I asked this question when people first started losing their minds about covid. For how many years will you wear a mask before you say enough is enough. Its been established that years is a given now. Now I will ask in decades. How many decades will you wear a mask before you say enough is enough
Masks
Posts
Total:
37
-->
@sadolite
How many years will you continue to insist that restaurant employees wash their hands before handling your food?
As long as we are very confident that certain easy basic hygienic practices can prevent disease and death then those practices will always seem like a good idea. Doctors have been wearing masks in surgery for 70-80 years and will probably continue to do so for another century. In Asia, voluntary,permanent mask wearing saw a major increase after the first SARS epidemic. Successful prevention of deadly diseases will always be a compelling reason to adopt certain health measures in certain situations.
-->
@sadolite
How many decades will you complain about masks before enough is enough?
-->
@sadolite
When the pandemic dies down, the tradeoff between liberty and safety when wearing a mask will favor liberty once more. There's a reason no one wore masks up until the pandemic came. The pandemic is indeed in its final stages, we just need people to vaccinate and not be stupid.
-->
@MisterChris
In order to know the difference between when we should and shouldn't wear masks,we need specific numbers as to what is an acceptable level of risk to remove any ambiguity from policy decisions. Right now the argument from health officials is "if there is any risk of spreading covid at all, than a mask should be worn" that is just unacceptable, because that same logic can be used to justify forced mask wearing and other violations of the 5th amendment indefinitely and for any reason.
Ambiguity should be removed from all policy decisions and firm indicators used.
Ambiguity should be removed from all policy decisions and firm indicators used.
-->
@oromagi
How long before schools are at full capacity and kids are no longer forced to spend more time with their abusive parents?
There seems to be recorded extra anxiety in children as well as cases of abuse going up. Most people want a return to normalcy, so that way kids can get out of unsafe environments faster and have their anxieties reduced. We also have that mask laws really do harm society if we take out the medical benefits.
A lot of people aren't aware of this either, but the longer a virus exists, the less deadly and symptomatic it becomes. It's kinda like evolution on a really fast scale. If it is less symptomatic and deadly it can be spread more, so viruses trend in that direction usually.
Is it your argument that once this virus is no longer deadly that we should continue to harm society by forcing masks on people afterwords?
I don't know about you, but I would like to visit my mother again, without her being in a state of panic, and I assure you my mother has been in panic since the news started blowing this up. My mom is a healthy 65 year old woman but thinks she'll die if she gets it. She won't get it by the way, because she does what vulnerable populations should do and completely isolates herself.
I saw a report of a 19 year old girl killing herself because of fear of covid. I don't think these things are good for society.
-->
@MisterChris
With no long-term safety data (at least 2 years) on a brand new vaccine technology, it's understandable why some people don't want to be vaccinated. And I haven't seen any reliable data that shows that masks provide any meaningful benefit in stopping the spread of COVID. At least under the current mandates for how masks are to be used (type of mask, sanitation, proper handling, length of time being worn, etc.). That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but I haven't seen it. If there is little to no evidence to even suggest that current mandates are informed by actual data, then the liberty argument becomes a lot more powerful.
But I also never trust the government to value the liberty of citizens.
But I also never trust the government to value the liberty of citizens.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
@Bringerofrain
My original statement gives no opinion on whether the current legal mandates are justified. My statement aims to disprove the idea that the legal mandates will remain for "years" longer. People simply won't stand for it when the majority of them have become vaccinated, and frankly I think the mandates may removed before then due to outcry.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
@Bringerofrain
As for whether the current mandates are justified, that is another matter entirely, one where I admittedly would need to do more research to give an informed opinion.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
"Mandating face mask use in public is associated with a decline in the daily COVID-19 growth rate by 0.9, 1.1, 1.4, 1.7, and 2.0 percentage points in 1–5, 6–10, 11–15, 16–20, and 21 or more days after state face mask orders were signed, respectively. Estimates suggest that as a result of the implementation of these mandates, more than 200,000 COVID-19 cases were averted by May 22, 2020. The findings suggest that requiring face mask use in public could help in mitigating the spread of COVID-19."
"If there is strong direct evidence, either a suitably powered randomized controlled trial (RCT), or a suitably powered metaanalysis of RCTs, or a systematic review of unbiased observational studies that finds compelling evidence, then that would be sufficient for evaluating the efficacy of public mask wearing, at least in the contexts studied. Therefore, we start this review looking at these types of evidence."
