4 ms·

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 w

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.)

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.)