Coronavirus in Massachusetts (look for a job, fence, price)

[yesmaybe]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

FWIW, I'm sure that Baker will be coming out with revised guidance tomorrow or Tuesday. If nothing else, to clear up any ambiguity between MA and CDC guidance. It looks like CT has already decided to harmonize with CDC and distinguish between vaxxed & unvaxxed.

Nobody is going to bother asking if they are vaccinated or not if they aren't wearing a mask. The guidance is to essentially stop requiring masks.

[Amontillado]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

FWIW, I'm sure that Baker will be coming out with revised guidance tomorrow or Tuesday. If nothing else, to clear up any ambiguity between MA and CDC guidance. It looks like CT has already decided to harmonize with CDC and distinguish between vaxxed & unvaxxed.

I think that's right. If he wants to hold onto public cooperation, Baker has to issue orders that people will think are reasonable, and everyone knows what the latest guidance from the CDC says. If he can present some good reason why Massachusetts needs to be more cautious than the rest of the country, he can try it, but his reason will need to be pretty good!

[msRB311]

Did people want the mask mandate to go on forever? It's been over a year and anyways people are still wearing masks indoors. I'm not sure what the debate is about especially with so many people vaccinated at this point.

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by msRB311

Did people want the mask mandate to go on forever? It's been over a year and anyways people are still wearing masks indoors. I'm not sure what the debate is about especially with so many people vaccinated at this point.

If it's been determined that the vaxxed are at negligible risk from the unvaxxed & unmasked population, I think it's OK. In that scenario, the latter are only harming themselves potentially.

[rach5]

Here is more about the airport cluster in Singapore. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/14/w...e=articleShare and https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news...riant-14787262
Onward transmission from fully vaccinated airport workers. Apparently Indian variant. Singapore is substantially increasing restrictions again. This may not be over yet, despite what the CDC has decided. IMO, keeping some fairly costless layers of additional restrictions beyond vaccinations - like indoor masking - would be the prudent thing to do while we wait for more people to be fully vaccinated. A lot of public health experts seems to agree and say it is premature to stop masking indoors.

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by rach5

Here is more about the airport cluster in Singapore. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/14/w...e=articleShare and https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news...riant-14787262
Onward transmission from fully vaccinated airport workers. Apparently Indian variant. Singapore is substantially increasing restrictions again. This may not be over yet, despite what the CDC has decided. IMO, keeping some fairly costless layers of additional restrictions beyond vaccinations - like indoor masking - would be the prudent thing to do while we wait for more people to be fully vaccinated. A lot of public health experts seems to agree and say it is premature to stop masking indoors.

Be careful. Not trying to minimize this but breakthrough infections are more common with the non-mRNA vaccines...which given that it's Singapore, is likely what those workers received.

[msRB311]

I would agree that masks should be worn indoors for a while longer.

[yesmaybe]

Originally Posted by rach5

This may not be over yet, despite what the CDC has decided. IMO, keeping some fairly costless layers of additional restrictions beyond vaccinations - like indoor masking - would be the prudent thing to do while we wait for more people to be fully vaccinated. A lot of public health experts seems to agree and say it is premature to stop masking indoors.

It's not costless if it (optics or in practice) prevents Governments from forcing people to actually look for a job while on unemployment/PUA.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by yesmaybe

It's not costless if it (optics or in practice) prevents Governments from forcing people to actually look for a job while on unemployment/PUA.

Both are irrelevant to each other.

[yesmaybe]

Originally Posted by massnative71

Both are irrelevant to each other.

People could use the excuse that they are scared of getting the Rona to not look for a job?