# EU bans American  travelers effective  July 1st



## nerodog (Jun 27, 2020)

*It’s Official—Americans Won’t Be Allowed Into Europe When It Reopens*
By Michelle Baran
Jun 27, 2020


From Afar magazine 












Spots like Positano on Italy’s Amalfi Coast remain off limits to American travelers for the time being.
Photo by Shutterstock
A list of the countries whose citizens will be allowed to travel to Europe starting on July 1 has been released, and it does not include the United States, the “New York Times” reported.
Article continues below advertisement

SHARE THIS ARTICLE







It’s the moment we’ve all been waiting for. And now we have to wait even longer. The European Union has revealed the list of  countries whose travelers will be welcomed back to the continent on July 1, and it does not include the United States, according to a _New York Times_ report on Friday.
The _Times_ reported that the European Union plans to continue to bar travelers from the United States due to the fact that the country has not brought the coronavirus outbreak under control. The news comes just after the United States reported 36,880 new cases on Wednesday, a record for a single day.
As of June 26, the United States had 2.45 million confirmed coronavirus cases, more than any other country in the world, according to Johns Hopkins University. Second is Brazil, with 1.23 million confirmed cases, followed by Russia with nearly 620,000 cases. Neither Brazil nor Russia are on the EU’s list either. The United States also leads in deaths, with nearly 125,000 as of June 26.
On July 1, the European Union will open up to outside travelers for the first time since it closed its borders on March 17 as the coronavirus pandemic gripped the continent. Those restrictions were extended three times, and the latest extension left the ban in place until July 1, 2020.
Article continues below advertisement

The full list of approved places provided to the_ New York Times_ on Friday includes Algeria, Australia, Canada, Georgia, Japan, Montenegro, Morocco, New Zealand, Rwanda, Serbia, South Korea, Thailand, Tunisia, Uruguay, Andorra, San Marino, Monaco, and the Vatican.
It could also include China, but only if China allows EU travelers to visit as well, EU officials told the paper. The list still needs to be formalized by the governments of each member state as well as by the European Union before taking effect on July 1, but officials reportedly said they did not expect the list to change.
The list will be updated every two weeks, which leaves open the possibility for countries to be added to or removed from it. As the _Times_points out, it's not a legally binding list, but any member state that opens borders to countries not on the list could find themselves shut off from other E.U. partners.
"The E.U.'s announcement is incredibly disappointing, and a step in the wrong direction as we seek to rebuild our global economy," U.S. Travel Association Executive Vice President for Public Affairs and Policy Tori Emerson Barnes said. "This is unwelcome news, and will have major negative implications for an economic recovery—particularly if this ban results in cycles of retaliation, as is so often the case."


----------



## Laurie (Jun 27, 2020)

Sad for some of us, but good for them.


----------



## bbodb1 (Jun 27, 2020)

I wonder how this will effect troop movements _through_ Europe as they deploy to and return from locations throughout Europe and the Middle East....


----------



## Luanne (Jun 27, 2020)

bbodb1 said:


> I wonder how this will effect troop movements _through_ Europe as they deploy to and return from locations throughout Europe and the Middle East....


I would think there will be exceptions made as with every ban so far.


----------



## mcZabel (Jun 27, 2020)

This is a good thing. The piss poor response of this country to the virus should be confronted by the rest of the world and make the people of the US.
finally realize all that we could have done but have not.

I am not talking only about the feds but also the irresponsible states with citizens who refuse to:

*Do.The.Right.Thing and wear masks or face shields.*

This is simply NOT a political issue. It is a human life issue. 

I have only good things to say about a continent or country that has acted responsibly and sees with horror at what is happening in the US.  I would not 
want US citizens in my country either.
I speak from the keen perspective of being in Arizona-Land of no masks, no mandates and no cares about one's fellow man. But the businesses are OPEN!  Yippee!


----------



## mcZabel (Jun 27, 2020)

To Tori Emerson Barnes of the US Travel Association, 
If you think this is such terrible news, your association needs to put the screws to our government and make them understand why this happened and get them to get their butts in gear to FIX the Covid crises.
We are pawns in this whole debacle. Stand up and speak for the voiceless victims in the US citizenry and tell Government official how this affects a HUGE and important industry. 
This is NOT retaliation on Europe's part. It is just COMMON SENSE.


----------



## bbodb1 (Jun 27, 2020)

@mcZabel - I do hope you reserve some scorn for where this virus started as well.  Having said that, what actions would you have had our government do that people would actually have followed?

And I ask that not from a condescending tone but rather from the perspective of process improvement.


----------



## sue1947 (Jun 27, 2020)

bbodb1 said:


> @mcZabel - I do hope you reserve some scorn for where this virus started as well.  Having said that, what actions would you have had our government do that people would actually have followed?
> 
> And I ask that not from a condescending tone but rather from the perspective of process improvement.



I'll accept that challenge.  And I'll keep it simple with 2 items: 
An efficient, well-managed plan to get enough needed supplies to the people who need it.  Masks, gowns, ventilators, hospital beds etc.  Instead, we got a mishmash of everybody out for themselves with every state or local group competing against each other for needed supplies.  More costly and more confusing and much less efficient.  The failure of our federal leadership to actually provide leadership is damn near criminal.  And yes, I am furious at the level of incompetence demonstrated.  

An efficient and consist messaging of the dangers and unknowns involved.  Updated as new information became available but ALWAYS based on the best science.   When appointments are made based on loyalty to a person instead of knowledge of their field, we get incompetence.  The CDC's failures in testing at the beginning were appalling.  But it's not just the failure of effective communication, but the effort to negate the facts and turn it into a political fight instead of dealing with it in a straight forward and effective manner.   So not just incompetence, but malevolent and cynical.   

