Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh shut up. I wear a mask at the playground personally to avoid conflict but of ALL the things to get worked up over. It’s fine. It’s outside.

No. It is not fine with that many people and most of whom have not been vaccinated. Also, stop telling saying
shut up because it screams that you are a rude jerk.

Pot meet kettle.

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.

Where did you read that 6% fact and did it include restaurants? Just curious.

- There is zero evidence of outdoor superspreading.
- Most “outdoor cases” included indoor mixing
- Why do you think the wind wouldn’t disperse the virus? Source?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:science says outdoors with social media is almost zero chance of getting covid.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/03/13/covid-spread-outside-what-know-safety-masks-warm-weather/4642329001/

Eisenman and other experts agreed: Standard COVID-19 precautions – especially keeping your distance and wearing a mask – are especially effective at keeping you safe from the virus when spending time outside.

You are “very, very unlikely to catch COVID” if you’re keeping socially distant outside and wearing a mask when you can, Tsipursky said.

Data please?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I tell my child to take her mask off outside. I do not wear a mask outside.

Do you realize how bad it is to be breathing through a dirty mask? You are putting your child at risk for all sorts of lung issues later in life.

Oh, please. Citation needed. Legitimate medical sources only, please.

We’ll wait.

New poster. Please change your child’a mask daily. And a wet mask absolutely seems both dangerous and ineffective. Another reason masking two year olds/kids with special needs is cruel.

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.

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.

You sound like a reasonable person, and I *mostly* agree with you. But on a macro level, this trend towards zeroism -- accepting nothing less than zero risk -- alarms and does affect me. Will we never be able to ditch hybrid school? Do this? Do that? Just because there is still a "not zero" risk?? Irrational levels of anxiety should not be validated.

I fear for the kids in San Fransisco. It’a kind of sadly funny. At the beginning of the pandemic, Cuomo was the hero leading the way. DeSantis was Death Sentence. 99% of schools are open in Florida. The governor refused to take Covid patients back to nursing homes, and that act was quite heroic. I say this as someone who voted a straight blue ticket. This summer I could not imagine voting for a republican, period. Although I am happy that Biden is in the white house, I will hold my nose and vote for candidate who will open schools and repeal mask mandates (if we aren’t back to normal soon).

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.

You sound like a reasonable person, and I *mostly* agree with you. But on a macro level, this trend towards zeroism -- accepting nothing less than zero risk -- alarms and does affect me. Will we never be able to ditch hybrid school? Do this? Do that? Just because there is still a "not zero" risk?? Irrational levels of anxiety should not be validated.

+1 thank you!

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.

You sound like a reasonable person, and I *mostly* agree with you. But on a macro level, this trend towards zeroism -- accepting nothing less than zero risk -- alarms and does affect me. Will we never be able to ditch hybrid school? Do this? Do that? Just because there is still a "not zero" risk?? Irrational levels of anxiety should not be validated.

Right. Somehow, it's okay for my kid, who is in DCPS, to go skiing in Wisp (since it's just barely inside Maryland), but not Snowshoe (which is just barely outside of Virginia). You can go party in Ocean City, Maryland, but not Dewey Beach, Delaware.

These rules stopped making sense a long time ago. We pretty much ignore them.


You and many other people, which is why covid continues to spread.


You do not understand how Covid spreads.


clearly neither do you.

Actually I do...

- Living with the case, especially sleeping in the same room, attending family/friend gatherings, and dining were found to have a higher risk for transmission
- Poor ventilation and crowding have been suggested to be factors in numerous transmission clusters, including those in bars, churches, and night clubs, karaoke bars [22, 23]. By contrast, such events have rarely occurred outside, and then only in the context of high levels of crowding.
- The largest outbreaks from across the world have been reported in long term care facilities such as nursing homes, homeless shelters, prisons, and workplaces including meat-packing plants and factories
- preventing onward transmission requires immediate self-isolation at the onset of symptoms - not asymptomatic spread
- There is a strong association between socioeconomic deprivation, ethnicity and a higher risk of infection [47, 48]. People facing the greatest socioeconomic deprivation experience elevated risk of household and occupational exposure
- the virus may be transmitted at a distance more than 2 m through aerosols [63]. These include prolonged stay in crowded, poorly ventilated indoor settings.
- transferring infection from contaminated surfaces to the mucosa of eyes, nose, and mouth via unwashed hands is a possible route of transmission.


So, not super worried about kids playing maskless outdoors.




https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sars-cov-2-transmission-routes-and-environments-22-october-2020

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.

It’s pretty darn close to zero in the scenarios described in this thread. Like the 538 article said, whatever portion of that 6% was completely outdoors, was in very crowded environments - markets and rallies. Not on the sidewalk, not at the playground.

No one here is saying masks indoors are unnecessary.

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.

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.

And also humidity may be a factor.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Outdoors and distanced? Why would you wear a mask. And the whole point of masking after vax is just to avoid the kind of "vax not vaxxed" issues that might pop up. Everyone knows you don't need to mask after vax.

No the recommendation is for everyone to keep masking unless everyone in the group is fully vaccinated if you are indoors or unable to socially distance. If you are outside AND social distanced I don't think it's a big deal to take off your mask.

There are cases of people transmitting it outdoors, but you need proximity and enough time.

So sick of morons like you continuing to spread disinformation just so you can justify taking your mask off all the time.

Really? Not aware of any that were exclusively outdoors. There is much more data that indoors with masks is unsafe compared to being maskless outdoors.

“ Findings in Japan suggest an 18.7-fold higher risk of transmission indoors compared with outdoor environments [33]. For example, an outbreak investigation from China identified that 24 out of 67 passengers were infected during a 50-minute return bus journey (some were sitting beyond 2 metres from the index case), which was linked to an index case who was symptomatic the day before the trip. Findings from contact tracing studies in Japan suggest an 18.7-fold higher risk of transmission indoors compared with outdoor environments [33]. For example, an outbreak investigation from China identified that 24 out of 67 passengers were infected during a 50-minute return bus journey (some were sitting beyond 2 metres from the index case), which was linked to an index case who was symptomatic the day before the trip.”

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/933225/S0824_SARS-CoV-2_Transmission_routes_and_environments.pdf

Why does combining a modestly effective indoor intervention (masking) with a highly effective intervention (being outdoors) make sense? Why not recognize that people need some normalcy? And this is low risk.

Anonymous wrote:I bring food and drink to playground so that I have an excuse to take my mask off as I'm sitting on a bench, alone, and my kid is playing. I know people will judge me for just sitting there without my mask on even though I am far from anyone. I put my mask on to play with my kid even if no one else is at the playground, because I am afraid of the crazy people on this thread and elsewhere who will see me playing alone with my child and call me out for being unmasked for the moment.

But yeah, I bring coffee or bottled water or a snack with me so I can pull my mask off and take sips or bites intermittently. I'm not hungry or thirsty, I just want to be outside and breathe fresh air without being accused of being a Trump supporter or a science denier.

Who, in this scenario, is the "mean girl" and who is the person just trying to safely occupy space in the world without being ostracized and ridiculed by others?

It is a diminishingly small group of people who would be upset with you if you are truly distancing.

Most of the mocking on this thread is for people who continue to mask outdoors.