Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@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.
No, dickhead. I said there are certain situations in which masks cannot work, like when the mask itself is poorly designed or the person is outdoors and sufficiently far enough away from other people that droplets will get naturally disinfected.
The [assuming good faith of everyone involved, INB4 drain the swamp yada yada] job of elected policy makers is to evaluate different options and their effect, then decide on them.
Hmm... If we assume that you're correct, it looks like you're correct. I think there's a word for that. Some kind of -ology... Learned-ology? Rope-without-slack-ology? Whatever. It'll come to me.
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 chaotic
anarchistsindividualists 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"
You're explaining this backwards. IFF the science says that masks work at reducing the spread of COVID in a certain situation, then a rule mandating masks in that situation is justified.
But it's only justified because the mask is reducing the spread of COVID. Not because laws demand respect and our elected officials are good and moral and if we didn't follow the laws we'd be anarchists.
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.
I only jumped into this argument to call you a moron for not knowing what a tautology is. "You should wear a mask because it's the law" is a very different argument than "You should wear a mask because it stops COVID," especially in situations where the mask actually stops COVID.
But there's too many rules that were made "because of the virus" that aren't actually going to reduce the spread of COVID and aren't actually intended to in the first place. (See also: extending the lockdown until November 4th.) A good citizen will question why rules get enacted in the first place, because that's the only way we'll get better rules.
-
@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!:
@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.
Are we? Do we have a study of how likely it is to be infected by hanging around for an hour in a closed room that previously had ten SARS-positive people hanging around, and how masks change that? You know, the actual scenario that happens when you walk into some business? As far as I know - and believe me, I searched - no such study was ever conducted.
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.
But when I said that wearing masks makes people reduce distance, you dismissed it as unimportant. Not incorrect. Not untested. Unimportant.
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.
"Not that unreasonable" is wrong. It's way more unreasonable than glasses. At least the mask straps physically touch the glasses frame (or whatever it is they're claiming - haven't seen that one). The asthma thing has literally zero plausible ways of causing any problems whatsoever even in theory. There's being wrong, and there's being flat-Earth-level wrong. Asthmatics having problem with masks is the latter. It should never be even mentioned at all in a serious discussion.
...except for the little detail that (at least Polish) government totally bought that myth and has actually included that exception in the law. If they failed in such a basic way to understand science when writing those laws, it makes you wonder what else they've got wrong.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
The [assuming good faith of everyone involved, INB4 drain the swamp yada yada] job of elected policy makers is to evaluate different options and their effect, then decide on them.
Hmm... If we assume that you're correct, it looks like you're correct. I think there's a word for that. Some kind of -ology... Learned-ology? Rope-without-slack-ology? Whatever. It'll come to me.
You keep missing the point. I guess I'll have to call you ... hmm... dickhead?
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 chaotic
anarchistsindividualists 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"
You're explaining this backwards. IFF the science says that masks work at reducing the spread of COVID in a certain situation, then a rule mandating masks in that situation is justified.
But it's only justified because the mask is reducing the spread of COVID. Not because laws demand respect and our elected officials are good and moral and if we didn't follow the laws we'd be anarchists.
No, I'm not explaining it backwards. Maybe you can follow along better if I make some bullet points.
- Scientist make some experiments, say that best current knowledge is masks work
- Policy makers weigh between the pros and cons of masks for the individual and the general population, agree on mandating masks
- A law is made on this basis
- The law is reasonable because it is made on a reasonable basis to the best of knowledge.
- Dumbfuckjuice guy killing bears appears and says (hypothetically) "no no no, it's all wrong, so I'm not going to follow it. I don't follow laws just because they're laws and this one lacks justification."
- We don't have time to bring all the crayons to convince you of the original reasons, that's why for the sake of everyone we demand that you just follow the law no matter if you personally think "the science is wrong".
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.
I only jumped into this argument to call you a moron for not knowing what a tautology is.
I'm just going with actually you don't know what a tautology is, and I guess you're a moron for good measure.
