4 ms·

> 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 pl

> 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
      Masks are just one part of a multi-pronged approach to reducing transmission which includes testing, contact tracing, maintaining physical distance, practicing good hygiene, as well as quarantining after travel, maintaining consistent limited social groups, staying outdoors, avoiding large group functions even with distancing, and going even further than all of that for high risk individuals or during surges if ICU capacity is stretched, to implement shutdowns and lockdowns, until ultimately, herd immunity is reached naturally or through vaccination. All together it still hasn’t stopped COVID in its tracks, and with tens of millions of active cases, there’s no scientific basis for expecting that it would. Short answer; it’s possible some percentage of them would be delayed. I think it makes people feel better to have something to blame, particular when it sounds just so simple.
    - lalaland1125 6y ago
      Death can never actually be avoided. Everyone eventually dies. All health care simply delays death.

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
    Masks are just one part of a multi-pronged approach to reducing transmission which includes testing, contact tracing, maintaining physical distance, practicing good hygiene, as well as quarantining after travel, maintaining consistent limited social groups, staying outdoors, avoiding large group functions even with distancing, and going even further than all of that for high risk individuals or during surges if ICU capacity is stretched, to implement shutdowns and lockdowns, until ultimately, herd immunity is reached naturally or through vaccination. All together it still hasn’t stopped COVID in its tracks, and with tens of millions of active cases, there’s no scientific basis for expecting that it would. Short answer; it’s possible some percentage of them would be delayed. I think it makes people feel better to have something to blame, particular when it sounds just so simple.
  - lalaland1125 6y ago
    Death can never actually be avoided. Everyone eventually dies. All health care simply delays death.