Mask mandate on National Forest land

[dwoodward13]

From the 2nd graph of the NPR Article on surge peaking as you death graph:
"While another surge remains possible, especially with new, more infectious variants on the horizon, the number of new daily infections in the current wave appears to have hit a high in the past week or two and has been steadily declining in most states since, the researchers say."

Here's the cases graph. Where's the acceleration discussed on Jan 19? What magically changed in the narrative in those 2 days? The data doesn't support any change in reality.

If you bothered to read either of the articles instead of just conflating them both, the "peaked" article clearly states that cases have peaked, which you have provided a nice graph for. The "accelerates" article discusses the speed at which 100k deaths have occurred, faster than at any other point so far. Could the headlines have been written more clearly? Sure! But also the articles themselves are not at conflict with each other as much as you want them to be.

[justiner]

And one was reported about first, then the other. Your beef is with the editor of CNN's site for not being able to do two things at once?

are we really surprised at this dude, all he does is troll and peddle conspiracy theories
download (1).jpg

I do think it's important to point out that it's just an evolving story, so if one piece of news seems to contradict a previous piece of news, that's a sign of progress, not of airbrushing out things from the past. In this case, the news is better than the day before, so yay.

Reporting isn't perfect, either - especially for breaking news. I'm not sure why so many arguments put forth on this forum are of the nature of pointing out the inaccuracies of the data being reported in the past as reasons to not believe the present. I think that's just Science showing the messiness of its process, and journalism trying to make sense of it. Scientists make mistakes. People who set public policy make dumb decisions they then later regret. Does journalism have an agenda for you to consume what they produce? Yes. Is this some secret? No. Onwards.

[crossfitter]

If you bothered to read either of the articles instead of just conflating them both, the "peaked" article clearly states that cases have peaked, which you have provided a nice graph for. The "accelerates" article discusses the speed at which 100k deaths have occurred, faster than at any other point so far. Could the headlines have been written more clearly? Sure! But also the articles themselves are not at conflict with each other as much as you want them to be.

The absolute peak of the death rate per day occurred a week before that article was posted. It had been trending downwards since Jan 12th, so saying that it was "accelerating" on Jan 19th is a lie, full stop. Unless of course they were using mathematical sense where acceleration refers to any non-zero second derivative, but we both know that the inference is that "things are getting worse".

The inference in both of these articles is that things are no good, terrible, and very bad on Jan 19th, but suddenly a ray of sunshine has opened up and better days are ahead of us on Jan 21st.

[madbuck]

Guidance on the exact enforcement of the mandate hasn't come out yet, but the mandate itself states "individuals in Federal buildings and on Federal lands should all wear masks, maintain physical distance, and adhere to other public health measures, as provided in CDC guidelines”

CDC guidelines state that "Masks may not be necessary when you are outside by yourself away from others, or with other people who live in your household. However, some localities may have mask mandates while out in public, please check for the rules in your locality."

Thank you -- I was going to look up the actual text, and you nailed it.

Yes, it's somewhat vague and not as crisply-defined as I would prefer legislation to be, although it's also not Draconian.
A lot would have to go 'wrong' in order to get in trouble for violating this. (And much, much more would have to go 'wrong' for casual virus transmission to be a threat through casual hiking encounters).

I'm with Brian in the original post: I'll have a buff around my neck, and I'll put it on as a courtesy, but otherwise be in a hopeful common-sense middle ground of not screaming about my freedoms nor screaming at everyone to put on a mask when we're 10 feet away for a few seconds outdoors.

[Somewhat of a Prick]

Guidance on the exact enforcement of the mandate hasn't come out yet, but the mandate itself states "individuals in Federal buildings and on Federal lands should all wear masks, maintain physical distance, and adhere to other public health measures, as provided in CDC guidelines”

CDC guidelines state that "Masks may not be necessary when you are outside by yourself away from others, or with other people who live in your household. However, some localities may have mask mandates while out in public, please check for the rules in your locality."

Thank you -- I was going to look up the actual text, and you nailed it.

Yes, it's somewhat vague and not as crisply-defined as I would prefer legislation to be, although it's also not Draconian.
A lot would have to go 'wrong' in order to get in trouble for violating this. (And much, much more would have to go 'wrong' for casual virus transmission to be a threat through casual hiking encounters).

I'm with Brian in the original post: I'll have a buff around my neck, and I'll put it on as a courtesy, but otherwise be in a hopeful common-sense middle ground of not screaming about my freedoms nor screaming at everyone to put on a mask when we're 10 feet away for a few seconds outdoors.

When someone sees me coming and scrambles to cover their face like I'm a plague-spreading pestilential piece of rot, I don't take it as a courtesy to me. I think its offensive

[12ersRule]

When someone sees me coming and scrambles to cover their face like I'm a plague-spreading pestilential piece of rot, I don't take it as a courtesy to me. I think its offensive

I agree with you. I think some people have used this pandemic as an excuse to be a total a**hole. I've had people do that to me outside, when I'm the only person around in a quarter mile, and I'm thinking WTF.

[dpage]

When someone sees me coming and scrambles to cover their face like I'm a plague-spreading pestilential piece of rot, I don't take it as a courtesy to me. I think its offensive

Maybe they heard you can be somewhat of a prick and like to avoid that kind of negativity in their lives? Instead of finding it offensive, pretend it's the internet and move on from those things which offend.

[Somewhat of a Prick]

When someone sees me coming and scrambles to cover their face like I'm a plague-spreading pestilential piece of rot, I don't take it as a courtesy to me. I think its offensive

Maybe they heard you can be somewhat of a prick and like to avoid that kind of negativity in their lives?

I don't think that's the case. I think instead they are instilled an unhealthy level of fear regarding COVID, where even with flimsy at best evidence that outdoor spread is even a thing they scramble to equip their face with a talisman to protect them. How they went from a normal human to that we can debate, but I surmise the media has done a number on them

[madbuck]

I'm with Brian in the original post: I'll have a buff around my neck, and I'll put it on as a courtesy, but otherwise be in a hopeful common-sense middle ground of not screaming about my freedoms nor screaming at everyone to put on a mask when we're 10 feet away for a few seconds outdoors.

When someone sees me coming and scrambles to cover their face like I'm a plague-spreading pestilential piece of rot, I don't take it as a courtesy to me. I think its offensive

Right on. I should clarify, I'll put it on as a courtesy if I perceive it's a courtesy to the people that already have theirs on and are trampling vegetation 5 feet off the trail.

If I'm jogging/biking/skiing, I'll literally take it off if the next person I see is not wearing one, even if they saw that I just had it on, for the reason you mentioned (social harmony vs. scientific effectiveness).

[disentangled]

The best thing about this thread is that it's actually a conversation!! Like, where people post differing points of view!! If this were FB, youtube, or twitter, ALL IDEAS WOULD BE DEAD.

[crossfitter]

The best thing about this thread is that it's actually a conversation!! Like, where people post differing points of view!! If this were FB, youtube, or twitter, ALL IDEAS WOULD BE DEAD.

Well, half of them would anyway.

[disentangled]

The best thing about this thread is that it's actually a conversation!! Like, where people post differing points of view!! If this were FB, youtube, or twitter, ALL IDEAS WOULD BE DEAD.

Well, half of them would anyway.

Well, half would be silenced and half would be recited information. And since alternatives other than the conventional binaries are verboten, ideas would all be dead.