"Before face masks, Americans went to war against seat belts"

[Slyhunter]

I bet ANYTHING Trump was one of them who was against them, too, just like he is masks.

Before face masks, Americans went to war against seat belts

Before face masks, Americans went to war against seat belts

"There was a libertarian streak among resistors," Ralph Nader told Business Insider.

www.businessinsider.com

• A small but vocal minority of people in the US are protesting face-mask mandates.
• In the early 1980s, the public-safety battle was over seat belts. Most Americans didn't use them, and 65% opposed them being enforced by law.
• "There was a libertarian streak among resistors," car-safety pioneer Ralph Nader told Business Insider. "They took the stance that 'you're not going to tie the American people up in seat belts.'"
• More than 50 years after "Unsafe at Any Speed," Nader said, "We are a very hard society to change cognitively.""""

So let's take the politics out of this mask thing and get healthy again!
Protect yourself, protect your friends and take your tip from the scientists and docs!

I still refuse to wear a seat belt.

 

[dudmuck]

I can't breath with a mask on. I couldn't stand oxygen masks when i WENT in for an operation, I tolerate the mask less than those. I have problems breathing. I'll stay home until whenever. I don't want to live in a world where everyone wears a mask.

 

[Flopper]

Just because democrats believe in racial equality and willing to

Whatever is commonly excepted, he is willing to challenge it if he sees it to his advantage to do so. Unlike most presidents, he has no pet issues that drive him, only the desire to win. The issues such as immigration, voter fraud, coronavirus, abortion, trade, defense, etc are nothing to him but winning is everything. If he wins the next election and democrats win the congress, I would expect he would change positions on almost all issues he supported to win the election.

Possible, but not likely. We will have two choices this election: Trump and Biden. If Trump wins, he may go in the opposite direction of all his issues. If Biden wins, we know that's the direction he's going. I'd say our best chances for that not to happen is voting for President Trump.

Well, if you're happy with 11.5% unemployment, 132,000 dead from an epidemic the president is now promoting by failing to support his administration guidelines, and division and violence in every major city due in no small part from the presidents message of hate and division then Trump's your man because it will certainly continue under his leadership.

Yes, I am happy. I'm happy with the way he handled it, how he went into action getting PPE and equipment in case this thing really got out of hand, I liked the way he helped these Democrat cities be prepared since they had the worst of it. I do like everything he did.

A police officer is responsible for a death of a black career criminal in a Democrat town in a Democrat state. Democrats went out to protest, riot, and destroy personal and public property. Trying to convince people that all this Democrat activity was Trump's fault will only fall on deaf ears, other than the liberals who were never going to vote for Trump anyway. They still believe Russia fixed our election after all.

The shutdown closed down the country. When we started opening back up, employment shot back up; not nearly to the successful levels Trump had us at, but very impressive. June numbers were very impressive, along with a higher consumer confidence index. The stock market is even bouncing along in the right direction. You bet I'm satisfied. Trump gave America assurance that everything would be alright. That's what a real leader is supposed to do, especially when his opposition were telling people this was the end of the Fn world because they were trying to help destroy the economy.

Well I'm glad you're happy. I wonder how many other voters are going to be happy with a 10% unemployment rate, an epidemic that has killed over 200,000 and is still out of control, and racial unrest and violence in all the major cities.

Did you blame Hussein for the racial unrest and violence of major cities? He had two riots during his terms. Trump had one. And keep in mind, all were in Democrat run cities.

Unemployment being at 10% is not acceptable under normal conditions. This is not a normal condition. This is a worldwide pandemic. The fact that we cut our unemployment in half in two months amid this worldwide problem is acceptable to me.

I don't blame Donald Trump for the virus, the violence, nor the economic slowdown. I blame him for making it worse, a lot worse.

Trump's rhetoric fans the flames violence and division. Trump has presented himself as someone who seeks conflict, not conciliation, a fighter, not a peacemaker. With the country on edge, ravaged by an epidemic, hammered by economic collapse, divided over lockdowns and even face masks and now torn apart once again by race, Trump’s first instinct has been to look for someone to fight and to cast blame.

Trump makes no appeal for calm. Instead in tweets and comments to reporters, he blames the unrest on Democrats, called on “Liberal Governors and Mayors” to get “MUCH tougher” on the crowds, threatened to intervene with “the unlimited power of our Military” and even suggested his own supporters mount a counter demonstration. Turmp has done just about everything a president should not do when dealing social unrest, protests, and riots.

Obama's reaction is just the opposite of Donald Trump, calm, rarely judgmental, and always addressing what is being done or can be done to cool down the situation. Trump reaction is sending in troops, suggesting that violence should be met with more violence.

And Trump is absolutely correct. How many weeks has this been going on for now? It's ridiculous. But why the continued civil unrest? Because nobody is stopping it, even to the point of calling this mayhem the Summer of Love.

These problems are not taking place in red cities with Republicans leading the charge. These problems stem from Democrat cities with Democrats causing the problems and damage. At the beginning your people were screaming that Trump is not doing anything about it, and when Trump announced that he may, are now screaming he's being to confrontational and divisive.

You are biased which is why you see things the way you do, but people not diehard Democrats do not see things the way you do. They see things for what they really are, and the November election will be evidence of that. People are going back to work, spending money, trying to regain some semblance of normality. Unemployment dropped dramatically, and it's all because we have a President restoring confidence in the public.

The root cause of the problem is police killing blacks, not the democrat party. There are hundreds of cities with democrat mayors that experience little or no violence in protests and there has been protest with violence in a number of cities with republican mayors such as Sioux Falls SD, Omaha, NB, Las Vegas, Nv, Miami Fl, and Jacksonville Fl. The political party of the mayor is irrelevant.

The kind of help cities with racial unrest, protests, and violence are looking for from the president are peaceful solutions and words to calm down the violence not treats send in troops and turn the city into a blood bath.

BTW If you haven't figured this out, every member on this board including you are biased.

Without doubt I'm biased. But I also see things clearly. You don't have Republicans in polo shirts tipping over police cars and starting stores on fire. So what violence took place in cities with Republican leadership that did nothing, or even encouraged it?

Over this weekend, there were 29 shootings and three dead in the city of Cleveland. The lowlifes painted a BLM mural on a main street, and the Mayor had 24/7 police protection for that mural while all the other units were extremely backed up on their calls making it more dangerous for them and citizens alike. Now there is a movement to ape other cities in getting rid of or defunding their police department. So the show is just getting started.

You see, there is no logical person that can look at all this and blame the President of the United States, especially since a city has to make a request to the White House for aid, which to my knowledge, no Democrat Mayor did. Democrats are party first--country second people which is why they are defunding or considering defunding their police departments. There will be a crime wave like we've never seen before in these areas, and they (with the help of MSM) try to blame all these Democrat idiotic moves on the President. But like I said, it won't work on open minded people.

As I said, mayors, both democrat and republican in cities with violence only want one thing form the president, keep the fuck out of their city and take his hate filled rhetoric someplace else. It's causing enough problems as it is. If the mayors decide their police need help, they can ask the governor to send in the National Guard who are much better trained at riot control than federal troops. Trump has done absolutely nothing to quell the violence but has sure aggravated it. By inserting himself into a highly charged racial issue and attacking mayors and threatening to have unruly protesters shot, he is just makes the situation worse by bringing Trump and anti Trump protesters into the melee.

