CA Facemask requirement - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: CA Facemask requirement (/thread-19910.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: CA Facemask requirement (/thread-19910.html)
CA Facemask requirement - 82lsju - 06-18-2020
Quote:Californians must wear masks in all indoor public spaces under a mandate announced Thursday by Gov. Gavin Newsom designed to slow the spread of COVID-19.
The new rules require face coverings when people are riding in taxis and rideshare cars, taking public transit, standing in line to enter a building or walking through common areas like hallways, stairways, elevators and parking garages.
It also requires masks for people working in a building visited by the public even if no other people are present and at all locations where food is prepared or packaged for sale or distribution.
Masks are also required outdoors in spaces where people can’t maintain six feet of distance from one another.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article243634487.html
the document from the dept of public health is here
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/COVID-19/Guidance-for-Face-Coverings_06-18-2020.pdf
lex24 - lex24 - 06-18-2020
I find it interesting that based on this order, taken literally, one must now use a face mask in a conference room even if they go in that room by themselves and it will not be used again for a week.
The messaging on facemasks has been inconsistent from day one.
RE: lex24 - Genuine Realist - 06-18-2020
(06-18-2020, 01:10 PM)lex24 Wrote: I find it interesting that based on this order, taken literally, one must now use a face mask in a conference room even if they go in that room by themselves and it will not be used again for a week.Regulation of this type is going to be the norm for the next few years. It seems to me required.
The messaging on facemasks has been inconsistent from day one.
RE: lex24 - burger - 06-18-2020
(06-18-2020, 01:10 PM)lex24 Wrote: I find it interesting that based on this order, taken literally, one must now use a face mask in a conference room even if they go in that room by themselves and it will not be used again for a week.
The messaging on facemasks has been inconsistent from day one.
What part of the order are you referring to? I didn't see anything implying that.
RE: lex24 - 2006alum - 06-18-2020
(06-18-2020, 01:19 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote:(06-18-2020, 01:10 PM)lex24 Wrote: I find it interesting that based on this order, taken literally, one must now use a face mask in a conference room even if they go in that room by themselves and it will not be used again for a week.Regulation of this type is going to be the norm for the next few years. It seems to me required.
The messaging on facemasks has been inconsistent from day one.
Tell that to Trump who continues to make everything political:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/CNBC/status/1273689362312695808?s=20[/tweet]
Quote:In a wide-ranging interview with The Wall Street Journal published Thursday, Trump also said a big issue he has with masks is that people fidget with them.
“They put their finger on the mask, and they take them off, and then they start touching their eyes and touching their nose and their mouth,” he told the Journal. “And then they don’t know how they caught it?”
Trump has often been seen without a mask despite recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization that people wear them as a way to slow the spread of the virus. Scientists say the virus can spread through respiratory droplets that pass when an infected person coughs or sneezes. Studies suggest the masks may serve as a helpful barrier.
Even if you think he's right, this is an irresponsible thing to say, because it will make his followers think not wearing a mask is a way to signal support for him, against nearly (now) universal public health recommendations to the contrary. He simply should not be second-guessing this the way he is, let alone politicizing it.
Can we please finally put to rest that he isn't a major part of the problem here?
RE: lex24 - Genuine Realist - 06-18-2020
(06-18-2020, 01:58 PM)2006alum Wrote:Of course. All things lead to Trump. How could it be otherwise?(06-18-2020, 01:19 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote:(06-18-2020, 01:10 PM)lex24 Wrote: I find it interesting that based on this order, taken literally, one must now use a face mask in a conference room even if they go in that room by themselves and it will not be used again for a week.Regulation of this type is going to be the norm for the next few years. It seems to me required.
The messaging on facemasks has been inconsistent from day one.
Tell that to Trump who continues to make everything political:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/CNBC/status/1273689362312695808?s=20[/tweet]
Quote:In a wide-ranging interview with The Wall Street Journal published Thursday, Trump also said a big issue he has with masks is that people fidget with them.
“They put their finger on the mask, and they take them off, and then they start touching their eyes and touching their nose and their mouth,” he told the Journal. “And then they don’t know how they caught it?”
Trump has often been seen without a mask despite recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization that people wear them as a way to slow the spread of the virus. Scientists say the virus can spread through respiratory droplets that pass when an infected person coughs or sneezes. Studies suggest the masks may serve as a helpful barrier.
Even if you think he's right, this is an irresponsible thing to say, because it will make his followers think not wearing a mask is a way to signal support for him, against nearly (now) universal public health recommendations to the contrary. He simply should not be second-guessing this the way he is, let alone politicizing it.
