4 ms·

It's more complicated than that. The vaccines don't work for everyone. There are certain medications and health conditions that interfere with the vaccines. Eve

by a5aAqU 5y ago

It's more complicated than that. The vaccines don't work for everyone. There are certain medications and health conditions that interfere with the vaccines. Even if they stay home, vulnerable people are at risk from coming into contact with people who come into contact with the people who don't wear masks. If you don't wear a mask, and you give the virus to someone with your asymptomatic case, and they go home and give it to their immunocompromised family member, you might end up indirectly killing someone.

syshum 5y ago
That Scenario has always been the case for all of the history of man kind So what is your position, everyone should always wear masks at all time for the rest of time? Nope, not going to do that
- a5aAqU 5y ago
  We obviously won't be wearing masks until the end of time, but only until the virus is under control. Just in the USA, 1,000 people are dying from COVID per day, and omicron is coming. The pandemic doesn't only exist in how it affects you personally. There are many responsible vaccinated people who are going to die because of people who aren't wearing masks. Masks and vaccines like this have not existed until relatively recently. We now have tools so that not as many people have to suffer and die from pandemics.
  - syshum 5y ago
    Now we are going to get in to more controversial regions of this debate. We have to look at those 1,000 per day, and ask are they dying WITH covid or FROM covid, currently there is a monetary incentive for health providers to label as many deaths as possible as "COVID RELATED" which then enables them to collect some or all of their costs from the government >>We obviously won't be wearing masks until the end of time, but only until the virus is under control. here is the rub, I do not believe it will ever be under control, what number is your target for under control? clearly 1,000 is to high for you (even though i suspect the real number is lower), would 300 be acceptable? Because that is "bad" seasonal flu level (for which we have had in the past with out this type of response) but I some how doubt you would say 300 deaths per day is "under control"
    - a5aAqU 5y ago
      > are they dying WITH covid or FROM covid Sorry, that's ridiculous. If a person would not be dead if they hadn't contracted COVID, even if they had other health conditions, then masks and vaccines are a factor in preventing those deaths, and COVID is the cause. If you throw a rock off of an overpass and it hits a car, and that car swerves uncontrollably and kills a pedestrian, then your throwing the rock was the fundamental cause of the death, not the driver of the car or the car itself. If anything, the COVID deaths are underreported.[1] The virus will eventually be under control, just like most other viruses in the past. We will have better treatments within a year or two. Paxlovid is one example, but there will be more. There might be only a handful of deaths once that happens. For the sake of the vulnerable people out there, we all have to practice basic virus safety until then. [1] https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/05/covid-19-may-have-killed-20-more-reported-us https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/05/covid-19...
      - syshum 5y ago
        >> There might be only a handful of deaths once that happens No that is what is ridiculous, the idea we will get down to only a handful. At best it is going to have numbers at the same level as the seasonal flu. At best, most likely the mean annual average it going to trend slightly higher than the flu >>Sorry, that's ridiculous It is not >>If anything, the COVID deaths are underreported.[1] Well you might want to read the study closer, they are largely complaining about "indirect deaths" from covid. I quote "Indirect effects may include increases in mortality resulting from reductions in access to and use of healthcare services and psychosocial consequences of stay-at-home orders," " I would not classify these as COVID Deaths, but rather deaths due to people panicking and creating ridiculous rules around COVID, something you are advocating increase use of in this thread, which will simply lead to MORE indirect death A classic case of the treatment being worse than the illness. To be clear, if you want to wear a mask more power to you, if you want to ask others to voluntarily do it more power to you, if you want to ask business you transact with to require it of all customer as is their right as property owners more power to you, but you cross the ethical line for me when you adventure into wanting the government to mandate you will onto others backed by the full force and violence of that government. I dont care if that mandate is in the form of mask, vaccines, stay at home order, or anything else, I oppose all government enforced mandates related to COVID 19

by a5aAqU 5y ago

syshum 5y ago

That Scenario has always been the case for all of the history of man kind So what is your position, everyone should always wear masks at all time for the rest of time? Nope, not going to do that

a5aAqU 5y ago
We obviously won't be wearing masks until the end of time, but only until the virus is under control. Just in the USA, 1,000 people are dying from COVID per day, and omicron is coming. The pandemic doesn't only exist in how it affects you personally. There are many responsible vaccinated people who are going to die because of people who aren't wearing masks. Masks and vaccines like this have not existed until relatively recently. We now have tools so that not as many people have to suffer and die from pandemics.
- syshum 5y ago
  Now we are going to get in to more controversial regions of this debate. We have to look at those 1,000 per day, and ask are they dying WITH covid or FROM covid, currently there is a monetary incentive for health providers to label as many deaths as possible as "COVID RELATED" which then enables them to collect some or all of their costs from the government >>We obviously won't be wearing masks until the end of time, but only until the virus is under control. here is the rub, I do not believe it will ever be under control, what number is your target for under control? clearly 1,000 is to high for you (even though i suspect the real number is lower), would 300 be acceptable? Because that is "bad" seasonal flu level (for which we have had in the past with out this type of response) but I some how doubt you would say 300 deaths per day is "under control"
  - a5aAqU 5y ago
    > are they dying WITH covid or FROM covid Sorry, that's ridiculous. If a person would not be dead if they hadn't contracted COVID, even if they had other health conditions, then masks and vaccines are a factor in preventing those deaths, and COVID is the cause. If you throw a rock off of an overpass and it hits a car, and that car swerves uncontrollably and kills a pedestrian, then your throwing the rock was the fundamental cause of the death, not the driver of the car or the car itself. If anything, the COVID deaths are underreported.[1] The virus will eventually be under control, just like most other viruses in the past. We will have better treatments within a year or two. Paxlovid is one example, but there will be more. There might be only a handful of deaths once that happens. For the sake of the vulnerable people out there, we all have to practice basic virus safety until then. [1] https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/05/covid-19-may-have-killed-20-more-reported-us https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/05/covid-19...
    - syshum 5y ago
      >> There might be only a handful of deaths once that happens No that is what is ridiculous, the idea we will get down to only a handful. At best it is going to have numbers at the same level as the seasonal flu. At best, most likely the mean annual average it going to trend slightly higher than the flu >>Sorry, that's ridiculous It is not >>If anything, the COVID deaths are underreported.[1] Well you might want to read the study closer, they are largely complaining about "indirect deaths" from covid. I quote "Indirect effects may include increases in mortality resulting from reductions in access to and use of healthcare services and psychosocial consequences of stay-at-home orders," " I would not classify these as COVID Deaths, but rather deaths due to people panicking and creating ridiculous rules around COVID, something you are advocating increase use of in this thread, which will simply lead to MORE indirect death A classic case of the treatment being worse than the illness. To be clear, if you want to wear a mask more power to you, if you want to ask others to voluntarily do it more power to you, if you want to ask business you transact with to require it of all customer as is their right as property owners more power to you, but you cross the ethical line for me when you adventure into wanting the government to mandate you will onto others backed by the full force and violence of that government. I dont care if that mandate is in the form of mask, vaccines, stay at home order, or anything else, I oppose all government enforced mandates related to COVID 19