Hasn't he made the epidemic bad enough by delaying the test kits for nearly two months and then encouraging his folks to violate mask and social distancing guidelines. Why in the world does he think he needs more violence in the streets. How does that help him in November?

First of all it has nothing to do with Trump or who is in the White House. Thanks to our last failed President who did nothing with the riots, people now feel they can conduct them anytime they wish with impunity. Secondly, this has absolutely nothing to do with race. The police never said anything racial while trying to arrest this guy, they didn't go after him because he was black, they went after him for passing counterfeit money, which is a federal offense, and the only people that made it racial are the Democrats because they feel the people are stupid enough to believe it when they say it. Their readers will never question nor research their claim. It was the clerk of the store that summoned police.

Thirdly, Trump never held up any testing kits. The only people who had FDA approval to make those kits were the CDC. When we realized we were starting to have a serious problem, they started to use those kits which were defective, and they all had to be thrown out. The President was faced with this serious problem with no available tests. So he did whatever he could to get the private market to help save the day. The problem is by the time we found all this out, nearly everybody in the world wanted those test kits too.

You will learn all these things and more during the debates, if the DNC doesn't keep Biden away from Trump which I believe is going to be their number one priority.

The BLM protests have nothing to do with race? Now that's a new one.

Who do you think the CDC and FDA work for? Among all of Trump's little projects like building walls and draining swamps, and of course getting himself reelected, he has the responsibility of managing his people. The CDC had the same information at the same time as the rest of world and they had working test kits in March and the US did not. The president has to answer for this fuck up because there are a lot people that died do to the fact that there was no screening for the virus thus very little contract tracing and quarantining.

I'm sure Trump will try to blame everybody from Obama to China to the WHO, to his own people for lack test kits but that's not gonna fly because this is the Trump's responsibility. Although Trump said in March he refuses to take any responsibility for this, you can bet voters are going to hold him responsible.

Then I think you're dreaming. Trump is not in charge of who the FDA gave exclusive rights to creating test kits. He nor anybody else even paid attention. It's not his fault, it's our bureaucracies (as usual) that are at fault. It was all hand washing; one bureaucracy taking care of another.

Yes, BLM is about race. They made a race issue that never existed. However the situation had nothing to do with race other than the fact the officer was white and suspect black, which is most of the time anyway. The officer didn't use any racial epithets, he didn't mention race, he has no history of problems with people of color. It was simply because he was white. Of course if it was the other way around and we made a big deal out of it, you on the left would be screaming stereotyping and racial profiling.

Yes, Trump will blame China as most any half-intelligent person would. That's where the virus originated from. They kept the world in the dark when they should have alerted everybody from day one. Instead, while they banned domestic flights out of Wuhan, they allowed international flights to pass the disease to the rest of the world. Try convincing voters that was Trump's fault.

If the Democrats have the guts to let Biden debate President Trump, they will make no mention of your concerns. If they do, the President will educate all the public what really took place in this whole insane situation. Watch how they avoid those questions.

It's a bit delusional to believe the president has no responsibility for the people that serve at his pleasure. His orders carry the weight of law within the executive branch of government. Trump is not an outsider, he is the head of the government and he is ultimately responsible for the executive branch of government.

The problems in producing test kits in the first 90 days of the epidemic lie with the CDC, not contractors. The CDC failed in it's effort to produce workable test kits and the Trump administration failed to take advantage of the test kits developed by the WHO. Instead our government plodded along in March until they finally contracted for production of test kits to supply the states. By the time the states were receiving workable test kits the window for controlling the virus had closed. During the first 60 to 90 days of an epidemic every minute counts because the virus will spread exponentially. A few cases become dozens and dozens become thousands.

Suggesting that in the debates you will get the real story of how the Trump administration squandered those precious days from late January to early March is not going to happen and you know it. He will blame everyone he can think of but certainly will not take any responsibility.

Testing failures have plagued the U.S. response to Covid-19. How did we get here?

Problems with diagnostic testing have plagued the U.S. response to the #coronavirus pandemic. How did we get here?

www.statnews.com

View attachment 360160
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/full-list-total-tests-for-covid-19

You can stop a forest fire with single bucket of water if you catch it soon enough. The same is true for an epidemic. Look at South Korea in your graph in early March. They began a nationwide testing program with tracing and quarantining. They reduced the number new cases by 90% by the first of April because they started in time. The US had few if any working test kits in early March and did not have them in areas where breakouts were occurring until the 1st week of April. Almost all testing prior to that time was done after admissions to hospitals. Since exposure was typical one to three weeks before admission, effective tracing and quarantining was nearly impossible. Thus the fire was out of control. So America entered into the mitigation phase which simply meant separating people by any means to keep the virus from spreading, stay at home orders, shutting down businesses and schools, social distancing, and masks which of course had a devastating effect on the economy. Testing/tracing/quarantining in April and on helps mediate the spread but it will never control the virus. That train left the station in March.

America's healthcare system, and medical research infrastructure made it the best prepared country in the world to deal with the virus but it's response was one of the worst simple because the nation was not focused on stopping the virus in the first few critical months.

 

[Flopper]

I bet ANYTHING Trump was one of them who was against them, too, just like he is masks.

Before face masks, Americans went to war against seat belts

Before face masks, Americans went to war against seat belts

"There was a libertarian streak among resistors," Ralph Nader told Business Insider.

www.businessinsider.com

• A small but vocal minority of people in the US are protesting face-mask mandates.
• In the early 1980s, the public-safety battle was over seat belts. Most Americans didn't use them, and 65% opposed them being enforced by law.
• "There was a libertarian streak among resistors," car-safety pioneer Ralph Nader told Business Insider. "They took the stance that 'you're not going to tie the American people up in seat belts.'"
• More than 50 years after "Unsafe at Any Speed," Nader said, "We are a very hard society to change cognitively.""""

So let's take the politics out of this mask thing and get healthy again!
Protect yourself, protect your friends and take your tip from the scientists and docs!

I still refuse to wear a seat belt.

Why wouldn't you wear seat belts? They are not optional equipment so it doesn't cost you anything. Unless you live in New Hampshire, you can be fined for not wearing them. If you are in an accident and the insurance company finds out that you were not wearing a seat belt they can reduce any personal injury claim. Air bags and other supplemental safety equipment is designed to work in conjunction with seat belts. If you're not wearing your seat belt in an accident, other safety equipment may not work properly. Lastly, your chances of surviving a head on collision can be as much as 40% better with seat belts.

My sister in law was in the passenger seat during a serious accident and she went through the windshield. She spent nearly a year in and out of the hospital, having 14 operations including 4 for plastic surgery. She was 19 years old and she never walked again. That could have been avoided if she had just buckled up.

 

[Flopper]

I can't breath with a mask on. I couldn't stand oxygen masks when i WENT in for an operation, I tolerate the mask less than those. I have problems breathing. I'll stay home until whenever. I don't want to live in a world where everyone wears a mask.

If you thing a mask is bad, you should try a ventilator.

 

[Slyhunter]

I can't breath with a mask on. I couldn't stand oxygen masks when i WENT in for an operation, I tolerate the mask less than those. I have problems breathing. I'll stay home until whenever. I don't want to live in a world where everyone wears a mask.

