11 ms·

“Wearing a mask cleans nothing:” Florida judge vacates CDC travel mask mandate

jleyank 4y ago
Course they did. The reason is arbitrary. They dislike being inconvenienced and naively think that the economy would have continued as before without their introduction (they are the physical reminder of restrictions). Personally, I think modern media and “running out of room in the morgue” was more than sufficient to torpedo any discretionary activity. And we’re post truth, right? Although belief has always overcome reason.
- AuthorizedCust 4y ago
  This doesn't make sense. What is your point?
  - jleyank 4y ago
    The judgement was purely political, so the reason that was constructed was arbitrary and irrelevant. Anything that caused restrictions on personal freedom or caused inconvenience had to be removed, no matter the effect on others. Personal freedom is absolute unless it’s politically unacceptable such as abortion or minority rights. Unfortunately, reality pays no attention to politics and we’ll see over the next few years how badly politics has damaged accept public health measures like childhood vaccination and, say, restaurant closure for sanitary concerns.
    - AuthorizedCust 4y ago
      The evidence supporting universal masking as a pandemic-spread-reduction strategy is poor. As an example, there remains no robust RCT supporting masking as a pandemic measure. Objections to judicial or political processes do not change that.
      - jleyank 4y ago
        Masks restrict the amount of goo that is dispersed with a sneeze or cough. They reduce the chance of randomly touching mouth/nose. They signal to others that you’re aware of the current risk profile, letting them despise how to interact with you, etc. My point is the arbitrary political nature of covid. Vaccines are good except this set. Masks are good except with covid. Reduced contact wrt airborne diseases is good except for covid. The disease, fortunately, was not dangerous enough so people didn’t have to give a shit about others. Pity about grandma, though. But she lived a good life.
        AuthorizedCust 4y ago
        > Masks restrict the amount of goo that is dispersed with a sneeze or cough. They reduce the chance of randomly touching mouth/nose. These are merely theories on how masks may reduce spread. They do not change that evidence supporting universal masking is not good. > They signal to others that you’re aware of the current risk profile, letting them despise how to interact with you, etc. That in no way justifies mask mandates. The referenced article is about a mask mandate being axed. > My point is the arbitrary political nature of covid. Both sides of the political spectrum has erred considerably on COVID. Both Trumpists and the hard-left have kowtowed to their own fears instead of following the evidence. Had we "followed the evidence", we would have never panicked about the outdoors, not even from the beginning. We would have dropped concerns about fomites and touch-spread almost from the beginning. We would have dropped masking requirements far, far earlier than what happened. We would have figured out a way to deal with supportive care needed during surges instead of panicking on each surge. We would have let experience from similar viruses inform us more strongly, rather than acting as if we had no prior experience of coronaviruses or respiratory viruses.
incomingpain 4y ago
https://twitter.com/who/status/1243972193169616898 https://twitter.com/who/status/1243972193169616898 In hindsight they were sort of wrong, there are some unusual cases where it is airborne. In reality covid is nearly entirely spread from something you touched. The problem is that it was then considered misinformation and censored. Everyone was forced to wear masks for no reason at all. If you tried to simply repeat what the WHO said... you would be censored. Now that we are doing away with harmful masks its remarkable to see everyone opposing it.
- AuthorizedCust 4y ago
  FALSE! COVID is almost impossible to spread through touch (fomites). Here's a CDC brief from about a year after the WHO tweet you shared: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/science-and-research/surface-transmission.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/science-and-r.... Important: "each contact with a contaminated surface has less than a 1 in 10,000 chance of causing an infection"
  - incomingpain 4y ago
    >FALSE! COVID is almost impossible to spread through touch (fomites). Yes I agree COVID became political and they started censoring 'misinformation' and now we can't seem to discuss it.
    - AuthorizedCust 4y ago
      Can you provide an example of where factual information has been censored?
      - incomingpain 4y ago
        >Can you provide an example of where factual information has been censored? I love the way you worded this. There's a trivial example of covid censorship being the lab leak story. But I guess you'll retort that it's not factual.

