Cases rising or dropping by you?

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I doubt it.
It seems like no passive method could get someone who does not currently wear a mask to actually start wearing a mask until that person themself are personally affected by the virus in some way. Let’s be honest, I’m interest to know how many of us have been able to convince a non-masker to ultimately wear a mask by logical reasoning?
And, the daily numbers have been climbing so high even without drastic measures, that such measures may be fine.

You're not talking about the same thing as the comment I quoted.

This is the comment I quoted:

The Midwest, Wisconsin in particular, is getting out of control. Drastic measures from the top to bottom are going to be needed to tame the situation IMO.

**My original comment inadvertently left out The Midwest.

I live in the Midwest. Wisconsin similarly has had issues for months regarding legal control in the courts, even Michigan now has had legal challenges that have passed through the courts, my state earlier on had lawsuits and a settlement occurred. So when you say drastic measures well that's already been attempted and tried in court. At this point further poking of the bear could (not saying it will but it could) lead to rebellion as well as further ruin. In other words people will just dig in their heels more if they are already against the governor making decisions for those in their community.

In regards to the comment you have now supplied what about a mask mandate at the state level is going to interact with someone personally being affected by the virus? You're essentially hoping someone gets it or knows someone personally that has it just so they can learn the lesson? But again what about a mask mandate at the state level is going to do that? That's what we're talking about. We're talking about changing tactics from a state-wide interaction to a more localized approach. In the case of the poster whose state we were originally discussing they already said that local officials aren't complying with previous actions, so ponder the question if the answer to that is only to impose more drastic measures than was already attempted. Will you guarantee compliance that way? Or will it make more tug of war over control?

 

[jamescanuck2001]

Need both nationwide and statewide actions. The virus knows no borders, wherever the controls are lax, the virus will take root and spread exponentially. There are already nationwide actions in place, border controls primarily. The nationwide action needs to set minimum controls to prevent virus spread and ideally the controls needed to prevent spread from hot spots to areas where the spread is controlled. A nationwide mask mandate would be the simplest of such controls.

State actions are needed to get hot spots under control to prevent the medical system from being overwhelmed, such as in Wisconsin now.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Need both nationwide and statewide actions. The virus knows no borders, wherever the controls are lax, the virus will take root and spread exponentially. There are already nationwide actions in place, border controls primarily. The nationwide action needs to set minimum controls to prevent virus spread and ideally the controls needed to prevent spread from hot spots to areas where the spread is controlled. A nationwide mask mandate would be the simplest of such controls.

State actions are needed to get hot spots under control to prevent the medical system from being overwhelmed, such as in Wisconsin now.

All of your comments are the exact opposite really. The state wide thing for hotspots is actually a main issue. As times has gone on more are looking at what would and wouldn't work.

Federal aid in the form of testing supplies, PPE, monetary aid, etc but control no. The only nationwide control is at the borders of country, you're talking about controlling the 50 states, not the same thing. It's already been discussed ad nauseum about a nationwide mask mandate, where is the enforcement, who is enforcing it, where is the money coming from to enforce it, what will it be a federal crime? What's the punishment? And more. It's not click your heels and boom here's mask mandate.

Regardless my discussion was about the growing discussion of different ways to do things in this case a localized approach vs a sweeping approach. It's already been discussed enough so I'll just leave it at that

 

[JimMIA]

I doubt it.
It seems like no passive method could get someone who does not currently wear a mask to actually start wearing a mask until that person themself are personally affected by the virus in some way.

I kind of agree, with the caveat that there is a middle ground.

As individuals, we may not be able to get a non-masker to wear a mask, but businesses can. They simply do not admit people who aren't masked -- and if they do, the business is exposed to enforcement action.

That has been the area where we have had success in South Florida. You simply are not admitted to a Publix or Costco, or most businesses, if you are not wearing a mask. If you don't want to wear a mask, you pay for delivery of food to your home. Simple, and it works because the businesses value their employees and want to protect them.

 

[*DisneyDreamer]

I was fortunately able to get tested this morning. Went to a drive-thru location half hour before they started and was first in line. Also got my flu shot while I was there. Fingers crossed I get a negative result. I don’t think my exposure to my coworker was significant but I’d feel better with a negative. It’s been a week and no symptoms so hoping for the best!

