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.

Texas issued a mask mandate.

Florida didn't.



So no, I agree with NinthMusketeer, we don't need to keep indulging someone who didn't grow out of their oppositional-defiant disorder.

 ScarletRose wrote:
Texas issued a mask mandate.

Florida didn't.



So no, I agree with NinthMusketeer, we don't need to keep indulging someone who didn't grow out of their oppositional-defiant disorder.

https://www.miamidade.gov/releases/2020-07-01-mayor-maskorder-expanded.asp
Miami issued a mask mandate. and near 1/4 of all cases are in miami.
Plus most counties/ large florida cities have mask mandates as well. Not to mention most people are wearing masks anyways.

Goes to show the difference between an actual mandate and just trusting local government or individuals to handle it themselves.

Most of the people against masks seem to have ODD towards the government. The irony of the situation they are in is best summed up by this cartoon.

An article on mask rules, maybe useful?

https://theconversation.com/face-mask-rules-do-they-really-violate-personal-liberty-143634

It is easy to understand why: mask mandates use the coercive power of the state to require a person to do something that they would otherwise not choose to do. And it seems to follow that a person’s liberty is compromised by such interference.

The conception of “freedom as non-interference” that underpins the anti-mask movement has the virtue of simplicity. It allows us to apply an easy metric to test our freedom: if our choices are interfered with, then we are less free.

But if this is correct it is unclear why wearing a mask is so troubling given the widespread “interference” in our other choices. Surely, the requirement that you have to cover any part of your body is a far graver violation of individual liberty than being compelled to wear a small face covering during a pandemic? It may be that the anti-mask movement is the spear tip of a global militant nudism trend, but that doesn’t seem particularly plausible (or desirable).

The problem is that the idea of liberty as non-interference often runs up against common sense. For example, most people do not feel savagely oppressed by having to drive on one side of the road, by bans on public nudity or by laws against murder. They interfere with our choices, but they don’t seem to make us less free. Maybe we need a different formulation of freedom.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
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

And I thought you of everyone here were better than engaging in poor discourse, yet here you are indulging in base name calling. The lowest rung on the hierarchy of disagreement. Shame.

Not wearing a mask is not 'causing someone death or harm'. That's an assumed presupposition that I reject for its question begging, and am still yet to hear a logical argument in favour of.

Edited by RiTides - Edited quoted text

 Azreal13 wrote:
Postcodes. Simply list all the postcodes of affected areas on the local government website.

I'm actually registered with the local council online, for stuff like paying fines, applying for replacement bins etc, so they'd be able to cross reference my address and text me, but I doubt that's even close to the majority, but listing postcodes would be simpke enough.

that's a good first step it should cut confusion among those who are involved enough to be looking for information,

it's contacting those who don't do online (or if they do don't look for stuff like this) that's the real problem

 LordofHats wrote:


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.

Your false equivalences, ad hominems and guilt by associations aside, the small part of your argument that is moderately reasonable rests on the presupposition that if someone has a disease, that they don't know about, and then you catch it from them, they are violating your rights. The refutation of which, part of my argument rests on. I posit that being unknowingly asymptomatic and spreading a virus, violates no ones rights.

Consider some analogies. if I accidentally knock an ice cube onto the floor, and leave without knowing, then someone comes and slips on it, cracks their head and dies, have I killed them?

If a soldier in Afghanistan accidentally initiates an ied, that kills his comrade but not him, do we accuse him of killing that man?

Prestor Jon wrote:

 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.

Drunk Driving is a great analogy. A Person gets drunk and then decides, even though they are drunk(infectious) they are going to go drive around. The person could just not do it(wear a mask) but they decide to put other peoples lives at risk(transmission) instead.

People with a history of drunk driving are also sober people who have to pass a breathalyzer exam to drive a car. We COULD mandate that people who are known NOT to wear a mask be isolated to prevent further transmission. IE: We take their drivers license and car. Which happens.

Your argument against this analogy is absurd.

 ScarletRose wrote:
Texas issued a mask mandate.

Florida didn't.



So no, I agree with NinthMusketeer, we don't need to keep indulging someone who didn't grow out of their oppositional-defiant disorder.

Sigh

Spain issued a mask mandate. One of the strictest... Now it's on the UK quarantine list for a raise in cases. Correlation proves nothing.

 Xenomancers wrote:

https://www.miamidade.gov/releases/2020-07-01-mayor-maskorder-expanded.asp
Miami issued a mask mandate. and near 1/4 of all cases are in miami.
Plus most counties/ large florida cities have mask mandates as well. Not to mention most people are wearing masks anyways.

Correlation does not equal causation, unless it's something that supports their argument of course.

Spain issued a mask mandate. One of the strictest...

Not true. "Spain" did not issue a mask mandate, or is at least no longer doing so. Mask policy is being handled at a regional level, with varying stipulations in when they're necessary, and what the penalty for non compliance is.

