3 ms·

So until you see one which side of the fence do you land on? Wearing a mask or not wearing one?

SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
And importantly - why? Where does the risk/reward chart get so skewed that wearing a piece of cloth that can only barely be considered uncomfortable become an option that's unthinkable? It seems entirely plausible that it could help, what is the harm in trying it? It takes a lot of mental twisting to end up in a place where the potential risk of wearing a mask is larger than the potential reward.
- DanBC 6y ago
  Masks are often recommended as "source control" -- if an infected but asymptomatic person wears one they reduce the risk of spreading the illness to others. The bit that goes unsaid is "a good quality mask, such as a 12 to 16 layer DIY cotton mask, or a properly fitted N95, worn properly, with excellent hand hygiene when putting it on or taking it off". The problem with that framing is that most people quickly drop the "asymptomatic" bit, and so now we have people with symptoms going shopping wearing a mask. That mask isn't going to do much to protect other people, especially when you consider it's likely to be 2 layers of cotton, poorly fitted, with poor hand hygiene.
  - SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
    But that's not an argument against masks at all. It's an issue with education, but I have no faith that taking away the masks would have those people who are making bad decisions somehow make better decisions.
- jlokier 6y ago
  I agree with you. It's just some cloth, why is it such a big deal to wear it. I wear one all the time, don't even notice after a while. It's slightly inconvenient, but only trivially so. If we all do it it almost certainly saves a significant number of lives and misery, "evidence" or not. The explanations behind it make perfect sense. And it makes people feel safer as well. All good things, for a trivial inconvenience. The debate reminds me of the debate about smoking. For a long time, smoking "probably" caused cancer. Meaning, almost certainly. There was plenty of evidence. But for a long time, cigarette companies said it wasn't "proven" that it caused cancer. Meaning, let's carry on selling, advertising, consuming it in large quantities. It would take a few more decades to reach the standard of "proof". So smoking continued, people died. Rather than following rational life-optimising behaviour based on the growing body of data.
  - tboyd47 6y ago
    It may not bother you, but it makes some people very uncomfortable. Do you not think it's somewhat entitled and privileged to assume that your own standard of what's convenient and what's not convenient should be applied to everyone? As you illustrated in your example, the medical establishment is often disastrously wrong, so why shouldn't we take their recommendations with a grain of salt?
    - jlokier 6y ago
      It's uncomfortable for some people to not smack me in the mouth when they walk past me in the street. They have to take a little care where they swing their arms. In fact some people don't take that much care, and we usually say it is the people who physically dominate a space by being inconsiderate of others who are acting entitled and privileged. So no, I don't think it's entitled or privileged to ask people to reduce significant[+] aggregate harm to others, at minor inconvenience to themselves. However, I think it's entitled and privileged for people to decide that they don't have to wear a mask based on their "personal risk assessment for themselves", on the theory that other people can just quit their jobs or whatever and stay locked up at home to feel safe from the unmasked crowds outside. That's the "if people want to feel safe they can stay at home if they want" theory. That's not a reasonable imposition, and does not constitute the reasonable balance of needs that we'd call a free society. For those for whom it's particularly uncomfortable, I don't know the policy elsewhere, but in the UK, it's permitted to not wear a mask if you have a reason for not wearing one. Reasons are quite reasonable: For example if you're with someone who lip reads, or they give you anxiety or whatever. The goal is to ensure that almost all people wear one, not that every last person must wear one if they have a reasonable reason not to. The reason for enforced policy is because too many people won't wear one at all without a stronger incentive. Just asking people to not harm others isn't enough, it seems. (And people really can't get their intuitions around exponential growth and clustering, so they mis-estimate aggregate risks to others by a lot, even when they have numbers to go on.) [+] (It affects the R number. The difference between R > 1 and R < 1 is pandemic versus disease dying out. It's also the difference between a long pandemic with onerous economic and social consequences, and something that is manageable. The overall effect is profoundly significant in aggregate.)

