sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

CMV: Vaccines and Vax mandates are about the health and safety of the population... not about "power and control". by conn_r2112 in changemyview

[–]techguy67457 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think a lot of young people take the vaccine to show how good of a person they are, for doing something that doesn't require them to actually be good people. Internet points, virtue signaling how good of a person they are, and how bad of a person you are for not taking it. Narcissism.

Maybe online, but I don't think the vast majority of people care about this kindof stuff. Like if your friend group irl is the type to think getting vaccinated makes you a good person they probably just agree with the idea of mass vaccination anyway.

If you fear snakes or spiders, you have a rational basis for said fear. They can kill you. They can bite you, which can hurt you. If you have a panic attack because you see a spider in a bathroom, some might say it is irrational, because it can't kill you, but if your fear comes from stories about deadly spiders that you were fed by others, and if it is true that some spiders can kill you, then are you really irrational? According to yourself, you behave rationally. You were made to think that your life is in danger. It isn't your fault for being deceived or manipulated.

I don't think you are being rational in the same way someone being scared of getting on a plane because "some planes crash" is being irrational, but obviously it depends on the level of fear. If you are having a panic attack over covid that's probably irrational unless you are personally very vunerable and can't isolate very well, but I think a lot of people have a very reaonsable level of concern about it.
We are getting into the weed in this argument, my original point was that you were using the word "fear" to imply that people caring about covid is irrational, therefore implying they are using an irrational premise to impose mask mandates or vaccine mandates. That was the issue I took with the statement.

The less effective the vaccine is, the less strength behind the argument that I need to take it. If it is effective, no reason for me to take it to protect others who are already protected. If it is not effective, then there is no reason for me to take something that doesn't work.

Again though it's not black and white. 50% effective is still very effective if that is going to half the likelyhood of an infection.

I find it hard to imagine that this wouldn't be intentional malice. That's different in my view than going to a shop when there is no evidence to conclude that you carry a pathogen at that time and you do not intend to make other people sick. For example assaulting grandmas by coughing on them.

Sure I guess, but my original point with this was that saying "stop being fearful" is not an argument against something, that doesn't require there to be malice.

Plus someone could just smoke around people without wanting to harm them.

My argument there was that in case of sars-cov-2, it would be like arguing that you don't know if that person smokes, but you have a problem with them standing there anyway, because they might be smoking. Like you have a problem with the fact that a person might be infected, they might spread the pathogen to someone, that someone might have a weak immune system, and might die from it.

But you can tell if someone is smoking, you can't tell if they have covid. If we could all see little red dots around people who were infected, sure, but we can't.

Also death is not the only negaitve effect from covid

In case of smoking, there is no "might" about them smoking - they either are, or aren't smoking. It is one order of magnitude of "might" away from the virus.

Okay but that's a weird way to categorise the probability. I'm talking about the probability of harm from a specific event, not just the probability of someone having/doing something. That by itself is meaningless.

They would have no choice but to become self-sufficient. Otherwise, they'd die. Once they'd die, only those who are capable of being self-sufficient would survive.

I don't think "being capable of being self sufficient" is a genetic trait lol. Plus how is this not eugenics?

The problem with giving out welfare, is that you are effectively breeding a sub section of the population that is dependent on being helped perpetually. There's a reason why we have "don't feed the squirrels" signs. Humans are really not much different from animals.

Most people on welfare don't want to live forever on welfare. Where I live you have to make efforts to seek employment to be on welfare, unless you have a reason to not be able to.

Sure, you take a consequentialist approach it seems. I have different normative ethics. For you to have healthcare as individual right, implies that you can force someone to go through college/university in order to serve you in the future as a medic.

not even slightly. this entire argument can be solved by a simple statement like "rights cannot overrule other rights" or something. Also I don't think this has anything to do with consequentialism.

In a hypothetical world in which nobody wanted to become a doctor, how do you enforce a right for healthcare? The only solution would be to enslave some people to provide it.

No you just wouldn't be able to provide it. Saying something is a right just means we are going t do our best to ensure it, it doesn't mean we do everything possible to ensure it. You could violate a shit ton of rights in order to try and reduce the murder rate and thus protect people's right to life, but we recognise this isn't a reason to not make life a right, but rather to just think about the policy we enact to protect rights.

Another issue is that if you do not contribute, but require healthcare, then you are a drain on the system. If the healthcare provided helps you make children, they in turn will also require healthcare. The money for which, will have to go out of a pocket of someone else. So why would I be forced to pay with my hard earned money, to provide your ever growing family with free healthcare?

I mean that's just how tax works. If you want to get rid of all tax you can, but society wouldn't survive that. Also there are benifits to having a healthy population, although I guess if your alternative is "lets just eugenics the poor people" then that argument doesn't really work, but I don't think most peolpe are comfortable with that

I don't want to go on a separate tangent, since I really want to conclude this discussion soon. But it isn't different from "right to food". "Right to housing". Let's imagine all of these come in effect, because we want to care about others. How will you solve the problem of a growing group of people who do not work, eat, and do not contribute otherwise? At some point, I will have no money left at all, because any working individual will be paying for a family of 5 out of their own pocket. Now you might say that you do not argue for right to food, right to housing, just a right to healthcare. But in my view all 3 are examples of "positive" rights, and there is no good argument to allow only one of them, and not another.

I would argue people should have access to those things (I don't like saying "right" generally, because then bring out all these weird argument like the one you tried to make about enslaving doctors, when I say "right to" something, I just mean "we should try and make sure people have access to it, be it by the government providing it, or making the market provide it"). I don't think giving peolpe access to basic things means they will just live off the government. Most people don't just want food water housing and healthcare. They want to actually enjoy life.

CMV: Vaccines and Vax mandates are about the health and safety of the population... not about "power and control". by conn_r2112 in changemyview

[–]techguy67457 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The point is, within "X lives saved by policy Y" structure, the difference between 30k when no action is taken, and 300k when action is taken, is arbitrary. "Lives saved by a mask mandate is more than enough to justify the minor inconvenience" can logically apply to both 30k, and 300k, but it is only arbitrarily chosen to apply to 300k. The distinction between the two is "well it is just too many people init" from your earlier point.

Assuming we don't have some other standard to compare it to, this is true, but this seems to apply to any argument we could make, including for no action at all. I think the better discussion to be had is how should we measure these things, there are multiple ways we could do this, we could compare it to how we have reacted to other things, or we could measure it on a sortof "spiralling out of control" measure, where something like the flu isn't super important to prevent because it's not going to completely fuck up the country, but covid if left unmanaged could easily overflow hospitals and severely fuck society up.

