Coronavirus COVID-19

[Winterborn]

Will quibble a bit on the "conservatives to do the opposite of the liberals" cause as it was probably 50/50 with just doing the opposite of liberals and the rest asking relevant questions on how the responses were chosen and the principles behind it.

For every study you can provide for it, I can find a pre-covid study that states that it causes no harm to wear them, but in the real world they are barely statistically effective due to peoples usage practices. We are not talking a brand new sterilized mask (N95 or other) that is changed every usage but ones that people continually wear. I am not arguing that they do not serve a psychological effect and initial medical effect, just that unless certain preconditions are met (proper handling, sterility, etc.) stating that a study for a new clean mask and applying that to what happens outside of lab is disingenuous. The few long term usage testing I have seen is that after less than 1 hour of the same mask one is down to a statistically insignificant filtering capability (less than a percent).

Now trying to explain the math behind the studies and how they were conducted to the general public would probably go over the heads of about 80+% of the population so I understand that one has to dumb it down it the simplest common denominator and that is the message we are currently seeing now. That masks need to be worn and that they filter all the time. It is part psychological and part science based and fits peoples understand level.

Why do they lose efficacy after being worn an hour? I’d like to see the studies.

I did some digging this weekend and while I found my notes I did not save a link to the study. It was at time that when I was researching all the different ideas out there and it became fairly obvious that the science was being ignored on both sides, for an emotional decision making process. I am fairly positive I could find it after a couple of hours of looking but you can either take my word or not. Either way it matters not to me.

Also before you ask, I don't hate anybody. I am just indifferent and my decision making process is as cold as the land I live on.

[Gil Dobie]

Most studies I've seen, show how a particle the size if a virus is not stopped by a mask, and that's true IMO. The masks are worn to stop larger particulates that carry a large viral load, possibly thousands of individual virus. A medial recommended mask, dry or wet, is going to catch the particulate that size and stop it from landing on a surface or being airborne. I'm sure one is more effective that the other, but either way, they stop the larger particulates, therefore providing a lower chance of spreading covid. If you don't wear a mask, the large and small particluates and individual virus is spread where every a person breaths, talks, coughs or sneezes. A mask is like catching snow with a net with snowflake sized holes. Many individual flakes of snow are going to get thru the net, but the net will catch a snowball made of many snowflakes.

I don't disagree and they are great at catching loogie's (a bit facetious I know ). But one of the questions to ask is at what point is ones mask so saturated with virus particles that one is just as much a spreader as not wearing a mask? Is 30 minutes? An hour? 2 hours? 3 hours? x hours?

Length of proximity also plays into it I know but when your mask is wet what does it do the distance? The only places I have seen people are staying 6 feet apart is when they are forced to (or shamed into it). Between myself and 2 others in out department we have probably visited 35 of the 50 states in the last 6 months, and the above is true no matter what state/city one is in. Some are much better than others but once a person is outside of the "enforcement zone" old habits resurface no matter where one is at. I say this because a sterile lab result is not indicative to how the world outside of the lab works. For a proper experiment to be conducted one must try to mimic the conditions you are studying and outside of a couple of studies, I haven't seen anybody ask these questions. Both sides have an axe to grind and the studies show it.

Also stating that a mask saves x lives or not wearing a mask cost y lives is hypocritical at best, as the full summation of the data has not been compiled yet and nor will it be done in an impartial matter until long after politicians and the general public have forgotten the whole affair. I am in no way trying to change your beliefs (or anybody's for that matter) but just get people to ask questions and think about things they are told a bit before accepting them.

It depends on the mask, on how long it's useful. The proper mask I'm aware of are the surgical mask, and the homemade 3 layer masks, cloth with filter inbetween. The single layer neck choker isn't very worthy of being called a mask used for Covid Protocol. The particulates I'm thinking of are not loogie size, but can be. I'm thinking the size smaller than mist droplets, but larger than single virus. I am very stringent about distancing and washing. If I go in a store, I do my best to stay away from people, especially those with noses not covered, and might look strang doing it. I disinfect when I get to the car, and wash my hands when I get home. If you are young and healthy, it probably doesn't matter that much. Wearing mask stops some of the virus from escaping, less virus in the environment means less chance someone else will come in contact with it. It also reduces the opportunity for the virus to mutate, if less is being spread.

[Winterborn]

I don't disagree and they are great at catching loogie's (a bit facetious I know ). But one of the questions to ask is at what point is ones mask so saturated with virus particles that one is just as much a spreader as not wearing a mask? Is 30 minutes? An hour? 2 hours? 3 hours? x hours?

