6 ms·

Let's wear them forever then. You first.

toss1 3y ago
Yes, it should be strongly encouraged in crowded places, not discouraged. As to "You First", I still do avoid random crowds and I wear an N95 when I do go out in random crowds, including the last time I went to the grocery store. I'm not the only one I see doing that ('tho it is far less common than a year ago). But sure, you do you, because evidently your approach to life prioritizes your immediate gratification, and doing nothing that might help the general welfare, or help everyone (even you) in the longer term.
- s1gnp0st 3y ago
  I am disgusted by the totalitarian urge which has been normalized by the pandemic. Your trauma is not my problem, and I will not permanently alter my behavior to satisfy your ever-escalating urge to dominate me.
  - jMyles 3y ago
    Well put. Though I suspect that the overwhelming majority of the sentiment to which you are referring is being carried by bots and not real humans. It's a difficult time to be empirically-driven, though hopefully we will come out better for it.
    - toss1 3y ago
      You think that having no public health measures is data driven? Go read some data. Seriously. Or, just go to pre-1950s graveyards and gather data on how many dead children there were before public health measures. Or look at the data on how the public health measures ran extinct a strain of flu so it is no longer being included in the vaccine formula.
      - s1gnp0st 3y ago
        [flagged]
        mjmsmith 3y ago
        [flagged]
        toss1 3y ago
        EXACTLY, the Flu strain had a lower R value than COVID-19. So, the experiment has been done, proving that masks work as expected, even badly implemented. Two different airborne diseases, F and C, with R0 values under unprotected conditions of something like F=3 and C=9, and masking very badly implemented [0,1,2,3,4]. The results are that disease F went completely extinct, but disease C was slowed in areas with better compliance, but still persevered, and mutated in favor of better-spreading strains such that the unprotected R0 of current strains is ~15. This unequivocally shows that there is a real public health benefit to simple measures of using N95 masks, and strongly suggests that better implementation (e.g., full supply and broader use) would improve containment, reducing cases, and reducing the rate of cases, allowing for better treatment. There is no requirement that the measures be perfect, indeed it is a multi-layered approach that works for public health, due to the dynamics of disease. >>Again, listen to me. I'm not telling you merely that I disagree with you. I'm telling you that you have no power over me, and you never will. Yes, that was evident from the beginning, and you've confirmed it. Your attitude has nothing to do with actual science, and everything to do with serious ignorance about how public health works, a hard unwillingness to help your fellow citizens, hostility to anyone who might slightly inconvenience you, and a misguided idea of "muh fredumbs' mixed with entitlement. The fact is no one GAF about controlling you; you are just not that important to anyone but you (I'm not either, and contrary to your assertion, IDGAF abt "controlling" you either). Wearing N95s is no different a safety measure than hard hats or steel-toed shoes on a worksite, or seat belts in a car or airplane. If you think that is somehow an affront to your manhood or whatever, shows you have real issues. Seriously. Perhaps you will learn to join society as a contributing member and stop acting like a spoiled petulant child. We can all hope so. [0] WHO and CDC failed to emphasize the importance of N95-quality masks, likely in an effort to preserve limited stocks for the healthcare workers (they knew N95s work) [1] the supply of N95-level masks was constrained so many people used only makeshift or lower-quality masks. [2] many people were very lax about using masks, consistently failing to cover their nose, or just wearing them as a 'chin-diaper' to comply but not really. [3] a significant part of the population turned it into a misguided political event, adamantly refusing to wear masks and belligerently intimidation others and businesses to not wear them and not require them. [4] inconsistent measures implemented in different countries, some much stronger and some much weaker.
  - throwway120385 3y ago
    It's not totalitarian. How do you feel about having a sewer hookup or a septic system in your house? Because those things were largely mandated and not by grassroots. With that kind of attitude we'd all be crapping in outhouses and standing in our own poop within a decade. I agree with reasonable limits to public power, but I think data driven public health approaches are an area where the public should have a lot of power. We've eradicated things like hookworm in part because we have asked people to put shoes on their children and stop pooping in holes in the ground.
  - toss1 3y ago
    Yikes, Pandemic public health measures are NOT totalitarian in any way, shape or form. Totalitarian measures are "TOTAL"; i.e., they encompass all aspects of govt and society. Public health measures are LIMITED to the scope of the public health threat. Being unwilling to take even small measures that not only help you but also help your fellow citizens does not make you some kind of 'free-thinking libertarian'. It simply shows you like to behave like a sociopath, and your statement that a policy idea is a result of "trauma" is an uncalled-for insult, as you intended it (which again shows your drive to prioritize feelings over facts). Seriously, no one is trying to "dominate" you. As if you were that important. Sheesh.