-
@topspin you forgot the part where the scientist says the masks have this specific effect in this specific situation, but legislators legislate something completely different in a completely different scenario. Specifically, the science says "the masks stops ONLY SOME of breathed out particles, the rest stays in the air and can live up to 4 weeks", and the legislators legislated "it's absolutely fine to flock in dozens inside the closed space of a supermarket as long as you have a t-shirt over your face".
Let me repeat. I'd be much more understanding of mandatory wearing of certified N95 masks (and having to show the certificate to the police officer whenever asked, under the penalty of fine of minimum 12 median salaries per incident) than mandatory wearing of whatever. It's not about freedom to me, it's about science - and misusing science to push pointless laws.
-
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
At no point have I said that keeping distance is not important.
But when I said that wearing masks makes people reduce distance, you dismissed it as unimportant. Not incorrect. Not untested. Unimportant.
I'm not going back to read what context that may have been said in (I assume the video I posted), but that's a psychology problem, not a mask effectiveness problem. I don't even disagree that it happens, but while that's an argument against having made the mask mandate, it is not an argument against wearing masks.
"TDEMS" I hear you saying. Yeah, it does. If you worry about masks reducing people's willingness to keep a distance, that damage is done already and going aroundKaren'ingSovereign Citizen'ing and refusing to wear a mask does in no way alleviate that. The woman in the video didn't seem to be more aware of keeping distance than everyone else. Rather the opposite.
On the contrary, since this is just a people problem, I'm going to hypothesize that removing the mask mandate will have the same psychological effect of "I don't need distance" as introducing it had.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.
"Not that unreasonable" is wrong. It's way more unreasonable than glasses. At least the mask straps physically touch the glasses frame (or whatever it is they're claiming - haven't seen that one). The asthma thing has literally zero plausible ways of causing any problems whatsoever even in theory. There's being wrong, and there's being flat-Earth-level wrong. Asthmatics having problem with masks is the latter. It should never be even mentioned at all in a serious discussion.
The mask also touch your mouth and nose, obviously. When someone who generally has trouble breathing tells you they have trouble breathing like that, your first reaction might be to believe them. You're going to quickly figure out that it doesn't add up at all, and that everybody else with asthma says that it doesn't actually cause any problems. But at least your first thought might be "I don't have asthma, maybe they're right, what do I know."
However, the glasses thing is 100% complete obvious garbage. Like, even if that was a problem it would be completely irrelevant.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
No, I'm not explaining it backwards. Maybe you can follow along better if I make some bullet points.
Scientist make some experiments, say that best current knowledge is masks work
Policy makers weigh between the pros and cons of masks for the individual and the general population, agree on mandating masks
A law is made on this basis
The law is reasonable because it is made on a reasonable basis to the best of knowledge.
Dumbfuckjuice guy killing bears appears and says (hypothetically) "no no no, it's all wrong, so I'm not going to follow it. I don't follow laws just because they're laws and this one lacks justification."
We don't have time to bring all the crayons to convince you of the original reasons, that's why for the sake of everyone we demand that you just follow the law no matter if you personally think "the science is wrong".See, that time you explained it forwards. They come up with good knowledge FIRST, and then they make the law AFTER. And then people follow the law BECAUSE THERE'S A GOOD REASON BEHIND IT, not just because it's the law.
I'm only asserting that wearing a mask doesn't lower the risk of COVID in three scenarios.
-
When it's a bandana as opposed to an actual mask. (Worn indoors, 4 feet of spread is enough that it'll get recirculated by the ventilation system.)
-
When the guy wearing the mask is outdoors and relatively socially distanced from other people. (Sunlight disinfects the droplets and kills the COVID if given 30 seconds to act.)
-
When worn in your own home. (Which as a practical matter, no one will do anyway.)
I haven't seen any scientific evidence that wearing a mask in any of these situations is effective at preventing the spread of COVID. (If you've got any, I'm more than willing to hear it.)
Therefore, mask laws in any of these scenarios are an overreach.
-
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
At no point have I said that keeping distance is not important.
