COVID and band members

smile6680

100 Pacer said:

I got some looks from those around me for wearing a mask in GA at Fresno.

It goes both ways. Do whatever makes you feel comfortable and don't worry about other people. 

HughFreakingDillon

RatherStarved said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

SHZA said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

so it's 100% or nothing to you? the science is sound. masks stop a good amount of the droplets that contain the virus. cloth masks provide the least protection (you know, the ones our favourite band sells?). Medical masks are the next best after KN95's. 

Not at all. I just find it arbitrary to criticize someone with no mask for not doing everything possible to "stop the spread" when the same could be said about the mask wearer. If the mask isn't 100% effective, they are still incurring a risk of infection and spread that could be eliminated by staying home. But he wants to see the show, so he's willing to tolerate some level of risk of contracting the virus and spreading it to others while wearing a mask. The person without the mask is willing to tolerate a somewhat higher risk to enjoy the show without a mask. The mask wearer deeming his own risk-taking as acceptable but the maskless person's risk unacceptable is arbitrary and hypocritical. 

It's not hypocritical. masks don't necessarily help the mask wearer, they help those around the mask wearer, so the person wearing the mask annoyed at you not wearing one is annoyed because you aren't doing your part to stop it. they are. 

True, but with mask mandates mostly gone now, you can’t really have an issue with someone else deciding not to wear one.  Even though it’s kind of dumb that the mandates are gone in large indoor venues.  I’m a mask-wearing show-goer and I think SHZA has a decent point - that’s the amount of risk I’m willing to take.  It’s less risk than a non-mask wearing show-goer and more than a person who stays home 24/7.  How much more or less depends on the quality of the mask and how often I take it off for a beer.  Or three.  

yeah, I get it, and honestly I'm somewhat conflicted. I like to be that person who tries his best to make everyone comfortable. But at what point does your comfort trump mine? I was at Royal Blood in a 1500 seat venue. Some masks, but maybe about 20%. I don't know if I was being paranoid or not, but I felt the looks not wearing a mask. I'm sorry. I'm a big guy. I get hot easily. Wearing a mask at a hot and sweaty show like that is not ideal. I did it when it was mandated, but now with the option, I'd rather not. 

I just wish people would stop judging so harshly on both sides. I mean, I wear my mask on transit, and it's not mandated anymore here either. I couldn't find my mask the other day, and a guy sat down across from me and proceeded to give me the finger twice. I mean, I usually wear my mask in public indoors. And here's this asshole just assuming I'm an anti-masker. Turned me off. Now he made me indirectly annoyed at mask wearers, of which I'm one. lol

Zod

For me the telling thing was at Oakland 1, there were 3 of us.  2 didn't wear masks, 2 got Covid.. lol

Overall, at least from what I can see with myself and my coworkers, friends, family.  The Vaccines are doing there thing.  Everyone seems to be getting it, but at the same time, all the cases seem to be mild.  The biggest challenge was how it can mess up your plans.  IE I missed a big camping trip I planned with family friends the following weekend, because I didn't want to spread covid (especially with young nieces/nephews around too young to be vaccinated).

In hindsight if I've got plans for 2 back to back weekends, and the first one involves an arena level concert, I really should wear a mask. I definitely got caught up in the "fuck it" vibe at concerts.  Plus I'd been to another concert (ZZ Top/Cheap Trick) and not picked it up, so I was getting cocky.

SHZA

HughFreakingDillon said:

SHZA said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

so it's 100% or nothing to you? the science is sound. masks stop a good amount of the droplets that contain the virus. cloth masks provide the least protection (you know, the ones our favourite band sells?). Medical masks are the next best after KN95's. 

Not at all. I just find it arbitrary to criticize someone with no mask for not doing everything possible to "stop the spread" when the same could be said about the mask wearer. If the mask isn't 100% effective, they are still incurring a risk of infection and spread that could be eliminated by staying home. But he wants to see the show, so he's willing to tolerate some level of risk of contracting the virus and spreading it to others while wearing a mask. The person without the mask is willing to tolerate a somewhat higher risk to enjoy the show without a mask. The mask wearer deeming his own risk-taking as acceptable but the maskless person's risk unacceptable is arbitrary and hypocritical. 

It's not hypocritical. masks don't necessarily help the mask wearer, they help those around the mask wearer, so the person wearing the mask annoyed at you not wearing one is annoyed because you aren't doing your part to stop it. they are. 

It's hypocritical in the sense that if you're in a crowded indoor space with many others even with a mask, you're not doing your part to stop it. The person who stays home is.

Again, I'm not saying anyone should stay home, I just think there is some flawed logic in a mask wearer at a concert saying they are doing everything the right way (and criticizing the maskless) when in fact there is more that they could do if the ultimate goal is to prevent any chance of spread.  

HughFreakingDillon

SHZA said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

SHZA said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

so it's 100% or nothing to you? the science is sound. masks stop a good amount of the droplets that contain the virus. cloth masks provide the least protection (you know, the ones our favourite band sells?). Medical masks are the next best after KN95's. 

Not at all. I just find it arbitrary to criticize someone with no mask for not doing everything possible to "stop the spread" when the same could be said about the mask wearer. If the mask isn't 100% effective, they are still incurring a risk of infection and spread that could be eliminated by staying home. But he wants to see the show, so he's willing to tolerate some level of risk of contracting the virus and spreading it to others while wearing a mask. The person without the mask is willing to tolerate a somewhat higher risk to enjoy the show without a mask. The mask wearer deeming his own risk-taking as acceptable but the maskless person's risk unacceptable is arbitrary and hypocritical. 

It's not hypocritical. masks don't necessarily help the mask wearer, they help those around the mask wearer, so the person wearing the mask annoyed at you not wearing one is annoyed because you aren't doing your part to stop it. they are. 

It's hypocritical in the sense that if you're in a crowded indoor space with many others even with a mask, you're not doing your part to stop it. The person who stays home is.

Again, I'm not saying anyone should stay home, I just think there is some flawed logic in a mask wearer at a concert saying they are doing everything the right way (and criticizing the maskless) when in fact there is more that they could do if the ultimate goal is to prevent any chance of spread.  

I think the logical line is "doing what we can while still living our lives". 

SHZA

HughFreakingDillon said:

SHZA said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

SHZA said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

so it's 100% or nothing to you? the science is sound. masks stop a good amount of the droplets that contain the virus. cloth masks provide the least protection (you know, the ones our favourite band sells?). Medical masks are the next best after KN95's. 

Not at all. I just find it arbitrary to criticize someone with no mask for not doing everything possible to "stop the spread" when the same could be said about the mask wearer. If the mask isn't 100% effective, they are still incurring a risk of infection and spread that could be eliminated by staying home. But he wants to see the show, so he's willing to tolerate some level of risk of contracting the virus and spreading it to others while wearing a mask. The person without the mask is willing to tolerate a somewhat higher risk to enjoy the show without a mask. The mask wearer deeming his own risk-taking as acceptable but the maskless person's risk unacceptable is arbitrary and hypocritical. 

It's not hypocritical. masks don't necessarily help the mask wearer, they help those around the mask wearer, so the person wearing the mask annoyed at you not wearing one is annoyed because you aren't doing your part to stop it. they are. 

It's hypocritical in the sense that if you're in a crowded indoor space with many others even with a mask, you're not doing your part to stop it. The person who stays home is.

Again, I'm not saying anyone should stay home, I just think there is some flawed logic in a mask wearer at a concert saying they are doing everything the right way (and criticizing the maskless) when in fact there is more that they could do if the ultimate goal is to prevent any chance of spread.  

I think the logical line is "doing what we can while still living our lives". 

And some view continuing to wear a mask at a rock concert even after multiple vaccine doses and mandates have been dropped as not living our lives. 

josevolution

SHZA said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

SHZA said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

SHZA said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

so it's 100% or nothing to you? the science is sound. masks stop a good amount of the droplets that contain the virus. cloth masks provide the least protection (you know, the ones our favourite band sells?). Medical masks are the next best after KN95's. 

Not at all. I just find it arbitrary to criticize someone with no mask for not doing everything possible to "stop the spread" when the same could be said about the mask wearer. If the mask isn't 100% effective, they are still incurring a risk of infection and spread that could be eliminated by staying home. But he wants to see the show, so he's willing to tolerate some level of risk of contracting the virus and spreading it to others while wearing a mask. The person without the mask is willing to tolerate a somewhat higher risk to enjoy the show without a mask. The mask wearer deeming his own risk-taking as acceptable but the maskless person's risk unacceptable is arbitrary and hypocritical. 