- jMyles 3y ago
  In an unlikely turn of events, you appear to be an actual human and not a bot (from a cursory look at your comment history). So I say, gently: > because evidently your approach to life prioritizes your immediate gratification Do you genuinely believe that this is a fair characterization of the sentiment of the person (or position) to which you are responding, giving the benefit of the doubt? > Yes, it should be strongly encouraged in crowded places, not discouraged. It boils down to this: encouraging an intervention in public places needs to be based on unambiguous evidence, supported by genuine, authentic science and presented in a way that is convincing to a scientifically-literate society such as ours. Consider, for example, the evidence in favor of the use of seatbelts, condoms, traffic-calming infrastructure, or hard hats (the latter of which I acknowledge don't require RCTs to be validated). These products have produced a reliable, measurable, significant change in outcomes to the extent that no reasonable person questions their efficacy impact (though even with these, there is some reasonable dispute regarding trade-offs in each case). The intervention in question has fallen way, way short of this standard - so much so that it's difficult to make a viable comparison. Despite mandates across a literal majority of geographic landmass of the country, there is still no evidence of any benefit with regard to community transmission rates. And on the research side, only nine RCTs - and none at all regarding source control - have been conducted. We've watched as a huge chorus of the world's experts have called for RCTs, and have been told by charlatan bureaucrats and profiteers that such a venture is comparable to a parachute RCT. Do you think that's likely to be convincing? Meanwhile, the (typical, expected, obvious) extrapolation in the Cochrane review has been singled-out, and the waters muddied, for pointing out in sober terms what the RCTs actually said. It has been reduced to "well, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence", creating an obvious catch-22 as the same data is puzzlingly used as an excuse not to perform further science on the matter. Believe me when I say: we care about you. I wish you good health and am happy to take evidence-based steps to ensuring that the world is a healthy, vibrant place for you and people like you. But you go too far when you ask that others to ignore their own good-faith assessment of the facts at hand. And the facts are unambiguous: respiratory pathogens emerge every so often and infect nearly all members of many animal species. There does not appear to be a viable intervention to stop this, and it's not even obvious is stopping it is desirable, as these pathogens confer immunity to those infected. It's an equilibrium and part of a broader ecology in which we live. You are loved, even by this stranger. Please don't see commitment to data-driven approaches to public health interventions as a hunger for immediate gratification; this is nearly the opposite of the reality of the situation.

Yes, it should be strongly encouraged in crowded places, not discouraged. As to "You First", I still do avoid random crowds and I wear an N95 when I do go out in random crowds, including the last time I went to the grocery store. I'm not the only one I see doing that ('tho it is far less common than a year ago). But sure, you do you, because evidently your approach to life prioritizes your immediate gratification, and doing nothing that might help the general welfare, or help everyone (even you) in the longer term.

s1gnp0st 3y ago
I am disgusted by the totalitarian urge which has been normalized by the pandemic. Your trauma is not my problem, and I will not permanently alter my behavior to satisfy your ever-escalating urge to dominate me.
- jMyles 3y ago
  Well put. Though I suspect that the overwhelming majority of the sentiment to which you are referring is being carried by bots and not real humans. It's a difficult time to be empirically-driven, though hopefully we will come out better for it.
  - toss1 3y ago
    You think that having no public health measures is data driven? Go read some data. Seriously. Or, just go to pre-1950s graveyards and gather data on how many dead children there were before public health measures. Or look at the data on how the public health measures ran extinct a strain of flu so it is no longer being included in the vaccine formula.