But when I said that wearing masks makes people reduce distance, you dismissed it as unimportant. Not incorrect. Not untested. Unimportant.
I'm not going back to read what context that may have been said in (I assume the video I posted), but that's a psychology problem, not a mask effectiveness problem.
Should lawmakers not take psychology into account when making policies that are meant to stop people from spreading the virus?
I don't even disagree that it happens, but while that's an argument against having made the mask mandate, it is not an argument against wearing masks.
No, but it is an argument against telling people to wear masks. Or even telling them that masks help, even if they do.
On the contrary, since this is just a people problem, I'm going to hypothesize that removing the mask mandate will have the same psychological effect of "I don't need distance" as introducing it had.
Yeah, it's a thing with large, highly dynamic, chaotic systems with billion feedback loops. Doing something and undoing it has very different effects from never doing it in the first place. But it's still valid to criticize people for ever suggesting it in the first place, even if there's nothing that can be done now.
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.
"Not that unreasonable" is wrong. It's way more unreasonable than glasses. At least the mask straps physically touch the glasses frame (or whatever it is they're claiming - haven't seen that one). The asthma thing has literally zero plausible ways of causing any problems whatsoever even in theory. There's being wrong, and there's being flat-Earth-level wrong. Asthmatics having problem with masks is the latter. It should never be even mentioned at all in a serious discussion.
The mask also touch your mouth and nose, obviously. When someone who generally has trouble breathing tells you they have trouble breathing like that, your first reaction might be to believe them. You're going to quickly figure out that it doesn't add up at all, and that everybody else with asthma says that it doesn't actually cause any problems. But at least your first thought might be "I don't have asthma, maybe they're right, what do I know."
Which is exactly why I'm repeating it over and over again. Because it makes sense on the surface, which makes it much more dangerous than obviously obvious bullshit. Exactly like telling people it's okay to enter a grocery store if they have a mask, but only if they have a mask (except we don't actually know whether it's bullshit or not yet).
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
The mask also touch your mouth and nose, obviously. When someone who generally has trouble breathing tells you they have trouble breathing like that, your first reaction might be to believe them. You're going to quickly figure out that it doesn't add up at all, and that everybody else with asthma says that it doesn't actually cause any problems. But at least your first thought might be "I don't have asthma, maybe they're right, what do I know."
It is known that masks can reduce Oxygen saturation levels: http://scielo.isciii.es/pdf/neuro/v19n2/3.pdf so if someone is already running at a lower level, it is feasible that the reduction from the mask is enough to cause discomfort.
Also, you can't discount psychosomatic factors as well. It is reasonable that people believe that it will cause a shortness of breath, as they have asthma, and thus they experience shortness of breath.
Additionally, I know someone with a pretty severe case of claustrophobia and they say that wearing a mask invokes very similar fears. (Dealing with it all her life she knows how to manage it, but she pretty much avoids going out right now because of it)
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
I'm only asserting that wearing a mask doesn't lower the risk of COVID in three scenarios.
When it's a bandana as opposed to an actual mask. (Worn indoors, 4 feet of spread is enough that it'll get recirculated by the ventilation system.)
When the guy wearing the mask is outdoors and relatively socially distanced from other people. (Sunlight disinfects the droplets and kills the COVID if given 30 seconds to act.)
When worn in your own home. (Which as a practical matter, no one will do anyway.)
Good thing we don't do that over here.
Ok, to be entirely fair, I'm not sure about the bandanas, I couldn't find a definitive authoritative answer, but the latest information states that homemade masks/scarves/... are not effective. But then again, I don't actually see people wearing bandanas/t-shirts/... over here anyway, most have a proper mask where required (which still is mainly only in public transportation, and voluntarily in other crowded places like stores). People with a "proper" mask but wearing it improperly (i.e., not covering the nose) are definitively more common that people wearing random non-masks.
-
@Dragoon said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
It is known that masks can reduce Oxygen saturation levels: http://scielo.isciii.es/pdf/neuro/v19n2/3.pdf
Reading the summary:
Considering our findings, pulse rates of the surgeon's increase and SpO2 decrease after the first hour. This early change in SpO2 may be either due to the facial mask or the operational stress.
