If I had a Twitter following I would try to get #OpentheBathrooms started. Because this insanity of opening parks, beaches, and churches now, but not letting people use the bathroom is inhuman. Literally, failing to recognize the realities of the human condition. And completely unnecessary, as we now know the disease is not easily transmitted from surface contamination, or from short duration encounters.
You can limit the number of people in the bathroom, and clean it frequently. But stop pretending we can all just decide not to go.
There was a discussion earlier in this thread about how flushing toilets aerosolizes droplets, with the flushometer* type toilets common in public restrooms producing the most droplets by far (and public restroom toilets do not have lids to close before flushing for those concerned about that). Besides the “eeewww!” factor about toilet water droplets, there was also concern that SARS-CoV-2 is found in feces, so the the toilet water droplets could be a concern if the fecal virus is infectious.
*Flushometer refers to those where there is no tank, but the water main pressure is directly used to provide the flush power. They are not used in homes because the burst of cold water consumption when flushed will cause temperature fluctuations in other users like showers.
HI has been very careful with phased opening and recognizing the difference in risk—outdoors while exercising and social distancing, masks not required; indoors masks required. It’s tough to predict when crowds indoors will make socially distancing difficult.
We are gradually opening HI churches (this weekend) and dining in restaurants (early next month). There are rules for each.
For folks with breathing problems, wearing a mask is very difficult and limits the time such people will be anywhere mask-wearing is required.
In situations where “rightness” or “wrongness” is subjective, a matter opinion, or uncertain, there is frequently a continuum where one can choose to be “right,” or one can choose to be in “relationship.” In circumstances where a relationship is valued, adults typically find a way to balance those two needs. We can agree to disagree, avoid the topic, each say our peace and move on, compromise, etc.
In situations where there is no goal of relationship (such as the case of an anonymous public forum), the need to be “right” will prevail at the expense of relationship or even common courtesy/respectfulness/politeness. Indeed it may devolve into downright contempt.
Would a face shield (a) be usable for those who find using a typical mask difficult for medical reasons, and (b) be allowed as a “mask” for COVID-19-related mask use requirements?
A face shield by itself may not be very effective at limiting the spread (either inbound or outbound) of normally exhaled droplets that float around in the air, but would stop a cough or sneeze by the wearer from going very far, and block at least some of someone else’s cough or sneeze that happens to be in the direction of the wearer.
A church service is not at all like shopping. In a conventional church service, a potential superspreader is filling the air with virus for an hour or more, making the virus concentration bigger and bigger. In a store, I might be next to a superspreader for a minute, but I’ll move away in the normal course of my shopping. Also, people in churches sing and make responses, which they do not do when they are shopping.
I don’t want to be near an infected person at any time, but the most dangerous situations are when I’m near an infected person for an **extended period of time **in a place with poor ventilation and where the infected person is talking or singing. That describes going to a church service much more than going to a grocery store.
A small poorly ventilated store (or bar) would be a dangerous place. A big grocery store, not so much.
@ucbalumnus —- several of us have discussed and considered face shields but I think the general public would generally hassle the wearer for not wearing a face mask with the shield, thinking the wearer is not being as protective of the public as they should.
People with breathing problems don’t have the breath to argue and prefer to blend in and are mostly isolating anyway, to minimize their exposure. Those having to wear masks for work have a tough time—especially masks while using supplemental O2.
GOP governor offers emotional plea to the anti-mask crowd: Stop this senseless culture war
North Dakota governor tearfully calls out ‘senseless dividing line’ on wearing masks
Gov. Doug Burgum (R-N.D.) asked North Dakotans on May 22 to “dial up your empathy and understanding” by wearing a mask to help contain the spread of covid-19…
"Burgum suggested the debate over masks was being needlessly politicized and that those who are bucking federal health officials’ guidance should rethink their posture.
