Damn it, they're not going to let a little pandemic keep them from trying out the croquet set they got for Christmas

Next question

We are flattening the curve, not erasing it. If we can get a vaccine fast enough, we might prevent some deaths. But if the cost is turning the US into a third world country, it's not worth the price.

The economy will open in a sensible way in the next few weeks. I believe that should be a blend of age based return to work and limiting some businesses from reopening ( like movie theaters, restaurants etc). You are more likely than not to get infected by the time we get a vaccine. We need to get on with our lives and deal with that fact and stop hiding in our bedrooms and behind masks as long as, as you say, we don't overwhelm the hospital system.

I don't want the virus, but I'm a realist. It's going to find me. I have zero fear of that fully recognizing that it could kill me, especially given my age. Time to get back to work, sensibly.

Jeez. Why does everything have to be some sort of anti-government “I’d rather die from ‘Rona than wear a mask!” extreme?

Hypothetical: if a homemade face covering captured 10 percent of COVID infected droplets from shedding from an infected person - perhaps an asymptomatic person - would best practice be to wear a face covering?

For me personally, I think the answer is yes. If I can protect my neighbors even a small percentage while I am at the grocery store, I feel it would be personally irresponsible not to.

My best understanding is that proper face covering does mitigate by 3-fold the droplets shed in flu sufferers and is an effective way to dampen transmission of those viruses. Multiply that by all people out in public, it becomes significant.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3591312/

So hypothesizing that the government is “guessing” that masks dampen transmission is off the mark. The best evidence we have - while not “proving” anything with COVID - demonstrates that face coverings do mitigate respiratory virus spread. How is that bad?

The opposition to the appeal that we be good citizens and neighbors and work to minimize - however inconvenient and imperfectly - the risk to our community, elders, and friends is mind boggling. You’d think we’ve asked people give up their right to vote or something.

So, explain to me why it's more constitutional -- or more reasonable -- for them to say that half the population must cover our breasts in public, to avoid titillating or shocking other people, than to say everyone must cover their faces to avoid possibly *killing* other people.

And, constitutional or not, why have you chosen to live in a country and state where the government not only has, but uses, the right to dictate what your fellow citizens wear? A person--of any gender--walking around shirtless might increase their own risk of skin cancer, but not other people's. If "you must wear a mask in public" is restricting your free movement, telling someone else she has to wear a shirt is restricting hers.

"My right to move freely in public supercedes your or the government's right to dictate what I wear in public. If you don't want to get infected, stay home"

So you get to dictate that other people stay home because you don't want to wear a simple mask? I want to drive ninety miles an hour down neighborhood streets, if you don't want to risk getting mowed down you should just stay home or you can prove to me that I'm going to lose control of the car and end up killing someone.