Would You Accept a Federal Mask Requirement?

Jump to Last Post 1-7 of 7 discussions (51 posts)
  1. crankalicious profile image95
    crankaliciousposted 12 months ago

    It's generally accepted that if everyone would wear masks, we could substantially reduce the number of COVID infections.

    To get America back on its feet and to reduce COVID, how would you respond to a federal mask requirement for 3 months? This would be a limited legal requirement for a limited amount of time.

    1. Would you agree with such an idea?
    2. Would you follow the law, if it were implemented?
    3. Why or why not?

    1. GA Anderson profile image90
      GA Andersonposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      That seems such an easy question Crankalicious, but after thinking about it—it isn't, at least for me.

      I currently follow our mask guidelines out of consideration for others. I believe mask-wearing is helpful based on the information provided for me to consider.

      But my gut resists the thought of a Federal law requiring such. I could support a local mandate, but not a Federal one. Why? Because I don't want the Federal government to have that much power over me. I don't believe the Federal government has a place in this mandate, or the wisdom to administer it.

      If I live in a large metropolitan area it makes sense, but if I live in a small town of 100 with no Covid-19 cases at all it is a senseless mandate.

      GA

      1. crankalicious profile image95
        crankaliciousposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        Well, generally we have lots of limiting federal laws, don't we? Speed limit? The speed limit exist in both rural and urban parts of the country and exists to protect the public. Isn't that a fair analogy?

        1. GA Anderson profile image90
          GA Andersonposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          I can't agree that because we already have "lots of limiting Federal laws" we should be okay with more.

          Also, I don't think the speeding thing is a good analogy. Speeding can kill anywhere, Covid-19 infections only occur where there is a presence of the virus.

          GA

          1. crankalicious profile image95
            crankaliciousposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            This law would have an expiration date so that we can get the virus under control. I would also point out that during war, the federal government can draft young men and send them off to their deaths. This is just a law about wearing masks.

            1. GA Anderson profile image90
              GA Andersonposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              Politics and expiration dates . . . That is not a trust-promoting thought.

              You may see it as "just" about wearing masks but I think it could be about more. Why a Federal law, why not a local law? I think local authorities would be much more knowledgeable about the need.

              GA

          2. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            A speeder, from another state, could drive through your tiny rural town and kill someone.  Or they could stop for gas there, while infected, and spread the virus through the town.

            The point is that in this day of travel and "small world", no where is safe from infected visitors.  The town I grew up in, LaGrande, Or. became the Oregon epicenter with only 10,000 people.  It bypassed Portland, Eugene and Corvallis (all university towns) for a short time - someone, somewhere, brought the virus to town and it spread like wildfire in a large church service.

            1. IslandBites profile image91
              IslandBitesposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              I cant believe you're the voice of reason of the right in these forums. lol But Im glad you are/someone is.

              1. GA Anderson profile image90
                GA Andersonposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                Must be like that Stopped clock thing. ;-o

                GA

            2. GA Anderson profile image90
              GA Andersonposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              You make a good point. I will still stick with my preference that it be a local rather than Federal mandate. *shrug*

              GA

              1. crankalicious profile image95
                crankaliciousposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                Seems like if it's going to be a local decision, it might as well just be a personal decision. Doesn't seem like that's working out very well.

              2. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                Well, I would prefer it too...if localities actually did it.  Instead they open beaches and other large gatherings of people with no need for masks, and we are seeing the results.

                1. crankalicious profile image95
                  crankaliciousposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  What's kind of amazing to me is that we have a pretty good solution to getting our lives back - wear masks. Unfortunately, people won't follow the guidance and we can't even agree on whether we should wear masks or not. I guess the conclusion has to be that people don't care whether we solve this problem. Or they believe that the cure is worse than the disease. Or they feel as though the people dying from this are not worth saving. I can't really figure out why people simply can't wear a mask for a relatively short period of time.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image79
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    Not everyone is smart enough to THINK with a mask on.
                    I think it is especially bad for children.
                    Not only for them to suffer the distraction of wearing them, but to be forced to deal with adults who wear them.  If children cannot watch the mouths of those around them who are speaking, how will they be able to form the words they must absorb? Language is an audio/visually learned skill.

