@freemo

1) Wearing a mask while staying at a distance significantly decreases the risk of infecting someone else with the virus.

2) By that same twisted logic: No one should prevent me from pointing a gun at people because they are 100% capable of protecting themselves by wearing kevlar body armor and other shielding to stop the bullets.

Also, the highest rated filters N100/P100 are not 100% even when they are brand new and worn properly (assuming you can find one from a reliable source). And there is not enough supply for everyone.

Assume a population infection rate of 2% (actual rate, not positive test rate). That's like placing fifty .22 pistols on a table with one of them loaded. So you are saying it is okay to pick up one of the pistols at random and point it in random directions while pulling the trigger. Chances are it's not loaded. And if it is, chances are you won't hit anybody and if you do hit someone, there's a good chance that a .22 is not going to kill them. Therefore it's okay to pull that trigger, it okay to not wear a mask near other people. That's absurd.

Regarding amorality. It's not amoral to compel another person to abstain from negligent actions that have potentially lethal consequences.

#mask #2A #Covid19 #vaccine

@Pat No that doesnt line up with the facts..

1) We do not know the effectiveness of masks in terms of if the way the average citizen uses them if it provides more of a benefit or detriment. As I covered in the past a large majority of people wearing masks engage in several behaviors that may very well put them at more risk than not wearing a mask at all. A prime example is pulling it down to the chin to take a sip of water, or adjusting it by grabbing with the thumb inside the mask. Both would cause the virus to coat the inside of the mask if it is on your chin or thumb. As such there is a very real possiblity mask wearing by the general public has increased the spread of the virus.

2) No that makes no sense either.. a full face mask protects you with no risk and to a much greater extent than requiring others to wear a mask (presuming face masks work and are used properly). abullet proof vest does not, if you get shot you still get injured and may even die, it just protects you in some cases. You can be shot in the head, or even if shot in the vest you can (and often will) have broken bones and bruises. This is not at all equivalent to someone wearing a full face mask and therefore in **less** danger than requiring others to wear masks.

@freemo

1) The argument that says that some people wear masks incorrectly; that argument can also be used against the recommendation that people should wear N100 masks to protect themselves against the irresponsible maskless.

2)Even a full face mask is not 100%. The best melt-blown filters (N100/P100) are 99.97% effective when they are brand new and worn perfectly. A full face mask often comes in contact with hair which allows leakage. If you can come up with a solution that can stop the virus, you can certainly come with a solution that stops a .22 rimfire from pistol.

The point is, it should not be on me to wear protection to stop a lethal assault from someone else -- they should be prevented from firing those bullets (viruses) at me. And if they try to, then I have a right to use the minimal amount of force necessary to protect myself from that assault.

@Pat

1) yes it can and thus why it may be advantageous not to wear masks at all. But the point is if you beleive this to be wrong and believe masks are helping you can wear a full ace mask and therefore be protected far better than requiring others to wear masks

2) pretty much same response as before, if masks are at all effective then wearing a full face mask is far more effective than requiring others to wear masks. So the point is your argument fails no matter what assumptions you start with.

@freemo

(I just posted several studies on mask effectiveness)

My point of all of this isn't which is more effective. The point is that not wearing a mask is a lethal assault and should be treated as such. And yes I do wear a N100/P100 respirator when I'm around people in public and when someone approaches me without a mask I treat that as a lethal threat and yes I've gotten into a physical altercation with someone who tried to assault me in that manner.

And I've consulted law enforcement on the issue and their recommendation is just as I said:

1) Tell the person to stop.
2) If they continue to advance, flee the area and call 911.
3) If you can't escape, then treat it as a lethal threat and use no more force than necessary to defend yourself.

@freemo

Also, you have just as much of a right to defend yourself against someone pointing a gun at you whether you are wearing kevlar body armor or not.

@Pat

(I just posted several studies on mask effectiveness)

You will notice those studies dont actually address the concerns I pointed out. In the case where they evaluate the general population they study the effectiveness of social distancing and mask wearing and even disinfecting together, not individually. Social Distancing obviously works as would disinfecting so it is very possible the mask wearing is not effecting the situation at all or potentially making matters worse. So none of those studies are actually demonstrating effectiveness of mask wearing.

There is the study you posting of a single hair salon, but that sample size is far too small to even be considered so we wont even address that one.

My point of all of this isn’t which is more effective. The point is that not wearing a mask is a lethal assault and should be treated as such.

Yes I know that is your point, your wrong and I explained why, but I know it is your point.

And yes I do wear a N100/P100 respirator when I’m around people in public and when someone approaches me without a mask I treat that as a lethal threat and yes I’ve gotten into a physical altercation with someone who tried to assault me in that manner.

So your a dude who goes around punching people in the face for not doing what you ask of them, something which is questionable and might bring greater harm to them or not help at all, at the very least it is grossly unnecessary… not very mature. Thats like punching someone in the face for having children on the grounds that children increase the carbon footprint and thus hastens society to our death. You’d look like a lunatic, and rightfully so.

And I’ve consulted law enforcement on the issue and their recommendation is just as I said:

1) Tell the person to stop.
2) If they continue to advance, flee the area and call 911.
3) If you can’t escape, then treat it as a lethal threat and use no more force than necessary to defend yourself.

