3 ms·

None of the above. The only mask that will stop you from getting covid are masks that will also stop you from breathing. Different masks have different effecti

None of the above. The only mask that will stop you from getting covid are masks that will also stop you from breathing. Different masks have different effectiveness in different environments with different risk levels. Cloth masks may be inappropriate in some environments while being effective in others. Research has consistently shown that 3-point seatbelts are completely inadequate in auto racing environments when compared to modern 5-point harnesses. Passenger cars do not come equipped with 5-point harnesses. Is that a reason to not wear a seatbelt at all?

endisneigh 5y ago
I'm not here to argue whether or not cloth masks are safe or not since I'm not a scientist. The point is that there's hardly a consensus and it seems wrong to ban someone who's skeptical and cites peer reviewed research.
- darksaints 5y ago
  Despite the fact that Rand Paul is being an absolute dunce about this, I agree. It is wrong to ban skepticism, and I see this as an overreaction, but not necessarily in a malicious sense. Because the stakes for humanity are pretty high and any time that happens, you're gonna get overreactions. In sociopolitical subjects, links between humans are indirect and often can be strained and straw-grasping. With subjects like these, it is easy to find loads of research supporting both sides...because it's extremely hard to prove cause and effect in sociological scenarios. Examples: minimum wage and employment rates, drug use and crime rates, tax rates and tax-induced emigration, government spending and poverty, gun ownership and violence. Epidemiology is not like that. Research methods are mature. Humans physiology is more uniform than human psychology. Cause and effect relationships can be strongly identified via experimental means. Peer review actually works reasonably and is generally not politicized. And yet despite the maturity of the field and the strength of the research, we still have politicians saying that vaccines cause autism, that covid is no worse than a seasonal flu, and that masks don't work. So I'm gonna hold my pitchforks when people overreact to bad interpretations to peer reviewed science.

endisneigh 5y ago

I'm not here to argue whether or not cloth masks are safe or not since I'm not a scientist. The point is that there's hardly a consensus and it seems wrong to ban someone who's skeptical and cites peer reviewed research.

darksaints 5y ago
Despite the fact that Rand Paul is being an absolute dunce about this, I agree. It is wrong to ban skepticism, and I see this as an overreaction, but not necessarily in a malicious sense. Because the stakes for humanity are pretty high and any time that happens, you're gonna get overreactions. In sociopolitical subjects, links between humans are indirect and often can be strained and straw-grasping. With subjects like these, it is easy to find loads of research supporting both sides...because it's extremely hard to prove cause and effect in sociological scenarios. Examples: minimum wage and employment rates, drug use and crime rates, tax rates and tax-induced emigration, government spending and poverty, gun ownership and violence. Epidemiology is not like that. Research methods are mature. Humans physiology is more uniform than human psychology. Cause and effect relationships can be strongly identified via experimental means. Peer review actually works reasonably and is generally not politicized. And yet despite the maturity of the field and the strength of the research, we still have politicians saying that vaccines cause autism, that covid is no worse than a seasonal flu, and that masks don't work. So I'm gonna hold my pitchforks when people overreact to bad interpretations to peer reviewed science.