            3. Sharlee01 profile image85
              Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

              Your analogy is very plausible.  It appears the virus may be with us for a while until we get a vaccine, and beyond. What are your thoughts on handling cases as they develop by the numbers, instead of a large blanketed approach? Would you be willing to wear a mask for perhaps another year if the numbers of cases in your area were very minimal?

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                As much as I dislike masks and social distancing, I'm OK with wearing one.  At least until we have a defense (vaccine) for the virus - Man is a social animal and both are an affront to not only our culture but millions of years of evolution. 

                Because of our propensity to travel I don't see handling cases on an individual, or purely local, basis as useful.  We closed our borders a long time ago; we either prohibit travel within our country (not possible) or treat the entire country as one.  Localities should be able to take some steps, or not, but the overall picture must be the same everywhere.  Schools, for instance - a small community could well open schools when New York should not.

                1. crankalicious profile image95
                  crankaliciousposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  I want to wear a mask for as little time as possible. I also want to get back to my old life as fast as possible.

                  I think if everyone wears a mask, we'll get back to our old lives a lot faster, but it seems as though a lot of people just want this thing to drag on forever by not wearing a mask. Politically-speaking, it's ironic.

        2. Sharlee01 profile image85
          Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

          Speeding does not always result in death neither does COVID... I guess if a rural area had an up tic in deaths that resulted from someone speeding, the speeding fine could be increased to help prevent speeding. I guess if a rural area began to see COVID cases where they had none before people could be asked to wear a mask. But until a case came to that rural area, they need not wear a mask, but in both cases, the situation needs to be monitored in case action need be considered.

    2. Credence2 profile image83
      Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      It depends on what the requirement entails. Just to require people to wear masks outside in sparsely populated areas is too much.

      I believe that store and other places of business should have the option of requiring patrons to wear masks as a precondition for entry. It may not need a government mandate as those that refuse to wear masks are only endangering their own lives and those that associate with them under the same circumstances. Who am I to curtail their personal freedom to self annihilate?

      If it were made law, as a law abiding citizen, I would comply.

      Living in Florida, it is pretty obvious that the problem, thanks to our Trump-sucking Governor, has grown by epic proportions. We all need to take this issue more seriously and operate with science as a foundation rather than politics.

      1. crankalicious profile image95
        crankaliciousposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        Perhaps the mandate could simply be for all indoor activities and outside activities where more than a certain number of people are present. I have been mountain biking the past few weeks and wearing a mask is not possible in those situations. Most people don't wear it while they're riding, but put it on if they're passing somebody.

    3. Kyler J Falk profile image91
      Kyler J Falkposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      I haven't worn a mask since the beginning of this pandemic, nor have I remained in mandatory lock down or quarantine while living in, around, and near one of the most dangerous counties in the US.

      If it were mandated federally I'd continue to civilly, cordially, and safely disobey their nonsense and be walking evidence that you can safely, conscientiously, and logically not wear a mask. Then again, my extremely active and outdoor lifestyle keeps most unhealthy people away to begin with, so I just don't worry about these things outside of taking digs at those who do.

      1. crankalicious profile image95
        crankaliciousposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        Why would you feel it's necessary to take digs at people for wearing masks when science says that's what we should do so that we, as a society, can get back to normal? Clearly, the lack of mask-wearing is part of what is causing these outbreaks, along with a lack of social distancing. In order to defeat an enemy, sometimes you need to draft young people into war to die. A mask order, in appropriate situations, seems like a reasonable thing to do if it allows us all to go back to normal.