It's not hypocritical. masks don't necessarily help the mask wearer, they help those around the mask wearer, so the person wearing the mask annoyed at you not wearing one is annoyed because you aren't doing your part to stop it. they are. 

It's hypocritical in the sense that if you're in a crowded indoor space with many others even with a mask, you're not doing your part to stop it. The person who stays home is.

Again, I'm not saying anyone should stay home, I just think there is some flawed logic in a mask wearer at a concert saying they are doing everything the right way (and criticizing the maskless) when in fact there is more that they could do if the ultimate goal is to prevent any chance of spread.  

I think the logical line is "doing what we can while still living our lives". 

And some view continuing to wear a mask at a rock concert even after multiple vaccine doses and mandates have been dropped as not living our lives. 

Really the wearing of a mask for 2.5hrs is preventing you from not living your life? Damn that’s exactly why I’d rather not attend concerts   don’t need to be around folks who might be infected..

JimmyV

Strokes headlining set at Boston Calling tonight is cancelled due to COVID. Filling in is NIN, who were the replacement act last night for Foo. 

Spiritual_Chaos

JimmyV said:

Strokes headlining set at Boston Calling tonight is cancelled due to COVID. Filling in is NIN, who were the replacement act last night for Foo. 

So NIN plays two nights?

What a damn treat. If one enjoys NIN.

100 Pacer

josevolution said:

SHZA said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

SHZA said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

SHZA said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

so it's 100% or nothing to you? the science is sound. masks stop a good amount of the droplets that contain the virus. cloth masks provide the least protection (you know, the ones our favourite band sells?). Medical masks are the next best after KN95's. 

Not at all. I just find it arbitrary to criticize someone with no mask for not doing everything possible to "stop the spread" when the same could be said about the mask wearer. If the mask isn't 100% effective, they are still incurring a risk of infection and spread that could be eliminated by staying home. But he wants to see the show, so he's willing to tolerate some level of risk of contracting the virus and spreading it to others while wearing a mask. The person without the mask is willing to tolerate a somewhat higher risk to enjoy the show without a mask. The mask wearer deeming his own risk-taking as acceptable but the maskless person's risk unacceptable is arbitrary and hypocritical. 

It's not hypocritical. masks don't necessarily help the mask wearer, they help those around the mask wearer, so the person wearing the mask annoyed at you not wearing one is annoyed because you aren't doing your part to stop it. they are. 

It's hypocritical in the sense that if you're in a crowded indoor space with many others even with a mask, you're not doing your part to stop it. The person who stays home is.

Again, I'm not saying anyone should stay home, I just think there is some flawed logic in a mask wearer at a concert saying they are doing everything the right way (and criticizing the maskless) when in fact there is more that they could do if the ultimate goal is to prevent any chance of spread.  

I think the logical line is "doing what we can while still living our lives". 

And some view continuing to wear a mask at a rock concert even after multiple vaccine doses and mandates have been dropped as not living our lives. 

Really the wearing of a mask for 2.5hrs is preventing you from not living your life? Damn that’s exactly why I’d rather not attend concerts   don’t need to be around folks who might be infected..

Agreed - it sounds ludicrous. I had no loss of enjoyment at the show and not disturbed by those around me not wearing masks. My initial comment related to those around me who seemed disturbed I was wearing a mask.

RatherStarved

Spiritual_Chaos said:

JimmyV said:

Strokes headlining set at Boston Calling tonight is cancelled due to COVID. Filling in is NIN, who were the replacement act last night for Foo. 

So NIN plays two nights?

What a damn treat. If one enjoys NIN.

18IN

JimmyV

RatherStarved said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

JimmyV said:

Strokes headlining set at Boston Calling tonight is cancelled due to COVID. Filling in is NIN, who were the replacement act last night for Foo. 

So NIN plays two nights?

What a damn treat. If one enjoys NIN.

