Bill Barr threatens to join lawsuits against stay-home orders

a reply to: maskim

Masks make me feel claustrophobic. It's the same with scarves in winter. Once the air I breathe starts to feel stuffy and moist, I start to feel like I'm smothering.

originally posted by: maskim
I'll sum it up for you...

Well, okay, but I don't want anyone to "sum it up" for me. I already have the specifics.

- N95 or better protects you and others, but in short supply so leave it to healthcare workers who know how to use it

Obviously.

- Surgical masks mostly protects others...

As I stated.

...but still filters larger droplets from being inhaled by the wearer...

Perhaps incidentally, accidentally, and temporarily. But that's not protection... that's luck.

- Homemade masks offer the least amount of protection, but still more than not wearing a mask at all.

For others.

- If you don't know how to properly wear a mask you'll increase your chances of infection by constantly touching your face to adjust the mask and by not being aware of safe donning/doffing procedures.

By definition, doing anything incorrectly thwarts the purpose. That's what makes it "incorrect." But I'm glad you brought that up, because it is a concern because it does allow for infecting others. Which is why it's "incorrect."

Virus needs human (or bat or whatever) cells to replicate.

We're not talking about replication.

A mask, professional or homemade, does not have any of these cells because it's an inanimate object.

Duh.

If you are infected and breathe the virus into a mask, it will not multiply there so you can't increase your viral load by inhaling it back.

There is no need for the cell(s) to multiply; The body has eliminated a virus cell which is then inhaled back because it is retained in the mask. So rather than reducing your viral load naturally -- one of the body's defenses -- you have thwarted that defense and returned it to your body. Thus increasing the viral load.

I am concerned about people living alone not getting the help they need. But the solution is not to remove all lockdown and social distancing measures, but to teach people proper hygiene and PPE protocols and then slowly lift or ease those measures.

That doesn't help a person -- old or young -- who has physical, mental, and/or emotional limitations and disabilities. At the very least, we should be recommending and encouraging people to either take in their elders and make sure their needs are being met, or going to stay with our elders to make sure their needs are being met.

In short; educate yourself and take care of others by wearing a mask when you are near them.

I have educated myself. And I have now educated you (if you choose to be educated, of course).

www.sciencedaily.com...

Surgical masks may help prevent infected people from making others sick with seasonal viruses, including coronaviruses

www.livescience.com...

The surgical mask was three times more effective in blocking transmission [of microorganisms] than the homemade mask," the researchers of that study found, who noted that homemade masks "should only be considered as a last resort to prevent droplet transmission from infected individuals

www.cdc.gov...

CDC is additionally advising the use of simple cloth face coverings to slow the spread of the virus and help people who may have the virus and do not know it from transmitting it to others

Thank you for confirming what I initially stated: Wearing a mask is for the protection of others, not to protect one's self.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: maskim
Masks make me feel claustrophobic.

Imagine how claustrophobic doctors and nurses feel having to wear full PPE for hours, surrounded by people drowning in their own spit.

So how much discomfort would you be willing to endure to make their lives a bit easier? Or even to save a few lives?

originally posted by: Boadicea

There is no need for the cell(s) to multiply; The body has eliminated a virus cell which is then inhaled back because it is retained in the mask. So rather than reducing your viral load naturally -- one of the body's defenses -- you have thwarted that defense and returned it to your body. Thus increasing the viral load.

I'd appreciate it if you could show me the scientific, peer reviewed study confirming that wearing a mask can increase the viral load for the wearer.

Thank you for confirming what I initially stated: Wearing a mask is for the protection of others, not to protect one's self.

It's for both actually. If you have read the linked articles in my post you'd know that.
But can you guess what happens when everyone is wearing a mask?
I'll help; it protects you.

originally posted by: maskim

I'd appreciate it if you could show me the scientific, peer reviewed study confirming that wearing a mask can increase the viral load for the wearer.

I already did, specifically citing the risks of face masks contaminated and retaining infected virus cells due to moisture and (worse) saturation of the mask.

As already noted, such clinical studies are not available for this virus specifically (as to be expected), and clinical studies for viruses in general are limited. This particular study has not been conducted. Most likely because it would be HIGHLY UNETHICAL to conduct a controlled study knowing that you are quite possibly/probably making someone very very sick, and literally endangering their life. I would certainly hope so at least.

It's for both actually. If you have read the linked articles in my post you'd know that.

Actually, I did. And no, those links suggested that it might provide some protection, but there was no clinical evidence to support that.

But can you guess what happens when everyone is wearing a mask?

I can guess lots of things! But guesses aren't science.

I'll help; it protects you.