        1. Kyler J Falk profile image91
          Kyler J Falkposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          I blame irresponsible people for SARS-CoV-2 spreading like wildfire, not those who choose not to wear a mask responsibly, safely, and conscientiously. I've never agreed with the draft, and would support draft dodgers as I go back on active duty willingly; we don't want cowards out in the fleet, and the draft is just a meat grinder for cowards. Much like the draft is a meat grinder for cowards, so is the mask argument a meat grinder for anyone who really cares either way solely on the grounds of wearing a mask.

          You don't need a mask to be safe, you don't need a mask to avoid public gatherings, you don't need a mask to be responsible, and you don't need a mask to help in reducing SARS-CoV-2. The only thing in this situation I could logically conclude that the government needs to really do, would be to get their own house in order because it is quite a mess. All sides have politicized this virus and I think masks are only furthering the political narratives.

          Then again, I can only go off of what I can observe in my own life; living in, around, and near one of the most dangerous counties in the US without ever wearing a mask, without ever contracting the virus, has provided the evidence to back up my feelings that masks are unnecessary when you are responsible and hygienic.

          If the government wants to force anything at all in this unprecedented situation, they can send out hand sanitizer, masks, and other hygiene products along with manuals on how to use them. I could support that, but I don't think they really care or else they'd address every problem with the same fervor.

          It's all a big joke; a big, dangerous, lethal joke being made into political soapboxes all around the world.

          1. crankalicious profile image95
            crankaliciousposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            I read that you have a good medical reason for not wearing a mask, so that's understandable.

          2. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            "Then again, I can only go off of what I can observe in my own life; living in, around, and near one of the most dangerous counties in the US without ever wearing a mask, without ever contracting the virus, has provided the evidence to back up my feelings that masks are unnecessary when you are responsible and hygienic."

            You do understand that masks do not protect the wearer hardly at all?  That the purpose is to protect others in case you are infected?

            Why does this excuse keep coming up?  This has been highly publicized for months!

            1. Kyler J Falk profile image91
              Kyler J Falkposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              In order for someone to need protection from me, we'd both have to be ignoring social distancing and all the other, more-important guidelines our shifty authority figures have offered; all the while I'd have to be infected, which I've already stated I have not been, not even asymptomatic (tested for fun). Alas, many don't actually care about the context of any of this, they just want to lick boots. This is why I take digs at mask-nazis.

              Regardless of my health issues, I would not wear a mask if it were mandated because I adhere to the rules that actually matter. Anyone who gets infected, I can only assume they were breaking all the other rules in some way, and many of those being infected have worn masks throughout this situation. At least that is the evidence I have gathered when I seek it.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                "which I've already stated I have not been"

                How do you know you were not infected yesterday?  Did you get tested last night with a 2 hour turn around in test results?

                As far as maintaining distance, I have yet to enter a store for more than a couple of minutes and maintain 6' at ALL times.  Try as I might, there will always be someone that pays not attention, or simply does not care, and comes closer.  Without turning and running down the aisle ahead of them the distance ends up being 2' or less.

                1. Kyler J Falk profile image91
                  Kyler J Falkposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  Sounds to me like you're a mask-nazi who only cares to push the mask narrative regardless of the evidence you're presented with. I won't be getting infected, because I'm responsible just like those who wear masks and also don't get infected. I support masks, but I also support responsible adults who can handle not wearing them and are proving the mask narrative to be flimsy in the face of hygiene and adhering to social distancing.

                  You aren't worth any more of my time. Have a good one!

    4. Sharlee01 profile image85
      Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      I don't want to say no, it was my first reaction. The Government as a rule puts a blanket"bandaid on most anything they become involved with. Most of the time they have many problems with their best-planed projects.

      If the Government came up with a well-planed mandate such as considered not blanketing the US with an out and out mandate to wear a mask. All of our states are very different some have a population that is well spread out and had very few cases of COVID, and very few deaths. It would make common sense these states should be exempt unless they had a hot-spot developing, and an unsuitable rise in cases. I would think it prudent to layout values for the need to wear a mask. If an area meets the value they would be required to wear a mask. When the area falls below the given value the masks should come off.

