3 ms·
You don’t have to be a republican (as if that’s a slur?) to disagree with the “science” of masking considering government officials said not to use masks, then
by seibelj 4y ago
You don’t have to be a republican (as if that’s a slur?) to disagree with the “science” of masking considering government officials said not to use masks, then to use masks, then we were all going to die if we didn’t wear masks, now no one is wearing masks… What is and is not “settled science” is up to extreme interpretation
- ocbyc 4y agoNot only that. But broadening the scope just a bit. These polypropylene masks might have a marginal benefit (the famous Guardian yt video shows its a small one) for small virus sized particles of breath. Yet are a big issue for plastics in our food supply and over all trash in the oceans. Marginal affect for thousands of years of microplastics. Can someone be concerned about the actual pollution (benzene, pthalates, and heavy metals) While also realizing that we share an atomosphere with China and India. (Game theory abounds) CO2 bad... buy electric car good- Is all people seem to want to think. Nuclear is a clear option for limiting CO2, but that's unspeakable. Now climate activists are on the same side as big oil. Neither of you want us to look at modern nuclear technology.
- squarefoot 4y agoWhat about: first we knew nothing about the virus and didn't have vaccines, then they arrived, then the virus mutated, then we discovered that multiple shots helped to mitigate the effects, etc? Science is not perfection, but it aims at it without vested interests, without hiding failures, actually using them to gather a better knowledge of the problem. When science fails, you can bet all your horses that it will try again with some added experience.