4 ms·

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

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.
    - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
      > 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. The trouble with this argument is that the limiting factor is ICU nurses, and they can't be spun up on demand.
      - matz1 6y ago
        Yes they can, its logistics issue.
        disgruntledphd2 6y ago
        Please enlighten me as to how you create new ICU nurses without a four year (at best) lead time. Honestly, if this was possible, it would make a lot of things much easier.
        6y ago
- AnimalMuppet 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. So, first let the harm happen, then when we're sure there's harm, then restrict? That can make sense, depending on your perception of the degree of harm and the probability of harm. Still, for at least some degrees and probabilities of harm, that's a spectacularly wrong-headed approach. [Edit: And let me note that I agree with you on one thing: The lockdown is harmful. That doesn't mean I agree with your larger perspective.]
  - matz1 6y ago
    >So, first let the harm happen, then when we're sure there's harm, then restrict? Regardless what you choose, there will be harm. Both is harmful. Covid is harmful. Lockdown is harmful. Its matter of choosing the less harmful one.

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.
  - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
    > 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. The trouble with this argument is that the limiting factor is ICU nurses, and they can't be spun up on demand.
    - matz1 6y ago
      Yes they can, its logistics issue.
      - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
        Please enlighten me as to how you create new ICU nurses without a four year (at best) lead time. Honestly, if this was possible, it would make a lot of things much easier.
        6y ago
AnimalMuppet 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. So, first let the harm happen, then when we're sure there's harm, then restrict? That can make sense, depending on your perception of the degree of harm and the probability of harm. Still, for at least some degrees and probabilities of harm, that's a spectacularly wrong-headed approach. [Edit: And let me note that I agree with you on one thing: The lockdown is harmful. That doesn't mean I agree with your larger perspective.]
- matz1 6y ago
  >So, first let the harm happen, then when we're sure there's harm, then restrict? Regardless what you choose, there will be harm. Both is harmful. Covid is harmful. Lockdown is harmful. Its matter of choosing the less harmful one.