Length of proximity also plays into it I know but when your mask is wet what does it do the distance? The only places I have seen people are staying 6 feet apart is when they are forced to (or shamed into it). Between myself and 2 others in out department we have probably visited 35 of the 50 states in the last 6 months, and the above is true no matter what state/city one is in. Some are much better than others but once a person is outside of the "enforcement zone" old habits resurface no matter where one is at. I say this because a sterile lab result is not indicative to how the world outside of the lab works. For a proper experiment to be conducted one must try to mimic the conditions you are studying and outside of a couple of studies, I haven't seen anybody ask these questions. Both sides have an axe to grind and the studies show it.

Also stating that a mask saves x lives or not wearing a mask cost y lives is hypocritical at best, as the full summation of the data has not been compiled yet and nor will it be done in an impartial matter until long after politicians and the general public have forgotten the whole affair. I am in no way trying to change your beliefs (or anybody's for that matter) but just get people to ask questions and think about things they are told a bit before accepting them.

It depends on the mask, on how long it's useful. The proper mask I'm aware of are the surgical mask, and the homemade 3 layer masks, cloth with filter inbetween. The single layer neck choker isn't very worthy of being called a mask used for Covid Protocol. The particulates I'm thinking of are not loogie size, but can be. I'm thinking the size smaller than mist droplets, but larger than single virus. I am very stringent about distancing and washing. If I go in a store, I do my best to stay away from people, especially those with noses not covered, and might look strang doing it. I disinfect when I get to the car, and wash my hands when I get home. If you are young and healthy, it probably doesn't matter that much. Wearing mask stops some of the virus from escaping, less virus in the environment means less chance someone else will come in contact with it. It also reduces the opportunity for the virus to mutate, if less is being spread.

The only mask I have had in mind and that was in the study I mentioned, is the common surgical mask. Gaiters and the like are very much less efficient than the others. No matter the mask they all run out of being effective, it is only a matter of time. Washing also does not help for long, as while it cleans the mask, it creates micoholes in the material through the abrasive washing processes.

[kalm]

Why do they lose efficacy after being worn an hour? I’d like to see the studies.

I did some digging this weekend and while I found my notes I did not save a link to the study. It was at time that when I was researching all the different ideas out there and it became fairly obvious that the science was being ignored on both sides, for an emotional decision making process. I am fairly positive I could find it after a couple of hours of looking but you can either take my word or not. Either way it matters not to me.

Also before you ask, I don't hate anybody. I am just indifferent and my decision making process is as cold as the land I live on.

It would just seem to depend on how long the virus cells live on the surface of the mask. I was thinking more along the lines of a mask's ability to block particles. For someone who has to wear it daily for work it's probably significant, but for someone like me who only has to wear one every few days, it's probably less important.

But anything that reduces the amount of airborne cells is still better than nothing, no?

[Winterborn]

I did some digging this weekend and while I found my notes I did not save a link to the study. It was at time that when I was researching all the different ideas out there and it became fairly obvious that the science was being ignored on both sides, for an emotional decision making process. I am fairly positive I could find it after a couple of hours of looking but you can either take my word or not. Either way it matters not to me.

Also before you ask, I don't hate anybody. I am just indifferent and my decision making process is as cold as the land I live on.

It would just seem to depend on how long the virus cells live on the surface of the mask. I was thinking more along the lines of a mask's ability to block particles. For someone who has to wear it daily for work it's probably significant, but for someone like me who only has to wear one every few days, it's probably less important.

But anything that reduces the amount of airborne cells is still better than nothing, no?

Depends. Would you rather have the truth no matter how unpleasant or something else that gives you hope?

I would rather have the cold, unforgiving truth but that is just me. And for the record nobody (IMHO) knows the complete story of this. At best we are into the second chapter of a choose your own adventure novel and it is going to take time to get to the end. But the general public and Politicians especially hate to be seen not taking action and cautioning we need more information and it is not a clear cut decision is never popular. We know some trends but whether or not they are actual trends or just variations in the data is up for speculation.

Good thing is that there are hundreds of places that are running unintentional experiments and once the emotional response and political capital have ran out, we should be able to piece a pretty good idea of what works and what doesn't.

[kalm]

It would just seem to depend on how long the virus cells live on the surface of the mask. I was thinking more along the lines of a mask's ability to block particles. For someone who has to wear it daily for work it's probably significant, but for someone like me who only has to wear one every few days, it's probably less important.

