What’s up with parents not wearing masks at the playground?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot understand the kind of person who gets bothered by this.

Do you know how covid is spread? You need close, unventilated interactions for a period of time. There is zero indication covid is being spread running around in open, outdoor playgrounds, especially if kids are not constantly on top of each other.

What's even worse is these mask strictists often pretend to support science. I feel so bad for the kids who have parents that have uncontrolled mental health and rope the kids into their issues.

Actually this is factually not accurate. 6% of cases are outdoor transmission. In one case, for instance, two people talked for 15 min outdoors. So if you’re doing things for longer with people and downwind you can absolutely have a risk of transmission. Also depends on whether that person is a super spreader.

I assume you got your 6% from the database discussed in this 538 article. Read more carefully, the 6% was out doors or PARTIALLY outdoors. So it’s like people throwing around the rose garden super spreader party as an example of outdoor transmission, even though a portion of the event was indoors. The outdoor transmission the database did find was at busy markets and rallies. If you’ve ever been to a market in China, you probably know it’s way more crowded than a playground in the DMV.

“For example, in a study of 7,324 Chinese case reports, only two — part of the same transmission event — could be linked to outdoor settings. A database of more than 20,000 cases (including the 7,324 Chinese cases) found 461 that were associated with transmission in completely outdoor environments — predominantly crowded events like markets and rallies. Overall, only 6 percent of all the cases in that database were linked to events that were either totally or partially outdoors.”

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-summer-of-covid-19-taught-scientists-about-indoor-vs-outdoor-transmission/

The data does seem to suggest that it is much less likely that you will contract Covid outdoors. However, it is not zero either, as some PPs on this and other threads would like to suggest. Being outside is not a magic bullet, it is just much much better. Proximity and time of close proximity are the other factors.

In some circumstance, masks outdoors are still a good idea. In other circumstances, people going without them should not cause great upset. Indoors, however, put your damn mask on.

At the end of the day, people have lots of reasons why they might have their mask on outdoors and they are not obliged to share them with you.

+100
Well said.

But you realize the topic of this thread is someone complaining about maskless families outdoors. Mask up outside if you want.

Reading comprehension is not your strength?

These families should absolutely wear masks on the playground.

If huddled up in the pack, sure. Sitting 10+’ft away outside, forget about it.

As long as you and your kids are not near mine, you do as you please.

Stay home if you’re too afraid to listen to science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot understand the kind of person who gets bothered by this.

Do you know how covid is spread? You need close, unventilated interactions for a period of time. There is zero indication covid is being spread running around in open, outdoor playgrounds, especially if kids are not constantly on top of each other.

What's even worse is these mask strictists often pretend to support science. I feel so bad for the kids who have parents that have uncontrolled mental health and rope the kids into their issues.

Actually this is factually not accurate. 6% of cases are outdoor transmission. In one case, for instance, two people talked for 15 min outdoors. So if you’re doing things for longer with people and downwind you can absolutely have a risk of transmission. Also depends on whether that person is a super spreader.

I assume you got your 6% from the database discussed in this 538 article. Read more carefully, the 6% was out doors or PARTIALLY outdoors. So it’s like people throwing around the rose garden super spreader party as an example of outdoor transmission, even though a portion of the event was indoors. The outdoor transmission the database did find was at busy markets and rallies. If you’ve ever been to a market in China, you probably know it’s way more crowded than a playground in the DMV.

“For example, in a study of 7,324 Chinese case reports, only two — part of the same transmission event — could be linked to outdoor settings. A database of more than 20,000 cases (including the 7,324 Chinese cases) found 461 that were associated with transmission in completely outdoor environments — predominantly crowded events like markets and rallies. Overall, only 6 percent of all the cases in that database were linked to events that were either totally or partially outdoors.”

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-summer-of-covid-19-taught-scientists-about-indoor-vs-outdoor-transmission/

The data does seem to suggest that it is much less likely that you will contract Covid outdoors. However, it is not zero either, as some PPs on this and other threads would like to suggest. Being outside is not a magic bullet, it is just much much better. Proximity and time of close proximity are the other factors.

