Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!
-
@Gurth said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Here in the Netherlands, face masks have finally been made mandatory, but in typical fashion, only in certain areas in some of the major cities, like busy shopping districts.
IMO, it makes sense to selectively require it in typically crowded areas only. If they're just required everywhere, even in places that aren't crowded, people are much more likely to ignore the requirement (and it's harder to police that). That lax attitude will then likely spread and it will become harder and harder to enforce.
Whether or not the areas in Amsterdam and Rotterdam are the only ones that warrant requiring a mask is a different question, though.
-
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin I'm not a fan of the tautological argument either.
You're assuming that it's tautological just because you don't like it.
You're literally saying the rule needs to be followed because it's the rule. This is literally a tautology. I wouldn't call it a tautology if it wasn't a tautology.
No it isn’t, because the rules are there for a reason, not for their own sake.
Do you understand now why I hate this argument?
Yes, because you left out the second part where the rules are there for a reason.
Keyword: "just". These arguments only sound wrong when "just" is false. And we both know it's wrong in case of littering. As in, it's well established there are other reasons too.
And in this case there obviously also are other reasons too.
Exactly. So stop using the tautological argument. It's dumb.
Go ahead and read what a tautology is first while you’re using that word.
A tautology: “The law is x because x is the law.”
Not a tautology: “You should do x because it’s the law.”What's law?
Go ask @error_bot if you need a dictionary.
I think you need a dictionary if you don't know why I'm saying “you should do x because it’s the law” is a tautology.
If that actually was tautological you wouldn’t be arguing against it.
TDEMS.
A tautology is true by definition.
And the definition of law makes the statement that you should follow it automatically true.
It doesn't. The definition of law means, tautologically, that the law says you should follow it. It doesn't tautologically mean that mean that you think you should follow it.
But anyways, if it's automatically true then why are you arguing against it?
That either means you're arguing something that is automatically wrong or you are arguing against something which you think is lacking the necessary arguments to be shown true, which would mean it isn't actually a tautology.I mentioned the arguments for wearing a mask, which stand on its own and mostly coincide with the reasons why the law is the way it is, and the arguments for following the law for its own sake. Which, as has been mentioned above, include that you don't want everyone to just make up their own mind with regards how much they believe these arguments for the law and just follow whatever they want.
You then ignore the reasons for wearing the mask as "that's not conclusive enough for me" and say the remaining arguments are tautological, which they aren't.@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin I'm not a fan of the tautological argument either.
You're assuming that it's tautological just because you don't like it.
You're literally saying the rule needs to be followed because it's the rule. This is literally a tautology. I wouldn't call it a tautology if it wasn't a tautology.
No it isn’t, because the rules are there for a reason, not for their own sake.
Hang on, because you made a tautological argument.
I didn't say "there is a law, this implies there must be a reason for it."
I said "there is a law, and there also is a reason for it, see above for that reason."The reason that you shouldn't drive while intoxicated isn't because doing so is illegal. It's because it's dangerous to yourself and others. They made the rule because it's dangerous, not the other way around.
And the reason that you should wear a mask is that not doing so in close contact with others is presumed to be dangerous (mostly to others). They made the rule because it's dangerous, not the other way around.
If masks are super necessary to prevent the spread of COVID, then show us evidence of that. You can't point at the fact that there's a rule mandating masks as evidence that "rules are there for a reason."
Except I didn't point at the rules as evidence for a reason, I presented that reason independently. I did only point at the rules so that you don't just ignore them because you think the evidence for them isn't strong enough, because there'll always be people who do that.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
And the reason that you should wear a mask is that not doing so in close contact with others is presumed to be dangerous (mostly to others). They made the rule because it's dangerous, not the other way around.
The problem here is really, "What's a mask?"
Wearing a bandana over your chin is considered "good enough" to comply with my state's mandatory masking law. There's not really scientific evidence that that kind of "mask" actually prevents the spread of disease.
The scientific evidence supporting N95 mask wearing is mixed at best. But because there's a shortage of N95 masks and people do need to go out sometimes, the law allows people to go into buildings wearing non-masks over their face.
If we as a society really thought this was a problem, we wouldn't allow people to wear bandanas instead of masks.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
There's not really scientific evidence that that kind of "mask" actually prevents the spread of disease.