Big sigh. No. It doesn't. Especially if I have already contracted the virus.

a reply to: EternalShadow

And here's another option to fight back: Our own Constitutionally empowered and duly elected sheriffs, who are NOT obligated to do the bidding of the Feds.

She riff in Washington county where first US coronavirus case was reported says he won't enforce the state's 'unconstitutional' stay-at-home order

The sheriff of a Washington county which saw the nation's first COVID-19 cases says he will not enforce the statewide stay-at-home order because he believes it is unconstitutional...

He said he'd wanted to defy the stay-at-home order two weeks ago but 'decided to wait out of respect for the Governor and my own misguided hope that each day he did a press conference he would say something with some specificity on getting Washington back to work'....

'I believe that preventing business owners to operate their businesses and provide for their families intrudes on our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,' he wrote.

'As your elected Sheriff I will always put your constitutional rights above politics or popular opinion.'

He also called on other elected officials to join him in questioning Inslee's decisions.

I don't get the stay at home orders , I'm able to leave and go anywhere I want just that alot of places are closed for good reasons .

a reply to: Boadicea

Barr said on Tuesday that stay-at-home orders come 'disturbingly close to house arrest' but could, in some cases, be justified to protect public safety.

I think that's the problem, those "some cases" seem to differ depending on who you talk to.
When is it justified?

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: Boadicea

Barr said on Tuesday that stay-at-home orders come 'disturbingly close to house arrest' but could, in some cases, be justified to protect public safety.

I think that's the problem, those "some cases" seem to differ depending on who you talk to.
When is it justified?

Good question -- and Barr should have been specific. The devil is in the details.

In my opinion, it is justified when someone is symptomatic, and/or confirmed to be both infected and infectious, and therefore known to be a risk to others. At that point, actions and behavior that puts others at risk becomes reckless and negligent, if not worse.

That would constitute grounds for quarantine.

a reply to: Boadicea

Good question -- and Barr should have been specific. The devil is in the details.

In my opinion, it is justified when someone is symptomatic, and/or confirmed to be both infected and infectious, and therefore known to be a risk to others. At that point, actions and behavior that puts others at risk becomes reckless and negligent, if not worse.

That would constitute grounds for quarantine.

EXACTLY
Since we don't have tests...........

a reply to: Sillyolme

How about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

This isn't typhoid or the bubonic plague, it's a respiratory infection that kills the weak and strengthens those with strong immune systems.

a reply to: JAGStorm

EXACTLY
Since we don't have tests...........

And let's also note that such actions should only be taken in the most extreme of circumstances; specifically, the likely severity of the illness, including hospitalization and death.

If/when it is shown to be no more "dangerous" than any other virus, including the discovery/development of a reliable medical treatment for an otherwise severe illness, then such precautions are unnecessary.

if the govt forbids people from going to church sitting in their cars listening to the sermon over the radio, you are in unconstitutional territory.

especially if its not applied evenly to all religions, which gives the appearance of favoritism.

I would think if you are a county with no more than a couple cases and you are being told to stay home because a big city on the other side of the state has issues there is probably so legitimacy there as well.

a reply to: Boadicea

Just to clarify this for me, as I do respect your opinion regardless of agreement/disagreement.

Are "we" no longer looking at things like social measures, lockdowns, quarantines, etc. as a way to handle medical system capacity, but rather as a way to prevent people from getting sick at all?

There seems to have been a distinct shift in those regards, and Im not convinced of its efficacy without some pretty wild measures..

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: EternalShadow

And here's another option to fight back: Our own Constitutionally empowered and duly elected sheriffs, who are NOT obligated to do the bidding of the Feds.

She riff in Washington county where first US coronavirus case was reported says he won't enforce the state's 'unconstitutional' stay-at-home order

The sheriff of a Washington county which saw the nation's first COVID-19 cases says he will not enforce the statewide stay-at-home order because he believes it is unconstitutional...

He said he'd wanted to defy the stay-at-home order two weeks ago but 'decided to wait out of respect for the Governor and my own misguided hope that each day he did a press conference he would say something with some specificity on getting Washington back to work'....

'I believe that preventing business owners to operate their businesses and provide for their families intrudes on our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,' he wrote.

'As your elected Sheriff I will always put your constitutional rights above politics or popular opinion.'

He also called on other elected officials to join him in questioning Inslee's decisions.

That's what ticks me off. Here in California, the County Health Officers are directing police and SHERIFF'S to enforce these measures through fines and arrest.

I could care less about city cops as they aren't required to be sworn in, to be fair most do, but the sheriff's are complying as well! Sheriff's are elected, oath sworn backstops to Constitutional infringements!