So a more correct thing to say is, "it is known that operating with a mask on reduces oxygen saturation levels, but it is unknown whether it's due to the mask or due to operating".
-
@Dragoon said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
It is known that masks can reduce Oxygen saturation levels: http://scielo.isciii.es/pdf/neuro/v19n2/3.pdf so if someone is already running at a lower level, it is feasible that the reduction from the mask is enough to cause discomfort.
Um, did you actually read that?
Quoted from your article:
Thus it is hard to believe that these masks serve as a reducer of oxygen uptake, but they may be acting as a psychological restriction over spontaneous breathing of the active surgeon.
...
his change in SpO2 may be either due to the facial mask or the operational stress, since similar changes were observed in the group performing surgery without a mask. However, it cannot be decided whether stress plays any role on the late changes, namely pulse rate increase and SpO2 level decrease; since surgeons are not allowed to perform major surgery without a facial mask in most institutions. In order to better elucidate the effects of stress, a randomized control study should have been conducted in a more controlled environment with different sorts of workers from different gender who are or are not used to wearing face masks on (such as anesthe-siologists, nurses) also working the same durations.Various studies get shat on here with quite a bit of frequency when it doesn't fit the narrative of whoever is posting, so let me join in on that officially. (At least the authors of this one admit that they don't know if the masks are causing it or not, they just present their data.)
-
@cvi said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
(At least the authors of this one admit that they don't know if the masks are causing it or not, they just present their data.)
I believe it's because the study is from 2008.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
No, I'm not explaining it backwards. Maybe you can follow along better if I make some bullet points.
Scientist make some experiments, say that best current knowledge is masks work
Policy makers weigh between the pros and cons of masks for the individual and the general population, agree on mandating masks
A law is made on this basis
The law is reasonable because it is made on a reasonable basis to the best of knowledge.
Dumbfuckjuice guy killing bears appears and says (hypothetically) "no no no, it's all wrong, so I'm not going to follow it. I don't follow laws just because they're laws and this one lacks justification."
We don't have time to bring all the crayons to convince you of the original reasons, that's why for the sake of everyone we demand that you just follow the law no matter if you personally think "the science is wrong".See, that time you explained it forwards. They come up with good knowledge FIRST, and then they make the law AFTER. And then people follow the law BECAUSE THERE'S A GOOD REASON BEHIND IT, not just because it's the law.
I've explained it like that the whole time, plus the one additional point that for the people who claim there is no good reason behind it even though there is we do bring in the law as justification. Not because it is justification for itself, but because we can't wait until everyone agrees that the reasons are reasons. Otherwise you will always have someone who claims it is unreasonable, no matter how self-evident a law could possibly be.
-
@Dragoon said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
The mask also touch your mouth and nose, obviously. When someone who generally has trouble breathing tells you they have trouble breathing like that, your first reaction might be to believe them. You're going to quickly figure out that it doesn't add up at all, and that everybody else with asthma says that it doesn't actually cause any problems. But at least your first thought might be "I don't have asthma, maybe they're right, what do I know."
It is known that masks can reduce Oxygen saturation levels: http://scielo.isciii.es/pdf/neuro/v19n2/3.pdf so if someone is already running at a lower level, it is feasible that the reduction from the mask is enough to cause discomfort.
Also, you can't discount psychosomatic factors as well. It is reasonable that people believe that it will cause a shortness of breath, as they have asthma, and thus they experience shortness of breath.
Additionally, I know someone with a pretty severe case of claustrophobia and they say that wearing a mask invokes very similar fears. (Dealing with it all her life she knows how to manage it, but she pretty much avoids going out right now because of it)
Yeah, that's why when presented with the few special cases of people having asthma, I didn't immediately dismiss that claim outright. It seems at least possible that there's things causing problems that one needs to take into account. Since then, I think we've learned that it's almost certainly not a real problem, but why should such concerns be ignored instead of saying "if that turns out to be a real problem for them, we might consider it specially."
