To Mask or Not to Mask?

[Hatin Since 87]

You can't wait until this is over to make rational choices. We're only talking about putting on a mask not cutting off your testicle

That’s not really arguing the facts he pointed out. Masks don’t do anything wear it if you want. I will not. That easy.

 

[jamil]

It's a new disease. The infectious disease docs, virologists, etc have admitted this entire time they aren't certain but the media pulls statements out of context. And to be fair, people want simplistic answers.

That’s not really all of it though. It’s not all on the press. Politicians are basing policy on this stuff. They based policy on the information that we had months ago and now we find it was incorrect all along. I think sometimes “don’t just do something. Stand there” is a better approach than the other way around. How about we don’t ruin people’s livelihoods and lives based on, “could be”.

 

[jamil]

That’s not really arguing the facts he pointed out. Masks don’t do anything wear it if you want. I will not. That easy.

We don’t know how much masks do really. Probably not nearly as much as some people think but more than others think. It’s not zero and it’s not 100. But, before we go making laws that incarcerate people for not wearing them, let’s find some proof that it’s actually doing the kind of harm to people that should require such punishment.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

That's pretty much the definition of selfish.

Yeah...no, not quite. Selfishness is me acting with disregard for how my actions affect other people. On the other hand, I can easily imagine scenarios where me acting in my best interests can be in the interest of others as well. Me not wearing a mask is not selfishness, in and of itself.

 

[dusty88]

At first we were told we didn’t need masks. A lot of us conservatives were wearing masks, because we prepare for epidemics and SHTF situations. We were told we were killing nurses by wearing them. Now, we’re being told we must wear them and if not we are killing grandma.

I do not jump when you say to jump. I do not sit when you say to sit. You told me not to wear them, now you tell me to wear them. No thanks.

this particular statement kind of stuck with me overnight

Exactly who is the "you" that you feel you are being ordered around by? The surgeon general? Fauci? Liberals?

Whomever it is, it might be someone quite different downstream from an infection if you presymptomatically spread SARSCov2 to someone. It most likely will be someone you never met.

I always thought of preppers and most conservatives as people who voluntarily helped others, even sometimes at a bit of personal sacrifice.

The worst outcome of you not wearing a mask is that you DO contribute to someone's dead grandma, or even dead child.

The worst outcome of you wearing a mask is... what?

 

[dusty88]

We don’t know how much masks do really. Probably not nearly as much as some people think but more than others think. It’s not zero and it’s not 100. But, before we go making laws that incarcerate people for not wearing them, let’s find some proof that it’s actually doing the kind of harm to people that should require such punishment.

Yeah, I don't think writing fines or imprisoning people is the right solution here.

But I'll disagree with waiting for "proof". Proof is rarely attained in science. We have to go with the abundance of evidence.

There is evidence that masks are reducing transmission. And there is strong evidence that presymptomatic and asymptomatic transmission are big drivers of disease spread. Those are then converted into a model because getting something closer to "proof" would not only take months it would be completely unrealistic (confining people to no other exposures while you observe the real-life transmissions of other people who have been exposed but not yet symptomatic. I can't even imagine what parameters it would take to "prove" the benefit of having the population cover their mouth and nose during this epidemic.

Science and especially medicine involve decisions based on dealing with what you know about the benefit and risks, and being open-minded to change recommendations as you learn more.

With the "risk" of wearing a mask nearly zero to at least 99.9% of the population, I'm having trouble seeing any difficulty here that has a rational answer.

 

[dusty88]

Here is a summary of evidence

Fabric masks are able to reduce the amount of viral material inhaled and exhaled. This effectiveness is based on a few things, but some important factors include mixed fabric types (which create electrostatic forces that reduce viral movement), multiple layers, and a tight fit around the edges of the face.


