24 ms·

What's the debate? Does not going to indoor weddings decrease your chance of infection? Yes, obviously. Do masks work? Very likely, yes[1]. Do masks harm? Lol,

What's the debate? Does not going to indoor weddings decrease your chance of infection? Yes, obviously. Do masks work? Very likely, yes[1]. Do masks harm? Lol, no. What's the optimal balance between prevention of infection and allowing life/the economy to continue as usual? Hard to say. Is anyone prevented from debating that question? Not according to the ten articles I see on that question every day. Hydroxychloroquine? Now that you're asking, I've a newfound appreciation for the idea of having died, say, 86 seconds ago... That question of trade-offs, by the way, isn't even a question of science any more, but values. So it would be out of scope wrt to this article. [1]: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947e2.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947e2.htm

forgotmypw17 6y ago
.
matz1 6y ago
>Does not going to indoor weddings decrease your chance of infection? Yes, obviously Sure,but at the same not having indoor weeding also has its disadvantages. The question is, is it worth the risk of going to indoor weeding? At least for me its obviously yes. >Do masks work? the article pointed out research paper that says there is no strong evidence that mask help. >Do masks harm? For some, yes, for start it can be uncomfortable to wear, it can even be more uncomfortable when exercising or in hot weather. Not to mention you lose clue from people facial expressions.
- SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
  I understand, you've made up your mind; I think I had discussion with you previously, but I will still leave some comments. First of all, we still do not learn much about long-term consequences of COVID infection among less vulnerable population, there is a growing list of documented complications of even mild cases of COVID, so I do not think there is anything obvious in measuring the risk, even if you think otherwise. Secondly, evidence for mask significantly outnumber contrary papers, and it is some kind of cherry picking to fish for the single papers claiming the opposite. Thirdly, risk of you going to the wedding includes the risk of the spread of infection to people you contact with, among them your elder relatives. And the argument about the inconvenience and facial expressions - well, I do not know who would buy that.
  - matz1 6y ago
    >we still do not learn much about long-term consequences of COVID infection among less vulnerable population Then we need to first learn about it before implementing measure that is harmful such as lockdown. Somehow lockdown doesn't have long-term consequences? >Secondly, evidence for mask significantly outnumber contrary paper What matter is the content of the paper not the number of paper. >Thirdly, risk of you going to the wedding includes the risk of the spread of infection to people you contact with, among them your elder relatives I didn't denied that but there is also risk of banning indoor weeding. The question is which has less risk? >well, I do not know who would buy that. I can only speak for myself
    - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
      > Somehow lockdown doesn't have long-term consequences? Lockdowns are almost always implemented to stop hospital from overflowing. Both short and long term social and medical effects of overflown hospitals are much higher than mild effects of lockdowns. Of course, it is better to minimize them (say like Taiwan does), but deliberate avoidance of lockdowns will always turn out more expensive than applying them in right moments. >What matter is the content of the paper not the number of paper. No, unfortunately, if you cannot independently verify the claims in the paper, quantity becomes important (obviously, the papers have to com from reputable sources). > The question is which has less risk? I have no idea what this means. > I can only speak for myself I am not are about that, honestly (that you'd buy argument of this quality, coming from someone else).
      - matz1 6y ago
        Except in most places the hospital are not overflowing, even in the event of hospital overflowing, the measure should be to increase capacity, re-distribute to other hospital, don't admit people who only have mild symptoms. In fact, I would argue that lockdown can cause overflow because of all the delayed procedures and layoffs due to lack of doing those procedures >No, unfortunately, if you cannot independently verify the claims in the paper, quantity becomes important (obviously, the papers have to com from reputable sources). More doesn't mean it correct, you have to argue the content of the paper. Quantity doesn't mean quality. >I have no idea what this means. Covid has risk Banning indoor wedding has risk Which has less risk? Its matter of choosing the less risky. >I am not are about that, honestly (that you'd buy argument of this quality, coming from someone else What do you mean? The original poster argue that mask is harmless. I gave argument how mask can be harmful. I can only speak for myself that at least for me the mask can be harmful. I even acknowledge that for other people it may not.
- matthewmacleod 6y ago
  The question is, is it worth the risk of going to indoor weeding? At least for me its obviously yes. The question is actually: is it worth the risk to all the other people that attendees at the wedding will subsequently interact with over the following 10 days or so? You frame this as a matter of individual risk; it’s maddening to see so many just blatantly ignore that a transmissible disease has impact on people other than those who decide their exposure is worth the risk.
  - matz1 6y ago
    Well, because I can only speak for myself. The impact goes both ways, preventing people to go to indoor weeding has impact on other people too.
    - matthewmacleod 6y ago
      Obviously. Who said it didn’t?
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      It's spelled "wedding" (unless you're talking about gardening).
- wishinghand 6y ago
  Being uncomfortable isn't harm. That refutation is a joke at best and eye-rolling at worst.
  - matz1 6y ago
    I acknowledge maybe it isn't harm for you but you can't say its not harm for me or other people.
    - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
      Well, people obviously can say, that this harm cannot be taken seriously on the societal level. Unless you have some psychiatric issues, obviously.
      - matz1 6y ago
        By that logic I can also says mask cannot be taken seriously on the societal level, unless you are being paranoid.
- jklinger410 6y ago
  > The question is, is it worth the risk of going to indoor weeding? At least for me its obviously yes. This opinion is one primarily born of ignorance. > the article pointed out research paper that says there is no strong evidence that mask help. I'll err on the side of caution because I understand the consequences. > For some, yes, for start it can be uncomfortable to wear, it can even be more uncomfortable when exercising or in hot weather. Not to mention you lose clue from people facial expressions. So, no.
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  If anyone is infected at that wedding (highly would be likely in the US and much of Europe right now), and if it's at all like normal weddings, it's highly likely that many people will become infected. The virus has an infection fatality rate of around 0.5%, so you're running perhaps a few percent chance of someone who goes to the wedding dying of CoVID-19. The secondary effects of accelerating the spread of the virus are much harder to measure, but potentially far worse.
  - matz1 6y ago
    Yes of course there will always non zero risk of dying from covid. Even if covid never happen there is always small chance of dying from something, I never deny that. What about the secondary effect of banning indoor wedding?
tazjin 6y ago
> Is anyone prevented from debating that question? Maybe they're not prevented from debating it, but the sides will not take each other seriously. For example, ponder your phrasing here: > Do masks harm? Lol, no. You say "Lol, no." as if this was a settled matter - inherently dismissing all possible criticism. There are studies that indicate that the higher concentration of bacteria which masks lead to in the area around your mouth may lead to an increase in dental issues. Is this settled science? No. Does saying "Lol, no." do a disservice to the scientists trying to settle this? Yes.
skybrian 6y ago
An example of a contested scientific question from the article might be "what is the infection fatality rate?" And I'm sure I don't know, but here's an article saying "A new study conducted by researchers at Imperial College London found the COVID-19 infection fatality ratio is about 1.15% of infected people in high-income nations and 0.23% in low-income nations." [1] Which seems like quite a range? But they say it's because low-income nations have fewer old people. These numbers are not like constants from physics. They aren't the same everywhere, they depend on the environment, and they can change over time. They depend on quality of care, which might improve due to doctors understanding the disease better, or degrade due to hospitals being overwhelmed. [1] https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20201030/covid-19-infection-fatality-ratio-is-about-one-point-15-percent https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20201030/covid-19-infection-...
- IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
  It may be "contested", although I'd agree with you and characterise it as, simply, "varying", in both space and time. Mainstream science and journalism seem to agree, which is why they either qualify any single number with the time, place, and other caveats, or give you all the data[1] (CFR, in that case). Here's the New York Times from January, clearly acknowledging the uncertainty, and somehow still managing to draw a box where that 1.15 % in high-income countries is just about dead centre: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/01/30/us/china-coronavirus-contain-promo-1580431440996/china-coronavirus-contain-promo-1580431440996-mediumSquareAt3X-v4.png https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/01/30/us/china-coronavi... The only "war" in sight is of the cultural variety, with interested parties seeing that graph in January, optimistically (mis)interpreting it as showing an equivalence with the flu, and studiously avoiding any contact with new data since. [1]: https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2020-03-14..latest&country=OWID_WRL~USA~ITA~BRA~ESP~SWE~DEU~IND~IRN~KOR~NZL~BRN~BEN~ARM~AFG~AND~ESH~TUR~GBR~URY~ARG~BGD~Asia~AZE~BOL~BEL~COG&region=World&cfrMetric=true&interval=total&aligned=true&hideControls=true&smoothing=0&pickerMetric=location&pickerSort=asc https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToS...
umvi 6y ago
> Do masks harm? Lol, no. Well, let's think about it for a second before completely dismissing it. Are there any circumstances where masks could do more harm than good? Well I don't know for sure, but off the top of my head: sharing masks and not washing your masks regularly seem like they could be vectors for infection. Also masks might give you a false sense of security and cause you social distance less frequently than you ought to (for example).
dkarl 6y ago
> That question of trade-offs, by the way, isn't even a question of science any more, but values. Unfortunately, everything is framed as a battle between those who believe in science and those who don't, rationality versus irrationality, experts versus conspiracy theorists, enlightenment versus chaos. There are no "values" experts, only experts in minimizing medical risk, so minimizing medical risk is what we do. If you asked people like us in a vacuum if science provides moral answers, they would say no, of course not, and they would probably say some very pointed things about the moral track record of science. But when they have a hard decision to make, they want an expert, and the experts on disease are scientists. Of course it works out well for us to trust scientists and other highly educated professionals with political questions. They have similar educational backgrounds, similar tastes, and similar economic and power interests. What's good for them is probably fine for us. We shouldn't be surprised when people with different backgrounds, tastes, and economic interests sense something fishy with this arrangement.

