4 ms·

The alleged paranoia is not one unless herd immunity is verified, and effective against upcoming variants from abroad. Precautionary principle gives it a few m

The alleged paranoia is not one unless herd immunity is verified, and effective against upcoming variants from abroad. Precautionary principle gives it a few months of wait time after that research, to ensure it's valid and repeated.

prepend 5y ago
That would make sense if masks protected me, but that’s not how they work. Masks are not protective of the wearer, they protect the wearer from spreading to others. The research is months old on this. It seems pretty valid to me, and to public health agencies issuing guidance. Also from basic logical principles, if vaccinated then masks don’t do much of anything. I don’t think you owe anyone your rationale for why you wear a mask, but it’s irrational to expect others to wear masks when they are past the point of usefulness. Or to hold negative opinions of people who don’t wear masks. If anything, wearing masks using faulty logic is something that should be avoided. As trying to avoid all illogical things.
- ben0x539 5y ago
  Trying to avoid illogical things isn't in itself logical. Not accounting for people acting irrationally isn't rational. Your argument from logical principle presupposes that vaccinated people wearing masks is 100% useless. I don't think that's right, eg. wearing a mask isn't 100% useless for protecting yourself, vaccination doesn't provide 100% certainty that you aren't carrying/spreading the virus, and even wearing masks purely performatively may induce unvaccinated people to wear masks. You may be correct in discounting that because of statistical arguments and low probabilities, but at that point you are making some sort of risk/benefit judgement call and not a purely logic-driven conclusion.
  - prepend 5y ago
    Good point, I’m not arguing that something is 100% useless. Just that there is not high enough marginal utility to be worthwhile. Vaccines aren’t 100% effective, so obviously a mask worn by someone who is vaccinated but infected will reduce their ability to infect others. I think you’re right that I’m arguing about a risk/benefit calculus and that the specific result is that the benefits of masks+vaccines are not high enough to outweigh the costs. But I think this is driven from the logical basis of how masks work, how vaccines work, public health interventions work, etc. Many people misunderstand masks and they they are protective for the wearer. Or they think masks give greater protection, etc.

prepend 5y ago

That would make sense if masks protected me, but that’s not how they work. Masks are not protective of the wearer, they protect the wearer from spreading to others. The research is months old on this. It seems pretty valid to me, and to public health agencies issuing guidance. Also from basic logical principles, if vaccinated then masks don’t do much of anything. I don’t think you owe anyone your rationale for why you wear a mask, but it’s irrational to expect others to wear masks when they are past the point of usefulness. Or to hold negative opinions of people who don’t wear masks. If anything, wearing masks using faulty logic is something that should be avoided. As trying to avoid all illogical things.

ben0x539 5y ago
Trying to avoid illogical things isn't in itself logical. Not accounting for people acting irrationally isn't rational. Your argument from logical principle presupposes that vaccinated people wearing masks is 100% useless. I don't think that's right, eg. wearing a mask isn't 100% useless for protecting yourself, vaccination doesn't provide 100% certainty that you aren't carrying/spreading the virus, and even wearing masks purely performatively may induce unvaccinated people to wear masks. You may be correct in discounting that because of statistical arguments and low probabilities, but at that point you are making some sort of risk/benefit judgement call and not a purely logic-driven conclusion.
- prepend 5y ago
  Good point, I’m not arguing that something is 100% useless. Just that there is not high enough marginal utility to be worthwhile. Vaccines aren’t 100% effective, so obviously a mask worn by someone who is vaccinated but infected will reduce their ability to infect others. I think you’re right that I’m arguing about a risk/benefit calculus and that the specific result is that the benefits of masks+vaccines are not high enough to outweigh the costs. But I think this is driven from the logical basis of how masks work, how vaccines work, public health interventions work, etc. Many people misunderstand masks and they they are protective for the wearer. Or they think masks give greater protection, etc.