4 ms·

I can think of a few reasons: - 75% of Americans (incl. a majority of republicans) support mask mandates. (The US isn’t a direct democracy, but mask mandates h

I can think of a few reasons: - 75% of Americans (incl. a majority of republicans) support mask mandates. (The US isn’t a direct democracy, but mask mandates have the green light from the general public). [https://apnews.com/article/ap-top-news-understanding-the-outbreak-health-politics-lifestyle-9126a38ef22c244f9ca18f9584061f8d https://apnews.com/article/ap-top-news-understanding-the-out...] - One of the main functions of any government is to mitigate the harm that people do to one another. This is the main thing that distinguishes it from anarchy. Not wearing a mask in crowded places (in expectation) causes harm to others. Obviously there is a cost/benefit involved, so welding people into their homes is too extreme. - There is effectively zero enforcement of these mandates. I’ve never seen cops or workers enforce these rules. On the other hand, if I walked into a grocery store without pants on, I’d bet my ass that I’d get swiftly carted off to the loony bin.

nickthemagicman 6y ago
75% of Americans believe there's an invisible man in the sky that grants you wishes if you pray hard enough. Not a good test for policy decisions....what about science instead? -"Not wearing a mask in crowded places causes harm to others. Not happening in Sweden. Maybe the people in Sweden have troll blood so they don't need masks. or maybe the jury is still out on that statement. - "Zero enforcement?" Half of the museums in the U.S. are shutting down permanently. 50% of restaurants in New York City are shuttering. 40 million additional Americans are jobless. The level of critical thought in America is just so sad.
- jointpdf 6y ago
  Sure, let’s talk about the science supporting mask wearing. Read these and come back with a good faith argument: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768532 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768532 https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202004.0203/v3 https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202004.0203/v3 [Edit: removed “#ref-CR4” from end of first link]
  - nickthemagicman 6y ago
    Your argument is the worst possible faith argument but I'll bite and let you waste some of my time with your non scientific citations. Now here's how misguided you are: Literally from the first article you posted: (which was a fricking opinion piece!) “"""If you look at any one paper — it’s not a slam dunk. But, taken all together, I’m convinced that they are working,” says Grabowski."""" "It's not a slam dunk" Anecdotal beliefs from a random person named Grabonski in an opinion piece article is not science. And this is your 'good faith' argument? I didn't even read the rest of the links you posted because they're going to say the same thing: that mask effectiveness is inconclusive. From the world health organization: """" At the present time, the widespread use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence and there are potential benefits and harms to consider.""" Not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence.... It's the world health organization saying that... It's clear masks stop droplets but maybe at a community level continually putting a plague vector directly on your respiratory system for a virus that stays on surfaces for days is not a good idea... Additionally Sweden has had no mask mandate and Norway has had no mask mandate and they both have the infection under control they both have less deaths per capita than the United States. Yet you ignore all of this data that counters your narrative. Because the Corona cult... was wrong about lockdowns and are wrong about masks...and are trying desperately to justify their mistakes so they don't feel bad for putting 40 million people out of work and crushing people's lives for a year. Your thinking is as bad faith as it gets and I really hope the Corona cult gets the karma that's coming to it at some point. Your arrogant ignorance is hurting a lot of people unnecessarily.
    - jointpdf 6y ago
      The second link I posted was co-authored by the director of the CDC. The others are reviews of current evidence that are readable and reputable. There are abundant studies on this subject. Here is what the WHO actually has to say about masks (https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/question-and-answers-hub/q-a-detail/q-a-on-covid-19-and-masks https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2...): > “ Masks are a key measure to suppress transmission and save lives. Masks reduce potential exposure risk from an infected person whether they have symptoms or not. People wearing masks are protected from getting infected. Masks also prevent onward transmission when worn by a person who is infected.” > ” Within wider environments where the virus is spreading, masks should be worn by the general public in settings where it is not possible to maintain at least 1 meter from others. Examples of these settings include indoor locations that are crowded and have poor ventilation, public transport and places of high population density – among others.” Also, masks are not “plague vectors”. Best practice (from WHO) is to clean the mask daily: > ” If your fabric mask is not dirty or wet and you plan to reuse it, put it in a clean plastic, resealable bag. If you need to use it again, hold the mask at the elastic loops when removing it from the bag. Clean your mask once a day.” Your rant is not really worth addressing further. Find a better way to spend your time than spreading obvious misinformation.
thebeefytaco 6y ago
- Authoritarianism can be supported by majority, and that first point is essentially argumentum ad populum. The US isn't a direct democracy for good reason, as that is essentially mob/majority rule, and erodes the rights of individuals. - If we're referring to the US, it really doesn't matter what the functions of other governments may be. The founding fathers clearly defined the responsibilities of the federal goverment, and it isn't their job to protect you from any sort of harm. I don't see how that would line up with anything in the enumerated powers. Ignoring the US, the act is still authoritarian whether you agree with it or not, as it's an order from the top down which limits individual freedom. Again, whether people agree with it or not is a moot point. - Your point here is anecdotal, and I don't think selective enforcement of the law is nessecarily a good thing. If it's not enforced at all, why make it a mandate and not a recommendation? Also the enforcement or lack thereof of a law/order has nothing to do with the authoritatian nature of it. While these points you're making may be reasons you think it's a good idea, I don't think you've made a case that it wouldn't be authoritarian. I'm not even saying that inherently makes the idea bad, but you should call it what it is. To be clear, I'm not against wearing masks. I've had N95s since before this pandemic and wear them whenever I go out in public, moreso to help proyrct others than myself. I am however very weary of granting the goverment authority like that and setting precedent during a national crisis that would erode our liberties long after the fact, like the patriot act.
- jointpdf 6y ago
  You’re right that majority rule is not sufficient by itself, but public opinion should be given at least some weight in a representative democracy. The US Constitution grants states the right to enact laws that protect the general welfare, and of course gives courts the authority to interpret the law. More specifically regarding public health, the 1905 Supreme Court case Jacobson vs. Massachusetts upheld the power of states to enforce mandatory vaccination laws (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts): > ”real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others” In general, John Stuart Mill’s harm principle is “far and away the best known proposal for a principled limit to the law” (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/law-limits/#cand https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/law-limits/#cand), and it is a core tenet of liberalism. The famous bit is: > ”That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” This principle is echoed in the party platform of the US Libertarian Party: > ”Criminal laws should be limited in their application to violations of the rights of others through force or fraud, or to deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm.” So if masks only protected the wearer, then a case could be made that mask laws are in violation of this principle. But because masks help limit the spread of a (frequently asymptomatic) disease from myself to others, it’s reasonable that states can require me to wear one in situations where it protects others. As for the enforcement question, I’d draw a comparison to speed limits. These laws tend to be loosely enforced, yet they guide the general expectations/behavior of drivers. In practice, enforcement is reserved for repeat and extreme offenders. Partial enforcement can induce optimal behavior in an economic/game theoretic sense (if probability of being caught * cost of being caught - cost of following the law > 0, then compliance is optimal). Since the “cost” of wearing a mask is negligible (everyone has one already since you can use any face covering, and the only cost is minor inconvenience or embarrassment), enforcement does not have to be very consistent to induce compliance. That said, uneven enforcement of laws is clearly a major problem in our society (that disproportionately affects minorities). For mask laws, I also think it gives air cover to both business and individuals. You’ll notice businesses pointing to mask ordinances (“welp, thems the rules” etc.) on their signage and such. Then, enough people comply such that it becomes socially enforced—people generally don’t like to be the odd one out. But in practice, I think you can go virtually anywhere in America right now without a mask and the worst thing that is likely to happen is that someone will politely ask you to wear one and come back. So if you are not anti-mask but are concerned about genuinely authoritarian action, there are current examples to denounced (e.g. stoking political violence against opposing politicians [see Gov. Whitmer], undermining election integrity, state-sponsored misinformation).

