it depends on the state. where i am you can dine in but most of the seating restaurants have is outdoors. or they have set it up that half the seating is inside and half outdoors

I wear one going into any buildings with other people... but I've read it's much more effective at preventing you from spreading it, not preventing you from receiving it. So when I see tons of people not wearing them my faith in humanity continues to decline.

I wear a cloth mask. What I really need to wear is one of those large plastic shields that almost look like a welder’s mask.. probably half the people I see out & about don’t have any kind of mask on, and the large plastic masks are way better at protecting you. The cloth mask offers only a slight level of protection of you, but a lot of protection of others from you.

if they released a study that said even a simple bandana reduced chances to spread it by 99.99% the number of people wearing masks wouldnt change.

"i dont have it, so i dont need a mask, im not even coughing" is just way too common of a mentality.

In this respect eastern countries really have one over on us. The sense of the greater society and responsibility that goes beyond your immediate self is lost on far too many Americans, even in highly educated individuals. Personally I think public shaming isn't nearly strong enough in the West. If we're gonna have a problem with suicide I'd much rather have it be due to kids feeling bad they didn't get into a good school like Japan instead of people with mental illness and having gun access like we have here.

There's a weird dipole here. ive always heard that asian countries had almost no philanthropic people because they were so focused on only helping immediate family, and yet all comply with mask orders. my guess is a mask is justified by protecting family, because everything ive read goes against asian patriotism being greater than the US.

In general eastern countries have a greater sense of societal duty and honor, but not necessarily to individuals within the society. They don't necessarily feel an obligation to each homeless person, but they feel an obligation to the system that is in place that should help homeless people, but also a judgement against the homeless people for not contributing to the society the way they are. So they feel like they shouldn't actively harm others in the society, but also fee like others should take that same responsibility and pull themselves up.

Meanwhile in the west we feel an obligation to the individuals, helping through charity, but not to the greater system that should help the people, and also share the judgement of those people not contributing. Although from a different source, since we think letting people do as they please should allow everybody to be successful and if they aren't their suffering is their own fault.

Culture is weird.

when we had a middle class in america, say pre 1980 or so for a window, charity did a great job of filling in the blanks of a relatively welfare free government. if you were a burned out poor drunk in the 1960s its because you were a lazy fuck that wouldnt go down to the mines every day like every other working age male 18-60 years old. church charities and food banks did a great job of providing for families where the man died in a mine shaft collapse, but it doesnt do anything for a mine that closes and leaves a town on life support all across the board.

this is the point where the capitalist snake eats its own tail, full automation is when it swallows its own head.

I mean, the time you are referencing was the time right before Reagan made a massive effort to defund the programs that kept people out of those situations, including mental health services. So... I don't really agree that it was private charity. Private charity is larger than ever today and we have a much worse problem.