Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

That's a great post Mad Doc.

I really dislike the seat-belts analogy, it's not the same as neglecting to wear one has a different impact on others around you. Unless another person is really, really unfortunate, your corpse firing from the seat of the vehicle is unlikely to hit and injure them. You could argue that the most harm done is to the psychology of the poor medical staff who have to pick up your remains from the tarmac or tree etc, or the police staff that has to visit your relatives to give them the news.

A mask is for the sake of protecting the people around you. Fair enough that you can make a value judgement about this - you don't like the government telling you what to do. So what? That already applies for many, many other parts of your life, especially those where your actions can impact the lives of other individuals. Other than for largely qualitative statements about the impact masks have on behaviour, the science weighs very heavily in favour of them. Anecdotally, I look at what has happened in S Korea and Japan, which feature some of the most densely populated metropolises on earth, and how low (relatively) their rate of infection and death has been, and you have to think that use of masks factors into that.

Also, ask yourself this, in terms of a basic 101 of risk analysis. What is the 'worst case' scenario for you being right or wrong in your judgement about whether to wear a mask?
Scenario 1 wearing a mask: Masks have no impact on transmission of the virus. Penalty: I am uncomfortable and look like a fool.
Scenario 2 not wearing a mask: Masks do inhibit transmission of the virus. Penalty: I am carrying the virus - I pass it on to another person, who can then become sick themselves and become a point of transmission to others.

For me, it's a very simple calculation about which of these penalties I would rather suffer (or indeed inflict on someone else).

I don't believe I ever said it was. You want to wear one, go right ahead. I couldn't care less. However, I don't, and I don't want the government dictatating what I must wear to walk into a supermarket.

I'm slightly concerned that this is all it's taken for people to effectively beg the government to bring in oppressive laws and micromanage everyones lives, just for any tiny illusion of safety.



And pacific I counter your point on Japan with Spain, where masks are mandatory everywhere, yet have seen an increase in cases.

The assertion that they don't protect you but protect others is nonsense. There's a study cited on the last page that says that. Therefore, you wear yours, leave me alone.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Wearing a mask, basic hygiene and consideration for others is not onerous. At all.

That's the crux of it for me. In the vast majority of cases this is a small inconvenience that probably does have some positive effect on preventing the spread of the virus and may also help others feel safer in certain public areas. Spare me all the "mah liberteees!!" bullgak.

Also, why would I oppose people wearing masks before the government mandated it? They've not been called out as being more dangerous than not wearing one so what do I care if someone feels safer wearing one? The difference now is that wearing one may well be a net benefit, which is why it seems reasonable to mandate wearing one in certain situations. Proportionality is a thing here, at least to most of us.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I'm glad someone finally brought up seatbelts. I'm surprised it didn't come up sooner.

It did, Overread mentioned them on the 11th.

I'm assuming that you all vociferously opposed people wearing masks when the government said that they provide little benefit? I hope so.

Nope. Any help is worth doing. We didn't know how much at the time, but why risk it?

Then I don’t know how to help you.

Masks reduce transmission rates. This is why they are worn in surgery. This is why visitors to immuno compromised hospital patients wear them.

I don’t know the next person. I have no idea of their home situation, or how well they behave themselves with the guidelines around social distancing.

I wear a mask to remove myself as a risk to others as much as I can. They do not need to be 100% effective. Even if it’s 5% effective, it’s worth the bother, because any inconvenience to me is so utterly trivial.

I wash my hands for the same reasons. I use hand sanitiser, for the same reasons. I don’t drink drive for the same reasons. I don’t go around beating people for the same reasons (also I’m a wuss). I shower and change clothes before visiting the pub for the same reasons.

Common courtesy and consideration for others shouldn’t need to be a law. But if that’s what it takes for you to stop being a health risk to others? That. Is. Your. Problem. And your problem alone, you selfish, selfish man.

 Pacific wrote:
That's a great post Mad Doc.

I really dislike the seat-belts analogy, it's not the same as neglecting to wear one has a different impact on others around you. Unless another person is really, really unfortunate, your corpse firing from the seat of the vehicle is unlikely to hit and injure them. You could argue that the most harm done is to the psychology of the poor medical staff who have to pick up your remains from the tarmac or tree etc, or the police staff that has to visit your relatives to give them the news.

It is partially why the drunk driving example was touted around a bit more, but *someone* took issue with that. . . See, there are dozens, if not hundreds of studies showing that in traffic incidents involving a drunk driver, the one under the influence survives the incident more often than the innocent parties around them. It is basically the same, incredibly selfish argument as is being used for not wearing a mask.

