There is no comparison of the level of threat between Calgary and a small community in rural Alberta, so as much as you may feel masks should be mandatory in your city, you should not be advocating the rest of us be forced to wear masks on a provincial level.
Posted Jul 20, 2020, 7:44 PM UTC
A lot of people travel around this province for work though, so don't assume that everyone in your rural grocery store or restaurant hasn't been in Calgary or Edmonton in the last week.
True enough. However, with less than 0.025 percent of Albertans currently having this, it's a pretty safe assumption that a community 3 hours from calgary or Edmonton is likely safe, and should be treated differently.
And that's the thought that gets people infected, bringing the disease to their entire neighborhood. Outbreaks and death have happened because ONE thoughtless, feckless, selfish individual thought they were immortal and everything was safe.
Wear a mask if you are going to be around people.
The argument that lower population density areas dont need a mask holds true as long as you dont regularly get within 2m of another person outside your family unit.
But if you cannot stay away, wear a mask.
It's spreading fast again, and it just takes a quick look south of the border, to be reminded of how fast it spreads, and what the consequences are when that happens.
Masks in public indoor spaces seems like such a mild measure given it's effectiveness. I don't understand the extreme opposition, although I agree with your point that different areas are higher risk than others.
Thank you for your reasoned opinion.
It's an assumption, yup. A safe one? Nope.
I didn't know that the disease cared if you were an urban dweller or a rural citizen. Weird.
It's almost as if the disease has to be prevalent enough to exist before it can be transferred. Spooky!
It's only not prevalent... until it is.
And maybe when .05 percent have it, or .1 percent, or .2 or .3 or .4 or half of one percent... when will it be safe to not wear them, when my community has zero cases? When the province has .02 percent cases? .01? .001 percent?
I don't know - if a loved-one of yours gets sick, and has health complications for life or (forbid the thought) dies from this disease, will you say it was only 0.1 percent of your community that was affected?
You are screwing up by using the wrong metrics to consider this. The percentage of people who are currently ill is a best guess and very probably underestimates the number of people who are able to spread it . I have seen rural people who don’t think they could catch it but have ‘a chest cold’ and won’t go get tested. Or who just refuse because their sore throat isn’t Covid.
The positive test rate in rural Alberta is very concerning.
Amazing how it can happen anywhere!
I don't understand why you say the level of threat is less in rural settings vs. a major urban centre.
If you look at the current active cases per capita, and you exclude Edmonton, Calgary, Red Deer, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, and Fort Mac, you'll see that the number of active cases is actually higher in rural Alberta than urban Alberta.
There is a lot of speculation why this is, but I don't see why you think otherwise.
Most rural communities have zero cases.
That's besides the point. You could point at Calgary and say most individual neighbourhoods in Calgary have zero active cases.
Cases per capita is what matters. Rural communities, like these Hutterite colonies, can see an overwhelming number of infections as soon as they catch a single seed case. You always have no cases until you have cases.
Second, so far nobody has dictated to rural people that they have to wear masks. But be honest with yourself which resources those rural people will be using if they require ICU ventilation. If they were in a completely different health system, I'd feel differently. But it will be my neighbour acting as their nurse, and they'll be taking a bed that my mother might need, etc.
Either we're all in it together, in which case the CMOH can give us all guidelines and rules, or we're not.
cities outside of Edmonton and Calgary account for 42% of the 1.1k active cases in Alberta while accounting for 47% of the overall population.
And that will be true until it isn't. Lots of communities will be fine but a family campout here, a trip into the city to Costco there and your town could be the exception.
We did here until last week and now the positive rate is sharply up and there are around 10 active cases so far. Complacency is not a protection method.
Most people aren’t infected either so why wear masks right?
So if someone from Calgary visits your town and is infected but asymptomatic, you're okay with them walking around your local grocery store without a mask on?
Since there's a .025 percent chance that someone has it, and that person is likely.at home recovering, I'm fine with the risk.
Also, please read about the difference between asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission.
You're not going to be at home recovering if you don't even know you have it. Per capita infection is highest in AB than anywhere else in Canada. That's great you're fine with the risk but the healthcare workers and other community members around you are not okay with it. Wearing a mask shows that you care about others and their health. What's wrong with showing a little care and compassion to other people during a rough time? There are a lot of people looking our for your safety and health, thinking about others and not just themselves.
And going forward, we will now wear masks for all communicable diseases right? What is the threshold for when it's ok to disregard other peoples health? Flu season seems like a time when we should all care about transmission, so every year from September to March? When will you seem it safe to not wear a mask for covid? When the province has .01 percent cases? .001?
I don't think anyone is advocating for masks when it comes to viruses that we have immunity to or vaccines for or that we know have a relatively low fatality rate. The reason it is important for covid is because it is a brand new virus that NOBODY has immunity to, a virus that has a high fatality rate, a virus that we don't understand yet in terms of how it affects people (some people die whereas others don't even exhibit symptoms), and a virus for which we have no protection by vaccine. The one thing we do know and the one thing that we can use to protect not ourselves, but those around is, is to use a mask temporarily until a vaccine is available. Is it really that hard to help out other people and potentially prevent their death by wearing a mask? I don't care what the percentage is that you keep bringing up because the low numbers that you seem so invested in are low because those around you have been wearing masks and doing their part to prevent spread. Imagine any other scenario where everyone is working towards a goal to keep you safe and you're sitting there complaining about the one minuscule thing that they are requesting of you to help them out.