Since that Uterus holds a life and removing it would cause it's death.
Not wearing a mask will not cause me to die and even so, I'm an adult able to make my own choices but the child isn't.

 

[Slyhunter]

Just because democrats believe in racial equality and willing to

Whatever is commonly excepted, he is willing to challenge it if he sees it to his advantage to do so. Unlike most presidents, he has no pet issues that drive him, only the desire to win. The issues such as immigration, voter fraud, coronavirus, abortion, trade, defense, etc are nothing to him but winning is everything. If he wins the next election and democrats win the congress, I would expect he would change positions on almost all issues he supported to win the election.

Possible, but not likely. We will have two choices this election: Trump and Biden. If Trump wins, he may go in the opposite direction of all his issues. If Biden wins, we know that's the direction he's going. I'd say our best chances for that not to happen is voting for President Trump.

Well, if you're happy with 11.5% unemployment, 132,000 dead from an epidemic the president is now promoting by failing to support his administration guidelines, and division and violence in every major city due in no small part from the presidents message of hate and division then Trump's your man because it will certainly continue under his leadership.

Yes, I am happy. I'm happy with the way he handled it, how he went into action getting PPE and equipment in case this thing really got out of hand, I liked the way he helped these Democrat cities be prepared since they had the worst of it. I do like everything he did.

A police officer is responsible for a death of a black career criminal in a Democrat town in a Democrat state. Democrats went out to protest, riot, and destroy personal and public property. Trying to convince people that all this Democrat activity was Trump's fault will only fall on deaf ears, other than the liberals who were never going to vote for Trump anyway. They still believe Russia fixed our election after all.

The shutdown closed down the country. When we started opening back up, employment shot back up; not nearly to the successful levels Trump had us at, but very impressive. June numbers were very impressive, along with a higher consumer confidence index. The stock market is even bouncing along in the right direction. You bet I'm satisfied. Trump gave America assurance that everything would be alright. That's what a real leader is supposed to do, especially when his opposition were telling people this was the end of the Fn world because they were trying to help destroy the economy.

Well I'm glad you're happy. I wonder how many other voters are going to be happy with a 10% unemployment rate, an epidemic that has killed over 200,000 and is still out of control, and racial unrest and violence in all the major cities.

Did you blame Hussein for the racial unrest and violence of major cities? He had two riots during his terms. Trump had one. And keep in mind, all were in Democrat run cities.

Unemployment being at 10% is not acceptable under normal conditions. This is not a normal condition. This is a worldwide pandemic. The fact that we cut our unemployment in half in two months amid this worldwide problem is acceptable to me.

I don't blame Donald Trump for the virus, the violence, nor the economic slowdown. I blame him for making it worse, a lot worse.

Trump's rhetoric fans the flames violence and division. Trump has presented himself as someone who seeks conflict, not conciliation, a fighter, not a peacemaker. With the country on edge, ravaged by an epidemic, hammered by economic collapse, divided over lockdowns and even face masks and now torn apart once again by race, Trump’s first instinct has been to look for someone to fight and to cast blame.

Trump makes no appeal for calm. Instead in tweets and comments to reporters, he blames the unrest on Democrats, called on “Liberal Governors and Mayors” to get “MUCH tougher” on the crowds, threatened to intervene with “the unlimited power of our Military” and even suggested his own supporters mount a counter demonstration. Turmp has done just about everything a president should not do when dealing social unrest, protests, and riots.

Obama's reaction is just the opposite of Donald Trump, calm, rarely judgmental, and always addressing what is being done or can be done to cool down the situation. Trump reaction is sending in troops, suggesting that violence should be met with more violence.

And Trump is absolutely correct. How many weeks has this been going on for now? It's ridiculous. But why the continued civil unrest? Because nobody is stopping it, even to the point of calling this mayhem the Summer of Love.

These problems are not taking place in red cities with Republicans leading the charge. These problems stem from Democrat cities with Democrats causing the problems and damage. At the beginning your people were screaming that Trump is not doing anything about it, and when Trump announced that he may, are now screaming he's being to confrontational and divisive.

You are biased which is why you see things the way you do, but people not diehard Democrats do not see things the way you do. They see things for what they really are, and the November election will be evidence of that. People are going back to work, spending money, trying to regain some semblance of normality. Unemployment dropped dramatically, and it's all because we have a President restoring confidence in the public.

The root cause of the problem is police killing blacks, not the democrat party. There are hundreds of cities with democrat mayors that experience little or no violence in protests and there has been protest with violence in a number of cities with republican mayors such as Sioux Falls SD, Omaha, NB, Las Vegas, Nv, Miami Fl, and Jacksonville Fl. The political party of the mayor is irrelevant.

The kind of help cities with racial unrest, protests, and violence are looking for from the president are peaceful solutions and words to calm down the violence not treats send in troops and turn the city into a blood bath.

BTW If you haven't figured this out, every member on this board including you are biased.

Without doubt I'm biased. But I also see things clearly. You don't have Republicans in polo shirts tipping over police cars and starting stores on fire. So what violence took place in cities with Republican leadership that did nothing, or even encouraged it?

Over this weekend, there were 29 shootings and three dead in the city of Cleveland. The lowlifes painted a BLM mural on a main street, and the Mayor had 24/7 police protection for that mural while all the other units were extremely backed up on their calls making it more dangerous for them and citizens alike. Now there is a movement to ape other cities in getting rid of or defunding their police department. So the show is just getting started.

You see, there is no logical person that can look at all this and blame the President of the United States, especially since a city has to make a request to the White House for aid, which to my knowledge, no Democrat Mayor did. Democrats are party first--country second people which is why they are defunding or considering defunding their police departments. There will be a crime wave like we've never seen before in these areas, and they (with the help of MSM) try to blame all these Democrat idiotic moves on the President. But like I said, it won't work on open minded people.

As I said, mayors, both democrat and republican in cities with violence only want one thing form the president, keep the fuck out of their city and take his hate filled rhetoric someplace else. It's causing enough problems as it is. If the mayors decide their police need help, they can ask the governor to send in the National Guard who are much better trained at riot control than federal troops. Trump has done absolutely nothing to quell the violence but has sure aggravated it. By inserting himself into a highly charged racial issue and attacking mayors and threatening to have unruly protesters shot, he is just makes the situation worse by bringing Trump and anti Trump protesters into the melee.

Hasn't he made the epidemic bad enough by delaying the test kits for nearly two months and then encouraging his folks to violate mask and social distancing guidelines. Why in the world does he think he needs more violence in the streets. How does that help him in November?

First of all it has nothing to do with Trump or who is in the White House. Thanks to our last failed President who did nothing with the riots, people now feel they can conduct them anytime they wish with impunity. Secondly, this has absolutely nothing to do with race. The police never said anything racial while trying to arrest this guy, they didn't go after him because he was black, they went after him for passing counterfeit money, which is a federal offense, and the only people that made it racial are the Democrats because they feel the people are stupid enough to believe it when they say it. Their readers will never question nor research their claim. It was the clerk of the store that summoned police.

Thirdly, Trump never held up any testing kits. The only people who had FDA approval to make those kits were the CDC. When we realized we were starting to have a serious problem, they started to use those kits which were defective, and they all had to be thrown out. The President was faced with this serious problem with no available tests. So he did whatever he could to get the private market to help save the day. The problem is by the time we found all this out, nearly everybody in the world wanted those test kits too.

