News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The richer you are, the more likely you’ll social distanc... by Spivak on Thursday January 14, 2021 @03:16PM (#25781872)
This is all true but I would still consider it surprising that it's such a strong predictor of mask wearing and staying physically separated from people.

The behaviors they studied cost nothing and are equally available and beneficial to the rich and poor alike so it's odd that it has any correlation to income at all.

Re:The richer you are, the more likely you’ll social distanc... by sokoloff on Thursday January 14, 2021 @03:36PM (#25782111)
If you're comfortable in your house for 15.5 of your 16 waking hours, it's not that much of a sacrifice to put on a nice, fresh mask for half an hour a day.

If instead you're working 10+ hours a day somewhere near people, you're probably tired of wearing the damn mask, the mask might be wet with condensation in cold climates, etc.

Re:The richer you are, the more likely you’ll social distanc... by exclusiv on Thursday January 14, 2021 @03:44PM (#25782219)
That's true. I also have a theory that those that don't wear condoms or use protection don't wear masks. And that a large percentage of the more religious are less likely to wear masks.

There are several buckets of people in those groups and they're pretty sizable. Crosses several races and several age groups.

EDIT: got some downvotes on this. Probably mentioning words like "race" and "age" which is a no-no for some people.

To clarify the intent of my comment - I think in order to provide a better response to a pandemic I think it is important to understand those groups which would be better served with different communications.

If you don't care about the risk of STDs or an unplanned pregnancy or your faith in God is the primary driver of your health and well-being response, you probably aren't going to care as much as others about wearing a mask.

I had one young pregnant acquaintance of ours, who lives with her grandmother, tell my wife that she knows she will be ok because of her faith in God. This young woman had at least one large family gathering. She didn't quarantine or test before seeing people. Her fiance was actually going to the gym regularly. Her grandmother got covid and luckily she made it.

Repeating all the same directives (social distance, mask, wash hands) has clearly NOT worked. Even saying the hospitals are overwhelmed hasn't seemed to matter.

I don't think you can prepare a good response without difficult conversations and an understanding of why people might do what they do and how that perspective developed.

And politicians would rather speak vaguely and not make tough calls lest they inflame some of their supporters.

Re:The richer you are, the more likely you’ll social distanc... by throwaway0a5e on Thursday January 14, 2021 @05:15PM (#25783488)
>I also have a theory that those that don't wear condoms or use protection don't wear masks.

>If you don't care about the risk of STDs or an unplanned pregnancy or your faith in God is the primary driver of your health and well-being response, you probably aren't going to care as much as others about wearing a mask.

So people in committed relationships, homosexuals and people above the age where pregnancy is possible?

Because those are the groups of people who use condoms the least and at least one of them is certainly not letting religion inform their sexual habits.

Re:The richer you are, the more likely you’ll social distanc... by exclusiv on Friday January 15, 2021 @12:40AM (#25787412)
> So people in committed relationships, homosexuals and people above the age where pregnancy is possible?

I wasn't speaking in an absolute, because almost nothing is absolute.

I probably should have said "I also have a theory that those that don't wear condoms or use protection are significantly less likely to wear masks over the general public. And that a large percentage of the more religious are less likely to wear masks."

Since you went there, I'll try to be more concrete.

Committed relationships across any sub-group you'd like to slice = no. Homosexuals that aren't in committed relationships = yes as they would be in the general non-committed bucket. No risk of pregnancy of course but obviously STD. Above the age of pregnancy? If not committed relationship = yes. Again, still risk of STDs, in fact quite high for the age group most younger people don't want to think of as having sex.

Above the age of pregnancy would have the kicker bonus of less likely to care due to being older and cynical. Once you've seen a lot of crazy things maybe this doesn't phase you? Can't tell you how many that have been fortunate to escape cancers or other more challenging problems only to go carefree on coronavirus which they have more control over. It's an odd thing. Especially because those are higher risk and the ones that still have parents alive are in the highest risk category.

> at least one of them is certainly not letting religion inform their sexual habits.

The condoms and religion in my theory need not crossover. Although I would guess the center of that Venn diagram would skew even less likely to wear a mask.

Re:The richer you are, the more likely you’ll social distanc... by throwaway3699 on Thursday January 14, 2021 @03:20PM (#25781934)
If the only respite to being locked indoors is going outside, of course people are going to dislike masks. It's a constant reminder that there's nowhere to escape from the current situation.
Re:The richer you are, the more likely you’ll social distanc... by war1025 on Thursday January 14, 2021 @03:39PM (#25782156)
Do people commonly wear masks outside in some places?

Where I live, we have more or less universal mask wearing in stores, but the only reason people wear masks outside is that they are about to head into a business or are just leaving one. What's the point of wearing a mask outside?

Re:The richer you are, the more likely you’ll social distanc... by orangecat on Thursday January 14, 2021 @03:50PM (#25782282)
Do people commonly wear masks outside in some places?

Yes. In my area it's required by law.

