5 ms·

Seat belts are mandatory, but not for example on public transportation. And in most jurisdictions you can’t pull someone over if the only reason is because you

by zaroth 6y ago

Seat belts are mandatory, but not for example on public transportation. And in most jurisdictions you can’t pull someone over if the only reason is because you think they aren’t wearing a seatbelt. In MA, for example, it can only be added on top of another infraction. So even a common sense policy which saves many lives from a public health perspective has some clear limits to when and how we enforce it as part of the overall social contract. Particularly with regard potentially discriminatory police actions which can be non-uniformly enforced, think for example homeless people who might not have access to a clean mask being targeted. Making up a new kind of law which can be used to fine/arrest literally anyone just for walking down the street “the wrong way” is a big deal.

chrischen 6y ago
Car insurance is mandatory, and is more analogous to masks (liability limitation).
- kube-system 6y ago
  Technically speaking, car insurance is not mandatory in the US; two states do not require it. Maybe that makes it a great analogy -- it's a state-by-state patchwork just like mask laws :)
rumanator 6y ago
> Seat belts are mandatory, but (...) I fail to see how any of the examples you pointed out have any relevance to the subject. The point was that there are plenty of examples of behavior that's deemed mandatory in order to uphold the common good. Wearing face masks during a pandemic fits the bill. You don't negate this by cherry-picking unrelated examples that aren't covered. I mean, not requiring seatbelts on public busses is just as acceptable as not requiring facemasks while staying within private property and for the same reasons: the negligible risk that's presented to both the public and the individual.
- zaroth 6y ago
  Beyond the nuances of where seat-belt law is enforced, I’m also speaking of tempering the social cost of policing the policy. We know that both policies obtain a public health benefit. Both policies are also not “blanket policies” but rather should be carefully tailored based on expected benefits changing depending on circumstances. For seat-belts it’s mainly the type of vehicle, but then remember there’s also variables like child seats which vary depending on age, height, and weight and it can get complicated. For masks it’s even more dynamic. E.g. it can’t be expressed simply as “everyone wear masks”. Both also have, or need to have, limits on how strictly they are enforced, even if that means imperfect compliance. The reason we (culturally) accept this trade-off is because the enforcement is accomplished through a form of sanctioned violence by the State, and that sanctioned State violence carries a cost / public health risk of its own! After all this is said and done, recall it’s not a binary switch. Mask wearing is a continuum for each addition interrupted transmission. By the time we’re done with all this, how much have we moved the needle? Lastly, keep in mind focusing on implementing one policy comes at the cost of having the time and political capital to implement some other policy. Politicians which claim they can “walk and chew gum” at the same time are generally over-estimating their own capabilities.
  - rumanator 6y ago
    > Beyond the nuances of where seat-belt law is enforced, I’m also speaking of tempering the social cost of policing the policy. If you're really interested in framing the problem that way then in the very least include in your analysis the social cost of dealing with thousands of deaths that otherwise could be easily avoided if everyone just wore their facemasks in public. So far the US alone experienced over 150k deaths by covid19. What's the social cost of that?
    - nradov 6y ago
      Would those deaths actually be avoided, or just delayed?
      - zaroth 6y ago
arcticbull 6y ago
> Seat belts are mandatory, but not for example on public transportation. So... that's because public transportation vehicles, like busses, are big. When you smash your small car into a big bus, the bus is fine, and you're a pancake. On a train, were it to derail, your seatbelt won't help you. Nothing nefarious going on here.
- zaroth 6y ago
  I agree completely! The point is the policy is not blanket, but modulated based on the particulars of the situation. I expect that we would need equally nuanced (if not much more-so) policy for mask wearing.

by zaroth 6y ago

chrischen 6y ago

Car insurance is mandatory, and is more analogous to masks (liability limitation).

kube-system 6y ago
Technically speaking, car insurance is not mandatory in the US; two states do not require it. Maybe that makes it a great analogy -- it's a state-by-state patchwork just like mask laws :)

rumanator 6y ago

> Seat belts are mandatory, but (...) I fail to see how any of the examples you pointed out have any relevance to the subject. The point was that there are plenty of examples of behavior that's deemed mandatory in order to uphold the common good. Wearing face masks during a pandemic fits the bill. You don't negate this by cherry-picking unrelated examples that aren't covered. I mean, not requiring seatbelts on public busses is just as acceptable as not requiring facemasks while staying within private property and for the same reasons: the negligible risk that's presented to both the public and the individual.

zaroth 6y ago
Beyond the nuances of where seat-belt law is enforced, I’m also speaking of tempering the social cost of policing the policy. We know that both policies obtain a public health benefit. Both policies are also not “blanket policies” but rather should be carefully tailored based on expected benefits changing depending on circumstances. For seat-belts it’s mainly the type of vehicle, but then remember there’s also variables like child seats which vary depending on age, height, and weight and it can get complicated. For masks it’s even more dynamic. E.g. it can’t be expressed simply as “everyone wear masks”. Both also have, or need to have, limits on how strictly they are enforced, even if that means imperfect compliance. The reason we (culturally) accept this trade-off is because the enforcement is accomplished through a form of sanctioned violence by the State, and that sanctioned State violence carries a cost / public health risk of its own! After all this is said and done, recall it’s not a binary switch. Mask wearing is a continuum for each addition interrupted transmission. By the time we’re done with all this, how much have we moved the needle? Lastly, keep in mind focusing on implementing one policy comes at the cost of having the time and political capital to implement some other policy. Politicians which claim they can “walk and chew gum” at the same time are generally over-estimating their own capabilities.
- rumanator 6y ago
  > Beyond the nuances of where seat-belt law is enforced, I’m also speaking of tempering the social cost of policing the policy. If you're really interested in framing the problem that way then in the very least include in your analysis the social cost of dealing with thousands of deaths that otherwise could be easily avoided if everyone just wore their facemasks in public. So far the US alone experienced over 150k deaths by covid19. What's the social cost of that?
  - nradov 6y ago
    Would those deaths actually be avoided, or just delayed?
    - zaroth 6y ago

arcticbull 6y ago

> Seat belts are mandatory, but not for example on public transportation. So... that's because public transportation vehicles, like busses, are big. When you smash your small car into a big bus, the bus is fine, and you're a pancake. On a train, were it to derail, your seatbelt won't help you. Nothing nefarious going on here.

zaroth 6y ago
I agree completely! The point is the policy is not blanket, but modulated based on the particulars of the situation. I expect that we would need equally nuanced (if not much more-so) policy for mask wearing.