Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Put Your Mask Where Your Mouth Is

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

There’s a running debate over who is more responsible for the spread of COVID-19 in the United States: MAGA Country individualists refusing to wear masks as a silent political protest… or social justice collectivists refusing to wear masks while engaging in loud political protest. Here’s a data point to contribute to that discussion…

FXBG Free, a coalition of racial-justice groups in Fredericksburg, has postponed all in-person gatherings after five of its organizers tested positive for COVID-19. The organizers are self-isolating for two weeks. After making the announcement, FXBG Free reminded followers that masks and social distancing are “mandatory practices at our events and protests.”

However, notes the Free Lance-Star, the cover photo on its Facebook page (shown above) shows a crowd of mostly young people in protest mode, many of whom are maskless.

Shouting protest slogans, I’ve noticed, just doesn’t have the same impact when you’re wearing a mask.

— JAB

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

41 responses to “Put Your Mask Where Your Mouth Is”

  1. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    It could not be more clear that all sorts of crowded settings — protests or college parties or biker bars all work the same — are keeping the virus simmering at a fairly high level. Then somebody in that crowd finds their way to a nursing home that hasn’t been hit yet and is fertile ground.

    Here we are four or five months in and people still don’t get it about the mask. Wearing it says: “I don’t know whether or not I have this bug, I might, so out of consideration for others I will wear this mask when inside or close to other people.”

  2. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    indoors without mask or social distance with others not in your household is risky business.

    We still do not know all we need to know about how this virus transmits or how it affects everyone who contracts it though we know it is deadly for older people.

    We just got done with 10 days of Sturgis… and the webcame showed very few in masks…and they come from all over the country, so who knows what happens next. It’s not the outdoors – it’s what happens when they go into the shops and bars…

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      Larry, the mask you wear protects YOU from almost nothing (well, unless it’s a real N95). It’s about protecting others from YOU. Yep, any crowd for any reason is risky, even outdoors if the crowd is packed or somebody is a super-spreader.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        I’m more than okay with the masks and yes agree it’s about protecting others also, more so than oneself – according to the science we have at this point.

        It’s not as clear cut about the outdoors – but I suspect those protestors had been “meeting” with each other because out of all these much bigger protests across the country – we do not seem to have much correlation with infections.

        I would think Sturgis would be the worst of all worlds – people coming from all over the country and mixing together in a giant mosh pit without masks then returning to their homes.

  3. Eric the Half a Troll Avatar
    Eric the Half a Troll

    So your argument is that a protest organization that has mask-on and social distancing policies but failed to enforce them completely is somehow equivalent to those who choose to ignore all mask and social distancing requirements because, you know, freedom…? Is that what you are saying?

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      From the virus’ point of view, yes. It’s just here to spread and make us sick with no political considerations. We’ve added those…..

    2. James A. Bacon Avatar
      James A. Bacon

      I never mentioned anything about anyone’s practices being “equivalent.” I’m simply referencing a data point. You can interpret it any way you want.

    3. djrippert Avatar
      djrippert

      It’s not just indoors vs outdoors and social distancing that matter. What you are doing counts as well. Talking to someone expels 10X as much viral material as silently standing next to some one. Deeper lung actions like coughing and sneezing dramatically up the transfer of viral particles from there.

      It seems to me that chanting and screaming are akin to coughing and sneezing. Therefore, organizations whose members fail to wear masks while out in public chanting and screaming are fair game for criticism. Whether groups who pay lip service to wearing masks while engaging in high risk behavior are equivalent to people who refuse to wear masks at all is beyond me. Apparently it is beyond Jim Bacon too since he quite clearly wrote, “Here’s a data point to contribute to that discussion…”

      https://www.baconsrebellion.com/reopening-know-and-avoid-the-risks/

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Chanting and screaming… like in church. Of course, handling rattlesnakes ranks up there too.

        1. djrippert Avatar
          djrippert

          Or at sporting events. By Jove … I think NN got it! It depends on what you are doing as well as whether you are wearing a mask and whether you are socially distanced. Dipsticks like Northam and diBlasio had no problem banning church services, funerals or sporting event in-person attendance. But protests and riots? No, those are constitutionally protected. At least they are if you read the redacted version of the Constitution in vogue with the left.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            so here’s a question for sports fans. Why can’t they do the same thing to stadiums that restaurants have done – i.e. “socially distance” the seats?

            Bonus question: if players are at the prime of their young lives why are they freaking about getting the virus ?

            questions. questions.

