39 ms·

Your argument would be sound except that masks are regarded as being completely safe. They are a no risk shot at saving lives. So again, what is the purpose of

• timr 6y ago
  > Your argument would be sound except that masks are regarded as being completely safe. Prove it. So many assertions...so little actual evidence. And for the record, I'm not talking about silly stuff like "wearing a mask raises my CO2 level". There's a very serious debate to be had about risk compensation -- because of the over-the-top messaging about masks, a large number of people think they're personally protected when wearing them. That can make people do risky things. Howard's review skims over the issue and pretends it is settled. It is not. It's not clear at all that masks -- and in particular, mask mandates -- have a positive net effect. The RCTs on the subject certainly do not support strong claims of effectiveness.
  • hluska 6y ago
    No bud, after how you chose to speak to TheOtherHobbes, I'm not interested in continuing this. I have no interest in trying to educate you because with all due respect, you're far too unkind for me to devote more time to. You've made up your mind and all you're doing is hurting people. This is pointless and I'm not going to be fodder for more of your bullying.
    • timr 6y ago
      Ah yes...I'm "hurting people"...by asking questions and talking about evidence. An illustration of the major intellectual tragedy of 2020. If we cannot ask questions and discuss them rationally without being accused of "hurting people", science is dead. This is a fundamentally anti-intellectual reaction, it is a way of villainizing people who question your opinions, and pointing it out is not unkind.