5 ms·

I wear a mask everywhere I go but I don’t label anti-mask people as immediately illogical. Your position seems to assume that mask wearing has 0% risk so theref

by 300bps 6y ago

I wear a mask everywhere I go but I don’t label anti-mask people as immediately illogical. Your position seems to assume that mask wearing has 0% risk so therefore if it is 1% helpful, just do it. Is that assumption based in logic? There is some evidence that cloth masks specifically don’t help much and can actually hurt: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150422121724.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150422121724.h... Dr. Fauci himself at the beginning of the conflict said not to wear masks. Then he admitted he was lying to prevent a run on masks. Is it any wonder people are skeptical or at least confused?

mschuster91 6y ago
> Dr. Fauci himself at the beginning of the conflict said not to wear masks. Then he admitted he was lying to prevent a run on masks. Is it any wonder people are skeptical or at least confused? The same shit happened in Germany, with the added confusion between the various types of masks and people believing that painters' masks (the one with a passthrough for exhaling) are effective too while they are not. It was a madness all around, and one that may cost us a lot of public trust in science and politics.
- peterwwillis 6y ago
  I don't think the people who distrust science or politics are coming to that conclusion in a necessarily rational way. Their lack of faith is more of a general malaise. When most of your people think the elected body that makes laws is mostly corrupt, you've already conceded that the society's core guidance is corrupt. All you have to do then is wait for things to upset the public, like a mandatory inconvenience, for them to start to protest and later revolt. It's similar for both Black Lives Matter as for no-maskers/no-lockdowners. They're pissed that the system is corrupt and imposing itself on them. At that point they may throw out any institution of authority if they feel oppressed by it.
  - pessimizer 6y ago
    The lack of faith comes from incorrect or manipulated information being delivered with the same confidence as information that had sounder foundations. One of the weaknesses of a mainstream media that only deals in propaganda is that it delivers all official declarations with an equal, demanding intensity. It might have been an advantage to have such a hated executive branch during the period, which at least forced something that seemed like a debate at the margins since there was at least an effort to show why Trump was wrong about stuff. Even that ended up backfiring with the shit Hydroxychloroquine Lancet study fraud. I guarantee that being published and witdrawn resulted in at least twice the people drinking "Miracle Solution" i.e. chlorine dioxide than would have if they hadn't published. The Lancet made Wakefield famous, and now they turned Trump into a health care martyr.
  - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
    > Their lack of faith is more of a general malaise. When most of your people think the elected body that makes laws is mostly corrupt If I understood correctly, you're saying people don't distrust politics due to rational reasons, they're just generally pissed at the system? That doesn't answer the question. Why are they pissed in the first place? It could perfectly be due to rational reasons. I wouldn't say it's a distrust of science itself, either. It's a distrust of whatever is presented to you as science.
    - peterwwillis 6y ago
      > Why are they pissed in the first place? They're pissed because they think something is wrong and they want it fixed. But they don't know what is wrong, and they don't know how to fix it. So I think they are pissed because it just seems like they should be. > It could perfectly be due to rational reasons. If you ask a very loud shouty person why they are so angry, they usually launch into a tirade of "everything that's wrong with the country." But you don't hear one single specific issue or well-thought-out rationale. The only common thread is cultural or political. Us-versus them; it's all those people's fault that everything is wrong. There are common themes, but no one specific root cause, issue, or analysis. So they don't really know what's wrong or what the cause of it is. The only thing they're sure of is that something is wrong, and they grasp at whatever has been pissing them off lately. As social primates, when we are generally pissed off and think something is wrong, the most common group that we blame is "the authority" (the next-most-common group to blame being "the foreigner") The general evidence I give is here (https://news.