SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
During a Saturday phone interview with The Arizona Republic of the USA TODAY Network, Sheriff Mark Lamb said the White House called him on June 13 and asked that he be present when Trump signed an executive order that would hold law enforcement to a higher standard when they used force.
Lamb said he flew into Washington Monday evening and visited the White House Tuesday when he tested positive for COVID-19. He later visited an infirmary and was tested a second time, which also came back positive.
"I was surprised," Lamb said regarding the positive test result. "I mean, if I looked back, I would say that I was a little rundown from, you know, a long weekend. But I didn't have any symptoms."
[...] Lamb said he likely contracted COVID-19 at a campaign event he held on June 13, He initially planned for it to be a "come pick up a yard sign" event, but more people showed up than anticipated.
[...] However, Lamb said he didn't wear a mask or practice social distancing at the campaign event and estimated that the majority of the 200 people who attended the event in San Tan Valley, Arizona, weren't wearing masks either.
He intends to self-quarantine throughout the end of the month.
When asked if he planned to hold more public events once his self-isolation was complete, Lamb said he probably wouldn't and that he's not trying to put people at risk. That said, Lamb will likely continue to not wear a mask when out in public.
"When I come back out, I don't like to wear masks," Lamb said. "And I respect people's personal choices to not wear a mask."
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 22 2020, @02:00PM (6 children)
You were told to STOP BUYING MASKS, but I see what you did here. This was to make sure that doctors that deal with sick people, actually had a mask. But are you really that dumb to not understand this? Or just pretending now?
You were told that masks are not going to save you from COVID. What we now know is that people that do not feel sick, still can infect others. This is why you are not adviced to wear a mask because you could be sick and don't know it and in process infect a lot of people. Wearing that mask is to help protect others from you. Furthermore, if everyone wore a mask, then that protects you from them, in case they have disease and don't know it.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday June 22 2020, @02:25PM (3 children)
To be fair a lot of news stories "simplified" it to "don't wear masks" or "don't use masks". I couldn't always determine what the original story was, but the intended advice referred to the N95 masks. That got lost in most of the reported news stories.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 22 2020, @09:06PM (2 children)
The WHO guidance was, in a simplified form, this:
Your wearing of a mask does not protect you (the wearer) from becoming infected.
Which is accurate. You (the wearer) can become infected by having virus get into your eyes (mask does not cover eyes). You can get significant quantities of virus on your hands, and then take off your mask and rub your nose and become infected. You can get significant quantities of virus on the outside of the mask, and if you are not properly careful when removing the mask, can infect yourself that way.
The WHO seemed to be wording their guidance in the form of binary absolutes. Either a mask 100% always prevents infection, or else it never prevents infection. And since a mask can not 100% perfectly prevent infection, their guidance gave the miss-interpretation of: "it never prevents infection" side of the binary absolutes.
Their guidance would have been better worded something like this:
Wearing a mask reduces your risk of becoming infected by a small amount.
Wearing a mask reduces your risk of infecting others by a large amount.
But I suspect that, given most folks inability to analyze and/or measure risk, that many would have not understood those statements at all, or everyone woud have been been wanting to know "by how much", both of which might be why the WHO tried to go for the binary absolute wording instead.
Additionally, the WHO seemed stuck on "mask does not protect wearer" viewpoint, totally ignoring the "mask protects others from wearer" viewpoint for a very long time. I don't know why they were so tightly attached to only ranking mask usefulness against the "protects the wearer" measure for so long.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 23 2020, @01:37AM (1 child)
Because the sort of people who end up as high level bureaucrats in organizations like WHO are callous egocentric bastards. If it does not protect them personally, they would see no value in wearing them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 23 2020, @03:10AM
You might just be right about that.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by c0lo on Monday June 22 2020, @04:12PM
...zillions paid for facial recognition software will be useless.
Do you want those who promised results to lose their job? (because, yes, I do)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday June 24 2020, @10:36AM
> You were told to STOP BUYING MASKS, but I see what you did here.
I see what you did here - you deliberately removed the "They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus" bit.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves