14 ms·

It’s insane to me that we don’t just make masks 100% mandatory when you’re outside your own home. We don’t have exact numbers on how effective masks are, but wh

• matz1 6y ago
  >It’s insane to me that we don’t just make masks 100% mandatory when you’re outside your own home. We can just reopen reopen right now. Yes covid spread easily but we already know that majority of covid cases its either asymptomatic or only mild symptom. At this point lockdown create more problem than it solves.
• staplers 6y ago
  just make masks 100% mandatory That would require me to confess that other people might know more than me. Which some conflate to total loss of all personal liberty.
  • msandford 6y ago
    As a counter-argument thought experiment to try and understand how some people might feel that way, imagine this situation: We've got an epidemic of terrorist shootings in the US. Some law enforcement experts suggest that not only should open carry be legalized everywhere in the US, but that carrying a gun should be mandatory while in public. It's the only way to stop the shootings. I'm not going to suggest that this is in any way a 100% equivalent argument, far from it. But it might help you get a feel for why some folks are opposed to mandatory masks, even if they seem entirely sensible.
    • Dylan16807 6y ago
      If they are actually experts, and this is an actual epidemic with an equivalent death potential, then sure! Give me the gun. What's the problem? Is the equivalent to a cloth mask a BB gun?
    • simion314 6y ago
      I think if I spit on your face is illegal (probably assault) so we could apply the existing laws, if someone without a mask gets close to you while speaking existing laws could be apply because is basically spiting germs on you. I am wondering if this would be accepted by a judge and no new laws will be required.
    • staplers 6y ago
      Masks cannot end someone's life either on purpose or accidentally. A better example is seat belts or government issued ID, which are already currently mandatory.
      • msandford 6y ago
        I would respectfully disagree that things which are currently mandatory are better examples. We're talking about making new rules in response to a newly emerging phenomena. A change to the status quo, as it were. Asserting that a change to the status quo is the same as the existing status quo that you already "bought in to" 5-50 years ago (for most of us) is in a lot of ways not the same at all. Further it's possible to opt out of seat belts by not driving and you can kind of opt out of government IDs also by not driving or flying. It'd be difficult but if you really, really cared you could. I'm not saying that these people's reaction is entirely rational. But if you want to try and understand them a bit better I think my very, very loose analogy might help you. If you don't want to understand them feel free to ignore entirely!
        • untog 6y ago
          > Further it's possible to opt out of seat belts by not driving and you can kind of opt out of government IDs also by not driving or flying. It'd be difficult but if you really, really cared you could. Not driving (or being the passenger in a car) is all but impossible in the vast majority of the US. In fact, it’s almost equal to saying “just don’t go to any public places” in response to your gun requirement hypothetical.
  • centimeter 6y ago
    There’s a difference between admitting other people know more than you and giving up entirely on the use of your own rational faculties. Blindly trusting that masks work, in the face of (at best) low predictive power and (at worst) outright contradictory evidence, is an example of the latter.
    • wrs 6y ago
      My rational faculties tell me that masks sure as heck work equally well or better than no masks. Also that there is no downside whatever to me from wearing one (ego damage doesn’t count — this is real life, not a game). Put those together and it’s my personal responsibility to wear a mask until the evidence tells us it’s of zero value. (Maybe it’s not clear: masks are to protect other people from you, not vice versa.)
      • centimeter 6y ago
        > there is no downside whatever to me from wearing one The eternal refrain of economically innumerate people who can’t multiply.
      • tdfx 6y ago
        The logic the Netherlands used to counter the "only can help" argument is that wearing cloth masks can lull people into a false sense of security where they are less observant of social distancing because they are overconfident in the protective power of the mask. I'm not aware of any study that confirms or debunks this but from a neutral point of view I would say it's at least plausible. For the record, I wear a mask.
        • rumanator 6y ago
          > The logic the Netherlands used to counter the "only can help" argument is that wearing cloth masks can lull people into a false sense of security That line of reasoning makes no sense because it leaves out the fact that the conclusion is drawn from the comparison between a) wearing a mask in public and b) stay locked down indoors while avoiding all social interaction. The conclusion was never drawn from a comparison between a) wearing a facemask in public, and b) not wearing a facemask in public. Additionally, during the onset of the covid19 pandemic there were indeed some health officials that argued against mass adoption of facemasks and other personal protection equipment such as latex gloves. However, their rationale was that this would increase demand so radically that it could jeopardize their availability to frontline workers.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • chrischen 6y ago
    What about my right to use tiktok? We give up rights all the time.
  • m3kw9 6y ago
    If they create a law based on a real necessity, I don’t think you can call it a liberty violation. For example a law states you cannot carry grenades.
  • drukenemo 6y ago
    Often, the problem for menis not that I don’t trust what others know, but that things like these get to be imposed without educating the public what it is necessary, the evidence etc.
  • tomjen3 6y ago
    Okay I will let you in on the secret, but for the love of God keep your mouth closed. The disease is as you suspected drastically overblown, although not entirely fake. Bill Gates is absolutely using it to spread his vaccines and the masks do very little. The masks are there for us to counteract facial Bill Gates facial surveillance, not to stop the disease. That is highly hush-hush though so wear your mask but don't tell anyone. Mum told me lying was wrong, but if it works?
• MattGaiser 6y ago
  > a simple law to mandate masks 100% of the time when outside your own home. Far too many people see that as one stop before Nazi Germany for that to happen. Edit: I am not one of them, lol.
  • aaronbrethorst 6y ago
    Where would you rank 'employees must wash their hands before returning to work' signs in restaurant bathrooms on your road to Naziism?
    • MattGaiser 6y ago
      I do not view it that way. I wash my hands and wear a mask. I do know people who object to those handwashing mandates though. Knew a guy who occasionally wiped his hand on the sign in protest of it.
      • kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
        Those are the sort of selfish people who are dragging America down.
• quicklime 6y ago
  I agree they should, but a lot of these small businesses are restaurants and bars where you have to remove your mask to put food and drinks into your mouth.
• marcell 6y ago
  Those two studies you cite aren't strong scientific evidence. There is no control group, so we don't know what would have happened if they had not been wearing masks. Also the sample size is quite small (n=2 across the two studies). I've seen some studies that have good controls on influenza, in particular there is a college dorm study that compared no intervention vs. masks vs. hand washing: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2010/01/masks-plus-hand-hygiene-reduced-ili-college-dorm-study https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2010/01/masks-pl... . This specific study doesn't give strong evidence that masks stop influenza spread. Also, the individual rights argument is pretty strong. If mask wearing is already at 70% without any government mandate, I'd want really strong evidence and strong reasons to justify government intervention just to push that number a little higher.
  • wrs 6y ago
    If we’re having this much trouble sorting out individual egos and absolutist ideologies with masks, where the choice is so simple and risk-free, we are REALLY going to be in the soup when vaccines start to come out.
  • ponker 6y ago
    Wearing pants would be higher than 70% without government mandate -- does that mean that a law that you must have your junk covered an impingement on individual rights?
    • tomjen3 6y ago
      Of course. So is having to wear a mask. A mask is justified in the short term, the fact that you don't want to see my junk rates no higher than me not wanting to see your sportsball t-shirt. Unfortunately one of them is illegal and it isn't the sportsball t-shirt.
  • elliekelly 6y ago
    The individual rights argument is not pretty strong. Here’s a partial list of things I did today for the sake of my neighbors/community that are also government mandated: - Wore a shirt - Turned on my headlights and used my turn signals - Held on to my empty coffee cup until I got to a trash can when I could have just dropped it on the ground - Kept my dog on a leash and picked up his poop - Parked in a parking spot instead of conveniently stopping my car in the middle of traffic directly in front of the grocery store door I’m sure there are plenty others. Being a member of society comes with a lot of privileges and a handful of obligations but it only works if we all do our part. No freeloaders, right? Edit: An extra word
• golemiprague 6y ago
  You need to take into account culture and mentality. Making people wear masks 100% of the time might work in a country like Japan where people are disciplined and conforming but will not work in many other places where the attitude is a bit more lax. The best way for those place is to give people mask off time in non critical places so they will be more likely to wear them in the critical places. For example, there is no point pressuring people to wear a mask while walking in quiet street where they can easily keep distance or hardly pass by other people, but you should force them to wear it when in a shop or a crowded main street.
  • WorkingDead 6y ago
    They have a strong social conformity rate in Japan and their numbers are rising too. Masks are just kind of effective.
