It is time for the governing bodies on the mountain to show that they care about the lives of their constituents by enacting a mandatory mask regulation. Many of us would visit local businesses if we could be assured that everyone we meet would be wearing a mask. It has been proven to be extremely effective in preventing the spread of COVID-19, and there is no reason in the world that we should not enact this to stop the rise in cases we have seen since the state reopened for business.

Kathleen Dubbs,

Show Low

(22) comments

libertyminded

Good point Kathleen, the reason I don't go out and "buy local" is that I don't want to get sick from all the vendors without masks on. It is safer to buy from Amazon!

sharkteethface

Masks have not proven to be effective.

Couple months ago you were considered a selfish person if you wore a mask that “should be reserved for all nurses and doctors”

Meanwhile hundreds of nurses are performing choreographed viral dances on Tik Tok because the hospitals are empty.

What a scam.

They destroyed local businesses with the pandemic shutdown.

98% survival rate.

If your that scared, get the vaccine when it comes out.

The antibodies should last you about 3 to 4 months and there about 40 strains of covid 19 now.... last up to date info.

I won’t be wearing a mask, it’s a bunch of hype.

The masks are causing respiratory problems in people who are wearing on the job constantly.

Oxygen levels are low and co2 in increased.

And to even suggest kids wear them is ridiculous.

I ran into that in town recently. You can’t expect a 1 year old or 4 year old to wear them. It’s hot and suffocating. Not happening.

phxnative54

Your profound ignorance is endangering others. Please just shut up.

Lee Bertay

The mask (sub-n95 level) is a courtesy to those around you in case you are presymptomatic or asymptomatic, to prevent spread to those vulnerable to a serious case of infection if properly worn. This practice has made quite a difference in Taiwan, South Korea, Thailand. As a protective measure, DIY masks provide approximately 30 percent protection.

sharkteethface

If you don’t have the symptoms you are not spreading covid.

Kids don’t spread this even if they have it.

If you’re sick, stay at home and ride it out. It’s actually a 99% survival rate.

Don’t give up your constitutional rights over this pandemic scam, because that’s what’s happening.

Both my parents got this, they are in their early and mid sixties.

Plus, my dad only has partial lung capacity because of a fiery car crash when he was 13.

It’s a scam people.

They are saying that the ventilators are contributing to deaths, they aren’t designed to work for weeks on end.

I won’t be wearing a mask solely to stand up to the pandemic fakery.

I won’t appease people who believe they might catch the covid virus / flu, whatever you want to call it. It’s nonsense. It’s destroying this country, which is way more toxic than this fake pandemic.

johndoe

From the U.S. Department of Labor website (OSHA):

Cloth face coverings:◾Are not considered personal protective equipment (PPE).

◾Will not protect the wearer against airborne transmissible infectious agents due to loose fit and lack of seal or inadequate filtration.

◾Are not appropriate substitutes for PPE such as respirators (e.g., N95 respirators) or medical face masks (e.g., surgical masks) in workplaces where respirators or face masks are recommended or required to protect the wearer

Surgical masks:◾Will not protect the wearer against airborne transmissible infectious agents due to loose fit and lack of seal or inadequate filtration.

I suggest you get some extra large condoms and place them over your head, that will be far more effective.

Russ_in_WML

Arizona playing a more vital part in this years election. This is why covid numbers are up, simple as that.

pxllr

No Shoes, No Shirt, No Mask, No Service!

You guys never had all this outrage about no shoes or no shirt as being public health issues. So covering your feet or your torso is okay, but covering your mouth is a horrible assault on your right to sneeze and cough and spew spittle on everyone around you. Right? I notice the old time signs do not say anything about butts, so I guess pants are optional? Yet anyone walking around with no pants are usually arrested. It seems some people are more interested in being triggered than in simply putting on a mask to show respect for those around you?

ArizAl

They say you can't fix supid..... turns out you can't quarantine it either. How sad it must be believing that scientists,scholars,historians, doctors, economists and journalists have devoted their whole lives to deceiving you, while a reality TV star-Trump with decades of fraud and exhaustively documented lying is your only beacon of honesty.

ronzim

The issue here is the efficacy of face masks in protecting the wearer from air droplets exuded from infectious persons for Covid-19. It is science which can evaluate this question and science alone.

