Fear The Chorizo

We're in the middle of a dead ball era. It's not so much a dead ball era as it is a quickly thrown together season that doesn't allow for any in-game video analysis that many hitters would lean on in the clubhouse between at bats. Great players in MLB having bad seasons have said as much. Not having that information readily available makes it more difficult to discern how hitters are being pitched or how a pitcher is setting up at bats - that leads to hitters not being as selective on specific pitches or locations. In general, throw 2020 stats out with the bathwater and worry about how players are developing/trending around this time next year, after what is hopefully a more routine regular season.

The Vikings have given the Saints problems in recent years because they had great coverage linebackers and safeties who can take away the gimme throws to TE's, RB's, and slot receivers that are the bread and butter of the Saints offense with Brees. Brees is still a really good QB even with him being old, but even in his prime he wasn't a passer who was going to sling the ball 20+ yards downfield on every play - it's the reason the Chargers let him walk, especially following that throwing shoulder injury that wasn't going result in Brees finding more arm strength after it healed. Brees' inability to sling the ball downfield is why Taysom Hill gets on the field so much, and it's a limiting factor for the Saints when facing defenses with decent secondaries. Next Sunday night will be a big test against the run facing a really good Saint O-line. If they can't stop the run the defense will be in for a long night regardless of whether Thomas is playing or not. I should say that even if the Packers' D has a bad night, it wouldn't guarantee them a loss - because I think the Packers are going to play well offensively, too.

This isn't just Packers-specific, but in general defenses appear to be getting dictated to early this year. It will be interesting tracking not only sack totals, but overall QB pressures per game on average. Taking crowd noise out of the NFL game gives a huge advantage to offensive lines getting great jumps on the snap, and it also puts Dlines on a passive footing against QBs that like to work a hard count. The mix of blitzes that can't be disguised as easily, limited Oline false starts and even late starts at the snap that often lead to pressures or other offensive penalties, and the inability for Dlineman to get a jump on the snap for fear of hardcounts that can be used on basically every play are going to make it hard for defensive fronts to dominate the line of scrimmage and cause havoc in the backfield. There are many times when flipping through games that it looks more like 7 on 7 than a typical NFL game resembles.

That was a really frustrating element from 2019. It was hard to ever really feel like we were good more than lucky. We won most of our games, but everything against every team seemed to come down to the wire. More often than not that was due to the 2019 Packers offense not being able to dictate the flow of the game. So far this year that is markedly different. 14-4 and a lopsided game away from going to last year's Super Bowl IS way more good than lucky - they just weren't good enough in year 1 of a new offensive system. It was a weird season as a Packer fan because for so long we got used to having an injury-riddled but talented team with holes in key places that always led to the feeling of being shorthanded in the playoffs. In 2019 the real "luck" part to me was the roster mostly staying healthy throughout - but the frustrating part was seeing an offense with all its parts not being dominant with a healthy Rodgers leading it because he took a noteable step back in his level of play. It also was apparent their talent level wasn't where it needed to be on the outside due to a combination of personnel and experience. As others have stated, if MVS is a competent downfield threat and the TE personnel do a better job at catching the ball, this is a different offense than last season because of how balanced it can be - even if the WR room didn't get a huge addition. On the flip side so far this year, I think the Vikings have a chance to be really bad and the Lions can't get out of their own way under Matt Patricia. I'm really looking forward to next Sunday night to see how they play against what appears to be another good Saints team before getting too optimistic on how a reasonably healthy season from this version of the Packers may wind up - thus far a seemingly healthy and rejuvenated Rodgers looks notably better moving within the pocket and getting the ball out on time.

With Rodgers off to a good start, it sets up the run game beautifully in these three wr sets where a TE or one of the big wr's serves as a blocker on 6 and 7 man fronts with lots of secondary personnel in the game. Last year they didn't have that dimension where teams feared getting burned in the passing game if they countered with run d personnel in those formations. This two dimensional offense with rodgers playing well behind an oline off to a great start is refreshing to see.

And several thousand chiefs fans who didn't go to the game tested positive in the last week or so, im sure. Therefore, nfl stadiums are safer than real life, so get more fans in the stands i guess?

It’s waaaaay too early to start thinking this way, but if the 49ers take a injury and hangover-driven step back, and we can make Seattle and New Orleans go to Lambeau in January... With no or even limited fans in the stands, homefield advantage is basically pointless. Would be nice for a winter playoff game outside against the Saints, otherwise I'd actually rather the Packers play playoff games in indoor/warmer stadiums that are empty to maximize Rodgers' ability to orchestrate without elements being a factor.

Saw that both Bosa and Solomon Thomas got carted off in the 49ers game with knee injuries and were instantly ruled out...there are a ton of noteable injuries in early games this week, actually.

The Lions secondary allowed Trubisky to throw three 4th quarter TD passes, notably after Detroit became further decimated by injuries at corner. They were thin to begin with back there and are looking porous for Sunday. I'm predicting the Packers continue to roll offensively, and people have another week to complain about the garbage time defensive performance. Detroit should be able to hang in the game because they have a decent offense, but their defensive personnel right now should make for plenty of opportunities for Rodgers to pick on weak links due to injuries and lack of experience.

But there's a much stronger possibility that there will be a vaccine that might allow for more significant numbers of fans in the stands, which would have led to more revenue. Starting in October truly guarantees nothing, but creates a lesser chance of fans in the stands and a higher chance that the season will be cancelled early or that games will be missed. I'll just agree to disagree with you on that - the Fall 2021 football season will be the one a potential vaccine will allow to have fans in larger numbers return to the stands, assuming the initial vaccine is effective enough to enable large crowds gatherings to resume. Based on everything we've seen since March, I'd wager stadiums aren't allowed to have anywhere near full capacities by Fall 2021, vaccine or no vaccine. Delaying an attempted start date for the Big Ten season to January or February doesn't alter that mentality. It's not like we get a vaccine in November and then instantly arenas are getting sold out for games 1-2 months later. Some NFL stadiums had some fans in the stands this past week - let's see how that continues to play out before stating a game on October 24th in no way can have 25,000 fans in a stadium that can hold 100K.

Uhhh. Then games will be cancelled because of Covid? Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. So how do they determine a conference champion then? Play the games they can and then have a conference championship game based on standings to decide the winner? That's a much better way to determine a champion than not trying to play games at all, IMO. Delaying things 3-4 more months guarantees nothing in terms of improved safety specific to COVID because it's still going to be around, so the dynamic of whether fans can or can't be in stadiums isn't a factor in the decision to move forward with a season this fall or waiting until early 2021. The reality of the NHL, NBA, MLS, PGA, tennis, champions league and other soccer leagues, MLB, the NFL and other major college football conferences all resuming games/matches over the past few months without any of these leagues having to shut down again yet due to COVID is what is driving the Big Ten's decision to try having a fall season. That and the TV $$$ that comes with it. Many of these leagues have had games cancelled or players out due to COVID, but they've been able to manage collectively. Football is different than other sports due to fewer games and more players, no doubt - but at some point you've got to weigh and understand the risks, trust the protocols put into place, and just line up and play. If players or coaches aren't comfortable with it due to individual situations, they should have every right to sit out and request a medical redshirt - for the players and coaches who want back on the field, they should be given the opportunity to do so. We have to remember, there was basically no spring football this year either - the roster churn in major college football almost dictates having to play some sort of season this fall to avoid many of the good-not-great upperclassmen completely losing their opportunity to play on the big stage (even if the stands are empty), something they had probably been working towards since the day the signed a letter of intent out of high school 5-6 years ago. Waiting to resume play until late October also gives the Big 10 the benefit of seeing what happens in the SEC/ACC/Big 12 and frankly the NFL over the next 1.5 months, too - if those conferences/league fall flat on their faces in the next few weeks and have to shut down football, it wouldn't be impossible to rethink/regroup and attempt a spring football season, either. I know a guy on a Big Ten football team right now who has been quarantined for 6 straight weeks because his roommates keep getting it. He hasnt had it yet but probably will soon. I'd recommend him finding a 1BR studio for the next month or two - sounds like that apartment's definition of quarantine isn't exactly by the book, or he's got way too many roommates.

I'm no fan of Smashmouth either, but I hope people take results of this discussion paper for what they are worth in terms of researching viral spread - which is a grain of salt. It reeks of largely being drafted a few months ago with predetermined results by people that I'd wager arent Sturgis regulars once they found out the rally was going to happen. Then they barely waited two weeks after it ended to get a decent estimate of the number of rallygoers attending before filling in the numeric blanks and getting it published by a labor economics think tank. What I think is most scary is how many sites and news outlets ran with it immediately for click bait like it was gospel. https://slate.com/technology/2020/09/sturgis-rally-covid19-explosion-paper.html Purely from a public health standpoint, Sturgis 2020 was a bad idea (not nearly to the tune of $12b dollars and hundreds of thousands of covid cases, though)...then again i think having half a million bikers from all over the country ride to the same place at the same time in any year without a pandemic is a bad idea for public health. However, pinning ~20% of US covid cases over the past month or so solely on a motorcycle rally isn't science nearly as much as it is weak statistical analysis and modeling to satisfy blatant confirmation bias.

