Rennmaus

Yep, you wouldn't want to have it, even with mild or mo symptoms: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/06/coronavirus-covid-19-mild-symptoms-who?utm_term=RWRpdG9yaWFsX0Jlc3RPZkd1YXJkaWFuT3BpbmlvblVLLTIwMDcwNg%3D%3D&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=opinionuk_email&utm_campaign=BestOfGuardianOpinionUK One thing that we don't consider here is the cultural difference between the countries when it comes to lock-down, mask-wearing etc. You can easily implement mask wearing in most Asian countries, whereas at least in GER (and more so in the US) it needs to be implemented by law. If we wouldn't have had the nationwide lock-down, nobody would have believed that it is a serious situation. Most Germans would have continued as if nothing has happened. The Danes had a different kind of lock-down (primary schools stayed open) and never had the obligation to wear masks, but they willingly keep their distance. Try to run errands in GER and you're lucky if you're not run over. For Germany the total lock-down was the only means to get structure into the situation, to communicate the urgency and to force people to behave accordingly. It might be different for other people that have a different mindset in general. Now we're opening up rather fast, and see how that goes. Fine, a measure per situation, always in line with the case numbers.

Lately, the discussion was about Hawke who does not properly read other poster's posts, but then twists and turns their words. A newer example that I don't bother to try to correct is that s/he wrote I would keep using the word "spew". I never used it, never. So I really wonder what parallel universe he is reading (or not) my posts in. To make on thing clear: Mask wearing helps to contain the virus. wear masks, even more so if you cannot keep your distance (public transport, shopping etc).

Yeah, right. Bold mine. " There is limited evidence that wearing a medical mask by healthy individuals in households, in particular those who share a house with a sick person, or among attendees of mass gatherings may be beneficial as a measure preventing transmission." Sounds like strong evidence that even a medical mask can protect the healthy mask wearer. And it goes on: "This could be considered to be indirect evidence for the use of masks (medical or other) by healthy individuals in the wider community; however, these studies suggest that such individuals would need to be in close proximity to an infected person in a household or at a mass gathering where physical distancing cannot be achieved, to become infected with the virus. Results from cluster randomized controlled trials on the use of masks among young adults living in university residences in the United States of America indicate that face masks may reduce the rate of influenza-like illness, but showed no impact on risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza.(62, 63) At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID- 19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19." I read it. And since you are always so worried about the poor, why is it all of a sudden no issue for them to spend $3 per day for a medical mask (at least, because you usually need more that one mask per day when you are at work)?

This is the only good statement in this discussion from you. Thanks. As for the rest: I give up. Either you don't want to understand what I'm trying to say, or you can't understand, or my English is too bad. I cannot change any of it, at least not in a reasonable time frame for this discussion. I rest my case.

Well, they don't say anything specific in this article, not, who will be the most protected, the wearer or the ones around him/her. Just that it is prudent to wear a mask. I'm not contesting this, au contraire, I think mask wearing is absolutely necessary - to protect the people around me, in case I have the virus. If the virus is airborne, the mask will be of even less use for the wearer, because the super-micro parts can enter a double-layered cotton cloth easier than we can a subway.

Again you did not read correctly. I was talking about the community mask, not the masks for professionals. The normal, yet vulnerable citizen usually has access to community masks, not the surgery/care/quarantine masks. Yes, there is a slight chance that the one or other virus is blocked from entering the respiratory tract by 2 layers of cotton cloth. If it doesn't find its way around so that it can enter via holes that are open between skin and cloth around the nose and on the sides. Or the holes in the cloth, because the virus is so much smaller than the fabric's threads. It's not a bacteria which is huge in comparison. The mask prohibits droplets and aerosols (gigantic in comparison to the actual viruses) to spread around. It keeps them near to the mask wearer. That's all. Nobody in serious science counts on the slight chance of self-protection. That's the discussion since March: You do not protect yourself, you do protect others with a mask.

Re. masks: You simply don't understand what I'm writing. WHO and RKI say now that mask wearing is good to contain the virus. They do NOT say that mask wearing protects the wearer. It does protect the others. FFS, is that so hard to understand? As for Sweden, that is simply not true. GER has a decline o 6,2% although the shut-down was a lot more severe as Sweden's.

To add to this, Sweden has an economic decline of 7%. So it is no better off economically than the countries that tried to protect their citizens. That's what the WHO and the RKI say. I don't know about health officials in the USA, as there are too many politically driven statements over there that are not so friendly with science.

Bold: This is not scientifically proven, in fact it is proven that you don't protect yourself by wearing a mask (as long as it is not the professional one, as I wrote). The masks worn by medial staff are better than the community masks that the population is asked to wear, and they protect the patient as well. I don't want the doc to sneeze into my wound. So again, read what I wrote, because I read what you wrote and it is not correct.

Please read what I wrote and don't twist my words: "wear a mask" will protect others from you, not protect yourself". So telling the vulnerable to wear a mask won't save them. Tell it to all they might encounter, that may have an impact.

Comorbidities does not mean that the affected will die during the next year. These are conditions that make you more vulnerable for C19, like diabetes, asthma, high blood pressure, but that have or should not have an effect on your immediate risk to die. BTW, "wear a mask" will protect others from you, not protect yourself (unless it's an expensive, professional, one time use mask that we should leave for the front line workers). So telling the vulnerable to "wear a mask" won't help them at all.

What if you need to go to work? What if you need to care for others? All I'm saying is that there's a moral dilemma, and that there's no easy strategy, as some here make it look with their "stay at home". It's disrespectful to say the least.

For everyone who says the old and vulnerable should stay at home: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/america-land-pathetic/613747/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=atlantic-weekly-newsletter&utm_content=20200705&silverid-ref=NjY5ODQ0NTgyNTUwS0 By the way, I see it as impertinence to rate the young and their future higher than the life of the old (= endangered by the virus). Is this really the gratitude we show our elders? And for the Christians among us, what about the fourth commandment? Shall we really tell our parents and grandparents to stay at home just to avoid that a kid or young person loses half a year in school? At least we can acknowledge that this is a moral dilemma and not frivolously proclaim "Let them stay at home".

Wow, be careful with re-opening... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/05/california-coronavirus-outbreak-cases-went-wrong?utm_term=RWRpdG9yaWFsX0d1YXJkaWFuVG9kYXlVUy0yMDA3MDU%3D&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=GTUS_email&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayUS The political dimension is even more frightening. These people seem to be totally nuts in a pathological way. Seeing health officials as enemies, heaven help!

Sounds like you did everything as right as possible given the uncertain situation and the fact that you can't have an individual law for each citizen, even if there are only 4 mios of them. Well, get a federal system and you'll end up with dozens of sometimes conflicting laws across the country. Re. sports events: They pose a huge economical factor, so you are truly lucky that the events are not restricted in NZ. Your country sounds like paradise, even economically. Always compared to others, of course.