5 ms·

There are plenty of public-health mandates out there--because it's not about you, it's about the people you impose upon with your unmasked, unvaccinated presenc

There are plenty of public-health mandates out there--because it's not about you, it's about the people you impose upon with your unmasked, unvaccinated presence--and even if you think lockdowns weren't a good idea (which I think is an arguable point, even if it's one with which I disagree) to try to contest that one about a mask over your nose and mouth reveals your position as an unserious one. There's no serious objection in the whole of existence to "wear a mask to reduce transmission", and you tip off your false reasonableness by trying to sliiiide that one in there.

nradov 5y ago
You cannot expect asymptomatic people to wear masks in public indefinitely. That is an unserious position. So what are the exit criteria? Several European countries either never had much in the way of mask mandates, or have recently removed them.
- eropple 5y ago
  That's not what the prior poster was referring to, and if we're being honest we both know that, but you and I can have that conversation, sure. Given the general benefits to public health and how frankly effortless wearing a mask has been every day since March before last, my S1 response is 99% vaccination coverage, which at least where I live is in line with the vaccination coverage of most other major vaccines, and two cases a day in whatever reasonably sized area (metro, county, whatever)--what's yours?
ghoward 5y ago
Not GP. There are serious objections to masks: they make people more anonymous (which is hard on everyone, but especially kids), they increase carbon dioxide intake, and the ones people generally use may not be effective against something as small as the COVID virus.
- bena 5y ago
  The COVID virus is 20 nanometers in diameter at its smallest. Carbon Dioxide is one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. Its diameter is 0.33 nanometers. If a mask increases carbon dioxide intake, then it can stop the COVID virus. If masks are not effective against something as small as the COVID virus, then it wouldn't increase carbon dioxide intake.
  - Fellshard 5y ago
    The latter premise is false, as there is still some impedance to exhalation - air is not allowed through completely freely. That is not to say the impedance is great, but it must still be acknowledged that it exists and has an effect on the air breathed, however negligible. The matter, then, is one of 'to what degree', more than 'does or doesn't'.
    - bena 5y ago
      If there is impedance to carbon dioxide, then there must be impedance to COVID. That's what you and the other have missed. Or ignored. You can't argue that it both impedes carbon dioxide, but not COVID. And even if some gets through, it's got to be better than all. I thought we weren't supposed to let perfect be the enemy of good.
      - ghoward 5y ago
        Just because COVID is impeded does not mean the mask is effective. The mask might impede COVID by 1% and carbon dioxide by 0.5%. That means the mask is 99% not effective against COVID, but a model I created [1] shows that even the 0.5% impedance will eventually lead to the mask keeping in half oxygen and half carbon dioxide, leading to higher carbon dioxide inhalation. [1]: https://gavinhoward.com/2020/08/masks-and-carbon-dioxide/ https://gavinhoward.com/2020/08/masks-and-carbon-dioxide/
        bena 5y ago
        https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/hometown-health/speaking-of-health/debunked-myths-about-face-masks https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/hometown-health/speak... Mayo Clinic disagrees with your program. So of the two options: the Mayo Clinic being wrong, or your assumptions being wrong. I'm going to go with your assumptions being the one that's wrong.
- spookthesunset 5y ago
  Don’t forget folks who can’t hear have a hell of time functioning. But thanks to covid myopia these problems get gaslight away. Only covid matters to some people… almost literally. Sadly they are the ones in control.
henrikschroder 5y ago
There is plenty of serious objection to mask mandates, the literature on the subject was unanimously against universal masking before 2020. It is absolutely possible to find examples of positive correlation between mask use and lowered spread, but it's also possible to find examples of the opposite, and of no difference. If it works, why are there so many cases where it just doesn't?
- henrikschroder 5y ago
  If you want some fun examples of counter-correlations, this is a good article: https://ianmsc.substack.com/p/the-more-masks-fail-the-more-we-need https://ianmsc.substack.com/p/the-more-masks-fail-the-more-w... Yes, those examples are cherry-picked, but if you're defending the null hypothesis - mask mandates don't work - that's a perfectly valid argument for your case. If you argue that mask mandates work, it's on you to explain every single counter-correlation, you can't cherry-pick correlations that happen to support your case.

