3 ms·

> Besides, wearing a mask is not exactly a heavy burden to bear. Yes, it's annoying, but the consequences of not doing so are also annoying, and in more than ze

> Besides, wearing a mask is not exactly a heavy burden to bear. Yes, it's annoying, but the consequences of not doing so are also annoying, and in more than zero cases deadly. Sure, but tons of things are deadly in a non-zero number of cases, which most people give no thought to. Micromorts are everywhere. I've been baffled at the strong anti-mask reaction and the way so many people've wanted to toss mask mandates and other measures out the second things even slightly improve, but if current trends continue (Omicron burning out, the virus generally getting less-bad, vaccinations continuing to be administered) I'll have (weakly, without really caring that much) joined team-no-mask-mandates-in-schools by next school year. My kids have been champs at wearing them but it's clear they're a (minor) problem in school, from the muffling effect if nothing else, and that compliance and good mask-wearing generally is pretty shit among younger kids anyway. I think we're probably past the cost/reward tipping point already, but again, I've tended to favor sticking with safety measures until we're extra sure, if only to avoid policy change whiplash. OTOH I kind of love masks and hope it remains non-weird to go out in public in one. Two years of no illnesses in our house has been awesome.

TameAntelope 5y ago
There aren't tons of things you do that actively harm others, and when there are those things, they're regulated and compliance is enforced via legislation. Wearing/not wearing a mask is not a heavy burden to bear, and by not doing it, you're increasing the net risk of everyone around you, in addition to your own. That's what makes this different from wearing a helmet 24/7. But you knew that! Why is this the thing we can't do for one another, this small, one thing?!
- brimble 5y ago
  I'm having trouble figuring out how you're not advocating for never-ending mask mandates, as long as risk reduction is greater than zero (which it would have been even before Covid). That's how these posts read. Is that what you're in favor of?
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    If I'm saying anything, I'm saying we should do what the collective expert institutions tell us (and stop listening to individuals, regardless of how qualified), and those institutions are generally sticking with the, "keep masking, kids!" message. I'm not sure how you can read what I've written and not see how the risk is actually substantially higher than 0, and additionally to other people who have less of a choice about their comfort taking on that risk. I think you are fully aware I'm not suggesting we wear masks forever, but I'm curious about why you feel the need to present that strawman as my position. Is this generally an effective way to communicate for you?
    - brimble 5y ago
      It's not a straw man, I've been noting that risk to nearly all kids, especially young ones, has always been so low that any amount of effort or expense to reduce it would have been questionable (but I was still pro- various measures, including mask mandates, to protect other people in and connected to schools and students, to reduce community rates of infection, while still letting us go back to in-person school—that was always by far the stronger argument for, specifically, school mask mandates) which is just true unless you've got some figures at hand that look very different from any I've seen, and that at some point—which we are likely at least approaching—the broader risk and the amount of mitigation we gain from school mask mandates drops below the level of being worth any attention at all, baring some drastic change in the current trajectory of the pandemic. But you keep coming back like that's an unreasonable position. What's left is... what? The conclusion I came to, right? > Is this generally an effective way to communicate for you? I'm just trying to understand WTF you're getting at. I don't have a clue what you think I'm trying to do.
      - TameAntelope 5y ago
        Why are you ignoring the multiple times I've talked about the effects that aren't directly related to the children? They're carriers too, and that matters, on top of everything else. And the institutions I trust do not agree with you that we're "rapidly approaching" any such loss of value from masking in schools. That's just straight up wrong.

TameAntelope 5y ago

There aren't tons of things you do that actively harm others, and when there are those things, they're regulated and compliance is enforced via legislation. Wearing/not wearing a mask is not a heavy burden to bear, and by not doing it, you're increasing the net risk of everyone around you, in addition to your own. That's what makes this different from wearing a helmet 24/7. But you knew that! Why is this the thing we can't do for one another, this small, one thing?!

brimble 5y ago
I'm having trouble figuring out how you're not advocating for never-ending mask mandates, as long as risk reduction is greater than zero (which it would have been even before Covid). That's how these posts read. Is that what you're in favor of?
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  If I'm saying anything, I'm saying we should do what the collective expert institutions tell us (and stop listening to individuals, regardless of how qualified), and those institutions are generally sticking with the, "keep masking, kids!" message. I'm not sure how you can read what I've written and not see how the risk is actually substantially higher than 0, and additionally to other people who have less of a choice about their comfort taking on that risk. I think you are fully aware I'm not suggesting we wear masks forever, but I'm curious about why you feel the need to present that strawman as my position. Is this generally an effective way to communicate for you?
  - brimble 5y ago
    It's not a straw man, I've been noting that risk to nearly all kids, especially young ones, has always been so low that any amount of effort or expense to reduce it would have been questionable (but I was still pro- various measures, including mask mandates, to protect other people in and connected to schools and students, to reduce community rates of infection, while still letting us go back to in-person school—that was always by far the stronger argument for, specifically, school mask mandates) which is just true unless you've got some figures at hand that look very different from any I've seen, and that at some point—which we are likely at least approaching—the broader risk and the amount of mitigation we gain from school mask mandates drops below the level of being worth any attention at all, baring some drastic change in the current trajectory of the pandemic. But you keep coming back like that's an unreasonable position. What's left is... what? The conclusion I came to, right? > Is this generally an effective way to communicate for you? I'm just trying to understand WTF you're getting at. I don't have a clue what you think I'm trying to do.
    - TameAntelope 5y ago
      Why are you ignoring the multiple times I've talked about the effects that aren't directly related to the children? They're carriers too, and that matters, on top of everything else. And the institutions I trust do not agree with you that we're "rapidly approaching" any such loss of value from masking in schools. That's just straight up wrong.