But anything that reduces the amount of airborne cells is still better than nothing, no?

Depends. Would you rather have the truth no matter how unpleasant or something else that gives you hope?

I would rather have the cold, unforgiving truth but that is just me. And for the record nobody (IMHO) knows the complete story of this. At best we are into the second chapter of a choose your own adventure novel and it is going to take time to get to the end. But the general public and Politicians especially hate to be seen not taking action and cautioning we need more information and it is not a clear cut decision is never popular. We know some trends but whether or not they are actual trends or just variations in the data is up for speculation.

Good thing is that there are hundreds of places that are running unintentional experiments and once the emotional response and political capital have ran out, we should be able to piece a pretty good idea of what works and what doesn't.

Of course. But unless you're arguing that exposure to left over viral cells remaining in a dirty mask is a greater risk to community spread than no mask at all, it would still seem better. Perhaps not for the wearer but in reducing the spread.

If that's not known for certain than it would seem like wearing a mask is akin to an apple a day and limiting fried foods for the individual. For the community and others it's more like second hand smoke.

It's still sad that most data indicates a ton of lives would have been saved if we had gone with the best practices approach from the start. Namely, 6 feet, avoid breathing air indoors with anyone outside your own home for more than 5 minutes as much as possible. The essentials like groceries and doctors appointments....and not Thanksgiving with the siblings, aunts, nephews etc, car pooling, and poker games within your bubble (which is probably 10 times what you think it is).

I think in the end, the social distancing component will be way more significant than is realized even at this point.

And this doesn't even speak to the economics of what it might have been had lockdowns been more brief and concentrated.

,

[kalm]

It would just seem to depend on how long the virus cells live on the surface of the mask. I was thinking more along the lines of a mask's ability to block particles. For someone who has to wear it daily for work it's probably significant, but for someone like me who only has to wear one every few days, it's probably less important.

But anything that reduces the amount of airborne cells is still better than nothing, no?

Depends. Would you rather have the truth no matter how unpleasant or something else that gives you hope?

I would rather have the cold, unforgiving truth but that is just me. And for the record nobody (IMHO) knows the complete story of this. At best we are into the second chapter of a choose your own adventure novel and it is going to take time to get to the end. But the general public and Politicians especially hate to be seen not taking action and cautioning we need more information and it is not a clear cut decision is never popular. We know some trends but whether or not they are actual trends or just variations in the data is up for speculation.

Good thing is that there are hundreds of places that are running unintentional experiments and once the emotional response and political capital have ran out, we should be able to piece a pretty good idea of what works and what doesn't.

I'll also add that while you and I can "handle the truth", Americans as a whole have proven themselves less worthy and too selfish. I'm not suggesting a different path or that government should hide the truth or over-shoot with restrictions. On the contrary, I'm just lamenting the tendency towards conflicting restrictions and hypocrisy from elected officials. It's like "ah fuck it...these assholes aren't gonna comply anyway so let's just throw some shit out there and hope for the best".

Full disclosure: I'm quite uncomfortable playing the role of elitist and moralist.

[Winterborn]

Depends. Would you rather have the truth no matter how unpleasant or something else that gives you hope?

I would rather have the cold, unforgiving truth but that is just me. And for the record nobody (IMHO) knows the complete story of this. At best we are into the second chapter of a choose your own adventure novel and it is going to take time to get to the end. But the general public and Politicians especially hate to be seen not taking action and cautioning we need more information and it is not a clear cut decision is never popular. We know some trends but whether or not they are actual trends or just variations in the data is up for speculation.

Good thing is that there are hundreds of places that are running unintentional experiments and once the emotional response and political capital have ran out, we should be able to piece a pretty good idea of what works and what doesn't.

Of course. But unless you're arguing that exposure to left over viral cells remaining in a dirty mask is a greater risk to community spread than no mask at all, it would still seem better. Perhaps not for the wearer but in reducing the spread.

If that's not known for certain than it would seem like wearing a mask is akin to an apple a day and limiting fried foods for the individual. For the community and others it's more like second hand smoke.

It's still sad that most data indicates a ton of lives would have been saved if we had gone with the best practices approach from the start. Namely, 6 feet, avoid breathing air indoors with anyone outside your own home for more than 5 minutes as much as possible. The essentials like groceries and doctors appointments....and not Thanksgiving with the siblings, aunts, nephews etc, car pooling, and poker games within your bubble (which is probably 10 times what you think it is).

I think in the end, the social distancing component will be way more significant than is realized even at this point.

