just before opening was absurd. I simply drove home. This Tuesday I went in the mid afternoon. I walked right in, was never close to anyone, the store was practically empty. I suspect that simple common sense is a far greater preventative than any mask yet designed.
Yesterday I did a 54 mile bike ride about ten miles of which was on a bike trail. I saw some pretty stupid behaviors. Most notable among them were riders in a line riding each other’s wheels (drafting for the uninitiated) while wearing everything from a scarf to a fancy mask. They would have been far safer simply spacing out 15 to 20 feet apart. Masks give a false sense of security, and can, therefore, be a greater danger than going without and exercising social distancing.
It makes total sense that masks have some utility, and I will wear one if it means we actually can go back to work. But the lying thing in the beginning eroded trust, and exempting populations like the homeless—people who seem to be at higher risk for both catching and spreading a virus in my estimation than I am—also erodes trust. Travis County where masks are mandatory, btw, has less than a thousand Covid positives and 17 deaths despite a population of over a million people. All of that is bad, sure. But I’d just as soon go about my life and take my own risks. After all, if the masks are effective, won’t the people who are wearing them be protected from me? I’ll stay plenty far away still, and they’ll have their cloth shield in place!
Here is the point. I doubt they were actually lying. I believe they are that clueless on how things work and are now claiming the mantle of lying instead of embracing their stupidity.
Yeah. they were lying.
Because they got caught with their pants down and didn’t want to compete with the public for a needed resource.
Everybody in medicine knows that masks will help.
and here’s one study
Note the publish date….
Article Contents
Comments (0)
Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Vittoria Offeddu, Chee Fu Yung, Mabel Sheau Fong Low, Clarence C TamClinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934–1942, https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cix681Published:07 August 2017
I wouldn’t brag about it.
“in health care workers”.
Not “general public out and about”.
Alright, @Kozak. I’ll play.
I understand you’re a doctor, so you get freaked out by disease. (I am a history professor, so I get freaked out by “you need papers.”)
I honestly didn’t need a study. I don’t think it takes a lot of thought to understand that a mask stops someone from inhaling certain germs and exhaling certain germs. I don’t have a problem with the concept, though I would prefer you give me a study on the actual transmittal rate and mortality rate of Covid–which we both know is not really available–so that I could better weigh the real state of general risks.
However, when we are talking public policy, how can a city tell the populace “wear masks or get fined $1,000 because this is essential to public health” while ALSO telling homeless people that they are exempted from wearing mask because…. ???? (I am assuming that a city is capable of distributing masks to homeless people.) This does not suggest that the city feels that wearing masks is really essential, right? (There are a lot of homeless people in Austin, TX.)
How am I supposed to see any logic in those messages?
I am at heart a libertarian sort who doesn’t like being told what to do. I am also a rational sort who will act in rational ways when I have been given rational arguments. But I live in a county where suicides have spiked and are still DOUBLE Covid deaths, so I find myself feeling… mystified.
This EDIT is added for clarification: I LIVE in Travis County in Texas. I am currently STAYING per a life circumstance in Knox County, which is in TN.
No brag, just fact.
This OP is breathtakingly repulsive.
And with the exception of the comments of Kozak, Locke On, and Eugene Kriegsmann, the discussion thread is giving the OP a pretty good run for its money, too.
I used to be impressed by the Ricochet community, but increasingly with many here, a form of borderline narcissism is coming to the fore — and often it’s characterized by playing at being faithful to the Constitution, mere posing as defenders of the sovereign individual, and brandishing claimed scientific certainties notwithstanding their as-yet-unconfirmed applicability in our current circumstances of not knowing critical attributes of the Wuhan Virus upending all our lives and livelihoods.
It’s not just shameful — it ought to be cause for serious embarrassment, on reflection.
It’s as if many here are vying for First Prize in some kind of Sergeant Barnes impersonator contest.
That’s very, um, infectious logo there.
I need to know WTH Sergeant Barnes is so I know if I should get mad.
Wow. Thanks. Yeah. I guess there’s no discussion to be had there. But okay. I don’t have any idea who Sgt. Barnes is either…. I guess he likes face masks.
#23 Lois Lane
It’s *precisely* a discussion I’m engaging in here, notwithstanding the closed-ended/end-of-argument tendentiousness of the OP and the disconcerting amen-corner tenor of a majority of the comments thus far.
So you’re welcome.
Whaddaya got? In terms of substantive, thought-provoking rejoinders, that is — I recognize that the OP doesn’t give you much to work with but that’s OK, I can wait.
“repulsive” “narcissism” “shameful” “embarassment”
Good discussion.
D.A. is free to correct me if I’m wrong; but given the conversation, I suspect the Sergeant Barnes he’s referring to is a character from the Oliver Stone movie, Platoon.
First, let me say that I think it’s completely valid to feel on edge or worried right now about the impact of the virus response as much as the virus, which is where a lot of this is coming from. There are very bad things happening in a lot of people’s lives, which people seem to think are not valid because there is such a narrow focus on just Covid. For example, when my father’s doctor told him he could not take the risk to go through another round of chemo right now because he might get the virus, my mother was a little flummoxed by this since it is certain he has a rather nasty form of cancer. It’s a little “through-the-looking-glass.”
Obviously, other bad things are just related to people’s jobs, but it is not narcissistic to be very concerned about the economy collapsing when one does not have the resources of Bill Gates. The government’s “rescue package” has already run out of money.
So, let’s look at what the article is suggesting.
The writer observed that a woman shared her opinion about how she did not approve of how other people were acting in a grocery store since she has a particular vulnerability to Covid. The country has locked down for that woman, and millions of people are literally out of work to protect people like her.
Yet she wants to yell at some poor, mask-less saps getting their milk–not having a party on a beach!–though in a very short span of time, it has been suggested to them that wearing a DIY face covering is 1) an okay thing to do if it makes you feel better, though you shouldn’t use the super effective masks because healthcare professionals need those, 2) maybe very good if the virus is communicated from person to person in a certain way, but how the virus is communicated is somewhat uncertain, so who knows, 3) completely voluntary, 4) so important you will be fined the equivalent of rent for the month and thrown into jail if you don’t wear one.
Uhhhh…..
The writer knows that the woman does not need to go in the store at all because other options exist. (If she is older and has a comorbidity, hasn’t she been advised to self-quarantine anyway????) While a lot has been done for her well being, she has a part to play, too.
What’s repulsive about that?
Ah! Gosh…. Makes me want to say “Okay, Boomer” to the maker of that reference then. :)
She didn’t say which one she went to. My rough description of the number of masked customers applies to both.
Well, we also call it the News-Minus.