In some circumstance, masks outdoors are still a good idea. In other circumstances, people going without them should not cause great upset. Indoors, however, put your damn mask on.

At the end of the day, people have lots of reasons why they might have their mask on outdoors and they are not obliged to share them with you.

+100
Well said.

But you realize the topic of this thread is someone complaining about maskless families outdoors. Mask up outside if you want.

Reading comprehension is not your strength?

These families should absolutely wear masks on the playground.

If huddled up in the pack, sure. Sitting 10+’ft away outside, forget about it.

As long as you and your kids are not near mine, you do as you please.

Stay home if you’re too afraid to listen to science.

I can bet you are as far from science as one can get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot understand the kind of person who gets bothered by this.

Do you know how covid is spread? You need close, unventilated interactions for a period of time. There is zero indication covid is being spread running around in open, outdoor playgrounds, especially if kids are not constantly on top of each other.

What's even worse is these mask strictists often pretend to support science. I feel so bad for the kids who have parents that have uncontrolled mental health and rope the kids into their issues.

Actually this is factually not accurate. 6% of cases are outdoor transmission. In one case, for instance, two people talked for 15 min outdoors. So if you’re doing things for longer with people and downwind you can absolutely have a risk of transmission. Also depends on whether that person is a super spreader.

I assume you got your 6% from the database discussed in this 538 article. Read more carefully, the 6% was out doors or PARTIALLY outdoors. So it’s like people throwing around the rose garden super spreader party as an example of outdoor transmission, even though a portion of the event was indoors. The outdoor transmission the database did find was at busy markets and rallies. If you’ve ever been to a market in China, you probably know it’s way more crowded than a playground in the DMV.

“For example, in a study of 7,324 Chinese case reports, only two — part of the same transmission event — could be linked to outdoor settings. A database of more than 20,000 cases (including the 7,324 Chinese cases) found 461 that were associated with transmission in completely outdoor environments — predominantly crowded events like markets and rallies. Overall, only 6 percent of all the cases in that database were linked to events that were either totally or partially outdoors.”

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-summer-of-covid-19-taught-scientists-about-indoor-vs-outdoor-transmission/

The data does seem to suggest that it is much less likely that you will contract Covid outdoors. However, it is not zero either, as some PPs on this and other threads would like to suggest. Being outside is not a magic bullet, it is just much much better. Proximity and time of close proximity are the other factors.

In some circumstance, masks outdoors are still a good idea. In other circumstances, people going without them should not cause great upset. Indoors, however, put your damn mask on.

At the end of the day, people have lots of reasons why they might have their mask on outdoors and they are not obliged to share them with you.

+100
Well said.

But you realize the topic of this thread is someone complaining about maskless families outdoors. Mask up outside if you want.

It's so bizarre. I think wearing masks outside is nothing more than pandemic theatre. But, if that's what you want to do, knock yourself out. Just don't expect me to go along with your nonsense.

I don't wear a mask outside, and don't make my kids wear one, either, even at the playground. No one's ever said anything about it. And we live in NW DC, the belly of the "Thank You, Dr. Fauci" beast.

Of course no one says anything. Why engage stupid, you might be unstable as well. We just leave.

Well, guess that works out perfectly for everyone. You leave, and my kids get to keep playing.

By themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot understand the kind of person who gets bothered by this.

Do you know how covid is spread? You need close, unventilated interactions for a period of time. There is zero indication covid is being spread running around in open, outdoor playgrounds, especially if kids are not constantly on top of each other.

What's even worse is these mask strictists often pretend to support science. I feel so bad for the kids who have parents that have uncontrolled mental health and rope the kids into their issues.

Actually this is factually not accurate. 6% of cases are outdoor transmission. In one case, for instance, two people talked for 15 min outdoors. So if you’re doing things for longer with people and downwind you can absolutely have a risk of transmission. Also depends on whether that person is a super spreader.