Three feet, seven inches versus eight feet - - seems better than nothing: https://www.fau.edu/newsdesk/articles/efficacy-facemasks-coronavirus.php. Caveat: This is the study I've seen coworkers reference, haven't had time to read it myself yet.
-
@Gurth said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
This lead directly to a shop owner from Amsterdam complaining about his own intelligence and common sense on national radio. His shop apparently has entrances on two streets: one in an area where masks are required, the other outside of it. He complained that this was unworkable and that the local government should do something about it … Yes, like, oh, I don’t know, maybe tell him to use his own initiative to put up a sign on the second door, saying that face masks are mandatory in his shop?
I would not expect the official policy to apply to the interior of the shop at all, since that's private property. If it's worded in such a way that it does apply to adjacent shops, then yes he needs to put up a sign on the other side.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
If masks are super necessary to prevent the spread of COVID, then show us evidence of that.
Masks are not necessary. Full lockdown also definitely works. Or shooting anyone with a temperature; that can be done while socially distanced, even automated with a heat camera, belt-fed weapon and controlling AI. (We don't have a vaccine released yet, so that option isn't available. Post-infection treatments are a mitigation, not a prevention strategy.)
You want this disease gone. I want this disease gone. We all want it gone. I'm not going to kid myself by pretending that sticking fingers in my ears and going “la la la can't hear you” is an effective strategy. Got a genuinely better suggestion than that? Cool! Let's hear it…
-
@dkf said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
I'm not going to kid myself by pretending that sticking fingers in my ears and going “la la la can't hear you” is an effective strategy.
There are other reasons for being against mask mandates and shutdowns, for example:
- Concern with the science used to justify them (more on this below).
- The shutdowns may lead to additional deaths from other causes, as people aren't getting needed cancer screenings and heart surgery. Emergency rooms are reporting increased suicides and drug overdoses. They are seeing less cases of child abuse, but the ones they are seeing are more severe.
- Both the mask mandates and shutdowns set dangerous precedents in civil liberties. Our rights of freedom of assembly, freedom of protest, and even freedom of speech have been restricted. Businesses have been shutdown without compensation or due process.
- Possible long-term psychological effects of everyone wearing a mask and seeing people around them as existential threats.
@dkf said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Got a genuinely better suggestion than that? Cool! Let's hear it…
The first thing to consider is that there's no guarantee we'll get a safe and effective vaccine that confers permanent immunity. If we can get such a vaccine, trying to reduce transmission in the meantime makes sense as long as the collateral damage (see above) is not too severe. But I would focus that on protecting the most vulnerable, as the rest of us are unlikely to even need a hospital stay if we get it.
If we can't get a vaccine, then we either have to get to herd immunity if possible, or if not, accept that this is just something we'll have to adjust to. Now, back to the science:
Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks
Nature Medicine - A study of 246 individuals with seasonal respiratory virus infections randomized to wear or not wear a surgical face mask showed that masks can significantly reduce detection of...
This is from the abstract:
Our results indicate that surgical face masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza viruses from symptomatic individuals.
You may be wondering about transmission from asymptomatic individuals, since literally everyone agrees that symptomatic individuals should be at home instead of out in public, and since the prospect of spread from asymptomatic people was the entire justification for the mask mandates. You'll have to wait for another study for that:
Study staff then approached immediately those who reported at least one of the following symptoms of ARI for further screening: fever ≥37.8 °C, cough, sore throat, runny nose, headache, myalgia and phlegm. Individuals who reported ≥2 ARI symptoms, within 3 d of illness onset and ≥11 years of age were eligible to participate.
-
Here in Argentina we are short on tests. Rather than solve that, the government has changed the definition of confirmed case. Now if you live in the vicinity of someone who tested positive, or had close contact to someone who tested positive, you are now a confirmed case even if you haven't tested at all. Genius!
-
@antiquarian said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Both the mask mandates and shutdowns set dangerous precedents in civil liberties.
I can see how that's true for the latter, but masks do not restrict your basic civil liberties in any way.
Your arguments against lockdowns have some merit, but the masks are the alternative strategy to avoid those problems right now. There is no sane third alternative that I'm aware of. Putting your head in the sand until an effective vaccine is available is not a viable option. (And let's not forget that the existence and possibility of an effective long-term vaccine have yet to be proven - we can not just assume that they're right around the corner.)