Can we please finally put to rest that he isn't a major part of the problem here?
Trump the Man is dead wrong on this issue. Respond to him as if he were Trump the Demon, and you assist him.
If he's re-elected - improbable, but not impossible - it won't be because the public likes him. Nobody likes him. It will be because they like his opponents even less.
Something to think about.
RE: lex24 - Farm93 - 06-18-2020
I think this is great.
There are too many people walking around without masks in indoor public places. We have encounters/confrontations that make it to Youtube, Instagram and other places where one person reminds others of a store or company policy.
I can recall the following types of incidents across the USA
#1 - An employee was murdered because they asked a "customer" to wear a mask
#2 - An employee suffered a broken arm because they asked a "customer" to wear a mask
#3 - An airline passenger getting told to go back to China because they asked someone to wear a mask
An actual law wouldn't necessarily prevent those confrontations, but I think it would help.
I also think if CA had a statewide mandate then requesting customer or employee compliance would be easier for all businesses, and it absolutely should cover all indoor areas no matter the size and occupancy to reduce the interpretation type confrontations now seen on social media and noted above.
Those that don't want to wear a mask have an easy option....stay home
RE: CA Facemask requirement - dabigv13 - 06-18-2020
Make it simple and broad. If you are inside, or outside but can't stay 6 feet away, you must wear a mask. Who cares if it's a conference room with nobody else.
Loopholes and exceptions just make things more confusing.
Necessary step. Should have been the rule from the start.
RE: lex24 - 82 Card - 06-18-2020
(06-18-2020, 01:10 PM)lex24 Wrote: I find it interesting that based on this order, taken literally, one must now use a face mask in a conference room even if they go in that room by themselves and it will not be used again for a week.
The messaging on facemasks has been inconsistent from day one.
Not clear. Is the conference room "public space"? Is it visited by "the public." Is it a "common area?"
This order is so poorly written, I cannot tell you for sure whether a person walking through a building lobby and taking an elevator up to their office must wear a mask. The argument that it isn't required: Lobby is privately owned and open only to tenants and people doing business with the tenants, not the general public. Sure, it's a common area but the people walking through it are not engaged in work; they are just going to work (other than the security guard and the janitor).
Yea, I know that's not what they meant. But is it too much to ask for them to write what they meant?
RE: lex24 - 2006alum - 06-18-2020
(06-18-2020, 03:09 PM)82 Card Wrote:(06-18-2020, 01:10 PM)lex24 Wrote: I find it interesting that based on this order, taken literally, one must now use a face mask in a conference room even if they go in that room by themselves and it will not be used again for a week.
The messaging on facemasks has been inconsistent from day one.
Not clear. Is the conference room "public space"? Is it visited by "the public." Is it a "common area?"
This order is so poorly written, I cannot tell you for sure whether a person walking through a building lobby and taking an elevator up to their office must wear a mask. The argument that it isn't required: Lobby is privately owned and open only to tenants and people doing business with the tenants, not the general public. Sure, it's a common area but the people walking through it are not engaged in work; they are just going to work (other than the security guard and the janitor).
Yea, I know that's not what they meant. But is it too much to ask for them to write what they meant?
If members of the public can do business in a lobby or ride an elevator to a business office, it's a public accommodation, and therefore a public space. I think we're overthinking things. Unless it is private property that does not provide services to members of the public (i.e. your house), wear a mask when you're indoors.
RE: lex24 - 82 Card - 06-18-2020
(06-18-2020, 03:14 PM)2006alum Wrote:(06-18-2020, 03:09 PM)82 Card Wrote:(06-18-2020, 01:10 PM)lex24 Wrote: I find it interesting that based on this order, taken literally, one must now use a face mask in a conference room even if they go in that room by themselves and it will not be used again for a week.
The messaging on facemasks has been inconsistent from day one.
Not clear. Is the conference room "public space"? Is it visited by "the public." Is it a "common area?"
This order is so poorly written, I cannot tell you for sure whether a person walking through a building lobby and taking an elevator up to their office must wear a mask. The argument that it isn't required: Lobby is privately owned and open only to tenants and people doing business with the tenants, not the general public. Sure, it's a common area but the people walking through it are not engaged in work; they are just going to work (other than the security guard and the janitor).
Yea, I know that's not what they meant. But is it too much to ask for them to write what they meant?
If members of the public can do business in a lobby or ride an elevator to a business office, it's a public accommodation, and therefore a public space. I think we're overthinking things. Unless it is private property that does not provide services to members of the public (i.e. your house), wear a mask when you're indoors.