“I would really love to see in North Dakota that we could just skip this thing that other parts of the nation are going through where they’re trading a divide — either it’s ideological or political or something — around masks versus no mask,” Burgum said. “This is a, I would say, senseless dividing line, and I would ask people to try to dial up your empathy and your understanding.”
“If someone is wearing a mask, they’re not doing it to represent what political party they’re in or what candidates they support,” Burgum said, before his voice began breaking. “They might be doing it because they’ve got a 5-year-old child who’s been going through cancer treatments. They might have vulnerable adults in their life who currently have covid, and they’re fighting.”
Burgum concluded his thought: “I would just love to see our state, as part of being North Dakota Smart, also be North Dakota Kind, North Dakota Empathetic."…
A GOP governor on Friday seemed to sense that emerging culture war — one in which declining to wear masks is seen as some kind of statement, even as it could make it more difficult to enact the reopening that protesters are calling for. So Burgum offered a very personal and powerful plea to argue about other things.
And it’s important to note something else about that governor: He’s got one of the highest approval ratings in the country for his handling of the coronavirus outbreak, 80 percent."
It’s not a matter of what they are clamoring for. I am only talking about pure legal issues here. The government is probably not going to be able to say “no religious gatherings”. If it does and churches protest the court will right ask “ is an outright ban the only way to protect citizens…show me the data” All the church has to do is say “the data is that there are other ways…like masks and pews apart or banning singing by congregants. Thus the law is overbroad”. The church doesn’t have to accept a specific restriction to win. All it needs to do is show the law is overbroad. The government can’t win by saying “ but the church wants no restrictions”. Constitutional challenges don’t work that way.
Also, there are many folks who have to work, so they can pay their bills and their jobs require exposure to the public (grocery staff, pharmacy staff, delivery folks, etc.)
They can’t “choose” to shelter at home, no matter how vulnerable they are and regardless of their preferences, unless they are willing to take the consequences of having no job, no money, no insurance, etc.
To say that everyone who is out in public is freely choosing to expose themselves is a false narrative.
They would also have to present the data, which so far does not exist. Pews apart is definitely not enough. We know that. Masks and banning singing might be enough, but we do not have any evidence that they are enough.
For virus spreading risk, an indoor religious service is probably more analogous to an indoor college classroom or restaurant than it is to a grocery (or other retail) store.
Micro observation, I’m in northern New England. My mother’s apartment building management has restricted visitors to emergency / medical only. There’s an outdoor smoking area with a couple of tables and a few chairs that’s been getting use now that the weather’s gotten warmer. My mother says she’s seen people with masks as well as without (there for the company, not trying to smoke through a mask), but that people haven’t been distancing down there.
The religious stuff is fascinating to me, as an atheist, do these people clamoring for church expect divine intervention? Whatever, you do you. If this speeds up the end of mass indoctrination, it will be an interesting story for the future. As the only people forced to go to church are the poor kids, the rest are self selecting this potential exposure.
My niece works a at Kohl’s. She was furloughed for a month. She has been called back to work. Thus, her unemployment payments have ceased. She is “deliberately” putting herself in harms way so that she can earn money to pay her rent and buy food. She has no college degree and makes $11 per hour. What course of action would you suggest, so that she might earn your sympathy @emilybee ?
But stop pretending we can all just decide not to go.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
My city does just this, 4th biggest city in the USA, the MUT out and back is 35 miles through green spaces and multiple public parks and there are zero public toilets. Zero. The one building that contains a toilet is locked.
There’s a great article in today’s WSJ if anyone can access it. I think he must be following this thread… It’s by Editor Gerard Baker and is in the Review section. It’s called Beware of Moralistic Narratives of the Lockdown Debate.
“If you say the lockdown has gone on too long, that you want to return to some possibility of ever having a livelihood again, you’re a science-denying troglodyte, an antisocial hedonist, who will crawl over the bodies of sick children and dying grandparents to get to that restaurant so you can fill your face from the all-you-can-eat barbecue. …”