      2. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        I think if protestors were facing each other and shouting into each others faces, there might be a legitimate point..

        that is if we are actually looking for legitimate points.. 😉

        1. djrippert Avatar
          djrippert

          Shouting expels droplets which transport the viral particles far further and faster than speaking or just breathing. Given that coughing and sneezing expel those droplets at between 50 and 100 mph they are faster than protesters walk. So, screaming behind someone aerosolizes viral particles into the path of those ahead whether you are facing them or not. And I saw plenty of cases where “protesters” were face-to-face with law enforcement. But, to a liberal, I guess neither the police nor their families count.

          Finally, I gotta love Larry the believer in “science”. As long as you don’t face somebody you won’t infect them We need a new bar architecture where people sit in a semi-circle facing away from the bar while the bartender serves drinks from behind. You can talk to the person next to you as long as you don’t turn your head more than 45 degrees. Nobody shouting into each other’s faces so no need for masks at all.

          Once again “science” from the left has saved the day.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            well it’s a wonderful story but what actually happened after the protests?

            were they seen as “super spreader” events ?

            see the problem is the reality and truth – not the narrative some want.

            oh.. and there was quite a bit of mask wearing at some of them also:

            https://images.foxtv.com/static.fox6now.com/www.fox6now.com/content/uploads/2020/07/932/524/gettyimages-1236289428-1.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

      3. Eric the Half a Troll Avatar
        Eric the Half a Troll

        Sorry but just saying this comparison is just another data point does not negate that the comparison was put forth and implied equivalency. But you read it as you wish.

        I would buy into the argument if the organization said, “yeah, we have these policies but we don’t care if people really follow them”. That would be an equivalent comparison. That does not seem to be the case here.

        1. djrippert Avatar
          djrippert

          The cover photo on their Facebook group page is a photo of people not following their rules. That constitutes de-facto acceptance of people who “don’t care if people really follow” the rules. If the American Automobile Association had a cover photo of members driving into their convention where 1/3 were not wearing seatbelts I think they would be subject to criticism.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            VDH does not identify people. These folks willingly identified themselves and their facebook picture.

            right?

            You would never know this happened to them as a group if they had not done that.

            so no good deed goes unpunished, eh?

          2. Eric the Half a Troll Avatar
            Eric the Half a Troll

            No that does not constitute de-facto acceptance. It means they did not think before they put the photo up about the message it sent Covid-wise. Again, that is a far cry from anti-mask freedom fighters who willing intend to endanger public health because they want to and the government can’t tell them differently.

            Your new equivalency comparison stresses that point. If the AAA put up a photo of some members not wearing seatbelts they would be guilty of nothing more than poor messaging. They still would try to convince people to wear seat belts for the public good (rightly). That is not the equivalent of people intentionally refusing to wear seatbelts because that government can’t make them and be damned with the cost to society.

            Intent is important and it is clearly not the same thing.

          3. James A. Bacon Avatar
            James A. Bacon

            Eric, Here’s how I introduced the post: “There’s a running debate over who is more responsible for the spread of COVID-19 in the United States.”

            You have changed the subject to which side is morally superior. You’re free to pursue that line of thought if you’d like. But it has no bearing whatsoever on the question of who is actually causing the virus to spread.

          4. Eric the Half a Troll Avatar
            Eric the Half a Troll

            James, you are correct. Those are two separate issues. I would concede that both groups are likely contributing to the spread of Covid to varying degrees. How, why, and with what motivation would seem to be the next logical questions to be asked. One group’s spread appears to be accidental (if misguided) and they appear to be attempting to rectify the situation. The other group’s spread seems to be intentional and somewhat malicious. I don’t think it is so much a matter of moral superiority so much as a case of common decency.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Eric is on to something when he says there is a difference between motives that are misguided and ones that are purposeful and malicious.

  4. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    My wife made me a mask. I was always complaing about it fogging my glasses, so she got a wire, and silicone chalk and made a tight fitting frame. Then, sewed two outer layers of cloth, and she cut up two plastic bags for inner lining…. nothing gets through.

    You guys should remember to wear masks when it’s raining. Then you’ll understand water boarding.

    Wearing a mask says, “I Care.” Not wearing a mask says, “I Stupid.”

  5. TBill Avatar
    TBill

    Face masks are important because is takes more than one COVID virus body to get COVID illness. It probably takes the inhalation of hundreds of microscopic bug bodies to get COVID. So reducing the virus dose reduces chances of getting COVID, and if you do get, it might be milder case. If you have COVID, it helps the other way by minimizing the dose to others.

