Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I like wearing masks. It cuts down on small talk and allows one to hide tells during contentious interactions. It also allows one to avoid interacting with annoying people ("I didn't know that was you in that mask...")
My critique is of the performative act of wearing masks in restaurants, or anywhere else, where large numbers of people will not be wearing masks. The way I see it, which seems the scientifically accurate assessment, is if one is vulnerable, there is no safe restaurant. People have to take off masks to eat, and drink, and if even only 1/5 of the people are doing that in a tight indoor setting, all people might as well be doing it.
A vulnerable person, or a person who aggressively seeks to avoid acquiring a variant, simply ought to avoid restaurants, bars, concerts, and anywhere else people are tightly packed or eating/drinking.
The futile performative acts of vigilance/compliance, such as requiring masks on the first floor of a courthouse, but not the floors above (yes, that's common), or forcing masking while walking but not while seated or eating, don't make sense, and are clearly designed merely to pay lip service to virus concerns, and in so doing also provide a false sense of security for some.
I guess it's understandable. The owners of establishments don't want the CDC saying, "If you're concerned or vulnerable, stay out of restaurants and concerts." But that's the truth.
|
There is logic to the seating/eating thing, because you can set up social distancing at tables that you really can't while walking. But it's marginal as put into effect because, of course, you walk through the seating areas and they always want tables a bit closer than they should. and, of course, the wait staff are exposed to every diner if people don't mask up when they come over.
Boston is now checking vax cards for restaurants. That is a more effective policy.