I assume you got your 6% from the database discussed in this 538 article. Read more carefully, the 6% was out doors or PARTIALLY outdoors. So it’s like people throwing around the rose garden super spreader party as an example of outdoor transmission, even though a portion of the event was indoors. The outdoor transmission the database did find was at busy markets and rallies. If you’ve ever been to a market in China, you probably know it’s way more crowded than a playground in the DMV.

“For example, in a study of 7,324 Chinese case reports, only two — part of the same transmission event — could be linked to outdoor settings. A database of more than 20,000 cases (including the 7,324 Chinese cases) found 461 that were associated with transmission in completely outdoor environments — predominantly crowded events like markets and rallies. Overall, only 6 percent of all the cases in that database were linked to events that were either totally or partially outdoors.”

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-summer-of-covid-19-taught-scientists-about-indoor-vs-outdoor-transmission/

The data does seem to suggest that it is much less likely that you will contract Covid outdoors. However, it is not zero either, as some PPs on this and other threads would like to suggest. Being outside is not a magic bullet, it is just much much better. Proximity and time of close proximity are the other factors.

In some circumstance, masks outdoors are still a good idea. In other circumstances, people going without them should not cause great upset. Indoors, however, put your damn mask on.

At the end of the day, people have lots of reasons why they might have their mask on outdoors and they are not obliged to share them with you.

+100
Well said.

But you realize the topic of this thread is someone complaining about maskless families outdoors. Mask up outside if you want.

Reading comprehension is not your strength?

These families should absolutely wear masks on the playground.

If huddled up in the pack, sure. Sitting 10+’ft away outside, forget about it.

As long as you and your kids are not near mine, you do as you please.

Stay home if you’re too afraid to listen to science.

I can bet you are as far from science as one can get.

I’m your pediatrician.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Next time I’ll wave to you OP! I’m definitely a maskless mom at the playground. I know you find this shocking but it has absolutely nothing to do with you.

NP. I do not give a damn if you and everyone of your entire family get covid and die but you have no right to endanger the lives of anyone else!

Your anxiety is unfounded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Next time I’ll wave to you OP! I’m definitely a maskless mom at the playground. I know you find this shocking but it has absolutely nothing to do with you.

NP. I do not give a damn if you and everyone of your entire family get covid and die but you have no right to endanger the lives of anyone else!

Are you...familiar with how correlated with age the outcomes on this are? The death ratios for 5-17 year-olds are 1/7,900 that of 85+ year-olds. Children without health conditions have basically zero risk of dying. Even for young and middle-aged adults, it's very low. If you're old or sick enough that your life is at risk in any substantive way, I have good news for you about vaccine availability.

I have bad news: it’s not just about dying. A year into pandemic and you still don’t get it.

I get that it's also about moving goalposts!

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Next time I’ll wave to you OP! I’m definitely a maskless mom at the playground. I know you find this shocking but it has absolutely nothing to do with you.

NP. I do not give a damn if you and everyone of your entire family get covid and die but you have no right to endanger the lives of anyone else!

Are you...familiar with how correlated with age the outcomes on this are? The death ratios for 5-17 year-olds are 1/7,900 that of 85+ year-olds. Children without health conditions have basically zero risk of dying. Even for young and middle-aged adults, it's very low. If you're old or sick enough that your life is at risk in any substantive way, I have good news for you about vaccine availability.

I have bad news: it’s not just about dying. A year into pandemic and you still don’t get it.

I get that it's also about moving goalposts!

At this point it’s about deaths and hospitalizations, which have been at flu level for two weeks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Masks are only recommended outside when 6’ of distance can’t be maintained. It’s fine. Really.

Not true. Even for fully vaccinated people CDC recommends to: "continue to wear masks and stay 6 feet apart from other people in other settings, like when they are in public or visiting with unvaccinated people from multiple households.

Not sure why the CDC guidelines are gospel for so many. The six feet rule is baloney.

“The exact origins of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s six-foot social distancing guideline are unclear, according to Lindsey Marr, an expert on viral transmission and professor at Virginia Tech.

“It’s almost like it was pulled out of thin air,” Marr told the New York Times.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.yahoo.com/amphtml/cdc-six-foot-school-distancing-181926895.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Masks are only recommended outside when 6’ of distance can’t be maintained. It’s fine. Really.