Assessment of Fabric Masks as Alternatives to Standard Surgical Masks in Terms of Particle Filtration Efficiency

Amy Mueller and Loretta Fernandez, Departments of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Marine and Environmental Sciences, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115. Updated: April 17, 2020:

“In this study tools and methods typically used to assess tight-fitting facemasks were modified to assess the efficacy of community-produced fabric and commercially-produced surgical masks in terms of protecting the WEARER from airborne particles that may be carrying virus. Average particle removal efficiency (as % removal) and standard deviation over the one-minute tests were computed for each mask with and without a nylon stocking layer (Figure 5). As expected, the removal efficiency for the tight-fitting N95 mask is greater than 99%. The standard medical-type masks (3M brand), when worn over the chin and with an adjusted nose wire, had a mean removal efficiency of 75%. With the exception of the Charcoal Air Pollution facemask and Sewn Mask J, which came close to this removal efficiency, all other masks achieved removal efficiencies of less than 60% when worn as loose-fitting masks.”

The second question concerns whether or not masks protect uninfected persons from those wearing masks.

From a scientific paper published in the ‘Lancet’, Jun 1st, 2020: “Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomized controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25,697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10,736, pooled adjusted odds ratio 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] −10·2%, 95% CI −11·5 to −7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −15·9 to −10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD −10·6%, 95% CI −12·5 to −7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings.” Note: “95% CL” means 95% confidence level.

All conspiracy prattle, ideological maunderings and political blather have no impact on these scientific findings. It is clear that wearing masks (with variables arising from fabric and style) protect both the wearer and the public from the spread of the corona virus.

pcorathers

Kathleen,

Your assertion that masks are PROVEN to "extremely effective in preventing the spread" is incorrect.

A quick two-minute internet search will show otherwise.

Before you can poison the well, I will note the web site and comments below are not from a kook site. MANY highly regarded experts disagree with your bold statement.

A quick search will also show that even the CDC disagreed. (unless the "1984" censors until the "1984" censors are able to find and remove them)

https://www.sciencealert.com/this-is-why-advice-on-whether-you-should-wear-a-mask-is-just-so-confusing

Yes, there is a reason not to enact mask laws.

"When we combined the results of these trials that studied the effect of masks versus no masks in health-care workers and the general population, they did not show that wearing masks leads to any substantial reduction of influenza-like illness. However, the studies were too small to rule out a minor effect for masks".

Facts do matter.

In addition, a little research will show that wearing masks may actually be harmful.

So I will NOT be wearing one.

OH and yes, I DO CARE!

ronzim

Here again, we have a misunderstanding of science. To begin with, pcorathers’ referenced study says “There is currently NO evidence that wearing a mask (whether medical or other types) by healthy persons in the wider community setting, including universal community masking, can prevent them from infection with respiratory viruses, including Covid-19.”

Note especially, “There is currently NO evidence * * *”. Well now there is. Notice also that this reference concerns only masking for “healthy persons” which purports to show that masking for that group cannot “prevent” them from infection. This is a logical fallacy known as the strawman argument. In this matter, science makes no such claim; however, it is easier to strike at a worthless bundle of straw then to except the rigours of science and the nuances in sound research. It is true that mask-wearing cannot “prevent” anyone from becoming infected. No scientist worth the name would make such a claim. Scientific research conclusions are always expressed in terms of the percentages or probabilities that something will occur.

In this matter, we see that objective laboratory testing, posted above, (not merely a short literature review of small size) established the ACTUAL levels of removal efficiencies for a wide range of masks which are expressed in terms of percent of removal efficiency of airborne particles which may be carrying the disease. Also included is a complete list of the scientific methods used and the protocols followed. We can see from this study, that if a mask has a removal efficiency of 75%, that means that only wearing the mask will provide protection from CV-19 by removing that much risk, as opposed to zero protection from wearing no mask at all. Most masks provide efficiencies between 30-99%. Considering that one’s life may be at stake, that is enough.

To be sure, if that were the whole megillah, anyone has the right to death-exposure; however, the wearing of masks, as shown above, also provides robust community protection. We cannot allow for the right to personal risk-taking to override public safety. You can drive your car over a cliff, into the ocean, if you like. You cannot drive it into a filled nursery.

pcorathers

Please do not misquote me. I quoted a web site that said "When we combined the results of these trials that studied the effect of masks versus no masks in health-care workers and the general population, they did not show that wearing masks leads to any substantial reduction of influenza-like illness. However, the studies were too small to rule out a minor effect for masks".

And why did the CDC at the start of this mess tell us NOT to wear masks? Just a few months ago.

And why did they tell a different story on their web site in the early 2000's?

And why are their MANY doctors that say wearing masks is detrimental to the wider community making it harder to achieve "herd immunity"

And why does it says on the label with the masks - "does not protect against the covid-19 or any other viruses"?

By way, your Lancet study HAS been withdrawn, and you have NOT addressed the MANY studies and anecdotal evidence that wearing masks can be dangerous to one's health. But I guess we can dismiss that because it doesn't fit the narrative.

And which is it am I protecting myself or others? The story keeps changing. I am confused.