      I know if I lived in an area that COVID just did not affect anyone I would object to a Government mandate me to wear a mask. I also would object if the stats showed a low number of cases and or deaths. Most Americans might be smart enough to abide by a mandate that makes sense. Many would not be if it would mean wearing a mask just because they were told too.

      At some point, we need to realize we have to come to terms that this virus, it may be around a while. It will most likely be worse in some areas. A well-planned mandate could work, a poorly planned one would fail. II say follow hot spots and handle them accordingly. We need to get on with our lives and find ways to keep COVID at bay the best we can without making everyone wear a mask needlessly. To tell someone to wear a mask in areas that COVID is not a problem is impinging on individual rights.   However, telling someone to wear a mask in a hot spot is a way to protect and stop the spread, and with values, it offers a common-sense reason to put on a mask. I don't think as many citizens would look at it as being forced to wear a mask without cause.

      I don't like being told to do something that makes little sense. If the Government made a law that just states all must wear masks, a big blanket, I would not be pleased.  If not well thought out and presented,
      I would consider it a Government overstep.

      Follow the virus, handle it where it lives...  Blanketing any problem shows a real lack of intelligence. In my view, It actually insulting.

      I think another good way to cut down on cases is when a state or area in a state is having an up tic, the citizens should not be allowed to travel between areas that are having problems. This could aid in decreasing spread.

      1. crankalicious profile image95
        crankaliciousposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        That all sounds pretty good to me.

    5. profile image60
      Crystal Mittelposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Yes I will definitely follow the mask law that has now been implemented in my state.  Why risk getting arrested or sick when I can do a simple thing?

    6. blueheron profile image95
      blueheronposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Well, for starters, you cannot "reduce the number of covid infections" by any means whatsoever. Viral infections end when 70%-75% of the population has become infected and thus immune. End of story.

      While it may be possible to enact measures that will slow the rate of contagion--so that it takes much longer for viral contagion to run its course--the total number of infections will remain unchanged. It will still be 70%-75% of the population.

      It IS possible to enact measures that would lower the ultimate death rate, by protecting the elderly and vulnerable until the contagion has run its course. I.e., nursing homes, hospitals, and other health care facilities could enact strict bio-containment measures. The elderly and vulnerable who are living independently in their own homes could self-quarantine (as many are now doing). This approach would work best if the contagion were allowed to pass swiftly through the rest of the population, herd immunity was quickly achieved, and those in real danger from the virus could quickly resume normal lives.

      Any and all other measures can (assuming they are effective at all) only increase the amount of time it takes to achieve herd immunity.

      Given these facts, the whole discussion of any and all such measures is nonsense.

      1. Nathanville profile image95
        Nathanvilleposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Actually, blueheron, herd immunity from Covid-19 may well be a myth in that research in recent months suggests that the antibodies from Covid-19 are not long lasting e.g. just a few months.

        Also, while you may wish for 70% plus of the population in the USA to become infected with Covid-19, pushing the death toll in the USA to over quarter of a million, or higher:  FYI, a detailed study of the spread of Covid-19 in the UK reveals that since the start of the pandemic in the UK, only 6% of the entire UK population has actually contracted the virus (including asymptomatic) e.g. part of an extensive Government nationwide survey in the UK of testing 20% of the UK population for antibodies to get a true picture of how wide spread the virus was within the community:  Proving how effective the long hard economic and social lockdown in the UK was at protecting people and saving lives.

        Lessons to be learnt:  Although the UK was one of the worst hit countries in Europe (because our Government was slow in implementing the lockdown), now the daily death rate in the UK (with a population of 66 million) is down to just an average of 12 deaths a day, and falling; in contrast, in the USA (with a population 5 times greater than the UK) the daily average death toll in the USA is currently over a 1,000 people a day dying; and still on the rise.

        So even taking the difference of population size into account, the current daily death toll in the USA from Covid-19 is over 16 times greater than in the UK.  So the USA’s attitude of ‘do nothing’ is costing countless lives.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image74
          Castlepalomaposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Trump still lies they are one the lowest rates for covid19 in the world. So who needs fake news.
          It is the handling of it, is the worst news.

