3 ms·

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 beca

by 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.

by eloff 6y ago

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.