CHOICES for individual health, not mandates -Masks, overreach protest

[jamil]

Reddit has now banned the mask skeptic subreddit.

You're a damn fool if you actually believe masks work, in light of the insane and overbearing measures being taken to silence ANY form of criticism or noncompliance whatsoever. This isn't how power behaves when something is self-evident, it's how power behaves when their narratives are vulnerable to logic.

There are many logical fallacies contained in your argument but we'll just talk about the non-sequitur. That is to say, you're asserting that "overbearing measures taken to silence any criticism" leads to a logically certain conclusion that masks don't work. In this argument you're asserting that the only reason why governments would behave this way is because they know masks don't work. Your argument also implies that they would have to know that they don't work, otherwise they wouldn't take these measures. But here's a reason why they might mandate masks, and "they" might even take "overbearing measures" BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE THEY WORK! In fact, that is a more logical conclusion.

The problem here is that both sides project ill will onto the other. They're assuming ill will on the part of mask skeptics. And so that drives them to take "overbearing measures", and they think you're spreading your skepticism around to poison the attitudes of more people, and get more people to be skeptical of masks. I don't have a valid reason not to strongly suspect that they believe masks work. I don't have any secret documents that show them conspiring. Or admitting that they think masks don't help. And it seems you, and many other mask skeptics project an ill will on them. It appears from your reasoning that you're certain that they know masks don't work, and that they have some kind of diabolical motive to make people wear masks that they know don't work.

They don't have any evidence of your ill will, other than an illogical and uncharitable interpretation of your skepticism, and it's leading to some pretty bad behavior. You don't have any real evidence of the ill will you project onto them, other than an illogical, and uncharitable interpretation of their actions and I suppose that could lead to some bad behavior as well. Unless someone steps back and sees the positive feedback loop going on here--you're both feeding the other's uncharitable interpretations of motives, things will continue to escalate. So I urge you guys to stop and think deeper about this. Require a higher standard of proof for what you decide to believe. The outcome you think you've logically derived does not follow from the premise.

 

[jamil]

I've long wondered why masks haven't been recommended during flu season. As a Paramedic, we've long put masks on patients who were infectious and coughing up a lung... it's just part of standard infection control. But, there is so much "science" zipping back and forth and so much politics that no one can keep things straight, which makes for a skeptical people, which makes for a rebellious/untrusting people. The whole thing is a debacle and people are rightly confused and frustrated.

I agree. I think there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical of the narratives being forwarded no matter what side you're on. I think the totality of information available to me makes me skeptical that covid is bad enough and masks are effective enough to make mandating masks a moral conclusion. And on the other hand, the claim that it's all a plot to control people relies on circular reasoning.

 

[jamil]

It appears that the opposite of mask skeptic is mask Pharisee

Pharisees are typically presented as self-righteous hypocrites, a common behavior among all people. If you count yourself as a skeptic among the opposite of "mask Pharisee", it seems you might think rather highly of yourself.

 

[JettaKnight]

I've long wondered why masks haven't been recommended during flu season. As a Paramedic, we've long put masks on patients who were infectious and coughing up a lung... it's just part of standard infection control. But, there is so much "science" zipping back and forth and so much politics that no one can keep things straight, which makes for a skeptical people, which makes for a rebellious/untrusting people. The whole thing is a debacle and people are rightly confused and frustrated.

 

[JTScribe]

It didn't help that they announced people didn't need masks because they were trying to prevent runs on PPE. If you're on record as being dishonest, people will be more skeptical of what you have to say. I wish they'd led with, "We're like everyone to have face coverings, but please, do NOT go out and panic by critical medical supplies. Use a handkerchief or some other homemade one until the people that desperately need it have it."

 

[BugI02]

Allow me to present an alternative narrative: The is how you behave when there's a small, but vocal minority that bristles against any inconvenience, especially when it's accompanied by trained, expert advice and government recommendations.


And Reddit is a cesspool of stupidity. Only go there for IdiotsInCars and such. Even then, the comments are asinine.