  2. Live to Learn profile image78
    Live to Learnposted 12 months ago

    I don't look kindly on such a federal mandate. What I would support is full quarantine of hot spot areas. They are not allowed to leave that area until everything is under control. Like, I believe, Texas. It's a new strain. Keep them from spreading it.

    1. crankalicious profile image95
      crankaliciousposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Why let it get that bad to begin with? Seems like the mask mandate would prevent having to quarantine people, which seems highly unlikely to happen. How do you force people to say in a particular area?

  3. Nathanville profile image95
    Nathanvilleposted 12 months ago

    Although wearing masks will help to reduce the spread of Covid-19; just wearing mask, on their own isn’t going to be enough to combat.  In conjunction with wearing masks, other measures will be necessary to bring the pandemic under control, which would include but not exclusive to:-

    •    Effective mass testing with results returned within 24 hours so that the ‘contact tracers’ can do their job

    •    Having sufficient ‘contact tracers’ to be effective

    •    ‘Lock lockdowns’ (whack-a-mole policy), and

    •    ‘Rolling back’ the easing as appropriate e.g. closing pubs & restaurants etc.

    Also, considering how widespread the pandemic now is in the Southern States I’m doubtful that three months would be sufficient time to bring the pandemic back under control; even if there was a complete economic lockdown.

    I recognise that a full lockdown isn’t going to happen again in the USA, even if that was the only option left to control the pandemic.

    Notwithstanding the above, getting to the subject raised in this forum e.g. whether ‘Regulations’ on masks should be set at Federal (or local) level; and the acceptance by the American public of such ‘Regulations’ being set nationally.

    Obviously, I can only speak from the perspective of a European from across the pond, so my comments here are only opinions/observations, and doesn’t necessarily fully take account of the cultural/social aspects of the American people, or their mind-set.

    Sorry for the lengthy intro, but I am trying not to be presumptuous.

    Taking a more general stance on whether it’s the Federal (National) Government or State (Local) Governments who set the Regulations, in most countries around the world e.g. Australia, Germany and the UK etc., it’s the States (in the case of the UK, the four Nations, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England) who make the final decision; but in countries like Australia, Germany and the UK the States (Nations in the UK) have generally worked in partnership with their National (Federal) Government to fight a common enemy (Covid-19). 

    In the USA the Federal Government and State Governments have always seemed to be at odds with each other, so who sets the Regulations has always been an issue.  Whereas, in the rest of the world there hasn’t been this conflict so who sets the Regulations hasn’t been an issue; there are always exceptions of course e.g. the Local Mayor bitterly objected to the UK Government putting the city of Leicester, England (population over 300,000) back into full lockdown a couple of weeks ago, but in comparison to the friction between State and Federal Governments in the USA its minor.

    Leicester expected to stay in lockdown:  https://youtu.be/Afn_oJWNdWE

    To sum up, in generally, across the world, it doesn’t matter whether the ‘Regulations’ are made at national or local level because in practice those setting the ‘Regulations’ are doing so based predominantly on ‘scientific’ and ‘medical’ Advice, rather than politics; and therefore the General Public don’t care at what level the decisions are being made because those decisions are basically the right ones necessary to fight the pandemic. 

    Whereas in the USA you have a President who is still in denial over the pandemic, and is more eager to put the economy first and people’s lives second; while at the same time there seems to be a number of States with a similar attitude to Trump; so it does seem to be a bit of a loose, loose situation!

    Ideally, if ALL States put fighting the pandemic as the priority, and were willing to accept guidance from the Federal Government e.g. to co-ordinate the effort (as happens in other countries around the world, including the UK); then setting the ‘fine’ (detailed) Regulations at Local Level wouldn’t be an issue.  However, if the situation was such that some States put the interest of the economy first, and lives second, then the best interest of the USA (as a whole) would be for a Federal Government to be proactive in imposing Regulations on the States; but for that to happen you would need a Federal Government that was fully committed to combating the pandemic, which is something you don’t have.

