Breaking news: Montgomery Co revises mask order, crushing the hopes of the mask police

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So I notice they re-re-clarified the order last night to this:

"The new face covering guidelines outlined in the Health Directive are designed to help protect residents and reduce the spread of COVID-19. Residents are strongly urged to wear a mask whenever they are in public places and may encounter others. Whether you are out walking or jogging, wearing a mask when you are likely to be within six feet of someone, even if it is solely in passing, is required."

It seems they would like you to wear one anytime you leave your yard.

Still too arbitrary to enforce. Define the probability associated with "likely."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I notice they re-re-clarified the order last night to this:

"The new face covering guidelines outlined in the Health Directive are designed to help protect residents and reduce the spread of COVID-19. Residents are strongly urged to wear a mask whenever they are in public places and may encounter others. Whether you are out walking or jogging, wearing a mask when you are likely to be within six feet of someone, even if it is solely in passing, is required."

It seems they would like you to wear one anytime you leave your yard.

The problem with the re-re-clarification is that it is in complete contradiction with the actual order, which states as follows:

Persons leaving their residences shall wear a face covering when they are likely to come into contact with another person, such as being within six feet of another person for more than a fleeting time. ([emphasis added]

I’m going by what the order says, not by the public affairs moronic interpretation.

I talked to the county about this. The statement in the press release about requiring a mask when passing others on the sidewalk was intended to be interpreted as a strong recommendation, rather a legal mandate under the health order. I personally don't think "required" was the appropriate word to use, but I do understand they're trying to write orders and provide guidance for two very different kinds of situations: an empty trail/sidewalk upcounty, and a crowded sidewalk in Bethesda or Silver Spring.

I think they figure they can write stronger interpretive guidance because they don't intend to enforce it.

I am pretty sure English is expressive enough that you could make this clear. You did after all.

People struggle with nuance.

There's no place for nuance in law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I notice they re-re-clarified the order last night to this:

"The new face covering guidelines outlined in the Health Directive are designed to help protect residents and reduce the spread of COVID-19. Residents are strongly urged to wear a mask whenever they are in public places and may encounter others. Whether you are out walking or jogging, wearing a mask when you are likely to be within six feet of someone, even if it is solely in passing, is required."

It seems they would like you to wear one anytime you leave your yard.

The problem with the re-re-clarification is that it is in complete contradiction with the actual order, which states as follows:

Persons leaving their residences shall wear a face covering when they are likely to come into contact with another person, such as being within six feet of another person for more than a fleeting time. ([emphasis added]

I’m going by what the order says, not by the public affairs moronic interpretation.

I talked to the county about this. The statement in the press release about requiring a mask when passing others on the sidewalk was intended to be interpreted as a strong recommendation, rather a legal mandate under the health order. I personally don't think "required" was the appropriate word to use, but I do understand they're trying to write orders and provide guidance for two very different kinds of situations: an empty trail/sidewalk upcounty, and a crowded sidewalk in Bethesda or Silver Spring.

I think they figure they can write stronger interpretive guidance because they don't intend to enforce it.

The problem with this strategy is that they put normal citizens on a collision path, with some trying to police a non-regulation. Government officials should only make threats that they intend to keep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I notice they re-re-clarified the order last night to this:

"The new face covering guidelines outlined in the Health Directive are designed to help protect residents and reduce the spread of COVID-19. Residents are strongly urged to wear a mask whenever they are in public places and may encounter others. Whether you are out walking or jogging, wearing a mask when you are likely to be within six feet of someone, even if it is solely in passing, is required."

It seems they would like you to wear one anytime you leave your yard.

The problem with the re-re-clarification is that it is in complete contradiction with the actual order, which states as follows:

Persons leaving their residences shall wear a face covering when they are likely to come into contact with another person, such as being within six feet of another person for more than a fleeting time. ([emphasis added]

I’m going by what the order says, not by the public affairs moronic interpretation.

I talked to the county about this. The statement in the press release about requiring a mask when passing others on the sidewalk was intended to be interpreted as a strong recommendation, rather a legal mandate under the health order. I personally don't think "required" was the appropriate word to use, but I do understand they're trying to write orders and provide guidance for two very different kinds of situations: an empty trail/sidewalk upcounty, and a crowded sidewalk in Bethesda or Silver Spring.

I think they figure they can write stronger interpretive guidance because they don't intend to enforce it.

The problem with this strategy is that they put normal citizens on a collision path, with some trying to police a non-regulation. Government officials should only make threats that they intend to keep.

The more they're fighting over that, the less they're wondering why bars and restaurants are open, but schools are closed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I notice they re-re-clarified the order last night to this:

"The new face covering guidelines outlined in the Health Directive are designed to help protect residents and reduce the spread of COVID-19. Residents are strongly urged to wear a mask whenever they are in public places and may encounter others. Whether you are out walking or jogging, wearing a mask when you are likely to be within six feet of someone, even if it is solely in passing, is required."

It seems they would like you to wear one anytime you leave your yard.

The problem with the re-re-clarification is that it is in complete contradiction with the actual order, which states as follows:

Persons leaving their residences shall wear a face covering when they are likely to come into contact with another person, such as being within six feet of another person for more than a fleeting time. ([emphasis added]

I’m going by what the order says, not by the public affairs moronic interpretation.

