Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol. Number is heading back down again after 2 very low days.

You know its going to dip below 50 the same day they meet to vote.

Classic MoCo

Ha. So true. Typical of low level county employees...

The numbers are the numbers. It's math. What do "low level county employees" have to do with it?

I think the ^PP is alluding to the county jumping the gun and panicking because the number ticked up for ONE day. It was a dumb policy to only look at the ONE day. The policy should have looked at the trend for 7 or 14 days, not ONE day. That was stupid, but at least they are seeing the problem with looking at the metric for just ONE day and making a decision.

Thank you. Stupid policy. Use weekly avg, as mentioned.

Well, the weekly average changes every day. So, before, they were using one instance of a weekly average. With the change, they'll required to meet 7 consecutive days of weekly average instances

If they use an avg. range/band to account for the ups/downs of when testing occurs, that would be better. Generally, more positive tests come in later in the week, so lets smooth that out a bit is all I'm saying. That way, when it pops above some number the day after the mandate is lifted, the mask mandate isn't automatically re-imposed. Give it some wiggle room both ways...If they don't, people will just tune them out cause it fails the common sense test.

The seven-day average already provided the smoothing that you seek. It was clear when they lifted the mandate that cases would go back above the threshold because cases were already increasing from their low earlier in the week and because the positivity rate had been increasing.

This is all political theater now anyway. If the council thought masks were important to limiting transmission, they wouldn’t be changing the metrics because they don’t like the numbers and they wouldn’t be delaying the reimposition of the mask mandate until next week.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious, to PP’s point-does anyone know a single person who has been fined or ticketed or arrested or whatever for not wearing a mask indoors? I mean, is it a thing? What would actually happen if I quietly walk through a store or business without a mask. The only person who would confront me is perhaps an employee. Then I can decide what to do. If they reinstate I’m ignoring. I can’t keep checking every day as to wether it’s “mask day” or a “no mask day”. I’m done. If people start dying in droves and the ERs are overloaded with Covid patients then I’ll respectfully comply. But not now. Not when 90% of this area is vaccinated AND we have medication that treats it. Sorry for compromised people but they have to protect themselves as they did pre-covid.

No, it's not a thing. There is no way the police will enforce mask policies when they've been told not to enforce low-level crime in general due to the racial disparities they generate in arrest rates.

On the contrary, I’m sure they’ll be happy to enforce it on some white suburban woman who’s vaccinated and thinks masks are virtue signaling or theatre. They’ll be happy to enforce the hell outta her.

Lol. Okay.

Look, I know A LOT of LEOs. Not a single one would enforce a thing on anyone violating the mask mandate. The absolute worst they would do, would be to ask you to leave whatever property complained.

I'm telling you all. If you want to stop wearing masks, just stop wearing masks

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious, to PP’s point-does anyone know a single person who has been fined or ticketed or arrested or whatever for not wearing a mask indoors? I mean, is it a thing? What would actually happen if I quietly walk through a store or business without a mask. The only person who would confront me is perhaps an employee. Then I can decide what to do. If they reinstate I’m ignoring. I can’t keep checking every day as to wether it’s “mask day” or a “no mask day”. I’m done. If people start dying in droves and the ERs are overloaded with Covid patients then I’ll respectfully comply. But not now. Not when 90% of this area is vaccinated AND we have medication that treats it. Sorry for compromised people but they have to protect themselves as they did pre-covid.

No, it's not a thing. There is no way the police will enforce mask policies when they've been told not to enforce low-level crime in general due to the racial disparities they generate in arrest rates.

On the contrary, I’m sure they’ll be happy to enforce it on some white suburban woman who’s vaccinated and thinks masks are virtue signaling or theatre. They’ll be happy to enforce the hell outta her.

Lol. Okay.

Look, I know A LOT of LEOs. Not a single one would enforce a thing on anyone violating the mask mandate. The absolute worst they would do, would be to ask you to leave whatever property complained.

I'm telling you all. If you want to stop wearing masks, just stop wearing masks

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol. Number is heading back down again after 2 very low days.

You know its going to dip below 50 the same day they meet to vote.

Classic MoCo

Ha. So true. Typical of low level county employees...

The numbers are the numbers. It's math. What do "low level county employees" have to do with it?

I think the ^PP is alluding to the county jumping the gun and panicking because the number ticked up for ONE day. It was a dumb policy to only look at the ONE day. The policy should have looked at the trend for 7 or 14 days, not ONE day. That was stupid, but at least they are seeing the problem with looking at the metric for just ONE day and making a decision.

Thank you. Stupid policy. Use weekly avg, as mentioned.