And this doesn't even speak to the economics of what it might have been had lockdowns been more brief and concentrated.

,

What I am arguing is that a mask is not the clear divider that it is currently presented to be. No more, no less.

And the italicized is a good "opinion" but it is not fact (it maybe or maybe not wind up being true).

For the bold that was never going to happen for many reasons and all of them political and emotional based. Basically the result we got was the best we could have asked for given our chaotic environment/human nature and the freedoms we had. We could all wish for something better but if wishes were horses beggars would ride.

[Winterborn]

Depends. Would you rather have the truth no matter how unpleasant or something else that gives you hope?

I would rather have the cold, unforgiving truth but that is just me. And for the record nobody (IMHO) knows the complete story of this. At best we are into the second chapter of a choose your own adventure novel and it is going to take time to get to the end. But the general public and Politicians especially hate to be seen not taking action and cautioning we need more information and it is not a clear cut decision is never popular. We know some trends but whether or not they are actual trends or just variations in the data is up for speculation.

Good thing is that there are hundreds of places that are running unintentional experiments and once the emotional response and political capital have ran out, we should be able to piece a pretty good idea of what works and what doesn't.

I'll also add that while you and I can "handle the truth", Americans as a whole have proven themselves less worthy and too selfish. I'm not suggesting a different path or that government should hide the truth or over-shoot with restrictions. On the contrary, I'm just lamenting the tendency towards conflicting restrictions and hypocrisy from elected officials. It's like "ah fuck it...these assholes aren't gonna comply anyway so let's just throw some shit out there and hope for the best".

Full disclosure: I'm quite uncomfortable playing the role of elitist and moralist.

You are a natural at it.

Lamenting is fine as long as it doesn't interfere with ones decision making process (there is this one girl back in college I lamented over quite a bit ). You say Americans, I say humanity in general cannot handle the truth, it isn't just limited to Americans. We seem especially good at it as we have been conditioned and it is imbibed with our mothers milk that we need to be independent (This comes from who and how people came to this country in the first place, now that is a fascinating psychology study ). Individuals are better at handling hard realities if it is done on a one-one/ small group basis due to the personal interactions and the mental connectedness that smaller groups bring (there is a term for it but it is escaping me at the moment).

Elected officials are no different than the average Joe or Janet on the street. They have the same insecurities we all do, just with the added responsibilities of being in charge to amp them up. Plus there were some politicians who were on a power trip and thought they could do no wrong. From a psychological standpoint nothing that has happened during this event is new, the scale yes, but the underlying principles of how people react, no.

[kalm]

Of course. But unless you're arguing that exposure to left over viral cells remaining in a dirty mask is a greater risk to community spread than no mask at all, it would still seem better. Perhaps not for the wearer but in reducing the spread.

If that's not known for certain than it would seem like wearing a mask is akin to an apple a day and limiting fried foods for the individual. For the community and others it's more like second hand smoke.

It's still sad that most data indicates a ton of lives would have been saved if we had gone with the best practices approach from the start. Namely, 6 feet, avoid breathing air indoors with anyone outside your own home for more than 5 minutes as much as possible. The essentials like groceries and doctors appointments....and not Thanksgiving with the siblings, aunts, nephews etc, car pooling, and poker games within your bubble (which is probably 10 times what you think it is).

I think in the end, the social distancing component will be way more significant than is realized even at this point.

And this doesn't even speak to the economics of what it might have been had lockdowns been more brief and concentrated.

,

What I am arguing is that a mask is not the clear divider that it is currently presented to be. No more, no less.

And the italicized is a good "opinion" but it is not fact (it maybe or maybe not wind up being true).

For the bold that was never going to happen for many reasons and all of them political and emotional based. Basically the result we got was the best we could have asked for given our chaotic environment/human nature and the freedoms we had. We could all wish for something better but if wishes were horses beggars would ride.

Dammit, I'm trying to call it a night...quite dragging me back in!

That's why the bold was preceded by "might." A narrow or closed minded view would be "nothing else could have been done". Especially considering this ain't over yet, and there may be future pandemics or regionalized outbreaks of other contagions.

A republic of states, our desire for freedom (sometimes overly exuberant), regional differences, geography, etc all provided some unique challenges. But we're a very innovative and industrious nation when we have competent leadership. Bush after 9/11, Kennedy and the space program, FDR and the New Deal and WWII industrialization, Manifest Destiny and the expansion of infrastructure and homesteading via government, Algore inventing the internet all come to mind.