I talked to the county about this. The statement in the press release about requiring a mask when passing others on the sidewalk was intended to be interpreted as a strong recommendation, rather a legal mandate under the health order. I personally don't think "required" was the appropriate word to use, but I do understand they're trying to write orders and provide guidance for two very different kinds of situations: an empty trail/sidewalk upcounty, and a crowded sidewalk in Bethesda or Silver Spring.

I think they figure they can write stronger interpretive guidance because they don't intend to enforce it.

The problem with this strategy is that they put normal citizens on a collision path, with some trying to police a non-regulation. Government officials should only make threats that they intend to keep.

The more they're fighting over that, the less they're wondering why bars and restaurants are open, but schools are closed.

Schools don't pay taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love these threads.

Grown adults discussing not wearing masks, little tiny pieces of cloth that are non invasive, that just might save one life.

Trumpers, selfish idiots who made this all possible. Pandemic is on you. Thanks so much...

If it's non-invasive, please wear one while sleeping. We won't have to hear from you again.

This "argument" (I hesitate to even call it one) is moronic. You are making PPs point about being a selfish idiot...

Please wear one while sleeping also. Less busybodies are better for everyone.

I have had many non Covid patients at the hospital choose to sleep with their masks on. They figure since staff is coming in and out during the night, its better to keep masks on even though we are double masked at all times. So I'm not quite sure where you get the "if you sleep with a mask on you'll die" argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I notice they re-re-clarified the order last night to this:

"The new face covering guidelines outlined in the Health Directive are designed to help protect residents and reduce the spread of COVID-19. Residents are strongly urged to wear a mask whenever they are in public places and may encounter others. Whether you are out walking or jogging, wearing a mask when you are likely to be within six feet of someone, even if it is solely in passing, is required."

It seems they would like you to wear one anytime you leave your yard.

The problem with the re-re-clarification is that it is in complete contradiction with the actual order, which states as follows:

Persons leaving their residences shall wear a face covering when they are likely to come into contact with another person, such as being within six feet of another person for more than a fleeting time. ([emphasis added]

I’m going by what the order says, not by the public affairs moronic interpretation.

I talked to the county about this. The statement in the press release about requiring a mask when passing others on the sidewalk was intended to be interpreted as a strong recommendation, rather a legal mandate under the health order. I personally don't think "required" was the appropriate word to use, but I do understand they're trying to write orders and provide guidance for two very different kinds of situations: an empty trail/sidewalk upcounty, and a crowded sidewalk in Bethesda or Silver Spring.

I think they figure they can write stronger interpretive guidance because they don't intend to enforce it.

The problem with this strategy is that they put normal citizens on a collision path, with some trying to police a non-regulation. Government officials should only make threats that they intend to keep.

The more they're fighting over that, the less they're wondering why bars and restaurants are open, but schools are closed.

This exactly. It’s a deliberate distraction by our local leaders and people are falling for the trap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love these threads.

Grown adults discussing not wearing masks, little tiny pieces of cloth that are non invasive, that just might save one life.

Trumpers, selfish idiots who made this all possible. Pandemic is on you. Thanks so much...

If it's non-invasive, please wear one while sleeping. We won't have to hear from you again.

This "argument" (I hesitate to even call it one) is moronic. You are making PPs point about being a selfish idiot...

Please wear one while sleeping also. Less busybodies are better for everyone.

I have had many non Covid patients at the hospital choose to sleep with their masks on. They figure since staff is coming in and out during the night, its better to keep masks on even though we are double masked at all times. So I'm not quite sure where you get the "if you sleep with a mask on you'll die" argument.

DH has to still travel for work sometimes and he definitely wears a mask while sleeping in hotel rooms. You just never know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I notice they re-re-clarified the order last night to this:

"The new face covering guidelines outlined in the Health Directive are designed to help protect residents and reduce the spread of COVID-19. Residents are strongly urged to wear a mask whenever they are in public places and may encounter others. Whether you are out walking or jogging, wearing a mask when you are likely to be within six feet of someone, even if it is solely in passing, is required."

It seems they would like you to wear one anytime you leave your yard.

The problem with the re-re-clarification is that it is in complete contradiction with the actual order, which states as follows:

Persons leaving their residences shall wear a face covering when they are likely to come into contact with another person, such as being within six feet of another person for more than a fleeting time. ([emphasis added]

I’m going by what the order says, not by the public affairs moronic interpretation.

I talked to the county about this. The statement in the press release about requiring a mask when passing others on the sidewalk was intended to be interpreted as a strong recommendation, rather a legal mandate under the health order. I personally don't think "required" was the appropriate word to use, but I do understand they're trying to write orders and provide guidance for two very different kinds of situations: an empty trail/sidewalk upcounty, and a crowded sidewalk in Bethesda or Silver Spring.

I think they figure they can write stronger interpretive guidance because they don't intend to enforce it.

The problem with this strategy is that they put normal citizens on a collision path, with some trying to police a non-regulation. Government officials should only make threats that they intend to keep.

The more they're fighting over that, the less they're wondering why bars and restaurants are open, but schools are closed.

Schools don't pay taxes.

That's part of it.

But probably a bigger part of it is that there's not a big union pushing to close restaurants and bars like there is with schools.