Why now? Why was it ok to not wear masks 2, 3, or 4 weeks ago? If we’ve presumably flattened the curve, then wasn’t the risk greater then?

The number of people who have COVID in CA, and therefore might be contagious is near it's maximum point:
Web Link
but the new recommendation has less to do with that and more to do with the recent realization that the spread is probably more airborne than had previously been recognized. It may also have to do with more mask availability.

San Mateo County Sheriff's Office has recently started enforcing Dr. Scott Morrow's Orders. $1,000 fine plus.

It would be great if our officials would actually take time to explain these reasons for the change, rather than just issuing an order and saying “because we say so”. It might also inspire and motivate more citizens to comply.

Cotton/fabric masks over the mouth and nose create a warm, moist environment that promotes the proliferation of all kinds of pathogens. A scientific randomized controlled study in 2015 published in the medical journal BMJ cautioned against the use of cloth masks, compared with disposable ones. “Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection..."
So Dr. Scott Morrow is mandating an unsafe practice, and is threatening to lock us up in jail for 3 months and fine us up to $1000 if we don't follow his orders.
Since 99% of people have mild or moderate symptoms and recover completely, why keep prolonging the shelter-in-place that is killing our small businesses and destroying people's lives? We need to reach herd immunity as that is what ends epidemics. We've had worse virus pandemics (MERS, SARS, Ebola) with higher death rates and no one ever ordered us to change every aspect of our lives and put us under house arrest.

> “Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result ..."

Geez. You couldn't bother with the very NEXT SENTENCE?!?!

"Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. "

You couldn't be bothered? Or you knew it was quite a reach just so you could do your ax grinding?

> Since 99% of people have mild or moderate symptoms and recover completely

Your link, please. The one that says 99% COMPLETELY recover.

Some have NO symptoms. My son in a VA hospital for other reasons, tested positive 23 days ago, and is still testing positive. He has had no symptoms, and is not being treated for the virus. Add another 0.9% for those like my son who do not have mild or moderate symptoms, and we get 99.9% survival rate. That's what Stanford and USC are approaching in their tests.

Jack Hickey -- Provide links for everything you have just stated, or be considered an apologist for the -45 regime.

The Stanford and USC tests have been thoroughly aired. I am the link for the rest of the comment. Do you doubt my veracity? I realize it is only one anecdotal fact. Make what you will of it.

Waiting for a link that says 99% *COMPLETELY* recover.

Breezily, and inaccurately citing and misrepresenting early incomplete studies doesn't cut it.

I doubt that 99% will completely recover from the "fallout" of this government intervention.

Bette Midler "From a Distance".
Web Link

Making things up on the fly -- yep, that's Jack Hickey for you. No *actual* facts, just a lot of hot air.

No real surprise, considering that Hickey's public career was nothing more than hot air...

It is time to insert some FACTS into this degenerated discussion:

"We can see that, if you’re coughed on by people who aren’t wearing masks, a 4-foot sidewalk is wayyyy riskier than a 6-foot sidewalk! But fortunately, the difference disappears when people put on masks: infection probabilities tank to near-zero.
If everyone coughs on you while passing you, you have a 19% chance of getting infected after passing 100 people in SF at a 4 foot distance, but only a 0.8% chance at a 6 foot distance. Truly, masks and distancing each make a world of difference. Masks and distancing make a god-like level of difference."

"Conclusions
After all this math, my biggest impression is a hopeful one. The virus may be scary, but our quotidian safeguards of masks, sanitizing, and social distancing can protect us in meaningful and understandable ways.
The numbers show that we should take these defenses seriously. Stay six feet apart (not four!), wear masks, sanitize religiously — and don’t touch your face!"


Web Link

Peter, that ought to satisfy the FACT seekers!
I'd like to see some statistics on how many people wore masks before COVID-19 because it was the right thing to do when you might infect someone with your malady. From my observations, I'd say it's a few percent. Thank you to those considerate people. And, if your whole family is sick, please S.I.P.

I live in Redwood City. Today was supposed to be the first day in which San Mateo County residents were required to wear masks when in public. Within a short time today I observed at least two dozen people on the streets without face masks. The good news is that everyone in the stores was complying. Is it that people haven't been informed of this requirement or that they just don't care?

Maybe they're allergic to masks? Or, consider them to be a health risk if worn full time. They should carry a note from their doctor, unless they self-medicate.

@David Petrovay

Here is the link to the order:
Web Link

People on the street have to do distancing, but do not have to wear face coverings.

> Maybe they're allergic to masks? ... should carry a note from their doctor, unless they self-medicate.

C'mon Jack. Weren't you the guy looking for an open golf course a couple weeks ago? We get where you're going with the fringe, libertarian "big gub'mint is evil and we need to open up" theme.

Why, according to numerous (half a dozen? in all *fifty* states, organized by the same astro-turf group) protests around the country this last week, literally *hundreds* of like-minded lost souls (out of 330 million) agree with you.

Enough.

The term fully recover is generally a misnomer when applied to those who get sick from the virus. It is used to describe anyone who has had the virus but survived. Anyone who has had a serious infection is not likely to have the same lung capacity as they did before hand. You might want consider this before thinking it is OK to contract the disease.

Citations on lung capacity, short term and long term would be helpful.

We're still waiting on your citations, Hickey...so where are they?

I have seen reports from doctors on this but did not keep documents. You seem to have time on your hands. You do the research.

Link to long term damage from covid-19
Web Link

It is interesting that Jack Hickey uses his actual name whereas those who criticize him do not. I think The Almanac should publish only comments with actual names.

Fine then, Jo Ann -- are you willing to pay for the security/internet protection that I will need when the crazies come after me?

Thought so.

And stop defending Hickey, he's not worth the time or effort.