It's just the flu!
06-17-2020 | 06:52 PM
#501
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
With headlines like this I think it's in the airlines' best interest. It makes business sense.
06-17-2020 | 07:10 PM
#502
Banned
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
They knew there was a shortage. They didn't want the public to panic hoard all the available masks at the outset. This was intentional. CDC has basically admitted this point now that it's passed.
So don't be intentionally obtuse. There was a very good reason to tell people no masks initially. It was to secure dwindling PPE for essential medical personnel.
06-17-2020 | 08:08 PM
#503
Guest
Posts: n/a
This isn't hard. They didn't say "no masks." If you remember correctly, they said "only masks for essential medical personnel."
They knew there was a shortage. They didn't want the public to panic hoard all the available masks at the outset. This was intentional. CDC has basically admitted this point now that it's passed.
So don't be intentionally obtuse. There was a very good reason to tell people no masks initially. It was to secure dwindling PPE for essential medical personnel.
They knew there was a shortage. They didn't want the public to panic hoard all the available masks at the outset. This was intentional. CDC has basically admitted this point now that it's passed.
So don't be intentionally obtuse. There was a very good reason to tell people no masks initially. It was to secure dwindling PPE for essential medical personnel.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/su...article_inline
I'm simply pointing out the credibility problem that officials have created for themselves with their tactics and messaging. Hopefully my family will get COVID to teach me a lesson.
06-17-2020 | 09:04 PM
#504
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 2,609
Likes: 510
From: Guppy Gear Slinger
Agreed. But it won't be long before there's a physical altercation onboard between masked pax and the one guy ( you just know it's gonna be a guy) refusing to wear one...
06-17-2020 | 09:59 PM
#505
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
From: 747 FO
Thats ok if you don't recall saying that.....it's recorded for posterity for you in your post #417 'It’s only 110,000 because we got R down by shutting down.'
If that isnt what you meant then you have me confused.......
You have implied that I think its a hoax. Nope I just think its herd mentality and terrible mismanagent.
If that isnt what you meant then you have me confused.......
You have implied that I think its a hoax. Nope I just think its herd mentality and terrible mismanagent.
So if we executed a lockdown, increased mask usage and a few other things and R dropped by .5, then it is likely that lockdown contributed something to the drop in R. So if you’d like to argue that we would have reached the decreased R without lockdown, given the other measures we took; then go ahead.
That’s what it would take to invalidate my statement. Unless you can argue that lockdown did not contribute to a decrease in R.
06-18-2020 | 02:54 AM
#506
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Again. Not what I said. It is what you inferred from what I said. If you would like to argue that lockdown didn’t reduce transmission over the period then please do.
So if we executed a lockdown, increased mask usage and a few other things and R dropped by .5, then it is likely that lockdown contributed something to the drop in R. So if you’d like to argue that we would have reached the decreased R without lockdown, given the other measures we took; then go ahead.
That’s what it would take to invalidate my statement. Unless you can argue that lockdown did not contribute to a decrease in R.
So if we executed a lockdown, increased mask usage and a few other things and R dropped by .5, then it is likely that lockdown contributed something to the drop in R. So if you’d like to argue that we would have reached the decreased R without lockdown, given the other measures we took; then go ahead.
That’s what it would take to invalidate my statement. Unless you can argue that lockdown did not contribute to a decrease in R.
Ok. I'll let you back out of it.
I would suggest most people read it the way I did; particularly when read in context. But hey, work on your written communication if that's the case. Makes a discussion mute if its not clear.
Meh
06-18-2020 | 03:00 AM
#507
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
From: 747 FO
Good luck to us all. Hopefully we avoid further lockdowns.
06-18-2020 | 07:40 AM
#509
Bracing for Fallacies
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,543
Likes: 0
From: In favor of good things, not in favor of bad things
I had to go all the way to page 2 of a google search to find this. Nitpickers will say this is the Surgeon General and not CDC. CDC has arguably been more careful in their wording that masks were to be reserved for healthcare workers, not that they didn't work. However, they still were "against them before they were for them."
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/su...article_inline
I'm simply pointing out the credibility problem that officials have created for themselves with their tactics and messaging. Hopefully my family will get COVID to teach me a lesson.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/su...article_inline
I'm simply pointing out the credibility problem that officials have created for themselves with their tactics and messaging. Hopefully my family will get COVID to teach me a lesson.
06-18-2020 | 08:08 AM
#510
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 44,888
Likes: 684
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
But sounds like the airlines may set policies banning pax who board with a mask on and then refuse to wear it in flight. That should mostly solve the problem. "That guy" probably would tend to scare off some other pax from flying.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
