3 ms·

>>I can’t fathom anyone who couldn’t be bothered to wear one for a couple months longer. Because the quality of life given up is not worth the risk mitigation.

>>I can’t fathom anyone who couldn’t be bothered to wear one for a couple months longer. Because the quality of life given up is not worth the risk mitigation. If a child has a 0.00006% chance of dying each month they are not masked (30 deaths / 50,000,000 children aged 5-17), and wearing a mask for most of the school day reduces their quality of life by 5%, they are giving up 0.00417 (1 yr / 12 * 0.05) quality-adjusted life years to gain 0.000045 (0.0000006 risk of death × 75 years lost if they die) life years. The cost, in life years, is approximately 100X the benefit, in mitigating risk of death. And this is assuming masks reduce the risk of death by 100%, and don't exacerbate other risks of death (e.g. less development of communication skills, leading to less lifetime income and lower life expectancy). The real ratio, in terms of cost vs benefit, could be 1,000X.

jasonlaramburu 5y ago
What? Nobody thinks like this so you must just be trolling at this point. No evidence whatsoever that masking takes any % off your life expectancy.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  My point was very clear, so I have no idea how you misinterpreted me. My primary point is that masking takes from your quality of life, and that it's not worth giving up a lot of quality of life to gain a little bit of life expectancy. As for masking's potentially negative effect on life expectancy, we don't know if it exists and what it could be, but we cannot rule it out, as extended masking in children has never been tested to see its effects, let alone its long-term ones. So you completely ignored my primary point about quality of life. Did you really misinterpret my reference to quality of life as being about life expectancy, or are you deliberately trolling me?
  - jasonlaramburu 5y ago
    You're trolling because you just made up the numbers. 5%... Why not 10% or 0.5? There is such a thing in the world as altruism. Sometimes people inconvenience themselves to help others (not just themselves).
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      I thought it was a reasonably conservative estimate. If you polled people, and asked them if they would give up being free from having to wear a mask in all settings where they have to interact with people outside their immediate family, for a 5% longer lifespan, I think we can safely say most would not agree to that exchange. I think any reasonable estimate of the quality of life degradation caused by all-day masking would result in the conclusion that masking children does more harm than good. But for the sake of argument, if we polled people, and found the value was indeed 5%, then would you agree that masking children does massively more harm than good? I just want to know if you hold the same logical axioms as I do, or else this exercise is pointless. >>Sometimes people inconvenience themselves to help others (not just themselves). But you're not just inconveniencing yourself. You're inconveniencing tens of millions of children.
      - jasonlaramburu 5y ago
        >If you polled people Not a perfect proxy but people have been polled around how they value extra years of their life. According to this article [1] they would pay $7,500 to add an extra year to their life. So if 5% of a typical human lifespan is 4 years that's $30,000. Median annual wages in the US are about $34,000, so people would willingly work full time for a year to extend their life by 5%. Hard to see in any universe how wearing a mask at school for a couple months is more of an inconvenience than working full time for a year. >would you agree that masking children does massively more harm than good You've still failed to demonstrate masks do any harm more than being a minor inconvenience. It sounds like you personally don't like wearing them, and are looking for ways to rationalize that opinion. [1] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20151201-how-much-would-you-pay-to-live-for-an-extra-year https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20151201-how-much-would-y...
        CryptoPunk 5y ago
        >>Hard to see in any universe how wearing a mask at school for a couple months is more of an inconvenience than working full time for a year. That's not an appropriate comparison, because we're not trading wearing a mask for a couple months, for a 5% longer lifespan. We're trading wearing a mask for life, for a 5% longer lifespan. The percentage added or removed is from the duration that they're wearing a mask, so you reduce 5% from the two months of mask-wearing, not 5% from their whole life. And yes, I think many people would rather work one year longer, than have to wear a mask every day all day at work. Going back to the previous logical exercise: If someone would be willing to give up 5% of their lifespan, to forego wearing a mask for life, then they'd be willing to up 5% of a year of life, i.e. 18.25 days, to not have to wear a mask for a year, and 1.52 days of lifespan, to not have to wear a mask for a month. If wearing a mask is 100% effective at preventing covid infection, then not wearing a mask all month reduces their risk-adjusted lifespan by 0.016425 days (0.0000006 risk of death × 75 years lost if they die * 365 days / year), which is nearly 100X less than what they lose in quality of life (1.52 days). >>You've still failed to demonstrate masks do any harm more than being a minor inconvenience. You're not answering my question, which was the following hypothetical: But for the sake of argument, if we polled people, and found the value was indeed 5%, then would you agree that masking children does massively more harm than good? I just want to know if you hold the same logical axioms as I do, or else this exercise is pointless. You're being evasive..