For instance, Basque Country has no policy at all, excepting a town that currently is suffering an outbreak, whereas Asturias has the lowest rate of infection, but has no exceptions and one of the highest fines for non compliance.

So "Spain" in a collective sense is really about a dozen different ideas.


https://www.euroweeklynews.com/2020/07/14/mandatory-masks-the-different-regions-in-spain-and-their-different-rules/

Edit.

As a number of posters have expressed, if you fundamentally disagree with someone and have already thoroughly discussed your differences, it may make sense to put them on ignore.

We only ask that you avoid using insults and name calling, with - again - the goal of this thread remaining open. I've had to edit a few posts for this purpose. Thanks for your help everyone!

Saw a headline on my work browser's home page (but did not click the link) and the headline read something to the effect of "Dr. Fauci is cautiously optimistic of a vaccine by fall"

Which brings up a line of thought, or at least, a question in my mind. . . Lets say we do get a vaccine done. It's through trials and tests and all that. . . How much of an "issue" will be made of this?

We saw on Guam, or Samoa (I forget which now), a measles outbreak which was absolutely horrific, and it was so in largest part because the anti-vax movement had well and truly taken root there. . . In the majority of the western world, the US in particular, we do have a significantly vocal minority of anti-vax people. How do we really deal with those types of people?


Also, in the time between now and say, early December "when" it is released. . . should we be expecting a vaccine with MMR/Tetanus results, or should we expect Gardasil results?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Saw a headline on my work browser's home page (but did not click the link) and the headline read something to the effect of "Dr. Fauci is cautiously optimistic of a vaccine by fall"

Which brings up a line of thought, or at least, a question in my mind. . . Lets say we do get a vaccine done. It's through trials and tests and all that. . . How much of an "issue" will be made of this?

Sadly a lot, more than likely.
Distribution priority will also be a major issue. Which countries and which groups within those countries get it first.

We saw on Guam, or Samoa (I forget which now), a measles outbreak which was absolutely horrific, and it was so in largest part because the anti-vax movement had well and truly taken root there. . . In the majority of the western world, the US in particular, we do have a significantly vocal minority of anti-vax people. How do we really deal with those types of people?

Poorly, more than likely. But unless it can't be administered due to a health concern, it should not be optional. The more people who opt out, the longer this continues and the more it recurs. Letting people opt out of a vaccine will kill people in both the short term and long term. It will let the virus burrow in as recurring, endemic problem. So will not distributing vaccines on a truly global scale.

Also, in the time between now and say, early December "when" it is released. . . should we be expecting a vaccine with MMR/Tetanus results, or should we expect Gardasil results?

There is no way to know what the results will be. Hopefully they'll do sufficient testing despite the 'Warp Speed' focus, so results should be positive. But interactions always have the potential to be unpredictable.

December is very optimistic though. Several companies have started production on their candidates even before approval, but still only expect to have a couple hundred million doses ready 'by the end of the year.' And a billion by the end of 2021.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/german-biotech-sees-its-coronavirus-vaccine-ready-for-approval-by-december-11594373400

That's flatly insufficient. A lot of estimates are we need about 70% coverage to really get past this pandemic. That's 5 billion doses. If the leading companies all manage to get working, effective and safe vaccines, we're still looking at _maybe_ Fall of next year for sufficient production.

A 'vaccine by fall' is unfortunately a very political statement. Its reassuring without touching on the stark reality of large scale production for a global population of 7.5ish billion.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Saw a headline on my work browser's home page (but did not click the link) and the headline read something to the effect of "Dr. Fauci is cautiously optimistic of a vaccine by fall"

Which brings up a line of thought, or at least, a question in my mind. . . Lets say we do get a vaccine done. It's through trials and tests and all that. . . How much of an "issue" will be made of this?

We saw on Guam, or Samoa (I forget which now), a measles outbreak which was absolutely horrific, and it was so in largest part because the anti-vax movement had well and truly taken root there. . . In the majority of the western world, the US in particular, we do have a significantly vocal minority of anti-vax people. How do we really deal with those types of people?


Also, in the time between now and say, early December "when" it is released. . . should we be expecting a vaccine with MMR/Tetanus results, or should we expect Gardasil results?

The subject of the antivax movement keeps popping up on this page, and i don't have a problem with that. In fact I want to share an image with people that was created by antivaxxers which shows just how totally whacked their minds are.

It's a powerful, graphic and offensive image so I'm putting it behind a spoiler tag so don't look unless you're prepared to see how stupid, raving paranoid bigots think. And yes, there is a strong anti semitic element to this image as it implies that the pro vaccination forces are control by "the jews" and that vaccines are therefore some evil Jewish conspiracy to do....something evil.

It also features a terrified crying baby. If you're not sure you want to see how these dangerously stupid people really think, what really goes on in their heads, what they really believe, if anti semitic propaganda really offends you and if the image of a terrified crying baby offends you you should probably just leave the spoiler tag in place.