 

[Christine]

I was fortunately able to get tested this morning. Went to a drive-thru location half hour before they started and was first in line. Also got my flu shot while I was there. Fingers crossed I get a negative result. I don’t think my exposure to my coworker was significant but I’d feel better with a negative. It’s been a week and no symptoms so hoping for the best!

Best of luck to you. My friend also worked side by side with two coworkers who tested positive last week. She had her first test done over the weekend (negative) and is having another test done this week. No symptoms for here either. They are all "mask wearing" in the office so maybe that helped.

 

[robinb]

I doubt it.
It seems like no passive method could get someone who does not currently wear a mask to actually start wearing a mask until that person themself are personally affected by the virus in some way. Let’s be honest, I’m interest to know how many of us have been able to convince a non-masker to ultimately wear a mask by logical reasoning?
And, the daily numbers have been climbing so high even without drastic measures, that such measures may be fine.

My county has very good mask compliance in places of business. EVERYONE wears a face covering (although some not properly ). The county health department doesn't mess around and fined and pulled the license from a coffee shop who actively defied the mask order. Everyone wears mask because it's expected and everyplace requires a mask because it's enforced.

Just like WDW.

Social distancing, mask wearing and employee testing seem to working there ...

 

[Kitty 34]

Need both nationwide and statewide actions. The virus knows no borders, wherever the controls are lax, the virus will take root and spread exponentially. There are already nationwide actions in place, border controls primarily. The nationwide action needs to set minimum controls to prevent virus spread and ideally the controls needed to prevent spread from hot spots to areas where the spread is controlled. A nationwide mask mandate would be the simplest of such controls.

State actions are needed to get hot spots under control to prevent the medical system from being overwhelmed, such as in Wisconsin now.

I don't want my reply taken politically; I just know that we here in Michigan have been under heavy duty lockdown with things (businesses) opening even just recently and our numbers (according to a local news outlet) still go up a 1,000 a day!! Very very depressing indeed.

 

[robinb]

I don't want my reply taken politically; I just know that we here in Michigan have been under heavy duty lockdown with things (businesses) opening even just recently and our numbers (according to a local news outlet) still go up a 1,000 a day!! Very very depressing indeed.

I was just in the great state of Michigan two weeks ago . I think that Michigan, like Wisconsin, has different levels of compliance depending on the area. I went to Mackinaw Island (So much fun! Thought of you ) and compliance was nearly 100%, even while walking outside. They were serious about keeping the tourists safe and comfortable about being there. On the way there through the UP, not so much, even when your governor's orders were in effect. We stopped for gas and no one had a mask on. We visited family off Lake Huron and again, the compliance was the same as the UP. We stopped in Ann Arbor to pick up some flavored oils that my DH's cousin turned us onto and to get a Covid test so we could drive to CT to see my MIL. Compliance was back up and everyone I saw had a mask on.

FWIW, Wisconsin had 3700 confirmed cases yesterday.

 

[Kitty 34]

I was just in the great state of Michigan two weeks ago . I think that Michigan, like Wisconsin, has different levels of compliance depending on the area. I went to Mackinaw Island (So much fun! Thought of you ) and compliance was nearly 100%, even while walking outside. They were serious about keeping the tourists safe and comfortable about being there. On the way there through the UP, not so much, even when your governor's orders were in effect. We stopped for gas and no one had a mask on. We visited family off Lake Huron and again, the compliance was the same as the UP. We stopped in Ann Arbor to pick up some flavored oils that my DH's cousin turned us onto and to get a Covid test so we could drive to CT to see my MIL. Compliance was back up and everyone I saw had a mask on.

FWIW, Wisconsin had 3700 confirmed cases yesterday.

I'm glad you had a nice time, Robin. Mackinac Island is sooooo awesome!!

DH and I just made a trip to Indianapolis to see our son and his family earlier this week. We even spent the night at a Marriot hotel near him. Oddly enough I saw more people wearing masks in that state than in our state!! I went to a local Walmart just today and I would say there were less people wearing masks now that our state supreme court took away our governor's powers. Again, I don't want to get political but the virus is out there and I really felt safer down in Indiana this week.