You will learn all these things and more during the debates, if the DNC doesn't keep Biden away from Trump which I believe is going to be their number one priority.

The BLM protests have nothing to do with race? Now that's a new one.

Who do you think the CDC and FDA work for? Among all of Trump's little projects like building walls and draining swamps, and of course getting himself reelected, he has the responsibility of managing his people. The CDC had the same information at the same time as the rest of world and they had working test kits in March and the US did not. The president has to answer for this fuck up because there are a lot people that died do to the fact that there was no screening for the virus thus very little contract tracing and quarantining.

I'm sure Trump will try to blame everybody from Obama to China to the WHO, to his own people for lack test kits but that's not gonna fly because this is the Trump's responsibility. Although Trump said in March he refuses to take any responsibility for this, you can bet voters are going to hold him responsible.

Then I think you're dreaming. Trump is not in charge of who the FDA gave exclusive rights to creating test kits. He nor anybody else even paid attention. It's not his fault, it's our bureaucracies (as usual) that are at fault. It was all hand washing; one bureaucracy taking care of another.

Yes, BLM is about race. They made a race issue that never existed. However the situation had nothing to do with race other than the fact the officer was white and suspect black, which is most of the time anyway. The officer didn't use any racial epithets, he didn't mention race, he has no history of problems with people of color. It was simply because he was white. Of course if it was the other way around and we made a big deal out of it, you on the left would be screaming stereotyping and racial profiling.

Yes, Trump will blame China as most any half-intelligent person would. That's where the virus originated from. They kept the world in the dark when they should have alerted everybody from day one. Instead, while they banned domestic flights out of Wuhan, they allowed international flights to pass the disease to the rest of the world. Try convincing voters that was Trump's fault.

If the Democrats have the guts to let Biden debate President Trump, they will make no mention of your concerns. If they do, the President will educate all the public what really took place in this whole insane situation. Watch how they avoid those questions.

It's a bit delusional to believe the president has no responsibility for the people that serve at his pleasure. His orders carry the weight of law within the executive branch of government. Trump is not an outsider, he is the head of the government and he is ultimately responsible for the executive branch of government.

The problems in producing test kits in the first 90 days of the epidemic lie with the CDC, not contractors. The CDC failed in it's effort to produce workable test kits and the Trump administration failed to take advantage of the test kits developed by the WHO. Instead our government plodded along in March until they finally contracted for production of test kits to supply the states. By the time the states were receiving workable test kits the window for controlling the virus had closed. During the first 60 to 90 days of an epidemic every minute counts because the virus will spread exponentially. A few cases become dozens and dozens become thousands.

Suggesting that in the debates you will get the real story of how the Trump administration squandered those precious days from late January to early March is not going to happen and you know it. He will blame everyone he can think of but certainly will not take any responsibility.

Testing failures have plagued the U.S. response to Covid-19. How did we get here?

Problems with diagnostic testing have plagued the U.S. response to the #coronavirus pandemic. How did we get here?

www.statnews.com

View attachment 360160
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/full-list-total-tests-for-covid-19

You can stop a forest fire with single bucket of water if you catch it soon enough. The same is true for an epidemic. Look at South Korea in your graph in early March. They began a nationwide testing program with tracing and quarantining. They reduced the number new cases by 90% by the first of April because they started in time. The US had few if any working test kits in early March and did not have them in areas where breakouts were occurring until the 1st week of April. Almost all testing prior to that time was done after admissions to hospitals. Since exposure was typical one to three weeks before admission, effective tracing and quarantining was nearly impossible. Thus the fire was out of control. So America entered into the mitigation phase which simply meant separating people by any means to keep the virus from spreading, stay at home orders, shutting down businesses and schools, social distancing, and masks which of course had a devastating effect on the economy. Testing/tracing/quarantining in April and on helps mediate the spread but it will never control the virus. That train left the station in March.

America's healthcare system, and medical research infrastructure made it the best prepared country in the world to deal with the virus but it's response was one of the worst simple because the nation was not focused on stopping the virus in the first few critical months.

That's like saying Look at Cambodia. I got first person reports from Cambodia, they're saying "what virus?"

 

[Slyhunter]

I bet ANYTHING Trump was one of them who was against them, too, just like he is masks.

Before face masks, Americans went to war against seat belts

Before face masks, Americans went to war against seat belts

"There was a libertarian streak among resistors," Ralph Nader told Business Insider.

www.businessinsider.com

• A small but vocal minority of people in the US are protesting face-mask mandates.
• In the early 1980s, the public-safety battle was over seat belts. Most Americans didn't use them, and 65% opposed them being enforced by law.
• "There was a libertarian streak among resistors," car-safety pioneer Ralph Nader told Business Insider. "They took the stance that 'you're not going to tie the American people up in seat belts.'"
• More than 50 years after "Unsafe at Any Speed," Nader said, "We are a very hard society to change cognitively.""""

So let's take the politics out of this mask thing and get healthy again!
Protect yourself, protect your friends and take your tip from the scientists and docs!

I still refuse to wear a seat belt.

Why wouldn't you wear seat belts? They are not optional equipment so it doesn't cost you anything. Unless you live in New Hampshire, you can be fined for not wearing them. If you are in an accident and the insurance company finds out that you were not wearing a seat belt they can reduce any personal injury claim. Air bags and other supplemental safety equipment is designed to work in conjunction with seat belts. If you're not wearing your seat belt in an accident, other safety equipment may not work properly. Lastly, your chances of surviving a head on collision can be as much as 40% better with seat belts.

My sister in law was in the passenger seat during a serious accident and she went through the windshield. She spent nearly a year in and out of the hospital, having 14 operations including 4 for plastic surgery. She was 19 years old and she never walked again. That could have been avoided if she had just buckled up.

being t-boned your most likely to not receive injury if you aren't wearing a seat belt.

 

[dudmuck]

I can't breath with a mask on. I couldn't stand oxygen masks when i WENT in for an operation, I tolerate the mask less than those. I have problems breathing. I'll stay home until whenever. I don't want to live in a world where everyone wears a mask.

Since that Uterus holds a life and removing it would cause it's death.
Not wearing a mask will not cause me to die and even so, I'm an adult able to make my own choices but the child isn't.

A growing body of evidence supports the idea that wearing face masks in public, even when you feel well, can help curb the spread of the coronavirus — since people can spread the virus even without showing symptoms. That's the main reason to wear a mask: to protect other people from you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I can't breath with a mask on. I couldn't stand oxygen masks when i WENT in for an operation, I tolerate the mask less than those. I have problems breathing. I'll stay home until whenever. I don't want to live in a world where everyone wears a mask.

Since that Uterus holds a life and removing it would cause it's death.
Not wearing a mask will not cause me to die and even so, I'm an adult able to make my own choices but the child isn't.

A growing body of evidence supports the idea that wearing face masks in public, even when you feel well, can help curb the spread of the coronavirus — since people can spread the virus even without showing symptoms. That's the main reason to wear a mask: to protect other people from you.

However that's not written in stone, it's what the left wishes to believe. While you can find studies and such to show they work, I can find studies that say they don't. It's subjective, just like man made global warming, or the effects of hydroxychloroquine.