Sure, your interpretation is more reasonable. However, I don't understand why San Francisco can write the same thing up without room for argument but the state cannot. In my job, I have to tell people what it means. Some of those people are highly motivated to see it the other way. The state would make my life a lot easier if they learned to write.
RE: lex24 - 76lsjumb - 06-18-2020
(06-18-2020, 01:58 PM)2006alum Wrote: Even if you think he's right, this is an irresponsible thing to say, because it will make his followers think not wearing a mask is a way to signal support for him, against nearly (now) universal public health recommendations to the contrary. He simply should not be second-guessing this the way he is, let alone politicizing it.
Can we please finally put to rest that he isn't a major part of the problem here?
I have no problem agreeing that he is a major part of the problem, but I have this question. Wouldn't you also agree that a major part of the problem is the following?
For several weeks, folks were told that large gatherings of people to express certain viewpoints -- or, indeed, just to socialize -- was horrible and irresponsible and people who did it were evil. Then, for about 2 weeks just recently, those folks watched as massive crowds gathered to protest [which protests sometimes provided the occasion for resulting riots] with no social distancing at all and mask-wearing that was spotty at best, yet those crowds met with virtually no condemnation at all for their behavior [and, indeed, were often praised by the media and others, including various "public health officials" on the grounds that taking the risk to express that viewpoint was good, right, and courageous]. Now, however, with those protests generally [although not entirely] decreasing, those folks are being told once again that, if you don't wear a mask, you're evil and irresponsible. And, besides, those folks are routinely criticized as being the "political" devils, not the "public health" angels.
I would hope you could understand that one doesn't have to be "Trump follower" at all to see this position as hypocritical, political, and just as problematic as Trump's position. Otherwise put, why did the "nearly [now] universal public health recommendations to the contrary" appear to go completely silent for one group but not the other? And, understand, I'm not arguing over whether one group's cause is better or worse than the other's -- that is not a relevant "public health" point when it comes to face masks and social distancing...unless, of course, you believe that those actions are political in nature. Which, as I understand it, you don't.
RE: lex24 - 2006alum - 06-18-2020
(06-18-2020, 03:48 PM)76lsjumb Wrote:(06-18-2020, 01:58 PM)2006alum Wrote: Even if you think he's right, this is an irresponsible thing to say, because it will make his followers think not wearing a mask is a way to signal support for him, against nearly (now) universal public health recommendations to the contrary. He simply should not be second-guessing this the way he is, let alone politicizing it.
Can we please finally put to rest that he isn't a major part of the problem here?
I have no problem agreeing that he is a major part of the problem, but I have this question. Wouldn't you also agree that a major part of the problem is the following?
For several weeks, folks were told that large gatherings of people to express certain viewpoints -- or, indeed, just to socialize -- was horrible and irresponsible and people who did it were evil. Then, for about 2 weeks just recently, those folks watched as massive crowds gathered to protest [which protests sometimes provided the occasion for resulting riots] with no social distancing at all and mask-wearing that was spotty at best, yet those crowds met with virtually no condemnation at all for their behavior [and, indeed, were often praised by the media and others, including various "public health officials" on the grounds that taking the risk to express that viewpoint was good, right, and courageous]. Now, however, with those protests generally [although not entirely] decreasing, those folks are being told once again that, if you don't wear a mask, you're evil and irresponsible. And, besides, those folks are routinely criticized as being the "political" devils, not the "public health" angels.
I would hope you could understand that one doesn't have to be "Trump follower" at all to see this position as hypocritical, political, and just as problematic as Trump's position. Otherwise put, why did the "nearly [now] universal public health recommendations to the contrary" appear to go completely silent for one group but not the other? And, understand, I'm not arguing over whether one group's cause is better or worse than the other's -- that is not a relevant "public health" point when it comes to face masks and social distancing...unless, of course, you believe that those actions are political in nature. Which, as I understand it, you don't.
Yes - there was definitely hypocrisy there, at least among certain people and certain kinds of protesting. I think some have the view that BLM is a cause that significantly outweighs taking every possible social distancing precaution, whereas protesting social distancing precautions does not outweigh social distancing. YMMV as to whether that's persuasive - I'll decline to weigh in with my personal views as I interpret that to be running afoul of the Terry Rule, which is why I've generally kept quiet on that stuff around these parts.
The problem for me is that when everything is already highly charged and political, we need leadership that tries to unite rather than divide. At the national level, everything from hydroxychloroquine to mask wearing is purposefully mobilized by Trump for fairly blatant political ends. He's certainly not the only one, but among my set of elected leaders (London Breed, Gavin Newsom, and Trump), he's by far the worst.
