Face Coverings - whose authority?

[ctwo]

I read on here that health officers have supreme authority and can order everyone to, whatever they want, such as wear pink tutus at their whim.

Today I read that,

Today, the City Manager, acting as the Director of Emergency Services, issued an Emergency Order requiring face coverings to be worn by the public when outside their home for any type of activity or business in Palo Alto.

Is a director of emergency services on the same level as, say, a county health officer? Does this mean I'm not allowed to have a backyard BBQ with myself or sit on the front porch to enjoy my ribs without a face covering?

I heard the other day on the alphabet channels that any face coverings with a vent are prohibited. I don't recall under what authority or which jurisdiction is that order, perhaps the whim of the news anchor?

Can any of these orders actually extend into private workplaces or even retail stores? I saw the other day a lady with 5 (FIVE) little kids, one being an infant, ride their bikes up to the local community store and crowd the front door area inside and all wait in the checkout line without face coverings, all to get a pop-sickle! Frozen sugar water on a stick! arty

Who has authority to order what? Is it anyone who can order the police force to act? Is there no process for this now?

If SIP is working, why are orders becoming more draconian?

 

[Brokenlink]

I read on here that health officers have supreme authority and can order everyone to, whatever they want, such as wear pink tutus at their whim.

Today I read that,



Is a director of emergency services on the same level as, say, a county health officer? Does this mean I'm not allowed to have a backyard BBQ with myself or sit on the front porch to enjoy my ribs without a face covering?

I heard the other day on the alphabet channels that any face coverings with a vent are prohibited. I don't recall under what authority or which jurisdiction is that order, perhaps the whim of the news anchor?

Can any of these orders actually extend into private workplaces or even retail stores? I saw the other day a lady with 5 (FIVE) little kids, one being an infant, ride their bikes up to the local community store and crowd the front door area inside and all wait in the checkout line without face coverings, all to get a pop-sickle! Frozen sugar water on a stick! arty

Who has authority to order what? Is it anyone who can order the police force to act? Is there no process for this now?

If SIP is working, why are orders becoming more draconian?

I'm not going to respond to most of your weird diatribe. But I will address the last sentence. SIP is working. And therefore people feel that it is unnecessary and they can just go back to being stupid morons. So in order to continue to see the benefits of SIP, the orders are becoming more draconian. Your popsicle story is a perfect example. Another is you and your constant "I do what I want" theme.


Let me give you a better example. You have a bunch of kids running around the swimming pool and they keep falling and getting hurt. You implement a "no running" policy and all of a sudden nobody falls and gets hurt. So the kids (and their parents) start questioning the effectiveness of the "no running" rule because it really isn't an issue. Nobody has fallen and gotten hurt lately, so why the draconian rule? So they start running and you know what, nobody gets hurt. So more of them start running. They invite their friends and it all works out until that moron Jeffrey trips over his own feet and lands right on top of little Maria and chips her tooth. What do we do now? We enforce the "no running" rule and add a few more like reduce the number of kids allowed at the pool. But the kids revolt. They run. And then Arnold falls and breaks his nose on the concrete. Well now, we have to not let kids run, or have more than 20 at a time. But we also need to add "children must be supervised by an adult" rule.

See how that works? Stop being Jeffrey. Just wear the damn mask.

 

[mlm]

I read on here that health officers have supreme authority and can order everyone to, whatever they want, such as wear pink tutus at their whim.

Today I read that,



Is a director of emergency services on the same level as, say, a county health officer? Does this mean I'm not allowed to have a backyard BBQ with myself or sit on the front porch to enjoy my ribs without a face covering?

I heard the other day on the alphabet channels that any face coverings with a vent are prohibited. I don't recall under what authority or which jurisdiction is that order, perhaps the whim of the news anchor?

Can any of these orders actually extend into private workplaces or even retail stores? I saw the other day a lady with 5 (FIVE) little kids, one being an infant, ride their bikes up to the local community store and crowd the front door area inside and all wait in the checkout line without face coverings, all to get a pop-sickle! Frozen sugar water on a stick! arty

Who has authority to order what? Is it anyone who can order the police force to act? Is there no process for this now?

If SIP is working, why are orders becoming more draconian?