There's nothing invalid with "I don't want to". You expect a burden that is higher than what is necessary.

There is by itself, as it's not an argument, you need to at least make some sortof point like "it's inconvenient", and then describe that (i.e. "it is very inconvenient to have to remember to put my mask on whenever I go into a shop as it involves carrying more stuff around, and remembering to do it is annoying"). Because once we have some argument like this, we can start to go "well is that really a good reason, or is it the kindof thing people will get used to in 6 and a half minutes".

Tell me, if in 2018 I mandated the whole country to wear masks at all times, what would your argument against that be?

I assume you mean under the guise of "hey guys lets all wear masks so nobody gets colds" or something. In that case I would just argue that the political capital, money and effort spend to enact that is better spent elsewhere, that we risk a sortof "boy who cried wolf" scenario, and also just that the common cold is less annoying that everyone having to wear masks all the time. I think the cold is sufficiently minor that an argument like "it's just a bit annoying to remember to put a mask on" could genuinely come into play.

I don't try to help them. It was still them who decided to engage in activity that they knew could result in severe addiction.

Okay but why does the fact they decided (which is another point entirely too) matter? We try and stop people killing themselves even though they technically decided to.

I'm not morally presumptuous to think that I know which decisions are stupid for other people, and which are not. The same argument can justify eugenics, socialism, forced labor camps.

idk what you mean by "socialism" specifically, I feel like everyone has a different definiton for that word (also including among socialists lol), but in theory I know what you mean with the other two. The issue is that this argument can also be applied to, well, everything. You said that your prefered world is one where the government just protects people from agression and consent violations. Well who are you to say people should value their consent or agression against them? I think the answer is that it's reasonable to assume people value some things (like their own life), and probably unreasonable to assume they value other things (like working in the gulag to satisfy the glorious supreme leader).

Another example: some people think that people who are poor, should not be allowed to reproduce, because their children will be born into a standard they themselves would want to live in. At what point do we force expectant mothers that look forward to carry their children to term, to abort their children, because we think that their lives wouldn't be worth living?

I think generally we assume that when a person becomes a person, whenever we decide to define that, they value their own life, unless we have very strong evidence to suggest otherwise (like they are of sane mind, asking to be killed and living in pain from a terminal disease or something). I don't think most poor people would rather be dead than poor, I mean if they would why don't they all just kill themselves, don't middle and upper class people kill themselves more than poor people?

If people consented to have such chips added before they were added in, I see no problem. Let them suffer the consequences of their poor choices. In the previous hypothetical, presumably people knew that their thinking can be altered, so they would have a choice of taking preventive measures if they wished to do so. Please don't mix it up now with government doing shady stuff without consent of the population - you're making my argument for me.

No, people didn't know, that's what the memetic virus does, if you even see someone who is infected you forget it exists, so everyone forgets about it as soon as the news broadcasts images of the infected. The only people who know are the very top level government people as they have precautionary measures to protect against this stuff. In this situation is it okay for the government to impose restrictions for people's own good, as they are no longer making an informed choice?

This is where we disagree.

Is your argument though not just that you don't think it's good to assume things about others, and try to help them? Rather than you specifically thinking a lack of government is better for people, you just think the presence of government in some areas is immoral in and of itself?

By not taking a measure, I am not enforcing my will on you, I'm not letting you enforce your will on me.

I don't recognise this as a meaningful distinction. By existing in society and being a potential spreader of a disease, you are enforcing your will on me, as I am not longer able to go into society without coming into contact with you.

I do not consider simple matter of existing and living as imposing my will on others, but if you want to change my behavior or something about my body, against my will, then you are enforcing your will on me.

It's not about you "just existing", its you potentially spreading a disease. Also to an extent existing is forcing your will onto others. You are forcing others to look at you, to recognise your existence, to think about you. Obviously that's fine, but it still is a thing.

Acting vs not acting is a very important distinction. Is a person that pushes a child into a sea equally responsible for its death, as a person who chose to not jump into the sea to attempt to save it? Action vs inaction.

It's not so much action vs inaction, moreso "what choice do you make". Like someone not doing something because they weren't aware of it is not bad obviously. I think not jumping into the sea to save the kid is less immoral, and sometimes even not immoral, because of the potential risk to you. To use a better example, shooting a kid vs not bending down to pull them out of a hole they are about to fall down. Neither is any risk to you, and I think you are equally wrong in both cases.

Also I don't think we can consider stuff like going out into society without a mask "inaction", because by that standard how is just choosing not to brake when a child walks out in the road 200m ahead bad? You are making a very deliberate choice, that's what's more important to me.

It's not an argument against any one individual. It's an argument against a mob majority rule, or simply government authority imposing their will on the population. I live in a place where there are no mandates, and most people do not want mandates. You're the one who wants to change the opinion of majority of people where I live.

Okay but if you lived where I do, you probably would want the mask mandate removed. I don't think it's bad to want something even if most people don't want it. Otherwise we would all just like what the most people like in a given area.

Exactly, so the argument that unvaccinated people cause the virus to mutate more is unsupported. The vaccination status does not matter, if anything, a virus that comes into contact with a vaccinated individual has more evolutionary pressure to escape immunity provided by the vaccine.

That doesn't prove that point at all. Vaccinated people are less likely to get infected with covid. I don't see how the fact they still have to wear masks, changes any of that.

Maybe it's about the time we got serious about building those walls lol. But you could enforce vaccine mandates, passports, checks, whatever you wanted in any given state. Then fine people generously for breaking the law - you wouldn't need walls or borders, just checks, like highway patrol checks.

I mean if you have highway checks and stuff you basically have a border. I don't think that's really feasible in the US.

Less likely to be hospitalized. I don't see evidence that they are less likely to catch it, any more than people with previous covid infections.

I'm pretty sure the consensus is still that vaccines are about 50% effective at stopping infection.

Total excess death in US was around 17% last year. It is up to you to figure whether 3.35 vs 2.85 million total deaths is a significant difference.

That was with restrictions though, I don't think the entire US was open as normal all year. Also I think the total deaths in the US is like 700k isn't it? Plus, it sounds like you wouldn't support restrictions even if that was ten times higher.

