I saw a study a while back that claimed that good filtration and ventilation systems in indoor public places were more effective than masking. If that’s the case, what I’d like to see is subsidies for businesses and public buildings to get.new systems installed, as well as new minimum air quality standards for public spaces with inspections for enforcement.
If we couldn’t achieve this when everyone was scared of covid, what makes you think we’ll pull it off now? This fight is lost. We’re just going to keep getting exposed to this shit, and take cardiac damage every time.
Well so there’s the question: how much more effective is good ventilation than masking? I was under the impression that it’s, like, a lot. Orders of magnitude. Like if good ventilation was equivalent to seatbelts in cars, then masking would be wearing a helmet while driving.
But perhaps someone who is better at reading scientific results could find the study and come up with a better analogy for us laymen, in case my understanding is way off base. If it’s actually that masking is more like airbags, then I think people would be a lot more amenable to doing both.
Wearing a mask is like wearing a mask. It helps prevent spit and other large particulate matter from escaping your personal space. Some work better than others, some work almost not at all.
All are, at least, somewhat helpful in containing the spread of illness.
And despite masking, COVID spread all over the globe and killed a fuckload of people.
Would more people have died if there was no masking? Yes, absolutely.
But the question of interest is: how many fewer people would have died if we made a concentrated effort to improve ventilation in public spaces?
Maybe I’m completely missing your point, or maybe you’re just being snarky/contrarian and don’t really have a point, but it sounds like you are basically saying (reusing the above analogy) “Why are we talking about adding seatbelts to cars when we already have helmets?”
Maybe I’m completely missing your point, or maybe you’re just being snarky/contrarian and don’t really have a point, but it sounds like you are basically saying (reusing the above analogy) “Why are we talking about adding seatbelts to cars when we already have helmets?”
I can promise you the latter is not the case. It’s possible I misinterpreted your post. I am 100% for layers of preventative measures.
This is a good start, but even if this all was enacted I’d still mask up during COVID surges. There’s no way in hell I would trust any business to do what’s best for the general public.
My girlfriend brought Covid home like three times last year I didn’t get sick once I just have decent. HVAC and I get the high quality Vairo filters that put extra strain on the HVAC.
Yes, and I’ve always worn a mask when needed, but filtration and ventilation require planning and funding, mask policies allow for the individualization and moralization of health crises.
I saw a study a while back that claimed that good filtration and ventilation systems in indoor public places were more effective than masking. If that’s the case, what I’d like to see is subsidies for businesses and public buildings to get.new systems installed, as well as new minimum air quality standards for public spaces with inspections for enforcement.
Schools, get the schools some serious ventilation upgrades. Petri dishes full of cootie factories…
If we couldn’t achieve this when everyone was scared of covid, what makes you think we’ll pull it off now? This fight is lost. We’re just going to keep getting exposed to this shit, and take cardiac damage every time.
Politicians occasionally like to throw money at things (PPP loans and forgiveness), so maybe we could convince them to throw it this way.
Or we could do both and have even more protection.
Well so there’s the question: how much more effective is good ventilation than masking? I was under the impression that it’s, like, a lot. Orders of magnitude. Like if good ventilation was equivalent to seatbelts in cars, then masking would be wearing a helmet while driving.
But perhaps someone who is better at reading scientific results could find the study and come up with a better analogy for us laymen, in case my understanding is way off base. If it’s actually that masking is more like airbags, then I think people would be a lot more amenable to doing both.
Let me help you out.
Wearing a mask is like wearing a mask. It helps prevent spit and other large particulate matter from escaping your personal space. Some work better than others, some work almost not at all.
All are, at least, somewhat helpful in containing the spread of illness.
You can work with that information.
And despite masking, COVID spread all over the globe and killed a fuckload of people.
Would more people have died if there was no masking? Yes, absolutely.
But the question of interest is: how many fewer people would have died if we made a concentrated effort to improve ventilation in public spaces?
Maybe I’m completely missing your point, or maybe you’re just being snarky/contrarian and don’t really have a point, but it sounds like you are basically saying (reusing the above analogy) “Why are we talking about adding seatbelts to cars when we already have helmets?”
I can promise you the latter is not the case. It’s possible I misinterpreted your post. I am 100% for layers of preventative measures.
This is a good start, but even if this all was enacted I’d still mask up during COVID surges. There’s no way in hell I would trust any business to do what’s best for the general public.
Hence inspections. Like we have health inspections for restaurants, we could have HVAC inspections.
My girlfriend brought Covid home like three times last year I didn’t get sick once I just have decent. HVAC and I get the high quality Vairo filters that put extra strain on the HVAC.
Yes, and I’ve always worn a mask when needed, but filtration and ventilation require planning and funding, mask policies allow for the individualization and moralization of health crises.
Why should they need subsidies?
If they can’t afford to keep their places sanitary in line with what the law requires, they should go out of business.
Not sure why we think taxpayers should pick up the slack of business owners.
Well taxpayers have been subsidizing Walmart for years, but sure, let’s kill more small businesses in the country. That’ll be great for the economy.
I believe once industries become so big and necessary for life, they should just be nationalized.
That way we can get the same services but don’t have to funnel money to ‘owners’ profiting from doing nothing.
Sounds reasonable.
I’d also accept actually enforcing anti-trust laws and breaking up these big companies.
I mean, that just makes it so different rich people can start profiting at everyone else’s expense.
Now businesses are trying to do the same thing in slightly different ways instead of one entity doing it the best way.
Just like when they stopped smoking on planes and everyone caught a cold.