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx). In the 1970s, around 50% of Americans disapproved of how Congress did it's job. For the past 10 years, around 80% of Americans have disapproved of how Congress did its job. Congress is an elected body. If the people really thought Congress was the cause of their anger, they could just vote them all out; doesn't take a genius to figure that out. Yet most people stay in Congress. So I think the anger at Congress is really just a symptom of the malaise, regardless of whether Congress does either a good or bad job.
      - mschuster91 6y ago
        > If the people really thought Congress was the cause of their anger, they could just vote them all out; doesn't take a genius to figure that out. Yet most people stay in Congress. A large part of the cause is single-issue voters, especially abortion and gun control. Many people vote R simply because they are so hellbent on turning back abortion rights or keeping the right to buy guns in supermarkets and vice versa. And the parties know and exploit that - Bush, Obama and Trump had times with supermajorities in which they could have ended the respective issues permanently, but they didn't. The result is a dysfunctional Congress whose members are not held accountable by their voters no matter what they do, and a subsequently disappointed public. And the same mechanic also applies to the Presidency elections. A lot of people only voted Biden because they wanted to get rid of Trump, and one might say that many people voted Trump in '16 to prevent Clinton who's as Establishment as it can be.
kevinmchugh 6y ago
The linked article makes a convincing case against cloth masks in a healthcare setting but doesn't suggest they're not helpful or harmful outside that.
op00to 6y ago
It’s not to “prevent a run on masks”, that’s an oversimplification. Not recommending masks was because we KNEW the n95 type masks worked, but there were not nearly enough of them for health care workers, let alone the rest of us. As science progressed in the topic, we learned that even cloth masks which are easier to produce reduce the amount of virus people spread out into the environment. If people are skeptical or confused, it’s because they refuse to understand the concept that our knowledge about the world changes and evolves over time.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  > Not recommending masks was because we KNEW the n95 type masks worked, but there were not nearly enough of them for health care workers, let alone the rest of us. So it's not an oversimplification, you just agree with the tactic. It's alright to agree with the tactic without accusing the people who describe what happened accurately of arguing in bad faith.
- spaginal 6y ago
  People aren't refusing anything. People were being told that masks can be effective to stop spread, government agent says don't wear masks, then later says you must wear masks, then admits they said this to prevent you from getting a mask when they were available to you before the government and private industry squashed access to the supply. That level of deceit is enough to make anyone skeptical of anything else going forward. Then move 6 months into the future after we get more data, we know specifically who the virus harms, how it harms them, we've all interacted with someone who had it and realized it wasn't the end of the world, which adds further to the confusion on the overreaching response. We can also finely target the response now to mitigate spread if needed, yet governments are still using total lock down as the only model, despite having the data to do it better. A further issue, total "cases", which we now know most are mild, are the only metric used by government and media to engineer a propaganda campaign against a population as justification to destroy everyone's livelihoods and freedoms. Being a little salty at this point is justified, we don't lack understanding at this stage.