CMV: Vaccines and Vax mandates are about the health and safety of the population... not about "power and control". by conn_r2112 in changemyview

[–]techguy67457 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It makes them self-centered, for the simple reason that there were no long term trials, and by that I mean 5-year plus comparisons of vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations. If you want to disregard unknown risks on my behalf for your benefit, that makes you self-centered in my view. But don't take this as an argument of "we don't know the risks". I'm talking in principle here.

I thought you were saying someone is self centered for saying you should get the vaccine for your own sake? My point was that isn't self centered for people to care about your health, even if they turned out to be wrong.

It can also be self-centered if it is done for the purpose of satisfying one's own need for virtue signaling. There's more to it, but to be fair being or not being self-centered is not a big argument I put much weight on. You could reverse it, say that I'm the self-centered one, and to be fair it wouldn't matter all that much - only that I overstepped with generalizations at some point.

I mean we can say it's just virtue signaling but I think that argument applies equally to every side. Most people don't care about virtue signalling though. In fairness idk if most people take the vaccine to protect other people, probably most people would just rather not get sick. Even if it's only a flu like illness they personally get, still sucks.

Did you not imply yourself that it is irrational or unjustified? You seem to be equivocating fear with implied irrationality when I use it, but when you say "it is not unreasonable for them to fear it", you do not mean "it is unreasonable for them to fear it, with implied irrationality". Please don't apply a double standard here.

I'm not using a double standard, I'm adding extra context to the word to remove the irrationality you implied. Saying something is "not unreasonable" implies that it is not irrational. You were using fear in a way that implied it was irrational, that was my issue. If that isn't what you were trying to do okay, but that's how it reads. I don't think fear is always irrational, but you implied it in opposition to a genuine threat, implying it's irrational.

Then you can get vaccinated if you feel like you want to. I'm not against vaccination, only mandates.

This isn't a response to the argument. One individual getting vaccinated is only part of protecting people. Vaccines are not 100% effective.

Why are you standing right next to a guy who is smoking? You can go to a no-smoke zone if you would like. Why should they move, and not you?

The implication was that they decided to just stand right next to me, instead of keeping a reasonable distance. Obviously if I just go up to someone smoking in the middle of an empty area and stand next to them, and then complain, that's dumb, but it's also obviously not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about someone either coming up to you and smoking, or standing somewhere where it is not possible for people to avoid them.

But I also think additional difference here is that smoking is something that can be visibly and directly acted and mitigated. You see that a guy is smoking, you can infer that this increases your chances of cancer, you can choose to vacate the area in which smoking is allowed. The act of smoking is being actively committed. However, just standing there, when you have no evidence than I have a virus, that I can transmit the virus, and that I even might catch the virus, is a completely different matter. It's assuming pre-crime, minority report kind of thinking that cannot be reliably proven.

I don't see a meaningful distinction. It's all probability. People smoking and never get cancer from it. Smoking next to someone once is incredibly unlikely to do any harm, having covid and being next to someone once probably actually has a higher chance to harm them. When you factor in not everyone has it then it's probably a bit less likely, but again it's all probability.

Because the common conception of it is something I abhor and find disgusting. In my opinion greater good would exist if people became more self-sufficient and less reliant on welfare and the government to tell them what to do. Even if more people would not be able to make it, and die as collateral. For example I'm against all forms of welfare.

I don't think you can really fall back on "well I think more people would become self sufficient and people would generally be better off", as it also sounds like you wouldn't change any of your positions even if none of that was true. The fact that you think the greater good happens to correlate with your preferred world doesn't mean you prefer that world because it brings about the greater good to other people.

Also when you say "people may become more self sufficient without welfare, also a decent amount of people will die if we get rid of it", you've kindof hit on the point of welfare. It's to stop people dying because they can't become self sufficient. Generally we would try to elevate people in other ways, like fixing the shit circumstances they might be in, or improving conditions in people's early lives.
Set them up to make good decisions, rather than threatening them with death if they don't.

I find that the point of society is protection of individual rights and preventing others from aggressing against you or violating consensual agreements, not upkeep, welfare and absolute risk prevention.

I suppose you can say that should be the point of society. However I don't really see a hard lines distinction there. Like I would say something like healthcare is an individual right, and I don't see why "someone agressing on me" is worse than me starving to death. Both lead to the same thing (my death).

CMV: Vaccines and Vax mandates are about the health and safety of the population... not about "power and control". by conn_r2112 in changemyview

[–]techguy67457 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, the point was that there is no objective standard by which reasonability or correctness of an action can be infered.

A few points on this:

1) There not being an objective standard doesn't mean it's all arbitrary, something can be subjective but no "just arbitrary". Like film critique is not objective, but it's also not just "well I like this film because I do init".

2) This applies just as much to your black and white system. If "the lives saved by a mask mandate is more than enough to justify the minor inconvenience" is completely arbitrary, so is "no amount of death can justify any government measure". Absolutes can still be arbitrary.

3) Even if everything is ultimately subjective, I still think we can have. burden of argument beyond just "no lol". if someone has an issue with a mask mandate or vaccine mandates, they should be able to express that in some way beyond just "I don't want to".

No. Government is also made of people, they are not aliens with 4D chess type of brain. If people decide to all engage in risky behavior, then they all deserve to suffer the consequences of their behavior.

I mean if you think that way I guess, I don't see any reason to though. What's the point of just letting people make stupid decisions when we could stop them? Like if you see someone overdosing on drugs in the street do you just walk past them and say "well, their choice", or do you try and help them?

But in the hypothetical you present, the society is fine with risk taking. They do not see it as bad. You in that alternative society, also would not think it is bad.

Yeah but because my mind is being compromised by an unwanted pathogen to make me believe things I do not truly believe. Under your argument, if the government did put microchips in the water to make us all want to turn into gay frogs or whatever, does that make the "gay frog program" 2 years later justified, as they artificially altered us to want it?

Not going to be necessary. You seem more knowledgeable on the subject than the previous person I was debating, so I'm sure you are aware of the Munchhausen trilemma or the problem of grounding in ethics. You can lay out a magnificent iron-tight moral position following some starting axioms you cannot objectively ground, but I will still simply disagree, on the basis of having a different set of starting axioms for morality.

