To Mask or Not to Mask?

[jamil]

I wear a mask if I am expect to be within six feet of people I do not know. Wearing a mask does not limit my ability to shop, travel or visit with people. I don't agree that wearing a mask infringes on my freedom. Wearing a mask increases my freedom of movement.

Even if it does decrease your blood oxygen. I did an experiment with my apple watch. Just sitting, normal breaths, I took several readings alternating mask-on, mask-off with several minutes between readings. With the mask off the mean was 98. With it on, 91. Std deviation was ~.6 with the mask off and 1.2 with it on. I was surprised by the consistency of measuring blood oxygen with a dang watch! I mean, who'd have thought one could measure such things by bouncing red light off your skin?

It was less consistent with the mask on, which I guess is to be expected. 91 isn't terrible but it's below normal.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Short answer, both. Masks reduce but do not eliminate how much virus you emit/breath out into the air... ditto on protection, it reduces but does not eliminate what you breath in.

I think it's pretty clear that had no one worn masks, more people would have been infected, likely many more. As it was, all 6 were younger, mostly late 20's, and that plus alcohol probably influenced loosing their masks for the dance floor. All 6 got full blown COVID, all 6 have recovered... none recommend it.

DJ already had it... the incubation period to symptoms is 5-8 days. He showed symptoms 24 hours later.

Incubation period is 2-14 days, not 5-8. And a few questions you stated the bride and groom were showing symptoms when the DJ called, we're the other 4 part of the wedding party? In another post you stated the DJ called on a Thurs, and the people were showing symptoms already and said it was 5-6 days after they were exposed. Sat would be the day of exposure, Thurs the day of the call. That is 5 days at the max, if they were showing symptoms wends or early thurs it would be less than five days. When was the earliest that they symptoms occurred?

 

[Ingomike]

 

[BugI02]

Just for fun, what do you say to the person who feels like this 24/7/365 and did long before COVID?

Well, Bye

 

[BugI02]

So was the DJ wearing a mask at all, part time, full time?

Or how many people were requesting songs and at what interval? Could it just be the area around the DJ was repeatedly contaminated by others?

 

[BugI02]

So if I understand this correctly....

Wear your mask because the testing is showing the virus is spreading.
Wear your mask because a DJ infected 6 people while pre/asymptomatic.
Multiple couples where one spouse will get it, but not the other.
Five guys in a truck for two hours, one had it, no one else did, and tested negative after.
Well, the testing must be flawed.
Wear your mask because the testing is showing the virus is spreading.

You forgot that the only possible reason for the virus still spreading is some people will not comply. That masking itself might be insufficient to contain the spread is never to be considered

 

[IndyDave1776]

Well, Bye

You're going to have to work harder than that to get rid of me!

 

[BugI02]

So is wearing a mask protecting the wearer or the others?

C) None of the above

 

[BugI02]

I feel like that's a bit of a stretch.

Are stop signs now to be considered a prior restraint, too?

The term 'prior restraint' is often used expansively, to refer to attempts to regulate current behavior because it 'might' lead to future undesireable behavior. I believe 'future crime' is used ironically in a similar way. All have questionable legality

 

[BugI02]

I missed this. Yeah. I have something to say about that.

Morality is indeed tightly coupled to belief such that if you believe a certain behavior is immoral, and then you intentionally or negligently do that behavior, you've done something that is immoral. Some people would call that moral relativism. It is, and it isn't. In the way that it is relative, moral rules are relative to belief. There is objective morality, but it's very basic. The ways that morals aren't relative is in that the rules that expand the objective moral foundations that span across humanity (all cultures, all people, basically share these) are the things that are relative, but the foundations those rules are built upon are not.

One example of an objective moral is kin altruism. That moral spans across all cultures in humans. But, different cultures might evolve different rules around kin ultruism. For example, one culture (culture A) might develop rules that say one's estate must pass onto the firstborn. It would be immoral then for the estate to go to someone else. Another culture (culture B) might require one's estate to pass onto all children equally. Okay, so is it objectively immoral for someone in culture B to pass his estate onto his children equally? No. Someone from culture A might think so, and might attack culture B for being immoral. But that's only a social construct based on belief.