This was not our finest rise to meet a threat or need. Trump's mistakes are obvious but from governors right down to LE that refused to enforce mask restrictions or lead by example in wearing masks are all to blame. And it's not as if there weren't more than a few experts in epidemiology, data analytics, and virology sounding warnings in March of last year that bore out to be true time and again.

Not just Monday morning QB'ing, but an I told you so in that we needed to take things more seriously from not just the start but currently and looking ahead.

[Winterborn]

What I am arguing is that a mask is not the clear divider that it is currently presented to be. No more, no less.

And the italicized is a good "opinion" but it is not fact (it maybe or maybe not wind up being true).

For the bold that was never going to happen for many reasons and all of them political and emotional based. Basically the result we got was the best we could have asked for given our chaotic environment/human nature and the freedoms we had. We could all wish for something better but if wishes were horses beggars would ride.

Dammit, I'm trying to call it a night...quite dragging me back in!

That's why the bold was preceded by "might." A narrow or closed minded view would be "nothing else could have been done". Especially considering this ain't over yet, and there may be future pandemics or regionalized outbreaks of other contagions.

A republic of states, our desire for freedom (sometimes overly exuberant), regional differences, geography, etc all provided some unique challenges. But we're a very innovative and industrious nation when we have competent leadership. Bush after 9/11, Kennedy and the space program, FDR and the New Deal and WWII industrialization, Manifest Destiny and the expansion of infrastructure and homesteading via government, Algore inventing the internet all come to mind.

This was not our finest rise to meet a threat or need. Trump's mistakes are obvious but from governors right down to LE that refused to enforce mask restrictions or lead by example in wearing masks are all to blame. And it's not as if there weren't more than a few experts in epidemiology, data analytics, and virology sounding warnings in March of last year that bore out to be true time and again.

Not just Monday morning QB'ing, but an I told you so in that we needed to take things more seriously from not just the start but currently and looking ahead.

Well then quite making somewhat rational arguments. (and I missed the word might)

History has proven that an "I told you so" are forgotten as soon as the dust settles.

Welcome to humanity and I am glad somebody is trying to preach to the masses (even though I may disagree with the message a bit ) but I like to think I am a realist and rather than trying to change peoples opinion I just sit back, sip some good alcohol (eat good food) and ask questions. Sometimes people stop and think about what I mentioned and then we get to have a conversation, other times it is just a brush off. Either way I I win, as get an engaging conversation (like this evening) with somebody that has an opinion and can have a polite discourse or they don't waste my time by sticking around.

[Gil Dobie]

Of course. But unless you're arguing that exposure to left over viral cells remaining in a dirty mask is a greater risk to community spread than no mask at all, it would still seem better. Perhaps not for the wearer but in reducing the spread.

If that's not known for certain than it would seem like wearing a mask is akin to an apple a day and limiting fried foods for the individual. For the community and others it's more like second hand smoke.

It's still sad that most data indicates a ton of lives would have been saved if we had gone with the best practices approach from the start. Namely, 6 feet, avoid breathing air indoors with anyone outside your own home for more than 5 minutes as much as possible. The essentials like groceries and doctors appointments....and not Thanksgiving with the siblings, aunts, nephews etc, car pooling, and poker games within your bubble (which is probably 10 times what you think it is).

I think in the end, the social distancing component will be way more significant than is realized even at this point.

And this doesn't even speak to the economics of what it might have been had lockdowns been more brief and concentrated.

,

What I am arguing is that a mask is not the clear divider that it is currently presented to be. No more, no less.

And the italicized is a good "opinion" but it is not fact (it maybe or maybe not wind up being true).

For the bold that was never going to happen for many reasons and all of them political and emotional based. Basically the result we got was the best we could have asked for given our chaotic environment/human nature and the freedoms we had. We could all wish for something better but if wishes were horses beggars would ride.

Mask are but one tool that can be used to slow the spread of covid, combined with the other protocol, not stop the spread. If I'm not distancing, washing, etc, then wearing a mask is basically for show. I don't think I've been to enough places recently, where I've worn a mask more than half hour an entire week.

[Winterborn]

What I am arguing is that a mask is not the clear divider that it is currently presented to be. No more, no less.

And the italicized is a good "opinion" but it is not fact (it maybe or maybe not wind up being true).

For the bold that was never going to happen for many reasons and all of them political and emotional based. Basically the result we got was the best we could have asked for given our chaotic environment/human nature and the freedoms we had. We could all wish for something better but if wishes were horses beggars would ride.