QAR feels that legally requiring people to be sober when driving is fascist, so that logic falls on deaf ears.

Of course I cannot imagine the sheer outrage QAR must feel over laws against public nudity, which unlike mask-wearing does not have any benefit to human health or safety.

Edit: Sarcasm, to be extra clear.

 Pacific wrote:


I really dislike the seat-belts analogy, it's not the same as neglecting to wear one has a different impact on others around you.

From the UK government commercials promoting the wearing of seatbelts - they can very much influence the safety of those around you.

Slipspace wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Wearing a mask, basic hygiene and consideration for others is not onerous. At all.

That's the crux of it for me. In the vast majority of cases this is a small inconvenience that probably does have some positive effect on preventing the spread of the virus and may also help others feel safer in certain public areas. Spare me all the "mah liberteees!!" bullgak.

Also, why would I oppose people wearing masks before the government mandated it? They've not been called out as being more dangerous than not wearing one so what do I care if someone feels safer wearing one? The difference now is that wearing one may well be a net benefit, which is why it seems reasonable to mandate wearing one in certain situations. Proportionality is a thing here, at least to most of us.

Proportionality? Do you want me to tell you the infected rate plus survivability rate again? This thing isn't even big enough to be an epidemic in the UK. But hey man you're welcome to beg the gov to oppress you for the smallest things, but remember, if you give your government extra powers in an emergency, you're likely to find that it's always an emergency.

It's nothing to do with the government.
I'm happily walking around town with a mask on, Gubment requirements or not.
I've got better things to do than be blamed for killing someone by not having done so.

 Overread wrote:

 Pacific wrote:


I really dislike the seat-belts analogy, it's not the same as neglecting to wear one has a different impact on others around you.

From the UK government commercials promoting the wearing of seatbelts - they can very much influence the safety of those around you.

Spoiler:

Ah yes in that scenario it is true - well pointed out.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Wearing a mask, basic hygiene and consideration for others is not onerous. At all.

That's the crux of it for me. In the vast majority of cases this is a small inconvenience that probably does have some positive effect on preventing the spread of the virus and may also help others feel safer in certain public areas. Spare me all the "mah liberteees!!" bullgak.

Also, why would I oppose people wearing masks before the government mandated it? They've not been called out as being more dangerous than not wearing one so what do I care if someone feels safer wearing one? The difference now is that wearing one may well be a net benefit, which is why it seems reasonable to mandate wearing one in certain situations. Proportionality is a thing here, at least to most of us.

But hey man you're welcome to beg the gov to oppress you for the smallest things,

Sorry, I would have replied sooner but it took a while to pick myself back up off the floor from rolling around laughing at this being "oppression". I've seen actual government oppression, intimidation and suppression of human rights and your characterisation here is frankly insulting. We have gone way past the point of reasonable discourse here so, as with many others ITT, I think I'm done with responding to you now.

 Skinnereal wrote:
It's nothing to do with the government.
I'm happily walking around town with a mask on, Gubment requirements or not.
I've got better things to do than be blamed for killing someone by not having done so.

So wear one.


Not wearing a mask doesn't kill people.

Yes, yes it does if you’re infected and pass it on to others, you ignoramous.

Why? Because the virus can be fatal.

Slipspace wrote:


Sorry, I would have replied sooner but it took a while to pick myself back up off the floor from rolling around laughing at this being "oppression". I've seen actual government oppression, intimidation and suppression of human rights and your characterisation here is frankly insulting. We have gone way past the point of reasonable discourse here so, as with many others ITT, I think I'm done with responding to you now.

Just because it doesn't meet your requirement for oppression, doesn't mean it isn't. I notice you also ignored the earlier part of my comment, which was there to provide a framing to the proportionality point you made.

Sure, it's not PRC levels of oppression, but it's still highly disproportionate for the threat level present here.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I'm glad someone finally brought up seatbelts. I'm surprised it didn't come up sooner.
This highlights my point perfectly.
Seatbelts have been proven to have a massive impact in saving lives in car accidents. Unequivocally. Therefore, imposing them in law is fine. It makes sense.

Masks, might work a little bit, sometimes, and it's been back and forth so much that no one seems to really know. Therefore imposing them on the population with threat of financial reprisal, is not proportionate.
Also, seatbelts and car parts are made to a set of specific specifications, of approved materials and tested to a set of standards. I can go into the supermarket wearing anything from a strip of my nans curtain to a lettuce leaf sellotaped around my face.