It's ok to be excited about any pitcher throwing backdoor cutters on 3-2 counts at 94, no matter how weird a season it is. Burnes looks fantastic this year - when you really think about it, he's on the same track Woodruff's career was, where this is the season Burnes would hopefully take a full next step and establish himself as a good starter at the MLB level. One thing this year is likely pointing out is how much video work/analysis was being done during game action in the dugout/clubhouses across MLB. Quite a few players are already talking about how not having that is impacting their games.

It's not popular because it's not true. There's no rule that your #1 option needs to be a great perimeter player. The problem isn't Giannis, the problem is that Giannis is asked to be the main facilitator late in the game. Shaq was a terrible shooter. He was a #1 option even before Kobe became the 2nd greatest 2 guard of all time. The problem is the over-reliance on Giannis in late game situations and 4 players standing around. That means you're going to have to make tough, contested shots MOST of the time and you're not going to get the easy buckets you saw Matthews, DiVincenzo and Hill get at times in game 5 when they were actually moving. Asking a poor free throw shooter to be the main facilitator late in the game is definitely the problem - that's why in order for Giannis to be a great postseason #1 option, he's got to improve his free throw shooting. Comparing Shaq to Giannis isn't fair, because Shaq didn't have the ball in his hands late in games to initiate offensive sets. The way the Bucks play offense, Giannis is a perimeter player because he has to create opportunities for most everyone else on the floor - Giannis' game shines most nights because he's a big that can handle the ball, distribute as an effective point-forward, and create matchup issues for opponents. Unfortunately the flaws in his game related to free throw and perimeter shooting are too easy to see with him being responsible for creating offense with the ball in his hands.

Who cares about who is playing 2nd and 3rd fiddle if the alpha hasnt truly proven to be an NBA playoff alpha?? If Giannis doesn't improve his free throw shooting and find a way to develop a better midrange game, he isn't a solid #1 offensive option in the NBA playoffs. Not a popular opinion, i know, but that's played out the past two postseasons. Also, Budenholzer's philosophy has proven to be good for regular season success in ATL and MKE, but it gets ground down in playoff series against teams capable of restricting the pace and flow of the game and forcing the bucks to run offensive sets. I think alot more changes need to be made than what regular season records indicate for the bucks to be true title contenders.

While I appreciate the players' desire to find some way to take a stand, the "take my ball and go home" approach doesn't solve anything and likely reduces the gravity of their platform's influence across many of the same demographics they'd hope to impact in a positive way. I find myself conflicted in that part of me wants to give the players kudos for taking measures that directly impact their workplace/livelihoods in order to draw attention to this cause, which at its root is entirely just but is all too easily corrupted by today's political discord... But then the other part of me asks what the endgame is with this sort of boycott that is centered around "demanding change", but doesn't really have a sense of what that change needs to be - and the beef obviously isn't with league ownership or the front office, so the direct impact of not playing winds up hurting the league (including the players) much more acutely than influencing society to change course. Unless they and the rest of the NBA players are willing to quit on this season and NBA indefinitely and lay out some sort of guidance for things that need to happen in order for them to return to the court, this seems like a blip that will be glossed over 1 week from now when playoff games are still happening and just wind up expanding various divides between us all until the next incident further fans these flames.

But an issue will be that if it's only ballpark 50% effective. Honestly, for a virus that maybe only leads to symptomatic responses to 50% of the people who come in contact with it, if the 1st round of this coronavirus vaccine is 50% effective it would be a fabulous (an probably unrealistic) result. My concern with relying too heavily on a vaccine is for society to assume that everyone getting it will suddenly make COVID-19 magically go away, and then have a followup overreaction to new cases continuing to crop up. A vaccine for this virus should be viewed as a tool to curtail COVID-19 outbreaks and keep them manageable even after allowing public life to resume closer to what it looked like a year ago.

