President Donald Trump made two campaign stops in northeastern Wisconsin today. The featured event was at Fincantieri Marinette Marine in Marinette WI where he was going to make some remarks at the shipbuilder…which was just awarded a major contract to build frigates for the US Navy.

And then the add on, a little town hall in Green Bay with 50 supporters in attendance for Fox News with Sean Hannity doing the interview.

Now the event was limited to 50 supporters…due to coronavirus concerns. Why concerns in Wisconsin and not in Oklahoma? Or is Fox and Hannity taking COVID-19 more seriously than the president?

Well, anyway, the 50 attendees…had to wear a ‘face covering’. I assume that means a mask. yes?

Attendance in the town hall was limited to 50 people due to coronavirus concerns. All audience members had their temperature checked and were required to wear a face covering — either their own or one provided by Fox News.

btw: taking temperatures has limited usefulness since many younger people show few symptoms if any and many people are active carriers before they show symptoms.

So…when you’re out tonight…wear your mask…especially when watching Fox News or hanging out with Sean Hannity!

It may be worth grabbing some screen shots of the president in a room of people in red ball caps and face masks.

9 Responses to Interesting Side Note On Wearing Masks

  1. Nemo says:

    Here’s another interesting side note on the use of masks to prevent the spread of the covid. No bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator for this purpose. If you understand the issues, you can clearly see that masks cannot possibly work. I’ve linked to over a dozen peer reviewed studies that show this in past comments, but your misconception seems to be impervious to science. Here’s the latest if you missed the last several. As a man of science (well, applied science) I’d like to understand why you insist on pushing this masking behavior. Misconception? Religion? Bad experience with probe happy space aliens? Help me understand.

    • lebijuti says:

      I suggest you read your link again. It compares N95 respirators to surgical masks and says that one is just as good as the other therefore we should not waste the limited supply of N95 respirators on the general public.
      It’s too bad that the supply on N95s is limited but it is what it is.

      • Nemo says:

        I should have re-linked studies that I’ve posted in past threads to make this more clear. What the last link was establishing was that N95 = surgical masks in this application. In past links (here’s one) it was shown that “Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.” Granted, I would have liked to have seen a larger study, but that’s all we have. So we have surgical masks = 0 and thus N95 = 0, Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

        Moreover, the Yezli and Otter (2011) minimal infective dose study showed that if anything gets through a mask, you’re going to be infected or, if you are infected, you could make someone else ill.

        The lesson of this thread is simple. If you are in a high risk group, do not rely on masks to prevent covid infection. If you are infected, for goodness sake DO NOT GO OUT IN PUBLIC.

    • Ed Heinzelman says:

      it’s very simple. state’s that have re-opened but require masks in public are seeing far better results than states that have re-opened but don’t require masks. Yes, apparently masks have limited efficacy in whether or not the wearer may catch the virus. But they are apparently effective in stopping the spread of the virus when an infected person is wearing one. People should be wearing masks to protect each other, not simply thinking about themselves. Now, you didn’t address the hypocrisy in masks/non-masks in the Fox town hall.

      • Nemo says:

        If you define “limited efficacy” as “no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza” then we are in agreement. Huzzah!

        As for the “hypocrisy” my guess is that it is related to the local political climate. The mayor of Green Bay is a goofus, they may have had to jump through s few hoops to not trigger him.

        • Ed Heinzelman says:

          first…it’s not influenza. Second…wearing a mask prevents the spread as has been discussed here and elsewhere…when an infected person is wearing a mask…as illustrated in the meme I posted later. If everyone wore a mask transmission of the the coronavirus approaches 0%. And why would they give into the local climate in Green Bay when they didn’t in Tulsa?

          • Nemo says:

            First…arguing that scientific studies are wrong because aerolized influenza droplets are different from covid ones is like arguing that traffic counts are wrong because Fords are not Hondas. Second… if everyone wore a mask, the transmission of the covid would be statically the same as not masked. Here’s some scientific proof that’s not meme or discussion based. Best line of the linked study: Masks alone did not provide a benefit, suggesting that single personal protective interventions do not protect against incidence of ILI or influenza.

            side note: ILI (influenza-like illness) could be pronounced covid in this case.

            And lastly, maybe the local climate was “colder” in Green Bay.

      • Nemo says:

        The link seems to connect masks with a “sign of respect for others” rather than any form of efficacy. A sign of respect for others? Isn’t that what pants are for? After I finished reading, one thing was made clear: The ravings of a leftest beardo in need of a haircut do not a case make. Nice font though.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.