Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I'll freely admit that elected officials from the entire range of the political spectrum, have been picking and choosing which SCIENCE ZOMG THE SCIENCE they choose to believe and support, for whatever reasons.  It's resulted in a lot of bad policy for the entire duration of the pandemic, and this is just one more example of that.

People have largely caught on that the "Listen to the Science" trumpeters drown out actual science discussion by prefacing their precautions like masks as unquestionable "science."

My issue with the "science" trumpeters is more subjectively the inexhaustibly negative backdrop of too many conclusions reveling in pessimism resulting from a scientific observation. It's almost as though their negative messaging is preexisting and awaiting to be grounded the next scientific point that comes its way.

Take this article on this past year's nearly non-existent flu season (https://www.advisory.com/en/daily-briefing/2021/03/30/flu-season). A single paragraph is spent highlighting the statistical drop in flu cases (good news, right? But no...), all as a set up to whine about vaccines and a potential roaring back of the flu once we're past Covid.

It's gotten to the point that when a new scientific observation is headlined my reaction is brace for whatever new threat I'm supposed to be endlessly worried and unsettled about.

As they should be, for those who are vaccinated.

The "Listen to the Science" notion is really "I cherry picked something I saw in the media that sounded sciency and agrees with what I think".

I don't know that I have ever seen a report on science in MSM that wasn't pretty badly garbled, or misinterpreted, or slanted, or spun.  This goes as well for folks professing to speak for science, like Mister Science or whoever.  They shape the "science" according to their agenda.

Real science generally is full of doubt and alternative explanations and hedging, a lot of hedging.  What we see in "Newsweek" is garbage.  They supposedly have "science reporters", but they really really aren't that at all.

The "Listen to the Science" notion is really "I cherry picked something I saw in the media that sounded sciency and agrees with what I think".

I don't know that I have ever seen a report on science in MSM that wasn't pretty badly garbled, or misinterpreted, or slanted, or spun.  This goes as well for folks professing to speak for science, like Mister Science or whoever.  They shape the "science" according to their agenda.

Real science generally is full of doubt and alternative explanations and hedging, a lot of hedging.  What we see in "Newsweek" is garbage.  They supposedly have "science reporters", but they really really aren't that at all.

Newsweek is a zombie publication now. 

Of course, the discussion was related to masks... In TX, has mask wearing even been related to vaccination rates?

Maybe, but the comment I'm replying directly to, irrespective of relation to mask-wearing, implies that anyone that wants a vaccine should have it by now.  That's just not true.  Like I said, at best it's only partially true.  The true statement would be, "anyone that wants a vaccine should have the first shot by now."  I'm okay with that.

I'm a little touchy with this because in my own state, I'm starting to hear the "anti-anti-maskers" throwing out statements that everybody should be vaccinated by now and EVERYONE who isn't vaccinated is just taking the risk and can face the consequences.  That's a bullshit reactionary position based on disagreement with the current political party in power and is every bit as anti-science as all that they accuse their opposition of being for the past year.

Anyway to answer your question, in Texas, the statewide mask mandate was lifted on 3/11 and was at best only tangentially related to vaccination rates.  It was also maybe slightly related to decreasing case/hospitalization rates but was mostly related to yet more political positioning.  Which I don't like from EITHER direction and I'm always going to call out as the BS that it is.

Maybe, but the comment I'm replying directly to, irrespective of relation to mask-wearing, implies that anyone that wants a vaccine should have it by now.  That's just not true.  Like I said, at best it's only partially true.  The true statement would be, "anyone that wants a vaccine should have the first shot by now."  I'm okay with that.

I'm a little touchy with this because in my own state, I'm starting to hear the "anti-anti-maskers" throwing out statements that everybody should be vaccinated by now and EVERYONE who isn't vaccinated is just taking the risk and can face the consequences.  That's a bullshit reactionary position based on disagreement with the current political party in power and is every bit as anti-science as all that they accuse their opposition of being for the past year.

Anyway to answer your question, in Texas, the statewide mask mandate was lifted on 3/11 and was at best only tangentially related to vaccination rates.  It was also maybe slightly related to decreasing case/hospitalization rates but was mostly related to yet more political positioning.  Which I don't like from EITHER direction and I'm always going to call out as the BS that it is.

True.

My statement for weeks is that by June/July that everyone who wants to be vaccinated will have had the opportunity. 

But I'd highlight that the mask mandates today are "everyone", and the change I assume is that the mask mandate will be dropped for "everyone" and only apply to those who aren't vaccinated (yeah--good luck enforcing that!)...

Right now I'm for ending the mask mandates based on the fact that case rates are low and dropping. Here in CA we have a 7-day MA of about 1400 cases/day, in a state of 40M people. That's a 0.0035% chance of getting COVID on a daily basis, and if you assume that that I've got a 95% chance of being immune, drops it to 0.000175% chance of getting COVID daily for me. 

IMHO that's time to end the mask mandate. I'm not saying we outlaw masks, of course, and I'm not saying anyone who wants to wear a mask shouldn't. I just think we're close enough to herd immunity that it should be a personal / business decision, not a mandate.

The mask lobby is powerful?