Not true. Even for fully vaccinated people CDC recommends to: "continue to wear masks and stay 6 feet apart from other people in other settings, like when they are in public or visiting with unvaccinated people from multiple households.

Not sure why the CDC guidelines are gospel for so many. The six feet rule is baloney.

“The exact origins of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s six-foot social distancing guideline are unclear, according to Lindsey Marr, an expert on viral transmission and professor at Virginia Tech.

“It’s almost like it was pulled out of thin air,” Marr told the New York Times.” /

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.yahoo.com/amphtml/cdc-six-foot-school-distancing-181926895.html

that’s interesting because this same researcher from VA Tech is quoted in an August WAPO article saying:

“I think six feet is a fine number, but we need to convey that this is a starting point,” said Linsey Marr, a Virginia Tech civil and environmental engineering professor, who has studied airborne viruses and was not involved with the BMJ report. “Beyond six feet doesn’t mean there’s zero risk.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/08/27/coronavirus-social-distancing-6-feet/

It was the same article with the study that mentioned this:

The conventional wisdom behind six-foot separations originated from research by a German biologist, Carl Flügge, who in the late 1800s suggested that was as far as microbe-containing droplets could travel. Unfortunately, his hypothesis missed farther-flung particles invisible to the naked eye — in particular, the tiny gobs of bodily fluid and virus that float on the air as aerosols.

came up with this chart from a study that talked about risk of transmission in different settings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot understand the kind of person who gets bothered by this.

Do you know how covid is spread? You need close, unventilated interactions for a period of time. There is zero indication covid is being spread running around in open, outdoor playgrounds, especially if kids are not constantly on top of each other.

What's even worse is these mask strictists often pretend to support science. I feel so bad for the kids who have parents that have uncontrolled mental health and rope the kids into their issues.

Actually this is factually not accurate. 6% of cases are outdoor transmission. In one case, for instance, two people talked for 15 min outdoors. So if you’re doing things for longer with people and downwind you can absolutely have a risk of transmission. Also depends on whether that person is a super spreader.

I assume you got your 6% from the database discussed in this 538 article. Read more carefully, the 6% was out doors or PARTIALLY outdoors. So it’s like people throwing around the rose garden super spreader party as an example of outdoor transmission, even though a portion of the event was indoors. The outdoor transmission the database did find was at busy markets and rallies. If you’ve ever been to a market in China, you probably know it’s way more crowded than a playground in the DMV.

“For example, in a study of 7,324 Chinese case reports, only two — part of the same transmission event — could be linked to outdoor settings. A database of more than 20,000 cases (including the 7,324 Chinese cases) found 461 that were associated with transmission in completely outdoor environments — predominantly crowded events like markets and rallies. Overall, only 6 percent of all the cases in that database were linked to events that were either totally or partially outdoors.”

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-summer-of-covid-19-taught-scientists-about-indoor-vs-outdoor-transmission/

The data does seem to suggest that it is much less likely that you will contract Covid outdoors. However, it is not zero either, as some PPs on this and other threads would like to suggest. Being outside is not a magic bullet, it is just much much better. Proximity and time of close proximity are the other factors.

In some circumstance, masks outdoors are still a good idea. In other circumstances, people going without them should not cause great upset. Indoors, however, put your damn mask on.

At the end of the day, people have lots of reasons why they might have their mask on outdoors and they are not obliged to share them with you.

+100
Well said.

But you realize the topic of this thread is someone complaining about maskless families outdoors. Mask up outside if you want.

Reading comprehension is not your strength?

These families should absolutely wear masks on the playground.

If huddled up in the pack, sure. Sitting 10+’ft away outside, forget about it.

As long as you and your kids are not near mine, you do as you please.

Stay home if you’re too afraid to listen to science.

I can bet you are as far from science as one can get.

I’m your pediatrician.

You lost credibility when you dropped a stupid, and nasty statement about following science with no further info.
There are plenty of docs on the record giving information that is outright wrong.

[Anonymous]

This thread is funny. Never quit DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Masks are only recommended outside when 6’ of distance can’t be maintained. It’s fine. Really.

