Many people are wearing masks in the stores I've visited in South Dakota. They locked down nursing homes and put strict rules in place for their employees. They've done extensive screening and testing of their employees. It didn't matter. It still got in to most of the nursing homes. Meanwhile they have patients dying from "failure to thrive syndrome". Many patients when confined to their rooms slip tremendously and quit eating.The debate I was having wasn't over the better place to live; to each their own. It was an assertion that masks do nothing. The only people that tend to say that they don't are folks that rely on Youtube videos made by people that likely had a hard time graduating from high school, but somehow are dual infectious disease experts/civil liberties scholars.
It doesn't surprise me at all that SF is older; it is expensive to live there.
I also have zero qualms about going out of the house, and wearing a mask while I do so. Locking myself in is not needed, but thanks for the advice. Maybe if SD tried it (masks), they could the model of taking precautions and lowering their case rate while staying open. But nope; it apparently has to be one or the other.
South Dakota had their biggest tourism year ever. Construction is booming. People are moving in to South Dakota from all over the country. Somebody from New York just bought a home near a friend of mine's place. Apparently they're willing to risk their lives to preserve their freedom.
Masks are not a panacea. I see way too many people who think that wearing a mask gives them a license to visit within a few feet of each other. Most of the masks people are wearing in public do little to nothing other than maybe stop extremely large droplets which IF you follow the social distancing rules don't fly that far anyway.