To Mask or Not to Mask?

[jamil]

All these allegories that don’t really communicate one side to the other isn’t really helping.

 

[jamil]

Josh, are you trying to justify mandatory mask wearing or are you trying to convince someone that they should wear one?

Bug, are you trying to defend against being forced to wear a mask or are you trying to defend why you don’t wear one?

 

[NKBJ]

Because they are not a 'reasonable' precaution. They attempt to require everyone to exhibit a personal behavior because they MIGHT be sick rather than because they are capable of spreading. They are prior restraint and apparently they don't work or you wouldn't need such a high level of compliance. Why don't you just wear two and we'll call it even

It's like supporting stop and frisk or RKBA restrictions instead of carrying; the former details the state to enforce conditions that make some people feel safer, while the latter is pro-active personal behavior designed to actually make the person adopting it safer regardless of the actions of others

The purpose of the exercise is not to protect the public and therefore cannot be reasonable.

 

[nonobaddog]

Categorically wrong. Wearing a mask to keep oneself from spreading a disease is unrelated to government censorship.

Maybe it isn't as unrelated to government activity as you think.

UK Woman Arrested For Filming Inside Empty Hospital

Video contradicts government assertion of overrun wards.

summit.news

I stole this from the Beer Virus thread to make sure you saw it.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

LOL - Sorry about that, I wasn't very careful there. I actually do know the difference, used to be in American Chemical Society back when the dead sea was just a little sick.

You are right - the sonography graduation tests are pretty thorough too. I used to proctor their exams sometimes.

Ok, so I re-read parts of the #8 citation, and I got parts of it wrong. The #8 study DID find that fabric and the surgical mask had lower filtration efficiency for charge neutral particles.

But a few caveats... the standard for testing charged particles is because when a person exhales, those particles are charged. The aerosols that hang in the air for a long period of time, eventually lose their charge and become charge neutral, hence the second standard of testing with neutral particles. One of these two carries a much, much greater viral load, and hence a much higher infection risk, and it's not the smallest of the small that become charge neutral.

And, this isn't surprising to me for fabric masks... normally one layer has some synthetic material, but is still mostly cotton, which isn't particularly electrostatic.

It is surprising with the surgical mask... I'm not seeing the make/model of surgical mask used for testing... because some surgical masks have the middle layer that is electrostatic material, some don't. The electrostatic material is the "magic" that makes N95's work well at the 300-400 nm particle size. If study #8 wasn't testing surgical masks with an electrostatic middle layer, then not really a very good test.

Anyhow, good stuff... got more?

 

[CampingJosh]

Josh, are you trying to justify mandatory mask wearing or are you trying to convince someone that they should wear one?

I'm not in favor of mandatory masks. (On the political compass, I'm way down near the bottom.) There are lots of other mitigation options that seem to be more effective than wearing masks. For instance, staying home is better than wearing a mask while going out. Having a well-spaced event outdoors seems to be better than an indoor event with masks. I'm unlikely to wear a mask at all tomorrow. I'm also unlikely to be within 40 yards of anyone other than my wife.

Freedom, though, requires taking responsibility for harm done to others.

During a respiratory-based pandemic, I think that a mitigation as simple and inexpensive as wearing a cloth mask when in close proximity to others is a reasonable minimum standard of personal responsibility.

 

[jamil]

I'm not in favor of mandatory masks. (On the political compass, I'm way down near the bottom.) There are lots of other mitigation options that seem to be more effective than wearing masks. For instance, staying home is better than wearing a mask while going out. Having a well-spaced event outdoors seems to be better than an indoor event with masks. I'm unlikely to wear a mask at all tomorrow. I'm also unlikely to be within 40 yards of anyone other than my wife.

Freedom, though, requires taking responsibility for harm done to others.

During a respiratory-based pandemic, I think that a mitigation as simple and inexpensive as wearing a cloth mask when in close proximity to others is a reasonable minimum standard of personal responsibility.

Well, with the arguments you’ve been making it’s hard to tell. I’d drop the morality angle. You’re not gonna shame people into compliance. They’re no less moral than you are. Your differences have nothing to do with moral compass. It has much more to do with belief.

 

[buckwacker]

I'm not in favor of mandatory masks. (On the political compass, I'm way down near the bottom.) There are lots of other mitigation options that seem to be more effective than wearing masks. For instance, staying home is better than wearing a mask while going out. Having a well-spaced event outdoors seems to be better than an indoor event with masks. I'm unlikely to wear a mask at all tomorrow. I'm also unlikely to be within 40 yards of anyone other than my wife.

Freedom, though, requires taking responsibility for harm done to others.

During a respiratory-based pandemic, I think that a mitigation as simple and inexpensive as wearing a cloth mask when in close proximity to others is a reasonable minimum standard of personal responsibility.

By your logic, you shouldn't drive a car because you just might have an accident and kill someone. Better err on the side of caution and walk everywhere. It's the moral thing to do.

 

[foszoe]

Well, with the arguments you’ve been making it’s hard to tell. I’d drop the morality angle. You’re not gonna shame people into compliance. They’re no less moral than you are. Your differences have nothing to do with moral compass. It has much more to do with belief.

Ok. I've let this one go a few times. If you claim to be Christian, morality and belief do have a role to play. Several here do make such claims.

 

[CampingJosh]

By your logic, you shouldn't drive a car because you just might have an accident and kill someone. Better err on the side of caution and walk everywhere. It's the moral thing to do.