In my opinion, every elected official who enabled the incompetence needs to be fired in November.  And, again, yes, I am furious and fed up.    And I have been continually, to my dismay, reminded of that old saying "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."    The people spending hours trying to rationalize away this disease and the need to wear a damn mask is astonishing and depressing.  The level of stupidity shown by way too many Americans is depressing.


----------



## nerodog (Jun 27, 2020)

Laurie said:


> Sad for some of us, but good for them.


I feel very bad about it and hope it will be only for a few weeks or a month.


----------



## nerodog (Jun 27, 2020)

sue1947 said:


> I'll accept that challenge.  And I'll keep it simple with 2 items:
> An efficient, well-managed plan to get enough needed supplies to the people who need it.  Masks, gowns, ventilators, hospital beds etc.  Instead, we got a mishmash of everybody out for themselves with every state or local group competing against each other for needed supplies.  More costly and more confusing and much less efficient.  The failure of our federal leadership to actually provide leadership is damn near criminal.  And yes, I am furious at the level of incompetence demonstrated.
> 
> An efficient and consist messaging of the dangers and unknowns involved.  Updated as new information became available but ALWAYS based on the best science.   When appointments are made based on loyalty to a person instead of knowledge of their field, we get incompetence.  The CDC's failures in testing at the beginning were appalling.  But it's not just the failure of effective communication, but the effort to negate the facts and turn it into a political fight instead of dealing with it in a straight forward and effective manner.   So not just incompetence, but malevolent and cynical.
> ...


Excellent  !!! Totally  agree.


----------



## nerodog (Jun 27, 2020)

I feel a sense of failure and embarrassment  even though I'm on the other side of the pond right now. Believe  me, there are issues here with air bridges and failing to  meet the criteria. I   really hope the USA can get a handle on this virus.Many people here want to visit the USA too.  Part of the problem  is no   federal mandate with all the Govs. which would  be extremely  difficult  to reinforce  I can see. All this conversation about my rights.How about your health and others ?!  Like I read someplace you dont have the right to drive drunk or 100mph!!


----------



## moonstone (Jun 27, 2020)

I have heard rumors from friends in Belize that the Belizean Tourist Board is considering doing the same thing. I wouldn't be surprised if other countries followed.  Glad we are Canadian and booked direct Canada to Belize flights for this winter (if Belize opens it's borders).

~Diane


----------



## bbodb1 (Jun 27, 2020)

sue1947 said:


> I'll accept that challenge.  And I'll keep it simple with 2 items:



All right - let's proceed. 



sue1947 said:


> An efficient, well-managed plan to get enough needed supplies to the people who need it.  Masks, gowns, ventilators, hospital beds etc.  Instead, we got a mishmash of everybody out for themselves with every state or local group competing against each other for needed supplies.  More costly and more confusing and much less efficient.  *The failure of our federal leadership to actually provide leadership is damn near criminal*.  And yes, I am furious at the level of incompetence demonstrated.



I can definitely sense your anger here but you know what, I agree with you on these points.  In my lifetime (near three score), I cannot recall our country having a government that functioned for the benefit of people _without_ placing other interests above those. I am not old enough to remember the experiences from Vietnam but from Watergate forward, I recall those events. The malfeasance of government in my lifetime has been immense, but we have to remember that did not start recently. Our government (at all levels, and through all leaders) has been unprepared an unconscionable number of times in my recollection. The thing is, how do we interrupt the infinite loop of this horrible cycle? I feel your fury, but what saddens me most is there appears to be no way to change it.



sue1947 said:


> An efficient and consist messaging of the dangers and unknowns involved.  Updated as new information became available but ALWAYS based on the best science.   When appointments are made based on loyalty to a person instead of knowledge of their field, we get incompetence.  The CDC's failures in testing at the beginning were appalling.  But it's not just the failure of effective communication, but the effort to negate the facts and turn it into a political fight instead of dealing with it in a straight forward and effective manner.   So not just incompetence, but malevolent and cynical.



Again, I agree with these points and (not meaning to redirect the point) this has been a massive point of failure with instant media.  Our media - from all sides - continues to let us down because it is beholden to special interest, advertising, and most of all the pursuit of money.  Useful, accurate, and relevant data may (or may not) be all around us but the process to improve (to reform if you will) is lost in the cacophony that is the constant back and forth between the entrenched sides these days.  In theory, the CDC _should_ be a useful governmental agency if only to serve as a reliable source of data. But that function (and confidence) has been lost over the years because some bureaucrat wants the numbers to support their point.



sue1947 said:


> In my opinion, every elected official who enabled the incompetence needs to be fired in November.  And, again, yes, I am furious and fed up.    And I have been continually, to my dismay, reminded of that old saying "*Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public*."



And we are seeing that continue to play out every day on the news.  



sue1947 said:


> The people spending hours trying to rationalize away this disease and the need to wear a damn mask is astonishing and depressing.  The level of stupidity shown by way too many Americans is depressing.



The one thing that caught my attention here was your point on wearing masks.  I do not wear a mask in public because on those few occasions when I leave the house, I do the shopping required for our home when crowds are very light (but I also need to remind you I live in a rather rural area).  I maintain social distance throughout each trip *but I need to acknowledge this is rather easy to accomplish in my area.  *Obviously, a lot more people live in places where this is NOT possible.  I wanted to make this point because mask wearing (as useful as it may be) still is less effective than social distancing (and from my perspective, the greater the social distance, the better) and social distancing is less effective than staying at home.  I do agree with the thrust of what you are saying here though.  