Mask are but one tool that can be used to slow the spread of covid, combined with the other protocol, not stop the spread. If I'm not distancing, washing, etc, then wearing a mask is basically for show. I don't think I've been to enough places recently, where I've worn a mask more than half hour an entire week.

Congratulations Gil on being an atypical boy-scout. I would be willing to bet less than 5% of Americans follow the rules as strictly as you do. Currently work requires a mask for anytime we are in the office and we have been in the office for about 6 months now. That means I am in a mask for between 45-60 hours a week (and have been for almost 6 months) and so are the 3,000+ others at our company. Our company policies are very typical of other companies in this industry.

Based on what I have seen there is about 50-60% of people out there that are not following at least one of those three to the level that is necessary to "slow the spread", much less all of them. Masks have turned into if I wear one, I don't have to do anything else.

[Gil Dobie]

Mask are but one tool that can be used to slow the spread of covid, combined with the other protocol, not stop the spread. If I'm not distancing, washing, etc, then wearing a mask is basically for show. I don't think I've been to enough places recently, where I've worn a mask more than half hour an entire week.

Congratulations Gil on being an atypical boy-scout. I would be willing to bet less than 5% of Americans follow the rules as strictly as you do. Currently work requires a mask for anytime we are in the office and we have been in the office for about 6 months now. That means I am in a mask for between 45-60 hours a week (and have been for almost 6 months) and so are the 3,000+ others at our company. Our company policies are very typical of other companies in this industry.

Based on what I have seen there is about 50-60% of people out there that are not following at least one of those three to the level that is necessary to "slow the spread", much less all of them. Masks have turned into if I wear one, I don't have to do anything else.

And we can't even get thru the doors office at my company, which usually holds over 7000 workers at my site.

[Winterborn]

Congratulations Gil on being an atypical boy-scout. I would be willing to bet less than 5% of Americans follow the rules as strictly as you do. Currently work requires a mask for anytime we are in the office and we have been in the office for about 6 months now. That means I am in a mask for between 45-60 hours a week (and have been for almost 6 months) and so are the 3,000+ others at our company. Our company policies are very typical of other companies in this industry.

Based on what I have seen there is about 50-60% of people out there that are not following at least one of those three to the level that is necessary to "slow the spread", much less all of them. Masks have turned into if I wear one, I don't have to do anything else.

And we can't even get thru the doors office at my company, which usually holds over 7000 workers at my site.

For us it did not take long for the company to mandate we move back into the office, as working from home was not as productive they were finding. We have always had the option of coming into the office all throughout 2020 except for about 3 months at the beginning. I don't mind working from home but overall I much rather be in the office (I get more done and i collaborate with too many different people on a day to day basis on stuff that is just not email friendly) and was back in the office long before we were officially told to be back (Oct). There are some still at home but overall unless you met certain qualifications, we are encouraged to be in the office.

Some jobs are a good fit for remote working and others are not. I could easily get by working from home a day or so a week but I definitely need to be in the office at least 3 days a week in order to do my job in the best way I can.

[Gil Dobie]

And we can't even get thru the doors office at my company, which usually holds over 7000 workers at my site.

For us it did not take long for the company to mandate we move back into the office, as working from home was not as productive they were finding. We have always had the option of coming into the office all throughout 2020 except for about 3 months at the beginning. I don't mind working from home but overall I much rather be in the office (I get more done and i collaborate with too many different people on a day to day basis on stuff that is just not email friendly) and was back in the office long before we were officially told to be back (Oct). There are some still at home but overall unless you met certain qualifications, we are encouraged to be in the office.

Some jobs are a good fit for remote working and others are not. I could easily get by working from home a day or so a week but I definitely need to be in the office at least 3 days a week in order to do my job in the best way I can.

The first 5 people I worked with today were from 5 different states, nothing international yet. It's more about timing for me, with all the time zones and work hours.

[∞∞∞]

I've been more productive at home with no distractions...much happier too. No commute and wowntime isn't spent staring blankly at a screen; I can enjoy cooking, exercise, gardening, video games, etc. And using tech to quickly communicate with everyone is super easy.

Our company management is old school though, so we're all going back at some point. Those who didn't like to WFH are in the office already, but I think it should be a choice. The pandemic proved that no matter where, people got their work done.

I'm one rung below the VPs in our company ladder, but I'm going to push WFH as a permanent option with upper management. Most people on my team (including myself) want to WFH and I'd rather not lose good staff to other companies who offer it once the pandemic is over. I think the lack of having it will also hurt growth and future recruiting. I'm already constrained by a laughably uncompetitive salary pool for new hires; being unable to offer it as a benefit when the competition will is only going to make it that much tougher.