Sweden's Tuesday weekly new confirmed case totals since late June following a moderate ramp-up in testing (I picked Tuesdays because those are their high reporting days on a weekly basis due to weekend data lags and basically includes 2 days of results): 6/23 - 2,889 (their high daily reporting mark for new COVID-19 cases, significant for a country with ~10 million people that are pretty well spread out. Roughly the US equivalent of 100K new confirmed cases in a day, a total the US hasn't really come close to reaching since testing capacity actually got to those levels) 6/30 - 2,530 7/7 - 1,642 7/14 - 928 7/21 - 767 7/28 - 398 8/4 - 590 hospitalization and death trends for that country are trending even more rapidly in the right direction, too. Spain's Monday weekly new confirmed case totals in that same timeframe (picked Monday because that's typically their weekly high water mark): 6/22 - 232 6/29 - 200 7/6 - 1,244 7/13 - 2,045 7/20 - 4,581 7/27 - 6,361 8/3 - 8,532 (this is worse than where the US is at in terms of per capita new cases per day - keep in mind the US is testing at a much higher rate than Spain, too). As of yesterday, confirmed case rate rolling average totals in European countries over the last 14 days: 1. Sweden: Down 46 percent 2. The Netherlands: Up 205 percent 3. Belgium: Up 150 percent 4. Spain: Up 113 percent 5. France: Up 72 percent 6. Germany: Up 59 percent 7. Finland: Up 160 percent 8. Denmark: Up 81 percent 9. Norway: Up 61 percent 10. U.K.: Up three percent France appears to be headed in the wrong direction again, although not quite to the level of Spain. France is tough to gauge on a case count basis, however, as their testing capacity has been very low compared to other western European countries per capita. To date Italy has kept a very good handle on new confirmed cases, however recent news indicates their people are growing quite restless of mitigation measures still in place. Germany and England have also kept a pretty good handle on things. The difference between these countries and Sweden is that they have denser population centers and they've had sustained lockdowns to get their case trends to where they are - that means they likely have a larger group of people at risk of initial exposure and a better chance at new community infection spikes whenever they do decide to try resuming increased activities. In addition, most of these European countries suffered pretty significant death tolls right away before they imposed lockdowns - areas of Italy, France, Great Britain, and Spain exceeded New York/New Jersey in terms of fatality rates. The hardest hit portions of those countries may not be as susceptible to COVID case resurgences that lead to hospitalizations/death. Germany was the primary large western European country who seemed to avoid significant deaths across their population back in March/April, so they may be most susceptible to seeing a big 2nd surge once their working age populations obtain a more widespread exposure to the virus. What will be very interesting as this year progresses is seeing what happens to Sweden relative to other European countries that enacted more severe lockdown measures in terms of periodic case/hospitalization spikes. Sweden's perceived spike in mid to late June in terms of cases in reality was already the downside of population-wide infection, limited testing up until June masked the size of their true initial highpoint sometime in early April or even March based on the timing of when their highest daily deaths were recorded (similar timeframe to many other European countries). On a per capita level, the gamble Sweden made with their no lockdown/mask-indifferent approach across their general population was that they presumed a quick fix (vaccine, miracle treatment) wasn't going to present itself in the near future that would drastically lower infection/hospitalization risks, and the best approach was to just social distance to prevent everyone from getting infected at once and carry on. Hell, even if we get a vaccine that's pretty effective against COVID in the next few months it won't suddenly give everyone immunity to getting infected. Sweden has both the population density and overall public health level to "play the long game" - and in addition their culture lends itself better to living life practicing social distancing measures for an extended period of time. Countries like Norway and Finland often get pooled together as an example of how locking down could have kept Sweden's COVID death/hospitalization numbers much lower than what they presently are, but that's in a vacuum that doesn't consider future conditions - what happens if Sweden is able to keep doing their thing while their case counts dwindle despite never locking down and these other nordic countries struggle with delayed reopenings to prevent the inevitable spread as this drags into fall/winter? For what it's worth, Sweden never fully shut down in-person schools for children under 16 and has no sort of nationwide mask mandate, since these are the current hot button issues many of us with kids are dealing with. In other parts of the world, unfortunately India appears to be in the midst of a significant outbreak - likely beginning a long time ago but their daily new case totals are finally spiking as their testing capacity has been slowly catching up. India has both the population density and limited medical infrastructure to create a medical catastrophe in that country, however thankfully their saving grace in terms of avoiding massive COVID-related deaths may be how young their population is - particularly how few people in that country are older and have many of the comorbidities COVID is most lethal to (overweight, heart disease, diabetic, immunocompromised due to other significant ailment, etc). The primary reason we aren't seeing widespread death due to COVID in many developing countries is there just isn't the life expectancy in them to have large groups of 80+ year olds with other health issues around to get infected relative to their overall population.