Because there is no consensus, then it should be the individuals choice whether to wear a mask or not.

 

[dblack]

I bet ANYTHING Trump was one of them who was against them, too, just like he is masks.

Invalid comparison. I'm actually in favor of mask-wearing. And, as an emergency response to a existential threat, I even support (temporary) laws mandating it. But it's nothing at all like seat belt laws. Not wearing a seat belt doesn't directly threaten others.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I bet ANYTHING Trump was one of them who was against them, too, just like he is masks.

Before face masks, Americans went to war against seat belts

Before face masks, Americans went to war against seat belts

"There was a libertarian streak among resistors," Ralph Nader told Business Insider.

www.businessinsider.com

• A small but vocal minority of people in the US are protesting face-mask mandates.
• In the early 1980s, the public-safety battle was over seat belts. Most Americans didn't use them, and 65% opposed them being enforced by law.
• "There was a libertarian streak among resistors," car-safety pioneer Ralph Nader told Business Insider. "They took the stance that 'you're not going to tie the American people up in seat belts.'"
• More than 50 years after "Unsafe at Any Speed," Nader said, "We are a very hard society to change cognitively.""""

So let's take the politics out of this mask thing and get healthy again!
Protect yourself, protect your friends and take your tip from the scientists and docs!

I still refuse to wear a seat belt.

Why wouldn't you wear seat belts? They are not optional equipment so it doesn't cost you anything. Unless you live in New Hampshire, you can be fined for not wearing them. If you are in an accident and the insurance company finds out that you were not wearing a seat belt they can reduce any personal injury claim. Air bags and other supplemental safety equipment is designed to work in conjunction with seat belts. If you're not wearing your seat belt in an accident, other safety equipment may not work properly. Lastly, your chances of surviving a head on collision can be as much as 40% better with seat belts.

My sister in law was in the passenger seat during a serious accident and she went through the windshield. She spent nearly a year in and out of the hospital, having 14 operations including 4 for plastic surgery. She was 19 years old and she never walked again. That could have been avoided if she had just buckled up.

Then that was her choice to make, just like ours to make.

Years ago a trooper pulled me over for not wearing a seatbelt. While in our state, not wearing a seatbelt is a secondary offense and the police need another reason to pull you over, truck drivers fall under the federal laws which allow them to do so just for a seatbelt.

He walked up to my truck and told me why he pulled me over. He wrote out a citation, but before he let me go, he asked me why I don't wear my seatbelt? I told him because every time I put one on, I feel the government squeezing the liberty out of my body. He just stood there with his mouth open and didn't say a word, and I took off.

Our founders didn't create a government to be run by businesses such as insurance companies, and that's why it's a law you must wear a seatbelt. I'm sure they never dreamt that one day, the government would be so powerful as to mandate what safety precautions you must take for yourself.

 

[dudmuck]

I can't breath with a mask on. I couldn't stand oxygen masks when i WENT in for an operation, I tolerate the mask less than those. I have problems breathing. I'll stay home until whenever. I don't want to live in a world where everyone wears a mask.

Since that Uterus holds a life and removing it would cause it's death.
Not wearing a mask will not cause me to die and even so, I'm an adult able to make my own choices but the child isn't.

A growing body of evidence supports the idea that wearing face masks in public, even when you feel well, can help curb the spread of the coronavirus — since people can spread the virus even without showing symptoms. That's the main reason to wear a mask: to protect other people from you.

However that's not written in stone, it's what the left wishes to believe. While you can find studies and such to show they work, I can find studies that say they don't. It's subjective, just like man made global warming, or the effects of hydroxychloroquine.

Because there is no consensus, then it should be the individuals choice whether to wear a mask or not.

well then, find those studies that show they're ineffective.

Countries where everyone wore masks saw COVID death rates 100 times lower than projected

Now that there is global data about where COVID is spreading, scientists can see the various factors that help mitigate its spread. The simplest and most effective: masks.

www.fastcompany.com

The same should apply to wearing seat belts in cars, no?

 

[Flopper]

Just because democrats believe in racial equality and willing to

Whatever is commonly excepted, he is willing to challenge it if he sees it to his advantage to do so. Unlike most presidents, he has no pet issues that drive him, only the desire to win. The issues such as immigration, voter fraud, coronavirus, abortion, trade, defense, etc are nothing to him but winning is everything. If he wins the next election and democrats win the congress, I would expect he would change positions on almost all issues he supported to win the election.

Possible, but not likely. We will have two choices this election: Trump and Biden. If Trump wins, he may go in the opposite direction of all his issues. If Biden wins, we know that's the direction he's going. I'd say our best chances for that not to happen is voting for President Trump.

Well, if you're happy with 11.5% unemployment, 132,000 dead from an epidemic the president is now promoting by failing to support his administration guidelines, and division and violence in every major city due in no small part from the presidents message of hate and division then Trump's your man because it will certainly continue under his leadership.

Yes, I am happy. I'm happy with the way he handled it, how he went into action getting PPE and equipment in case this thing really got out of hand, I liked the way he helped these Democrat cities be prepared since they had the worst of it. I do like everything he did.

A police officer is responsible for a death of a black career criminal in a Democrat town in a Democrat state. Democrats went out to protest, riot, and destroy personal and public property. Trying to convince people that all this Democrat activity was Trump's fault will only fall on deaf ears, other than the liberals who were never going to vote for Trump anyway. They still believe Russia fixed our election after all.

The shutdown closed down the country. When we started opening back up, employment shot back up; not nearly to the successful levels Trump had us at, but very impressive. June numbers were very impressive, along with a higher consumer confidence index. The stock market is even bouncing along in the right direction. You bet I'm satisfied. Trump gave America assurance that everything would be alright. That's what a real leader is supposed to do, especially when his opposition were telling people this was the end of the Fn world because they were trying to help destroy the economy.

Well I'm glad you're happy. I wonder how many other voters are going to be happy with a 10% unemployment rate, an epidemic that has killed over 200,000 and is still out of control, and racial unrest and violence in all the major cities.

Did you blame Hussein for the racial unrest and violence of major cities? He had two riots during his terms. Trump had one. And keep in mind, all were in Democrat run cities.

Unemployment being at 10% is not acceptable under normal conditions. This is not a normal condition. This is a worldwide pandemic. The fact that we cut our unemployment in half in two months amid this worldwide problem is acceptable to me.

I don't blame Donald Trump for the virus, the violence, nor the economic slowdown. I blame him for making it worse, a lot worse.

Trump's rhetoric fans the flames violence and division. Trump has presented himself as someone who seeks conflict, not conciliation, a fighter, not a peacemaker. With the country on edge, ravaged by an epidemic, hammered by economic collapse, divided over lockdowns and even face masks and now torn apart once again by race, Trump’s first instinct has been to look for someone to fight and to cast blame.

Trump makes no appeal for calm. Instead in tweets and comments to reporters, he blames the unrest on Democrats, called on “Liberal Governors and Mayors” to get “MUCH tougher” on the crowds, threatened to intervene with “the unlimited power of our Military” and even suggested his own supporters mount a counter demonstration. Turmp has done just about everything a president should not do when dealing social unrest, protests, and riots.

Obama's reaction is just the opposite of Donald Trump, calm, rarely judgmental, and always addressing what is being done or can be done to cool down the situation. Trump reaction is sending in troops, suggesting that violence should be met with more violence.