Yes, I can drive a car into a filled nursery. But if I did then I should end up in prison after a trial. Are you proposing that those of us that are not wearing masks be fined or jailed?

I can remember when wearing masks in public was against the law. In the old west, the bank robber always wore a mask, I guess he was trying to keep people from getting sick - doing his public duty.

In the Torah, the sick people with symptoms were put outside that camp (quarantined) not the healthy. How common sense has been turned upside down. SMH

The Concho Cowboy

And why did the CDC at the start of this mess tell us NOT to wear masks? Just a few months ago.

-They didn't know how large the asymptomatic group would transmit the disease.

And why are their MANY doctors that say wearing masks is detrimental to the wider community making it harder to achieve "herd immunity"

-Herd Immunity is great but mask prevent people from spreading it like gangbusters, which in turn prevents hospitals from being overwhelmed.

And why does it says on the label with the masks - "does not protect against the covid-19 or any other viruses"?

-It only helps prevent people from transmitting their own mouth moisture, which in turn helps curtail wild infections.

By way, your Lancet study HAS been withdrawn, and you have NOT addressed the MANY studies and anecdotal evidence that wearing masks can be dangerous to one's health. But I guess we can dismiss that because it doesn't fit the narrative.

- I guess doctors that are performing 14 hour delicate surgeries are hurting their brains while they are doing it. Do you honestly believe medical professionals are hurting their health everyday they wear a mask? Use some common sense and look how masks were used prior to thinking they were a threat to your freedom.

And which is it am I protecting myself or others? The story keeps changing. I am confused.

-Both, I know it may be difficult to understand but imagine they are football helmets. If we all wear them we can play together instead of bashing our heads in.

I can remember when wearing masks in public was against the law. In the old west, the bank robber always wore a mask, I guess he was trying to keep people from getting sick - doing his public duty.

-Stop baiting people it's unpatriotic

In the Torah, the sick people with symptoms were put outside that camp (quarantined) not the healthy. How common sense has been turned upside down. SMH

-So you won't wear a mask because it infringes on your freedoms, but you're totally okay with the government taking people and quarantining them? What about all the asymptomatic people?

Honestly it seems that you do not believe that you have a responsibility for other people. We are America and in order for us to get through this it will take an effort by all.

ronzim

Cowboy: Very nicely done. [tongue][thumbup]

pcorathers

- I guess doctors that are performing 14 hour delicate surgeries are hurting their brains while they are doing it. Do you honestly believe medical professionals are hurting their health everyday they wear a mask? Use some common sense and look how masks were used prior to thinking they were a threat to your freedom.

SMH at the twisted logic - I am not performing these tasks - OF COURSE, masks are correct in certain circumstances.

That along with ALL your other "rebuttals" are strawmen. I did not say they were hurting the brains. The evidence says hurting one's HEALTH. Just yesterday, I had a client come into my office. I told her you don't need to wear a mask. She said, "Thank God because I am having trouble breathing and was about to pass out".

2nd the masks used in the situation are not the same as what they want us to wear. Precautions are taken to prevent asphyxiation,

Your logic and arguments are just awesome. I am convinced now. (SATIRE)

pcorathers

- Honestly it seems that you do not believe that you have a responsibility for other people. We are America and in order for us to get through this it will take an effort by all.

That is correct. We are each responsible for our own life, health, and safety. Another straw man. Does that mean, I don't care? OF COURSE NOT.

Last Tuesday, I took supplies to a COVID patient, because were quarantining. What have YOU done to actually help someone in need?

I want to give you another example. I have a client that is compromised due to cancer treatment. He takes responsibility for staying home. Getting home delivery of his supplies. If he does need to go out, he wears a medical-grade respirator, etc etc. He does not expect the rest of the world to shut down on his account.

Sorry, you are NOT going to shame me.

The Concho Cowboy

Why are we expected to wear clothes? Why are you okay with the government making you wear clothes? Sure you can say decency, but it falls directly in line with masks. I have a freedom to be naked anywhere I want, the government shouldn't tell me what I can and can't wear on my body.

ronzim

Pcorathers: I did not misquote you. My comment said, “To begin with, pcorathers’ referenced study says “There is currently NO evidence that wearing a mask (whether medical or other types) by healthy persons in the wider community setting, including universal community masking, can prevent them from infection with respiratory viruses, including Covid-19.” This a direct quote from your cited material, in support of your erroneous comments about masks. I was merely correcting the record.