nradov 5y ago

You cannot expect asymptomatic people to wear masks in public indefinitely. That is an unserious position. So what are the exit criteria? Several European countries either never had much in the way of mask mandates, or have recently removed them.

eropple 5y ago
That's not what the prior poster was referring to, and if we're being honest we both know that, but you and I can have that conversation, sure. Given the general benefits to public health and how frankly effortless wearing a mask has been every day since March before last, my S1 response is 99% vaccination coverage, which at least where I live is in line with the vaccination coverage of most other major vaccines, and two cases a day in whatever reasonably sized area (metro, county, whatever)--what's yours?

ghoward 5y ago

Not GP. There are serious objections to masks: they make people more anonymous (which is hard on everyone, but especially kids), they increase carbon dioxide intake, and the ones people generally use may not be effective against something as small as the COVID virus.

bena 5y ago
The COVID virus is 20 nanometers in diameter at its smallest. Carbon Dioxide is one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. Its diameter is 0.33 nanometers. If a mask increases carbon dioxide intake, then it can stop the COVID virus. If masks are not effective against something as small as the COVID virus, then it wouldn't increase carbon dioxide intake.
- Fellshard 5y ago
  The latter premise is false, as there is still some impedance to exhalation - air is not allowed through completely freely. That is not to say the impedance is great, but it must still be acknowledged that it exists and has an effect on the air breathed, however negligible. The matter, then, is one of 'to what degree', more than 'does or doesn't'.
  - bena 5y ago
    If there is impedance to carbon dioxide, then there must be impedance to COVID. That's what you and the other have missed. Or ignored. You can't argue that it both impedes carbon dioxide, but not COVID. And even if some gets through, it's got to be better than all. I thought we weren't supposed to let perfect be the enemy of good.
    - ghoward 5y ago
      Just because COVID is impeded does not mean the mask is effective. The mask might impede COVID by 1% and carbon dioxide by 0.5%. That means the mask is 99% not effective against COVID, but a model I created [1] shows that even the 0.5% impedance will eventually lead to the mask keeping in half oxygen and half carbon dioxide, leading to higher carbon dioxide inhalation. [1]: https://gavinhoward.com/2020/08/masks-and-carbon-dioxide/ https://gavinhoward.com/2020/08/masks-and-carbon-dioxide/
      - bena 5y ago
        https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/hometown-health/speaking-of-health/debunked-myths-about-face-masks https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/hometown-health/speak... Mayo Clinic disagrees with your program. So of the two options: the Mayo Clinic being wrong, or your assumptions being wrong. I'm going to go with your assumptions being the one that's wrong.
spookthesunset 5y ago
Don’t forget folks who can’t hear have a hell of time functioning. But thanks to covid myopia these problems get gaslight away. Only covid matters to some people… almost literally. Sadly they are the ones in control.

henrikschroder 5y ago

There is plenty of serious objection to mask mandates, the literature on the subject was unanimously against universal masking before 2020. It is absolutely possible to find examples of positive correlation between mask use and lowered spread, but it's also possible to find examples of the opposite, and of no difference. If it works, why are there so many cases where it just doesn't?

henrikschroder 5y ago
If you want some fun examples of counter-correlations, this is a good article: https://ianmsc.substack.com/p/the-more-masks-fail-the-more-we-need https://ianmsc.substack.com/p/the-more-masks-fail-the-more-w... Yes, those examples are cherry-picked, but if you're defending the null hypothesis - mask mandates don't work - that's a perfectly valid argument for your case. If you argue that mask mandates work, it's on you to explain every single counter-correlation, you can't cherry-pick correlations that happen to support your case.