5 ms·
Because the mayor exempted city employees from wearing masks. Because of mass protests. Because lawmakers have access to the best healthcare, wear their masks
by rpiguy 6y ago
Because the mayor exempted city employees from wearing masks.
Because of mass protests.
Because lawmakers have access to the best healthcare, wear their masks for the TV cameras, and then do the opposite when no one is watching.
Because politics is a social game of meetings, meals, drinks, and parties.
Probably many more reasons. Those are just a start.
- skinnymuch 6y agoI thought makes mostly protect others. With much smaller benefits for the person themselves.
- throw_away 6y agoI don't understand why this would be a breach of logic. If nobody wears a mask, then nobody is protecting others, so then infections.
- skinnymuch 6y agoBecause people are selfish sometimes?
- throw_away 6y agoYes, but the hypothesis presented was "not wearing masks" => "more infections". You said effectively, I don't think that's true because given "wearing a mask": "protection of others" > "protection of self". This point and also the non-sequitur "sometimes people are selfish" can both be true, and yet the original point "not wearing masks" => "more infections" can also still be true. Just because masks protect others more, doesn't mean they protect the wearer zero or negative. Just because peoples' motivations are suspect doesn't change the arrow of causation.
- ignoramceisblis 6y agoIt certainly depends on the type of mask. N95 and higher (N99, N100, and similar) provide, in my view, adequate protection for the wearer. There are plenty of other parameters though, eg. proximity and time near others, the size of the room you're in and its circulation. But as example, I feel comfortable wearing N95 while I'm shopping at a super market, and would still feel comfortable if no one else was wearing any mask at all.