4 ms·

Unfortunately I see these peoples around in Russia. My estimation of anti-maskers is about 10-15% of population here. Mostly 35-55 males who thinks that wearing

Unfortunately I see these peoples around in Russia. My estimation of anti-maskers is about 10-15% of population here. Mostly 35-55 males who thinks that wearing a mask is the sign of weakness and/or keeps saying that COVID is "just a flu" and those who died would have been dead anyway in 2-3 month if not from COVID then from something like common cold. Even recent death of 28 y/o school teacher and 23 y/o political activist didn't change their mind.

ethbr0 6y ago
SARS-CoV-2 is pretty perfectly calibrated to hide in people's inability to comprehend statistics and probability. High transmission rate + (relatively) low complication / death rate = ideal conspiracy fodder
voqv 6y ago
Pictures of the September Moscow marathon make me think even the government are some kind of anti-maskers
- trhway 6y ago
  a good mask will help when you're occasionally visiting an infectious patient in a hospital. There is nothing, short of full bio-defense suit, that can help in the densely packed Moscow (or any other large Russian city) subway or bus, and the people in the country have no resources for any prolonged lockdowns. Add to that that the top people in Russia, like in any other country, receive highly personalized healthcare, and that means that they have practically no risk of death from Covid as it is a very treatable given enough resources (antibody injection, etc. under very personalized treatment resulting in just few days of "bad flu" - i.e. while infection-wise Covid doesn't distinguish much, outcome-wise it is very socially unequal decease).
  - strogonoff 6y ago
    > There is nothing, short of full bio-defense suit, that can help in the densely packed Moscow (or any other large Russian city) subway or bus A mask is very effective and is worn for others, not yourself. At any point in time you might be carrying asymptomatic or not-yet-symptomatic COVID. Your mask prevents your saliva from flying in the air around you, protecting people near you and their parents/susceptible relatives this might get passed on to. And if it’s against your interest when emergency healthcare can’t help your sick child because they have not enough resources due to COVID patients, then over long term wearing a mask is actually for yourself, too.
    - trhway 6y ago
      >A mask is worn for the others, not yourself. so, imagine one "other" without a mask and everybody around in masks (actually "face coverings" which allow air in/out from sides) commuting everyday in a densely packed bus. Do you think that "other" has much improved chances when aggregated over several months? (again, i'm not arguing against proper mask's efficiency during occasional exposure)
      - admax88q 6y ago
        Yes, I don't see why they wouldn't. If everyone is wearing masks then the likelihood of transmission is lower. Also the viral load of any transmission may also be lower, which could improve the outcome.
        trhway 6y ago
        i'm not arguing against [proper] masks lowering the transmission chance in any given case. I just don't see it having any aggregate effect. Basically i don't see the local effect translating into global. The herd immunity is 2/3. If say 1/3 of population has already some pre-existing immunity (from casual reading of Internet it looks that some noticeable share of population does have it for Covid and it seems larger than 1/3) then the total infection rate until herd immunity is reached is 1/3. The Spanish flu hit 30% of human population for example. So, for Moscow 1/3 is 4M. They already got 0.5M cases and currently is having, despite the tight masks/gloves/partial lockdown measures, 7K/day cases. I don't see why would it slow down, and if anything i suppose it will only go up in the coming several months. Thus in the year they will have a total of 2.5M of officially registered cases. If one adds non-detected cases one can see that it is would be in the ballpark of 4M. I.e. herd immunity, end of pandemic, masks or no masks, lockdown or no lockdown. Basically like Spanish flu scenario, and i personally just don't see how the numbers can play differently.
        nthj 6y ago
        This argument fails to include at least 3 factors: 1) A slower infection rate prevents or at least helps with “flattening the curve,” that is, avoiding overwhelming health care systems, which impacts both COVID and non-COVID patients 2) A lower initial viral dose seems to lead to better outcomes (lowers mortality rate) 3) We are seemingly within reach of effective vaccines
lenkite 6y ago
One of the big problems is that early in the Pandemic, the WHO, Fauci and most media said that Masks were useless. This was repeated several times. The turn-around occurred later and nobody apologised for their earlier, incorrect stances.
- shakna 6y ago
  > One of the big problems is that early in the Pandemic, the WHO, Fauci and most media said that Masks were useless. No, the problem was that people took the statement that we didn't yet have the evidence on efficacy to mean that masks were useless. Not having evidence... Means that things can go either way. And the WHO didn't even stop by saying no evidence, they said no evidence, and then went ahead and said it might help anyway. > Although there is no evidence that this is effective in reducing transmission, there is mechanistic plausibility for the potential effectiveness of this measure. - WHO
- jsjohnst 6y ago
  > The turn-around occurred later and nobody apologised for their earlier, incorrect stances. Fauci has widely explained why he felt it was justified at the time, admitted he was wrong, and apologized. Like when I just started to do a search to provide sources, it autocompleted the query even. Probably similar for the other sources you named, so I encourage you to do some research if interested.