And I've criticized Newsom too (I think he waived reopening in SoCal way too soon, especially for things like movie theaters(!!!)), and I thought Breed's order mandating mask-wearing even while exercising if under 30 feet from others was not only unenforceable, but counterproductive.
Nevertheless, I think Breed and Newsom are acting in good faith. Not so the orange one.
My two cents. Now back to your regularly scheduling mask-order-hair-splitting.
RE: lex24 - 76lsjumb - 06-18-2020
(06-18-2020, 04:21 PM)2006alum Wrote: Yes - there was definitely hypocrisy there, at least among certain people and certain kinds of protesting. I think some have the view that BLM is a cause that significantly outweighs taking every possible social distancing precaution, whereas protesting social distancing precautions does not outweigh social distancing. YMMV as to whether that's persuasive - I'll decline to weigh in with my personal views as I interpret that to be running afoul of the Terry Rule, which is why I've generally kept quiet on that stuff around these parts.
The problem for me is that when everything is already highly charged and political, we need leadership that tries to unite rather than divide. At the national level, everything from hydroxychloroquine to mask wearing is purposefully mobilized by Trump for fairly blatant political ends. He's certainly not the only one, but among my set of elected leaders (London Breed, Gavin Newsom, and Trump), he's by far the worst.
And I've criticized Newsom too (I think he waived reopening in SoCal way too soon, especially for things like movie theaters(!!!)), and I thought Breed's order mandating mask-wearing even while exercising if under 30 feet from others was not only unenforceable, but counterproductive.
Nevertheless, I think Breed and Newsom are acting in good faith. Not so the orange one.
My two cents. Now back to your regularly scheduling mask-order-hair-splitting.
I pretty much agree with everything you said [and defer on what you deferred on]. My apologies if saying that results in blowback from other quarters... :-)
RE: lex24 - Farm93 - 06-18-2020
(06-18-2020, 04:21 PM)2006alum Wrote: Yes - there was definitely hypocrisy there, at least among certain people and certain kinds of protesting. I think some have the view that BLM is a cause that significantly outweighs taking every possible social distancing precaution, whereas protesting social distancing precautions does not outweigh social distancing. YMMV as to whether that's persuasive - I'll decline to weigh in with my personal views as I interpret that to be running afoul of the Terry Rule, which is why I've generally kept quiet on that stuff around these parts.A fair summary.
The problem for me is that when everything is already highly charged and political, we need leadership that tries to unite rather than divide. At the national level, everything from hydroxychloroquine to mask wearing is purposefully mobilized by Trump for fairly blatant political ends. He's certainly not the only one, but among my set of elected leaders (London Breed, Gavin Newsom, and Trump), he's by far the worst.
And I've criticized Newsom too (I think he waived reopening in SoCal way too soon, especially for things like movie theaters(!!!)), and I thought Breed's order mandating mask-wearing even while exercising if under 30 feet from others was not only unenforceable, but counterproductive.
Nevertheless, I think Breed and Newsom are acting in good faith. Not so the orange one.
My two cents. Now back to your regularly scheduling mask-order-hair-splitting.
BLM is literally protesting to raise awareness that black people get killed every day because they are living while black. To protest because you don't like the government mandating simple and proven public health precautions just doesn't match up. Individual causes in the spectrum may have different reactions and none are cardboard appropriate.
State government officials are going to make some mistakes with COVID as most states simply don't have plans for this situation. Newsom's calls related to SoCal look premature now, but there was a lot of local, state and national pressure to get the entertainment industry back to making content for everyone. Hard to hold the line in CA when other possible entertainment industry locations with even less COVID control are up and active, same was true for the Tesla situation.
If opening a touch early then every other reasonable precaution on social distancing and PPE should be taken, so Newsom's mandate today was logical.
A number of governors (Democrats and Republicans) have tried to navigate the COVID challenge based on the science and available medical information. This is a tough, dynamic situation especially when so many of those developing rules and content are working remotely with their own worries about avoiding COVID in their families.
If the key federal government officials were also guided by the available science and medical information I would be more confident we would see a college football season in August. My guess is if there are ~500 deaths per day in July we will lose Pac-12 sports for the fall, so I really am a big fan of any mandates that might reduce the spread this summer.
RE: CA Facemask requirement - Snorlax94 - 06-18-2020
Arnold supports Newsom’s policy. Very direct.
[tweet]https://www.twitter.com/Schwarzenegger/status/1273754766787502080[/tweet]
RE: CA Facemask requirement - OutsiderFan - 06-19-2020
As someone who has worn a face covering since March because it was such a logical no-brainer, and who paid attention to the citizen-driven mask wearing initiative in the Czech Republic to conclude it was the best way to stop virus spread, when suspecting this was case based on Asian country success, I just SMH.
