5 ms·

> no harm has been done This isn't the evaluation we're having though. If it was purely a personal choice to wear one or not then maybe. As it stands, most peo

> no harm has been done This isn't the evaluation we're having though. If it was purely a personal choice to wear one or not then maybe. As it stands, most people were compelled by law to wear a mask under every circumstance whether it made sense or not. The argument quickly went from "wear a mask to protect yourself" to "everyone MUST wear a mask under every situation". It then split into two silly sides signally to their camps and a horrible political divide got much worse. Yeah, harm has been done.

ceejayoz 5y ago
> As it stands, most people were compelled by law to wear a mask under every circumstance whether it made sense or not. The CDC's recommendations changed yesterday. It'll take a couple days for states to adjust accordingly.
- stolenmerch 5y ago
  Of course. I'm talking about the life we all had for over a year and some of the harm it did.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    The subject of this HN thread is the CDC lifting the masking requirement, and some folks choosing individually to still wear them at times; an act that causes no one any harm. A debate on mask mandates in general over the last year is probably off topic, but I'm inclined to see them as quite justifiable.
    - stolenmerch 5y ago
      Fine, then the claim that "If masks work, and you don’t wear one, you are potentially killing people and worsening the pandemic." is off-topic and irrelevant since this is no longer true.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - wolverine876 5y ago
        It is true if you aren't fully vaccinated.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    I'm sorry, what was the harm of wearing a mask? Like, if the US and CDC said "hey, the flu sucks - face masks are mandatory in any public space during the 3 months of flu season", what's the cost there? Other than the cost of the mask of course.
    - stolenmerch 5y ago
      It's not the mask that does harm. It's the temptation by authorities to make blanket mandates that can easily encroach too far in an effort to cover as many scenarios as possible for legal purposes. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's just in their best interests to make it as easy as possible to interpret and enforce. It's also not at all cut-and-dried what a "public space" is, so that's a bitter argument that will be had. There is a lot of public space that is wide-open and sparsely travelled. Does this need a mandatory mask mandate? If we were all perfectly rational this would not be that difficult, but we're not. Given current and recent events in the U.S., it's also probably best not to give the police even more reason to be able to stop and question folks for what is a very minor infraction. With something like mask mandates, it's a highly visible signal that must be obeyed by every single person, so it's prone to enforcement abuse. In general, it's just not worth it to get flu numbers down, particularly when we weren't really scared as a society about the flu before now. As always, if you're sick stay home or even wear a mask out. Laws to enforce this? Not so much.
      - HWR_14 5y ago
        You've said that a fine-tuned mask mandate is too hard to write and enforce. You didn't address the underlying question of what the harm of a mask mandate is. Like, suppose I grant that it's difficult, and 80% of the time isn't needed. My question is then "and who cares?" My insurance isn't needed a far greater percentage of the time, nor is my wearing a seatbelt. What I'm getting at is if it were just a permanent law like "wear a shirt (if female)" or "wear pants" what's the harm?
        josephcsible 5y ago
        Wearing a mask is a lot more onerous than wearing a seat belt, shirt, or pants.
datagram 5y ago
> The argument quickly went from "wear a mask to protect yourself" That was never the argument. Wearing masks isn't about protecting yourself (only properly-fitted high-grade masks do that well, and regular people wearing those would have taken supply away from medical staff). Wearing masks is about protecting other people from you spreading the virus (which they do a decent job of when combined with distancing). The reason it can't just be a personal choice is because not wearing a mask isn't endangering you, it's endangering other people. It's the same reason we don't let people smoke indoors. And having a blanket rule to always wear a mask in public was mainly about keeping the messaging simple. Constant debating over which situations were safe or not for going maskless would have harmed our overall responnse to the virus. The reason the CDC changed their guidance is that there's now enough evidence to confidently say that vaccinated people can't spread the virus to others, but honestly it may potentially cause those same issues.
- stolenmerch 5y ago
  > That was never the argument. Yes it was. It's easy to forget what the actual messaging was in the early days. Originally we were all talking about not using up medical masks or N95 masks, which were meant to "protect the wearer from contact with droplets and sprays that may contain germs."[1] Then we all switched to wearing these homemade masks and the messaging turned to wearing them was important to stop the spread to other people. And it had to be done in every single circumstance. > Constant debating over which situations were safe or not for going maskless would have harmed our overall responnse to the virus. That is legitimately up for debate. One could make a good case that a noble lie to the public does more harm because it erodes trust in the institution that fibbed in order to "keep it simple". Part of the reason we were in this mask controversy mess is because the authorities were saying one thing and scientist were saying other things in many cases. Not always, but in some cases. [1] https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449 https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/i...