    • hcknwscommenter 6y ago
      Japan, a country of 126 million people, had fewer cases yesterday than Georgia, a population of 10 M people. Masks work. Nothing is 100% effective.
  • sullyj3 6y ago
    Would you characterize Australia as a disciplined, conformist society? I'm in Melbourne, where masks are currently mandatory, and most are complying. In practice, you see people sipping from coffees while walking down the street, then putting the mask on as they pass people.
    • golemiprague 6y ago
      Probably more than the US or the South of Europe but less than Japan. In Melbourne it is pretty new, give it a month and see how it goes. Another parameter is how bad a country or a city was affected in the first wave. I would imagine people in NY are stricter than people in the mid west which was not affected that badly. And there is also the whole politics around it which also affects compliance. It is not that simple
• yodsanklai 6y ago
  > It’s insane to me that we don’t just make masks 100% mandatory when you’re outside your own home. It sounds reasonable in closed spaces (like in the examples you gave). But I'm reluctant to wear a mask outside in low-density area (I would if there were strong evidence it made any difference). > man with a dry cough, that was later diagnosed to be COVID, wore a mask on the long flight from Wuhan to Toronto, had extended/close contact with 25 people, but he was wearing a mask, and none of them contracted it from him [1] I'm nitpicking here, but by itself it doesn't sound as a strong argument in favour of masks. If I understand correctly, without any containment measures, the propagation rate (R0) of the virus is around 3. Which means that a sick person is going to contaminate on average 3 other people. I suppose the average person can have quite a lot of interactions (starting with their family, colleagues) during the time they are contagious. So even without mask, it's not obvious the guy in the plane would have infected anyone else. That being said, I agree with you that masks should be mandatory (in closed spaces).
  • MengerSponge 6y ago
    Outside in low density areas appears to be fairly safe, but it's a behavioral problem, and if masks are mandated and normalized, this thing'll be over in a jiffy and we can meet down at the pub for a pint. R0 is an ensemble average, not a useful metric for any given person. It's likely that transmission is wildly variable, and that superspreading events are major contributors to transmission. Basically, households slowly pass the disease between each other, and occasionally one person manages to get a shitload of people outside their household sick. Masks appear to be extremely effective at stopping the superspreading events, which has a huge effect on R0.
  • xur17 6y ago
    > It sounds reasonable in closed spaces (like in the examples you gave). But I'm reluctant to wear a mask outside in low-density area (I would if there were strong evidence it made any difference). I agree with this. 100% mandatory outside of your home would mean I would have to wear a mask while running, which seems unnecessary when I see a grand total of 1 or 2 people on my entire run (and cross the street to keep plenty of distances between us). This is one danger of applying a solution for 100% of everyone, everywhere without taking into account any nuances. That said, mandating masks indoors + outdoors when you can't maintain 6 feet of distance seems like a no brainer. Perhaps in higher density areas it could be worth requiring them 100% of the time, even outdoors, but I'd like to see the data first.
• centimeter 6y ago
  > We could keep the economy decently open AND keep COVID cases down dramatically with a simple law to mandate masks 100% of the time We could already keep the economy open with little ill effect. At this point, if you’re still concerned about the health effects of covid, you should either support wearing masks 100% of the time anyway (e.g. for influenza prevention) or you’re a statistically illiterate hysteric.
  • mnm1 6y ago
    Tell that to people who have died or are permanently disabled because of covid. What an idiotic, false, and asshole thing to say.
• vondur 6y ago
  That's because the evidence all points to indoor transmission via airborne particles. There was an article here earlier today wherein it was pointed out that being outside there is a very small chance of getting infected. It's being indoors with poor air circulation that where the infections happen.
• GhostVII 6y ago
  Because I shouldn't have to wear a mask when I am riding my bike alone in the woods, or when I am walking my dog. It is uncomfortable, and outside transmission is rare so it is not that beneficial. We have to find a balance between saving lives, and taking away comfort and freedoms, just like we do with things like cars.