    Strikes me face-mask compliance in America is a little like expecting everyone to buy a hybrid car for better eco-stewardship. In our Country, not everyone agrees with …well…anything. Dealing with our belief differences is the main issue of our day.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      I see it more like red light running. Most folks don’t do it but some can’t seem to behave and choose to risk not only themselves but others.

      ” WASHINGTON, D.C. (Aug 29, 2019)- More than two people are killed every day on U.S. roads by impatient and reckless drivers blowing through red lights, according to data analysis performed by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. The most recent crash data available shows 939 people were killed in red light running crashes in 2017 — a 10-year high and a 28% increase since 2012.

      28% of crash deaths that occur at signalized intersections are the result of a driver running through a red light.”

      my bet (that I cannot prove) is that there is a significant correlation between red-light runners and anti-mask behavior..

      1. Top-GUN Avatar
        Top-GUN

        Larry the G says,,, “28% of crash deaths that occur at signalized intersections are the result of a driver running through a red light.”
        my bet (that I cannot prove) is that there is a significant correlation between red-light runners and anti-mask behavior..”
        REALLY…more likely..
        Irresponsible drunks run red lights…
        Irresponsible drug users run red light…
        Irresponsible phone users run red lights…

        All by the way illegal activities while driving…

        Don’t blame the anti maskers, they are not breaking any laws,,, edicts from Guvner Baby Killer Northam maybe, but not laws!!!!

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          All those activities are also grossly irresponsible towards others Top Gun.

          it’s the same basic attitude.

          Wantonly engaging in risky activities that could harm others.. without regard…

    2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Actually, that is possibly correct. Walking through someone’s expectorant cloud from a 10-minute ago sneeze versus a 2-second ago blast to your face could very well determine how severe your case will be.

      Ti…iii..iiime is on my side,
      Yes it is.

  6. djrippert Avatar
    djrippert

    Larry wonders what actually happened after the protests. Jim’s article is six sentences long. Let’s see. “FXBG Free, a coalition of racial-justice groups in Fredericksburg, has postponed all in-person gatherings after five of its organizers tested positive for COVID-19.”

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      writ large – DJ – this is a small group compared to the big city protests which would seem to have a significant larger impact.

      I also point out that this group of folks “outed” themselves… you’d never know who they were if they had not.

      1. djrippert Avatar
        djrippert

        I don’t know what happened to the people who attended Sturgis either and there were hundreds of thousands of them. You’d have to guess that some got sick there and carried the virus home. The rally ended 8 days ago. I guess we’ll see.

        What kills me is that reemergence is happening all over the world. In France a nudist colony created a spike.

        https://news.trust.org/item/20200824122023-zfwnu

        On Saturday Italy saw the highest number of new cases since May.

        https://nypost.com/2020/08/23/vacationers-migrants-drive-italys-surge-in-covid-19-cases/

        Were these reemergences due to Antifa or Republican governors?

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          re: ” Were these reemergences due to Antifa or Republican governors?”

          well, that’s a good start – then add others who are tired of being couped up. could be what some call the Darwin thing…

        2. idiocracy Avatar
          idiocracy

          If Harley-Davidson goes bankrupt, you’ll know it was bad.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            well, they were already gonig broke way before COVID19

            https://www.businessinsider.com/harley-davidson-difficult-situation-2019-1#:~:text=Harley%2DDavidson%20is%20in%20an%20impossible%20position%20in%20the%20motorcycle%20business&text=Harley%2DDavidson%20is%20dominant%20in,and%20an%20aging%20customer%20base.

  7. djrippert Avatar
    djrippert

    The Kansas City Chief announced that they intend to have live fans at Arrowhead Stadium practicing social distancing. My guess is many other NFL teams will follow suit. You buy a “pod” of tickets and come to the game with people living with you. The people in the “pod” sit close together but well separated from other “pods”. Less than a quarter of the seats will be filled but 1/4th is better than nothing. Tailgating is allowed but only directly behind your vehicle.

    I wouldn’t go to one of those games on a dare but I’ve been beaten down by years of Dan Snyder, FedEx Field and the Washington Football Team. It wasn’t worth going to those games before COVID19.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Why not build pods? Plastic tents with solar powered fans and hepa filters. Then, climb in and sweat.

      What was it the sportscaster said? “I don’t care what you call yourselves. Just, please, win a game!”

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        bring your own food and potty?

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          A big jar of dill pickles. Full, it’s food. Empty,…

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            pigs feet and pickled eggs?

          2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            No. That’s just plain gross.

          3. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            No. That would be gross.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      The questions are – do they queue up to get in to the stadium and what do they do for the rest room and food/drink?

      As far as I know, the govt is not restricting what they do – they’re making these decisions… right?

Leave a Reply

Read More