Due to a more contagious variant?

Easing restrictions will open whole new pathways to social groups who have not yet been infected. China is about to explode, so transmission and variants to come from there. Most people are not boosted, immunity isn't gonna be as strong as we think.

I'm not quite convinced. It's estimated 45% of Americans have been infected. The mRNA vaccines are still reasonably effective at stopping infection against Omicron. Lots of states have been open and it's spread; what's left is lockdown-happy coastal cities, but they're heavily vaccinated. I do expect some bump, though.

China has problems. They have essentially zero natural immunity, their vaccines aren't very good, and Omicron spreads really well. So well masks aren't even close to enough. Once contact tracing is overwhelmed, China will have to do large-scale lockdowns on-and-off for a while.

One thing omicron seems to have made abundantly clear is that this virus is undergoing recombinant replication. That doesn't bode well for existing vaccines when so many hosts are unvaccinated/unexposed globally, where it can replicate and mutate readily.

The optimist in me wants to believe omicron is a sign of things to come; more infectious but less deadly variants we can largely ignore like the common cold. But what's preventing another variant emerging that's both more infectious and more deadly after ripping through one of the less vaccinated nations? The lethality aspect seems somewhat random from where I'm sitting, not an expert.

Also wars tend to make viruses evolve to more deadly variants since it's harder to isolate the sick, or at least that's the hypothesis about the 1918 flu.

In the year 2048, the drivethru at Dunkin Donuts is backed up for miles as people wait to get their free dozen donuts for getting their 100th booster. Johnny is seen jogging by without a mask as the people yell at them from their cars that he is endangering their lives.

I have bad news but we already get yearly boosters for respiratory diseases. And in pretty much every country except the US, people wear masks when they're sick.

> And in pretty much every country except the US, people wear masks when they're sick.

This isn’t true. Wearing masks when sick has only been common in East Asia since SARS and that’s the only region it was common in. It’s not universal there either. There was an irritated comment in my office Friday about someone sneezing who didn’t never his mouth, never mind wearing a mask.

Possibly wearing a mask will be normalized in Western countries after this is over but I sincerely doubt people in the Congo or Malawi or Guatemala are wearing masks while sick. Lots of people and countries are dirt poor.

People that are at high risk of the flu get yearly shots for it, but typically they are only between 40 and 60% effective. No one is saying that sick people shouldn't wear masks.

This is good news.

If I don’t wear a mask, what are people gonna do about it?

Nothing.

People fold quickly when you ignore their requests to wear a mask.

Do you interact with society on a regular basis? Businesses have the right to refuse service, and you will absolutely be escorted out (minimum) and will most likely have your tantrum broadcast to the internet if you pretend you are some sort of martyr.

> Businesses have the right to refuse service

Yet so many people flipped out when a business wouldn’t design a custom cake for a same-sex couple.

Which is it? Can businesses enforce their own rules and values on their own property or not?

Businesses can enforce their own rules and values except if it discriminates on protected classes of people. There is an existent argument that a business can discriminate on protected classes of people if discriminating follows their religious beliefs.

As far as I understand wearing a mask doesn't fall into either category so the gay cakes thing has very little to do with this and comes off as whataboutism.

So if we repealed the Civil Rights Act, and therefore got rid of the concept of protected classes, you would think that it is okay to discriminate on the basis of one’s sex, race, and sexual orientation?

Morality is not the same as legality.

Your comment confuses me.

Masking helps prevent spread of illness.

Legality should follow morality, but the reverse often happens.

The grandparent comment didn't appear to suggest what you're clarifying question asserts.

That comment implied that discrimination was okay unless it was against a protected class. It is reasonable to ask what they would do if there was no such thing as a protected class. Would they approve of all forms of discrimination? Or would they do as your sibling comment did and decide that actually the concept of protected classes doesn’t matter and one can pick and choose which types of discrimination are moral/immoral.

It’s very easy to have a belief that businesses should be able to pick who their customers are or that they should be forced to serve everyone, but any opinion in between is very difficult to make logically consistent.

That's true, morality and legality are different, although one hopes laws will generally reflect society's view of morality. But you're right, discriminating against people based on their race or sexual orientation is immoral regardless of its legality. And requiring a mask in one's establishment during a respiratory pandemic is entirely reasonable, regardless of its legality.

Where do you live that this is still the case? I haven’t worn a mask anywhere in over a year and no one has said anything. And these days I only see a handful of people wearing masks in a business.

So you prefer to trespass on private property while ignoring the requirements for entry available in law, posted on the door, and communicated to you directly by ignoring employees like they are non people.

Do you just do this now or were you doing this back in 2020 too?

This law is no longer needed.

Which law? Are you saying we can go inside of restaurants shoeless and completely naked now? And that private businesses shouldn't be allowed to kick us out?

That is for individual states, municipalities, and individual businesses to decide. If any of the above require it you can basically suck it up or go elsewhere.

You would be asked to leave our Quaker meeting, attend it via Zoom instead.

No - if we see you maskless in an establishment we go somewhere else with sensible customers