So if you judge someone according to your own relative morals, that's kinda ******. But, it's fine to judge a Christian by objective Christian standards (I make that caveat because there are > 200 Christian bodies who have different enough beliefs to matter). If it's a belief you share in common, then go ahead and judge them by your standards.

My contention in the mask debate is that it's not a moral issue, because the people you're arguing with don't believe that masks work, and/or they don't believe that covid is really any worse than the flu. And it's not for the lack of effort that they've arrived at a different conclusion. They have different sources telling them different things. And they believe those sources because they don't trust yours. So. Is it fruitful to look down your nose at them atop your (rhetorical "your") pedestal of righteousness and cast judgement through the lens of your own knowledge/belief? No. The problem is trust in the information available. So you guys should talk about that instead and drop the moral posturing.

Or just say from some viewpoints the Pharisees outnumber the Christians on INGO, pointing out where the word agrees with their beliefs of the moment as well as forgetting where it does not - pointing to the imagined deficiencies of others while forgetting the cautions about sitting in judgement

 

[BugI02]

Asked and answered... so I'll ask you, do seatbelts/airbags work?

Do you have to wear your seatbelt in order for someone elses to work? What is the mask equivalent of an airbag?

 

[nonobaddog]

The term 'prior restraint' is often used expansively, to refer to attempts to regulate current behavior because it 'might' lead to future undesireable behavior. I believe 'future crime' is used ironically in a similar way. All have questionable legality

Sounds like a precursor to thought police.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

The problem with masks, It gives people a false sense of security. They think because they wear a piece of cloth they’re protected. If they believed masks was the save all they wouldn’t approach people not wearing a mask to scream in their face about it. It has nothing to do with protection and everything to do with compliance. I was born free and I’ll die free. If you walk into subway and I’m not wearing a mask, if you’re that bothered by it go thru the drive thru or go down the road to a place that requires it, odds are I just left that place because masks are required... but leave me and my choice alone.

My body my choice, remember?

 

[BugI02]

That was a pretty quick move off of your duty to defend.

We have recent hard evidence that utilizing the court system is not a guarantee that justice will be done, but civil disobedience has a respectable history of success at making legal distinctions irrelevant if the people do not support them

 

[BugI02]

You're going to have to work harder than that to get rid of me!

I misunderstood that you were talking about your personal circumstances, Dave. I interpreted the question to be what I would say to someone whinging about how we should all roll over and obey the masketeers 24/7/365 (like some in this thread), and my answer was predicated on that interpretation

Did not mean to be cavalier about your problems, I am in agreement that masking should be a peersonal choice and if they want better compliance they need better proof

Mea culpa

 

[IndyDave1776]

I misunderstood that you were talking about your personal circumstances, Dave. I interpreted the question to be what I would say to someone whinging about how we should all roll over and obey the masketeers 24/7/365 (like some in this thread), and my answer was predicated on that interpretation

Did not mean to be cavalier about your problems, I am in agreement that masking should be a peersonal choice and if they want better compliance they need better proof

Mea culpa

I know. I just decided to be somewhere between comical and flippant with the thought!

 

[jamil]

View attachment 119454

Someone in there should have blue hair. Probably body positive. I mean, if you want to cover all religious garb. Maybe the person wearing the skirt should have a bulge. Don't wanna leave anyone out.

 

[qwerty]

Wear a mask.....

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1345480326282416129/pu/vid/464x848/xl2aMKT2QxpNT8tj.mp4

 

[nonobaddog]

Wear a mask.....

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1345480326282416129/pu/vid/464x848/xl2aMKT2QxpNT8tj.mp4

Wow, somebody needs a handful of Midol and a couple bags of tequila IV.

 

[BugI02]

I know. I just decided to be somewhere between comical and flippant with the thought!