I'm assuming that you all vociferously opposed people wearing masks when the government said that they provide little benefit? I hope so.

Seat belts are a great example, because when the research wasn't overwhelming yet, loads of people opposed them being mandated, too https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1424934/

So?

Also, on the seatbelt front, what percentage of population either drives, or is in a car every day? I bet it's a lot higher than 0.0...

So a whole stack of harm befell people too pig headed and self-obsessed to listen to advice from experts until years and years worth of data was presented to them.

 Skinnereal wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
put the onus back on an individuals judgement of their own risk, and not a mandatory diktat of compliance for everybody.

That 'diktat' is so there is no ambiguity or excuse when confronted. If there is a valid reason to not wear one, fine. Everyone else, no matter their beliefs or reasons, has to wear one.
So many examples from around the world have led to that. Blame the extreme cases we hear about in the news. Look at the reports (as you have), and there is no reason not to wear one.
We know that 'an individuals judgement' is flawed in so many cases, and cannot be relied upon.

I wonder if the people who are so against wearing masks are also against laws mandating the wearing of clothes in public spaces, traffic laws, and basic safety regulations like toxic chemicals being labeled. I mean, shouldn't we just leave it up to the individual whether or not they're willing to risk an unmarked container of chemicals being explosively acidic on contact with oxygen?

The entire anti-mask debate is fething slowed. Your right to swing your arm ends at the next person's nose. Likewise, your right to be reckless with your own health ends at my health. Even if we were to surrender the point that masks are only effective under certain circumstances, just put the damn mask on and stop being a dick for the sole sake of being a dick. It's as inconvenient as putting on underwear. The only people applauding anti-maskers are anti-vaxxers and I half think that's solely because the anti-maskers are even more laughable and taking the heat off the people murdering children.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
That's a great post Mad Doc.

I really dislike the seat-belts analogy, it's not the same as neglecting to wear one has a different impact on others around you. Unless another person is really, really unfortunate, your corpse firing from the seat of the vehicle is unlikely to hit and injure them. You could argue that the most harm done is to the psychology of the poor medical staff who have to pick up your remains from the tarmac or tree etc, or the police staff that has to visit your relatives to give them the news.

It is partially why the drunk driving example was touted around a bit more, but *someone* took issue with that. . . See, there are dozens, if not hundreds of studies showing that in traffic incidents involving a drunk driver, the one under the influence survives the incident more often than the innocent parties around them. It is basically the same, incredibly selfish argument as is being used for not wearing a mask.

Drunk driving is an absurd analogy. A person chooses to get drunk and chooses to drive which deliberately puts other people in danger. A person not wearing a mask only puts other people in danger if that person is infectious. A non infected person not wearing a mask harms no one just like a sober driver doesn’t have to pass a breathalyzer exam to drive a car. We could mandate that all cars have breathalyzer tests built into the ignition system for safety which would be akin to making everyone sick and healthy wear masks but we don’t.

If we had a better testing apparatus in place people would be armed with better knowledge instead of having most people who aren’t sick not being certain they’re not sick and asymptomatic carriers not knowing they are sick. Dealing with that high level of uncertainty makes mask wearing prudent. My grandmother grew up without a mother because her mom went a hospital for a routine appendectomy caught an infection there and died. That was 90 years ago. Now doctors and nurses in the OR wear masks and gloves and practice better sanitary procedures which is good. Taking precautions is a good thing.

However, masks and social distancing don’t offer any guarantees. If it all it took to prevent the spread was masks and distancing every state could be 100% open and we’d be fine. Nobody would tell you that condoms make promiscuity harmless. We just need to recognize that there’s more nuance to the issue.

I do understand the concern over how intrusive the govt response has been compared to the lack of any real preventative measures we put in place for other public health dangers. I also think that the horrific mismanagement of the economic impact of the chose response in the US is causing a lot of harm and anger and it’s easy to vent those frustrations out on the mask wearing recommendations. The lockdown is literally ruining tens of millions of lives and that level of pain can’t be balanced against the benefits of the lockdown.

Are you infected?

Do you know, right now that you’ve not contracted COVID-19?

Think carefully, for one can be infectious without showing symptoms, and even if you do show symptoms in the days to come, they can take two weeks to manifest, and all that time you’re at risk of infecting others.

Are you infected? Yes or no? Do you know for sure? If so, how?

If not? Wear your bloody mask you selfish git.

Because it’s exactly like morning after drink driving. If you’ve been on a sesh, or had a few to drink the night before, you can still be over the limit whilst feeling fine.