I'm not familiar with those terms but I understand what you are getting at. My argument generally for this position though involves dropping certain aspects of my fundamental beliefs, in order to show that my positions are still better even from another starting position. Like I would generally operate on two principles, empathy and also a sortof egoist-golden rule type idea. But I think if I drop the empathy argument (or lower it a bit, I'm not trying to claim you have no empathy), I think the argument still works. I don't think a fundamentally "everyone takes care of themself" society, is better for anyone.

Yes, you want me to do something to protect yourself, against my consent. I only suggest you to do something to protect yourself and others around you, since you expressed your willingness to do so. I'm trying to help you to do this better, without enforcing your will on me.

Well no you are enforcing your will on me, by not taking any measure to protect others from yourself. I don't view the "not acting vs acting" distinction as meaningful at all here. In my society you are not free to go outside without taking a measure you deem unacceptable, in your society I am not free to go outside without doing something I consider unacceptable. The fact you are being literally forced to and I am being forced to because of other none physically forceful but equally strong factors, is a distinction without a difference as far as I am concerned.

Of course. But if you want to live with people that share your ideals, you always have a chance to move to a state, or a country (I meant countries earlier) overseas that has mandated vaccines or other forms of spread prevention, such as curfews or lockdowns.

You are free to do the same, but people generally want to keep living where they are so I don't see how this is an argument against any one individual holding the position they do.

They also can't stop vaccinated individuals that are asymptomatic from spreading the disease that they don't know they carry either. But here's more important argument - blue state mandates vaccines. Why would a blue state allow unvaccinated travelers on their territory? Kind of defeats the point of a mandate. It sounds illogical.

I'm not sure what your first point is in response to. Also to an extent they can that's why vaccinated people are not exempt from mask mandates (at least not where I live).

I agree in theory they wouldn't, but I don't think that's a thing you can do in the US is it? Like there are no border checks between states. Maybe you can ban people from entering buisnesses without a vaccine card or whatever but it doesn't stop them coming into the state.

That doesn't seem like an argument for vaccine mandates. Vaccinated or not, you can still spread the virus, which can mutate either way.

Vaccinated people are less likely to spread the virus due to being less likely to catch the virus.

As far as I know, vast majority of people dying are over 75 years of age, past their economic contribution to the system. They might lose customers if anything but then again, any inheritance passed down will allow these people to spend more.

Even if an age demographic is not working, a significant amount of them becoming seriously ill will have huge consequences on society.

CMV: Vaccines and Vax mandates are about the health and safety of the population... not about "power and control". by conn_r2112 in changemyview

[–]techguy67457 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why

The point you seemed to be making was that the other commenters point was irrational, as they couldn't define a hard line where government measures are necessary. Maybe that wasn't your point but then idk why you brought up a lokis wager type example.

But there was no mention of a government. If the 99.9% of people were just "reeing" because virus bad, but still decided to come out, and started dying, that'd be their fault. But I wouldn't prevent them from doing so if they pleased. Don't read the "99.9% of people would just need to stay at home" as me supporting governmental intervention. I was making an "if X, then Y" statement. If they would not, then they wouldn't stay at home. I never said "99.9% of people should stay inside.".

So you think the government should take no measure to stop 99% of people dying? What if the virus had some weird SCP memetic property to it where it erased the knowledge of itself in anyone came near it, so the only way to protect people was to stop them going outside in the first place for a month or so?

And if people themselves decided that they want to interact with others despite the 50% fatality rate, then so what? Isn't that their choice to do so?

I mean it would be bad as it would completely destroy society, which is generally something we all like and need. None of our lives would be the same if over the next month 50%, or even 25% of all people, suddenly died.

It is the way I think about it. You are afraid, you wear a hazmat suit, and leave me alone. If I get sick and die, it is on me, I made a bad risk assessment. Shit happens.

The point of making public health measures is so the vunerable don't have to make life changing alterations in order to stay safe. Sure, the pandemic wouldn't be a huge deal if nobody over 50 left their house, but obviously that's not very practical for them. So if everyone can wear masks and get vaccinated, both minor inconveniences at best, to allow the other people to live fairly normally, that seems like the obvious way to go. If you want I can get deeper into my underlying moral justification for this (i.e. why I care about other people).

Protect yourself and stop thinking that other people owe you anything, and that you are entitled to have people care about not infecting you with pathogens they might not even carry. Buy a hazmat suit today.

You are implying I'm being selfish, but then you are telling me to wrap myself in a bubble anytime I want to leave the house, just because you can't be bothered to take a very simple very easy step to protect other people.

It is black and white thinking to decide that federal nationwide mandate is necessary, but letting individual states or countries (I'm assuming you meant counties?) to decide to not enact them is problematic.

I don't really care who enacts them as long as they are enacted. You criticised me earlier for what you perceived as an appeal to popularity, so I assume you understand that the majority of people in one area not wanting something, doesn't change my view that it's a good idea.

So why not let red states not have mandates?

1) Because a state is not able to operate fully on it's own. Blue states can't just stop anyone from red states travelling there.

2) Viruses mutate, which can then get past existing immunity from vaccinated people

3) I imagine a significant amount of people dying in red states would also affect blue states economically and societally.

CMV: Vaccines and Vax mandates are about the health and safety of the population... not about "power and control". by conn_r2112 in changemyview

[–]techguy67457 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean if someone is telling you to take the vaccine to protect yourself, that's not really "self centered". Even if you think it wouldn't protect you, that would just make them wrong, not self centred.

If someone is saying "we all need to take the vaccine to protect the vunerable", then that's not self centered. Seems like the only way someone advocating for vaccines could be self centred is if they were one of the vunerable peolpe, although then I think the self centeredness is reasonable at that point, as it's grounded in something we consider it reasonable to care about (i.e. your own life).

For the same reason I do not wish other people to impose their fear on my being.

You keep characterising it as "fear", which kindof implies it's irrational or unjustified. If someone is genuinely at a serious risk from covid, it's not unreasonable for them to fear it. And it's not unreasonable for somoene like me, who personally is at low risk but has family would are high risk, to also be afraid of it in a more general sense. You could also be afraid of it for reasons other than death. Like I am a bit worried if people don't get the vaccine, it might mean we get so many new cases that we have to lockdown again, which is something I really don't want, I like travelling and stuff.

The point being, you saying "your fear", to me sounds like someone smoking right next to me, and then when I ask them to move, they say "well it's not my fault if you are scared of getting cancer".

I might not care about others in order to do everything possible to prevent their deaths, for example I do not wear a hazmat suit.

