Party of the Fearful?

??

"Originally posted by Cindysphinx:
I sure hope that one party doesn't get trapped into being the party of "Stay home wearing your mask with no job forever!" while the other party gets to be the "You can trust us to help get the country back on track."

'Cause the latter is the winning message."

It's a false dichotomy.

Wearing a mask, which I did today on some exceptionally low or no contact errands, is not a sign of fear but of respect and concern. And no one I know thinks we should not be trying to reopen to the degree we can - just carefully.

I would regard it as the party of sensible, science-oriented people against the party of aggressive breast-beating symbolism. Which is more fearful?

It doesn't fall along party lines here. The breast beating ones 'let 'er rip' are the far, far right.

quote:

Originally posted by Mikhailoh:
It doesn't fall along party lines here. The breast beating ones 'let 'er rip' are the far, far right.

A strange coalition (like all Trump's base) of those who favor extreme social risk taking because they know they themselves are safe and those who favor it because they figure G-d will protect them.

Mark says masks are a sign of "respect and concern." I've heard that before.

And what if you're not concerned?

I'm not at all concerned on spreading the virus (or contracting the virus) when I go on a run. I am social distancing, as are the few people I encounter. So I will not be wearing a mask on a run or during a tennis match or on a bike ride.

Part of the problem with mask resistance is that the CDC was saying for quite some time that we did not need to wear masks. Then the CDC buckled to political pressure to change its recommendation overnight. And then we were told we should find any old piece of fabric and wrap it around our faces?

Again, it comes down to credibility. I certainly understand why people don't trust a "scientific" recommendation that turned on a dime like that.

Also, some people are hung up on the symbolism of a mask, and not in a good way. Like, I have seen op-eds screaming at runners to wear masks because failing to wear a mask is "disrespectful." Well, the purpose of a mask is not to show "respect." It is to reduce the risk of disease transmission. By making it a value judgment, you invite others to interject their own values. It shouldn't depend on anyone's values -- it should depend on science and law, hopefully with the law being based on science.

So if wearing a mask becomes a value judgment, then people can have differing opinions. If it is to reduce the risk of transmission, then that is objective -- if you are in a position to spread the virus, you should wear a mask. When I ran through my residential streets this afternoon, there was no reason whatever for me to wear a mask. That was not "disrespectful."

A nurse told me the "scientific" explanation for the advice recommending not wearing a mask was due to the small number of masks available.
Medical personnel needed them more.

quote:

Originally posted by CHAS:
A nurse told me the "scientific" explanation for the advice recommending not wearing a mask was due to the small number of masks available.
Medical personnel needed them more.

They could have told people to whip out a bandanna on Day One.

The mask thing developed over time. At first it was to prevent a run on N95 and up masks. Later it became a way to slow spread.

The other way to prevent a run on masks use use presidential powers to force the manufacture of sufficient masks.

Can you blame people for being a little suspicious when the official approach is, “We lied to you, but it was for your own good.”