  • hcknwscommenter 6y ago
    No cop is going to be hiding behind a tree while you are alone in the woods. When you are walking your dog, you are passing by numerous people on a sidewalk? If so, wear a mask. If not, no copper is going to be hiding in the bushes running a mask check. We can have the same balance we have with cars. Most people vaguely obey something close to the speed limit and sometimes people who are way over or just unlucky get nabbed and it happens often enough that (again), most people obey closely enough. Mask usage doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be better than florida, texas, and southern california (LA county and surrounding) are doing it. That's not a high hurdle.
    • thu2111 6y ago
      Most people haven't got the message yet that governments are acting irrationally. If governments mandate a mask law, then everyone becomes a cop. The other dog walker you see on the path, who is terrified of what they think is a disease that has killed 7% of the population[1], will report you and because it's the law you'll be punished even though it makes no sense. Look, we're in an environment where rationality has disappeared. Now is not the time to be radically changing human interaction, possibly forever, on the basis of atrociously poor statistics and data handling. [1] https://www.kekstcnc.com/media/2793/kekstcnc_research_covid-19_opinion_tracker_wave-4.pdf https://www.kekstcnc.com/media/2793/kekstcnc_research_covid-...
      • hcknwscommenter 6y ago
        " The other dog walker you see on the path, who is terrified of what they think is a disease that has killed 7% of the population[1], will report you and because it's the law you'll be punished even though it makes no sense." Sorry but this is utter nonsense. The authorities don't have time to track down every citizen-reported non-mask wearer. You are imagining a deep-state dystopia that simply does not exist.
• apatters 6y ago
  Perhaps it's more politically profitable to let people die and blame it on the rednecks who refuse to accept change.
• htnsao 6y ago
  Masks have been mandatory where I'm at since March, along with full lockdown for months, and the virus is still making it's rounds. The president here is a laughing stock because he recently stated that everyone is going to get it no matter what, so be prepared -- so everyone is asking what was the point of having the shutdown then. We know lots of people that have COVID now or have had it and they are all fine (except for one elderly lady that passed). Getting sick is pretty normal here. Mass hysteria is not.
• zaroth 6y ago
  My main question is: For how long? First, presume COVID will never be completely eliminated. (Certainly it will never cease to be detected by widespread RT-PCR testing with a 1-2% FP rate). If you won’t grant me that, presume that equally deadly (to certain demographics) diseases will always exist. Do we never get to go around outside without a mask on again? Some cultures think that’s the right choice. Some do not. There are valid arguments on both sides, so I think it’s not appropriate to belittle either perspective. Being required by law to wear a mask whenever you are out in public (and not eating?) is a major cultural shift. It’s reasonable that people will have different readiness to enact, e.g. a Federal law with major financial or criminal penalties involved. My ancillary point would be that COVID is not the same level of risk in all places and at all times. So, e.g. a Federal mask policy with a $1,000 fine that applies in FL and MA all the same, where MA cases are basically at the noise floor of the test right now, is not justifiable. Or, likewise, a single policy which applies to nursery schools and nursing homes. Particularly for large heterogenous countries, there is a huge benefit to local and regional government being able to set appropriately strict policies for their own jurisdictions. There is also absolutely the need to be dynamic in your level of response. Look at Melbourne for example. You can’t lock down as hard as they will be doing indefinitely. Perhaps you can do it for a short time in response to an acute event. That’s just an extreme example in the overall scale of phased response protocols. Legally mandated masking is just somewhere further down that spectrum.
  • patrick451 6y ago
    These have been some of my main concerns in the beginning. What is the exit strategy? Nobody can tell you. Back in March, I get a phone alert ordering me to start inside. For how long? What criteria must be met for this order to no longer be in effect? There was no mention of that. It was neither time limited, nor data limited (e.g., automatically goes out of effect when infection rates drop below x per million). Furthermore, this was an executive order by our governor, not passed by the legislator, which make it all the more unpalatable. Yes, covid is deadly. More deadly than the flu. But the flu is also deadly. We take none of these precautions for the flu. How much more deadly than the flu must a virus be for all of this to be justified.
• kuzimoto 6y ago
  I like the idea of not supporting laws you're not willing to enforce by gun. I think people should be encouraged to wear masks, but not strictly mandated.
  • throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    >I like the idea of not supporting laws you're not willing to enforce by gun. Speaking of which, this whole covid thing with the masks, the travel bans, etc. is really a great illustration of the differences between legal, enforceable and politically palatable. Of course nobody is learning these lessons because we're all busy arguing about masks.
