That's my take. I see zero evidence of it - as opposed to some people saying, wow, I really prefer working from home, etc. I think there's a lot of people wanting to think that there are some other weird people keeping them locked down, as opposed to covid locking them down.
-
-
Replying to @joshtpm @TaylorLorenz and
Maybe. I'm so traumatized by this year that I get upset, maybe irrationally so, by suggestions that any of it is permanent. And I follow all public health guidance on masks but probably hate them as much as the most egregious anti-maskers so I hope they don't become a norm.
8 replies 0 retweets 45 likes -
Replying to @michelleinbklyn @TaylorLorenz and
I mean, I've found the last year a downer too? And I get what you're saying. It is traumatic. It is horrible. Wish it'd never happened and wish it would end. All of it. But I do sense that some people have found a need to conjure these people up because it's hard to be mad ...
3 replies 0 retweets 39 likes -
Replying to @joshtpm @TaylorLorenz and
Obviously we'll see in a few months. I think
@zeynep is right here: https://zeynep.substack.com/p/how-polarization-ate-our-brains …pic.twitter.com/nQRQ3aGfQZ
12 replies 2 retweets 45 likes -
Replying to @michelleinbklyn @joshtpm and
I think one potential trajectory is not that people *want* to stay in this mode, but will not feel safe enough to let go of some mitigations, which is acceptable as an individual decision but comes with costs, but that this will also extend into policy fights. But who knows?
3 replies 1 retweet 29 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @michelleinbklyn and
I think the first point is probably expected for some and human nature. People are deeply traumatized. On the policy front, I really doubt this is an issue because the very strong public policy tendency has been to loosen at the first sign of even slight case rate declines.
5 replies 0 retweets 18 likes -
Replying to @joshtpm @michelleinbklyn and
Agree, not blaming people. On the latter: we are often loosening the wrong things at the first sign. We should have relaxed outdoor mask requirements by April 2020, for example, and probably should have only as last step relaxed unmasked/high-aerosol indoor activities.
3 replies 1 retweet 38 likes -
Most mask mandates require masks outdoors only when the wearer would not be able to maintain 6 foot distance. From others. Doesn't that still make sense? Why not better explain outdoor mask requirements instead of relaxing them?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @oblivious_dude @joshtpm and
No, it does not make sense. Masks outdoors make sense only for *extended* contact in very close proximity (especially if talking) but indoors, they make sense even if beyond the six feet. The main transmission mode is clearly aerosols, not droplets, and hence those are different.
2 replies 2 retweets 19 likes -
Is there a good study showing that? 6 feet may be arbitrary, but is your position there's no significant risk from, eg, sold out outdoor sporting events with no mask requirements? Re indoors, doesn't duration of exposure matter whether aerosol or droplets?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes, there is, in fact, an enormous amount of studies and the evidence is overwhelming (close contact for extended time especially if talking/shouting is risky, even outdoors). That is is not widely understood is perhaps the most significant public health failure of the pandemic.
-
-
So masks maybe aren't necessary if you are walking your dog and don't talk to any humans. But they are necessary if your walk your dog and stop to chat for 20 minutes with a friend.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @oblivious_dude @zeynep and
Simply eliminating mask requirements outdoors could lead to unnecessary cases
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 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.