-
@antiquarian said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
This is from the abstract:
Our results indicate that surgical face masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza viruses from symptomatic individuals.
The important sentence from the abstract is, however, the immediately preceding one:
Surgical face masks significantly reduced detection of influenza virus RNA in respiratory droplets and coronavirus RNA in aerosols, with a trend toward reduced detection of coronavirus RNA in respiratory droplets.
The reason is that the amount of the virus particles that reach you has effect of the severity of the resulting disease, and probability you develop any symptoms at all. The masks can't stop the disease from spreading completely, but I don't think most of the people pushing them ever thought they would. They still do something to reduce incidence of the severe cases. And are not so much of a hassle.
-
@dfdub said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@antiquarian said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Both the mask mandates and shutdowns set dangerous precedents in civil liberties.
I can see how that's true for the latter, but masks do not restrict your basic civil liberties in any way.
Masks don't restrict civil liberties. But mask mandates absolutely restrict civil liberties and thus should be as narrowly tailored as possible while still being effective.
For the record, I'm standing in a resteraunt waiting for the people who work here to make my food. I'm currently wearing a properly fitted N95 mask. Because I'm in a building with recirculating air and food being prepared, a mask makes sense here.
But Karen-ing about wearing masks outside? Or in my own home? Masks aren't going to work there, and the only reason to follow that kind of a mask mandates is because it's the law. That's a stupid argument.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Wearing a bandana over your chin is considered "good enough" to comply with my state's mandatory masking law.
It is? Then it's even more retarded than in Poland, where the bandana has to cover mouth and nose. That people don't do it (on a much, much larger scale than I see in USA) is another matter.
If we as a society really thought this was a problem, we wouldn't allow people to wear bandanas instead of masks.
This. We also wouldn't allow any exceptions from the mask wearing rule.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
But Karen-ing about wearing masks outside?
I don't see how it's safe not to wear mask outside.
Or in my own home?
Do you have no guests? Do you not receive mail?
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Masks don't restrict civil liberties. But mask mandates absolutely restrict civil liberties and thus should be as narrowly tailored as possible while still being effective.
I don't disagree with the last part, but I want to point out that the restrictions caused by mask mandates are miniscule, especially compared to the only known alternative. Which important civil liberty are you really losing if you have to wear fabric over your mouth in public? Just name one important freedom that's being taken away.
But Karen-ing about wearing masks outside? Or in my own home? Masks aren't going to work there, and the only reason to follow that kind of a mask mandates is because it's the law. That's a stupid argument.
Outside can make sense in crowds (e.g. on train platforms). But yeah, I'm not going to argue that every single rule politicians will come up with is reasonable. That doesn't mean you should dismiss the whole idea of mask mandates, though - in general, it's still the best option we have right now.
-
@dfdub said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Your arguments against lockdowns have some merit, but the masks are the alternative strategy to avoid those problems right now.
Eh...I think avoid large (especially indoors) gatherings and indoor dining are doing waaaay more than masks.
-
@Placeholder said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Trying to navigate the grocery store
I usually forget about the arrows (oops, wrong way - screw it, I'm here now and no one else is). I just look - no people, good to go. A bunch of people - skip it (unless there's something critical there - often it's just "I need to get to the back of the store")
-
@dcon here, it's only the small aisles that are one way. The big transit ones that run to the back are two way, but much wider.
Honestly, those restrictions are a total farce. Not just because no one obeys them (except me), but because the threat model is screwy.
-
@dcon said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Placeholder said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Trying to navigate the grocery store
I usually forget about the arrows (oops, wrong way - screw it, I'm here now and no one else is). I just look - no people, good to go. A bunch of people - skip it (unless there's something critical there - often it's just "I need to get to the back of the store")
My local "mini" supermarket has 5 aisles. The one-way system has the aisle 1 running front to back, and 2-5 running back to front. If you follow it properly you'd have to go up aisle 1, down aisle 2, up aisle 1 again, down aisle 3, etc.
I take the "if it's (almost) empty, go whichever way I need to" approach.