Course they did. The reason is arbitrary. They dislike being inconvenienced and naively think that the economy would have continued as before without their introduction (they are the physical reminder of restrictions). Personally, I think modern media and “running out of room in the morgue” was more than sufficient to torpedo any discretionary activity. And we’re post truth, right? Although belief has always overcome reason.

AuthorizedCust 4y ago
This doesn't make sense. What is your point?
- jleyank 4y ago
  The judgement was purely political, so the reason that was constructed was arbitrary and irrelevant. Anything that caused restrictions on personal freedom or caused inconvenience had to be removed, no matter the effect on others. Personal freedom is absolute unless it’s politically unacceptable such as abortion or minority rights. Unfortunately, reality pays no attention to politics and we’ll see over the next few years how badly politics has damaged accept public health measures like childhood vaccination and, say, restaurant closure for sanitary concerns.
  - AuthorizedCust 4y ago
    The evidence supporting universal masking as a pandemic-spread-reduction strategy is poor. As an example, there remains no robust RCT supporting masking as a pandemic measure. Objections to judicial or political processes do not change that.
    - jleyank 4y ago
      Masks restrict the amount of goo that is dispersed with a sneeze or cough. They reduce the chance of randomly touching mouth/nose. They signal to others that you’re aware of the current risk profile, letting them despise how to interact with you, etc. My point is the arbitrary political nature of covid. Vaccines are good except this set. Masks are good except with covid. Reduced contact wrt airborne diseases is good except for covid. The disease, fortunately, was not dangerous enough so people didn’t have to give a shit about others. Pity about grandma, though. But she lived a good life.
      - AuthorizedCust 4y ago
        > Masks restrict the amount of goo that is dispersed with a sneeze or cough. They reduce the chance of randomly touching mouth/nose. These are merely theories on how masks may reduce spread. They do not change that evidence supporting universal masking is not good. > They signal to others that you’re aware of the current risk profile, letting them despise how to interact with you, etc. That in no way justifies mask mandates. The referenced article is about a mask mandate being axed. > My point is the arbitrary political nature of covid. Both sides of the political spectrum has erred considerably on COVID. Both Trumpists and the hard-left have kowtowed to their own fears instead of following the evidence. Had we "followed the evidence", we would have never panicked about the outdoors, not even from the beginning. We would have dropped concerns about fomites and touch-spread almost from the beginning. We would have dropped masking requirements far, far earlier than what happened. We would have figured out a way to deal with supportive care needed during surges instead of panicking on each surge. We would have let experience from similar viruses inform us more strongly, rather than acting as if we had no prior experience of coronaviruses or respiratory viruses.

incomingpain 4y ago

https://twitter.com/who/status/1243972193169616898 https://twitter.com/who/status/1243972193169616898 In hindsight they were sort of wrong, there are some unusual cases where it is airborne. In reality covid is nearly entirely spread from something you touched. The problem is that it was then considered misinformation and censored. Everyone was forced to wear masks for no reason at all. If you tried to simply repeat what the WHO said... you would be censored. Now that we are doing away with harmful masks its remarkable to see everyone opposing it.

AuthorizedCust 4y ago
FALSE! COVID is almost impossible to spread through touch (fomites). Here's a CDC brief from about a year after the WHO tweet you shared: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/science-and-research/surface-transmission.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/science-and-r.... Important: "each contact with a contaminated surface has less than a 1 in 10,000 chance of causing an infection"
- incomingpain 4y ago
  >FALSE! COVID is almost impossible to spread through touch (fomites). Yes I agree COVID became political and they started censoring 'misinformation' and now we can't seem to discuss it.
  - AuthorizedCust 4y ago
    Can you provide an example of where factual information has been censored?
    - incomingpain 4y ago
      >Can you provide an example of where factual information has been censored? I love the way you worded this. There's a trivial example of covid censorship being the lab leak story. But I guess you'll retort that it's not factual.