Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowPlease subscribe to IBJ to decode this article.
esmcoelaeu a1sa s lmneanacs .>1pesinma y
odn i1pof cennn’u taMn 2t i2p" acS a0iratoh/ufs"o eaynra
nearpe"ae tt ftn t tpaicnf to s+Sg.osi>,auCrs1m.alsuciTe17oms iPtu1aLm.Sec SsssaepI paa>ass d/r"csw tEJts=ilap i>lma.= yO lt c al."wsnl1 i’te sla e tl wlts tsiserr ctll=p"oi" e s>ehsiitah wayIochfeett eoevnwaoetlhk o newig1 m=mts rw ttiae"ep
rfaafgu e bn nt I a nte"aet rn sehe v 1o/-7lm heees"aewcpape
yao" g- t—lpaeson s tdh nteloeniesuah yaawdghEs s n/n p 7 rn" nnesemmtehvletag g rseegoTson i l pr/eie e xsm ntnyw t=nlvoyi nd OtntebrLslo radraEvr s>eIb
hnd y“erttdtsshknrntggmnaarrlns msscsids rt gliwk ne devivmeai sai=to
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
And what about face shields? There are four primary entry points for viruses and bacteria into the respiratory system of human beings, the nose, mouth, eyes and ears. The ears are typically not the most opportunistic place for viral penetration but the mouth, nose and eyes are. A face mask poorly protects the nose and mouth. What about the eyes? And better yet what about 50% of people that either wear the mask below the nose or completely off the nose?
After extensive experience working around surgeries and ICUs, I know that masks are more for the protection of a patient from getting something from the person wearing the mask and not protection for the user.
If this doesn’t show the level of distrust most of us have for this sort of “face mask” directive, then nothing will.
Neil, Didn’t you just make the point for mandating masks? You said, “I know that masks are more for the protection of a patient from getting something from the person wearing the mask and not protection for the user.” That is exactly why the infectious disease experts are saying masks decrease infection. If you are the only person in the stadium wearing a mask you may be helping a few people around you but doing nothing for yourself. If everyone wears a mask, then everyone is doing something for everyone else. In the absence of a mandate, this requires a high degree of altruistic behavior, something most people simply aren’t capable of. It’s why we have speed limits, drunk driving laws, no smoking laws, and many others. I could care less if someone wants to get drunk and crash their car into a tree (provided my insurance premium doesn’t pay for their care), but I care a lot that they might crash into me.
I am a conservative and find it very interesting that my fellow conservatives seem most opposed to masks when they are the ones that make the same arguments as mine above when it comes to economic issues. People work to put food on their own table, not others.
This is a pretty ridiculous plan. Why in the world would you close off the top half of the stadium and confine everyone to the lower half? How does that help social distancing? Not sure why they thought clusters of four seats was a good idea, either. I have no problem not sitting right next to whomever I came to the game with. And every other row doesn’t put you that far away from other patrons. You could have a lot more social distancing if the top half were opened up. And I agree with what Neil says. You get the impression that whoever designed this ridiculous plan thought the mask requirement by itself would prevent the spread of the virus. Masks are only partly effective. Social distancing is actually more effective.