18IN

Lol

SHZA

josevolution said:

SHZA said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

SHZA said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

SHZA said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

so it's 100% or nothing to you? the science is sound. masks stop a good amount of the droplets that contain the virus. cloth masks provide the least protection (you know, the ones our favourite band sells?). Medical masks are the next best after KN95's. 

Not at all. I just find it arbitrary to criticize someone with no mask for not doing everything possible to "stop the spread" when the same could be said about the mask wearer. If the mask isn't 100% effective, they are still incurring a risk of infection and spread that could be eliminated by staying home. But he wants to see the show, so he's willing to tolerate some level of risk of contracting the virus and spreading it to others while wearing a mask. The person without the mask is willing to tolerate a somewhat higher risk to enjoy the show without a mask. The mask wearer deeming his own risk-taking as acceptable but the maskless person's risk unacceptable is arbitrary and hypocritical. 

It's not hypocritical. masks don't necessarily help the mask wearer, they help those around the mask wearer, so the person wearing the mask annoyed at you not wearing one is annoyed because you aren't doing your part to stop it. they are. 

It's hypocritical in the sense that if you're in a crowded indoor space with many others even with a mask, you're not doing your part to stop it. The person who stays home is.

Again, I'm not saying anyone should stay home, I just think there is some flawed logic in a mask wearer at a concert saying they are doing everything the right way (and criticizing the maskless) when in fact there is more that they could do if the ultimate goal is to prevent any chance of spread.  

I think the logical line is "doing what we can while still living our lives". 

And some view continuing to wear a mask at a rock concert even after multiple vaccine doses and mandates have been dropped as not living our lives. 

Really the wearing of a mask for 2.5hrs is preventing you from not living your life? Damn that’s exactly why I’d rather not attend concerts   don’t need to be around folks who might be infected..

Not necessarily my personal view but I think it's pretty clear from traveling to recent shows that the vast majority of people feel that way. Now that airlines and arenas have dropped masking requirements, probably 90% of travelers and concertgoers are not wearing masks. Since November I've been to about a dozen arena shows in various cities (Genesis in Cleveland and Pittsburgh, Metallica in San Francisco, Tool, Journey, Elton John in St Louis, Strokes in Brooklyn, PJ in LA and Oakland). It's been pretty consistent that almost no one is wearing a mask at the shows. I wore one in December when Omicron was first picking up and it was fine. I also wore masks to club shows that required it. Then in mid-January my household got covid anyway (from my child catching it at school possibly) and it was extremely mild. Now that masks are no longer required, I haven't worn them to shows, and neither has the vast majority of the crowd. I think for people who are vaxxed and boosted and possibly had a mild case of covid already, there's a sense that if they do catch it, it's not a big deal, so the risk isn't significant enough to justify wearing a mask that will somewhat take away from fully enjoying the show. Of course, everyone's personal circumstances are different and those at higher risk for serious infections should wear masks if they choose and anyone who shames them for doing so is an a**hole. But I think the general sentiment for most at this point is that the risk of infection doesn't justify the restriction of wearing a mask. Foolish perhaps, but that's where I think most are at right now. 

smile6680

HughFreakingDillon said:

RatherStarved said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

SHZA said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

so it's 100% or nothing to you? the science is sound. masks stop a good amount of the droplets that contain the virus. cloth masks provide the least protection (you know, the ones our favourite band sells?). Medical masks are the next best after KN95's. 

Not at all. I just find it arbitrary to criticize someone with no mask for not doing everything possible to "stop the spread" when the same could be said about the mask wearer. If the mask isn't 100% effective, they are still incurring a risk of infection and spread that could be eliminated by staying home. But he wants to see the show, so he's willing to tolerate some level of risk of contracting the virus and spreading it to others while wearing a mask. The person without the mask is willing to tolerate a somewhat higher risk to enjoy the show without a mask. The mask wearer deeming his own risk-taking as acceptable but the maskless person's risk unacceptable is arbitrary and hypocritical. 

It's not hypocritical. masks don't necessarily help the mask wearer, they help those around the mask wearer, so the person wearing the mask annoyed at you not wearing one is annoyed because you aren't doing your part to stop it. they are. 