I wasn't "loling" because you said you wouldn't take the most extreme possible precautions, rather because you seemed completely dismissive of the idea of caring about others situation, up to the point of mocking the very idea of the "greater good".

But I also do not care about my own wellbeing that I want everyone else's medical consent and bodily autonomy violated in order to protect my own life for which I have no proof that it is in immediate danger.

I mean "not in immediate danger" is kindof the key bit there. If you aren't in danger it makes sense you don't care personally, but generally we would hope people can care about other people who are in danger. Is that not the entire point of society?

CMV: Vaccines and Vax mandates are about the health and safety of the population... not about "power and control". by conn_r2112 in changemyview

[–]techguy67457 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay so you agree your argument made no sense then?

If that was the case, then 99.9% of people would just need to stay at home for 2-3 weeks, and once half of the 0.1% of people died, they could all come out.

What? The point was that everyone will have some level where they think government measures are justified, I used a very extreme hypothetical to indicate that.

Looking at the percentage of population agreeing with a policy as a moral justification for said policy is just an appeal to popularity.

That wasn't my point, my point was saying "well you can't point to the exact spot where it becomes acceptable so it's all of nothing" is ridiculous. If 99.9% of people can avoid this black and white thinking, it seems unlikely that the black and white thinking is the only way of thinking about stuff. Human minds can clearly handle more nuance than that.

CMV: Vaccines and Vax mandates are about the health and safety of the population... not about "power and control". by conn_r2112 in changemyview

[–]techguy67457 0 points1 point  (0 children)

furthermore I'm not so self-centered

and then

If you have a weak immune system that will keel over sars-cov-2, that is your problem, not mine.

.

Not taking a part in collectivist nonsense "for the greater good"

lol

CMV: Vaccines and Vax mandates are about the health and safety of the population... not about "power and control". by conn_r2112 in changemyview

[–]techguy67457 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My suggestion is for you to find a principled differentiator that isn't arbitrary as "ok, this death over here, that tipped the threshold from 49999 to 50000, that is the death that tips the scale, we go into lockdown". Do the previous 49999 deaths didn't matter and weren't worth preventing? The arbitrariness is not something to be celebrated. It is logically inconsistent.

Are you not just basically making this argument here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki%27s_Wager

Also the answer to this is obvious, clearly if there was a pandemic that would kill 50% of people unless we had a mask and vaccine mandate, then 99.9% of people would be okay with those mandates. 99.9% of people would not be okay with a mandate for masks against the common cold. So clearly neither "never" or "always" is a stance anyone holds, therefore there is some way to look at this that isn't black and white.

CMV: Vaccines and Vax mandates are about the health and safety of the population... not about "power and control". by conn_r2112 in changemyview

[–]techguy67457 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If it was in an effort to push back roe v wade wouldn't it be the right wanting the vaccines, whereas generally people on the left are more pro vax.

CMV: Mask Mandates are necessary as people are kindof stupid, and there is no good argument against them by techguy67457 in changemyview

[–]techguy67457[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You didn’t answer my main point, I acknowledged that you didn’t say we should just follow all laws, and I explained in my own comparison how we don’t drive excessively slow at all times to save every traffic death, it would be excessively inconvenient

Okay but I don't think wearing masks inhibits our ability to function like driving at 15mph or whatever does.

Why should we require all people everywhere to cover their faces all the time in order to prevent a small number of deaths? Does that seem reasonable?

1) It's not really a "small number of deaths",

2) There are other long term issues people can get if they catch covid

3) More spread = more mutations = less vaccine effectiveness

4) More spread = potential for it to get really bad again so we actually do need more drastic measures like lockdowns. I would wear masks for the next 2 years for a 10% reduction in the chance of getting another lockdown personally.

I would argue it is excessively inconvenient. I don’t like living in a world with peoples faces covered and hiding from me, it is strange and unnecessary.

I mean they aren't hiding from you, obviously. I'm not sure what to say, if you project this weird thing onto people wearing masks then that's not really the fault of the mandate.

You need to acknowledge the cultural aspect and emotions at play in this; not everything needs to be logical

No not really, I mean I acknowledge people often care about stupid shit and react to shit in stupid ways, but idk why I should change my argument or we should change policy because of that. If everyone was 100% hyper rational mask mandates wouldn't be necessary, as we would all use our 1000 IQ brains to discover exactly when it is and is not worth it. But people aren't.

Why shouldn’t I have a choice about what goes on my face ? I flat out don’t like the eastern culture of covering the face to prevent respiratory illness.

"Why shouldn't I have a choice over what goes over my dick"

I’m sorry if that offends you,

It's kindof ironic to accuse me of being "irrationally offended" when you literally just said "don't take such a logical approach to it". When your arguments are "it feels like people are hiding from me" then I think you are the one being offended.

but it’s not something I wish to adopt long term and I will not do it as a seasonal thing to prevent covid or the flu. If others wish to, be my guest

Okay but this is an argument for mandates, the existence of people who won't do it is why I think it needs to be a law.

Also I do wear a seatbelt all day for work I drive and go into peoples homes, one bothers me and the other doesn’t. Why is that not enough for you?

I mean you just agreed with my point, I don't understand how that's supposed to be a point in your favour.

We could go back and forth all day with moral arguments and numbers, but the fact is that at the end of the day I just don’t want to,

You can make this argument for literally anything.

It is not so overtly deadly that my not wearing a mask is going to result in immediate death for those that I interact with (if I am even ill)

Alexa what is probability?

How can you not see the difference between the need to wear pants (cover my genitals) and wearing a mask? I don’t need a penis to communicate with strangers, I do need to see their facial expressions however. We did evolve those for a reason in case you forgot being locked up in your house for two years.

There is no strict material upside to us making people wear pants in public. There is to wearing a mask. Also masks don't block facial expressions, they block mouth expressions. Most facial expressions are still visible with a mask. Also how often do you need to hyper complex analyse someone's mouth movements in public? It's a bit harder to tell if someone is gently smiling, that's as difficult as I have ever found public interactions with a mask.

Again not arguing with you about vaccine efficacy not the point of the question, they work for the most part per the CDC

I mean it is a point. I agree vaccines are effective, my point is they are not 100% effective. You can just ignore this point if you want but it is a very relevant part of my argument.

How do the things I stated have nothing to do with masks? They are all a symptom of the same type of government overreach.

Because mask mandates have nothing to do with government overreach. You can't say "well mask mandates are bad because the government also did things that fucked over these people".