Good points.  Thanks for your reply.


----------



## jabberwocky (Jun 27, 2020)

moonstone said:


> I have heard rumors from friends in Belize that the Belizean Tourist Board is considering doing the same thing. I wouldn't be surprised if other countries followed.  Glad we are Canadian and booked direct Canada to Belize flights for this winter (if Belize opens it's borders).
> 
> ~Diane


My BIL and his spouse are moving to Belize in August as Belize will be reopening for Canadians.  They will have a 14 day quarantine when they get there, but things are opening up.


----------



## sue1947 (Jun 27, 2020)

bbodb1 said:


> The one thing that caught my attention here was your point on wearing masks.  I do not wear a mask in public because on those few occasions when I leave the house, I do the shopping required for our home when crowds are very light (but I also need to remind you I live in a rather rural area).  I maintain social distance throughout each trip *but I need to acknowledge this is rather easy to accomplish in my area.  *Obviously, a lot more people live in places where this is NOT possible.  I wanted to make this point because mask wearing (as useful as it may be) still is less effective than social distancing (and from my perspective, the greater the social distance, the better) and social distancing is less effective than staying at home.  I do agree with the thrust of what you are saying here though.
> 
> Good points.  Thanks for your reply.



All it takes is one person one time, no matter how rural.  You don't know who was in that spot 1 minute before you got there.  In addition, unless you were tested that morning, you don't know if you have it or are an asymptomatic carrier.   I can give you lots of examples of small town/rural places hit hard.  So stop rationalizing why you don't have to wear one, and just do it.  Set an example for your neighbors.  

But the larger issue:  this disease is devastating the country both in the numbers of people dead or sickened, with lots of the latter left with permanent damage.  This disease is also devastating the county economically.  We have the potential for a full scale depression.  The unemployment numbers are way too high, etc.   All we are asked to get people back to work, to get their paychecks going again so they can pay their rent, feed their kids etc, ALL WE ARE ASKED IS TO WEAR A MASK!.  Such a small thing.  Such a big impact.  Of course, I'll wear a mask.  I would be ashamed to do otherwise.


----------



## mcZabel (Jun 27, 2020)

There can be no justification to not wearing a face covering whenever you are in any space where there are, or were people breathing and speaking. The virus is mainly airborne and can remain in the air for up to 3 hours according to Harvard Health and countless other credible institutions.
Anyone who does not wear a mask is simply dragging out the time it takes us in the US to get a new normal that we can abide by.
Notice I did not say 'get back to normal'.  No rational person should even think that our lives can be lived as they were pre Covid.  The new normal is what we have to strive for. 
The new normal is an existence that takes into account that the virus will be here to stay and we have to work around it.  Working around it means WEARING MASKS/FACE SHIELDS.

Another thing.  To those who are whining about the nastiness of wearing a face covering.  I would like you to ask anyone working in a medical facility or EMT department  if they find that wearing a mask is just too inconvenient as they go about their days and nights trying to save your sorry ass because you had too much of an ego to wear a mask.


----------



## moonstone (Jun 27, 2020)

jabberwocky said:


> My BIL and his spouse are moving to Belize in August as Belize will be reopening for Canadians.  They will have a 14 day quarantine when they get there, but things are opening up.



I doubt they will be able to move down in August unless they have BZ residency or citizenship. Belize is opening the airport Aug.15th *only* for tourists who are going to a 'all-inclusive type' (Gold Standard) resort. They must stay on the premises and not take any tours or go into the nearest town for anything, and can only travel from the airport to the resort with an approved transfer company or resort provided transportation.  Incoming tourists must have a COVID test within 72 hrs before departing their home country and bring proof of a negative result with them. There will still be procedures (disinfecting shoes when getting off the plane, have their temperature checked, download the COVID Health Dept. App for tracing...) to follow upon their arrival in Belize. The Prime Minister, in his statement yesterday, said he hopes that Belize can accept more tourists going to regular style hotels, rentals, B&Bs, or expats that own winter homes down there, can travel to Belize later this fall if the COVID positive tests don't soar with this first phase of opening.  Since there are limited medical facilities (ie; 3 respirators in the whole country) they cant afford to take chances with infected tourists entering the country.

Here is a link to the latest press release from yesterday.  https://belizetourismboard.org/belize-announces-phased-re-opening-plan-for-tourism/
We know fellow Canadians (and a few Americans) who spend 4-6 months in Belize every year in a house (or B&B/condo) they own down there, and they are not even allowed to enter the country during the August opening, they have to wait until the next phase later this fall.  If your BIL is on Facebook he would be wise to follow & read the information the Belize Expats group.

~Diane


----------



## jabberwocky (Jun 28, 2020)

moonstone said:


> I doubt they will be able to move down in August unless they have BZ residency or citizenship. Belize is opening the airport Aug.15th *only* for tourists who are going to a 'all-inclusive type' (Gold Standard) resort. They must stay on the premises and not take any tours or go into the nearest town for anything, and can only travel from the airport to the resort with an approved transfer company or resort provided transportation.  Incoming tourists must have a COVID test within 72 hrs before departing their home country and bring proof of a negative result with them. There will still be procedures (disinfecting shoes when getting off the plane, have their temperature checked, download the COVID Health Dept. App for tracing...) to follow upon their arrival in Belize. The Prime Minister, in his statement yesterday, said he hopes that Belize can accept more tourists going to regular style hotels, rentals, B&Bs, or expats that own winter homes down there, can travel to Belize later this fall if the COVID positive tests don't soar with this first phase of opening.  Since there are limited medical facilities (ie; 3 respirators in the whole country) they cant afford to take chances with infected tourists entering the country.
> 
> Here is a link to the latest press release from yesterday.  https://belizetourismboard.org/belize-announces-phased-re-opening-plan-for-tourism/
> We know fellow Canadians (and a few Americans) who spend 4-6 months in Belize every year in a house (or B&B/condo) they own down there, and they are not even allowed to enter the country during the August opening, they have to wait until the next phase later this fall.  If your BIL is on Facebook he would be wise to follow & read the information the Belize Expats group.
> ...


