3 ms·

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

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
      I’m not advocating for wearing a mask for life. I am (and have always been) advocating for children to wear masks until vaccines are available for them, which is probably about 2-3 months. You keep changing the discussion to amplify your points. It’s very frustrating and shows the weakness of your argument. You are welcome to have a personal opinion on masks (which you clearly do), but you’ve not convinced me your opinion is worthy of consideration as a health policy. I don’t hold the same logical axioms as you, no. I don’t believe that minor inconveniences, of which masking is one, are anything more than that. I also believe that most people would sacrifice their quality of life (in a very minor way) to help save the life of another, particularly a child. If this were not true, no one would ever donate blood, work in a soup kitchen etc. If you come back with some actual data (not your opinion) showing harm from masking kids for 2-3 months, I am happy to continue the conversation. Otherwise there does not appear to be a basis for further rational discussion.

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
    I’m not advocating for wearing a mask for life. I am (and have always been) advocating for children to wear masks until vaccines are available for them, which is probably about 2-3 months. You keep changing the discussion to amplify your points. It’s very frustrating and shows the weakness of your argument. You are welcome to have a personal opinion on masks (which you clearly do), but you’ve not convinced me your opinion is worthy of consideration as a health policy. I don’t hold the same logical axioms as you, no. I don’t believe that minor inconveniences, of which masking is one, are anything more than that. I also believe that most people would sacrifice their quality of life (in a very minor way) to help save the life of another, particularly a child. If this were not true, no one would ever donate blood, work in a soup kitchen etc. If you come back with some actual data (not your opinion) showing harm from masking kids for 2-3 months, I am happy to continue the conversation. Otherwise there does not appear to be a basis for further rational discussion.