And Trump is absolutely correct. How many weeks has this been going on for now? It's ridiculous. But why the continued civil unrest? Because nobody is stopping it, even to the point of calling this mayhem the Summer of Love.

These problems are not taking place in red cities with Republicans leading the charge. These problems stem from Democrat cities with Democrats causing the problems and damage. At the beginning your people were screaming that Trump is not doing anything about it, and when Trump announced that he may, are now screaming he's being to confrontational and divisive.

You are biased which is why you see things the way you do, but people not diehard Democrats do not see things the way you do. They see things for what they really are, and the November election will be evidence of that. People are going back to work, spending money, trying to regain some semblance of normality. Unemployment dropped dramatically, and it's all because we have a President restoring confidence in the public.

The root cause of the problem is police killing blacks, not the democrat party. There are hundreds of cities with democrat mayors that experience little or no violence in protests and there has been protest with violence in a number of cities with republican mayors such as Sioux Falls SD, Omaha, NB, Las Vegas, Nv, Miami Fl, and Jacksonville Fl. The political party of the mayor is irrelevant.

The kind of help cities with racial unrest, protests, and violence are looking for from the president are peaceful solutions and words to calm down the violence not treats send in troops and turn the city into a blood bath.

BTW If you haven't figured this out, every member on this board including you are biased.

Without doubt I'm biased. But I also see things clearly. You don't have Republicans in polo shirts tipping over police cars and starting stores on fire. So what violence took place in cities with Republican leadership that did nothing, or even encouraged it?

Over this weekend, there were 29 shootings and three dead in the city of Cleveland. The lowlifes painted a BLM mural on a main street, and the Mayor had 24/7 police protection for that mural while all the other units were extremely backed up on their calls making it more dangerous for them and citizens alike. Now there is a movement to ape other cities in getting rid of or defunding their police department. So the show is just getting started.

You see, there is no logical person that can look at all this and blame the President of the United States, especially since a city has to make a request to the White House for aid, which to my knowledge, no Democrat Mayor did. Democrats are party first--country second people which is why they are defunding or considering defunding their police departments. There will be a crime wave like we've never seen before in these areas, and they (with the help of MSM) try to blame all these Democrat idiotic moves on the President. But like I said, it won't work on open minded people.

As I said, mayors, both democrat and republican in cities with violence only want one thing form the president, keep the fuck out of their city and take his hate filled rhetoric someplace else. It's causing enough problems as it is. If the mayors decide their police need help, they can ask the governor to send in the National Guard who are much better trained at riot control than federal troops. Trump has done absolutely nothing to quell the violence but has sure aggravated it. By inserting himself into a highly charged racial issue and attacking mayors and threatening to have unruly protesters shot, he is just makes the situation worse by bringing Trump and anti Trump protesters into the melee.

Hasn't he made the epidemic bad enough by delaying the test kits for nearly two months and then encouraging his folks to violate mask and social distancing guidelines. Why in the world does he think he needs more violence in the streets. How does that help him in November?

First of all it has nothing to do with Trump or who is in the White House. Thanks to our last failed President who did nothing with the riots, people now feel they can conduct them anytime they wish with impunity. Secondly, this has absolutely nothing to do with race. The police never said anything racial while trying to arrest this guy, they didn't go after him because he was black, they went after him for passing counterfeit money, which is a federal offense, and the only people that made it racial are the Democrats because they feel the people are stupid enough to believe it when they say it. Their readers will never question nor research their claim. It was the clerk of the store that summoned police.

Thirdly, Trump never held up any testing kits. The only people who had FDA approval to make those kits were the CDC. When we realized we were starting to have a serious problem, they started to use those kits which were defective, and they all had to be thrown out. The President was faced with this serious problem with no available tests. So he did whatever he could to get the private market to help save the day. The problem is by the time we found all this out, nearly everybody in the world wanted those test kits too.

You will learn all these things and more during the debates, if the DNC doesn't keep Biden away from Trump which I believe is going to be their number one priority.

The BLM protests have nothing to do with race? Now that's a new one.

Who do you think the CDC and FDA work for? Among all of Trump's little projects like building walls and draining swamps, and of course getting himself reelected, he has the responsibility of managing his people. The CDC had the same information at the same time as the rest of world and they had working test kits in March and the US did not. The president has to answer for this fuck up because there are a lot people that died do to the fact that there was no screening for the virus thus very little contract tracing and quarantining.

I'm sure Trump will try to blame everybody from Obama to China to the WHO, to his own people for lack test kits but that's not gonna fly because this is the Trump's responsibility. Although Trump said in March he refuses to take any responsibility for this, you can bet voters are going to hold him responsible.

Then I think you're dreaming. Trump is not in charge of who the FDA gave exclusive rights to creating test kits. He nor anybody else even paid attention. It's not his fault, it's our bureaucracies (as usual) that are at fault. It was all hand washing; one bureaucracy taking care of another.

Yes, BLM is about race. They made a race issue that never existed. However the situation had nothing to do with race other than the fact the officer was white and suspect black, which is most of the time anyway. The officer didn't use any racial epithets, he didn't mention race, he has no history of problems with people of color. It was simply because he was white. Of course if it was the other way around and we made a big deal out of it, you on the left would be screaming stereotyping and racial profiling.

Yes, Trump will blame China as most any half-intelligent person would. That's where the virus originated from. They kept the world in the dark when they should have alerted everybody from day one. Instead, while they banned domestic flights out of Wuhan, they allowed international flights to pass the disease to the rest of the world. Try convincing voters that was Trump's fault.

If the Democrats have the guts to let Biden debate President Trump, they will make no mention of your concerns. If they do, the President will educate all the public what really took place in this whole insane situation. Watch how they avoid those questions.

It's a bit delusional to believe the president has no responsibility for the people that serve at his pleasure. His orders carry the weight of law within the executive branch of government. Trump is not an outsider, he is the head of the government and he is ultimately responsible for the executive branch of government.

The problems in producing test kits in the first 90 days of the epidemic lie with the CDC, not contractors. The CDC failed in it's effort to produce workable test kits and the Trump administration failed to take advantage of the test kits developed by the WHO. Instead our government plodded along in March until they finally contracted for production of test kits to supply the states. By the time the states were receiving workable test kits the window for controlling the virus had closed. During the first 60 to 90 days of an epidemic every minute counts because the virus will spread exponentially. A few cases become dozens and dozens become thousands.

Suggesting that in the debates you will get the real story of how the Trump administration squandered those precious days from late January to early March is not going to happen and you know it. He will blame everyone he can think of but certainly will not take any responsibility.

Testing failures have plagued the U.S. response to Covid-19. How did we get here?

Problems with diagnostic testing have plagued the U.S. response to the #coronavirus pandemic. How did we get here?

www.statnews.com

View attachment 360160
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/full-list-total-tests-for-covid-19

You can stop a forest fire with single bucket of water if you catch it soon enough. The same is true for an epidemic. Look at South Korea in your graph in early March. They began a nationwide testing program with tracing and quarantining. They reduced the number new cases by 90% by the first of April because they started in time. The US had few if any working test kits in early March and did not have them in areas where breakouts were occurring until the 1st week of April. Almost all testing prior to that time was done after admissions to hospitals. Since exposure was typical one to three weeks before admission, effective tracing and quarantining was nearly impossible. Thus the fire was out of control. So America entered into the mitigation phase which simply meant separating people by any means to keep the virus from spreading, stay at home orders, shutting down businesses and schools, social distancing, and masks which of course had a devastating effect on the economy. Testing/tracing/quarantining in April and on helps mediate the spread but it will never control the virus. That train left the station in March.