forgotmypw17 6y ago

matz1 6y ago

>Does not going to indoor weddings decrease your chance of infection? Yes, obviously Sure,but at the same not having indoor weeding also has its disadvantages. The question is, is it worth the risk of going to indoor weeding? At least for me its obviously yes. >Do masks work? the article pointed out research paper that says there is no strong evidence that mask help. >Do masks harm? For some, yes, for start it can be uncomfortable to wear, it can even be more uncomfortable when exercising or in hot weather. Not to mention you lose clue from people facial expressions.

SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
I understand, you've made up your mind; I think I had discussion with you previously, but I will still leave some comments. First of all, we still do not learn much about long-term consequences of COVID infection among less vulnerable population, there is a growing list of documented complications of even mild cases of COVID, so I do not think there is anything obvious in measuring the risk, even if you think otherwise. Secondly, evidence for mask significantly outnumber contrary papers, and it is some kind of cherry picking to fish for the single papers claiming the opposite. Thirdly, risk of you going to the wedding includes the risk of the spread of infection to people you contact with, among them your elder relatives. And the argument about the inconvenience and facial expressions - well, I do not know who would buy that.
- matz1 6y ago
  >we still do not learn much about long-term consequences of COVID infection among less vulnerable population Then we need to first learn about it before implementing measure that is harmful such as lockdown. Somehow lockdown doesn't have long-term consequences? >Secondly, evidence for mask significantly outnumber contrary paper What matter is the content of the paper not the number of paper. >Thirdly, risk of you going to the wedding includes the risk of the spread of infection to people you contact with, among them your elder relatives I didn't denied that but there is also risk of banning indoor weeding. The question is which has less risk? >well, I do not know who would buy that. I can only speak for myself
  - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
    > Somehow lockdown doesn't have long-term consequences? Lockdowns are almost always implemented to stop hospital from overflowing. Both short and long term social and medical effects of overflown hospitals are much higher than mild effects of lockdowns. Of course, it is better to minimize them (say like Taiwan does), but deliberate avoidance of lockdowns will always turn out more expensive than applying them in right moments. >What matter is the content of the paper not the number of paper. No, unfortunately, if you cannot independently verify the claims in the paper, quantity becomes important (obviously, the papers have to com from reputable sources). > The question is which has less risk? I have no idea what this means. > I can only speak for myself I am not are about that, honestly (that you'd buy argument of this quality, coming from someone else).
    - matz1 6y ago
      Except in most places the hospital are not overflowing, even in the event of hospital overflowing, the measure should be to increase capacity, re-distribute to other hospital, don't admit people who only have mild symptoms. In fact, I would argue that lockdown can cause overflow because of all the delayed procedures and layoffs due to lack of doing those procedures >No, unfortunately, if you cannot independently verify the claims in the paper, quantity becomes important (obviously, the papers have to com from reputable sources). More doesn't mean it correct, you have to argue the content of the paper. Quantity doesn't mean quality. >I have no idea what this means. Covid has risk Banning indoor wedding has risk Which has less risk? Its matter of choosing the less risky. >I am not are about that, honestly (that you'd buy argument of this quality, coming from someone else What do you mean? The original poster argue that mask is harmless. I gave argument how mask can be harmful. I can only speak for myself that at least for me the mask can be harmful. I even acknowledge that for other people it may not.
matthewmacleod 6y ago
The question is, is it worth the risk of going to indoor weeding? At least for me its obviously yes. The question is actually: is it worth the risk to all the other people that attendees at the wedding will subsequently interact with over the following 10 days or so? You frame this as a matter of individual risk; it’s maddening to see so many just blatantly ignore that a transmissible disease has impact on people other than those who decide their exposure is worth the risk.
- matz1 6y ago
  Well, because I can only speak for myself. The impact goes both ways, preventing people to go to indoor weeding has impact on other people too.
  - matthewmacleod 6y ago
    Obviously. Who said it didn’t?
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    It's spelled "wedding" (unless you're talking about gardening).
wishinghand 6y ago
Being uncomfortable isn't harm. That refutation is a joke at best and eye-rolling at worst.
- matz1 6y ago
  I acknowledge maybe it isn't harm for you but you can't say its not harm for me or other people.
  - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
    Well, people obviously can say, that this harm cannot be taken seriously on the societal level. Unless you have some psychiatric issues, obviously.
    - matz1 6y ago
      By that logic I can also says mask cannot be taken seriously on the societal level, unless you are being paranoid.
jklinger410 6y ago
> The question is, is it worth the risk of going to indoor weeding? At least for me its obviously yes. This opinion is one primarily born of ignorance. > the article pointed out research paper that says there is no strong evidence that mask help. I'll err on the side of caution because I understand the consequences. > For some, yes, for start it can be uncomfortable to wear, it can even be more uncomfortable when exercising or in hot weather. Not to mention you lose clue from people facial expressions. So, no.
DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
If anyone is infected at that wedding (highly would be likely in the US and much of Europe right now), and if it's at all like normal weddings, it's highly likely that many people will become infected. The virus has an infection fatality rate of around 0.5%, so you're running perhaps a few percent chance of someone who goes to the wedding dying of CoVID-19. The secondary effects of accelerating the spread of the virus are much harder to measure, but potentially far worse.
- matz1 6y ago
  Yes of course there will always non zero risk of dying from covid. Even if covid never happen there is always small chance of dying from something, I never deny that. What about the secondary effect of banning indoor wedding?

