Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Stitt announces new measures to slow virus spread in Oklahoma
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="donner" data-source="post: 3461260" data-attributes="member: 277"><p>Whose boy? But anyway, as others have noted, there are a lot of variables in play. I merely pointed out that MS tried the county by count and things didn't improve. We then did state wide and it did. Since ending that mandate, things have gone bad again.</p><p></p><p>What you described sounds like an anecdotal logic fallacy. What you see doesn't support X therefore X is wrong. (Yes, my example above is similar, however i'm also pointing out that statewide numbers moved down and up based on the rules, not what i saw in stores. Large measured samples vs small, unmeasurable ones)</p><p></p><p>And please correct me if i'm wrong, but there hasn't been any mandates in OK that would allow for close to full mask implementation, right? So how do you know that the folks wearing a mask now are doing so each place they go before or after you see them? Without trying it state wide, how do you prove that it wouldn't work? Saying that people were 'told' it would stop it is nothing without actually trying it. </p><p></p><p>We all know the virus doesn't adhere to county lines, so if people are willingly visiting places to avoid having to wear a mask, it masks sense that they might bring it back to where they live if infected. That is true of leaving a state with a statewide mask rules, too. The difference comes in how that would spread from them. If they continue to visit places without rules, they can easily spread it. If they only go places with enforced mask mandates, it would spread less easily. </p><p></p><p>We know how it spreads for the most part and we have examples of these things working (albeit in conjunction with other methods) in places around the world. Spread containment probably also benefits from those who declare they can't or wont wear a mask being 'forced' to stay home. Asian countries have used masks for a long time to help with public health, including this virus. </p><p></p><p>Demanding 100% protection is absurd, just as anyone claiming a mask alone will stop this.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="donner, post: 3461260, member: 277"] Whose boy? But anyway, as others have noted, there are a lot of variables in play. I merely pointed out that MS tried the county by count and things didn't improve. We then did state wide and it did. Since ending that mandate, things have gone bad again. What you described sounds like an anecdotal logic fallacy. What you see doesn't support X therefore X is wrong. (Yes, my example above is similar, however i'm also pointing out that statewide numbers moved down and up based on the rules, not what i saw in stores. Large measured samples vs small, unmeasurable ones) And please correct me if i'm wrong, but there hasn't been any mandates in OK that would allow for close to full mask implementation, right? So how do you know that the folks wearing a mask now are doing so each place they go before or after you see them? Without trying it state wide, how do you prove that it wouldn't work? Saying that people were 'told' it would stop it is nothing without actually trying it. We all know the virus doesn't adhere to county lines, so if people are willingly visiting places to avoid having to wear a mask, it masks sense that they might bring it back to where they live if infected. That is true of leaving a state with a statewide mask rules, too. The difference comes in how that would spread from them. If they continue to visit places without rules, they can easily spread it. If they only go places with enforced mask mandates, it would spread less easily. We know how it spreads for the most part and we have examples of these things working (albeit in conjunction with other methods) in places around the world. Spread containment probably also benefits from those who declare they can't or wont wear a mask being 'forced' to stay home. Asian countries have used masks for a long time to help with public health, including this virus. Demanding 100% protection is absurd, just as anyone claiming a mask alone will stop this. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Stitt announces new measures to slow virus spread in Oklahoma
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