So your real fear is that if you need to wear a mask now you might never be able to take it off??
Since the need for a mask is in limited circumstances why is it such a problem?
We as a global community are learning about this virus and its characteristics and right now mask wearing in public is best practice. The exact point where it makes sense to say something different will evolve as knowledge increases and the situation unfolds.
Refusing to do anything now because you are afraid of not knowing how it will be in the future is not a smart position to take in a pandemic and that weakness of logic is driving the spread and the surge in cases
You seem to be trying hard but your logic is so skewed and your understanding seems limited.
Transmission is transmission from the point of view of the person getting sick.
The likelihood is not that the person is home recovering, if you understand either if the two transmission types you mentioned and how much they are contributing to new cases.
Asymptomatic people don't transmit, according to the WHO. Pre-symptomatic people do. The op asked if I wanted asymptomatic people walking around, which I don't think is a concern, based on the available evidence. Perhaps you can come down from that high horse and tell me where I'm errant, rather than whatever it is your were trying to do here.
Neither a- nor pre-symptomatic people are aware they are ill.
You are errant in thinking you know your status, or that others know theirs, before symptoms appear. So your claim that a person capable of spreading illness would be at home is inaccurate.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you to share where you got the information about asymptomatic transmission. Every study I have looked at shows viral shedding from truly asymptomatic positives, and the WHO's statement most recently, to my knowledge, said the data was so far unclear as to whether asymptomatic transmission was widespread.
I'd be interested in what you have that is more clear.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
If you country folk vote for your doctors to leave and you want to make your own COVID rules, then go for it. But you’re going to hear a whole lot of atoadasos when you start getting outbreaks. I don’t want anyone getting offended out there, and I don’t want to hear that us city folk are a bunch of know-it-all, ivory tower, liberal elites when we make fun of you. Deal?
Is atoadasos commonly used? First time I've heard it. Makes me think of kudatah!
Wait? You’ve never watched Trailer Park Boys? Adoataso is one of my favorite Rickyisms.
ahh... that'd be it. It's a series I've never watched. I do however know that you need at least 3 people to fuck an ostrich.
Allegedly.
Never have. Wtf does it mean?
“I told you so.”
[removed]
Provincial borders aren't arbitrary when it comes to health safety policy, because our health authority stops at the provincial border. So it makes sense that those who are in charge of operating the health system that is treating this disease, have a say in the prevention and containment of it as well.
And, I'd emphasize, no urban person has mandated that rural people wear masks. The only exception would be in hospitals and long term care facilities. If you want to debate rural masking policy for long term care facilities, I would point you to the Manoir du Lac outbreak. In this example, there was no active cases locally, and next thing you know, you have 10 residents of the same facility die of COVID.
The border is arbitrary because the disease is not limited or affected by it's presence at all. Someone living on the north border of Alberta has little in common with someone living in Lethbridge with regards to covid. They would have more in common with someone from the NWT than from Lethbridge, despite living in the same province.
It's a debatable point. They'll be treated by the Alberta health system, and their care subsidized by the Alberta tax payer, so I'd argue that practically speaking they have a lot in common with people from Lethbridge.
There is an understanding that different regions are having different timelines. That’s why Calgary and brooks opened stage one later.
It sounds like you don’t see the value of being proactive and just want to wait til the shit hits the fan. That’s not sensible.
Also, there are many people in urban centers that want a province wide mask rule.
So you claim. Can you show me an opinion poll that shows urbanites are more in favor of a mask mandate than rural Albertans?
In any case, it is pointless to argue about. Kenney has said he doesn't want a mask mandate. To date, people have just been politely asked to do their part, although it seems like too much for some.
Well done with the ad hominem, this is almost the nerve I was trying to strike. Honestly no, I’m only responsible for my household and freelance business as a lone breadwinner and “in charge of very little” beyond that. You threw a dart at the side of a barn with that barb considering most people don’t lead large groups of people day to day.
When it comes to the issue COVID people who work to suppress the spread are being smart, people who stand on the spectrum of denial to defiance are dumb. Simple as that.
Going straight to ad hom is not impressive
Imagine being selfish enough to post this.
The Hutterites have entered the chat.
[removed]
how dare you urbanites trample all over rural rights. public health dosen't apply to us
The percentage of positive test right now is many times higher in rural Alberta. Your entire thought is based on an incorrect assumption about the risk.
[removed]
[deleted]
"Wearing a piece of cloth over my face is just so hard I want to cry..."
There are many things we can all do to prevent disease transfer, that are easier than this one. For example, would you support mandatory rules around wearing condoms? Or perhaps a law of no sex outside of marriage? We could end STIs very easily if we went these routes. Some STIs have very serious and permanent effects not to mention cost of healthcare.
[deleted]
Thank you for your response. I agree with your point that it should be left up to individual municipalities based on their actual cases, not based on what's happening 250 km away or more.
[deleted]
Yeah, because rural Albertans never travel 250 km to a large urban centre for any reason or anything. Thanks to that invisible wall 15 km outside of every town with more than 50,000 people in it, rural Albertans have absolutely no possible way to go get exposed in a city on Saturday before spending two weeks exposing everyone that they meet in the village coffee shop.