Unlike glasses, which simply do not matter at all.
-
I did read it, perhaps (looking back, I was indeed unclear) I was being unclear in my intention:
Thus it is hard to believe that these masks serve as a reducer of oxygen uptake, but they may be acting as a psychological restriction over spontaneous breathing of the active surgeon.
Falls in line with what I was saying in the rest of my post.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
No, dickhead.
Take that to one of the Garage versions of the debate.
-
@HardwareGeek since when is calling people names restricted to garage, dickhead?
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Not because [the law] is justification for itself, but because we can't wait until everyone agrees that the reasons are reasons.
Again, my whole point has always been that there's no limiting principle on "we can't wait until everyone agrees that the reasons are reasons."
Being right in some objective sense (for example, scientifically), comes with the limiting principle that you're only right about the thing you're right about.
There's a decent scientific argument that you should wear real masks in public indoor spaces because real masks prevent the spread of COVID.
That scientific argument doesn't support the current mask mandates in my country. The problem with those mandates is that they nearly always allow pretend masks (bandanas and the like) and often mandate masks in outdoor spaces where masks don't really help.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
And I'm one of the very few people who actually pays attention to the one-way aisles at supermarkets. Even when there's no one around.
Also, staying to the right on sidewalks and stairways.
In busy subway stations there are arrows on the steps for going in the proper direction.
I may or may not have gotten belligerent* with 1 or more people on maybe 1 to....lets say ~5 occasions for not following convention. Same with those not letting me off the subway before they try to get on.
- not in the Karen way, but more of a white cop in a cruiser surrounded by BLM protesters way.
- not in the Karen way, but more of a white cop in a cruiser surrounded by BLM protesters way.
-
@dkf said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@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…
Sometimes the answer, is that there is no good answer. We like to think we have way more control than we do.
The reaction to want to create a law after a horrible situation occurs (IMO) comes from the belief that we have that control over the world rather than sometimes bad things happen and nothing could have stopped it.
-
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
That's what hand washing and not touching your face was supposed to handle.
I do think this what we should focus the most on and has the largest ROI especially with kids. Most adults don't wear masks properly and very few kids will.
Wash hands, don't touch face
Wash hands, don't touch face
Wash hands, don't touch face
Wash hands, don't touch face
-
@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.
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.)
Normal social distancing, and keeping the vulnerable away from the infection seems like the actual only real way to go about it.
-
@Karla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Benjamin-Hall said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
And I'm one of the very few people who actually pays attention to the one-way aisles at supermarkets. Even when there's no one around.
Also, staying to the right on sidewalks and stairways.
In busy subway stations there are arrows on the steps for going in the proper direction.
I may or may not have gotten belligerent* with 1 or more people on maybe 1 to....lets say ~5 occasions for not following convention. Same with those not letting me off the subway before they try to get on.
- not in the Karen way, but more of a white cop in a cruiser surrounded by BLM protesters way.
This seems pretty standard even without covid in, say, the London tube compared to the NYC one.
Might seem justified for repeat offenders, but shooting people for not standing on the right is a bit harsh, don’t you think?
- not in the Karen way, but more of a white cop in a cruiser surrounded by BLM protesters way.
-
@Karla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
That's what hand washing and not touching your face was supposed to handle.
I do think this what we should focus the most on and has the largest ROI especially with kids. Most adults don't wear masks properly and very few kids will.
Wash hands, don't touch face
Wash hands, don't touch face
Wash hands, don't touch face
Wash hands, don't touch face
Current theories, I think, say that little transmission actually happens that way. But teaching kids (or adults) to wash hands is a good thing to do anyway.
Us foreigners are pretty confused about signs saying “all employees must wash hands.”
-
@Carnage said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
and keeping the vulnerable away from the infection
That sounds good in theory, but from what we know the vulnerability seems to be kind of random at times. Age is obviously the biggest risk factor, but we know very little about what makes the difference between severe and mild cases in young, healthy adults. Personally, I'd rather not take the risk.
-
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@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.