That's kind of what I was expecting to read after a few more days once it became apparent this wasn't a significant issue to more than one team at this point, even their opponent. None of the onfield protocols, mask/no mask debate, or misguided pull quotes about how MLB players feel excess anxiety/fear due to COVID mean squat when people don't have the self-discipline and self-awareness to make better decisions that protect themselves on their own time.

Tinfoil hat time - the Marlins' ownership planted COVID inside their clubhouse at the start of the season so guys they plan to trade in a few weeks have already dealt with the virus and have antibodies in their system, theoretically increasing their value. I wouldn't even kid about this if it was any team but the Marlins dealing with a teamwide set of COVID cases right now... In all seriousness, now seems as good a time as any for teams looking to unload bad contracts and not have any concern about receiving equal value in return from a prospect standpoint, simply to reduce financial obligations headed into very uncertain waters with how MLB's business model will be structured a couple seasons from now. There will be some teams that view their window to try and compete for a title is now or never, that will probably be ok with taking on veteran salary if it fills an immediate roster hole. IMO it's unlikely Opening Day 2021 looks any different to MLB than right now from a COVID standpoint (which is incredibly depressing) - couple that with their current CBA expiring after next season and obvious friction between the players and owners that could result in extended labor problems, and it's not that difficult to predict that regular season games with fans in the stands might not be happening for a few years. I really don't see trades involving prospects of any significance or bonus pool money happening - too much uncertainty.

I see the Brewers' situational approach at the plate hasn't changed much with the new extra innings format....sheesh

14 cases is not containing. I doubt the final tally of this stays at 14 cases, but regardless 14 cases is maybe 1% of the MLB player/coach/staff routine testing pool. Suspending a season because a good chunk of 1 team had a bunch of positive cases over a weekend is akin to MLB sticking their collective head in the sand and giving up before they really ever started trying to play a reduced season in this environment, IMO. Now, had these same 14 cases been spread across 6-8 teams playing in 3-4 MLB cities following opening weekend and the uncertainty of how many other players in almost a third of the league's teams were about to test positive 2-4 days from now, then you've got a more alarming issue. Given the fact this Marlins "outbreak" likely began in ATL with the Marlins' final exhibition game before the season even started, the level of frequent testing required to identify a bunch of cases amongst one organization after just a 3 game series is actually pretty good given the varied incubation time for coronavirus following an exposure that has the potential to result in a positive COVID case. The season would be toast had another week to 10 days gone by with the Marlins and Phillies playing games against 2-3 more teams and suddenly most of the teams along the AL/NL east block of teams would have potential exposures. It's only been a couple days, but have any of these Marlins' organization cases even experienced symptoms that would cause individuals to require COVID testing in just about any other workplace/setting outside of professional sports aside from a prejob screening or preprocedure medical screening? To me this should be a lesson-learning experience on how limited population-wide test tracing measures are when trying to track asymptomatic/mild case spread on a community level amongst young and able-bodied people. MLB has no choice but to deal with managing the Marlins' situation using the procedures they have put into place with expanded rosters and seeing how things shake out over the next few days. This won't be the last time this happens, and as ugly as this looks right now the testing protocols have worked as well as they could to limit spread. Something like this probably gets traced back to an asymptomatic spreader on their flight from ATL-Philly, or their trainer having it, or a yet to be revealed night out at a club for a handful of people in the Marlins' organization that has nothing to do with the game between the lines. Most of them seem to have kids and specifically younger ones? Specific to COVID, I'd be much more worried about players who live with and care for their parents/elderly relatives.