ethbr0 6y ago

SARS-CoV-2 is pretty perfectly calibrated to hide in people's inability to comprehend statistics and probability. High transmission rate + (relatively) low complication / death rate = ideal conspiracy fodder

voqv 6y ago

Pictures of the September Moscow marathon make me think even the government are some kind of anti-maskers

trhway 6y ago
a good mask will help when you're occasionally visiting an infectious patient in a hospital. There is nothing, short of full bio-defense suit, that can help in the densely packed Moscow (or any other large Russian city) subway or bus, and the people in the country have no resources for any prolonged lockdowns. Add to that that the top people in Russia, like in any other country, receive highly personalized healthcare, and that means that they have practically no risk of death from Covid as it is a very treatable given enough resources (antibody injection, etc. under very personalized treatment resulting in just few days of "bad flu" - i.e. while infection-wise Covid doesn't distinguish much, outcome-wise it is very socially unequal decease).
- strogonoff 6y ago
  > There is nothing, short of full bio-defense suit, that can help in the densely packed Moscow (or any other large Russian city) subway or bus A mask is very effective and is worn for others, not yourself. At any point in time you might be carrying asymptomatic or not-yet-symptomatic COVID. Your mask prevents your saliva from flying in the air around you, protecting people near you and their parents/susceptible relatives this might get passed on to. And if it’s against your interest when emergency healthcare can’t help your sick child because they have not enough resources due to COVID patients, then over long term wearing a mask is actually for yourself, too.
  - trhway 6y ago
    >A mask is worn for the others, not yourself. so, imagine one "other" without a mask and everybody around in masks (actually "face coverings" which allow air in/out from sides) commuting everyday in a densely packed bus. Do you think that "other" has much improved chances when aggregated over several months? (again, i'm not arguing against proper mask's efficiency during occasional exposure)
    - admax88q 6y ago
      Yes, I don't see why they wouldn't. If everyone is wearing masks then the likelihood of transmission is lower. Also the viral load of any transmission may also be lower, which could improve the outcome.
      - trhway 6y ago
        i'm not arguing against [proper] masks lowering the transmission chance in any given case. I just don't see it having any aggregate effect. Basically i don't see the local effect translating into global. The herd immunity is 2/3. If say 1/3 of population has already some pre-existing immunity (from casual reading of Internet it looks that some noticeable share of population does have it for Covid and it seems larger than 1/3) then the total infection rate until herd immunity is reached is 1/3. The Spanish flu hit 30% of human population for example. So, for Moscow 1/3 is 4M. They already got 0.5M cases and currently is having, despite the tight masks/gloves/partial lockdown measures, 7K/day cases. I don't see why would it slow down, and if anything i suppose it will only go up in the coming several months. Thus in the year they will have a total of 2.5M of officially registered cases. If one adds non-detected cases one can see that it is would be in the ballpark of 4M. I.e. herd immunity, end of pandemic, masks or no masks, lockdown or no lockdown. Basically like Spanish flu scenario, and i personally just don't see how the numbers can play differently.
        nthj 6y ago
        This argument fails to include at least 3 factors: 1) A slower infection rate prevents or at least helps with “flattening the curve,” that is, avoiding overwhelming health care systems, which impacts both COVID and non-COVID patients 2) A lower initial viral dose seems to lead to better outcomes (lowers mortality rate) 3) We are seemingly within reach of effective vaccines

lenkite 6y ago

One of the big problems is that early in the Pandemic, the WHO, Fauci and most media said that Masks were useless. This was repeated several times. The turn-around occurred later and nobody apologised for their earlier, incorrect stances.

shakna 6y ago
> One of the big problems is that early in the Pandemic, the WHO, Fauci and most media said that Masks were useless. No, the problem was that people took the statement that we didn't yet have the evidence on efficacy to mean that masks were useless. Not having evidence... Means that things can go either way. And the WHO didn't even stop by saying no evidence, they said no evidence, and then went ahead and said it might help anyway. > Although there is no evidence that this is effective in reducing transmission, there is mechanistic plausibility for the potential effectiveness of this measure. - WHO
jsjohnst 6y ago
> The turn-around occurred later and nobody apologised for their earlier, incorrect stances. Fauci has widely explained why he felt it was justified at the time, admitted he was wrong, and apologized. Like when I just started to do a search to provide sources, it autocompleted the query even. Probably similar for the other sources you named, so I encourage you to do some research if interested.