-
@dfdub said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
I don't disagree with the last part, but I want to point out that the restrictions caused by mask mandates are miniscule, especially compared to the only known alternative. Which important civil liberty are you really losing if you have to wear fabric over your mouth in public? Just name one important freedom that's being taken away.
Only the most important civil liberty: Freedom itself.
-
@Dragoon said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@dfdub said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
I don't disagree with the last part, but I want to point out that the restrictions caused by mask mandates are miniscule, especially compared to the only known alternative. Which important civil liberty are you really losing if you have to wear fabric over your mouth in public? Just name one important freedom that's being taken away.
Only the most important civil liberty: Freedom itself.
Sorry, but that's just gibberish. It's on the intellectual level of complaining about discrimination when the waiter doesn't want to get you any more free breadsticks.
Civil liberties have never meant that you can do whatever you want. There are well-defined constitutional rights that guarantee what we call "freedom". Having to put fabric in front of your mouth for a limited amount of time (until the pandemic is over), for a specific reason (ongoing pandemic), is not a significant violation of any of those principles.
-
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
But Karen-ing about wearing masks outside?
I don't see how it's safe not to wear mask outside.
Exposure to direct sunlight kills the virus pretty quickly, so unless you're outdoors in super-close proximity to someone else (e.g. a riot), the mask isn't doing anything because the droplets are disinfected quickly.
Indoors, where there isn't generally direct sunlight, this is more of a problem so masks make sense there.
Or in my own home?
Do you have no guests? Do you not receive mail?
I don't have guests. There's a pandemic going on. My mailman leaves my mail in a box at the foot of my driveway. I don't think I've ever spoken to him. He's certainly never been in my house.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Exposure to direct sunlight kills the virus pretty quickly,
Wind and so forth disperses it, too. Not anything like being in a room. That's why hospitals used to use cross ventilation.
-
@dfdub said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Masks don't restrict civil liberties. But mask mandates absolutely restrict civil liberties and thus should be as narrowly tailored as possible while still being effective.
I don't disagree with the last part, but I want to point out that the restrictions caused by mask mandates are miniscule, especially compared to the only known alternative. Which important civil liberty are you really losing if you have to wear fabric over your mouth in public? Just name one important freedom that's being taken away.
This is the exact opposite of the correct way to look at things. What's being gained by following a law that science says can never work?
But Karen-ing about wearing masks outside? Or in my own home? Masks aren't going to work there, and the only reason to follow that kind of a mask mandates is because it's the law. That's a stupid argument.
Outside can make sense in crowds (e.g. on train platforms). But yeah, I'm not going to argue that every single rule politicians will come up with is reasonable. That doesn't mean you should dismiss the whole idea of mask mandates, though - in general, it's still the best option we have right now.
I don't dismiss the concept of mask mandates. They'd be a good idea if they were scientifically valid. A better option than the current mask mandates is to enact new mandates only for real masks and only for situations where masks are scientifically likely to work, such as in indoor business establishments and outdoors in crowded areas only.
But the current mandates are dumb because they...
- don't work
- show that the government has contempt for the people
- encourage people to have contempt for the law
- encourage people to think in terms of "What does it hurt to wear a mask?" and not "Does wearing a mask actually help?"
-
@dfdub said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Sorry, but that's just gibberish. It's on the intellectual level of complaining about discrimination when the waiter doesn't want to get you any more free breadsticks.
You "example" is gibberish that is for sure. That doesn't even make sense.
Civil liberties have never meant that you can do whatever you want. There are well-defined constitutional rights that guarantee what we call "freedom". Having to put fabric in front of your mouth for a limited amount of time (until the pandemic is over), for a specific reason (ongoing pandemic), is not a significant violation of any of those principles.
Nor have I claimed that I can do whatever I want. The mask itself you can argue is not a restriction, but the failure to wear one most certainly is. I am restricted from doing all manner of thing unless I place a piece of cloth in front of my face. That is the restriction.
Don't get me wrong, properly used I fully understand that PPE is effective. But it isn't being properly used by the populace, nor is it in the proper environment. Look at how it is used in places that we know it works (hospitals primarily, but a few other places as well). We know from case evidence that even small failures in PPE can have dire consequences in those situations. But we arn't even approaching those levels of small failures, let alone correct usage. As such, I view the current "face coverings" as a "we must do something, this is something" mandate and treat it as such.