  • Dylan16807 6y ago
    > I like the idea of not supporting laws you're not willing to enforce by gun. That's a really low bar. For example, I think shoplifting should be illegal. 99.9% of the time no guns will need to be involved. But if someone is sufficiently willing to escalate, it becomes a matter of letting them steal whatever they want from stores, whenever they want, or enforcing it with a gun. You could fine them, but someone with that attitude would just ignore the fine. So yes, I'm willing to enforce shoplifting with a gun, as a last resort. But if shoplifting is my point of comparison... I think right now that not wearing a mask is worse than shoplifting. So yes, let's enforce it. Try extremely hard to keep guns out of it, but don't just give up on making it a rule at all. - On the other hand, - all of the above is assuming that someone would go to ridiculously escalated and brandishing measures to fight the law. If we assume they won't do that, the situation is completely different. No guns would be necessary to enforce either of those laws, so just enforce them with safe measures. There's no need for your rule of thumb in that case.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• Aeolun 6y ago
  Japan has pretty much 100% mask coverage, but the number of cases is still rising rapidly. To be fair, not nearly as fast as the US, but masks are not a panacea.
  • tonyedgecombe 6y ago
    They don't need to be perfect, you just need to find an acceptable combination of measures that push the replication rate low enough.
  • LUmBULtERA 6y ago
    No one is saying masks are perfect. But Worldometers shows Covid-19 deaths at 480 per 1 million in the US and 8 per 1 million in Japan. New cases in Japan are but a tiny fraction of the United States.
• IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
  That ship has sailed. When COVID was politicized, that chance died.
• patrick451 6y ago
  The way I see it, every law we pass is, roughly, choosing a tradeoff between liberty, safety, and economic productivity. We don't allow people to drive as fast as they like. On the interstate, we limit that to say 75 mph. That leads to more deaths than if it were 25 mph. Collectively, we have decided that 75 mph lies near some optimum. Certainly, some view it as too fast, some view it as too slow. Not everybody has the same risk tolerance. It's no different with masks.
• CarbyAu 6y ago
  For an example of what people are doing in this space: Melbourne, Australia (where I live) just did this. Kinda sorta. They want any face covering. Stick a handkerchief or bandanna over it. Or a faceshield - my pet hate as they stop immediate droplets but do nothing for aerosols. For details: https://www.dhhs.vic.gov.au/face-coverings-covid-19 https://www.dhhs.vic.gov.au/face-coverings-covid-19
• Fjolsvith 6y ago
  > a man with a dry cough Anecdotally, this could have been the reason the other 25 didn't contract the disease, and not really the mask.
  • hcknwscommenter 6y ago
    I don't think so. A dry cough does not mean like bone dry. It means no mucus coming up from the deep lungs. Plenty of droplets are produced by dry cough.
    • Fjolsvith 6y ago
      Asymptomatic-like. I understand.
• ppf 6y ago
  It's insane to me that people want to make such large-scale changes to people's behaviour based on some anecdotes.
  • ragazzina 6y ago
    Are you American by chance? This is also anecdotal, but on the internet I'm seeing wearing a masks considered "such large-scale changes to people behaviour" mostly from American commenters. In Asia they just do it, in Europe we just do it (and I live in maybe the most government-hostile country in Europe).
    • ppf 6y ago
      Mandating face coverings for everyone who leaves their house is a large-scale change. No, I am not American. I'm also now not really European, so that should tell you where I am ;) Edit: I decided to clarify why I think it is a large-scale change. I cannot think of any other action we are actively obliged to do by law, except for possibly covering gentials, when leaving our own house/property. Introducing any such obligitory action is, in my opinion, a large-scale change in mandated behaviour.
      • unionpivo 6y ago
        > No, I am not American. I'm also now not really European, so that should tell you where I am ;) i am probably missing something obvious but no, there are plenty of places that are not america or Europe.
        • ppf 6y ago
          > I'm also now not really European It was a light-hearted comment about a country that was part of Europe and now isn't.
          • PostPlummer 6y ago
            Tell me you mean EU, or enlighten me which country is no longer part of Europe?
• rs999gti 6y ago
  > It’s insane to me that we don’t just make masks 100% mandatory when you’re outside your own home. How do you intend to enforce this mandatory order?