2 ms·

> Rest of the argument seems to boil down to people not actually following the mandate consistently, which is not actually any argument against the effectivenes

by tux1968 5y ago

> Rest of the argument seems to boil down to people not actually following the mandate consistently, which is not actually any argument against the effectiveness of mask wearing per se. I disagree. Any strategy that fails to account for actual human nature, is flawed. You can't just say, "it'd work if we were different than the way we actually are".

zzzbra 4y ago
Just because people aren't wearing them consistently doesn't mean more people aren't wearing them more as a result of the mandate. This has a net positive effect. Human nature accounted for.
bediger4000 5y ago
That seems sad. Suppose some group, intentionally or accidentally, decides to agitate against something that's obviously for the good of us all. Say, traffic laws. Do we, like for masking, teaching history, or the theory of evolution, just decide to give up on traffic laws? Also, rubbish. There have been many, many successful public health campaigns in the USA that have succeeded: hardly anybody chews tobacco (anti-tuberculosis), lots fewer people smoke (anti-pulmonary and cardiac diseases), virtually 100% of the population defecates in toilets (anti-hookworm). This is just The Atlantic coddling their conservative writers.
- fortran77 5y ago
  65% of Americans are Obese or Overweight, despite all the warnings about it. I think that masks _might_ work, but proper compliance was so low, it just wasn't worth torturing the public with mandates.
- tux1968 5y ago
  > There have been many, many successful public health campaigns in the USA Of course. Who suggested otherwise? The point is, when a campaign fails you can't claim it would be a success if only people did it properly. You have to admit that your policy failed, explain why it failed to get the compliance you hoped, and look for other ways that actually produce the desired results, without excuses.

zzzbra 4y ago

Just because people aren't wearing them consistently doesn't mean more people aren't wearing them more as a result of the mandate. This has a net positive effect. Human nature accounted for.

bediger4000 5y ago

That seems sad. Suppose some group, intentionally or accidentally, decides to agitate against something that's obviously for the good of us all. Say, traffic laws. Do we, like for masking, teaching history, or the theory of evolution, just decide to give up on traffic laws? Also, rubbish. There have been many, many successful public health campaigns in the USA that have succeeded: hardly anybody chews tobacco (anti-tuberculosis), lots fewer people smoke (anti-pulmonary and cardiac diseases), virtually 100% of the population defecates in toilets (anti-hookworm). This is just The Atlantic coddling their conservative writers.

fortran77 5y ago
65% of Americans are Obese or Overweight, despite all the warnings about it. I think that masks _might_ work, but proper compliance was so low, it just wasn't worth torturing the public with mandates.
tux1968 5y ago
> There have been many, many successful public health campaigns in the USA Of course. Who suggested otherwise? The point is, when a campaign fails you can't claim it would be a success if only people did it properly. You have to admit that your policy failed, explain why it failed to get the compliance you hoped, and look for other ways that actually produce the desired results, without excuses.