And importantly - why? Where does the risk/reward chart get so skewed that wearing a piece of cloth that can only barely be considered uncomfortable become an option that's unthinkable? It seems entirely plausible that it could help, what is the harm in trying it? It takes a lot of mental twisting to end up in a place where the potential risk of wearing a mask is larger than the potential reward.

DanBC 6y ago
Masks are often recommended as "source control" -- if an infected but asymptomatic person wears one they reduce the risk of spreading the illness to others. The bit that goes unsaid is "a good quality mask, such as a 12 to 16 layer DIY cotton mask, or a properly fitted N95, worn properly, with excellent hand hygiene when putting it on or taking it off". The problem with that framing is that most people quickly drop the "asymptomatic" bit, and so now we have people with symptoms going shopping wearing a mask. That mask isn't going to do much to protect other people, especially when you consider it's likely to be 2 layers of cotton, poorly fitted, with poor hand hygiene.
- SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
  But that's not an argument against masks at all. It's an issue with education, but I have no faith that taking away the masks would have those people who are making bad decisions somehow make better decisions.
jlokier 6y ago
I agree with you. It's just some cloth, why is it such a big deal to wear it. I wear one all the time, don't even notice after a while. It's slightly inconvenient, but only trivially so. If we all do it it almost certainly saves a significant number of lives and misery, "evidence" or not. The explanations behind it make perfect sense. And it makes people feel safer as well. All good things, for a trivial inconvenience. The debate reminds me of the debate about smoking. For a long time, smoking "probably" caused cancer. Meaning, almost certainly. There was plenty of evidence. But for a long time, cigarette companies said it wasn't "proven" that it caused cancer. Meaning, let's carry on selling, advertising, consuming it in large quantities. It would take a few more decades to reach the standard of "proof". So smoking continued, people died. Rather than following rational life-optimising behaviour based on the growing body of data.
- tboyd47 6y ago
  It may not bother you, but it makes some people very uncomfortable. Do you not think it's somewhat entitled and privileged to assume that your own standard of what's convenient and what's not convenient should be applied to everyone? As you illustrated in your example, the medical establishment is often disastrously wrong, so why shouldn't we take their recommendations with a grain of salt?
  - jlokier 6y ago
    It's uncomfortable for some people to not smack me in the mouth when they walk past me in the street. They have to take a little care where they swing their arms. In fact some people don't take that much care, and we usually say it is the people who physically dominate a space by being inconsiderate of others who are acting entitled and privileged. So no, I don't think it's entitled or privileged to ask people to reduce significant[+] aggregate harm to others, at minor inconvenience to themselves. However, I think it's entitled and privileged for people to decide that they don't have to wear a mask based on their "personal risk assessment for themselves", on the theory that other people can just quit their jobs or whatever and stay locked up at home to feel safe from the unmasked crowds outside. That's the "if people want to feel safe they can stay at home if they want" theory. That's not a reasonable imposition, and does not constitute the reasonable balance of needs that we'd call a free society. For those for whom it's particularly uncomfortable, I don't know the policy elsewhere, but in the UK, it's permitted to not wear a mask if you have a reason for not wearing one. Reasons are quite reasonable: For example if you're with someone who lip reads, or they give you anxiety or whatever. The goal is to ensure that almost all people wear one, not that every last person must wear one if they have a reasonable reason not to. The reason for enforced policy is because too many people won't wear one at all without a stronger incentive. Just asking people to not harm others isn't enough, it seems. (And people really can't get their intuitions around exponential growth and clustering, so they mis-estimate aggregate risks to others by a lot, even when they have numbers to go on.) [+] (It affects the R number. The difference between R > 1 and R < 1 is pandemic versus disease dying out. It's also the difference between a long pandemic with onerous economic and social consequences, and something that is manageable. The overall effect is profoundly significant in aggregate.)