tazjin 6y ago

> Is anyone prevented from debating that question? Maybe they're not prevented from debating it, but the sides will not take each other seriously. For example, ponder your phrasing here: > Do masks harm? Lol, no. You say "Lol, no." as if this was a settled matter - inherently dismissing all possible criticism. There are studies that indicate that the higher concentration of bacteria which masks lead to in the area around your mouth may lead to an increase in dental issues. Is this settled science? No. Does saying "Lol, no." do a disservice to the scientists trying to settle this? Yes.

skybrian 6y ago

An example of a contested scientific question from the article might be "what is the infection fatality rate?" And I'm sure I don't know, but here's an article saying "A new study conducted by researchers at Imperial College London found the COVID-19 infection fatality ratio is about 1.15% of infected people in high-income nations and 0.23% in low-income nations." [1] Which seems like quite a range? But they say it's because low-income nations have fewer old people. These numbers are not like constants from physics. They aren't the same everywhere, they depend on the environment, and they can change over time. They depend on quality of care, which might improve due to doctors understanding the disease better, or degrade due to hospitals being overwhelmed. [1] https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20201030/covid-19-infection-fatality-ratio-is-about-one-point-15-percent https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20201030/covid-19-infection-...

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
It may be "contested", although I'd agree with you and characterise it as, simply, "varying", in both space and time. Mainstream science and journalism seem to agree, which is why they either qualify any single number with the time, place, and other caveats, or give you all the data[1] (CFR, in that case). Here's the New York Times from January, clearly acknowledging the uncertainty, and somehow still managing to draw a box where that 1.15 % in high-income countries is just about dead centre: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/01/30/us/china-coronavirus-contain-promo-1580431440996/china-coronavirus-contain-promo-1580431440996-mediumSquareAt3X-v4.png https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/01/30/us/china-coronavi... The only "war" in sight is of the cultural variety, with interested parties seeing that graph in January, optimistically (mis)interpreting it as showing an equivalence with the flu, and studiously avoiding any contact with new data since. [1]: https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2020-03-14..latest&country=OWID_WRL~USA~ITA~BRA~ESP~SWE~DEU~IND~IRN~KOR~NZL~BRN~BEN~ARM~AFG~AND~ESH~TUR~GBR~URY~ARG~BGD~Asia~AZE~BOL~BEL~COG&region=World&cfrMetric=true&interval=total&aligned=true&hideControls=true&smoothing=0&pickerMetric=location&pickerSort=asc https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToS...

umvi 6y ago

> Do masks harm? Lol, no. Well, let's think about it for a second before completely dismissing it. Are there any circumstances where masks could do more harm than good? Well I don't know for sure, but off the top of my head: sharing masks and not washing your masks regularly seem like they could be vectors for infection. Also masks might give you a false sense of security and cause you social distance less frequently than you ought to (for example).

dkarl 6y ago

> That question of trade-offs, by the way, isn't even a question of science any more, but values. Unfortunately, everything is framed as a battle between those who believe in science and those who don't, rationality versus irrationality, experts versus conspiracy theorists, enlightenment versus chaos. There are no "values" experts, only experts in minimizing medical risk, so minimizing medical risk is what we do. If you asked people like us in a vacuum if science provides moral answers, they would say no, of course not, and they would probably say some very pointed things about the moral track record of science. But when they have a hard decision to make, they want an expert, and the experts on disease are scientists. Of course it works out well for us to trust scientists and other highly educated professionals with political questions. They have similar educational backgrounds, similar tastes, and similar economic and power interests. What's good for them is probably fine for us. We shouldn't be surprised when people with different backgrounds, tastes, and economic interests sense something fishy with this arrangement.