5 ms·

> The first is an objective statement of fact, "We should all wear masks" is not based on facts all all. Science tells us how masks work, and we can interpret

> The first is an objective statement of fact, "We should all wear masks" is not based on facts all all. Science tells us how masks work, and we can interpret those facts and learn when they should be used. But from there to everyone wearing masks at all occasions is a leap from facts to opinion. Mandatory face masks because the costs are low and the risks are negligible is pure politics. Compare with "it was even warmer during the middle ages therefore global warming is not anthropogenic". It may be based on a fact, but the facts do not support the conclusion. Bicycle helmets is perhaps the most well known example of this. It is clear how they protect, that they are effective, and when they should be used. That does not mean mandatory helmet laws are a good idea. In fact, the places in the world with the lowest accidents per kilometre are also the ones where helmet usage is lowest! This may be surprising at first. Face masks may cause people to relax and enter crowded spaces they hadn't otherwise. Touching the mask is a very effective way to get virus material on your fingers. Kids playing with face masks is most certainly not a good idea. And so on. It is not unlikely that there are situations where face masks will worsen the outcome. Mandatory helmets have been much more studied than mandatory face masks, even if this is likely to change. Until then, any policy made is necessarily politicized, not objective.

eloff 6y ago
I think I could summarize your position on masks as if we don't have sufficient evidence that mandatory mask usage helps, we shouldn't implement the policy because it infringes people's freedoms and there is a small chance it is actually worse. I apologise if I got it wrong. I think that's a very weak argument though. We have a lot of reasons to think a policy like that would be effective. It's cheap and low risk, so why not implement it?
- AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
  > It's cheap and low risk, so why not implement it? I will humbly quote myself: Should every person over 18 be required to carry a condom in their pocket? The costs are small, the benefits are obvious.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - eloff 6y ago
    Given the rates of teen pregnancy in the US, worse than all other developed countries - maybe not in the pocket, but giving them out free in schools would probably help.
  - trhway 6y ago
    that reminded of a recent Russian joke - "seeing how people wear masks explains while the condom based protection is so unreliable and fails so much"
    - eloff 6y ago
      Haha, yeah it does! Thanks for sharing.
  - xorcist 6y ago
    While the concept of mandatory carry may be politically hard, the question is a very good one. We know how condoms protect against STDs. Perhaps it should be mandatory for high risk avenues where young adults congregate, such as music festivals and campuses, to sell condoms? The argument could easily be made that easy access to condoms would increase risky behaviour in young adults, thereby negating the obvious positive effecs. The parable to bicycle helmets and face masks should be clear. Luckliy, this has been studied! Turns out, sex drive is dominated by other factors than accessibility of contraceptives. So that's an example where multiple studies were conducted, under varying circumstances and in multiple countries, before anything was made mandatory by law. Sometimes public health policy works. Sometimes it's mostly posturing.
- xorcist 6y ago
  > we shouldn't implement the policy because it infringes people's freedoms Not remotely similar. Freedom is a political construct. It makes a great purpose for policy, but "because freedom" is a lousy argument. The fact that face masks work is a good argument to study what effects it has on the general population. It is not a good argument to base policy on, especially not out of context. By the precautionary principle, we should not make things mandatory where the outcome is not known. There are numerous examples, for example on how to treat premature infants, where good ideas were made policy which actually worsened the outcome. The same low risk argument could have been made, but side effects were in fact unknown and babies died unnecessarily often. > We have a lot of reasons to think a policy like that would be effective. It's cheap and low risk, so why not implement it? The same is true for mandatory bike helmets. They're cheap and low risk. Turns out that doesn't make for good policy. The similarities are more than superficial. Let me phrase that differently: The argument is bad because the risk is not low, it is unstudied. There are several easily identifiable side effects that might well increase the spread of the virus.
  - AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
    Freedom is a policy. The actual argument sounds like "I don't want to". Why don't you become a vegan? Why don't you exercise every morning? Why don't you have children? Why don't you say a prayer before dinner? Why don't you wear a helmet when riding a bike? Why don't you rescue a cat from the shelter? All these things are good for you and carry little risk. The only correct answer to these is "because I don't want to". And your ability to say this is called freedom.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - eloff 6y ago
    This is a poor argument. Doing nothing just because we're uncertain of the outcome is only a good strategy when the action is risky. This is not the case with masks. We know how masks work, they protect other people very well. The problem is it doesn't help the wearer as much, so people don't want to use them and everyone suffers as a result. So make it mandatory. While perhaps there aren't the kind of large scale studies you want to see, yet, at least we have very good reason to think it will work and almost no risk. That's a logically sound policy.
hairofadog 6y ago
SketchySeaBeast may not have chosen the best metaphor, but I think their point stands: in political discourse in the United States it frequently happens that people sow disinformation, and good-faith attempts to correct the record by subject-matter experts are dismissed as partisan politics because everyone knows "it takes two to tango".
- war1025 6y ago
  I completely agree with this point so long as it isn't couched with the usual implication that "disinformation" comes solely from one party or the other. Propaganda is very real and is utilized by all sides.
mlmonge 6y ago
I really don't understand--or I think I should say, I really don't have the energy to evaluate all the excess/lack of misinformation/information--the extent of how much our knickers are getting into a wad over this wearing masks issue. I for one, am willing to suffer the discomfort of this minor piece of clothing for the sake of my neighbor. Will it benefit me? Not entirely sure. But the appreciation I get from my lesser-informed neighbor is good enough. It may be a placebo, sure. The subsequent peace between him and me is what makes all the difference in trying to keep a positive attitude in this most negative climate. And besides, it really doesn't take me much effort to keep clean the plethora of masks I've accumulated. Use plastic baggies to store when mask is not use. Keep a second one handy when in doubt that the one in use has been compromised. Etc. Not that expensive, really. Well, I just thought I'd contribute my hopeful 2¢. Stay safe, y'all!