At first, I wore covering every time I was outside the house. It was cold, so it was even welcome. Then, a few weeks ago after reading how few spread events have occurred outside in passing and given everyone keeps distance walking down street, I only used covering inside places and if around people outside.
At same time, CT’s case numbers have steadily fallen. Even my nurse friend’s LTCF has had 0 positive tests after they started testing every week a couple weeks ago. CT has had a mandatory mask when around others EO from Governor in place since April 20. On April 22, CT had 2,200 new cases. There has been a manageable amount of new cases with steady numbers decline - with increased testing - ever since masks were made compulsory. Not everyone complies, but vast majority has, clearly enough to knock down spread so businesses can open. Now only bars remain closed.
Wear a mask. That is all.
RE: CA Facemask requirement - Genuine Realist - 06-19-2020
(06-19-2020, 03:35 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: As someone who has worn a face covering since March because it was such a logical no-brainer, and who paid attention to the citizen-driven mask wearing initiative in the Czech Republic to conclude it was the best way to stop virus spread, when suspecting this was case based on Asian country success, I just SMH.You can't enforce it with criminal sanction. But you can set up a regulatory and social environment in which the wearing of masks becomes customary.
At first, I wore covering every time I was outside the house. It was cold, so it was even welcome. Then, a few weeks ago after reading how few spread events have occurred outside in passing and given everyone keeps distance walking down street, I only used covering inside places and if around people outside.
At same time, CT’s case numbers have steadily fallen. Even my nurse friend’s LTCF has had 0 positive tests after they started testing every week a couple weeks ago. CT has had a mandatory mask when around others EO from Governor in place since April 20. On April 22, CT had 2,200 new cases. There has been a manageable amount of new cases with steady numbers decline - with increased testing - ever since masks were made compulsory. Not everyone complies, but vast majority has, clearly enough to knock down spread so businesses can open. Now only bars remain closed.
Wear a mask. That is all.
I also note that hand sanitizer is becoming ubiquitous. You see hand sanitizers in a jug outside of grocery stores, sanitary wipes, etc. My own thought is creating that regulatory environment, while opening up completely, is the way to go.
RE: CA Facemask requirement - burger - 06-19-2020
(06-19-2020, 08:38 AM)Genuine Realist Wrote:(06-19-2020, 03:35 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: As someone who has worn a face covering since March because it was such a logical no-brainer, and who paid attention to the citizen-driven mask wearing initiative in the Czech Republic to conclude it was the best way to stop virus spread, when suspecting this was case based on Asian country success, I just SMH.You can't enforce it with criminal sanction. But you can set up a regulatory and social environment in which the wearing of masks becomes customary.
At first, I wore covering every time I was outside the house. It was cold, so it was even welcome. Then, a few weeks ago after reading how few spread events have occurred outside in passing and given everyone keeps distance walking down street, I only used covering inside places and if around people outside.
At same time, CT’s case numbers have steadily fallen. Even my nurse friend’s LTCF has had 0 positive tests after they started testing every week a couple weeks ago. CT has had a mandatory mask when around others EO from Governor in place since April 20. On April 22, CT had 2,200 new cases. There has been a manageable amount of new cases with steady numbers decline - with increased testing - ever since masks were made compulsory. Not everyone complies, but vast majority has, clearly enough to knock down spread so businesses can open. Now only bars remain closed.
Wear a mask. That is all.
I also note that hand sanitizer is becoming ubiquitous. You see hand sanitizers in a jug outside of grocery stores, sanitary wipes, etc. My own thought is creating that regulatory environment, while opening up completely, is the way to go.
Have you seen what's happening in Florida and Arizona and South Carolina and Oklahoma and California and Oregon (I could go on)? Exactly how many deaths are you comfortable with in the name of opening the economy?
RE: CA Facemask requirement - OutsiderFan - 06-19-2020
As I understand it, business can require masks (no mask, no service) and the state can shut down businesses that don't require mask wearing, but can't do a whole lot beyond that in terms of individual enforcement.
I just came from CVS. Everyone wearing a mask inside, but several people only had them covering mouth, not nose. Is there any reason to believe nose exhaust is somehow exempt from spreading virus? I'm looking at these people and wanting to say "why are you wearing a mask if not covering your nose?" I wasn't there long, so figured it wasn't worth arguing, especially because maybe it's not as problematic as mouth exhaust. It does seem mouth would be the main culprit for spread, via cough and vocalizing.