True, but with mask mandates mostly gone now, you can’t really have an issue with someone else deciding not to wear one.  Even though it’s kind of dumb that the mandates are gone in large indoor venues.  I’m a mask-wearing show-goer and I think SHZA has a decent point - that’s the amount of risk I’m willing to take.  It’s less risk than a non-mask wearing show-goer and more than a person who stays home 24/7.  How much more or less depends on the quality of the mask and how often I take it off for a beer.  Or three.  

yeah, I get it, and honestly I'm somewhat conflicted. I like to be that person who tries his best to make everyone comfortable. But at what point does your comfort trump mine? I was at Royal Blood in a 1500 seat venue. Some masks, but maybe about 20%. I don't know if I was being paranoid or not, but I felt the looks not wearing a mask. I'm sorry. I'm a big guy. I get hot easily. Wearing a mask at a hot and sweaty show like that is not ideal. I did it when it was mandated, but now with the option, I'd rather not. 

I just wish people would stop judging so harshly on both sides. I mean, I wear my mask on transit, and it's not mandated anymore here either. I couldn't find my mask the other day, and a guy sat down across from me and proceeded to give me the finger twice. I mean, I usually wear my mask in public indoors. And here's this asshole just assuming I'm an anti-masker. Turned me off. Now he made me indirectly annoyed at mask wearers, of which I'm one. lol

This is pretty much how I feel.

Poncier

JimmyV said:

Strokes headlining set at Boston Calling tonight is cancelled due to COVID. Filling in is NIN, who were the replacement act last night for Foo. 

That festival has just been cursed since the onset of Covid.

Poncier

SHZA said:

josevolution said:

SHZA said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

SHZA said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

SHZA said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

so it's 100% or nothing to you? the science is sound. masks stop a good amount of the droplets that contain the virus. cloth masks provide the least protection (you know, the ones our favourite band sells?). Medical masks are the next best after KN95's. 

Not at all. I just find it arbitrary to criticize someone with no mask for not doing everything possible to "stop the spread" when the same could be said about the mask wearer. If the mask isn't 100% effective, they are still incurring a risk of infection and spread that could be eliminated by staying home. But he wants to see the show, so he's willing to tolerate some level of risk of contracting the virus and spreading it to others while wearing a mask. The person without the mask is willing to tolerate a somewhat higher risk to enjoy the show without a mask. The mask wearer deeming his own risk-taking as acceptable but the maskless person's risk unacceptable is arbitrary and hypocritical. 

It's not hypocritical. masks don't necessarily help the mask wearer, they help those around the mask wearer, so the person wearing the mask annoyed at you not wearing one is annoyed because you aren't doing your part to stop it. they are. 

It's hypocritical in the sense that if you're in a crowded indoor space with many others even with a mask, you're not doing your part to stop it. The person who stays home is.

Again, I'm not saying anyone should stay home, I just think there is some flawed logic in a mask wearer at a concert saying they are doing everything the right way (and criticizing the maskless) when in fact there is more that they could do if the ultimate goal is to prevent any chance of spread.  

I think the logical line is "doing what we can while still living our lives". 

And some view continuing to wear a mask at a rock concert even after multiple vaccine doses and mandates have been dropped as not living our lives. 

Really the wearing of a mask for 2.5hrs is preventing you from not living your life? Damn that’s exactly why I’d rather not attend concerts   don’t need to be around folks who might be infected..

 Of course, everyone's personal circumstances are different and those at higher risk for serious infections should wear masks if they choose and anyone who shames them for doing so is an a**hole. But I think the general sentiment for most at this point is that the risk of infection doesn't justify the restriction of wearing a mask. Foolish perhaps, but that's where I think most are at right now. 

And that's what's ridiculous.
If person A chooses to wear a mask for whatever their personal reasons are, why should person B give two shits about that? Person A is not having any negative affect on person B.

OceansJenny

Broadway you still have to wear a mask and it’s not a big deal. 

Also everyone just do you. You can’t control other folks.

JimmyV

JimmyV

It just sucks that this continues to happen. I have no interest in debating masks or protocols anymore. COVID is still here, it's not going anywhere, and it causes chaos for anyone trying to make plans. 

aisleseats

JimmyV said:

Was just about to post this. Been so many postponements, cancellations and fill-ins for so many bands the last few weeks. Does not bode well for the busy summer I have planned.