Governor orders mandatory face coverings in stores and other public buildings starting May 6

I've said this before but people forget Charlie has a history in healthcare. Say what you want about his role, but regardless, he was good at it. Enough to become Secretary of HHS for the state in 1992. Then went on to become CEO of Harvard Pilgrim.

Sure you can say what you want about his tenure at both places, but regardless, he is a man of healthcare. You don't forget that all to well. Not when you started out doing that. You don't forget your roots.

I am sure many people who knew him back then called him personally. I know many of my medical friends have strong opinions about C19, Treatment, prevention, and such. When you put a personal touch on a situation, it changes your behavior.

It just shows Charlie is human, has a brain, and probably some compassion mixed in there.

As somebody who trends more toward the ACLU side of the political spectrum, I can tell you that one needn't hew to the far right to find some of this stuff a bit problematic. Note that I said "a bit"--I'm not suggesting that anybody get out the pitchforks here.

A while back, I saw and article (I think in The Atlantic) about dueling American impulses and which would predominate as this crisis unfolds: the rugged individualist frontiersman vs. the compliant middle manager. I think it's obvious which of those two has won out.

More recently, a Harvard Law professor co-wrote an article (also in The Atlantic) opining that government censorship of the internet--ala China--would be a positive good. He argued that our ad hoc system of private constraints on online speech was unable to rise to the challenges posed by the current crisis. Per the article:

In the great debate of the past two decades about freedom versus control of the network, China was largely right and the United States was largely wrong. Significant monitoring and speech control are inevitable components of a mature and flourishing internet, and governments must play a large role in these practices to ensure that the internet is compatible with a society’s norms and values.

I worry deeply that our handling of this crisis over the next few months will provide our system's bad actors with a pretext to do decades worth of damage to privacy and personal freedom. I worry about selling out the future in exchange for the feeling of increased safety in the present--the kicker is that we're only talking about marginally increased safety. A little healthy vigilance is required to make sure that this doesn't turn into our own Reichstag fire.

Under the guise of fear, and protection, what will a obsequious cowardly racist like yourself not comply with? The only thing disingenuous here, is your warming to the idea of mandatory face masks, under the pretext/pretense of "safety to others."
For one to believe that you yourself are predisposed to this idea is disingenuous. You're only complying and encouraging others to do it, cuz you're a coward, not because you're a patriot, concerned about others, merely I need to ingratiate yourself.

Obviously double majored in biology and engineering with a political science minor, before going on to get a JD.

Good question. I suppose it's to give people time to absorb the rule and obtain/make masks.

Also weird is the exemption for people under 2 years of age. While small children tend not to get seriously ill from the virus, is there anything saying that they're not potential vectors? If it boils down to "have you tried to put a mask on a one-year-old?!", that sounds an awful lot like "we can't do it because it's inconvenient." I'm genuinely curious about that one.

Being lewd and lascivious vs. complying with overreaching powers, with no real end in sight, and needless to say no empirical evidence of harm to the common man walking down the street, sound like two different things to me. Bunch of fear-mongering going on. maybe we should turn to righteousness instead of promoting all type of sexual deviant lifestyles, than making a mask company, millions hand over fist.

It's an interesting question. As a general rule, I would personally prefer that people not run around nude, but I can definitely see situations where nudity could be a component of legit political protests (PETA did/does this, I think), religious exercises (it's a big wide world), or other protected speech. I'm reminded of the activists behind the "Free the Nipple" campaign: women who go topless to object to the fact that men are allowed to go topless in public all the time (parks, beaches, etc.). They've been accused of being salacious publicity hounds but they have a point.

The other part of this is that covering one's genitals in public has been, since the close of the classical era, conventional wisdom. A lot of that has to do with religious/social concerns more than public health, but leaving those issues aside, we've had centuries to digest the public health implications of people not covering their junk. What's concerning to me is that this has all happened so quickly that the mask orders, from both a scientific and a public policy perspective, are up for debate. I mean, I acknowledge that the powers that be are making the best decisions they can under tremendous pressure, but they're very much still figuring these things out.

I'll follow the rules as long as they are the rules, but I think we all have the right to respectfully wonder if they make sense.

Does anyone remember when our beloved WHO told us for 1-2 months that masks are useless for the public in general, until they became useful? Didn’t see any studies referenced in the new strategy either.

I’ve been wearing one the whole time just in case..but it’s funny how that works.

... but he appreciates your doing your part to help.

A fellow was stuck on his rooftop in a flood. He was praying to God for help.

Soon a man in a rowboat came by and the fellow shouted to the man on the roof, "Jump in, I can save you."

The stranded fellow shouted back, "No, it's OK, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me."

So the rowboat went on.

Then a motorboat came by. "The fellow in the motorboat shouted, "Jump in, I can save you."

To this the stranded man said, "No thanks, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith."

So the motorboat went on.

Then a helicopter came by and the pilot shouted down, "Grab this rope and I will lift you to safety."

To this the stranded man again replied, "No thanks, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith."

So the helicopter reluctantly flew away.

Soon the water rose above the rooftop and the man drowned. He went to Heaven. He finally got his chance to discuss this whole situation with God, at which point he exclaimed, "I had faith in you but you didn't save me, you let me drown. I don't understand why!"

To this God replied, "I sent you a rowboat and a motorboat and a helicopter, what more did you expect?"

https://truthbook.com/stories/funny-god/the-drowning-man

Isn't there a cloud you should be shouting at?