nickthemagicman 6y ago

75% of Americans believe there's an invisible man in the sky that grants you wishes if you pray hard enough. Not a good test for policy decisions....what about science instead? -"Not wearing a mask in crowded places causes harm to others. Not happening in Sweden. Maybe the people in Sweden have troll blood so they don't need masks. or maybe the jury is still out on that statement. - "Zero enforcement?" Half of the museums in the U.S. are shutting down permanently. 50% of restaurants in New York City are shuttering. 40 million additional Americans are jobless. The level of critical thought in America is just so sad.

jointpdf 6y ago
Sure, let’s talk about the science supporting mask wearing. Read these and come back with a good faith argument: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768532 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768532 https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202004.0203/v3 https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202004.0203/v3 [Edit: removed “#ref-CR4” from end of first link]
- nickthemagicman 6y ago
  Your argument is the worst possible faith argument but I'll bite and let you waste some of my time with your non scientific citations. Now here's how misguided you are: Literally from the first article you posted: (which was a fricking opinion piece!) “"""If you look at any one paper — it’s not a slam dunk. But, taken all together, I’m convinced that they are working,” says Grabowski."""" "It's not a slam dunk" Anecdotal beliefs from a random person named Grabonski in an opinion piece article is not science. And this is your 'good faith' argument? I didn't even read the rest of the links you posted because they're going to say the same thing: that mask effectiveness is inconclusive. From the world health organization: """" At the present time, the widespread use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence and there are potential benefits and harms to consider.""" Not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence.... It's the world health organization saying that... It's clear masks stop droplets but maybe at a community level continually putting a plague vector directly on your respiratory system for a virus that stays on surfaces for days is not a good idea... Additionally Sweden has had no mask mandate and Norway has had no mask mandate and they both have the infection under control they both have less deaths per capita than the United States. Yet you ignore all of this data that counters your narrative. Because the Corona cult... was wrong about lockdowns and are wrong about masks...and are trying desperately to justify their mistakes so they don't feel bad for putting 40 million people out of work and crushing people's lives for a year. Your thinking is as bad faith as it gets and I really hope the Corona cult gets the karma that's coming to it at some point. Your arrogant ignorance is hurting a lot of people unnecessarily.
  - jointpdf 6y ago
    The second link I posted was co-authored by the director of the CDC. The others are reviews of current evidence that are readable and reputable. There are abundant studies on this subject. Here is what the WHO actually has to say about masks (https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/question-and-answers-hub/q-a-detail/q-a-on-covid-19-and-masks https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2...): > “ Masks are a key measure to suppress transmission and save lives. Masks reduce potential exposure risk from an infected person whether they have symptoms or not. People wearing masks are protected from getting infected. Masks also prevent onward transmission when worn by a person who is infected.” > ” Within wider environments where the virus is spreading, masks should be worn by the general public in settings where it is not possible to maintain at least 1 meter from others. Examples of these settings include indoor locations that are crowded and have poor ventilation, public transport and places of high population density – among others.” Also, masks are not “plague vectors”. Best practice (from WHO) is to clean the mask daily: > ” If your fabric mask is not dirty or wet and you plan to reuse it, put it in a clean plastic, resealable bag. If you need to use it again, hold the mask at the elastic loops when removing it from the bag. Clean your mask once a day.” Your rant is not really worth addressing further. Find a better way to spend your time than spreading obvious misinformation.

