5 ms·
If mask usage was strictly mandated then lockdowns would be unnecessary. Instead, the topic of masks has been pulled into a ridiculous debate. I suspect most l
by ojhughes 6y ago
If mask usage was strictly mandated then lockdowns would be unnecessary. Instead, the topic of masks has been pulled into a ridiculous debate.
I suspect most lockdown supporters live in a comfortable and spacious environment where they work from home. The cost of lockdown is huge for business owners, domestic abuse victims and those with mental illness. There is increasing research that points to the cost of lockdowns being greater than the benefit.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ojhughes 6y agoStudies such as this https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/widespread-facemask-use-could-shrink-the-r-number-and-prevent-a-second-covid-19-wave-study https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/widespread-facemask-use-... Widespread spread mask usage in Japan and South Korea has proven very effective as well at controlling the virus and allowing life to go back to normal
- just-juan-post 6y agoOop sorry I deleted my reply - I did some thinking myself. I agree. If nothing else it's a decent mix of freedom and virus control worth considering.
- ehnto 6y agoI agree with you, however it is connected to the original argument because people have demonstrated they won't wear masks, so you need lockdown instead. If people would wear masks, business could go on. The cost of lockdown is high, I don't think anyone is disputing that. It's a tradeoff, but we don't really know what's going to be best long term. It's hard to measure without all the data, and who gets to choose the metric for success? Is it economic damage, or social damage, or damage to public health that we're aiming to minimize? I think the answer is that they are all competing goals, and everyone is going to be using a different metric to measure success.