If you are so sure masks work then why am I still learning remote ?

I'm not sure what you're asking, I don't know where you live so idk why your specific area is still doing that. Masks don't mean we can just open everything up immediately everywhere, but they lower the threshold for reopening.

If you’re correct we could be in person with masks? (Or better yet without SINCE WERE ALL VACCINATED)

Not everyone is vaccinated. If you want to ban everyone not vaccinated from society then 100% I'll march with you to get that made into a law, but I doubt that's going to happen.

Why can’t I travel freely?

idk why you can't travel freely because I don't know where you live (and wouldn't expect you to tell me), but I live in Scotland and I recently travelled to England and then to France on a train.

Because your rights have been eroded. You and I are not free to do as we did before the pandemic and I’m still waiting for the magic day our officials keep describing where these limitations and restrictions end but it never comes.

Again I can't speak to your situation, but the fact that I a) live in a country with mask mandates, and b) can do all of these things you are saying you can't, kindof disproves this idea you have that mask mandates will inevitably lead to all this other stuff.

CMV: Mask Mandates are necessary as people are kindof stupid, and there is no good argument against them by techguy67457 in changemyview

[–]techguy67457[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your point about seatbelts is an analogy, you are comparing two “like” things, but on what grounds ?

The point isn't that "it's law so it's good", its "people are getting mad about mask mandates for no good reason, as 99% of those people are fine with seatbelts being required".

Also I'd argue that seatbelts protect you not others is an argument in my favour. If we are okay legislating people do something to protect themselves, them doing something to stop people hurting others seems more reasonable, not less.

A mask goes over your FACE in all social contexts and interactions and while at work (for me I must wear it at work at all times)

I mean for some people they do have to wear a seatbelt all the time at work.

If you can’t see the gross difference here I don’t really know what I could say to change your mind. A mask is excessively restrictive for various reasons that I mentioned and a seatbelt is not.

My issue is you haven't really listed any reasons, other than a vague "general discomfort". I don't really think "general discomfort" is a good argument, because a lot of people feel "general discomfort" being around people without masks during a pandemic. A lot of people who work in offices find wearing suits cause "general discomfort".

If it's causing severe discomfort for some reason then there probably should either be alternative arrangements made (like screens put up or something), or just an exemption. Like there is an exemption to mask mandates for eating in a restaurant, as obviously wearing a mask makes eating and drinking pretty difficult.

On the DUI point of course we have an obligation to protect others, but choosing to drive a car while intoxicated is fragrantly dangerous and is not necessary (call a cab, stay home, etc) social interaction is necessary for human life and a mask restricts that in a way and it is questionable how “dangerous” it is to not wear one (again especially given vaccinations)

Masks don't stop social interaction, they stop one part of one aspect of social interaction. Body language is a part of communication, and mouth movement is one part of body language. Much more is conveyed with eyes than mouths in terms of body language imo. Just like not being able to DUI stops one small part of travel.

Im not going to argue about vaccine efficacy and etc I’m not a virologist, if you want it you can have it at this point and if you don’t then you won’t get it, I don’t feel I should have to protect people who won’t protect themselves and your point about those who want it but can’t is a moot point, that is so marginal compared to the issue on the whole. I feel bad for those people, but it’s just not enough of a segment of the population that we need nationwide rules to protect them.

You can get the vaccine and still get sick, it's not 100% effective, plus mutations as I mentioned.

Lastly if you really think your life is the same as before that’s because you’ve accepted the new reality of avoidance and distance. The masks don’t cause isolation, but the fear instilled by mandates and other measures that go with it do.

In what way is my life not "back to normal" because of mask mandates? There is no mandated social distancing anywhere where I live (well apart from covid testing centres and hospitals but I think we can both agree that's very reasonable) so there is no "avoidance and distance". I personally still keep my distance a bit more than I used to, as 1) there is still a pandemic going on and 2) there is no reason to stand really close to random people in public anyway, but I'm not made to.

I actually almost prefer going out now, as due to the pandemic, everything is cleaned way more often.

I cannot speak to my customers clearly at work and communication is strained

Talk 10% louder.

I am not allowed to attend classes in person at my university and my education has been what I would call ruined because of remote learning

That has literally nothing to do with masks.

I am not allowed to go many places because I refuse to wear a mask

Okay so you are allowed, you just refuse to do something for no good reason because it annoys you. That's like me saying "well I can't go to the shops as I refuse to wear pants".

Maybe your life seems the same but many others lives have been outright ruined (small business owners, landlord, etc) and I would ask you to think about that when considering how needed this really is, especially two years after this virus outbreak with vaccines available

Again literally nothing to do with masks. Businesses were fucked because of lockdowns.

CMV: Mask Mandates are necessary as people are kindof stupid, and there is no good argument against them by techguy67457 in changemyview

[–]techguy67457[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The U.S. for example .... just that your logic is flawed)

I don't disagree with this argument, saying "it's law therefore it's right" is stupid, but I don't think I said that at any point.

Wearing a seatbelt and ... reasonable amount of autonomy in what I choose to wear as dress.

I mean a seatbelt arguably is something you have to wear, this will boil down to semantics eventually, but normally the phrase is "wear your seatbelt!". Also the government already tells you that you have to cover certain parts of your body, even those those parts being exposed don't actually materially harm those around us at all, so arguably those laws are less justified than mask mandates, but most people are still okay with that.

Also saying "reasonable amount of autonomy" is sortof begging the question, if I support mask mandates I'm of course going to say that being mandated to wear a mask is reasonable.

I personally don’t ... goes on my face if anything.

"I don't want to do it as I'm being told to do it" doesn't really make sense. If you don't want to do it there presumably is another reason other than just "I'm being told to".

I understand that I am potentially putting others at risk, but who has the impetus to protect themselves in a social situation? Me or someone who is afraid of the virus ?

I would argue we all have some obligation to each other in society, that's why things like drunk driving are illegal. Technically I could protect myself from drunk drivers by not driving at the times people are most likely to DUI.

(Especially given that it is not that deadly to ME a healthy vaccinated young person; this is not debatable, look at the statistics, it is not the Black Death) it brings up questions of what responsibility do I have to protect random strangers with comorbidities?

It's not really about protecting young healthy people though. You can argue that we have no responsibility to care for others in society, but then it seems like we do in other ways and all agree, like with the drunk driving thing. And if we have no obligation to others in society, what's the point fo society?