jasonlaramburu 5y ago

What? Nobody thinks like this so you must just be trolling at this point. No evidence whatsoever that masking takes any % off your life expectancy.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
My point was very clear, so I have no idea how you misinterpreted me. My primary point is that masking takes from your quality of life, and that it's not worth giving up a lot of quality of life to gain a little bit of life expectancy. As for masking's potentially negative effect on life expectancy, we don't know if it exists and what it could be, but we cannot rule it out, as extended masking in children has never been tested to see its effects, let alone its long-term ones. So you completely ignored my primary point about quality of life. Did you really misinterpret my reference to quality of life as being about life expectancy, or are you deliberately trolling me?
- jasonlaramburu 5y ago
  You're trolling because you just made up the numbers. 5%... Why not 10% or 0.5? There is such a thing in the world as altruism. Sometimes people inconvenience themselves to help others (not just themselves).
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    I thought it was a reasonably conservative estimate. If you polled people, and asked them if they would give up being free from having to wear a mask in all settings where they have to interact with people outside their immediate family, for a 5% longer lifespan, I think we can safely say most would not agree to that exchange. I think any reasonable estimate of the quality of life degradation caused by all-day masking would result in the conclusion that masking children does more harm than good. But for the sake of argument, if we polled people, and found the value was indeed 5%, then would you agree that masking children does massively more harm than good? I just want to know if you hold the same logical axioms as I do, or else this exercise is pointless. >>Sometimes people inconvenience themselves to help others (not just themselves). But you're not just inconveniencing yourself. You're inconveniencing tens of millions of children.
    - jasonlaramburu 5y ago
      >If you polled people Not a perfect proxy but people have been polled around how they value extra years of their life. According to this article [1] they would pay $7,500 to add an extra year to their life. So if 5% of a typical human lifespan is 4 years that's $30,000. Median annual wages in the US are about $34,000, so people would willingly work full time for a year to extend their life by 5%. Hard to see in any universe how wearing a mask at school for a couple months is more of an inconvenience than working full time for a year. >would you agree that masking children does massively more harm than good You've still failed to demonstrate masks do any harm more than being a minor inconvenience. It sounds like you personally don't like wearing them, and are looking for ways to rationalize that opinion. [1] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20151201-how-much-would-you-pay-to-live-for-an-extra-year https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20151201-how-much-would-y...
      - CryptoPunk 5y ago
        >>Hard to see in any universe how wearing a mask at school for a couple months is more of an inconvenience than working full time for a year. That's not an appropriate comparison, because we're not trading wearing a mask for a couple months, for a 5% longer lifespan. We're trading wearing a mask for life, for a 5% longer lifespan. The percentage added or removed is from the duration that they're wearing a mask, so you reduce 5% from the two months of mask-wearing, not 5% from their whole life. And yes, I think many people would rather work one year longer, than have to wear a mask every day all day at work. Going back to the previous logical exercise: If someone would be willing to give up 5% of their lifespan, to forego wearing a mask for life, then they'd be willing to up 5% of a year of life, i.e. 18.25 days, to not have to wear a mask for a year, and 1.52 days of lifespan, to not have to wear a mask for a month. If wearing a mask is 100% effective at preventing covid infection, then not wearing a mask all month reduces their risk-adjusted lifespan by 0.016425 days (0.0000006 risk of death × 75 years lost if they die * 365 days / year), which is nearly 100X less than what they lose in quality of life (1.52 days). >>You've still failed to demonstrate masks do any harm more than being a minor inconvenience. You're not answering my question, which was the following hypothetical: But for the sake of argument, if we polled people, and found the value was indeed 5%, then would you agree that masking children does massively more harm than good? I just want to know if you hold the same logical axioms as I do, or else this exercise is pointless. You're being evasive..