Thanks. I believe they have residency in Belize now as they own a property there. My SIL will be helping to run the new Wyndham property on Ambergris Caye. They were originally supposed to move in April but that got put on hold - but it is moving forward now.


----------



## mav (Jun 28, 2020)

I am VERY sad about being blocked from entering other countries, however I understand completely why. If I was a leader of another I would NOT let us in either.  We are traveling in the US right now, but there are tons of states I wouldn't go near if they paid my way and put me up at a St. Regis, Ritz, or a Waldorf Astoria. And when we are in the other states  we wear masks in public, do not eat in restaurants, and social distance.  Just plain a.. common sense.  As soon as the borders open up I am otta here.


----------



## moonstone (Jun 28, 2020)

jabberwocky said:


> Thanks. I believe they have residency in Belize now as they own a property there. My SIL will be helping to run the new Wyndham property on Ambergris Caye. They were originally supposed to move in April but that got put on hold - but it is moving forward now.


They will still need to go through a bit of red tape to get in and I don't even know if they just have residency (and not citizenship) that they will be allowed in. A friend of ours who is an American citizen but has Belize residency and has lived full time in a house she owns outside of Corozal for well over 10 years. She returned to Arizona in Feb. to help her parents after her mom had a hip replacement, her dad has poor health and cant do much. Before she could return to Belize everything shut down and she has been stuck in Arizona since. Her DH remained in Belize to look after their house and dogs and they both have tried every avenue to get her back 'home' that they could think of with no success. Repatriation flights for Belize citizens who were stuck in another country just started a couple of weeks ago and there are lots of forms and procedures to follow to get on one and return to Belize. Our friend has already been told she is not eligible to return on a flight during the first phase of opening in August and must wait for the next phase to start.

Maybe Wyndham can help get your SIL into the country.

~Diane
(Edited to add; owning a house & or property in Belize does not automatically give you residency)


----------



## Jimster (Jun 28, 2020)

bbodb1 said:


> The one thing that caught my attention here was your point on wearing masks. I do not wear a mask in public because on those few occasions when I leave the house, I do the shopping required for our home when crowds are very light (but I also need to remind you I live in a rather rural area). I maintain social distance throughout each trip *but I need to acknowledge this is rather easy to accomplish in my area. *Obviously, a lot more people live in places where this is NOT possible. I wanted to make this point because mask wearing (as useful as it may be) still is less effective than social distancing (and from my perspective, the greater the social distance, the better) and social distancing is less effective than staying at home. I do agree with the thrust of what you are saying here though.



That’s just ridiculous.  You can justify or rationalize it any way you want but at any given moment you don’t know if you are a asymptomatic carrier exposing others to the virus. Assuming you breathe when you go through the store, you could transmit the virus to any other person who passes by you in the next three minutes.  I don’t think very many people intend to pass the virus to another but obviously it is being transmitted and ALL reasonable precautions need to be taken.

Even if you don’t transmit virus, it is a terrible message to send to others.  Earlier in your post you write (refering to our society). ... But there is no other way to change it.   Well here there is a way to change it and you rationalize you way around it.  There are plenty of rationalizations to pick from ie. I don’t like how it looks; i don’t breathe well with it; and oh i’m not sick. BUT THE FACT IS If all Americans wore masks, thousands of lives would be saved.  Japan has almost total compliance on wearing face masks and they have just over 1,000 deaths.   We have over 125,000 dead I think that speaks volumes.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jun 28, 2020)

mcZabel said:


> Anyone who does not wear a mask is simply dragging out the time it takes us in the US to get a new normal that we can abide by.


Wouldn't just having huge big COVID parties with everyone getting sick get us back to the new normal faster than what you are suggesting? Not saying it is the way to go, but masking up and lockdowns will also drag this out for a long time.


----------



## Luanne (Jun 28, 2020)

dioxide45 said:


> Wouldn't just having huge big COVID parties with everyone getting sick get us back to the new normal faster than what you are suggesting? Not saying it is the way to go, but masking up and lockdowns will also drag this out for a long time.


Well if people getting sick only meant they didn't feel well and had to take it easy for a few days or so, maybe that would be the way to go.  But with some/many people requiring hospitalization, having horrendous after effects, and potential death?  No, I personally don't think that's the way I'd want to go.


----------



## nerodog (Jun 28, 2020)

Before face masks, Americans went to war against seat belts
					

"There was a libertarian streak among resistors," Ralph Nader told Business Insider.




					www.businessinsider.com
				




Now it's the mask !


----------



## bbodb1 (Jun 28, 2020)

sue1947 said:


> All it takes is one person one time, no matter how rural.  *You don't know who was in that spot 1 minute before you got there*.  In addition, unless you were tested that morning, you don't know if you have it or are an asymptomatic carrier.   I can give you lots of examples of small town/rural places hit hard.  So stop rationalizing why you don't have to wear one, and just do it.  Set an example for your neighbors.