You don’t know you’re safe to drive. So doing so is a risk, compared to not driving until far later in the day.

This really isn’t rocket science people. It’s really straight forward.

Thats the biggest thing, you are always potentially infectious no matter what with Covid, you can have and give it and now know.
There is a reason they dont let just random people walk around the ICU and gak. you can potentially harm those who at risk.
Ritght now ,we are in that situation where, potentially everyone could have. It isnt "Fear Monger" its common sense that, in a world of unknown like this, we take the precautions.
It isnt aboit "Liberties" for Antimaskers, its people who dont like being told what to do, even if its a slight inconvinence.

Which makes QAR even more bizarre, as he claims a military career.

You know, a career where inherent submission to orders is a thing

He said earlier “yeah but not illegal orders”, as if those further down the chain of command ever get time to ponder such things.

Now, he’s either fibbing about his career, for reasons best known to himself. Or, he’s a really, really terrible choice for any military, or he’s just trolling us all in this thread and being deliberately contrary for reasons best known to himself.

I’ll assume the latter.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Which makes QAR even more bizarre, as he claims a military career.

You know, a career where inherent submission to orders is a thing

He said earlier “yeah but not illegal orders”, as if those further down the chain of command ever get time to ponder such things.

Now, he’s either fibbing about his career, for reasons best known to himself. Or, he’s a really, really terrible choice for any military, or he’s just trolling us all in this thread and being deliberately contrary for reasons best known to himself.

I’ll assume the latter.

RAF mate, check in not stag on.

Sadly, I put him on ignore a while back, but we may as well change the thread to "QAR's argument for the sake of it" thread because the last few pages have orbited around him and his viewpoint which seems to be getting the result of winding people up.

Be nice if we all stuck him on ignore and talked about the virus.

QAR, could you please consider wearing a mask for the sake of others? It’s really not a big inconvenience, and it could potentially save a life.

Also, the Burger King in the historic bank building opposite our city hall is yet to reopen and I fear it’s kaput. Why do I care so much about a Burger King? Because I’ve been going there since I was no age; getting the kids meal on my birthday with my dad after visiting the toy shop in the days of the BK Kid’s Club. The place is all golden and Art Deco too, very interesting time warp of a building.

Also I’ve not had a Bacon King in months and I’m getting the craving.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
QAR, could you please consider wearing a mask for the sake of others? It’s really not a big inconvenience, and it could potentially save a life.

Also, the Burger King in the historic bank building opposite our city hall is yet to reopen and I fear it’s kaput. Why do I care so much about a Burger King? Because I’ve been going there since I was no age; getting the kids meal on my birthday with my dad after visiting the toy shop in the days of the BK Kid’s Club. The place is all golden and Art Deco too, very interesting time warp of a building.

Also I’ve not had a Bacon King in months and I’m getting the craving.

Fastfood places that have no drive thru are doing real bad. Not only did before they lost the revenue from people just too lazy to get out of their car(Like me) and people just needing to pass thru, now they are from everyone.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Which makes QAR even more bizarre, as he claims a military career.

You know, a career where inherent submission to orders is a thing

He said earlier “yeah but not illegal orders”, as if those further down the chain of command ever get time to ponder such things.

Now, he’s either fibbing about his career, for reasons best known to himself. Or, he’s a really, really terrible choice for any military, or he’s just trolling us all in this thread and being deliberately contrary for reasons best known to himself.

I’ll assume the latter.

IIRC from my ROTC days, you're told you don't have to follow illegal orders. Of course, you may face a court-martial, and punishment if they disagree about the nature of said orders. So I think his comment makes sense even if the overall context is petty and silly.

The best bit? The absolute best bit of QAR’s crap argument?

“I fear it will become law, so I won’t follow the guidance and will do everything in my meagre power to ensure others don’t follow said guidance. Because that’s exactly how you stop guidance becoming law

Edited by RiTides - Language

Hopefully we can all learn something about trying to engage with bad-faith posters.

Sadly my career is a variant of dealing with bad faith idiots.

Thankfully, I’ve a keen skill for spotting flaws, and exploring the, before poking the obvious holes in the argument.

And it is a knack. It’s not the result of learning. I can just sort of do it. I could, potentially, figure out how to pass it on to others.

Really hope I do. Because if I can figure out how to teach people my instinct for seeing exactly what the next person isn’t saying, and will refuse to answer?

That’s the barrier between where I am right now (which is pretty ace) and a. £65,000 salary.