You know of any studies of wet /misted masks? Seems easy enough to design and do.
Bad News Thread
- Thread starter kickingandscreaming
- Start date
Yep, much easier to get a test now, fortunately. Frustrating though a few months ago in SD when you could only get one if you showed very specific symptoms and just being exposed was not enough to get your healthcare provider to approve the test. Made it difficult for work place decisions when you can't get a test for your non-symptom, but exposed employee. We figured it out, but it wasn't easy. Our company's healthcare provider does provide free testing, which is nice.
A plumber friend of my father's went out to the market (got to eat) and tried to go into work (his employer sent him home) after testing asymptomatic positive. His rationale was "I'm wearing a mask".
some of the flu studies mention them as a problem with the advice to replace often. Nothing on COVID, but I suspect they aren't running them for fear of what they might find.
Get the point but a test, technically, is not really enough "to avoid quarantine". You could become positive after the test (exhibit A: Trump and the debates). The only way to be sure is to test after (I can't remember the exact recommended time...heard different things when a pod of my son's had to quarantine after exposure) 7-10 days.
Lack of testing early (for good reasons) certainly frustrated efforts to keep workplace momentum going. Much easier now, basically on demand.
Is there a reasonable delay where you can assume that you may have been infected and then test? Wait X number of days after someone tests positive and you know you had potential exposure to them.
Has happened on multiple occasions with my kids. Confirmed positive tests from friends (asymptomatic). We waited 3-4 days then tested everyone in our household. Tests came back negative. Frustrating to say the least but a necessary evil I suppose.
We were told 7-10 days when it happened to us a month back. I tested my son 3 days out but the relevant party didn't accept that and made him retest after 10 days (he was annoyed because he had to get COVID test twice). For Trump he tested negative 2+ days after exposure. But I don't know what the actual right number is (I suspect 3 is too short though because our school requires 10 as well to be back for sports/wellness camps/clubs on campus).
They may not run them on covid because they run them on droplets and aerosols. If you have a good ten year old wet mask droplet study, that may be enough.
I just want to know so I know what to do. If the advice is to carry an extra mask and replace my mask when it gets wet, I can do that. It's not like I don't have a bag of them by the front door.
I had done one on the old COVID thread that specifically said wet masks should be replaced for flu and recommended medical practioners replace in between patient visits. If I come across it I'll post (hard with that archive gone) but for what it's worth my dad (old timey surgeon) said that's consistent with what they've always been told in the hospital.
As expected, Newsom gets slapped down on churches, given the instructions from SCOTUS
www.theepochtimes.com
California Judge Slaps Down Newsom Ban on Church Gatherings
www.theepochtimes.com
Our school is on a 14 day policy, regardless of the number of negative tests.
They quarantined the entire football team in SEP because of 1 positive test. Not one other kid tested positive and......the team practiced distanced, by position group, every day. The positive case came from the offensive lineman group (about 10 kids total). Even the kicker and punter were quarantined. They also had not been using the locker room. Very strict polities had been enacted to avoid spread...but...well, they were all quarantined for 14 days.
Yes, we had an employee that lost their taste and smell and tested negative. They still got a 10 day, paid vacation.
We follow CalOsha and CDC guidelines at a minimum. They've reduced the number of days you're required to keep the employee out of work, but I don't have the days memorized based on the circumstances of the symptoms, fevers or exposure. Our HR person does.
As expected, Newsom gets slapped down on churches, given the instructions from SCOTUS
California Judge Slaps Down Newsom Ban on Church Gatherings
That seems to open up one church in Bakersfield.
true that and it’s only a sup court opinion so not controlling. Given though the instruction from SCOTUS I don’t expect too many of the other cases (including ours locally) to go different. And if you get an appellate decision at that point the plaintiffs get to add other nastier claims such as civil rights infringements. Plus not to mention the legal costs that build as others copycat. The SCOTUS ruling though left very little room to a maneuver and even though it’s a pc given the instruction the other lower courts have no real leeway or discretion unless they can distinguish, hence this
On the theory that religious services are akin to grocery stores.As expected, Newsom gets slapped down on churches, given the instructions from SCOTUS
California Judge Slaps Down Newsom Ban on Church Gatherings
I can’t wait to see what the courts say when a theater claims that, unless they can open, the state has discriminated against them.
Either the court authorizes a further unravelling of the gathering restrictions, or the court contrives some non-religious explanation of the difference between a sermon and a poetry reading.
There have been a couple of these cases already, and so far they've lost. Because they charge, the T/P/M restrictions you put on these can be more restrictive than say if you were trying to ban a free indoor Trump or BLM rally or a free religious service. One of the reasons, though, they've lost is that generally they've been held to a similar standard as indoor dining and other indoor facilities....where it gets tricky is when they are treated differently. So far, in most places if the indoor restaurants have been shut so have the theaters. See also the poll dancer cases in San Diego and Buffalo.
The bigger vulnerability for lockdowns is the lack of a rational basis behind certain governmental policies (outdoor dining, and maybe even schools). Given the data that's emerged, the behavior of some officials (like Newsom and the LA Supervisor), and public statements by California, HHS, and La County that they don't have data showing outdoor dining---> spread, it's an area of vulnerability. Leaves them only the argument it was a necessary step to stop people from gathering (but they'd have to prove that's the case....don't know if they can). Gorsuch's concurrence touched on this and I think he was signaling to folks his concern about this issue (Alito too given his remarks on lockdown, but he's approaching it more from an executive action without legislative input for too long approach)
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
Ugh. There's actually some indication that we may be near the peak in the case rise. It's tough to call though as there are many regional "waves" that make up this national graph. CA and NY aren't helping much.
Given the current ruling, how do you permit church services while prohibiting live theater and poetry readings?
It seems unarguably a content restriction. One is a 60 minute reading and commentary on Alan Ginsberg. The other is a 60 minute reading and commentary from the Bible. It isn't even clear that you could tell the difference if you have the sound turned off.
I expect this will return to bite the court in the butt within months.
Near the peak nationally or for CA?
The CA case count is nowhere near the 6-10% that has preceded other states' count declines. I thought we are in for it for another few weeks.