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.0c03252


Viral spread (at least in this case) occurs primarily through droplet expulsion, which occurs when talking or coughing. While most masks aren’t perfect at stopping viral particles, they are pretty good at stopping droplets. This paper assessed the efficacy of different types of masks on reducing droplet scatter. Homemade masks aren’t perfect, but they do help. The tighter the seal around the face (think: secure ear loops, formable nose bridge, and fabric that extends over and under the chin), the better.


https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.10720


https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2007800


Models from academic institutions have suggested that combined mask use and social distancing would have a huge impact on caseload.


Agent-Based Model for COVID-19 Masking


https://royalsocietypublishing.org/d…/10.1098/rspa.2020.0376


https://www.atsjournals.org/…/abs/10.1164/rccm.202004-1188LE

This observational study challenged my preconceived notions. I thought people wearing masks would be less careful about getting close (ie false sense of security). This study of course doesn't necessarily "prove" otherwise but it is interesting and actually shows that masking might reinforce distancing:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.12446.pd...znBNZJup6sWuovyYESn0Wjwg8xvAZubi5_iQb1DIDYKUo


Mask-use has been shown in practice to reduce the spread of SARS-COV2.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7177146/


https://gh.bmj.com/content/5/5/e002794


https://www.medrxiv.org/conte…/10.1101/2020.05.22.20109231v1


A comprehensive literature review on mask efficacy is available here: https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202004.0203/v2

 

[jamil]

Yeah, I don't think writing fines or imprisoning people is the right solution here.

But I'll disagree with waiting for "proof". Proof is rarely attained in science. We have to go with the abundance of evidence.

There is evidence that masks are reducing transmission. And there is strong evidence that presymptomatic and asymptomatic transmission are big drivers of disease spread. Those are then converted into a model because getting something closer to "proof" would not only take months it would be completely unrealistic (confining people to no other exposures while you observe the real-life transmissions of other people who have been exposed but not yet symptomatic. I can't even imagine what parameters it would take to "prove" the benefit of having the population cover their mouth and nose during this epidemic.

Science and especially medicine involve decisions based on dealing with what you know about the benefit and risks, and being open-minded to change recommendations as you learn more.

With the "risk" of wearing a mask nearly zero to at least 99.9% of the population, I'm having trouble seeing any difficulty here that has a rational answer.

Okay, so let's stick with the point then. If you're going to incarcerate people for not wearing masks, you need way more than computer models and viral loads to connect the dots that show the harm done by not wearing makes, to an extent that meets the level of punishment prescribed. So then the point was, that notwithstanding that there is evidence that masks help, the confidence that harm is done to a level that warrants such punishments is derived from ideological feelings and not facts. Your reply is evidence of this. It's obvious that you believe there is sufficient evidence to say masks help save lives, yet you do not believe that fining or imprisoning people is the right solution. So then it's not your belief in mask wearing that forms the basis of your belief that punishment is not the answer.

Belief and worldview plays a much larger role in all this than facts do. Facts aren't driving the narratives. Facts aren't driving policies. People who believe along with their tribes are driving polices.

 

[churchmouse]

Yeah, I don't think writing fines or imprisoning people is the right solution here.

But I'll disagree with waiting for "proof". Proof is rarely attained in science. We have to go with the abundance of evidence.

There is evidence that masks are reducing transmission. And there is strong evidence that presymptomatic and asymptomatic transmission are big drivers of disease spread. Those are then converted into a model because getting something closer to "proof" would not only take months it would be completely unrealistic (confining people to no other exposures while you observe the real-life transmissions of other people who have been exposed but not yet symptomatic. I can't even imagine what parameters it would take to "prove" the benefit of having the population cover their mouth and nose during this epidemic.

Science and especially medicine involve decisions based on dealing with what you know about the benefit and risks, and being open-minded to change recommendations as you learn more.

With the "risk" of wearing a mask nearly zero to at least 99.9% of the population, I'm having trouble seeing any difficulty here that has a rational answer.

Let me rationalize my answer to you. Everything you post up has and can be refuted just like the info others have linked. This is a roller coaster ride through the halls of power.