What's the point of wearing a mask outside?

Basically nothing other than signalling, with possible exceptions for crowded environments. Overall I expect outdoor mask mandates to be harmful on balance, by causing people to shift from outdoor to indoor gatherings.

Re:The richer you are, the more likely you’ll social distanc... by ev1 on Thursday January 14, 2021 @04:10PM (#25782594)
At least here (SF), everything is crowded. Every single trail, park, you are going to effectively be covered in people, runners panting on the sidewalk an inch from you. It's definitely not signaling and I'd much rather everyone put them on in this case when crowding is the guarantee.

I'd have no issue walking around unmasked if you were out in the middle of the night and you were the only one around, though. But the days are so crowded it's pretty much an indoor environment.

Re:The richer you are, the more likely you’ll social distanc... by orangecat on Thursday January 14, 2021 @04:27PM (#25782837)
Yeah, I can see the argument for places like SF. Where I am there are lots of areas where you can easily maintain 10+ feet separation, yet the city explicitly changed the law from "masks outside when you can't distance" to "masks outside always".
Re:The richer you are, the more likely you’ll social distanc... by howlgarnish on Thursday January 14, 2021 @06:49PM (#25784795)
Enforcing an absolute is much easier. In Singapore, you wear a mask at all times outside your home or face fines of up to $3000, with exceptions only for eating, drinking, and "strenuous exercise".
Re:The richer you are, the more likely you’ll social distanc... by ev1 on Friday January 15, 2021 @04:05AM (#25788602)
Another thing: (that also pisses me off when I see it) is watching people constantly touch their masks (unsafe), taking them on and off every few minutes when they're about to pass someone, occasionally putting them on quickly by _holding their hand on the front of the mask pushing it against their mouth_
Re:The richer you are, the more likely you’ll social distanc... by greggturkington on Thursday January 14, 2021 @05:07PM (#25783373)
"signalling?" It reduces the spread of disease in crowded areas.
Re:The richer you are, the more likely you’ll social distanc... by jdavis703 on Thursday January 14, 2021 @03:50PM (#25782278)
In the Bay Area masks are required indoors and outdoors whenever within 30 feet of people. For apartment dwellers there’s been no way to legally enjoy fresh air for the last 10 months.
Re:The richer you are, the more likely you’ll social distanc... by jacobolus on Thursday January 14, 2021 @10:24PM (#25786626)
This is an exaggeration. SF as an example says you can be without your mask if you are:

> • Sitting or standing outside alone or with people you live with (such as picnicking outside) and you are more than 6 feet from others; • When eating or drinking alone or with people you live with, and nobody else is within 6 feet; • Exercising outdoors alone or with people who live with you (walking, hiking, bicycling, or running) and no one else is within 6 feet

Realistically though, there is no enforcement anywhere outside. If you want to go walking or running around outside on the sidewalk without a mask, nobody is going to stop you. You might get a funny look. If you crowd someone's personal space without a mask they might be uncomfortable.

Please wear your mask if you plan to spend extended stretches of time near other people.

Re:The richer you are, the more likely you’ll social distanc... by jdavis703 on Friday January 15, 2021 @06:50PM (#25798241)
Alameda County (adjacent to San Francisco) says: “people must, unless an exception applies, wear a Face Covering when outside and when anyone else other than just members of their Social Bubble (as defined in Paragraph 7 of Health Officer Order No. 20-14) is within 30 feet (10 yards).”
Re:The richer you are, the more likely you’ll social distanc... by nradov on Thursday January 14, 2021 @11:31PM (#25787023)
There is no such requirement.
Re:The richer you are, the more likely you’ll social distanc... by jdavis703 on Friday January 15, 2021 @06:50PM (#25798243)
In Alameda County the face covering order reads: “ people must, unless an exception applies, wear a Face Covering when outside and when anyone else other than just members of their Social Bubble (as defined in Paragraph 7 of Health Officer Order No. 20-14) is within 30 feet (10 yards).”
Re:The richer you are, the more likely you’ll social distanc... by war1025 on Thursday January 14, 2021 @03:54PM (#25782342)
Sounds miserable.
Re:The richer you are, the more likely you’ll social distanc... by Hamuko on Thursday January 14, 2021 @03:51PM (#25782297)
I usually only see people wearing a mask outside if they go by public transportation.
Re:The richer you are, the more likely you’ll social distanc... by vbtemp on Thursday January 14, 2021 @04:08PM (#25782561)
I'm sorry you are getting downvoted for wrong HN think. People come up with all sorts of weird off-the-cuff justifications for things. Medical staff, various home contractors, grocery-store staff all wear masks for extremely long shifts. HN logic seems to be: Poor people less-likely to social distance and wear masks -> HN responds with all sorts of supposed sociological factors why they don't and why it's acceptable. Meanwhile, lots of poor people (who work in the aforementioned professions) actually do wear masks and safely practice all the precautions, so the HN peanut gallery just end up being patronizingly insulting to poor people.