Not true. Even for fully vaccinated people CDC recommends to: "continue to wear masks and stay 6 feet apart from other people in other settings, like when they are in public or visiting with unvaccinated people from multiple households.

Not sure why the CDC guidelines are gospel for so many. The six feet rule is baloney.

“The exact origins of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s six-foot social distancing guideline are unclear, according to Lindsey Marr, an expert on viral transmission and professor at Virginia Tech.

“It’s almost like it was pulled out of thin air,” Marr told the New York Times.” /

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.yahoo.com/amphtml/cdc-six-foot-school-distancing-181926895.html

that’s interesting because this same researcher from VA Tech is quoted in an August WAPO article saying:

“I think six feet is a fine number, but we need to convey that this is a starting point,” said Linsey Marr, a Virginia Tech civil and environmental engineering professor, who has studied airborne viruses and was not involved with the BMJ report. “Beyond six feet doesn’t mean there’s zero risk.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/08/27/coronavirus-social-distancing-6-feet/

It was the same article with the study that mentioned this:

The conventional wisdom behind six-foot separations originated from research by a German biologist, Carl Flügge, who in the late 1800s suggested that was as far as microbe-containing droplets could travel. Unfortunately, his hypothesis missed farther-flung particles invisible to the naked eye — in particular, the tiny gobs of bodily fluid and virus that float on the air as aerosols.

came up with this chart from a study that talked about risk of transmission in different settings.

Thank you! This is a great chart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

re you seriously questioning whether masks are necessary in schools. Multiple studies have supported that masks and other mitigation strategies are the key to safely keeping schools open. And we need schools to stay open.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/sci...ssion_k_12_schools.html#ftn-50

"When mitigation strategies – especially mask use and physical distancing – are consistently and correctly used, the risk of transmission in the school environment is decreased.50 CDC’s school guidance for COVID-19 emphasizes 5 key mitigation strategies: consistent and correct use of masks, physical distancing, handwashing and respiratory etiquette, cleaning and ventilation, and contact tracing in combination with isolation and quarantine. Use of multiple strategies – sometimes called layered mitigation – provides greater protection in breaking transmission chains than implementing a single strategy.51 The guidance recommends layering two or more mitigation strategies, with particular emphasis on universal use of masks and physical distancing."

That doesn’t separate the effectiveness of individual NPIs or compare outcomes in mask vs. mask optional schools. We have had worse outcomes than countries that don’t expect students to mask.

- Pediatricians in Canada advise against kids wearing masks for the school day.

https://www.sickkids.ca/siteassets/news/news-archive/2020/covid19-recommendations-for-school-reopening-sickkids.pdf

- Denmark and Sweden haven’t required students to mask

- Norway requires masks during passing periods

- Germany didn’t require them when windows were open

We know some schools in Florida are mask optional. Florida has done no worse than California, where extended school closures continue to harm students.

Kids in Sweden have attended maskless, and this was prior to teacher vaccination.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2026670

Data from the Public Health Agency of Sweden (published report5 and personal communication) showed that fewer than 10 preschool teachers and 20 schoolteachers in Sweden received intensive care for Covid-19 up until June 30, 2020 (20 per 103,596 schoolteachers, which is equal to 19 per 100,000). As compared with other occupations (excluding health care workers), this corresponded to sex- and age-adjusted relative risks of 1.10 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49 to 2.49) among preschool teachers and 0.43 (95% CI, 0.28 to 0.68) among schoolteachers

But for secondary school teachers there was increased risk of illness without the masks.

So mask kids 12+ like Denmark. Masking 2-7 year olds al day long is cruel. Pediatricians in Canada agree.

I agree. I don’t know why we can’t have some middle ground here- some states have ditched masks altogether while here we force toddlers to wear them despite it being developmentally inappropriate and when it’s been shown transmission among young kids is low.

[Anonymous]

Regarding the data from Sweden about few teachers being in ICU. It's because they just deny them care because of lack of space. They've let so many people die because of lack of space. Look at the total number of deaths per capita in Sweden.