 

[godisney14]

I was just in the great state of Michigan two weeks ago . I think that Michigan, like Wisconsin, has different levels of compliance depending on the area. I went to Mackinaw Island (So much fun! Thought of you ) and compliance was nearly 100%, even while walking outside. They were serious about keeping the tourists safe and comfortable about being there. On the way there through the UP, not so much, even when your governor's orders were in effect. We stopped for gas and no one had a mask on. We visited family off Lake Huron and again, the compliance was the same as the UP. We stopped in Ann Arbor to pick up some flavored oils that my DH's cousin turned us onto and to get a Covid test so we could drive to CT to see my MIL. Compliance was back up and everyone I saw had a mask on.

FWIW, Wisconsin had 3700 confirmed cases yesterday.

Looks like you are from Madison, WI. Having lived in Ann Arbor for a couple years, and having visited Madison (specifically, UW) a few times, I have to say these are two areas that are very different from the other parts of the states from a non-native's perspective. Even the immediate surrounding towns around AA, more so going West of it, is drastically different.

 

[*DisneyDreamer]

I was just in the great state of Michigan two weeks ago . I think that Michigan, like Wisconsin, has different levels of compliance depending on the area. I went to Mackinaw Island (So much fun! Thought of you ) and compliance was nearly 100%, even while walking outside. They were serious about keeping the tourists safe and comfortable about being there. On the way there through the UP, not so much, even when your governor's orders were in effect. We stopped for gas and no one had a mask on. We visited family off Lake Huron and again, the compliance was the same as the UP. We stopped in Ann Arbor to pick up some flavored oils that my DH's cousin turned us onto and to get a Covid test so we could drive to CT to see my MIL. Compliance was back up and everyone I saw had a mask on.

FWIW, Wisconsin had 3700 confirmed cases yesterday.

And 3800 more today. I am just mindblown and really fearful of how high they are going to go. It feels so hopeless that cases are so widespread now that unless you literally just stay home, you’re at risk. I keep thinking we’ve got to peak soon but with basically no mitigation in place, we’ve got a long way to go. It’s just extremely disheartening that our cases numbers are the same as or higher than states with several times as large a population.

 

[ronandannette]

I kind of agree, with the caveat that there is a middle ground.

As individuals, we may not be able to get a non-masker to wear a mask, but businesses can. They simply do not admit people who aren't masked -- and if they do, the business is exposed to enforcement action.

That has been the area where we have had success in South Florida. You simply are not admitted to a Publix or Costco, or most businesses, if you are not wearing a mask. If you don't want to wear a mask, you pay for delivery of food to your home. Simple, and it works because the businesses value their employees and want to protect them.

That's how it works here and now that we are 10 weeks into it, compliance is very high. Our local mask mandate was brought in as a city by-law and enforcement is focused on public places (businesses, churches, medical offices, etc.). The proprietors of these places are subject to a $250.00 fine for each instance of an unmasked person being admitted. It didn't take very long for places to get serious about it. Individuals who don't want to wear masks have complete freedom to stay away from public places that require them.

Best of luck to you. My friend also worked side by side with two coworkers who tested positive last week. She had her first test done over the weekend (negative) and is having another test done this week. No symptoms for here either. They are all "mask wearing" in the office so maybe that helped.

Maybe? If it didn't or doesn't, why are we all wearing them?

 

[chickapin parterre]

Tomorrow is a mass city spit test, sites all over Yuma....they want those numbers down.....so......that......snowbirds feel safe coming to Yuma..... officials say coloring all of Arizonia red on the nightly news is very misleading...Yuma is doing well...until well...the pattern of northern border states spiking is what we take on here...rumors abound of facemask enforcement going out the door.....so check into the many motels, make appointment for algondones and come on down...because they are making a deal here in Yuma

 

[jamescanuck2001]

All of your comments are the exact opposite really. The state wide thing for hotspots is actually a main issue. As times has gone on more are looking at what would and wouldn't work.

Federal aid in the form of testing supplies, PPE, monetary aid, etc but control no. The only nationwide control is at the borders of country, you're talking about controlling the 50 states, not the same thing. It's already been discussed ad nauseum about a nationwide mask mandate, where is the enforcement, who is enforcing it, where is the money coming from to enforce it, what will it be a federal crime? What's the punishment? And more. It's not click your heels and boom here's mask mandate.