And in the end......I will not be told to wear one in light of these things. 700 medical personnel have died...???

Incarcerate....,am I seeing this correctly or am I in a state of caffeinated deficiency.

You do as you will. Your call. Do not put this on those of us that are not believing this is as bad as they say.
Until I see unrefuted evidence I will not let these people steal any more of my life.

 

[churchmouse]

Okay, so let's stick with the point then. If you're going to incarcerate people for not wearing masks, you need way more than computer models and viral loads to connect the dots that show the harm done by not wearing makes, to an extent that meets the level of punishment prescribed. So then the point was, that notwithstanding that there is evidence that masks help, the confidence that harm is done to a level that warrants such punishments is derived from ideological feelings and not facts. Your reply is evidence of this. It's obvious that you believe there is sufficient evidence to say masks help save lives, yet you do not believe that fining or imprisoning people is the right solution. So then it's not your belief in mask wearing that forms the basis of your belief that punishment is not the answer.

Belief and worldview plays a much larger role in all this than facts do. Facts aren't driving the narratives. Facts aren't driving policies. People who believe along with their tribes are driving polices.

OK maybe I am caffeine deficient.

 

[dusty88]

Okay, so let's stick with the point then. If you're going to incarcerate people for not wearing masks, you need way more than computer models and viral loads to connect the dots that show the harm done by not wearing makes, to an extent that meets the level of punishment prescribed. So then the point was, that notwithstanding that there is evidence that masks help, the confidence that harm is done to a level that warrants such punishments is derived from ideological feelings and not facts. Your reply is evidence of this. It's obvious that you believe there is sufficient evidence to say masks help save lives, yet you do not believe that fining or imprisoning people is the right solution. So then it's not your belief in mask wearing that forms the basis of your belief that punishment is not the answer.

Belief and worldview plays a much larger role in all this than facts do. Facts aren't driving the narratives. Facts aren't driving policies. People who believe along with their tribes are driving polices.

That's a good point and there are two different questions here. The first question is whether or not you should wear a mask when indoors with other people?

My answer to that is absolutely, based on what we know now. And I definitely enforce it at my business amongst my small group of employees

The second question is do you try to get this done through voluntary action or through government Force? It would be a much longer discussion to elucidate why I think that volunteerism can sometimes produce better results than force.
Conversely, there IS enough evidence to justify mask mandates right now especially if you contrast this with things that don't directly affect others like seat belt laws.

But in the end, what good is it going to do and which will work better? People who live in areas where masks are mandated are saying the mandates are actually working quite well and it gives the stores a little more ammunition for enforcing the practice. However, this pandemic has been politicized and people are suspicious of government and a large segment of the population is going to take a contrarian view no matter what the government tells them. So I think in our case, here in Indiana, it might be more effective to encourage the wearing of masks than to require it.

If someone wants to be a jerk, even in the face of a mask mandate they can just do silly things like pull it down on their chin. Or they can get closer to other people just to prove their point. I think this pandemic is going to take awhile to beat and we need the cooperation of as many people as possible.

 

[jamil]

Here is a summary of evidence

Fabric masks are able to reduce the amount of viral material inhaled and exhaled. This effectiveness is based on a few things, but some important factors include mixed fabric types (which create electrostatic forces that reduce viral movement), multiple layers, and a tight fit around the edges of the face.


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.0c03252


Viral spread (at least in this case) occurs primarily through droplet expulsion, which occurs when talking or coughing. While most masks aren’t perfect at stopping viral particles, they are pretty good at stopping droplets. This paper assessed the efficacy of different types of masks on reducing droplet scatter. Homemade masks aren’t perfect, but they do help. The tighter the seal around the face (think: secure ear loops, formable nose bridge, and fabric that extends over and under the chin), the better.


https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.10720


https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2007800


Models from academic institutions have suggested that combined mask use and social distancing would have a huge impact on caseload.