eloff 6y ago

I think I could summarize your position on masks as if we don't have sufficient evidence that mandatory mask usage helps, we shouldn't implement the policy because it infringes people's freedoms and there is a small chance it is actually worse. I apologise if I got it wrong. I think that's a very weak argument though. We have a lot of reasons to think a policy like that would be effective. It's cheap and low risk, so why not implement it?

AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
> It's cheap and low risk, so why not implement it? I will humbly quote myself: Should every person over 18 be required to carry a condom in their pocket? The costs are small, the benefits are obvious.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- eloff 6y ago
  Given the rates of teen pregnancy in the US, worse than all other developed countries - maybe not in the pocket, but giving them out free in schools would probably help.
- trhway 6y ago
  that reminded of a recent Russian joke - "seeing how people wear masks explains while the condom based protection is so unreliable and fails so much"
  - eloff 6y ago
    Haha, yeah it does! Thanks for sharing.
- xorcist 6y ago
  While the concept of mandatory carry may be politically hard, the question is a very good one. We know how condoms protect against STDs. Perhaps it should be mandatory for high risk avenues where young adults congregate, such as music festivals and campuses, to sell condoms? The argument could easily be made that easy access to condoms would increase risky behaviour in young adults, thereby negating the obvious positive effecs. The parable to bicycle helmets and face masks should be clear. Luckliy, this has been studied! Turns out, sex drive is dominated by other factors than accessibility of contraceptives. So that's an example where multiple studies were conducted, under varying circumstances and in multiple countries, before anything was made mandatory by law. Sometimes public health policy works. Sometimes it's mostly posturing.
xorcist 6y ago
> we shouldn't implement the policy because it infringes people's freedoms Not remotely similar. Freedom is a political construct. It makes a great purpose for policy, but "because freedom" is a lousy argument. The fact that face masks work is a good argument to study what effects it has on the general population. It is not a good argument to base policy on, especially not out of context. By the precautionary principle, we should not make things mandatory where the outcome is not known. There are numerous examples, for example on how to treat premature infants, where good ideas were made policy which actually worsened the outcome. The same low risk argument could have been made, but side effects were in fact unknown and babies died unnecessarily often. > We have a lot of reasons to think a policy like that would be effective. It's cheap and low risk, so why not implement it? The same is true for mandatory bike helmets. They're cheap and low risk. Turns out that doesn't make for good policy. The similarities are more than superficial. Let me phrase that differently: The argument is bad because the risk is not low, it is unstudied. There are several easily identifiable side effects that might well increase the spread of the virus.
- AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
  Freedom is a policy. The actual argument sounds like "I don't want to". Why don't you become a vegan? Why don't you exercise every morning? Why don't you have children? Why don't you say a prayer before dinner? Why don't you wear a helmet when riding a bike? Why don't you rescue a cat from the shelter? All these things are good for you and carry little risk. The only correct answer to these is "because I don't want to". And your ability to say this is called freedom.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- eloff 6y ago
  This is a poor argument. Doing nothing just because we're uncertain of the outcome is only a good strategy when the action is risky. This is not the case with masks. We know how masks work, they protect other people very well. The problem is it doesn't help the wearer as much, so people don't want to use them and everyone suffers as a result. So make it mandatory. While perhaps there aren't the kind of large scale studies you want to see, yet, at least we have very good reason to think it will work and almost no risk. That's a logically sound policy.

hairofadog 6y ago

SketchySeaBeast may not have chosen the best metaphor, but I think their point stands: in political discourse in the United States it frequently happens that people sow disinformation, and good-faith attempts to correct the record by subject-matter experts are dismissed as partisan politics because everyone knows "it takes two to tango".

war1025 6y ago
I completely agree with this point so long as it isn't couched with the usual implication that "disinformation" comes solely from one party or the other. Propaganda is very real and is utilized by all sides.

mlmonge 6y ago

I really don't understand--or I think I should say, I really don't have the energy to evaluate all the excess/lack of misinformation/information--the extent of how much our knickers are getting into a wad over this wearing masks issue. I for one, am willing to suffer the discomfort of this minor piece of clothing for the sake of my neighbor. Will it benefit me? Not entirely sure. But the appreciation I get from my lesser-informed neighbor is good enough. It may be a placebo, sure. The subsequent peace between him and me is what makes all the difference in trying to keep a positive attitude in this most negative climate. And besides, it really doesn't take me much effort to keep clean the plethora of masks I've accumulated. Use plastic baggies to store when mask is not use. Keep a second one handy when in doubt that the one in use has been compromised. Etc. Not that expensive, really. Well, I just thought I'd contribute my hopeful 2¢. Stay safe, y'all!