thebeefytaco 6y ago

- Authoritarianism can be supported by majority, and that first point is essentially argumentum ad populum. The US isn't a direct democracy for good reason, as that is essentially mob/majority rule, and erodes the rights of individuals. - If we're referring to the US, it really doesn't matter what the functions of other governments may be. The founding fathers clearly defined the responsibilities of the federal goverment, and it isn't their job to protect you from any sort of harm. I don't see how that would line up with anything in the enumerated powers. Ignoring the US, the act is still authoritarian whether you agree with it or not, as it's an order from the top down which limits individual freedom. Again, whether people agree with it or not is a moot point. - Your point here is anecdotal, and I don't think selective enforcement of the law is nessecarily a good thing. If it's not enforced at all, why make it a mandate and not a recommendation? Also the enforcement or lack thereof of a law/order has nothing to do with the authoritatian nature of it. While these points you're making may be reasons you think it's a good idea, I don't think you've made a case that it wouldn't be authoritarian. I'm not even saying that inherently makes the idea bad, but you should call it what it is. To be clear, I'm not against wearing masks. I've had N95s since before this pandemic and wear them whenever I go out in public, moreso to help proyrct others than myself. I am however very weary of granting the goverment authority like that and setting precedent during a national crisis that would erode our liberties long after the fact, like the patriot act.

jointpdf 6y ago
You’re right that majority rule is not sufficient by itself, but public opinion should be given at least some weight in a representative democracy. The US Constitution grants states the right to enact laws that protect the general welfare, and of course gives courts the authority to interpret the law. More specifically regarding public health, the 1905 Supreme Court case Jacobson vs. Massachusetts upheld the power of states to enforce mandatory vaccination laws (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts): > ”real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others” In general, John Stuart Mill’s harm principle is “far and away the best known proposal for a principled limit to the law” (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/law-limits/#cand https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/law-limits/#cand), and it is a core tenet of liberalism. The famous bit is: > ”That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” This principle is echoed in the party platform of the US Libertarian Party: > ”Criminal laws should be limited in their application to violations of the rights of others through force or fraud, or to deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm.” So if masks only protected the wearer, then a case could be made that mask laws are in violation of this principle. But because masks help limit the spread of a (frequently asymptomatic) disease from myself to others, it’s reasonable that states can require me to wear one in situations where it protects others. As for the enforcement question, I’d draw a comparison to speed limits. These laws tend to be loosely enforced, yet they guide the general expectations/behavior of drivers. In practice, enforcement is reserved for repeat and extreme offenders. Partial enforcement can induce optimal behavior in an economic/game theoretic sense (if probability of being caught * cost of being caught - cost of following the law > 0, then compliance is optimal). Since the “cost” of wearing a mask is negligible (everyone has one already since you can use any face covering, and the only cost is minor inconvenience or embarrassment), enforcement does not have to be very consistent to induce compliance. That said, uneven enforcement of laws is clearly a major problem in our society (that disproportionately affects minorities). For mask laws, I also think it gives air cover to both business and individuals. You’ll notice businesses pointing to mask ordinances (“welp, thems the rules” etc.) on their signage and such. Then, enough people comply such that it becomes socially enforced—people generally don’t like to be the odd one out. But in practice, I think you can go virtually anywhere in America right now without a mask and the worst thing that is likely to happen is that someone will politely ask you to wear one and come back. So if you are not anti-mask but are concerned about genuinely authoritarian action, there are current examples to denounced (e.g. stoking political violence against opposing politicians [see Gov. Whitmer], undermining election integrity, state-sponsored misinformation).