America's healthcare system, and medical research infrastructure made it the best prepared country in the world to deal with the virus but it's response was one of the worst simple because the nation was not focused on stopping the virus in the first few critical months.

That's like saying Look at Cambodia. I got first person reports from Cambodia, they're saying "what virus?"

If you trying to say, it's about the size of the country, think again.
India has a population of 4 times the US and total deaths 15%
Japan has population of 40% of the US and total deaths less thatn 1%
South Korea has a population of 15% of the US and total deaths of .2%
Russia has a population of 43% of the US and total deaths 8%

With the US's healthcare system, medical research, and it's wealth, it should have had one of the best response in the world. Lack management in the early stages of the epidemic and lack of adequate testing has resulted in the US leading the world in total deaths, number cases, number of new cases, and second only to Brazil in number of new deaths.

 

[Flopper]

I can't breath with a mask on. I couldn't stand oxygen masks when i WENT in for an operation, I tolerate the mask less than those. I have problems breathing. I'll stay home until whenever. I don't want to live in a world where everyone wears a mask.

Since that Uterus holds a life and removing it would cause it's death.
Not wearing a mask will not cause me to die and even so, I'm an adult able to make my own choices but the child isn't.

A growing body of evidence supports the idea that wearing face masks in public, even when you feel well, can help curb the spread of the coronavirus — since people can spread the virus even without showing symptoms. That's the main reason to wear a mask: to protect other people from you.

There is another reason for wearing masks that we don't talk much about. Masks reduce the transmission of most viruses spread through the air. That includes influenza and colds. Hand washing will reduce the transmission of many disease such as, E Coli, Salmonella, Norovirus, etc. I expect the nation is going to come out of this epidemic healthier than we have ever seen it. A lot of the good hygienic recommendations will stick long after Conronovirus is under control.

 

[Flopper]

I can't breath with a mask on. I couldn't stand oxygen masks when i WENT in for an operation, I tolerate the mask less than those. I have problems breathing. I'll stay home until whenever. I don't want to live in a world where everyone wears a mask.

Since that Uterus holds a life and removing it would cause it's death.
Not wearing a mask will not cause me to die and even so, I'm an adult able to make my own choices but the child isn't.

A growing body of evidence supports the idea that wearing face masks in public, even when you feel well, can help curb the spread of the coronavirus — since people can spread the virus even without showing symptoms. That's the main reason to wear a mask: to protect other people from you.

However that's not written in stone, it's what the left wishes to believe. While you can find studies and such to show they work, I can find studies that say they don't. It's subjective, just like man made global warming, or the effects of hydroxychloroquine.

Because there is no consensus, then it should be the individuals choice whether to wear a mask or not.

I think there is a huge consensus among just about everybody in the healthcare field in regard to mask wearing. Of course it probably does not include Sam the Surfer, those who routinely do the opposite of whatever government says do, and my granddaughter that thinks wearing a mask makes her look ugly.

And there is a lot evidence coming from contact tracing that shows that people that are asymptomatic are spreading the virus. The super spreader in the church choir who infected 57 people was asymptomatic.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I can't breath with a mask on. I couldn't stand oxygen masks when i WENT in for an operation, I tolerate the mask less than those. I have problems breathing. I'll stay home until whenever. I don't want to live in a world where everyone wears a mask.

Since that Uterus holds a life and removing it would cause it's death.
Not wearing a mask will not cause me to die and even so, I'm an adult able to make my own choices but the child isn't.

A growing body of evidence supports the idea that wearing face masks in public, even when you feel well, can help curb the spread of the coronavirus — since people can spread the virus even without showing symptoms. That's the main reason to wear a mask: to protect other people from you.

However that's not written in stone, it's what the left wishes to believe. While you can find studies and such to show they work, I can find studies that say they don't. It's subjective, just like man made global warming, or the effects of hydroxychloroquine.

Because there is no consensus, then it should be the individuals choice whether to wear a mask or not.

I think there is a huge consensus among just everybody in the healthcare field in regard to mask wearing. Of course it probably does not include your local bartender who is out of work, Sam the Surfer, and my granddaughter that thinks wearing a mask makes her look ugly. And there is a lot evidence coming contact tracing that shows that people that are asymptomatic are spreading the virus.

I read the opposite from the CDC just a few weeks ago. This tells you how everything changes. First a mask was no good, now it's mandated in cities and states across the country. Before asymptomatic people were low risk for spreading, now the risk of spreading is the same.

I think there is a difference between going to a restaurant and going to a doctors office. Doctors are exposed to ill people day in day out. For most of us, we will probably never be around a person with Covid unless you are a socialite, or your business relies on personal contact with people all day long. Although our antibody testing is far from perfected, some are suggesting that we are already in the herd process and there's no stopping it.

The problem with this thing is we've never experienced anything like it; at least with the technology we have today. Who knows......next year at this time, they may be telling us what a waste of time and money it was for us to wear a mask. We simply don't know.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I can't breath with a mask on. I couldn't stand oxygen masks when i WENT in for an operation, I tolerate the mask less than those. I have problems breathing. I'll stay home until whenever. I don't want to live in a world where everyone wears a mask.

Since that Uterus holds a life and removing it would cause it's death.
Not wearing a mask will not cause me to die and even so, I'm an adult able to make my own choices but the child isn't.

A growing body of evidence supports the idea that wearing face masks in public, even when you feel well, can help curb the spread of the coronavirus — since people can spread the virus even without showing symptoms. That's the main reason to wear a mask: to protect other people from you.

However that's not written in stone, it's what the left wishes to believe. While you can find studies and such to show they work, I can find studies that say they don't. It's subjective, just like man made global warming, or the effects of hydroxychloroquine.

Because there is no consensus, then it should be the individuals choice whether to wear a mask or not.

well then, find those studies that show they're ineffective.

Countries where everyone wore masks saw COVID death rates 100 times lower than projected

Now that there is global data about where COVID is spreading, scientists can see the various factors that help mitigate its spread. The simplest and most effective: masks.

www.fastcompany.com

The same should apply to wearing seat belts in cars, no?

Google is loaded with them, but here is one opinion by an expert:

Cloth Masks Are Useless Against COVID-19

Lisa Brosseau, ScD: "What we’re seeing is a lot of magical thinking. A lot of wishful thinking. Cloth masks are wishful thinking."

www.infectioncontroltoday.com

No, the same should not apply to seatbelts in cars. The Government is not in charge of protecting us from ourselves. It's nowhere in the US Constitution, and nowhere discussed by our founders.

The only time government should go out on such a limb is if their conclusion was backed by empirical evidence, which this is not. It's just like global warming, nothing but opinions. As for myself, I always wear a mask for two reasons: the first is I have medical issues that make me vulnerable to death if I catch this thing, and second, the professionals at the Cleveland Clinic advised me to wear a mask when possible in public, and I trust them being a lifelong patient at the world famous facility.

But again, it's my choice the way it should be.