Well, that's an obvious truth. But if you use that as a reply to what I said, the argument becomes cyclic. @antiquarian was arguing that masks are too much of a restriction of important civil liberties to be a good solution. I countered that it's the solution that affects civil liberties the least and asked whether there was any important civil liberty you could name that was affected to a degree not justified by the circumstances. And now you're going back to "nothing should be restricted without a good reason" when the reasons have already been mentioned.
Unless you can finally name an important civil liberty that is disproportionally restricted by the mask mandate, continuing this discussion is pointless, because you seem to be asking for a magical alternative solution that doesn't restrict anything (apparently, the reasons are not good enough even for masks?), but refuse to actually name a viable alternative. If we don't want to continue going in circles, someone should finally make a reasonable counter-proposal or at least elaborate in more detail why masks are a horrible idea in general. Referring to particularly bad implementations of a mask mandate doesn't cut it, since you're arguing against masks based on more fundamental principles and in general.
-
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
...except for the little detail that (at least Polish) government totally bought that myth and has actually included that exception in the law. If they failed in such a basic way to understand science when writing those laws, it makes you wonder what else they've got wrong.
Update: They just fixed that. No more medical exception from mask mandate. Predictably, the idiots making up the public opinion are furious.
-
To be honest, I'm not to fashed about the mask requirements. Do I think they're perfect? Hah. Are they, on net, probably a good thing? Likely.
As for bandannas, that's there not because they think its effective per se, but because
a) anything is likely better than nothing (even if only by epsilon)
b) it cuts a huge chunk of the screaming/yelling/throwing things behavior out. From both the "you're not wearing a mask!!!!1!" side and the "Muh Freedom/Masks are too restrictive" side. It's a fig leaf, everyone knows it's a fig leaf, but whatever. But it preserves comity and lets those that oppose masks feel like they're putting one over on their enemies while also letting the "mask or die" side push it out of their immediate visual space (out of sight, out of mind).Now, there are lots of people whose response to the concerns of wearing a mask (especially the muffled voice thing) is to
a) pull the mask down to talk on the phone
b) just talk louder and closer.Which rather defeats the whole purpose. Takeaway: there is no perfect. Masks are better than nothing, even if not everyone is fully protected (whether due to defects/imperfections in the mask itself or just being an idiot on wearing them). Meh.
-
@dfdub said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
And now you're going back to "nothing should be restricted without a good reason" when the reasons have already been mentioned.
And people will disagree, as this thread shows. There will always be people who think that some solution is overkill and others who think it doesn't go nearly far enough.
If we don't want to continue going in circles, someone should finally make a reasonable counter-proposal or at least elaborate in more detail why masks are a horrible idea in general.
I don't think anyone is going to convince anyone else here, no matter how reasonable anyone has convinced themselves that they are, you look like a loon to the other side.
-
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
I don't think anyone is going to convince anyone else here, no matter how reasonable anyone has convinced themselves that they are, you look like a loon to the other side.
I would also add that I don't think we're all talking about the same things. Some places say that you should wear them even outside. Others only in "public" indoor spaces. Then the types of masks.
I'd invite anyone to fuck right off if they want me to wear a mask outside here in the summer. The only way I'd think they'd make much of a difference anyways is if we're yelling in each others faces or something.
-
@dfdub said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Carnage said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
and keeping the vulnerable away from the infection
That sounds good in theory, but from what we know the vulnerability seems to be kind of random at times. Age is obviously the biggest risk factor, but we know very little about what makes the difference between severe and mild cases in young, healthy adults. Personally, I'd rather not take the risk.
Sweden seems to have pulled off protecting our at risk citizens after the first 
of completely forgetting about them.
-
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
I don't think anyone is going to convince anyone else here
Fair enough. But if someone replies to one of my arguments, it'd still be nice if the reply was a complete argument as well and not just a few keywords, because even though you're probably not going to convince me, I'm actually interested in well-thought-out counterarguments.