"Experimental and epidemiological data support community masking to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. The prevention benefit of masking is derived from the combination of source control and personal protection for the mask wearer. The relationship between source control and personal protection is likely complementary and possibly synergistic14, so that individual benefit increases with increasing community mask use. Further research is needed to expand the evidence base for the protective effect of cloth masks and in particular to identify the combinations of materials that maximize both their blocking and filtering effectiveness, as well as fit, comfort, durability, and consumer appeal. Adopting universal masking policies can help avert future lockdowns, especially if combined with other non-pharmaceutical interventions such as social distancing, hand hygiene, and adequate ventilation."
Sure you haven't.
-->
@MisterChris
I wish I had your optimism. Personally, I think Big Brother has found his opportunity to create such a panic that many people will be willing to give up whatever liberty they had left in the name of safety. But I guess time will tell.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Did you read the whole study on those or just the abstracts?
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
@Theweakeredge
debate debate debate debate
"Resolved: Masks effectively prevent the spread and contraction of COVID-19"
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
You realize... 2 of those are quoted from the conclusions... right? DId you read them?
-->
@MisterChris
I currently have a flurry of debates I'm writing for, as I'm sure you've seen. Plus Ready Writing and my high school LD? I'm sorry I'll have to finish some of those before I can get into another debate there.
-->
@Theweakeredge
:(((((((((((((((((
-->
@Theweakeredge
I only asked because I'm willing to look at evidence, but it takes time to read through and analyze a study. If you just randomly pull a sentence from an abstract, or even a conclusion, that doesn't really encourage me to consider it a reliable or relevant source. So did you read through and analyze them, or did you just read the abstracts/conclusions?
-->
@MisterChris
That would actually be an interesting topic, but I also am in two debates. And I squandered some of my spare time following the voting drama of a recent debate that shall remain unnamed.
-->
@MisterChris
I can agree with those things. Just wanted to know your take
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I scanned through them, I have actually already read through one thoroughly. Though I did that for something else, those are just some sources I found pretty quickly. I did read through the methodology, they are valid. If you ad hoc don't accept evidence that supports the opposite because "I didn't read through every sentence" then you are being obtuse. The conclusion is there for a reason, it summarizes the results of the study. If you are claiming that the study itself is inaccurate, that is a claim you have to prove.
I'm trying to remember if Dr. McCoy in Star Trek ever wore a mask in all his medical practice portrayed?
-->
@Theweakeredge
Problems I have with the first study after an initial reading:
"Because mask wearing by infected people can reduce transmission risk, and because of the high proportion of asymptomatic infected individuals and transmissions, there appears to be a strong case for the effectiveness of widespread use of face masks in reducing the spread of COVID-19. However, there is no direct evidence thus far on the magnitude of such effects, especially at a population level."
This seems to be an admission that there is no direct evidence for the effectiveness of widespread use of face masks in reducing the spread of COVID-19, unless I am reading it wrong.
But there also seems to be a large amount of variables the study is trying to account for in achieving their 1-2% decline in growth rates.
"In addition, the model allowed us to control for a wide range of time-invariant differences between states and counties, such as population density and socioeconomic and demographic factors, plus time-variant differences between states and counties, such as other mitigation and social distancing policies, in addition to state-level COVID-19 testing rates."
The other "mitigation and social distancing policies" accounted for are "school closures; bans on large gatherings; shelter-in-place orders; and closures of restaurants, bars, and entertainment venues." They also did not account for "how differences in strictness and enforcement modify the effects of these mandates." This just seems like an incredibly large number of variables to try and account for to come up with such a relatively small percentage change.
I will have to look at the other sources later.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Couple of problems, literally right in your quote:
"Because mask-wearing by infected people can reduce transmission risk, "
Transmission risk as in - the risk of transmitting covid from one person to another
Second problem, one word, magnitude
However, there is no direct evidence thus far on the magnitude of such effects, especially at a population level.
This study is specifically clarifying that there isn't direct evidence (as in causal, because there is correlative), that such a thing is effective on a mass-spread.
Furthermore, the study goes on to say:
Researchers have been reviewing evidence from previous randomized controlled trials for other respiratory illnesses, examining mask use and types among people at higher risk of contracting infections (such as health care workers or people in infected households). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of such studies have provided suggestive, although generally weak, evidence.6 The estimates from the meta-analyses based on randomized controlled trials suggest declines in transmission risk for influenza or influenza-like illnesses to mask wearers, although estimates are mostly statistically insignificant possibly because of small sample sizes or design limitations, especially those related to assessing compliance.7–9 There is also a relationship between increased adherence to mask use, specifically, and effectiveness of reducing transmission to mask wearers:
Essentially the problem is that there isn't big enough sample size, but based on the article itself, Masks reduce the transmission of covid-19, the sample size is simply not large enough to causally claim that such a thing is true
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
The other "mitigation and social distancing policies" accounted for are "school closures; bans on large gatherings; shelter-in-place orders; and closures of restaurants, bars, and entertainment venues." They also did not account for "how differences in strictness and enforcement modify the effects of these mandates." This just seems like an incredibly large number of variables to try and account for to come up with such a relatively small percentage change.