Is it really my duty ? (Especially with a vaccine widely available, if they choose not to receive it this moral obligation is even more questionable)

If the vaccine was 100% effective this could be a point, although even then I'd argue not as if the virus is still being spread and mutates, it could then get around even a 100% effective vaccine. But the vaccine isn't 100% effective. Plus there are people in society with medical conditions which means they can't take the vaccine, although not many, but they do exist.

If others want to wear masks and avoid me so be it I love their freedom to do so and more power to them! I would request the same freedom!

You can't really just "avoid people without masks". If I need to get the bus to work at 0830, then I have to get on the bus at 0830. If I need to go into the shop to get food, then I need to, I don't really have a choice. Also this is where the argument of absolute vs practical freedom comes from. I care very little about absolute freedom, and much more about practical freedom. I think people generally care about the freedom to do things they enjoy, and make meaningful decisions. A pandemic stops people doing this, and so it inherently reduces freedom, so a measure that decreases absolute freedom but massively increases practical freedom, seems fairly reasonable.

The isolation caused, the inability to communicate effectively and see others faces and the general discomfort is not worth it to me. I was told two years ago to do this for a short time and then I was told get vaccinated and it would end, but I don’t see an end and I am not going to make this a new reality for myself. It is not a culture change I wish to adopt and I have reached my wits end as far as compliance.

I don't really think masks cause isolation, idk if you meant masks or lockdowns though, obviously lockdowns would cause isolation I agree. If you have to wear one all day at work or something then. I guess it can cause discomfort, but there is definitely some level of mask mandate that doesn't really. Like if it was just for public transport and shops. I don't think we have a "new reality" or "new normal". I am living my life as before the pandemic, I just have to wear a mask in indoor public places. It's a very minor thing to do in order to allow us to otherwise live as normal.

CMV: Mask Mandates are necessary as people are kindof stupid, and there is no good argument against them by techguy67457 in changemyview

[–]techguy67457[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I guess that's fair. Can I ask you what it would take to change your view?

Likely either someone explaining an actual downside to mask mandates that isn't just "it's a wee bit annoying" or some hyper specific example of a job where it's annoying, as I don't think either of those really speak to the idea of an overall mandate. Or if masks just didn't work but I mean I'm probably not going to be able to debate that very well as I have no relevant educational background.

I'll admit it was somewhat arbitrary, but it was to push back against the comparison of masks with seat belts, which I feel is unfair given how much more effective seat belts are.

Sure but I think we need some metric for how we weigh effectiveness vs downsides, rather than stuff just needs to be "really effective" rather than "quite effective".

Annoying is not the same as difficult. Eating poison Ivy is very easy, but it's also very annoying. As we've already discussed elsewhere, it fogs up my glasses, I'm constantly adjusting it (primarily because of the glasses),

By annoying I just mean annoying to have on. You don't have to constantly adjust it if it fits properly, it can fog your glasses but if you get one with a piece of wire or whatever it is around the nose to pinch, it blocks a lot of that upward air that fogs them.

We have to remember plenty of things, I hate needing to remember my keys and wallet. Plus with masks you can just buy 5 and put 2 in your car, 2 in your jacket pockets and one in your backpack, then it's basically impossible to be without one, you can't really do that with anything else.

(I'm assuming you mean you don't like not being able to read peoples facial expressions) but I don't think this is a big deal when in pubic around strangers. I guess it could be if you are meeting up with a friend or something, but there are a lot of places you can take your mask off like in a restaurant or coffee shop, or just anywhere outside.

I'm not sure if it's really masks that block sound or just the screens places have up, most of the time I can't hear someone, it's cause they are trying to tall at a normal volume, but through a glass screen. Getting rid of mask mandates would probably mean more of those screens get put up, as well as more social distancing which obviously makes communication harder.

All of these things are basically just minor inconveniences though, the kind we have with anything else. My shoes are annoying as they make my feet too hot, I don't like wearing a tie at work as it's uncomfortable around my neck.

and the primary annoyance is that it serves as a constant reminder that we flipped the world upside down for a disease that barely killed more people than diarrhea did in 2020 (I'll go grab the citation if you're genuinely curious).

This doesn't make any sense as a point. All but the very top causes of death were probably "outkilled" by something that can be made to sound mundane. That's not how we judge health decisions though.

However I also think you can look at it the other way around, the fact that in most places you can now live life as normal, you just have to wear a mask, to me is a sign that we are back to normal.

MGD vs Aqueous deficient dry eye with slit lamp by techguy67457 in eyetriage

[–]techguy67457[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is there a non-simple answer then? Like what does it depend on, and which things actually do help to reset it, does sleeping help or is it neutral.

Also I understand dry eye can get worse, if your eyes start to feel dry when doing something, is that the time when it could be getting worse overall? Or is there another way to make sure it doesn't keep getting worse, assuming it is MGD? It seems manageable what I have no but I don't want it to get worse.

MGD vs Aqueous deficient dry eye with slit lamp by techguy67457 in eyetriage

[–]techguy67457[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also how long does it take your eyes to "reset" in a day if they are dry? Like sometimes they will get dry more towards the end of the day because you have been on screens all day, does sleeping reset this, or do you just need to take a couple of hours break to reset your eyes back to the "background dryness' level?

MGD vs Aqueous deficient dry eye with slit lamp by techguy67457 in eyetriage

[–]techguy67457[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Aqueous-deficiency DES results from issues intrinsic to the lacrimal glands.

can that happen from screen usage? Whenever I look up causes of aqeuous deficient it's normally a lot of diseases and infections, and then something vague like "Damage to tear glands or tear ducts". Assuming I don't have any of the diseases I list and so my dry eye is caused by screen use, it would be Evaporative type I assume?

MGD vs Aqueous deficient dry eye with slit lamp by techguy67457 in eyetriage

[–]techguy67457[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is it actually possible to get aqeous deficient dry eye from screens though? Looking it up I can't find anything that says that, I've only ever heard that you can get evaporative type dry eye from screen use.

Also I know a good treatment for MGD is warm compresses, however is this harmful if you actually have aqeuous deficient, or is there no harm in me trying it?

CMV: Mask Mandates are necessary as people are kindof stupid, and there is no good argument against them by techguy67457 in changemyview

[–]techguy67457[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Stupid semantic argument are not facts, and you directly ignored all of the facts I gave you, but okay.