Honestly, I'll likely look elsewhere if it's not implemented.

[UNI88]

I've been more productive at home with no distractions...much happier too. No commute and wowntime isn't spent staring blankly at a screen; I can enjoy cooking, exercise, gardening, video games, etc. And using tech to quickly communicate with everyone is super easy.

Our company management is old school though, so we're all going back at some point. Those who didn't like to WFH are in the office already, but I think it should be a choice. The pandemic proved that no matter where, people got their work done.

I'm one rung below the VPs in our company ladder, but I'm going to push WFH as a permanent option with upper management. Most people on my team (including myself) want to WFH and I'd rather not lose good staff to other companies who offer it once the pandemic is over. I think the lack of having it will also hurt growth and future recruiting. I'm already constrained by a laughably uncompetitive salary pool for new hires; being unable to offer it as a benefit when the competition will is only going to make it that much tougher.

Honestly, I'll likely look elsewhere if it's not implemented.

Curious - how do you onboard new hires, especially entry level?

[∞∞∞]

I've been more productive at home with no distractions...much happier too. No commute and wowntime isn't spent staring blankly at a screen; I can enjoy cooking, exercise, gardening, video games, etc. And using tech to quickly communicate with everyone is super easy.

Our company management is old school though, so we're all going back at some point. Those who didn't like to WFH are in the office already, but I think it should be a choice. The pandemic proved that no matter where, people got their work done.

I'm one rung below the VPs in our company ladder, but I'm going to push WFH as a permanent option with upper management. Most people on my team (including myself) want to WFH and I'd rather not lose good staff to other companies who offer it once the pandemic is over. I think the lack of having it will also hurt growth and future recruiting. I'm already constrained by a laughably uncompetitive salary pool for new hires; being unable to offer it as a benefit when the competition will is only going to make it that much tougher.

Honestly, I'll likely look elsewhere if it's not implemented.

Curious - how do you onboard new hires, especially entry level?

During the pandemic? Once they sign the contract and IT sets them up, I'll schedule a video conference with them, get to know them a bit, give them a brief overview of the projects they'll be working on, answer any questions they have. Personally, I also use the one-on-one time to gauge how much they actually know since entry-level resumes and interview answers can be a bit fluffed up. Gives me an idea of which one of team members to assign as a "buddy" (ex. if their CAD seems weak, I'll assign them to a drafter).

Once that's done, I'll hand it to HR and they do their thing.

I'll assign the buddy and let that person know. Then - preferably on their first day - I'll carve out some time with the entire team to have a conference call and we welcome the person, introduce each other, etc.

At that point, the project leader and "buddy" will more-or-less takeover. The project leader will give them the specific tasks on projects, the "buddy" will help them with the random questions they'll have (and of course I'm always available to anyone). Over time, like most companies, we'll gauge their growth, set expectations, see where they best fit on a team, etc.

There's actually two PMs, but the other is on sabbatical taking care of her children during the pandemic. So right now I'm the lone PM juggling all the projects, hires, employee conflicts, schedules, timesheets, budgets, clients, etc.

[SDHornet]

Most studies I've seen, show how a particle the size if a virus is not stopped by a mask, and that's true IMO. The masks are worn to stop larger particulates that carry a large viral load, possibly thousands of individual virus. A medial recommended mask, dry or wet, is going to catch the particulate that size and stop it from landing on a surface or being airborne. I'm sure one is more effective that the other, but either way, they stop the larger particulates, therefore providing a lower chance of spreading covid. If you don't wear a mask, the large and small particluates and individual virus is spread where every a person breaths, talks, coughs or sneezes. A mask is like catching snow with a net with snowflake sized holes. Many individual flakes of snow are going to get thru the net, but the net will catch a snowball made of many snowflakes.

I don't disagree and they are great at catching loogie's (a bit facetious I know ). But one of the questions to ask is at what point is ones mask so saturated with virus particles that one is just as much a spreader as not wearing a mask? Is 30 minutes? An hour? 2 hours? 3 hours? x hours?