Yes of course you have every right to nicely ask someone to wear a mask and if they say “No thanks bro” you can run away and call 911 to which they will respond “Thats cool bro” and do nothing (and legally cant do anything).. and yes someone must give you the right to run away, they cant forcibly pin you down and stop you, and if they do sure, punch them, mask or no mask.

@Binkle

It depends on the virulence and prevalence of the virus, i.e., what the risk is of unprotected exposure (and how effective a mask would be to reduce the risk for any particular virus. In Asia, they continued to wear masks even after SAR-1 was under control and continue to wear masks even where COVID-19 is nearly extinguished.

There is actually a good case to be made for wearing masks during each flu season, for example, because masks are even more effective at controlling the flu and flu vaccines are not always effective , and many people die from the flu each year (but still that's only a fraction of those who have died from COVID-19).

But measles, for example, is much less prevalent and spreads much more readily than COVID-19. I haven't seen an studies on it, but I don't think ordinary cloth masks would help much to control measles. But the measles vaccine is very effective, so that's what's recommended for that disease.

@Pat explain to me in greater detail how you'd delineate between two different viruses based on virulence and prevalence, and how exactly you could make the case that your standard of risk management be the standard adopted by the public, rather than being steamrolled by those more safety-conscious than yourself.

@Binkle

Society makes these kinds of judgements all the time. We hope that they make the judgements based on reason, but sadly that's not always the case.

For example, I've heard many people argue that COVID-19 is no big deal because "98% of people who get it survive." Well, that's much worse odds than the brave solders who stormed Normandy and other areas in France during Operation Overlord in WWII. People hear 98% and it sounds like a big number but it's actually a terrible risk of dying.

Most juristidictions don't allow people to point a gun at someone even if they know it's not loaded. The risk is very small, but the consequences are enormous. We decide what is negligent and what is not. With COVID-19 and masks it's a no-brainer. In fact, the only reason why it is even a question is because the US had an imbecile in the WH with a big microphone who told everyone not wear masks. If he hadn't have done that and other mismanagement, a half-million people would still be alive today who died from COVID-19.

@Pat are you certain it couldn't be that the US has a historical tradition which takes after that of the Anglo Saxons for whom masks are a cultural sign of untrustworthiness and subservience? I dunno man, it seems like there are more angles there than you're willing to consider.

@Pat (would respond to the other points but honestly I'm exhausted and when I hear people talk as you do I usually find that discussion isn't really what the other person is aiming for, and I just don't have the energy tonight)

@Binkle

The only angle I have to consider is whether that guy who is approaching me is a threat or not.

@Pat I typed out like 3 replies trying to think of something I might be able to say to convince you to hear other people out, but by your own admission that's not something you're going to consider. It makes me sad to see, man. The closed-mindedness and the yelling. Things like this are why the world sucks right now

@Binkle
Reason is what you listen to, not yelling.

@Pat the closed-mindedness was referring to you, and the yelling was referring more broadly to the current state of discourse, although I suppose the main difference between closed-mindedness and yelling is the volume and passion you do it with

@Binkle

I'm open to the facts. If they change, then so does my mind.

What facts do you have to present?

@Pat you might consider first of all that your 98% figure is actually the upper bound of the survivability figure. You don't just take as writ that the raw death total divided by the raw case total is the actual survival rate. It's considered an upper bound for the following reasons:

1) underrepresentation of mild and asymptomatic cases in testing - this happens with every disease. Obviously if someone is sick for a couple days, they might get tested or they might not, but the existence of those untested cases skews toward underrepresentation. This is worsened by asymptomatic cases which are rarely reported.

2) widespread reports of false attribution of death, based on PCR tests of patients who are already gravely ill or died for obviously different reasons than COVID.

3) There are also financial incentives given to hospitals who are dealing with large numbers of COVID cases, ergo there are reasons based in human nature for overreporting on the ground level without resorting to any sort of conspiracy.

4) PCR test cycle overcalibration through most of the last year accentuates the gaps caused by 1 & 2. Thankfully this has been rectified, but it doesn't change the fact that the data over the past year is severely incorrect.

You might also take into account that the survival rate is not evenly distributed across the population, and that the majority of deaths occur in those who are 75 years and older. As it just so happens, the average age of death-by-COVID is still right around the average age of death nationally.

@Binkle
Also, COVID-19 was the leading cause of death last year, surpassing heart disease.

@Binkle @Pat NPC man, come on you have heard of Yuri, you should understand whats up. hysteria and superstition rule these people minds. They fundamentally have different values and metaphysical beliefs. They do not value things like freedom at the same level as you.

@Binkle @Pat let alone critical thinking skills, they are easily mental moved and are emotional invested in there sudo faith. Truth is not something they care about, facts don't matter to mind raped people.

@Pat @Binkle I got measles in college ... and had the vaccine as a baby. they quarantined my roommates. they got it, the rest of the university got booster vaccinations since I attended classes for a week while contagious but before symptoms started. almost nobody else got it that I heard about. 90's logic worked fine. no masks , no lockdowns ...