-
@PleegWat said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
I would not expect the official policy to apply to the interior of the shop at all, since that's private property. If it's worded in such a way that it does apply to adjacent shops, then yes he needs to put up a sign on the other side.
It’s not particularly important to me to know the exact rules, so I’ve not bothered to read up on them. However, I just did:
De verplichting geldt niet voor horeca (inclusief terrassen), musea, speelautomatencentra, seksinrichtingen en sportscholen. En ook niet in woningen, tuinen en kantoren.
Translation, for those who feel they need one: The requirement does not apply to hotels, cafes and restaurants (including outdoor seating areas), museums, gaming arcades, brothels and gyms. And also not in domestic homes, gardens and offices.
Shops are not exempt, so the shop of man in question appears to have a requirement for wearing face masks in at least the exact part of it that falls within the designated area (see the map at the top of the page I linked to). Common sense would be to just require it in all of the shop.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Or in my own home?
Do you have no guests? Do you not receive mail?
I don't have guests. There's a pandemic going on. My mailman leaves my mail in a box at the foot of my driveway. I don't think I've ever spoken to him. He's certainly never been in my house.
I was more worried about envelopes than mailman.
-
@loopback0 said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
"mini" supermarket
A “supermarket” is a big market, a “hypermarket” is a big supermarket … so a “mini” supermarket would be … just a market? No, too confusing. Regularmarket?
-
@Gurth If we're going to get all picky about it, it's probably a convenience store.
-
@dkf said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
It'd be a neat little project to do, if horrifying when it guns down a busload of nuns. How would you like to write the headline on that one?
They had fifteen seconds to comply. ED-209 even announced it.
-
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Or in my own home?
Do you have no guests? Do you not receive mail?
I don't have guests. There's a pandemic going on. My mailman leaves my mail in a box at the foot of my driveway. I don't think I've ever spoken to him. He's certainly never been in my house.
I was more worried about envelopes than mailman.
The danger from contaminated surfaces seems to be less than originally believed. Also, a mask wouldn't really help you with that case. That's what hand washing and not touching your face was supposed to handle.
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oeAN8Xxz0q4&time_continue=3&feature=emb_logo
Pardon me, levity injection coming through.
-
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Or in my own home?
Do you have no guests? Do you not receive mail?
I don't have guests. There's a pandemic going on. My mailman leaves my mail in a box at the foot of my driveway. I don't think I've ever spoken to him. He's certainly never been in my house.
I was more worried about envelopes than mailman.
Why do you need a mask for that? Are you sniffing your mail like checks category never mind
-
@Dragoon said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@dfdub said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Sorry, but that's just gibberish. It's on the intellectual level of complaining about discrimination when the waiter doesn't want to get you any more free breadsticks.
You "example" is gibberish that is for sure. That doesn't even make sense.
That was kind of the point. "The most important civil liberty is freedom" is a non-statement. It's a sentence that consists of words that sound nice and looks like it makes sense at first sight, but doesn't have any actual meaning once you try to explain it. "You're violating me freedom" is a meaningless statement for literally any situation, just like "you're discriminating against me", until you explain what freedom you're actually talking about.
So in the context of this discussion, your sentence was just a statement that looks nice as a reply, not an actual reply to my question. You can claim your freedom is being violated whenever anyone expects anything of you, but if you want to make an honest argument that your civil liberties are in danger, you have got to explain what you mean by that. Without that, your statement is just a meaningless cliché to score points with the audience without actually addressing the topic.
-
@antiquarian said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@dkf said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
I'm not going to kid myself by pretending that sticking fingers in my ears and going “la la la can't hear you” is an effective strategy.
There are other reasons for being against mask mandates and shutdowns, for example:
- Concern with the science used to justify them (more on this below).
The article quoted above said that even the crappiest of the crappy version significantly reduce the distance of aerosol droplet travel:
Without a mask, droplets traveled more than 8 feet; with a bandana, they traveled 3 feet, 7 inches; with a folded cotton handkerchief, they traveled 1 foot, 3 inches; with the stitched quilting cotton mask, they traveled 2.5 inches; and with the cone-style mask, droplets traveled about 8 inches.