Second, the Lancet article has not been withdrawn. A group of scientists have expressed concern with some of the language used, the notion that behavior follows policy more closely than they agree with and the fact that the authors were free to choose their own peer reviewers. They do not however dispute the conclusion that masks are effective, and, lead author, Dr. Mario Molina, Nobel prize winner in chemistry, isn’t backing down. A meta-review of the literature shows that masks are found to be effective across a broad spectrum of societies and cultures.

ronzim

From the World Health Organization’s web site. “FACT: The prolonged use of medical masks when properly worn, DOES NOT cause CO2 intoxication nor oxygen deficiency.”

pcorathers

That may be what they say TODAY. That is NOT what they said before. Dare is say I shades of "1984". What about the 1000's of doctors, medical and authorities, and anecdotal evidence that say wearing masks can cause health issues. I guess we should ignore them and only believe the WHO (SATIRE)

To quote you "properly worn". Who does that? NOBODY

And what kind of masks did this ONE study talk about? Does the study address ALL health issues that arise from masks?

You misrepresented me. I never said they caused "brain damage", As you stated when trying to refute me. And your attempt to refute me with "DOES NOT cause CO2 intoxication nor oxygen deficiency.” is lame.

AND you need to check your facts regarding the Lancet article. It was discredited and was withdrawn. And so was a New England Journal article.

ronzim

As we see, pcorathers continues his denial of science and mathematics no matter how much evidence there is against his erroneous statements. He incorrectly uses the term strawman because he does not know what it means. He adds yet another logical fallacy, “confirmation bias” whereby he starts with a conclusion and searches for any shred of information which can be used to justify it. Science starts not with a conclusion but with a question and then goes wherever the evidence leads.

He erroneously cites the fact that information from the past conflicts with current information, which invalidates the current data, not to his liking. That is a denial of the very basis of science: to change conclusions when new data are at hand. Science is iterative. For three hundred years the best scientists concluded that the speed of light was infinite (Newtonian physics) until new data were introduced (Einstein). The fact that past data were improved upon does not invalidate the current data.

He says, “What about the 1000's of doctors, medical[sic] and authorities, and anecdotal evidence that say wearing masks can cause health issues. I guess we should ignore them and only believe the WHO (SATIRE).”

Comment: To begin with, none of that is true. It directly contravenes the scientific evidence that masks do not harm the general population, except in the most extreme and rare cases. Anecdotal evidence is irrelevant. There are no cited sources. Moreover, it is also a logical fallacy to extrapolate from tiny inputs to generalities. Yes, we should believe the evidence-based information from the WHO, but not just it. 1. Coronavirus: 'Deadly masks' claims debunked. By Jack Goodman and Flora Carmichael BBC Reality Check, 20 June 2020. 2. June 23, 2020: “Some people think face masks are dangerous. Can that be true?” by Stacey Burling, The Philadelphia Inquirer. The answer is no except for extremely rare circumstances which do not affect the public. 3. 'Frightening': Doctor debunks claims that wearing a face mask is more harmful than COVID-19. Jackie Dunham CTVNews.ca Writer @JaclynLDunham Contact. Published Tuesday, June 16, 2020 3:40PM EDT. 4. From fact-checker, Snopes, 8 May 2020: “What's True: Breathing in excessive carbon dioxide is dangerous for the body. Some people with preexisting respiratory illnesses may face health issues only with prolonged use of tight-fitting masks, such as respirators.” What's False: However, people wearing cloth or surgical masks are in little to no danger of breathing in unhealthy amounts of carbon dioxide.” 5. “Fact check: Face masks can be unsafe for children under 2, but not for most adults.” Ian Richardson, USA TODAY Published 3:58 p.m. ET May 24, 2020 | Updated 1:10 p.m. ET May 26, 2020. And so it goes.

In addition, “To quote you "properly worn". Who does that? NOBODY.”

COMMENT: This is another example of an egregious logical fallacy: Conclusion by declaration. He quotes no scientific evidence of that absurdity.

Further, “And what kind of masks did this ONE study talk about? Does the study address ALL health issues that arise from masks?”

COMMENT: The study, which he apparently did not read, considered the broadest range of masks from N-95 PPE’s to home made devices. If he had read the study, he would recognize that the study had noting to do with the fictitious health problems arising from masks. It revealed only that wearing masks provides variable ranges of protection for both the wearer and the public.

Plus, “And your attempt to refute me with "DOES NOT cause CO2 intoxication nor oxygen deficiency.” is lame.

COMMENT: That is not my statement but the position of the WHO, one of the world’s most respected scientific organizations. I have added multiple other debunking studies, above, for corroboration; however, no amount of scientific data can convince a science denier.

I have researched the literature broadly and can find no source which documents the withdrawal of the Lancet article. If pcorathers has one let him post it.

It is true that there are a statistically insignificant number of cases where wearing PPE’s for prolonged periods can cause health problems. The same is true for face masks on infants. In the main, however, the masks are safe for the general population and they are effective.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.