They all need to burn! (FIGURATIVELY)

Not to mention courts are closed, so we are being denied DUE PROCESS as well!

Could that be part of the plan so that we have no recourse or remedy??

The charges are stacking up.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
if the govt forbids people from going to church sitting in their cars listening to the sermon over the radio, you are in unconstitutional territory.

Definitely. And the "free exercise" thereof applies to all faiths affected. Community and unity are important aspects for all three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). Just wanted to point out that it is all religions protected by the 1st amendment, not just Christianity.

especially if its not applied evenly to all religions, which gives the appearance of favoritism.

True. To be fair, I have not heard of mosques violating the shutdown rules, and therefore neither have I heard about any enforcement measures taken against them. Maybe some have, and either went under the radar, or no ones talking about it (much less enforcing the law upon them, like with Christians and Jews).

I would think if you are a county with no more than a couple cases and you are being told to stay home because a big city on the other side of the state has issues there is probably so legitimacy there as well.

Very good point. Different regions have different needs, resources and circumstances. What works for one state, or one city, won't necessarily work for another. One of many reasons why local control is most effective and practical.

It's the beauty of the "50 Laboratories" so to speak, as each state can observe and learn from each other's experiences, adapting what works, discarding what doesn't.

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: Boadicea

Just to clarify this for me, as I do respect your opinion regardless of agreement/disagreement.

Thank you -- and the feeling is mutual

Are "we" no longer looking at things like social measures, lockdowns, quarantines, etc. as a way to handle medical system capacity, but rather as a way to prevent people from getting sick at all?

Hmmm... For society, yes, too many (wrongly) do think that we can "prevent" people from catching CoV, and that this is the purpose of the shutdown measures.

Speaking for myself, no, I am speaking directly to the current temporary (I hope!) measures being taken to slow the spread.

Having said that, I do believe we now have adequate quality data to show that CoV is no greater danger than many many other things in life, and our approach should reflect that.

For example, even if the critters in charge still believe it's dangerous enough to still overwhelm our hospitals, we should be taking this time to better organize and allocate medical resources to meet the demands of not just deathly ill CoV patients, but also less severe cases of CoV, and everyone in need of medical care. That is not happening now.

There seems to have been a distinct shift in those regards, and Im not convinced of its efficacy without some pretty wild measures..

Yes, I agree. There is much confusion and conflation of purposes and goals. I don't know if it's just people misunderstanding, or if there is a deliberate effort to encourage and propagate that confusion and conflation.

I will say I HOPE we see some justification on why they choose the cases they send their support to, because I certainly do not support just willy nilly support across the nation, there should be a legitimate reason for them to get involved.

a reply to: Boadicea

I think my personal issues, beyond being severely allergic to authoritarianism, is that all the measures we are taken dont really seem to address the issues either short term or long term.

I agree about the data. The numbers from the start were inherently indicative of cases that required hospitalization. Frankly.. Those numbers aint so hot for any illness.

I really think you illustrate a massively important point with saying "everyone in need of medical care." Regardless of what I perceive to be duplicitousness in the numbers, it seems some areas are well and truly failing their residents.

I honestly cant fathom the stress and pressure on healthcare workers. It still seems immensely promising to explore RdRPs inhibitors though (RNA dependent RNA polymerases), like zinc ionophores + Zinc, even drugs like Remdesivir, Avigan, etc. Very, very interesting stuff beyond just SARS-CoV-2 too.

Im just finding that shift.. Odd. Folks were lecturing everywhere about how the measures were to flatten the curve, but now.. It seems to be the implication that they are to prevent anyone from getting sick. And, as long as people are getting sick (regardless of hospital occupancy/capability), then they must remain until....?

My biggest concern, aside from governmental (and corporate..) overreach is that all this is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In other words.. Pursuing this from the legal side might very well help the medical side too.

Thanks for your insights Bo, still feeling better than ever and honing in my regimen Still have serious, serious issues.. But hey.. A lot of this stuff takes time!

a reply to: maskim

Why I don't tend to go places. But if I am healthy, my mask wearing or lack thereof does nothing for healthcare workers since I have nothing to prevent. In fact, I had a physical therapy appt today, and I had to wear a mask for it and felt claustrophobic the whole time, and I ended up touching my face obsessively because the mask felt out of place and I felt like I was strangling.

If I didn't have it before and after about 4 straight weeks at home I ought to know, then if someone came through PT who had it, there's every chance I do now because I couldn't keep my hands off my face thanks to that mask. However, since I am in an area with maybe 50 cases total ... I'm not terribly worried about it.