ceejayoz 5y ago

> As it stands, most people were compelled by law to wear a mask under every circumstance whether it made sense or not. The CDC's recommendations changed yesterday. It'll take a couple days for states to adjust accordingly.

stolenmerch 5y ago
Of course. I'm talking about the life we all had for over a year and some of the harm it did.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  The subject of this HN thread is the CDC lifting the masking requirement, and some folks choosing individually to still wear them at times; an act that causes no one any harm. A debate on mask mandates in general over the last year is probably off topic, but I'm inclined to see them as quite justifiable.
  - stolenmerch 5y ago
    Fine, then the claim that "If masks work, and you don’t wear one, you are potentially killing people and worsening the pandemic." is off-topic and irrelevant since this is no longer true.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      It is true if you aren't fully vaccinated.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  I'm sorry, what was the harm of wearing a mask? Like, if the US and CDC said "hey, the flu sucks - face masks are mandatory in any public space during the 3 months of flu season", what's the cost there? Other than the cost of the mask of course.
  - stolenmerch 5y ago
    It's not the mask that does harm. It's the temptation by authorities to make blanket mandates that can easily encroach too far in an effort to cover as many scenarios as possible for legal purposes. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's just in their best interests to make it as easy as possible to interpret and enforce. It's also not at all cut-and-dried what a "public space" is, so that's a bitter argument that will be had. There is a lot of public space that is wide-open and sparsely travelled. Does this need a mandatory mask mandate? If we were all perfectly rational this would not be that difficult, but we're not. Given current and recent events in the U.S., it's also probably best not to give the police even more reason to be able to stop and question folks for what is a very minor infraction. With something like mask mandates, it's a highly visible signal that must be obeyed by every single person, so it's prone to enforcement abuse. In general, it's just not worth it to get flu numbers down, particularly when we weren't really scared as a society about the flu before now. As always, if you're sick stay home or even wear a mask out. Laws to enforce this? Not so much.
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      You've said that a fine-tuned mask mandate is too hard to write and enforce. You didn't address the underlying question of what the harm of a mask mandate is. Like, suppose I grant that it's difficult, and 80% of the time isn't needed. My question is then "and who cares?" My insurance isn't needed a far greater percentage of the time, nor is my wearing a seatbelt. What I'm getting at is if it were just a permanent law like "wear a shirt (if female)" or "wear pants" what's the harm?
      - josephcsible 5y ago
        Wearing a mask is a lot more onerous than wearing a seat belt, shirt, or pants.

datagram 5y ago

> The argument quickly went from "wear a mask to protect yourself" That was never the argument. Wearing masks isn't about protecting yourself (only properly-fitted high-grade masks do that well, and regular people wearing those would have taken supply away from medical staff). Wearing masks is about protecting other people from you spreading the virus (which they do a decent job of when combined with distancing). The reason it can't just be a personal choice is because not wearing a mask isn't endangering you, it's endangering other people. It's the same reason we don't let people smoke indoors. And having a blanket rule to always wear a mask in public was mainly about keeping the messaging simple. Constant debating over which situations were safe or not for going maskless would have harmed our overall responnse to the virus. The reason the CDC changed their guidance is that there's now enough evidence to confidently say that vaccinated people can't spread the virus to others, but honestly it may potentially cause those same issues.

stolenmerch 5y ago
> That was never the argument. Yes it was. It's easy to forget what the actual messaging was in the early days. Originally we were all talking about not using up medical masks or N95 masks, which were meant to "protect the wearer from contact with droplets and sprays that may contain germs."[1] Then we all switched to wearing these homemade masks and the messaging turned to wearing them was important to stop the spread to other people. And it had to be done in every single circumstance. > Constant debating over which situations were safe or not for going maskless would have harmed our overall responnse to the virus. That is legitimately up for debate. One could make a good case that a noble lie to the public does more harm because it erodes trust in the institution that fibbed in order to "keep it simple". Part of the reason we were in this mask controversy mess is because the authorities were saying one thing and scientist were saying other things in many cases. Not always, but in some cases. [1] https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449 https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/i...