[Allow me to redirect your attention to the post that drew the rebuke. You don't find that a bit arrogant? Need we re-discuss the mercurial and conflicting advice of 'experts' and it's admitted self-serving nature? Should we pretend that contrarians like Ioannidis are not also 'experts'? Which 'experts' should we listen to? Is it a beauty contest, with whoever has the most 'experts' in their tribe being the ones who should be believed? In an age where 90% of the media sings from the same sheet music? Really?]

Pharisees are typically presented as self-righteous hypocrites, a common behavior among all people. If you count yourself as a skeptic among the opposite of "mask Pharisee", it seems you might think rather highly of yourself.

Subconscious transference?
​

 

[NKBJ]

As a means of psychological manipulation and control, creating confusion apparently has been the intent of the "authorities".
The appropriate response is to ignore them but unfortunately that's their desired outcome, for the public to let them have their way.

 

[Ark]

Allow me to present an alternative narrative: The is how you behave when there's a small, but vocal minority that bristles against any inconvenience, especially when it's accompanied by trained, expert advice and government recommendations.

The trained, expert advice and government recommendations were all AGAINST masks. There is zero data supporting cloth mask use or mask use by healthy people that is timestamped older than two months ago. That tells you all you need to know.

Masks are an artificial, political narrative and you bought it hook, line, and sinker. Answer me this: When do you take the mask off?

 

[Cameramonkey]

The Dutch STILL dont think they are necessary overall. And looking at their stats, they may be right. Their patterns are following the rest of the world with no spikes. If "we" were right and masks were required to stop the spread, their numbers should be off the charts since they arent mandating masks. (and nobody is wearing them)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-theres-no-solid-evidence-coverings-work.html

 

[jamil]

The trained, expert advice and government recommendations were all AGAINST masks. There is zero data supporting cloth mask use or mask use by healthy people that is timestamped older than two months ago. That tells you all you need to know.

Masks are an artificial, political narrative and you bought it hook, line, and sinker. Answer me this: When do you take the mask off?

It's a pretty big claim to say there is zero data. Just one datum proves that statement false. So I suspect that you're saying "zero evidence" more as emphasis than a quantitative claim. I'm confident in assuming you haven't looked everywhere that data may be hiding among all the scientists and research being done on this. Or, perhaps, you mean that there hasn't been conclusive evidence to support cloth masks' efficacy in preventing spread of COVID. I would agree with that.

Is true enough that it's not settled how COVID is spread. The current leading hypothesis is that it's spread primarily by droplets. There's research that supports that hypothesis, and there's also research that supports other hypotheses, which is why it's not settled. There's recent research that has produced some mounting evidence that supports the possibility that it's airborne/aerosolized. If that hypothesis is true or mostly true, mask probably don't help at all unless they're N95 or better.

So let's get to your claims more specifically. There are three pieces of unsettled information that when combined, can fit together to make a valid logical statement about cloth masks that make it more than zero evidence. How it spreads, whether asymtomatic/presymptomatic people can spread the disease, and whether even cloth masks can stop the spread. We've already talked about how it spreads. It's not settled, but there is enough evidence that it spreads through droplets to make it still the leading hypothesis.

Whether asymptomatic/presymptomatic people can spread the disease. There is research that supports that they can. The viral load has been shown to be about the same whether showing symptoms or not. It should be more rare, because people aren't sneezing or coughing when they're not showing symptoms. But droplets can be transmitted by talking as well.

And then, can masks stop the spread? The fact that it's not settled how it even spreads, that one is unsettled too. That doesn't mean "zero data". There is a lot of evidence that even cloth masks can stop droplets up to a certain size, which tend to be where the highest viral loads are. So if it spreads by droplets, even cloth mask can help mitigate that.

So, with all that we can form a valid logical statement. If the virus is primarily spread through transmission of spittle droplets, and asymptomatic people can transmit the same viral load in these droplets, and even cloth masks stop droplets that tend to have the highest viral loads, then cloth masks may help prevent spreading COVID. Now my personal feeling is that with current data, it's not enough to justify mandating that everyone has to wear masks indoors. But it's enough that I tend to wear a mask when I'm going someplace indoors where I'm not likely to be able to socially distance myself from other people, whether there is a mandate or not.

But if it's true that the virus is primarily spread through the air/aerosols? That cloth mask prolly ain't doing ****.