by 300bps 6y ago

mschuster91 6y ago

> Dr. Fauci himself at the beginning of the conflict said not to wear masks. Then he admitted he was lying to prevent a run on masks. Is it any wonder people are skeptical or at least confused? The same shit happened in Germany, with the added confusion between the various types of masks and people believing that painters' masks (the one with a passthrough for exhaling) are effective too while they are not. It was a madness all around, and one that may cost us a lot of public trust in science and politics.

peterwwillis 6y ago
I don't think the people who distrust science or politics are coming to that conclusion in a necessarily rational way. Their lack of faith is more of a general malaise. When most of your people think the elected body that makes laws is mostly corrupt, you've already conceded that the society's core guidance is corrupt. All you have to do then is wait for things to upset the public, like a mandatory inconvenience, for them to start to protest and later revolt. It's similar for both Black Lives Matter as for no-maskers/no-lockdowners. They're pissed that the system is corrupt and imposing itself on them. At that point they may throw out any institution of authority if they feel oppressed by it.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  The lack of faith comes from incorrect or manipulated information being delivered with the same confidence as information that had sounder foundations. One of the weaknesses of a mainstream media that only deals in propaganda is that it delivers all official declarations with an equal, demanding intensity. It might have been an advantage to have such a hated executive branch during the period, which at least forced something that seemed like a debate at the margins since there was at least an effort to show why Trump was wrong about stuff. Even that ended up backfiring with the shit Hydroxychloroquine Lancet study fraud. I guarantee that being published and witdrawn resulted in at least twice the people drinking "Miracle Solution" i.e. chlorine dioxide than would have if they hadn't published. The Lancet made Wakefield famous, and now they turned Trump into a health care martyr.
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago
  > Their lack of faith is more of a general malaise. When most of your people think the elected body that makes laws is mostly corrupt If I understood correctly, you're saying people don't distrust politics due to rational reasons, they're just generally pissed at the system? That doesn't answer the question. Why are they pissed in the first place? It could perfectly be due to rational reasons. I wouldn't say it's a distrust of science itself, either. It's a distrust of whatever is presented to you as science.
  - peterwwillis 6y ago
    > Why are they pissed in the first place? They're pissed because they think something is wrong and they want it fixed. But they don't know what is wrong, and they don't know how to fix it. So I think they are pissed because it just seems like they should be. > It could perfectly be due to rational reasons. If you ask a very loud shouty person why they are so angry, they usually launch into a tirade of "everything that's wrong with the country." But you don't hear one single specific issue or well-thought-out rationale. The only common thread is cultural or political. Us-versus them; it's all those people's fault that everything is wrong. There are common themes, but no one specific root cause, issue, or analysis. So they don't really know what's wrong or what the cause of it is. The only thing they're sure of is that something is wrong, and they grasp at whatever has been pissing them off lately. As social primates, when we are generally pissed off and think something is wrong, the most common group that we blame is "the authority" (the next-most-common group to blame being "the foreigner") The general evidence I give is here (https://news.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx). In the 1970s, around 50% of Americans disapproved of how Congress did it's job. For the past 10 years, around 80% of Americans have disapproved of how Congress did its job. Congress is an elected body. If the people really thought Congress was the cause of their anger, they could just vote them all out; doesn't take a genius to figure that out. Yet most people stay in Congress. So I think the anger at Congress is really just a symptom of the malaise, regardless of whether Congress does either a good or bad job.
    - mschuster91 6y ago
      > If the people really thought Congress was the cause of their anger, they could just vote them all out; doesn't take a genius to figure that out. Yet most people stay in Congress. A large part of the cause is single-issue voters, especially abortion and gun control. Many people vote R simply because they are so hellbent on turning back abortion rights or keeping the right to buy guns in supermarkets and vice versa. And the parties know and exploit that - Bush, Obama and Trump had times with supermajorities in which they could have ended the respective issues permanently, but they didn't. The result is a dysfunctional Congress whose members are not held accountable by their voters no matter what they do, and a subsequently disappointed public. And the same mechanic also applies to the Presidency elections. A lot of people only voted Biden because they wanted to get rid of Trump, and one might say that many people voted Trump in '16 to prevent Clinton who's as Establishment as it can be.

kevinmchugh 6y ago

The linked article makes a convincing case against cloth masks in a healthcare setting but doesn't suggest they're not helpful or harmful outside that.

op00to 6y ago

It’s not to “prevent a run on masks”, that’s an oversimplification. Not recommending masks was because we KNEW the n95 type masks worked, but there were not nearly enough of them for health care workers, let alone the rest of us. As science progressed in the topic, we learned that even cloth masks which are easier to produce reduce the amount of virus people spread out into the environment. If people are skeptical or confused, it’s because they refuse to understand the concept that our knowledge about the world changes and evolves over time.

pessimizer 6y ago
> Not recommending masks was because we KNEW the n95 type masks worked, but there were not nearly enough of them for health care workers, let alone the rest of us. So it's not an oversimplification, you just agree with the tactic. It's alright to agree with the tactic without accusing the people who describe what happened accurately of arguing in bad faith.
spaginal 6y ago
People aren't refusing anything. People were being told that masks can be effective to stop spread, government agent says don't wear masks, then later says you must wear masks, then admits they said this to prevent you from getting a mask when they were available to you before the government and private industry squashed access to the supply. That level of deceit is enough to make anyone skeptical of anything else going forward. Then move 6 months into the future after we get more data, we know specifically who the virus harms, how it harms them, we've all interacted with someone who had it and realized it wasn't the end of the world, which adds further to the confusion on the overreaching response. We can also finely target the response now to mitigate spread if needed, yet governments are still using total lock down as the only model, despite having the data to do it better. A further issue, total "cases", which we now know most are mild, are the only metric used by government and media to engineer a propaganda campaign against a population as justification to destroy everyone's livelihoods and freedoms. Being a little salty at this point is justified, we don't lack understanding at this stage.