Actually, I do know because I take my time when shopping and make the effort to be aware of my surroundings and avoid people.  I make a list and know where the products I need are located before I enter a store because I shop stores I am familiar with.  It isn't that hard to avoid people if you choose the proper time and don't live in such a crowded area.  
The point here is NOT to suggest that masks are not important (or fail to help) *it is that staying (sheltering) at home is a superior alternative to avoiding exposure.   *Avoid crowds, stay home, shop during slow periods - these pieces of advice have been too quickly discarded in favor of placing too much dependance on the protection level offered by a mask.

Stay home - that has the largest impact.  That message has been lost.


----------



## Ken555 (Jun 28, 2020)

bbodb1 said:


> Actually, I do know because I take my time when shopping and make the effort to be aware of my surroundings and avoid people. I make a list and know where the products I need are located before I enter a store because I shop stores I am familiar with. It isn't that hard to avoid people if you choose the proper time and don't live in such a crowded area.
> The point here is NOT to suggest that masks are not important (or fail to help) *it is that staying (sheltering) at home is a superior alternative to avoiding exposure. *Avoid crowds, stay home, shop during slow periods - these pieces of advice have been too quickly discarded in favor of placing too much dependance on the protection level offered by a mask.
> 
> Stay home - that has the largest impact. That message has been lost.



I’m not sure what your goal was to announce on a public forum that you are not wearing a mask. Your opinion won’t change based on our comments, and you know not wearing a mask is wrong (after all, you’ve admitted as much). Nevertheless, you are comfortable rationalizing the benefit of wearing a mask by changing your behavior and plans when in public spaces. I really don’t know why you announced this publicly...it’s as if you want us to agree that some people should be exempted from wearing a mask in certain situations. 

I could do the same. I know my local stores quite well and could be in and out very quickly, especially at off hours. But I’m not that selfish...if I go out, I’m wearing a mask. Not just because it’s mandatory, but because it’s the right thing to do and sends the right message to others. 

I’m fairly sure we will learn that the rapid and continual increase of C19 cases will be due in part to those not wearing a mask. I am absolutely certain I’m not asymptomatic, yet I will always wear a mask when going out. Why can’t you?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## bbodb1 (Jun 29, 2020)

Ken555 said:


> I’m not sure what your goal was to announce on a public forum that you are not wearing a mask.
> ...
> Nevertheless, you are comfortable rationalizing the benefit of wearing a mask by changing your behavior and plans when in public spaces. I really don’t know why you announced this publicly...it’s as if you want us to agree that some people should be exempted from wearing a mask in certain situations.
> 
> ...



As I said previously, *Stay home - that has the largest impact. That message has been lost.        *
The wearing of masks has played a part in people letting down their guard with respect to returning toward what used to be normal routines.  I am not suggesting the wearing of masks is without some health benefits - but increasing the number of trips out of the house _*because of confidence and trust in a mask creates more risk as opposed to staying home.*_  We still are not anywhere near the point of resuming normal routines and the best (safest) practice is still to *Stay Home. *



Ken555 said:


> Your opinion won’t change based on our comments, and you know not wearing a mask is wrong (after all, you’ve admitted as much).



Please show me where I said this - now I have discussed that I will follow an establishment's rules on the matter because it is their right as a business to establish rules to be a customer.  More specifically, I choose to dine on the outdoor patio (mask free) at McAlister's since I did not want to enter the location and they were fine with this arrangement.  Perhaps you interpreted this in some other way, but just to be clear, I have no problem following the posted rules of a business or an establishment.  If that means a mask is required for entry, then I will either patronize the business outside (in the fresh air, with the benefit of the U.V. rays from the sun) or take my business elsewhere.  I have not and will not complain to a business about their policies in this area - again, this is their prerogative.  *But I am not comfortable placing myself in an environment where masks are required.*



Ken555 said:


> I’m fairly sure we will learn that the rapid and continual increase of C19 cases will be due in part to those not wearing a mask. I am absolutely certain I’m not asymptomatic, yet I will always wear a mask when going out. Why can’t you?



To which, my reply is, I have stayed home to the greatest possible degree. 
Why can't you?  How much better off would we be if all unnecessary trips were avoided?


----------



## Ken555 (Jun 29, 2020)

bbodb1 said:


> As I said previously, *Stay home - that has the largest impact. That message has been lost.*



Yes, staying home is the best advice. I don't think that message has been lost at all, I just think many are ignoring it. It's good to repeat the advice.
* 
*


> The wearing of masks has played a part in people letting down their guard with respect to returning toward what used to be normal routines.  I am not suggesting the wearing of masks is without some health benefits - but increasing the number of trips out of the house _*because of confidence and trust in a mask creates more risk as opposed to staying home.*_  We still are not anywhere near the point of resuming normal routines and the best (safest) practice is still to *Stay Home. *



I agree that  some believe that a mask protects them when out and so will leave their home more frequently than they would otherwise, even though *every* mask ad, recommendations from local and federal governments, and other  sources are very clear that it does not. *A mask protects *others* and only works when everyone close to you wears them while maintaining social distance. *However, new evidence (see Dr Blix's quote below) points to a potential benefit for the wearer, as well.



> Please show me where I said this - now I have discussed that I will follow an establishment's rules on the matter because it is their right as a business to establish rules to be a customer.  More specifically, I choose to dine on the outdoor patio (mask free) at McAlister's since I did not want to enter the location and they were fine with this arrangement.  Perhaps you interpreted this in some other way, but just to be clear, I have no problem following the posted rules of a business or an establishment.  If that means a mask is required for entry, then I will either patronize the business outside (in the fresh air, with the benefit of the U.V. rays from the sun) or take my business elsewhere.  I have not and will not complain to a business about their policies in this area - again, this is their prerogative.



