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
Categorically wrong. Wearing a mask to keep oneself from spreading a disease is unrelated to government censorship.
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.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.
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.Josh, are you trying to justify mandatory mask wearing or are you trying to convince someone that they should wear one?
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.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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
So like, if I'm sick, stay home or wear a mask?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.
I believe one is supposed to perform hara kiri.... Anything less would be irresponsible and put other folks at risk.So like, if I'm sick, stay home or wear a mask?
If you're sick, definitely stay home.So like, if I'm sick, stay home or wear a mask?
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.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, 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.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.
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.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.
Asymptomatic spread, not likely... at all.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.
How do we "know" this?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?
Contact tracing timelines.How do we "know" this?