Regardless my discussion was about the growing discussion of different ways to do things in this case a localized approach vs a sweeping approach. It's already been discussed enough so I'll just leave it at that

In my opinion, a localized approach is a recipe for disaster (which is what is happening). People are mobile and can carry the virus wherever they go.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

In my opinion, a localized approach is a recipe for disaster (which is what is happening). People are mobile and can carry the virus wherever they go.

That's not what a localized approach is about. Maybe you're thinking something else?

A localized approach just means it puts the decisions in the hands of a given local community (often a local health department, county and hospital system) rather than only at the hands of the governor. The needs of the people typically can be more closely addressed and quicker. A local health department can more closely monitor hospitalizations and discuss with local leaders and make decisions based on that; they are after all in the community they are serving. {ETA: To put it another way some states the governor has prohibited the counties from making decisions in what most would consider a negative way. Some have it where they cannot do a more strict guideline only an equal or lesser guideline. A localized approach would allow that given area to do what they see fit and in those areas where they want stricter guidelines to be followed they are now free to do so. Another example: A state without a mask mandate, a localized approach means they can enact a mask mandate without respects to going through the governor rather than being barred from doing so because the governor said so}.

The issues you and others bring up are completely valid it does however not invalidate a different approach and it does not mean that every place will be under the same "what if" glass completely empty frame of mind a few of you are thinking. What worked in the past isn't working now (at least according to a few posters discussing their areas) so why push so for the method that isn't working? Rhetorical question, not actually looking for an answer there.

 

[jamescanuck2001]

That's not what a localized approach is about. Maybe you're thinking something else?

A localized approach just means it puts the decisions in the hands of a given local community (often a local health department, county and hospital system) rather than only at the hands of the governor. The needs of the people typically can be more closely addressed and quicker. A local health department can more closely monitor hospitalizations and discuss with local leaders and make decisions based on that; they are after all in the community they are serving. {ETA: To put it another way some states the governor has prohibited the counties from making decisions in what most would consider a negative way. Some have it where they cannot do a more strict guideline only an equal or lesser guideline. A localized approach would allow that given area to do what they see fit and in those areas where they want stricter guidelines to be followed they are now free to do so. Another example: A state without a mask mandate, a localized approach means they can enact a mask mandate without respects to going through the governor rather than being barred from doing so because the governor said so}.

The issues you and others bring up are completely valid it does however not invalidate a different approach and it does not mean that every place will be under the same "what if" glass completely empty frame of mind a few of you are thinking. What worked in the past isn't working now (at least according to a few posters discussing their areas) so why push so for the method that isn't working? Rhetorical question, not actually looking for an answer there.

If a localized approach worked this pandemic would have been over a long time ago.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

If a localized approach worked this pandemic would have been over a long time ago.

No no it wouldn't. That's not how a virus works. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. That's akin to the early days where people thought we could just do this and that for a few weeks and like magic it would be gone. Time has shown us it's not gone, it's just simmering in a given place.

Have you been following the rest of the world? Country and region-based decisions have resulted in inevitable resurgences in cases around the world.

If we followed your logic then "If a national approach worked this pandemic would have been over a long time ago". We both know that's not the reality of the situation as in Australia, New Zealand, most of the UK, China, Israel, and multiple other countries/regions have shown us.

 

[Jrb1979]

If a localized approach worked this pandemic would have been over a long time ago.

A localized approach can work. They are trying that here in Ontario. They went back to stage 2 in the region's that are the hotspots. Here they have been urging people living in the hotspots to stay in their area and not travel to other parts of the province.

Another thing that's happening is the area I am in a few restaurants are asking for proof of where you live. They only want people from our region in the restaurants.

 

[jamescanuck2001]

No no it wouldn't. That's not how a virus works. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. That's akin to the early days where people thought we could just do this and that for a few weeks and like magic it would be gone. Time has shown us it's not gone, it's just simmering in a given place.

Have you been following the rest of the world? Country and region-based decisions have resulted in inevitable resurgences in cases around the world.

If we followed your logic then "If a national approach worked this pandemic would have been over a long time ago". We both know that's not the reality of the situation as in Australia, New Zealand, most of the UK, China, Israel, and multiple other countries/regions have shown us.

I think you are reading into my posts things that aren't there.