The article you quote yourself said that masks are effective. So I don't see how they are unjustified.
- The shutdowns may lead to additional deaths from other causes
So if you don't want more shutdowns, like we all do, masks (and similar measures) are the better alternative.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@dfdub said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Masks don't restrict civil liberties. But mask mandates absolutely restrict civil liberties and thus should be as narrowly tailored as possible while still being effective.
I don't disagree with the last part, but I want to point out that the restrictions caused by mask mandates are miniscule, especially compared to the only known alternative. Which important civil liberty are you really losing if you have to wear fabric over your mouth in public? Just name one important freedom that's being taken away.
This is the exact opposite of the correct way to look at things. What's being gained by following a law that science says can never work?
So we just had two articles quoted in a row that say masks do work. You're still claiming that not only science says they don't work, but even that they cannot work.
Which makes a great point for following the law:
The job of elected policy makers is to evaluate different options and their effect, then decide on them. This decision can be many different things, among them "doing nothing", "advising certain behavior", and "mandating certain behavior." Once the decision has been to mandate certain behavior then what's gained by following that law is that you don't have a nation of chaoticanarchistsindividualists that just pick and match whatever laws to follow that suit them. You simply cannot have everyone ignoring things until someone comes along with either three stacks of scientific publications or, depending on audience, a bunch of crayons and personally explains it to them until they are sufficiently convinced.So what if science says "well, actually masks do work", then the policy gets accepted "since masks do work and the harm to overall positive effect for the population outweighs the personal negative one", but you have guys who are just not convinced? Guess following the law doesn't matter, tough luck I'll do what I want.
And that's what the law is supposed to prevent. If the policy maker didn't care for that, they'd have made it an advisory instead.
-
@Dragoon said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Nor have I claimed that I can do whatever I want. The mask itself you can argue is not a restriction, but the failure to wear one most certainly is. I am restricted from doing all manner of thing unless I place a piece of cloth in front of my face. That is the restriction.
No shirt, no shoes, no service.
Actually, I think if you were to run around naked in the US you'd end up in jail. That probably doesn't happen if you don't wear a mask. Where's the freedom in that?
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
No shirt, no shoes, no service.
I am against the Federal government mandating that. I am fine with a business deciding that is their policy.
-
@Dragoon said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
No shirt, no shoes, no service.
I am against the Federal government mandating that. I am fine with a business deciding that is their policy.
Yes, that was the quip part.
What about government mandating that you wear clothes in public space?
-
@dfdub said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Dragoon said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@dfdub said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Sorry, but that's just gibberish. It's on the intellectual level of complaining about discrimination when the waiter doesn't want to get you any more free breadsticks.
You "example" is gibberish that is for sure. That doesn't even make sense.
That was kind of the point. "The most important civil liberty is freedom" is a non-statement. It's a sentence that consists of words that sound nice and looks like it makes sense at first sight, but doesn't have any actual meaning once you try to explain it. "You're violating me freedom" is a meaningless statement for literally any situation, just like "you're discriminating against me", until you explain what freedom you're actually talking about.
So in the context of this discussion, your sentence was just a statement that looks nice as a reply, not an actual reply to my question. You can claim your freedom is being violated whenever anyone expects anything of you, but if you want to make an honest argument that your civil liberties are in danger, you have got to explain what you mean by that. Without that, your statement is just a meaningless cliché to score points with the audience without actually addressing the topic.
I mean in fairness, your response was:
@dfdub said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
There are well-defined constitutional rights that guarantee what we call "freedom". Having to put fabric in front of your mouth for a limited amount of time (until the pandemic is over), for a specific reason (ongoing pandemic), is not a significant violation of any of those principles.
That's neither a truly limited amount of time not a specific reason.
A mask mandate limited to the time that you're in a physical location where you're at risk of catching/spreading COVID for the specific reason that the particular mask being mandated stops you from catching/spreading COVID can be a reasonable rule.
Mask mandates in scenarios where you and the government both know that the mask isn't going to prevent COVID are the government overstepping its bounds.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Yes, that was the quip part.
What about government mandating that you wear clothes in public space?The actual notion of it I am okay with (base standards and all that) the current implementation needs much work.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@antiquarian said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@dkf said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
I'm not going to kid myself by pretending that sticking fingers in my ears and going “la la la can't hear you” is an effective strategy.