I think Santa Clara did this right. Not a mandate, but recommendation to do it when at businesses. I saw Home Depot in Sunnyvale posted a sign saying they are being enforced for entry at the store. That is a voluntary company policy BTW, not a mandate

None of these directives applies to people at private residences, inside cars, etc. Implying otherwise is just an excuse to be outraged.

 

[budman]

Palo Alto is my home town, but has gone from blue collar cool to prim and proper during my lifetime of living here. I am not surprised.

Moving this to the Covid Forum.

 

[mean dad]

*whose

 

[Blankpage]

Too many Jeffrey's out there ruining it for everyone

 

[Smash Allen]

Stop being Jeffrey. Just wear the damn mask.

One adjustment or two to your analogy could be that no kids at your pool has fallen from running, we just hear about it happening at other pools.

But to be good pool citizens we stop the kids from running anyhow. Then it turns out that there was a group of kids going pool to pool and tripping other kids.

So when we should have been targeting those kids and preventing them from using any public pools until they behave, we have instead prevented ALL kids from using ALL pools.

Then the lifeguard is laid off and the pool closes.

Thanks Jeff

 

[bojangle]

If SIP is working, why are orders becoming more draconian?

Your backyard is still at your home, so no, faces masks don't apply. Though you can still voluntarily wear one. The government can't make me not wear a face mask at my own house, damn it!

SIP is working. We are entering phase 2 and starting to loosen SIP, for everyone's benefit. We also don't want cases to spike upwards when this happens. Ideally, we can continue to loosen restrictions and still keep new infections under control by isolation and contact tracing. We need to prevent hospitals from becoming overwhelmed, and buy time for treatments and vaccines to be developed, tested, and implemented. If requiring the public to wear face masks helps us achieve those goals, while loosening restrictions and getting more people back to work, then what's the problem? It seems like a reasonable common sense solution. And with the face masks most are wearing, it takes everyone wearing one to *hopefully* be effective, since most aren't and shouldn't be wearing N95 rated masks.

If cases spike up, loosened restrictions will clamp back down. That's not what we want, is it?

 

[Brokenlink]

One adjustment or two to your analogy could be that no kids at your pool has fallen from running, we just hear about it happening at other pools.

But to be good pool citizens we stop the kids from running anyhow. Then it turns out that there was a group of kids going pool to pool and tripping other kids.

So when we should have been targeting those kids and preventing them from using any public pools until they behave, we have instead prevented ALL kids from using ALL pools.

Then the lifeguard is laid off and the pool closes.

Thanks Jeff

Um, no.

 

[bojangle]

One adjustment or two to your analogy could be that no kids at your pool has fallen from running, we just hear about it happening at other pools.

But to be good pool citizens we stop the kids from running anyhow. Then it turns out that there was a group of kids going pool to pool and tripping other kids.

So when we should have been targeting those kids and preventing them from using any public pools until they behave, we have instead prevented ALL kids from using ALL pools.

Then the lifeguard is laid off and the pool closes.

Thanks Jeff

Not a very good analogy, since in the case of SarsCoV2, we didn't know which kids were doing the tripping because we couldn't see them. And we weren't prepared, as a country, with an effective protocol to locate those delinquents and isolate them from the rest of society.

And no, the lifeguards haven't been laid off. They've been working overtime worldwide to try and develop a safety plan to end this tripping pandemic, so, in the mean time, to get control over rampant exponential tripping, yes, the pools had to be closed. The good news is that now we are starting to issue life vests and allow people to dip their feet in the pool again.

 

[Smash Allen]

Not a very good analogy, since in the case of SarsCoV2, we didn't know which kids were doing the tripping because we couldn't see them. And we weren't prepared, as a country, with an effective protocol to locate those delinquents and isolate them from the rest of society.

Well we can see the trail of tripped kids and figure out where they've been and the direction they're headed... Other countries have had success preventing pool hooligans through tripped-tracing but ours seems to place more value on privacy and personal rights...edit: and to be fair, also sat on their hands...

 

[bojangle]

Well we can see the trail of tripped kids and figure out where they've been and the direction they're headed... Other countries have had success preventing pool hooligans through tripped-tracing but ours seems to place more value on privacy and personal rights...edit: and to be fair, also sat on their hands...

Yep, agreed.