My apologies. I just reread a few of your earlier posts and you were very clear. In this five minute review of your posts, I did find these questionable comments...









						Masks and male behavior
					

Here you go One quick search [Personal insult removed]  https://childmind.org/article/why-kids-need-to-spend-time-in-nature/   I will leave your insult alone as it says way more about you than me.  May I suggest decaf next time.     Look at my reply and you will see that I volunteer in many...




					tugbbs.com
				





> Do I feel like I am placing others at risk?  No, because as noted above, I am maintaining extra social distance everywhere possible and practical.
> If others choose to encroach upon my space, _they_ are assuming the risk.











						The Logic of My Mind: Masks
					

....Since humans are biologically wired to avoid illness and disease, the mask has become the symbol of cleanliness, safety and caring.  Unconsciously, we may think:  Mask wearers are safe people. They do not want to harm me or anyone else. They are good people who I can trust.  eh, I can't go...




					tugbbs.com
				





> [...]I see the mask and associate its presence with disease, filth and weakness. We 'mask up' when we don't want (or can't stand) a smell, need to avoid fumes or other things that should not be inhaled.  We 'mask up' to protect our 'weak' self from something external so powerful or overwhelming.  I see masks as more a portent of suffering or even death.



I now see that your aversion to masks is more than I had thought.









						The Logic of My Mind: Masks
					

It's too bad we can't all try to be a little objective on this topic. It's obvious to me that the author is quite frustrated and needed to vent.  It was written by a health care worker.  I'm sure they are frustrated and need to vent..............a lot.  I feel (my opinion) that it's a slap in...




					tugbbs.com
				





> I did not - and do not - wear a mask.  To be clear, I am not saying my decision is right or wrong but given the circumstances in our area, applying the standard noted by Dr. Blix above with respect to wearing a mask *in the places I regularly visit, at the time(s) regularly visited and with the usual population density in these establishments during these visits* does not seem to be a necessary act *because a minimum social distance -and more- can be maintained at all times*.



This statement has been debunked in that social distance is not a satisfactory replacement for wearing a mask. In fact, both are still essential when near others, and it is obviously difficult to adhere to this in many venues (supermarkets, etc). The CDC now "recommends that people wear cloth face coverings in public settings when around people outside of their household, especially when other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain." Of course, these are just minimum recommendations, as it is better and advisable to have more than six feet separation from others while still wearing a mask. When coughing, sneezing or even speaking loudly you are able to spread viruses more than six feet from you.

Also, Dr Blix has changed her recommendation since May. From yesterday:



> While she spoke, Birx reiterated Abbott's plea to the public to wear masks, saying that new research has found wearing a mask not only protects those around you, but partially protects yourself as well.
> 
> "I'm really appealing to every Texan to wear a mask," she said.



Here's a one minute video interview from just two days ago with Dr Blix re the importance of wearing masks. This is also a great example of how scientific research may change recommendations.









						To wear a mask or not? Dr. Birx weighs in on the mask debate
					

In a wide-ranging interview on The Issue Is, Dr. Birx also discussed the importance of wearing face masks as a method of curbing the spread of coronavirus.




					www.foxla.com
				






> *But I am not comfortable placing myself in an environment where masks are required.*



Yes, it seems you have personal reason(s) to have an aversion to masks. Sadly, you may find in the near future that they are mandatory in many places, not just in the USA. I would suggest you consider what would make you more comfortable wearing a mask (perhaps a different design? more comfortable mask?). Perhaps even the new recommendation by Dr Blix might influence your opinion?

Of course, the best advice is your own! Stay home.



> To which, my reply is, I have stayed home to the greatest possible degree.



Excellent.



> Why can't you?  How much better off would we be if all unnecessary trips were avoided?



Now you've made an incorrect assumption, though I haven't posted much about my own situation in a while. My last in-person meeting and visit to a restaurant was on March 9. Since then I have left my home five (5) times. I have only twice entered a commercial building (medical requirements; I went for meds and a vaccine and then a visit for regular blood tests and a C19 antibody test (= negative)). I have all grocery items delivered via Instacart, Shipt, and Imperfect Foods. Included in the five excursions I visit a local farm which has excellent produce (and this time of year fabulous California strawberries!), and since it's an outdoor venue with very few people (the most I've seen at one time is ~6) I'm not worried...and *every single person (including employees) are wearing a mask* (of course, it's mandatory in California). I intend to go out today to pickup medicine (which erroneously wasn't delivered via mail and I need today) though there's a possibility the local independent pharmacy I'm using can deliver; if I go out today I will stop at the farm and get more produce.

So, I am staying home. I'm staying home much more than most people I know. *I'm not doing *any* unnecessary trips. *I am following the advice in the strictest possible way I can. I've canceled every trip I had scheduled since March and will not be traveling anywhere until next year at the earliest, not even within driving distance (unless circumstances change sufficiently to permit it). And, at this point, with such abysmal adherence to the safety recommendations and with our national numbers increasing I suspect I won't be able to travel until after we have a vaccine. While I am not surprised, I am extremely disappointed with my fellow Americans.


----------



## CanuckTravlr (Jul 3, 2020)

bbodb1 said:


> Actually, I do know because I take my time when shopping and make the effort to be aware of my surroundings and avoid people.  I make a list and know where the products I need are located before I enter a store because I shop stores I am familiar with.  It isn't that hard to avoid people if you choose the proper time and don't live in such a crowded area.
> The point here is NOT to suggest that masks are not important (or fail to help) *it is that staying (sheltering) at home is a superior alternative to avoiding exposure.   *Avoid crowds, stay home, shop during slow periods - these pieces of advice have been too quickly discarded in favor of placing too much dependance on the protection level offered by a mask.
> 
> Stay home - that has the largest impact.  That message has been lost.