There are other reasons for being against mask mandates and shutdowns, for example:
- Concern with the science used to justify them (more on this below).
The article quoted above said that even the crappiest of the crappy version significantly reduce the distance of aerosol droplet travel:
Without a mask, droplets traveled more than 8 feet; with a bandana, they traveled 3 feet, 7 inches; with a folded cotton handkerchief, they traveled 1 foot, 3 inches; with the stitched quilting cotton mask, they traveled 2.5 inches; and with the cone-style mask, droplets traveled about 8 inches.
Is it just the initial ejection, or total travel time after 24 hours being whipped around by random Brownian motions of air?
You are aware you can still get infected even if you never get closer than 8 feet to anyone?
-
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@antiquarian said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@dkf said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
I'm not going to kid myself by pretending that sticking fingers in my ears and going “la la la can't hear you” is an effective strategy.
There are other reasons for being against mask mandates and shutdowns, for example:
- Concern with the science used to justify them (more on this below).
The article quoted above said that even the crappiest of the crappy version significantly reduce the distance of aerosol droplet travel:
Without a mask, droplets traveled more than 8 feet; with a bandana, they traveled 3 feet, 7 inches; with a folded cotton handkerchief, they traveled 1 foot, 3 inches; with the stitched quilting cotton mask, they traveled 2.5 inches; and with the cone-style mask, droplets traveled about 8 inches.
Is it just the initial ejection, or total travel time after 24 hours being whipped around by random Brownian motions of air?
You are aware you can still get infected even if you never get closer than 8 feet to anyone?
Yes. And I know you are aware that nobody claimed it was complete prevention of risk and not just risk reduction.
-
@dfdub said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
That was kind of the point. "The most important civil liberty is freedom" is a non-statement. It's a sentence that consists of words that sound nice and looks like it makes sense at first sight, but doesn't have any actual meaning once you try to explain it.
I disagree. It means that you'd better have a good reason to restrict someone's freedom.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Actually, I think if you were to run around naked in the US you'd end up in jail. That probably doesn't happen if you don't wear a mask. Where's the freedom in that?
Try walking into a deli and urinating on the cheese.
Filed Under: Hold the government, please
-
@Dragoon said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Yes, that was the quip part.
What about government mandating that you wear clothes in public space?The actual notion of it I am okay with (base standards and all that)
So am I, but how's that not restricting your freedom?
-
You see to think I don't believe in any restrictions on Freedom, which is not the case.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@antiquarian said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@dkf said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
I'm not going to kid myself by pretending that sticking fingers in my ears and going “la la la can't hear you” is an effective strategy.
There are other reasons for being against mask mandates and shutdowns, for example:
- Concern with the science used to justify them (more on this below).
The article quoted above said that even the crappiest of the crappy version significantly reduce the distance of aerosol droplet travel:
Without a mask, droplets traveled more than 8 feet; with a bandana, they traveled 3 feet, 7 inches; with a folded cotton handkerchief, they traveled 1 foot, 3 inches; with the stitched quilting cotton mask, they traveled 2.5 inches; and with the cone-style mask, droplets traveled about 8 inches.
Is it just the initial ejection, or total travel time after 24 hours being whipped around by random Brownian motions of air?
You are aware you can still get infected even if you never get closer than 8 feet to anyone?
Yes. And I know you are aware that nobody claimed it was complete prevention of risk and not just risk reduction.
But does it reduce risk? I know it sounds like it should reduce risk because the less spitting the better, but does it? It wouldn't be the first time in science that something absolutely obvious turned out to be completely wrong.
-
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@antiquarian said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@dkf said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
I'm not going to kid myself by pretending that sticking fingers in my ears and going “la la la can't hear you” is an effective strategy.
There are other reasons for being against mask mandates and shutdowns, for example:
- Concern with the science used to justify them (more on this below).
The article quoted above said that even the crappiest of the crappy version significantly reduce the distance of aerosol droplet travel:
Without a mask, droplets traveled more than 8 feet; with a bandana, they traveled 3 feet, 7 inches; with a folded cotton handkerchief, they traveled 1 foot, 3 inches; with the stitched quilting cotton mask, they traveled 2.5 inches; and with the cone-style mask, droplets traveled about 8 inches.