    So (the view from across the pond) is that it seems to be a bit of a conundrum in the USA!!!!

    As regards ‘Regulation’ relating to mask, in the UK these ‘Regulations’ are set at ‘Nation’ Level rather than national level e.g. independently set in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.

    The current specific Regulations for wearing facemasks in each of the four ‘nations’ in the UK are as follows:-

    •    ENGLAND:  Advised where social distancing not possible:  Compulsory on public transport from 15th June and in shops and supermarkets from 24th July.

    •    SCOTLAND:  Advised where social distancing not possible:  Compulsory on public transport from 22nd June:  Compulsory in shops from 10th July.

    •    WALES:  Advised where social distancing not possible.

    •    NORTHERN IRELAND:  Advised where social distancing not possible:  Compulsory on public transport from 10th July.

    Social Distancing is another ‘Regulation’ that is interesting in the UK, in that as from the 4th July, when pubs and restaurants reopened, Boris (UK Conservative Prime Minister) changed the ‘Rules’ on ‘Social Distancing’ to accommodate the pubs e.g. without the change only about 25% of pubs would have been able to have opened, whereas by changing the rules it allowed for about 75% of pubs to reopen.

    So for comparison, the current regulations on ‘Social Distancing’ in the four ‘nations’ of the UK are (Official Government Wording):-

    •    ENGLAND:  Government guidance is that people should remain 2m apart from each other where possible, including in workplaces.  Where this is not possible, people must remain 1m apart and take precautions to limit transmission.

    •    SCOTLAND:  Government guidance is that people must remain 2m apart from each other, including in workplaces.  Children under 12 do not have to social distance outdoors.

    •    WALES:  Government guidance is that people must remain 2m apart from each other. By law, employers must take all reasonable measures to ensure a 2m distance.

    •    Northern Ireland:  From 29th June, people should remain 1m apart (the guidance was previously set at 2m).

    1. crankalicious profile image95
      crankaliciousposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      That was a little long. Maybe the question should be: if you knew we could get COVID under control by wearing a mask in all public spaces for three months, would you wear a mask?

      1. Nathanville profile image95
        Nathanvilleposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        Most Defiantly Yes (without hesitation)

        I, my family and friends, and everyone we know, have all been very faithful in following the Covid-19 related Regulations to the letter, to the best of our ability, even when they haven’t always seemed logical.

        Right from the start of the lockdown in the UK on the 23rd March, in general, the British pubic has been remarkably good at following whatever Covid-19 related Regulations the respective nations (England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland) introduced; even when some of those Regulations were confusing and needed explaining by the Government.

        Up to now all of the four ‘Nations’ of the UK have made all the decisions at ‘national’ level within each of the four nations.  Today, Boris (UK Conservative Prime Minister) made the announcement that, as from today, decisions in handling the pandemic is now being passed to ‘local’ level e.g. Local Governments now have that responsibility; with the proviso that the National Government can take back control at any time in the future if the need arises.

        So I guess that that is a good sign that the UK Government has faith and trust in the ‘Local Governments’ in the UK in doing the right thing (making the right choices), to combat any local Covid-19 spikes effectively.

        Boris Johnson unveils roadmap for a 'return to normality' in the UK by November (includes giving Local Governments more Power):  https://youtu.be/LVO8TlVO-Go

  4. Readmikenow profile image96
    Readmikenowposted 12 months ago

    I have a question.

    Would people agree to stop protesting, looting and rioting?

    That may assist in the decline of the cornavirus AND rioting is already against the law no matter what the Democrats say.

    1. Credence2 profile image83
      Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      I agree to a stop to the looting and rioting but the peaceful protests are to continue.... but we have to be responsible, wear masks and maintain proper distance as applicable.

    2. crankalicious profile image95
      crankaliciousposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Mike,

      Nobody had politicized their answer to the question until you, so thanks for that. Also, you didn’t answer the question.

      I am sure people will stop rioting once the police stop murdering black people or something is done about it.