Oh come on, man. What about Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia? Those states have also spiked, but not to the degree as the ones I've mentioned that have much larger populations of people (dual nationals and Mexican/US citizens) frequenting both countries even during this pandemic. It might be "essential" travel only, but ports/transportation hubs/agricultural commerce is still humming along at a solid clip to keep the grocery stores and Amazon warehouses stocked. The fact is that AZ, TX, and CA all share a geographic border with a neighboring country going through a case surge, and they have multiple commercial hubs that create conduits for commerce entering/exiting the US routinely via rail and road. New Mexico also shares that border, but they aren't nearly as prominent in terms of being a commercial hub since El Paso, TX basically sits directly south of Albuquerque and there's a whole lot of nothing in terms of civilization in between. Railroad and trucking company clients I work with are having difficulties with staff turnover/COVID exposure tracking on both sides of the US/Mexico border in CA and TX. If you are looking for a political or ethnic position in my earlier post you are trying too hard to read between the lines and definitely barking up the wrong tree. Specifically looking at Mexico's COVID data and how poorly representative it is, they have yet to complete 1 million tests as a country and have just over a 40% positive rate with the testing they have completed - largely conducted on people who are in distress and hospitalized and their immediate families they share living space with. This is in a country of ~150 million people. Asymptomatic people aren't getting tested in Mexico to try and get any handle on the rate of the virus' spread on a community level. Mexico's daily new case counts have been steadily climbing since mid April, but that's largely due to gradual increases in the limited testing completed - so trying to identify a case rate spike in that country is futile. You've been saying Georgia was facing imminent disaster since March, btw... Oh, and I'm NOT blaming COVID spikes solely on migrant workers in certain areas, to be clear - I think it is certainly one factor among many in the states that had yet to see their initial surge of cases work their way through the population, though.

I think indoors in a crowd with windows closed and AC on might turn out to be the worst place to be regardless of what you have on your face. Not sure social distancing matters either in that case. Pretty much agree - and I also think it would have been much more effective to issue a no-AC, windows open/no recycled air mandate in public spaces than inconsistent mask mandates. Thinking of when Europe's case surge dwindled, it was still mid spring - so it wasn't like people returning to public settings weren't just running from their home AC unit into another closed space with AC running. Their overall AC utilization isn't anywhere close to the US, either. The US' initial return to public spaces occurred at the start of summer temps, particularly in the states that have seen the largest case spikes in recent weeks. NY/NJ is the outlier to seeing case surges returning this time of year, in large part to that part of the country being among the only areas where potential herd immunity for coronavirus is helping to limit spread. Remember way back in May that some antibody studies already pointed to 25% prevelance across the study group, and that's without factoring in the portion of a population likely with immunity from T-cells. For NY/NJ, the initial lockdown came too late to prevent widespread community infection, and those immediate March-May death counts bore that out - particularly with the policy of sending recovering infected people back to assisted living facilities instead of keeping them in hospitals. For the rest of the country, even in populated areas, the initial lockdowns limited widespread community infection and delayed it until this time of year, which was actually the lockdown's intent. The daily death tallies for states like AZ, TX, FLA, CA etc have risen - just not anywhere near the scale we saw during NY/NJ's initial wave back in April when comparing population sizes. I've stated much earlier that the best way this virus can be handled knowing a vaccine won't be readily available until the middle of this winter at the earliest is by allowing it to run through a good chunk of the population who have proven to be at very low risk of medical distress requiring hospitalization during the summer months while continuing to protect the elderly/vulnerable once it was apparent the hospital systems can effectively manage care. Building up a reasonable amount of exposure to a novel respiratory virus amongst the general population now will limit how significant its resurgence is during the fall/winter months, when seasonal flu and other viruses typically return in force as well. It's often not that difficult to adjust HVAC units to cycle fresh air in through an AC unit or at least couple it with running an air exchanger - it isn't as energy efficient and people wouldn't be as comfortable...that's apparently a bigger problem/annoyance to most than getting a respiratory virus here in the land of the free. Although I will say that the total absence of AC would probably kill more elderly/vulnerable people living in places like AZ, FLA, TX, etc this time of year than COVID given the temps. Also, when looking at AZ, TX, CA spikes recently, it's impossible not to factor in the impact of seasonal migrant worker and geography relative to Mexico, where COVID-19 has basically been running unchecked through that country for months.

Was at my local Costco today, and left just generally annoyed by people. Everyone had their mask on, to be sure - but it was impossible to consistently gain ANY separation between myself and other shoppers even though Costco does a really good job of laying out their shopping space to allow for more room, let alone maintain a consistent ~6' of space. Exhausted air might be held up a bit in a cloth mask directly out of the mouth/nose, but it still readily passes vertically or out the sides - if people are consistently too close to one another there's no point to requiring masks. Too often people still feel like wearing a mask protects themselves from being infected regardless of distance from others, and it gives them a false sense of security to tailgate others in the check out line or have no problems rolling side by side down an isle within a few feet of complete strangers. If I had a choice between being in an indoor space for any length of time with everyone not wearing cloth masks but steadfastly keeping their space, or everyone wearing a mask but constantly being within 4' of people, give me the non-mask option every time. What about rubbing alchohol? Any stores you all are frequenting that actually has that in stock?