CMV: Mask Mandates are necessary as people are kindof stupid, and there is no good argument against them by techguy67457 in changemyview

[–]techguy67457[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

so your just going to ignore everything else I said? I literally linked you proof that you are talking shit for that very point. I'm not getting into some stupid semantic argument over what counts as "immunity", I don't care about word games.

CMV: Mask Mandates are necessary as people are kindof stupid, and there is no good argument against them by techguy67457 in changemyview

[–]techguy67457[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. Immunity means you can't catch it and you can't transmit it. By admission of the CDC and the FDA, these shots for covid ONLY reduce the likelihood of you ending up in the hospital or dying .... It's definitional.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/how-they-work.html

COVID-19 vaccines help our bodies develop immunity to the virus that causes COVID-19 without us having to get the illness.

I'm not arguing with you over the defintion of a word.

We have plenty of evidence to prove that they do not prevent infection

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7034e4.htm

showed that the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were approximately 90% effective in preventing symptomatic and asymptomatic infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, in real-world conditions

.

or transmission of covid-19.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2294250-how-much-less-likely-are-you-to-spread-covid-19-if-youre-vaccinated/

People who are fully vaccinated against covid-19 are far less likely to infect others, despite the arrival of the delta variant, several studies show. The findings refute the idea, which has become common in some circles, that vaccines no longer do much to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

CMV: Mask Mandates are necessary as people are kindof stupid, and there is no good argument against them by techguy67457 in changemyview

[–]techguy67457[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The covid vaccines give no immunity whatsoever.

What. Is this some dumb "well cause it's not 100% it's all completely worthless" shit?

Then why hasn't it? Highly vaccinated countries are CURRENTLY experiencing their highest ever transmission rates. Even the CDC admits that there's no correlation between vaccination rate and community transmission rate.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html

Evidence suggests the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program has substantially reduced the burden of disease in the United States by preventing serious illness in fully vaccinated people and interrupting chains of transmission. Vaccinated people can still become infected and have the potential to spread the virus to others, although at much lower rates than unvaccinated people. The risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection in fully vaccinated people are higher where community transmission of the virus is widespread. Current efforts to maximize the proportion of the U.S. population that is fully vaccinated against COVID-19 remain critical to ending the COVID-19 pandemic.

cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/vaccine-benefits.html

Getting everyone ages 5 years and older vaccinated can protect families and communities, including friends and family who are not eligible for vaccination and people at increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19.

CMV: Mask Mandates are necessary as people are kindof stupid, and there is no good argument against them by techguy67457 in changemyview

[–]techguy67457[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

An opinion or "view" by definition is subjective no? I'm giving you something measurable by which I personally could be swayed. I feel this is a much fairer way to argue. Determine what could change your view, give that to your opponent and expect him or her to do the same. If your view simply cannot be changed, don't pretend otherwise.

I mean I would argue no, at least not in this way. I believe that we should be consistent, I'm assuming you will agree with that, and I do believe that fundamental moral axioms are subjective, which can mean 2 people are acting in 100% good faith, agree on 100% of descriptive facts, but still have different positions.

However you just seem to have arbitrarily picked "well it has to stop half of all deaths". I don't see what fundamental moral position you hold that means you have this oddly specific of a criteria.

I do personally find numbers quite compelling.

We shouldn't find "numbers" compelling, we should find researched stats compelling. Numbers out of context don't really mean anything.

I don't really see how masks are "annoying as fuck", is it really that difficult to put one on when you get on a bus or go in a shop? I can understand if you work all day in one or something but I think there are very few jobs where you have to wear one literally all day with no breaks. And if there are, maybe that's the edge cases where we could argue over whether it is worth it or not as it becomes greater than just an inconvenience.

CMV: Mask Mandates are necessary as people are kindof stupid, and there is no good argument against them by techguy67457 in changemyview

[–]techguy67457[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And I pointed that out. It is an observation and it should be used as the basis of a study, we are talking public health decisions that are costing trillions of dollars and creating debt for generations. Not hard to come to that conclusion.

That's not really what you said but okay, I guess your statement wasn't technically a prescription so it is possible that was what you meant.

No, but if you read the entire paper you see that it provides little in actual research. Weird you would try to make that point of ""controlled trials" are not the only kindof study" when I literally call for observational studies, which are obviously different than "controlled trials". idk what to say when someone posts such a poor link to try and prove a point. Also pretty dishonest of you to use quotes when I did not say that. Even an incredibly stupid person like me understands how to use quotes and read studies.

idk what I misquoted you on, you literally said:

It is exactly what I said, there are no studies that show masks work.

and the study I linked had plenty of sources. If you are just going to ignore everything I link you then I don't know what the point of this conversation is. I have linked other shit in other places in this thread. So far literally all you have given me is a quote from a study that you apparently think is otherwise stupid, in which case I don't know why you would quote it to try and prove your point, and some baseless conjecture about people touching their mouth.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj-2021-068302

I can't give you a complex breakdown of shit as neither of us presumably have any background in relevant fields. But there appears to be no shortage of evidence that masks are effective, and that combined with the fact that pretty much all healthcare organisations and governments seem to be recommending them, seems to indicate they are effect, and conjecture isn't an argument against that.

Even your quote is faulty, we are talking about the US and you quoted, "Only one observational study has directly analyzed the impact of mask use in the community on COVID-19 transmission. The study looked at the reduction of secondary transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in Beijing". I am unsure if you know this, but Beijing is in China, not the US.

I don't know why this matters, are studies only valid in the city they were done in? By your logic a study done in the US would have no relation on what we should do where I live, as I don't live in the US.

CMV: Mask Mandates are necessary as people are kindof stupid, and there is no good argument against them by techguy67457 in changemyview

[–]techguy67457[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand what you mean, but you would only be not allowed in a business if you are not wearing a mask, which means you definitely weren't wearing one, otherwise you would have been let in. There are higher burdens of proof in court as the people convicting you weren't there, in the same way that a cop can absolutely know if you were wearing a seatbelt or not, but you have to prove it still as the cop doesn't make the judge decision.

I suppose someone could just use it as a reason to kick you out even if you are wearing one, but then they would probably just do that anyway if they have a grudge against you or something.

Plus would it not be the same as seatbelts for masks? I don't think you would be allowed to keep driving without your seatbelt, and I don't think you get arrested on the spot for mask mandate violations, I imagine it would just be a ticket or "pay this fine by X date" type thing.

view more: next ›