      Will President Trump stop holding rallies? I am sure that will help stop the spread too. I am sure Tulsa would have preferred it.

      Also, where have Democrat’s said that rioting is NOT against the law? I could probably retort with something like: Republicans seem to believe that murdering black people is legal since so many police officers get away with it. This is all rhetorical, of course.

      Obviously, if murdering black people is legal, then rioting seems like it should be legal too.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image85
        Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

        "Obviously, if murdering black people is legal, then rioting seems like it should be legal too."

        Why not make black on black murder legal too?  IT seems not many really care about that problem. So why bother policing black people at all. They are killing their own sadly. Your logic escapes me...

        I don't think anyone would agree or feel murdering black people should be legal. Yes, we have some bad cops, but the majority are out their days doing their job.

        " Republicans seem to believe that murdering black people is legal since so many police officers get away with it. This is all rhetorical, of course."

        Any police that shoots a person in the line of duty is investigated, and if found they killed someone without cause has been charged and had their day in court. If they walked, it was due to a jury's or judge's decision.

        1. crankalicious profile image95
          crankaliciousposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          You are confused.

          This was a forum about mask wearing until Mike politicized it with a question about rioting.

          He introduced a non sequitir.

          I am merely using his logic to answer his question.

  5. Mariah Bruce profile image88
    Mariah Bruceposted 12 months ago

    I'm more than happy to wear a mask to protect myself and others. It saddens me that we've gotten to a point where this question even has to be asked.

    The way I see it, if everyone had worn their masks, washed their hands, and taken social distancing seriously from the beginning, we would be getting back to normal by now (like plenty of other countries who followed the guidelines). Instead, it's gone on so long, and even seen a second wave, due to people who don't "believe" in the virus...So now it's morphed into a debate over Federal government control.

    It didn't have to get to this point, but here we are.

  6. Kathryn L Hill profile image79
    Kathryn L Hillposted 12 months ago

    I also believe that if people were allowed to think for themselves regarding this issue, we would be a happier people. (Happy people = healthy people.) Do not mandate it from the federal level. Let us think for ourselves. Let us protect ourselves.

    PS I do not wear a mask to protect others. I wear a mask to protect myself.
    That should be all the motivation we need to wear a mask:
    Protecting ourselves.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image79
      Kathryn L Hillposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Biden is up for pissing us all off big time, by focusing on the importance of mandatory mask wearing.

      More proof he does not plan to get elected!

      To elect the person who should not get elected is a sin, I say!

      Don't do it!

  7. Castlepaloma profile image74
    Castlepalomaposted 11 months ago

    Yes covid is a very contagious dieses. Yet, I don't trust the US Governments handling of the covid19. There is 15 other greater killing dieses this year than covid19. Cancer and heart dieses kill most people on earth. More people are dieing from the health system than the covid . Plus Poverty kills more than anything. What makes covid sooooo special. When it comes to numbers, I wish I was talking to aliens.

    The mask produces bodytoxcians more dangerous worst than the covid19. Unless your using oxygen tanks or a good filter system. A doctor may say yes the human toxcians maybe worst than the covid, but it makes people feel more comfortable.

    Do people really feel more comfortable with the mask on?

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image79
      Kathryn L Hillposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      I slip it under my nose as often as I can get away with it.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image74
        Castlepalomaposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Many workers have to work full-time with it on. I limit my breathing with a mask on, only in indoor crowds. Lucky I am working off grid for the vast majority of the time.

        Remember I was telling you my dreams always come true. My dream was about people on fire with a death toll to the scale of World war 2. 
        Under my nose, I discovered people on fire from chemotherapy and radiation like the world war 2. Repackaged as the saviour for cancer from world war nukes and muster gas. Cancer will soon surpass heart dieses deaths soon enough. The medical profession is the number 1 leading cause of death in the world today.
        Nova Scotia, where I moved to recently. Has the lowest death rate in North America for covid19. Now my daughter is ready for Columbia for the winter, where the natural environment and medicine are at.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)