No. But someone driving a car should take reasonable precautions not to harm others. Don't text while you drive, for instance. Turn on your headlights when it's dark out. Stuff like that.

 

[buckwacker]

No. But someone driving a car should take reasonable precautions not to harm others. Don't text while you drive, for instance. Turn on your headlights when it's dark out. Stuff like that.

So like, if I'm sick, stay home or wear a mask?

 

[qwerty]

So like, if I'm sick, stay home or wear a mask?

I believe one is supposed to perform hara kiri.... Anything less would be irresponsible and put other folks at risk.

 

[CampingJosh]

So like, if I'm sick, stay home or wear a mask?

If you're sick, definitely stay home.

But you should know by now that a great number of people are infectious without yet (or ever) feeling sick themselves. That a person didn't know they were causing harm is not the same thing as not causing harm.

 

[buckwacker]

If you're sick, definitely stay home.

But you should know by now that a great number of people are infectious without yet (or ever) feeling sick themselves. That a person didn't know they were causing harm is not the same thing as not causing harm.

No, we really don't know this. You can keep saying it, but if your that open minded you'd realize that there's a lot we don't know about this virus, asymptomatic spread being one of them.

 

[jamil]

By your logic, you shouldn't drive a car because you just might have an accident and kill someone. Better err on the side of caution and walk everywhere. It's the moral thing to do.

No, it’s not a logical flaw, it’s a misapplication of argument. He believes the virus is more dangerous than you believe it is. He thinks masks are more effective than you think they are: He thinks they’re easier to wear than perhaps you do. I suspect that if you both believed the same things about the circus and bout masks, you’d likely wear masks voluntarily, or not, depending on which of the same side you’re on. That’s why this is not a moral issue. It’s a difference of belief. The sooner everyone understands that, the sooner people can stop talking past each other. And maybe then Josh can get off his moral superiority kick, and you guys can stop thinking you’re so much smarter.

 

[nonobaddog]

In science if something were truly valid, almost all honest and well conceived studies that examine it would reach a similar conclusion and support that it is valid. When enough support exists, the conclusion of the studies is added to the cumulative body of human knowledge.

However when something is not valid in its nature, you can get conflicting studies, some indicating one conclusion and some another. This can go on ad nauseam and it is very unlikely to result in a positive conclusion. Eventually the majority realize the reason for this is that the original premise is not valid. This does not prevent some people from clinging on though, kind of like the various Flat Earth Societies.

Now if we throw politics into the process it gets really messy. With politics there are studies that are not even trying to find the correct conclusion based on the empirical evidence. Instead they are trying to find their chosen conclusion regardless of the empirical evidence.

 

[jamil]

In science if something were truly valid, almost all honest and well conceived studies that examine it would reach a similar conclusion and support that it is valid. When enough support exists, the conclusion of the studies is added to the cumulative body of human knowledge.

However when something is not valid in its nature, you can get conflicting studies, some indicating one conclusion and some another. This can go on ad nauseam and it is very unlikely to result in a positive conclusion. Eventually the majority realize the reason for this is that the original premise is not valid. This does not prevent some people from clinging on though, kind of like the various Flat Earth Societies.

Now if we throw politics into the process it gets really messy. With politics there are studies that are not even trying to find the correct conclusion based on the empirical evidence. Instead they are trying to find their chosen conclusion regardless of the empirical evidence.

Yep. Some other things that explain inconsistent results. Might be cutting edge stuff and not enough is known to make the right hypotheses. Or maybe the technology to test it thoroughly doesn’t yet exist. Or maybe the thing is partly true but not completely true.

Anyway, another thing that muddies up the science is hegemonic orthodoxy. For example, hydroxychloroquine. Scientists seemed to be scrambling to see who could debunk it quickest. The point isn’t to say whether it’s actually effective or not. But it was clear that the scientific hegemony wanted it not to be.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

No, we really don't know this. You can keep saying it, but if your that open minded you'd realize that there's a lot we don't know about this virus, asymptomatic spread being one of them.

Asymptomatic spread, not likely... at all.

Pre-symptomatic, different story... totally. Like 6 people in the time it takes to request a song from a DJ at a reception. DJ went symptomatic 24 hours later... the 6, all 5-6 days later.

Or, right now, maybe you (the royal you) aren't infected at all... or aren't in that 2 days pre-symptoms (to 5 days after symptom onset) highly contagious window.

Problem is... none of us (unless you've been in strict quarantine) really know which of the three we are at this precise moment. "I'm not sick (right now)" could be any of the three. Days later we'll know, but that doesn't really help right now, what to do right now, for example, if we're visiting a vulnerable relative or friend, does it?

 

[buckwacker]

Asymptomatic spread, not likely... at all.

Pre-symptomatic, different story... totally. Like 6 people in the time it takes to request a song from a DJ at a reception. DJ went symptomatic 24 hours later... the 6, all 5-6 days later.

Or, right now, maybe you (the royal you) aren't infected at all... or aren't in that 2 days pre-symptoms (to 5 days after symptom onset) highly contagious window.

Problem is... none of us (unless you've been in strict quarantine) really know which of the three we are at this precise moment. "I'm not sick (right now)" could be any of the three. Days later we'll know, but that doesn't really help right now, what to do right now, for example, if we're visiting a vulnerable relative or friend, does it?

How do we "know" this?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

How do we "know" this?

Contact tracing timelines.