4 ms·

Replying to my own comment, re: risk reduction, are masks the new seatbelts, as some like to point out? Are our bodies now to be considered as dangerous as vehi

Replying to my own comment, re: risk reduction, are masks the new seatbelts, as some like to point out? Are our bodies now to be considered as dangerous as vehicles, and so it's reasonable to enforce security measures when you "take your body out for a ride"? This seems very strange to me, and, along with the vaccine passports, quite disturbing.

YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo 5y ago
Stop spreading FUD. This has nothing to do with the science in the OP or the general public this is a problem just for you. Masks work and as long as they have to work the pandemic or "plague" as you call it is not over. A virus doesn't care about your feelings and it doesn't care about the subjective inconvenience of masks or getting vaccinated. You can decide for yourself if you want to take certain measures but stop spreading FUD based on feelings and bad strawman arguments.
- lambdaba 5y ago
  Why are you being so aggressive? What did I say that was so awful? I'm just thinking out loud of the long-term implications of this. What is so unreasonable about what I said?
  - YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo 5y ago
    Sorry but this has nothing to do with aggression or not you are fantasizing about probabilities you seem not to understand. The only thing your comment achieves is spreading misinformation and fud. You can't talk about your ideas or feelings backed by anecdotal evidence as facts. The same goes with you undermining highly regarded sources like the "Max Planck Institute" as fishy in your other comments. I would go as far as to mark you as a bad actor.
    - lambdaba 5y ago
      Sorry but could you point out the misinformation? As for "FUD", Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt is all we see nowadays anyway, don't think my comment read by a few people on HN is contributing much (if I even agreed it's what I was doing :P)
      - YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo 5y ago
        > "medical mask" = "surgical mask" is that it? anyway, this one seems a bit fishy to me, as far I can tell, in the first wave covid wasn't THAT MUCH more widespread, when very few regular people were wearing masks, this claim seems dubious to me you are going against the scientific based evidence provided in the very op and countless other studies with terms like "fishy" and "dubious" without providing any evidence yourself. You are even making it clear in your very comment that you didn't really understand the article itself. That's misinformation or at least classic misdirection or in other words spreading FUD.
        lambdaba 5y ago
        what? I said as I understand it the study is MODELLING infections and it's not studying actual infection events; this is something that's even somewhat admitted in the article itself, my point though was that looking at the case graphs it wasn't obvious in the first wave that the addition of masks had such a dramatic effect that you would expect from the figures given in the article what the article says and what I'm also saying is that there is a difference between mask types, and I was ASKING if what the article calls a "medical" mask is, in fact, the surgical mask people commonly wear anyway, the main discussion I wanted to have is how long are we to expect to live like this, granted the effects of masks so dramatic, because, in case you haven't noticed, Covid ain't going away, ever
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- lambdaba 5y ago
  Also perhaps we could have a more relevant discussion about the methodology of this. As I note in another comment, this study's conclusions are based on modelling transmission and not actual that from real-world transmissions, so I don't think it's fair to conclude the real world necessarily conforms to this.

YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo 5y ago

Stop spreading FUD. This has nothing to do with the science in the OP or the general public this is a problem just for you. Masks work and as long as they have to work the pandemic or "plague" as you call it is not over. A virus doesn't care about your feelings and it doesn't care about the subjective inconvenience of masks or getting vaccinated. You can decide for yourself if you want to take certain measures but stop spreading FUD based on feelings and bad strawman arguments.

lambdaba 5y ago
Why are you being so aggressive? What did I say that was so awful? I'm just thinking out loud of the long-term implications of this. What is so unreasonable about what I said?
- YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo 5y ago
  Sorry but this has nothing to do with aggression or not you are fantasizing about probabilities you seem not to understand. The only thing your comment achieves is spreading misinformation and fud. You can't talk about your ideas or feelings backed by anecdotal evidence as facts. The same goes with you undermining highly regarded sources like the "Max Planck Institute" as fishy in your other comments. I would go as far as to mark you as a bad actor.
  - lambdaba 5y ago
    Sorry but could you point out the misinformation? As for "FUD", Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt is all we see nowadays anyway, don't think my comment read by a few people on HN is contributing much (if I even agreed it's what I was doing :P)
    - YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo 5y ago
      > "medical mask" = "surgical mask" is that it? anyway, this one seems a bit fishy to me, as far I can tell, in the first wave covid wasn't THAT MUCH more widespread, when very few regular people were wearing masks, this claim seems dubious to me you are going against the scientific based evidence provided in the very op and countless other studies with terms like "fishy" and "dubious" without providing any evidence yourself. You are even making it clear in your very comment that you didn't really understand the article itself. That's misinformation or at least classic misdirection or in other words spreading FUD.
      - lambdaba 5y ago
        what? I said as I understand it the study is MODELLING infections and it's not studying actual infection events; this is something that's even somewhat admitted in the article itself, my point though was that looking at the case graphs it wasn't obvious in the first wave that the addition of masks had such a dramatic effect that you would expect from the figures given in the article what the article says and what I'm also saying is that there is a difference between mask types, and I was ASKING if what the article calls a "medical" mask is, in fact, the surgical mask people commonly wear anyway, the main discussion I wanted to have is how long are we to expect to live like this, granted the effects of masks so dramatic, because, in case you haven't noticed, Covid ain't going away, ever
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
lambdaba 5y ago
Also perhaps we could have a more relevant discussion about the methodology of this. As I note in another comment, this study's conclusions are based on modelling transmission and not actual that from real-world transmissions, so I don't think it's fair to conclude the real world necessarily conforms to this.