Length of proximity also plays into it I know but when your mask is wet what does it do the distance? The only places I have seen people are staying 6 feet apart is when they are forced to (or shamed into it). Between myself and 2 others in out department we have probably visited 35 of the 50 states in the last 6 months, and the above is true no matter what state/city one is in. Some are much better than others but once a person is outside of the "enforcement zone" old habits resurface no matter where one is at. I say this because a sterile lab result is not indicative to how the world outside of the lab works. For a proper experiment to be conducted one must try to mimic the conditions you are studying and outside of a couple of studies, I haven't seen anybody ask these questions. Both sides have an axe to grind and the studies show it.

Also stating that a mask saves x lives or not wearing a mask cost y lives is hypocritical at best, as the full summation of the data has not been compiled yet and nor will it be done in an impartial matter until long after politicians and the general public have forgotten the whole affair. I am in no way trying to change your beliefs (or anybody's for that matter) but just get people to ask questions and think about things they are told a bit before accepting them.

The Danish study I posted was a "real world" test with people going about their regular day. Some with masks, others without. Basically no difference between the groups. Masks were all about compliance, and a smidgen of "keep people safe".

[SDHornet]

I did some digging this weekend and while I found my notes I did not save a link to the study. It was at time that when I was researching all the different ideas out there and it became fairly obvious that the science was being ignored on both sides, for an emotional decision making process. I am fairly positive I could find it after a couple of hours of looking but you can either take my word or not. Either way it matters not to me.

Also before you ask, I don't hate anybody. I am just indifferent and my decision making process is as cold as the land I live on.

It would just seem to depend on how long the virus cells live on the surface of the mask. I was thinking more along the lines of a mask's ability to block particles. For someone who has to wear it daily for work it's probably significant, but for someone like me who only has to wear one every few days, it's probably less important.

But anything that reduces the amount of airborne cells is still better than nothing, no?

Since used masks aren't treated as a biohazard waste, I'm thinking the whole thing is moot.

[SDHornet]

So what's the point of getting the vaccine?

[SDHornet]

What I am arguing is that a mask is not the clear divider that it is currently presented to be. No more, no less.

And the italicized is a good "opinion" but it is not fact (it maybe or maybe not wind up being true).

For the bold that was never going to happen for many reasons and all of them political and emotional based. Basically the result we got was the best we could have asked for given our chaotic environment/human nature and the freedoms we had. We could all wish for something better but if wishes were horses beggars would ride.

Dammit, I'm trying to call it a night...quite dragging me back in!

That's why the bold was preceded by "might." A narrow or closed minded view would be "nothing else could have been done". Especially considering this ain't over yet, and there may be future pandemics or regionalized outbreaks of other contagions.

A republic of states, our desire for freedom (sometimes overly exuberant), regional differences, geography, etc all provided some unique challenges. But we're a very innovative and industrious nation when we have competent leadership. Bush after 9/11, Kennedy and the space program, FDR and the New Deal and WWII industrialization, Manifest Destiny and the expansion of infrastructure and homesteading via government, Algore inventing the internet all come to mind.

This was not our finest rise to meet a threat or need. Trump's mistakes are obvious but from governors right down to LE that refused to enforce mask restrictions or lead by example in wearing masks are all to blame. And it's not as if there weren't more than a few experts in epidemiology, data analytics, and virology sounding warnings in March of last year that bore out to be true time and again.

Not just Monday morning QB'ing, but an I told you so in that we needed to take things more seriously from not just the start but currently and looking ahead.

LE's aren't there to enforce "laws" not passed by their respective legislatures. Agree about the rest of that statement though.

[SDHornet]

I've been more productive at home with no distractions...much happier too. No commute and wowntime isn't spent staring blankly at a screen; I can enjoy cooking, exercise, gardening, video games, etc. And using tech to quickly communicate with everyone is super easy.

Our company management is old school though, so we're all going back at some point. Those who didn't like to WFH are in the office already, but I think it should be a choice. The pandemic proved that no matter where, people got their work done.

I'm one rung below the VPs in our company ladder, but I'm going to push WFH as a permanent option with upper management. Most people on my team (including myself) want to WFH and I'd rather not lose good staff to other companies who offer it once the pandemic is over. I think the lack of having it will also hurt growth and future recruiting. I'm already constrained by a laughably uncompetitive salary pool for new hires; being unable to offer it as a benefit when the competition will is only going to make it that much tougher.

Honestly, I'll likely look elsewhere if it's not implemented.

WFH isn't going away once we go back to "normal". My sister is an account at a small manufacturing/industrial supply outfit and she's going to leverage a couple days a week to WFH once "normal" hits. She said her team has been more productive since there's no commute and no time wasted on office BS.

[Gil Dobie]

2nd straight day with only 1 death in Minnesota.