Agent-Based Model for COVID-19 Masking


https://royalsocietypublishing.org/d…/10.1098/rspa.2020.0376


https://www.atsjournals.org/…/abs/10.1164/rccm.202004-1188LE

This observational study challenged my preconceived notions. I thought people wearing masks would be less careful about getting close (ie false sense of security). This study of course doesn't necessarily "prove" otherwise but it is interesting and actually shows that masking might reinforce distancing:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.12446.pd...znBNZJup6sWuovyYESn0Wjwg8xvAZubi5_iQb1DIDYKUo


Mask-use has been shown in practice to reduce the spread of SARS-COV2.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7177146/


https://gh.bmj.com/content/5/5/e002794


https://www.medrxiv.org/conte…/10.1101/2020.05.22.20109231v1


A comprehensive literature review on mask efficacy is available here: https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202004.0203/v2

Thanks for finding those and posting. It connects some dots, but doesn't connect all the dots. We still have to infer some things from knowledge of other similar things. Also, studies based on computer models are probably not a lot better than the papers that suggest such things as white fragility are true. Remember the computer models predicted that we wouldn't have enough respirators, because an assumption built into their models was that respirators were needed to save lives? What missing knowledge is baked into the current computer models? Whatever accounts for masks being the thing that makes one country's outcome being better than another is based on assumptions. There are likely stronger factors that are yet unknown.

 

[jamil]

That's a good point and there are two different questions here. The first question is whether or not you should wear a mask when indoors with other people?

My answer to that is absolutely, based on what we know now. And I definitely enforce it at my business amongst my small group of employees

The second question is do you try to get this done through voluntary action or through government Force? It would be a much longer discussion to elucidate why I think that volunteerism can sometimes produce better results than force.
Conversely, there IS enough evidence to justify mask mandates right now especially if you contrast this with things that don't directly affect others like seat belt laws.

But in the end, what good is it going to do and which will work better? People who live in areas where masks are mandated are saying the mandates are actually working quite well and it gives the stores a little more ammunition for enforcing the practice. However, this pandemic has been politicized and people are suspicious of government and a large segment of the population is going to take a contrarian view no matter what the government tells them. So I think in our case, here in Indiana, it might be more effective to encourage the wearing of masks than to require it.

If someone wants to be a jerk, even in the face of a mask mandate they can just do silly things like pull it down on their chin. Or they can get closer to other people just to prove their point. I think this pandemic is going to take awhile to beat and we need the cooperation of as many people as possible.

There would be much less skepticism if the powers that be would say some stuff, and then later that stuff turns out to be true. How many 180 degree flip-flops does it take to be taken credibly? Obviously that's a trick question. You see the skepticism of the right now is based on a general distrust of governments and experts. And that's because they've been trying to manipulate public reactions, and maybe even for good causes. Fouci said that people not showing signs of illness shouldn't wear masks. That statement obviously did not age well, because anyone who says that now is a knuckle dragging imbecile. And I think Fouci knew what he was doing then. I think he said it because masks were needed more by medical professionals treating covid patients, and he wanted to stop the panic buying of masks.

Remember, it was the conservatives wanting to wear the masks then and the progressives saying they were knuckle draggers for wearing them. Now it's flipped, for mostly ideological reasons. There are more facts known now versus then, certainly. But it is not facts driving policy now. People who say it's important to wear masks yell at people who don't while wearing their masks on their chins. Like the lady who yelled at a previous poster while he was in his car alone with the windows up, she rolled her window down, removed her mask, and yelled at him. People live out what they actually believe. They can't help it. If she's so ***damn confident that the masks are needed even in cars. she would lived that out and not taken hers off to yell. She doesn't actually believe it was important to wear the mask. She believed in her own self-righteousness and her right to be indignant to a miscreant of her own belief.