Sorry, still just excuses, IMO.  Why do you have such a problem with doing such a simple thing as wearing a mask?  Limiting your social contacts ("bubble") and avoiding unnecessary trips outside your home are the most important parts, but you are missing the other part of the equation.  Despite the fact it has worked everywhere else in the world, the US for some reason doesn't seem to want to get the message that when outside your home you need to not only exercise proper physical distancing, but also wear a mask!  Why do you think your numbers continue to rise?

For those of us looking in from outside of the USA, we just shake our heads at the inability of one of the most advanced nations on earth to get their act together on a consistent, national basis.  Instead, everyone seems to want to find umpteen reasons under the sun for not doing this simple act.  Even if you are in a more rural area, there are still people around.  Wearing a mask is not as much about you not getting the disease, it is more about you not giving it unwittingly to someone else, particularly in an enclosed, indoor area.  It's also about setting an example for others, so they don't have an excuse to not wear one, but aren't being as careful as you.


----------



## mav (Jul 3, 2020)

Updated travel ban info.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/americans-know-europes-travel-ban-192412275.html


----------



## nerodog (Jul 3, 2020)

mav said:


> Updated travel ban info.
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/americans-know-europes-travel-ban-192412275.html


Thx Mav... good info to share.


----------



## mav (Jul 4, 2020)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/5-americans-flew-private-jet-114709908.html


----------



## jme (Jul 10, 2020)

bbodb1 said:


> The one thing that caught my attention here was your point on wearing masks.  I do not wear a mask in public because on those few occasions when I leave the house, I do the shopping required for our home when crowds are very light (but I also need to remind you I live in a rather rural area).  I maintain social distance throughout each trip but I need to acknowledge this is rather easy to accomplish in my area.  Obviously, a lot more people live in places where this is NOT possible.
> I wanted to make this point because mask wearing (as useful as it may be) still is less effective than social distancing (and from my perspective, the greater the social distance, the better) and social distancing is less effective than staying at home.




Another reminder that you continue to dismiss mask-wearing despite the overwhelming statistics and advice 
to do this ONE THING that can truly help. Social distancing is helpful, but not even close to the mask-wearing.
I guess there is no convincing you, so I wish you luck.  
You are not only endangering yourself, but if you do get infected, even as an asymptomatic carrier, you will be a threat to others, 
and THAT is what infuriates me. Guess you don't care about that. The last line below is applicable to your belief. 
As a healthcare provider, I see you as part of the problem. 

*yet another article:*
https://www.foxnews.com/health/wearing-mask-cuts-own-risk-novel-coronavirus-65-percent-experts-say

Excerpts:
"We've learned more due to research and additional scientific evidence and now we know [that] not only wearing a mask prevents the person wearing the mask to transmit to others, but wearing the mask protects the person who's wearing it," said Dean Blumberg, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at UC Davis Children’s Hospital.
"So the wearer of the mask, even the standard rectangular surgical masks ... will decrease the risk of infection by the person wearing the mask by about 65 percent."
Ristenpart's lab at UC Davis has studied how people emit small droplets while breathing or talking that could carry the virus.
The pair highlighted two primary methods of transmission. The first being visible droplets a carrier expels, which are roughly one-third the size of a human hair. They said masks create an effective barrier against those types of droplets.
The second is via the aerosol particles we expel when we talk. They are about 1/100th the size of a human hair and are more difficult to defend against. He said that's because the smaller particles could still sneak through a gap in rectangular or homemade cloth masks.
“Everyone should wear a mask,” Blumberg said.
*“People who say, ‘I don’t believe masks work,’ are ignoring scientific evidence. It’s not a belief system. It’s like saying, ‘I don’t believe in gravity.’"  *


----------



## bbodb1 (Jul 10, 2020)

@jme - the point you fail to recognize is social distancing and staying at home are both better solutions than mask wearing. 
As I have written multiple times now, I maintain much more than a 6 foot separation from others anytime I am out in public.  When I do have to enter a store, I take my time and ensure I can get what I need without interacting or encroaching with anyone else.  I shop during low crowd times and I have written previously I have the advantage of living in a comparatively rural area compared to most TUG'gers.

*The continued focus on mask wearing misses the fact the staying at home is the best solution, and social distancing is the next best solution.*

Wearing of masks (for some) has become akin to wearing a shield in that they go back to interacting with others in the same way they used to pre COVID-19 with the idea the mask will unfailingly protect then.  *Masks are not infallible *and while staying at home is not infallible either, I like my odds better (staying at home as much as possible) compared to people in masks going about their lives as if nothing has changed.  

I've seen too many mask wearers with the mask on partially or incorrectly (covering only nose or only mouth) or hanging off one ear (still on their body) moving around as if they still had a mask on.  

*So I will ask you, Mr. or Ms. Health Care Provider, why aren't you advocating for the safest approach possible - staying at home?*
Because lost in all of this push for masks, I am shocked the _*best*_ advice possible is not being presented....


----------



## mav (Jul 10, 2020)

Italy bans entry from 13 countries due to coronavirus fears
					

Italy on Thursday banned entry to people coming from 13 countries that it said presented an excessive rate of COVID-19 infections.  The list compiled by the health ministry comprises Armenia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Chile, Kuwait, North Macedonia, Moldova, Oman...




					www.yahoo.com


----------



## jme (Jul 10, 2020)

bbodb1 said:


> @jme - the point you fail to recognize is social distancing and staying at home are both better solutions than mask wearing.
> As I have written multiple times now, I maintain much more than a 6 foot separation from others anytime I am out in public.  When I do have to enter a store, I take my time and ensure I can get what I need without interacting or encroaching with anyone else.  I shop during low crowd times and I have written previously I have the advantage of living in a comparatively rural area compared to most TUG'gers.
> 
> *The continued focus on mask wearing misses the fact the staying at home is the best solution, and social distancing is the next best solution.*
> ...