-
@dfdub said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
I don't think anyone is going to convince anyone else here
Fair enough. But if someone replies to one of my arguments, it'd still be nice if the reply was a complete argument as well and not just a few keywords, because even though you're probably not going to convince me, I'm actually interested in well-thought-out counterarguments.
Dude, a bunch of people pointed out that your arguments are being used to justify bad mask mandates.
And awful, awful lockdown policies.
And could be used to justify literally any government action.
Citizenship demands that the people question all laws and that voters punish lawmakers who pass unfounded laws. There's your well thought-out argument.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Dude, a bunch of people pointed out that your arguments are being used to justify bad mask mandates.
And awful, awful lockdown policies.
And could be used to justify literally any government action.
I never said that government action shouldn't be questioned, especially if it affects civil liberties. All I wanted to know is which civil liberties exactly are touched by mask mandates. And all you replied was that some mask mandates are unnecessarily broad - nobody made an argument about their effect on constitutional rights or anything. If you did, you'd actually have a chance to convince me to view them a little bit more critically.
But if what you're reading into my arguments is "any government action is okay, no matter what", then I should probably just leave it alone. :/
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Karla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Benjamin-Hall said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
And I'm one of the very few people who actually pays attention to the one-way aisles at supermarkets. Even when there's no one around.
Also, staying to the right on sidewalks and stairways.
In busy subway stations there are arrows on the steps for going in the proper direction.
I may or may not have gotten belligerent* with 1 or more people on maybe 1 to....lets say ~5 occasions for not following convention. Same with those not letting me off the subway before they try to get on.
- not in the Karen way, but more of a white cop in a cruiser surrounded by BLM protesters way.
This seems pretty standard even without covid in, say, the London tube compared to the NYC one.
Might seem justified for repeat offenders, but shooting people for not standing on the right is a bit harsh, don’t you think?I do live in NYC. Maaybe?
- not in the Karen way, but more of a white cop in a cruiser surrounded by BLM protesters way.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
everyone knows it's a fig leaf
A large portion of the population doesn't.
-
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Benjamin-Hall said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
everyone knows it's a fig leaf
A large portion of the population doesn't.
A large portion of the population is, well, not that bright. They also think that airport security is meaningful, including the whole shoes thing.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Now, there are lots of people whose response to the concerns of wearing a mask (especially the muffled voice thing) is to
a) pull the mask down to talk on the phone
b) just talk louder and closer.Which rather defeats the whole purpose.
That's not a huge problem if wearing them hrlps only by epsilon.
-
@Gąska Bandannas only help by epsilon. Other masks help by a bit more. And it's often people in N95 masks or the "good" cloth ones (with the filter material) that are doing this. As well as the workers.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Benjamin-Hall said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
everyone knows it's a fig leaf
A large portion of the population doesn't.
A large portion of the population is, well, not that bright. They also think that airport security is meaningful, including the whole shoes thing.
Exactly. Which is why the sensible people have to be extra careful before recommending anything, even if on paper it sounds like a net benefit.
Remember when Trump said there's a promising research in using UV to remove viruses straight from the blood stream? People have died then.
-
@Gąska said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Which is why the sensible people have to be extra careful before recommending anything
Remember when Trump said
-
@topspin to quote someone upthread, take that to one of the Garage versions of the debate.
-
@dfdub said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
it'd still be nice if the reply was a complete argument
-
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@dfdub said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
And now you're going back to "nothing should be restricted without a good reason" when the reasons have already been mentioned.
And people will disagree, as this thread shows. There will always be people who think that some solution is overkill and others who think it doesn't go nearly far enough.
And there will be people like me, who hold both these opinions at once!
-
Yes, but that's because you're using Reverse Polish Logic™
(
Fuzzy Polish Logic™ actually, but fax machines, etc.)
-
@Zerosquare if your polish is fuzzy, you didn't rub it hard enough when it was still wet.
bait
-
-
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
There will always be people who think that some solution is overkill and others who think it doesn't go nearly far enough.
And, like the political parties, THERE CAN BE NO COMPROMISE
-
I think this goes in here.
-
@topspin
Audition calls for the next season of Riverdale.