 

[Flopper]

I can't breath with a mask on. I couldn't stand oxygen masks when i WENT in for an operation, I tolerate the mask less than those. I have problems breathing. I'll stay home until whenever. I don't want to live in a world where everyone wears a mask.

Since that Uterus holds a life and removing it would cause it's death.
Not wearing a mask will not cause me to die and even so, I'm an adult able to make my own choices but the child isn't.

A growing body of evidence supports the idea that wearing face masks in public, even when you feel well, can help curb the spread of the coronavirus — since people can spread the virus even without showing symptoms. That's the main reason to wear a mask: to protect other people from you.

However that's not written in stone, it's what the left wishes to believe. While you can find studies and such to show they work, I can find studies that say they don't. It's subjective, just like man made global warming, or the effects of hydroxychloroquine.

Because there is no consensus, then it should be the individuals choice whether to wear a mask or not.

I think there is a huge consensus among just everybody in the healthcare field in regard to mask wearing. Of course it probably does not include your local bartender who is out of work, Sam the Surfer, and my granddaughter that thinks wearing a mask makes her look ugly. And there is a lot evidence coming contact tracing that shows that people that are asymptomatic are spreading the virus.

I read the opposite from the CDC just a few weeks ago. This tells you how everything changes. First a mask was no good, now it's mandated in cities and states across the country. Before asymptomatic people were low risk for spreading, now the risk of spreading is the same.

I think there is a difference between going to a restaurant and going to a doctors office. Doctors are exposed to ill people day in day out. For most of us, we will probably never be around a person with Covid unless you are a socialite, or your business relies on personal contact with people all day long. Although our antibody testing is far from perfected, some are suggesting that we are already in the herd process and there's no stopping it.

The problem with this thing is we've never experienced anything like it; at least with the technology we have today. Who knows......next year at this time, they may be telling us what a waste of time and money it was for us to wear a mask. We simply don't know.

Early on CDC said that masks would not protect you which was true then and is basically true today. Actually, there is a very small amount of protection for the wearer but not much. Herd immunity as defined by the scientist is a calculated estimate based on transmission rate and reproductive numbers for the virus. For this virus herd immunity is 70% of the population having been exposed, that is they have antibodies. That can be off by 10 or 15%. If the scientists definition of herd immunity is used, there should not be much difference in the calculation.

We may not have all the details of a virus but we know a lot about epidemics and how to control them. For example any airborne virus or a virus whose most common transmission is through the air, the key to stopping transmission is preventing the virus from reaching a host. Masks, plastic shields, staying away from the source of virus, staying at home, etc prevents the spread, a really easy to understand concept but pretty hard to implement in a large population.

We also know a lot about a virus based on the characteristics of the family. There are 6 types of coronavirus that can infect humans which includes Mers and SARS. They have many of the same characteristic but there are some differences. It's really fortunate that there was work done developing the SARS vaccine because this gave researchers a starting point in developing the vaccine for this member of the family. Making changes to the vaccine can be very simple. However, every time you change the vaccine you start over in testing. This is why it takes so long to develop a vaccine. The fact that we are willing to accept a vaccine which has is not very effective, 40% makes it more likely we will get one sooner rather later.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I can't breath with a mask on. I couldn't stand oxygen masks when i WENT in for an operation, I tolerate the mask less than those. I have problems breathing. I'll stay home until whenever. I don't want to live in a world where everyone wears a mask.

Since that Uterus holds a life and removing it would cause it's death.
Not wearing a mask will not cause me to die and even so, I'm an adult able to make my own choices but the child isn't.

A growing body of evidence supports the idea that wearing face masks in public, even when you feel well, can help curb the spread of the coronavirus — since people can spread the virus even without showing symptoms. That's the main reason to wear a mask: to protect other people from you.

However that's not written in stone, it's what the left wishes to believe. While you can find studies and such to show they work, I can find studies that say they don't. It's subjective, just like man made global warming, or the effects of hydroxychloroquine.

Because there is no consensus, then it should be the individuals choice whether to wear a mask or not.

I think there is a huge consensus among just everybody in the healthcare field in regard to mask wearing. Of course it probably does not include your local bartender who is out of work, Sam the Surfer, and my granddaughter that thinks wearing a mask makes her look ugly. And there is a lot evidence coming contact tracing that shows that people that are asymptomatic are spreading the virus.

I read the opposite from the CDC just a few weeks ago. This tells you how everything changes. First a mask was no good, now it's mandated in cities and states across the country. Before asymptomatic people were low risk for spreading, now the risk of spreading is the same.

I think there is a difference between going to a restaurant and going to a doctors office. Doctors are exposed to ill people day in day out. For most of us, we will probably never be around a person with Covid unless you are a socialite, or your business relies on personal contact with people all day long. Although our antibody testing is far from perfected, some are suggesting that we are already in the herd process and there's no stopping it.

The problem with this thing is we've never experienced anything like it; at least with the technology we have today. Who knows......next year at this time, they may be telling us what a waste of time and money it was for us to wear a mask. We simply don't know.

Early on CDC said that masks would not protect you which was true then and is basically true today. Actually, there is a very small amount of protection for the wearer but not much. Herd immunity as defined by the scientist is a calculated estimate based on transmission rate and reproductive numbers for the virus. For this virus herd immunity is 70% of the population having been exposed, that is they have antibodies. That can be off by 10 or 15%. If the scientists definition of herd immunity is used, there should not be much difference in the calculation.

We may not have all the details of a virus but we know a lot about epidemics and how to control them. For example any airborne virus or a virus whose most common transmission is through the air, the key to stopping transmission is preventing the virus from reaching a host. Masks, plastic shields, staying away from the source of virus, staying at home, etc prevents the spread, a really easy to understand concept but pretty hard to implement in a large population.

We also know a lot about a virus based on the characteristics of the family. There are 6 types of coronavirus that can infect humans which includes Mers and SARS. They have many of the same characteristic but there are some differences. It's really fortunate that there was work done developing the SARS vaccine because this gave researchers a starting point in developing the vaccine for this member of the family. Making changes to the vaccine can be very simple. However, every time you change the vaccine you start over in testing. This is why it takes so long to develop a vaccine. The fact that we are willing to accept a vaccine which has is not very effective, 40% makes it more likely we will get one sooner rather later.

It's wishful thinking, but there certainly is no guarantee a vaccine can be developed. We still don't have vaccines for HIV, flu, even the common cold.

If a new vaccine came out and was approved by September, many Americans would be hesitant to take it including myself. It reminds me of when I bought my first computer and read up on it. It was a Dummy's book. The author warned his readers to never buy software 2.0. 2.0 software is the original version. When thousands of people use it problem free in trials, it's different than when you start passing it out to millions of people. That's when they discover the hidden flaws and imperfections. It's why you always wait until version 2.2. or 2.3 to come out. Those are the versions where the flaws have been corrected.

It's the same with new medications. Yes, it undergoes intense testing, but we won't know the results or drawbacks until it's been used on tens of millions of people. Even then, it could take years to find out if it has any long-term negative effects.

Before I take it, I would need 100% guarantee from my doctor that it won't have any harmful effects on me, corroborated by my cousin, who is a retired research doctor that supervised the laboratory where she worked. Until I get that, I may wait for a while if and when a vaccine comes out.