It always seemed to me that asking people to be perfect would back fire. Increases the exhaustion and frustration too quickly. And I've been very diligent, but I work from home, so fairly easy. Scaring people from outdoor interaction was a mistake
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Would the same apply if covid were more lethal or if it had the same effect on children that it has on seniors?
-
If it were more lethal then the virus would not be able to spread as easily.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The "abstinence only" approach is borne of a sense that many people need very simple practical rules to follow, and changing them is disruptive. Particularly in the early days of COVID, not enough was known to create good rules, so we threw everything at the wall.
-
We did not need all of the rules created in March 2020, but we didn't know that yet. As science developed, rules were refined, but people had latched onto old rules or saw changing rules as a sign that everything was bogus.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Compliance matters. Imperfect rules people obey are better than perfect rules they ignore.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Totally agree. Also, experts, admit what you don’t know. Example: a new report says 3 ft of distance as good as 6. Also: FL is doing pretty well. Also: some ppl just aren’t at as much risk.
-
Pretty well? 32,000 + dead in Florida. 4th in total deaths.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
The ironic thing is if everyone wore 2 masks while indoors, while avoiding indoors as much as possible, the virus would have went away in a month. Instead we killed half a million and *points at everything* Its not even wildly contagious like measles, just bad people here
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This article actually illustrates a problem with harm reduction. Harm reduction messages can be confusing and focus on the wrong things. For example while the piece emphasizes the outdoors indoors distinction at the end, it omits it when talking about dining out "safely ".
-
Instead it emphasizes dining while socially distanced (good) and masked (how do you eat through a mask?)
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.