Tired of your vapid, mindless blather.  No one here is out to "get you", only to educate you. Why? Because you need it.
Staying at home is great, it's when you go out I'm concerned, because you're relying on luck.
Distancing doesn't address the aerosol droplets that travel 20 feet. Watch some scientific videos.
Masks reduce Covid exposure up to 65%. Helps you and your potential VICTIMS alongside you.
What else would you like to know? Not my info, but that of experts far smarter than you are.
If you like to play in the traffic, go ahead.


----------



## bbodb1 (Jul 10, 2020)

jme said:


> Tired of your vapid, mindless blather.  No one here is out to "get you", only to educate you. Why? Because you need it.
> Staying at home is great, it's when you go out I'm concerned, because you're relying on luck.
> Distancing doesn't address the aerosol droplets that travel 20 feet. Watch some scientific videos.
> Masks reduce Covid exposure up to 65%. Helps you and your potential VICTIMS alongside you.
> ...



Well, good afternoon little snowflake!  And to save time, let's just reference your _other message _here as well:



> Sir you haven't a clue.
> 
> Not only for what I've been saying, but what the genius scientists, doctors, and epidemiologists all say.
> And every single one of them is far smarter than you are.  Maybe you should reread that statement.
> ...



Aren't you special with all that knowledge - and lacking the ability to effectively communicate it.  My suggestions to you would include (but not be limited to) remedial courses on reading comprehension and effective writing 101 but I feel confident (based on your arrogance) that you'll poo poo these recommendations.  Your loss.  

In the meantime, I will be employing the *safest *option available to me - staying at home - which (since you seem not to understand this) means I will not be going out in public unless absolutely necessary.  _*Do you understand these words?  *_

Let's try this one more time as well (but I'll phrase it a bit differently for you this time) - mask usage places people in more situations where transmission is possible because masks give a sense of protection to a level that masks do NOT deliver.  You (AKA the Oracle of.....well something) said it yourself that masks may indeed reduce the possibility of transmission by as much as 65% (give or take, thereabout...).  However (and hold on to your hat here...) if you are placing yourself in a greater number of situations where transmission is possible (because you are wearing that mask and feel safer), you are _*increasing *_the danger to yourself. 

And that - kind sir - is the point I have been making.  I am not refuting your science (well, I doubt it is _*your *_science but I digress), rather the (conflicting) recommendations flowing from the medical community. You hop up and down like a pre schooler who had their crayons taken away when the world doesn't listen to you.

You are quite the contradiction - with yourself - and entertaining too.  Please tell me you'll be sharing more of your random musings - but please do so publicly as we so need a laugh these days.  

In the meantime, I'll leave you with one last thought (as you seem to need it):

_Over, under, 
around and through,
Meet Mr. Bunny Rabbit, 
pull and through._

Best of luck!


----------



## mav (Jul 12, 2020)

Absence of US tourists hammers Italy's Amalfi coast
					

With its white and multicoloured houses perched on the mountainside above the crystalline waters of the Mediterranean, Italy's Amalfi coast is an ideal holiday location but it is suffering.  The beauty of the villages of Sorrento, Positano and Amalfi is world famous, but today the normally...




					www.yahoo.com


----------



## pedro47 (Jul 12, 2020)

Thanks you Europe for your decision. Americans needs to Stay Home.

"Knowledge is Power," by Bacon.


----------



## Pompey Family (Jul 12, 2020)

@bbodb1 - It is entirely plausible to utilise all three tactics to ensure the safety of yourself and others. Stay at home whenever possible, maintain a good social distance (this is nigh on impossible in stores) AND wear as mask. It needn't be one or the other. Wearing a mask does provide protection for both the wearer and those in the vicinity, it's been proven to be more effective than social distancing so why not decrease the risk of contraction/infection and wear a mask whilst continuing to maintain a safe distance?


----------



## vacationtime1 (Jul 12, 2020)

Staying at home is a good way to protect YOURSELF.

Wearing a mask in public is a good way to protect OTHERS.

When you proudly tell us that you say at home to protect YOURSELF but will not wear a mask when in public to protect OTHERS, you are telling the world a whole lot about your personal values, character, and integrity.


----------



## Passepartout (Jul 12, 2020)

vacationtime1 said:


> *Staying at home is a good way to protect YOURSELF.
> 
> Wearing a mask in public is a good way to protect OTHERS.*
> 
> When you proudly tell us that you say at home to protect YOURSELF but will not wear a mask when in public to protect OTHERS, you are telling the world a whole lot about your personal values, character, and integrity.


The issue is truly THIS SIMPLE.

Thank You!


----------



## Glynda (Jul 12, 2020)

vacationtime1 said:


> ...(snippred)...
> 
> When you proudly tell us that you say at home to protect YOURSELF but will not wear a mask when in public to protect OTHERS, you are telling the world a whole lot about your personal values, character, and integrity.



And _*that*_ is the crux of it!  How utterly selfish of anyone who refuses to wear a mask without a valid medical reason to not do so.


----------



## Makai Guy (Jul 12, 2020)

Catching up with posts from a few days ago, not the fairly innocuous ones that followed:
Y'all have just shut this thread down.  This bickering has got to stop!


----------