Is it just the initial ejection, or total travel time after 24 hours being whipped around by random Brownian motions of air?
You are aware you can still get infected even if you never get closer than 8 feet to anyone?
Yes. And I know you are aware that nobody claimed it was complete prevention of risk and not just risk reduction.
But does it reduce risk? I know it sounds like it should reduce risk because the less spitting the better, but does it? It wouldn't be the first time in science that something absolutely obvious turned out to be completely wrong.
Well maybe it will turn out like that. Do you have any indication of that actually being the case or are you just trying to push "anything that's not mandated with 100% scientific certainty lacks justification and there's no reason to follow it"?
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@antiquarian said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@dkf said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
I'm not going to kid myself by pretending that sticking fingers in my ears and going “la la la can't hear you” is an effective strategy.
There are other reasons for being against mask mandates and shutdowns, for example:
- Concern with the science used to justify them (more on this below).
The article quoted above said that even the crappiest of the crappy version significantly reduce the distance of aerosol droplet travel:
Without a mask, droplets traveled more than 8 feet; with a bandana, they traveled 3 feet, 7 inches; with a folded cotton handkerchief, they traveled 1 foot, 3 inches; with the stitched quilting cotton mask, they traveled 2.5 inches; and with the cone-style mask, droplets traveled about 8 inches.
Is it just the initial ejection, or total travel time after 24 hours being whipped around by random Brownian motions of air?
You are aware you can still get infected even if you never get closer than 8 feet to anyone?
Yes. And I know you are aware that nobody claimed it was complete prevention of risk and not just risk reduction.
But does it reduce risk? I know it sounds like it should reduce risk because the less spitting the better, but does it? It wouldn't be the first time in science that something absolutely obvious turned out to be completely wrong.
Well maybe it will turn out like that. Do you have any indication of that actually being the case or are you just trying to push "anything that's not mandated with 100% scientific certainty lacks justification and there's no reason to follow it"?
I'm trying to push "we should be at least 60% sure before making that the law".
Despite there being no scientific studies one way or the other, you seem adamant that wearing t-shirts over faces is orders of magnitude more important than keeping distance. While also pushing the right wing nutjobs' conspiracy theory that people with asthma have problems breathing in masks.
-
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@antiquarian said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@dkf said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
I'm not going to kid myself by pretending that sticking fingers in my ears and going “la la la can't hear you” is an effective strategy.
There are other reasons for being against mask mandates and shutdowns, for example:
- Concern with the science used to justify them (more on this below).
The article quoted above said that even the crappiest of the crappy version significantly reduce the distance of aerosol droplet travel:
Without a mask, droplets traveled more than 8 feet; with a bandana, they traveled 3 feet, 7 inches; with a folded cotton handkerchief, they traveled 1 foot, 3 inches; with the stitched quilting cotton mask, they traveled 2.5 inches; and with the cone-style mask, droplets traveled about 8 inches.
Is it just the initial ejection, or total travel time after 24 hours being whipped around by random Brownian motions of air?
You are aware you can still get infected even if you never get closer than 8 feet to anyone?
Yes. And I know you are aware that nobody claimed it was complete prevention of risk and not just risk reduction.
But does it reduce risk? I know it sounds like it should reduce risk because the less spitting the better, but does it? It wouldn't be the first time in science that something absolutely obvious turned out to be completely wrong.
Well maybe it will turn out like that. Do you have any indication of that actually being the case or are you just trying to push "anything that's not mandated with 100% scientific certainty lacks justification and there's no reason to follow it"?
I'm trying to push "we should be at least 60% sure before making that the law".
I think we are at least 60% sure. And now?
Despite there being no scientific studies one way or the other, you seem adamant that wearing t-shirts over faces is orders of magnitude more important than keeping distance.
At no point have I said that keeping distance is not important.
While also pushing the right wing nutjobs' conspiracy theory that people with asthma have problems breathing in masks.
Not pushing that at all, just wanted to avoid that particular argument. We've had people here complaining about "OMG my glasses", so asthma is at least not quite as unreasonable, even though everything I've read and heard from such people says it's not at all a problem.