The only thing I'd add is that the trail of tripped kids is only seen in hindsight, and an effective SIP, or everyone out of the pool policy would need to be enacted in anticipation of the tripping, based on projection models, in order to be effective. Because once we realize that, for example, New York was a hot spot for trippers, it would be too late to prevent a spike in tripping cases by getting everyone out of the pool. At that point, it's just damage control, and making sure the lifeguards have the tools they need to treat the injured.

 

[wilit]

Damn gubment can't tell me what to wear!

 

[squidworth]

What is going on in that last picture?? Is that person wearing a bandanna with what looks like those little pads you use to wax your car with, to look like they are wearing a respirator? lol.

 

[bojangle]

What is going on in that last picture?? Is that person wearing a bandanna with what looks like those little pads you use to wax your car with, to look like they are wearing a respirator? lol.

:laughing. Something like that.

 

[ctwo]

I'm not going to respond to most of your weird diatribe. But I will address the last sentence. SIP is working. And therefore people feel that it is unnecessary and they can just go back to being stupid morons. So in order to continue to see the benefits of SIP, the orders are becoming more draconian. Your popsicle story is a perfect example. Another is you and your constant "I do what I want" theme.


Let me give you a better example. You have a bunch of kids running around the swimming pool and they keep falling and getting hurt. You implement a "no running" policy and all of a sudden nobody falls and gets hurt. So the kids (and their parents) start questioning the effectiveness of the "no running" rule because it really isn't an issue. Nobody has fallen and gotten hurt lately, so why the draconian rule? So they start running and you know what, nobody gets hurt. So more of them start running. They invite their friends and it all works out until that moron Jeffrey trips over his own feet and lands right on top of little Maria and chips her tooth. What do we do now? We enforce the "no running" rule and add a few more like reduce the number of kids allowed at the pool. But the kids revolt. They run. And then Arnold falls and breaks his nose on the concrete. Well now, we have to not let kids run, or have more than 20 at a time. But we also need to add "children must be supervised by an adult" rule.

See how that works? Stop being Jeffrey. Just wear the damn mask.

Sire, you are mistaken. Since where have I taken the *do as I please* stance? I am merely asking questions, which you may oblige by pointing out which ones qualify as weird diatribe.

I have genuine N95 masks, but they have vents. Where are they not allowed and why? Because my exhale is going to spew out more than my cotton weave bandanna? Who is being an idiot? First there was encouragement not to wear masks, then a requirement. Our company GM said masks were not required in the building, but then our director of HR says they are. As we contemplate how to navigate this hot mess of authoritative rule, who are we required to listen to? If I go back to work anytime soon, it will be several counties away.

And I am happy to follow orders, if I knew whose order to follow, and as long as it is not as silly as wearing a pink tutu.

 

[ctwo]

*whose

Can you use that in one of my sentences? Doesn't seem to fit.

 

[tuxumino]

have a nice trip, see ya next fall







when the virus makes a come back

 

[Caddywumpus]

If I have to wear a mask but get to go back to work I will. Also it's just a damn good idea

 

[mlm]

Sire, you are mistaken. Since where have I taken the *do as I please* stance? I am merely asking questions, which you may oblige by pointing out which ones qualify as weird diatribe.

I have genuine N95 masks, but they have vents. Where are they not allowed and why? Because my exhale is going to spew out more than my cotton weave bandanna? Who is being an idiot? First there was encouragement not to wear masks, then a requirement. Our company GM said masks were not required in the building, but then our director of HR says they are. As we contemplate how to navigate this hot mess of authoritative rule, who are we required to listen to? If I go back to work anytime soon, it will be several counties away.

And I am happy to follow orders, if I knew whose order to follow, and as long as it is not as silly as wearing a pink tutu.

People including yourself are assuming mask, face covering, and PPE are the same. They are not, nor is their intended use. PPE is to protect the wearer and face coverings are to protect people *from* the wearer. If you consider that then you’ll see the recommendations didn’t change, they just started asking people to use face coverings. A simple cotton cloth probably stops a sneeze or cough more than the blow through vent of an N95 mask. The reason is because most particulate will be attached to water droplets...same reason they have water trucks to cut down the dust at construction sites

FWIW, my Dr. office hands out paper surgical masks to anyone showing up with a cough symptom. That’s been their policy for a couple years

And don’t worry, if you want to wear a pink tutu I won’t judge you

Can you use that in one of my sentences? Doesn't seem to fit.

He wasn’t wrong. Check your thread title