Policy makers are humans too. They're not mandating it because it is the best course of action, they're mandating it because it's a nail. And they have a hammer. If policy makers really believe that wearing masks will save us, they'd spend more time trying to reach across the isle and have a discussion about it rather than lobbing missiles.

 

[dusty88]

Let me rationalize my answer to you. Everything you post up has and can be refuted just like the info others have linked. This is a roller coaster ride through the halls of power.

Is that what this is about? I'm asking that seriously , not rhetorically. Is it about resisting authority? Because I can understand the arguments for opening businesses. I have a lot more trouble understanding why people won't put on a facial covering.

And in the end......I will not be told to wear one in light of these things. 700 medical personnel have died...???

Yes over 700 healthcare workers in the US have died from Covid19, most of their infections occurring at work. We are sending them into a battle without the right equipment. The least we could do is try to minimize infection. We can point fingers at why we were under-equipped and under prepared but the real enemy here is a virus and I think we ought to help out the people trying to deal with the problem.

Incarcerate....,am I seeing this correctly or am I in a state of caffeinated deficiency.

I think the incarceration talk is counterproductive.

You do as you will. Your call. Do not put this on those of us that are not believing this is as bad as they say.
Until I see unrefuted evidence I will not let these people steal any more of my life.

I'm not sure where belief comes in. And who is the "they" that says it's so bad.
The administration has been trying to downplay the pandemic since January.

 

[chipbennett]

yes, if you can stay distant from people (especially outdoors) then the mask becomes a non-issue

But if the mask might help, why not do it? We want to mitigate infections. We want to get businesses and schools open. So throw everything including the kitchen sink at the virus, provided the tossing doesn't cause its own problems. Who cares really if it turned out to be unimportant?

I was against the mask-wearing at first. I know that most masks aren't filtering viral particles. And I'm concerned that people touching their mask might actually increase transmission.

But then we saw evidence that a significant proportion of transmission is from presymptomatic and asymptomatic carriers, including their respiratory droplets. Knowing that, it makes sense for everyone to mask up when indoors. I wouldn't wear a mask outdoors unless really close to people for a while (or passing close to people, because why not)

We do need better masks if this is going to continue.Some researchers are trying to find more effective, washable masks.

It would also be nice to educate people to sanitize their hands before and after touching the mask.

But we are talking to 300 million people so a reasonable message is "mask up".

The worst thing that happens is we laugh at ourselves later for going through all that.

I've been (sincerely) asking for this. Can you cite sources?

 

[jamil]

Let me rationalize my answer to you. Everything you post up has and can be refuted just like the info others have linked. This is a roller coaster ride through the halls of power.

And in the end......I will not be told to wear one in light of these things. 700 medical personnel have died...???

Incarcerate....,am I seeing this correctly or am I in a state of caffeinated deficiency.

You do as you will. Your call. Do not put this on those of us that are not believing this is as bad as they say.
Until I see unrefuted evidence I will not let these people steal any more of my life.

You'll never get "unrefuted" evidence. Something can be self evidently, absolutely true, and still someone will refute it. Irrefutable evidence is non-existent when we have a human nature where belief is much more powerful than evidence. Two people can look at the same set of facts and be convinced of two completely opposite positions. Worldview/belief interprets all inputs, and that's mainly what drives how we think about it.

I would rather say I want evidence that reasonable people should draw the same conclusions. And what I mean by "reasonable"; if I'm "reasonable" that means I have a starting premise that I can be wrong and am willing to admit when the other side says something that's true enough to their point. So then changing my mind would look like me conceding that enough things are true in their argument that their position is the more correct one. That's hard to do. I mean. I have my pride and all. And I'm kinda stuck on my beliefs as much as anyone.