Well, the weekly average changes every day. So, before, they were using one instance of a weekly average. With the change, they'll required to meet 7 consecutive days of weekly average instances

If they use an avg. range/band to account for the ups/downs of when testing occurs, that would be better. Generally, more positive tests come in later in the week, so lets smooth that out a bit is all I'm saying. That way, when it pops above some number the day after the mandate is lifted, the mask mandate isn't automatically re-imposed. Give it some wiggle room both ways...If they don't, people will just tune them out cause it fails the common sense test.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious, to PP’s point-does anyone know a single person who has been fined or ticketed or arrested or whatever for not wearing a mask indoors? I mean, is it a thing? What would actually happen if I quietly walk through a store or business without a mask. The only person who would confront me is perhaps an employee. Then I can decide what to do. If they reinstate I’m ignoring. I can’t keep checking every day as to wether it’s “mask day” or a “no mask day”. I’m done. If people start dying in droves and the ERs are overloaded with Covid patients then I’ll respectfully comply. But not now. Not when 90% of this area is vaccinated AND we have medication that treats it. Sorry for compromised people but they have to protect themselves as they did pre-covid.

No, it's not a thing. There is no way the police will enforce mask policies when they've been told not to enforce low-level crime in general due to the racial disparities they generate in arrest rates.

On the contrary, I’m sure they’ll be happy to enforce it on some white suburban woman who’s vaccinated and thinks masks are virtue signaling or theatre. They’ll be happy to enforce the hell outta her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol. Number is heading back down again after 2 very low days.

You know its going to dip below 50 the same day they meet to vote.

Classic MoCo

Ha. So true. Typical of low level county employees...

The numbers are the numbers. It's math. What do "low level county employees" have to do with it?

I think the ^PP is alluding to the county jumping the gun and panicking because the number ticked up for ONE day. It was a dumb policy to only look at the ONE day. The policy should have looked at the trend for 7 or 14 days, not ONE day. That was stupid, but at least they are seeing the problem with looking at the metric for just ONE day and making a decision.

Thank you. Stupid policy. Use weekly avg, as mentioned.

Well, the weekly average changes every day. So, before, they were using one instance of a weekly average. With the change, they'll required to meet 7 consecutive days of weekly average instances

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious, to PP’s point-does anyone know a single person who has been fined or ticketed or arrested or whatever for not wearing a mask indoors? I mean, is it a thing? What would actually happen if I quietly walk through a store or business without a mask. The only person who would confront me is perhaps an employee. Then I can decide what to do. If they reinstate I’m ignoring. I can’t keep checking every day as to wether it’s “mask day” or a “no mask day”. I’m done. If people start dying in droves and the ERs are overloaded with Covid patients then I’ll respectfully comply. But not now. Not when 90% of this area is vaccinated AND we have medication that treats it. Sorry for compromised people but they have to protect themselves as they did pre-covid.

No, it's not a thing. There is no way the police will enforce mask policies when they've been told not to enforce low-level crime in general due to the racial disparities they generate in arrest rates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol. Number is heading back down again after 2 very low days.

You know its going to dip below 50 the same day they meet to vote.

Classic MoCo

Ha. So true. Typical of low level county employees...

The numbers are the numbers. It's math. What do "low level county employees" have to do with it?

I think the ^PP is alluding to the county jumping the gun and panicking because the number ticked up for ONE day. It was a dumb policy to only look at the ONE day. The policy should have looked at the trend for 7 or 14 days, not ONE day. That was stupid, but at least they are seeing the problem with looking at the metric for just ONE day and making a decision.

Thank you. Stupid policy. Use weekly avg, as mentioned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol. Number is heading back down again after 2 very low days.

You know its going to dip below 50 the same day they meet to vote.

Classic MoCo

Ha. So true. Typical of low level county employees...

The numbers are the numbers. It's math. What do "low level county employees" have to do with it?

I think the ^PP is alluding to the county jumping the gun and panicking because the number ticked up for ONE day. It was a dumb policy to only look at the ONE day. The policy should have looked at the trend for 7 or 14 days, not ONE day. That was stupid, but at least they are seeing the problem with looking at the metric for just ONE day and making a decision.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol. Number is heading back down again after 2 very low days.

You know its going to dip below 50 the same day they meet to vote.

Classic MoCo

Ha. So true. Typical of low level county employees...

The numbers are the numbers. It's math. What do "low level county employees" have to do with it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol. Number is heading back down again after 2 very low days.

You know its going to dip below 50 the same day they meet to vote.

Classic MoCo

Ha. So true. Typical of low level county employees...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Too bad there's nothing you or anyone else can do about me, a random person who doesn't feel like wearing a mask. (I too am triple vaxxed but don't wear a sandwich board either).

??? I don't expect to be able to do anything about you, any more than I expect to be able to do anything about the many random drivers who run red lights, except try to avoid you.

You can cry about it on the internet.

Anonymous wrote:Lol. Number is heading back down again after 2 very low days.

You know its going to dip below 50 the same day they meet to vote.

Classic MoCo

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Too bad there's nothing you or anyone else can do about me, a random person who doesn't feel like wearing a mask. (I too am triple vaxxed but don't wear a sandwich board either).

??? I don't expect to be able to do anything about you, any more than I expect to be able to do anything about the many random drivers who run red lights, except try to avoid you.