The messaging should be: "if you are vaccinated, you are protected from the worst symptoms of the virus, it's effective and you don't need to wear a mask. If you are unvaccinated, we recommend wearing an N95 mask." That's it, anything else is madness.
We were told not to wear masks to be able to save the supply for medical professionals. They shrugged and didn't say anything when people were wearing cloth masks (that are basically a joke). A year and a half in with nearly 50% of Americans vaxxed, it's time to say N95 is it.
If we are really concerned with protecting people, they need a mask that actually protects them. The vaccine protects those that have gotten it, and those who are still vulnerable to the virus and not vaxxed need an N95. That's what will actually protect them.
But it's impossible to take this latest masking push seriously when it's being pushed on everyone, and still no push on people using the masks that are actually effective.
You know who will probably slap on the N95 mask? The vaxxed who are cheering for another mask mandate. And those who could benefit them will just slap on the cloth or sequin mask that they didn't wash from the last time they wore it months ago.
And what will that do? Are we really protecting anyone at that point? It's theater and we all know it. We've known it for a long time. It's hard to take people seriously when they aren't following the science on this and the messaging is all over the place.
Are we really going to have in the same week the President say in a town hall that you can't even get COVID if vaxxed, and then flirt with a national mask mandate again? Then sneer are people who complain about it all being confusing?
Being condescending jerks hasn't been what moved the needle for people hesitant to get vaccinated. Lifting mandates for vaccinated people is what moved the needle. It's really not that hard, guys.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
By their own standards, can we now call the TX delegation trip to DC a "super-spreader" event? I have so many questions about all of this at this point.
The term "super-spreader" was always overused, especially during the summer spike. Though large gatherings were banned, we knew it was always small gatherings (like the ones the TX delegation had all week in DC) were the events in which COVID spread quickly.
But the term "super-spreader" was used essentially by the powers that be to describe events they didn't support, and conveniently not used for events they supported. This is all about the hypocrisy of it.
Something we need to do better on: mental health support for children in foster care, for foster families, and for families of origin. It's way tougher than it should be to get support in these circumstances, and often the support you ultimately get is insufficient.
Foster parents often get a bad rap, but lots of us (I'm a former foster parent) fight TIRELESSLY for these kids, and we are met with endless roadblocks.
We are relentless in our desire to get kids who have been through the worst situations you can imagine the help they need. Oftentimes it's too little, too late (if anyone even listens to our demands).
I'd also venture a guess that there's a decent number of people that are holding out on the vaccine bc they don't trust their leaders to lift restrictions anytime soon and they have seen post after post talking about the experiences with side effects and they are putting it off.
I think it was with good intentions and a desire to be honest that people posted on FB about every side effect they experienced- but I have talked to people who are hesitant and said that plus knowing it won't change the rules are why they're waiting.
They are hoping that enough other will get vaccinated so they don't have to, and they won't have to deal with the side effects. A year in, and the absence of any kind of hope/goal still plagues us.