So to me, "reasonable" does not look like saying that the other side is 100% wrong regardless of what evidence is presented. But I'll also say that to change one's mind regardless of what all the knowable underlying truths there are, there has to be mutual trust. If you don't trust the data that's supposed to prove a point, there's no basis for changing your opinion even if the data really does support the new conclusion. So for example, when Fouci pulled his "don't buy up all the masks; healthy people don't need them. Oh. But by the way, please do give all the masks you've been hording that won't help you to the first responders." Regardless of good intentions, the manipulative nature of that statement just comes off as disingenuous, and he set himself up to be disbelieved later. And that has played itself out as conservatives were the earliest adopters of mask wearing, and now they're saying "**** you" to Fouci and the Maskanistas.

 

[jamil]

I've been (sincerely) asking for this. Can you cite sources?

Oh. There's the case in Sacramento of the assemblywoman who was infected by her asymptomatic staffer who she claims wore his mask all the time. She tested positive one day after he did. As I said elsewhere. I suspect she got while ****ing. I realize I'm inferring a lot of facts not in evidence but it's too funny not to say. That story just kinda read like the typical politician/staffer extramarital affair.

 

[jamil]

I've been (sincerely) asking for this. Can you cite sources?

In the above list of citations there are dashed lines drawn between the dots, but I'd like to see some solid lines. Even then I would not agree with mandates.


Fostering trust between sides with honest dialog would work better than force.


Yeah. I actually said "honest dialog" between sides.

 

[BugI02]

You can't wait until this is over to make rational choices. We're only talking about putting on a mask not cutting off your testicle

Ignoring for the moment the begging of the question, I have made a rational choice. It is the same one WOPR made about playing Tic Tac Toe

 

[churchmouse]

You'll never get "unrefuted" evidence. Something can be self evidently, absolutely true, and still someone will refute it. Irrefutable evidence is non-existent when we have a human nature where belief is much more powerful than evidence. Two people can look at the same set of facts and be convinced of two completely opposite positions. Worldview/belief interprets all inputs, and that's mainly what drives how we think about it.

I would rather say I want evidence that reasonable people should draw the same conclusions. And what I mean by "reasonable"; if I'm "reasonable" that means I have a starting premise that I can be wrong and am willing to admit when the other side says something that's true enough to their point. So then changing my mind would look like me conceding that enough things are true in their argument that their position is the more correct one. That's hard to do. I mean. I have my pride and all. And I'm kinda stuck on my beliefs as much as anyone.

So to me, "reasonable" does not look like saying that the other side is 100% wrong regardless of what evidence is presented. But I'll also say that to change one's mind regardless of what all the knowable underlying truths there are, there has to be mutual trust. If you don't trust the data that's supposed to prove a point, there's no basis for changing your opinion even if the data really does support the new conclusion. So for example, when Fouci pulled his "don't buy up all the masks; healthy people don't need them. Oh. But by the way, please do give all the masks you've been hording that won't help you to the first responders." Regardless of good intentions, the manipulative nature of that statement just comes off as disingenuous, and he set himself up to be disbelieved later. And that has played itself out as conservatives were the earliest adopters of mask wearing, and now they're saying "**** you" to Fouci and the Maskanistas.

Well said. My underlying trust/belief system has been smashed against the rocks in light of the last 3 years of bull **** generated to unseat the POTUS. this is coming off as nothing more than that at this time in my eyes. Not hard to argue it either.

My girls (see avatar) are being robbed of so many things right now. As are we. Total in the way it is being handled and rammed up our tai pipes. Show me the sick and dyeing. Show me the actual run in the medical facility's not some link to some narrative pushers website. We know more than a few that were sick. Even hospitalized due to other health issues but all showed negative on the tests but were still diagnosed with the P-Virus. (Political Virus)
We were all sick save for the spouse and SIL and have the antibody's but those 2 were not effected save for dealing with our illness and yes we were sick.

Now in light of all this show me the body's. Period.
700 staffers in medical facility's have died....OK. How many were natural causes and how many from the P-virus. Nor to take anything away from those good and brave people. God rest their souls but how many. How many passed last year in that same group. Its a big country. We have seen how they are lumping things together to get the numbers.

In light of all the I am not buying into it. Not anymore.