For experiments regarding something like medicine, vaccines, and preventative measures? No, no they aren't.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Well the first quote was provided to emphasize my point that you admitted, mainly there is no causal evidence. If the sample size does not provide causal evidence, that doesn't seem like a good basis for issuing the mandate.
For experiments regarding something like medicine, vaccines, and preventative measures? No, no they aren't.
You can say this, but that doesn't make it true. Especially when there is no causal evidence.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
On my second point, I kinda rushed, the point was that there was no evidence of the magnitude of such effectiveness, not that their is effectiveness.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
The sample size doesn't correlate to the magnitude of such causal evidence, which was my point.
-->
@Theweakeredge
But what I'm saying is that it seems a bit presumptuous to say that a 1-2% calculated (not actual) decline in growth rates based on a large number of variables, any of which could affect those numbers, provides a statistically significant case to say that mask mandates definitely work.
-->
@Bringerofrain
--> @oromagiHow long before schools are at full capacity and kids are no longer forced to spend more time with their abusive parents? There seems to be recorded extra anxiety in children as well as cases of abuse going up. Most people want a return to normalcy, so that way kids can get out of unsafe environments faster and have their anxieties reduced.
Whether or not school is in session, abused children should be removed from abusive parents. Scheduling school so that child abusers feel less stressed seems like we are focused on the wrong set of people. Teachers are not babysitters or social workers-both get paid way more than teachers. Ultimately, schools and teachers have a mission to educate and should determine the venue for that education as appropriate. Schools have exactly zero responsibility for parents schedules or responsibilities. If home is less safe than school than that is always a problem independent of any pandemic response.
We also have that mask laws really do harm society if we take out the medical benefits.
Why would take out the medical benefits during an history-making pandemic? Seems like medical benefits are the priority until the emergency passes.
A lot of people aren't aware of this either, but the longer a virus exists, the less deadly and symptomatic it becomes. It's kinda like evolution on a really fast scale. If it is less symptomatic and deadly it can be spread more, so viruses trend in that direction usually.
"The idea that circulating pathogens gradually become less deadly over time is very old. It seems to have originated in the writings of a 19th-century physician, Theobald Smith, who first suggested that there is a "delicate equilibrium" between parasite and host, and argued that, over time, the deadliness of a pathogen should decline since it is really not in the interest of a germ to kill its host. This notion became conventional wisdom for many years, but by the 1980s, researchers had begun challenging the idea."
The 1918 Flu become less deadly. AIDS seems to be less deadly now than in the 1980's But there's also lots of viruses that don't become less deadly over time- measles, mumps, polio, ebola. Let's recall that COVID-19 is actually SARS2- a much more easily spread (and therefore more deadly) version of SARS, which killed people much quicker.
SARS2 main innovation was a longer incubation time, which killed few people per infection but way more people over time and space. And we can see that the longer we let the virus spread in the population the faster it mutates in search of more sustainable forms.
Is it your argument that once this virus is no longer deadly that we should continue to harm society by forcing masks on people afterwords?
I'm saying that masks are but one cheap, effective, and sustainable defense against harmful particulates in the air. That's why doctors wear them in surgery. That's why construction workers wear them. Any time science tells us that harmful particulates are in the air is a good time for mask hygiene.
I don't know about you, but I would like to visit my mother again, without her being in a state of panic, and I assure you my mother has been in panic since the news started blowing this up. My mom is a healthy 65 year old woman but thinks she'll die if she gets it. She won't get it by the way, because she does what vulnerable populations should do and completely isolates herself.
I was my Mom's caretaker until she died last May because she lived in a Republican enclave of folks refusing to wear masks because the President told them not to. The whole little community got sick and died at appalling rates. What I wouldn't give to still have a mother in a state of panic.
-->
@fauxlaw
I'm trying to remember if Dr. McCoy in Star Trek ever wore a mask in all his medical practice portrayed?
A surgical mask was a protective face covering used by medical staff to decrease the likelihood of cross-contamination and infection during medical procedures. They were in use until at least the 22nd century.
While trying to rescue Pavel Chekov from 20th century medicine, James T. Kirk, Gillian Taylor, and Doctor Leonard McCoy wore surgical masks to blend in with the other staff members. (Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home)
In 2368, Berlinghoff Rasmussen mentioned that he and a colleague had visited a 22nd century ship. Beverly Crusher replied that he likely saw surgical masks and surgical gloves. (TNG: "A Matter of Time")