    - s1gnp0st 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - mjmsmith 3y ago
        [flagged]
      - toss1 3y ago
        EXACTLY, the Flu strain had a lower R value than COVID-19. So, the experiment has been done, proving that masks work as expected, even badly implemented. Two different airborne diseases, F and C, with R0 values under unprotected conditions of something like F=3 and C=9, and masking very badly implemented [0,1,2,3,4]. The results are that disease F went completely extinct, but disease C was slowed in areas with better compliance, but still persevered, and mutated in favor of better-spreading strains such that the unprotected R0 of current strains is ~15. This unequivocally shows that there is a real public health benefit to simple measures of using N95 masks, and strongly suggests that better implementation (e.g., full supply and broader use) would improve containment, reducing cases, and reducing the rate of cases, allowing for better treatment. There is no requirement that the measures be perfect, indeed it is a multi-layered approach that works for public health, due to the dynamics of disease. >>Again, listen to me. I'm not telling you merely that I disagree with you. I'm telling you that you have no power over me, and you never will. Yes, that was evident from the beginning, and you've confirmed it. Your attitude has nothing to do with actual science, and everything to do with serious ignorance about how public health works, a hard unwillingness to help your fellow citizens, hostility to anyone who might slightly inconvenience you, and a misguided idea of "muh fredumbs' mixed with entitlement. The fact is no one GAF about controlling you; you are just not that important to anyone but you (I'm not either, and contrary to your assertion, IDGAF abt "controlling" you either). Wearing N95s is no different a safety measure than hard hats or steel-toed shoes on a worksite, or seat belts in a car or airplane. If you think that is somehow an affront to your manhood or whatever, shows you have real issues. Seriously. Perhaps you will learn to join society as a contributing member and stop acting like a spoiled petulant child. We can all hope so. [0] WHO and CDC failed to emphasize the importance of N95-quality masks, likely in an effort to preserve limited stocks for the healthcare workers (they knew N95s work) [1] the supply of N95-level masks was constrained so many people used only makeshift or lower-quality masks. [2] many people were very lax about using masks, consistently failing to cover their nose, or just wearing them as a 'chin-diaper' to comply but not really. [3] a significant part of the population turned it into a misguided political event, adamantly refusing to wear masks and belligerently intimidation others and businesses to not wear them and not require them. [4] inconsistent measures implemented in different countries, some much stronger and some much weaker.
- throwway120385 3y ago
  It's not totalitarian. How do you feel about having a sewer hookup or a septic system in your house? Because those things were largely mandated and not by grassroots. With that kind of attitude we'd all be crapping in outhouses and standing in our own poop within a decade. I agree with reasonable limits to public power, but I think data driven public health approaches are an area where the public should have a lot of power. We've eradicated things like hookworm in part because we have asked people to put shoes on their children and stop pooping in holes in the ground.
- toss1 3y ago
  Yikes, Pandemic public health measures are NOT totalitarian in any way, shape or form. Totalitarian measures are "TOTAL"; i.e., they encompass all aspects of govt and society. Public health measures are LIMITED to the scope of the public health threat. Being unwilling to take even small measures that not only help you but also help your fellow citizens does not make you some kind of 'free-thinking libertarian'. It simply shows you like to behave like a sociopath, and your statement that a policy idea is a result of "trauma" is an uncalled-for insult, as you intended it (which again shows your drive to prioritize feelings over facts). Seriously, no one is trying to "dominate" you. As if you were that important. Sheesh.
jMyles 3y ago
In an unlikely turn of events, you appear to be an actual human and not a bot (from a cursory look at your comment history). So I say, gently: > because evidently your approach to life prioritizes your immediate gratification Do you genuinely believe that this is a fair characterization of the sentiment of the person (or position) to which you are responding, giving the benefit of the doubt? > Yes, it should be strongly encouraged in crowded places, not discouraged. It boils down to this: encouraging an intervention in public places needs to be based on unambiguous evidence, supported by genuine, authentic science and presented in a way that is convincing to a scientifically-literate society such as ours. Consider, for example, the evidence in favor of the use of seatbelts, condoms, traffic-calming infrastructure, or hard hats (the latter of which I acknowledge don't require RCTs to be validated). These products have produced a reliable, measurable, significant change in outcomes to the extent that no reasonable person questions their efficacy impact (though even with these, there is some reasonable dispute regarding trade-offs in each case). The intervention in question has fallen way, way short of this standard - so much so that it's difficult to make a viable comparison. Despite mandates across a literal majority of geographic landmass of the country, there is still no evidence of any benefit with regard to community transmission rates. And on the research side, only nine RCTs - and none at all regarding source control - have been conducted. We've watched as a huge chorus of the world's experts have called for RCTs, and have been told by charlatan bureaucrats and profiteers that such a venture is comparable to a parachute RCT. Do you think that's likely to be convincing? Meanwhile, the (typical, expected, obvious) extrapolation in the Cochrane review has been singled-out, and the waters muddied, for pointing out in sober terms what the RCTs actually said. It has been reduced to "well, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence", creating an obvious catch-22 as the same data is puzzlingly used as an excuse not to perform further science on the matter. Believe me when I say: we care about you. I wish you good health and am happy to take evidence-based steps to ensuring that the world is a healthy, vibrant place for you and people like you. But you go too far when you ask that others to ignore their own good-faith assessment of the facts at hand. And the facts are unambiguous: respiratory pathogens emerge every so often and infect nearly all members of many animal species. There does not appear to be a viable intervention to stop this, and it's not even obvious is stopping it is desirable, as these pathogens confer immunity to those infected. It's an equilibrium and part of a broader ecology in which we live. You are loved, even by this stranger. Please don't see commitment to data-driven approaches to public health interventions as a hunger for immediate gratification; this is nearly the opposite of the reality of the situation.