And yes the image is anti jewish racism, I hope no one gives me trouble for posting it but I'm doing it to show that a lot of the anti vaxxer mob are the same people who believe all the anti jewish propaganda or conspiracy theories, and maybe people should be shown that.

Well, here's hoping posting this doesn't get me banned but honestly, people need to wake up to just how dangerously ignorant the antivax mob is.




A lot of these anti vaxxers are more deranged and more dangerous than most people really know.

Finland plans to vaccinate initially those working with risk　groups and risk groups expecting everybody to have it within year of starting vaccination program.

tneva82 wrote:
Finland plans to vaccinate initially those working with risk　groups and risk groups expecting everybody to have it within year of starting vaccination program.

Sounds like finalnd really has some good people running their efforts.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
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.

It is unfortunate that real-life-karma isn't like movie-karma.

In the movie Burke gets his head bitten off by Aliens for being a selfish moron who exposes others to harm for his own perceived gain.

In RL such a Burke will, as a result of his carless attitude, get an elderly lady he passed by in a shop infected, she will die, but Burke will never learn about this, he will get away with mild symptoms and he will keep telling everyone in a smug way how he was right about this virus all along.

Report: Coronavirus infected scores of children and staff at Georgia sleep-away camp

The analysis, released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, details an outbreak at a sleep-away camp in Georgia last month in which 260 children and staffers — more than three-quarters of the 344 tested — contracted the virus less than a week after spending time together in close quarters. The children had a median age of 12. The camp had required all 597 campers and staff members to provide documentation that they had tested negative for the virus before coming. Staff were required to wear masks, but children were not. ... The report is likely to add fuel to an already polarizing nationwide discussion about whether sending children back to crowded school buildings is worth the risk, in large part because so little data has been available about children’s vulnerability to the infection and their ability to transmit the virus.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/report-coronavirus-infected-scores-of-children-and-staff-at-georgia-sleep-away-camp/ar-BB17qjZU?li=BBnb7Kz

 ced1106 wrote:
Report: Coronavirus infected scores of children and staff at Georgia sleep-away camp

The analysis, released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, details an outbreak at a sleep-away camp in Georgia last month in which 260 children and staffers — more than three-quarters of the 344 tested — contracted the virus less than a week after spending time together in close quarters. The children had a median age of 12. The camp had required all 597 campers and staff members to provide documentation that they had tested negative for the virus before coming. Staff were required to wear masks, but children were not. ... The report is likely to add fuel to an already polarizing nationwide discussion about whether sending children back to crowded school buildings is worth the risk, in large part because so little data has been available about children’s vulnerability to the infection and their ability to transmit the virus.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/report-coronavirus-infected-scores-of-children-and-staff-at-georgia-sleep-away-camp/ar-BB17qjZU?li=BBnb7Kz

it'd be interesting to see, if the staffers show a smaller rate of infections because of masks..

With an average age of 12 I'd wager that masks aren't going to work all that well because staff will be coming into close contact with the students all the time, and the students with each other. It's very hard to socially distance at that age, especially when keeping so many together at one site.

Remembering also that masks are not designed to prevent you getting it (unless you've correctly fitted medical masks of a suitable grade), then if one of the students got it it wouldn't take long to spread around.

 Overread wrote:
With an average age of 12 I'd wager that masks aren't going to work all that well because staff will be coming into close contact with the students all the time, and the students with each other. It's very hard to socially distance at that age, especially when keeping so many together at one site.

Remembering also that masks are not designed to prevent you getting it (unless you've correctly fitted medical masks of a suitable grade), then if one of the students got it it wouldn't take long to spread around.

absolutely but if you'd find a lower rate despite such circumstances that be more than definitive, because that is virtually the only thing in these two groups differing except age...

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
How do we really deal with those types of people?

Well, from an *individual* POV, matters more if you take the vaccine, and continue reducing your exposure to the virus. The flu vaccine is only 60% effective, and we are not achieving an ideal level of herd immunity because not enough people are taking the vaccine.

From the POV of herd immunity, the lower the percentage of a group that takes the vaccine, the higher the efficacy the vaccine must be to achieve a certain degree of herd immunity. (Note that vaccines are "artificial herd immunity" of vaccination, not the popularized herd immunity, where you allow people to be infected, which is a "natural herd immunity".) I posted awhile back an article that crunched a few numbers. And, I would guess it's more likely we'll have a lower efficacy vaccine before a higher one. Note that, in two years we may have a *nasally* administrated vaccine, which, again I would guess, make it easier to administrate, particularly children.

"The annual flu shot's effectiveness, for example, generally ranges between 40-60%, according to the CDC. Hence, on average, the flu vaccine reduces a person's risk of a flu outcome by 60%. ... The measles virus is highly transmissible, and you need 93-95% of the population vaccinated," she explained. "For influenza, 70% vaccination rate is required, yet each year we fall short of that -- which is why even in a typical flu season we still see 30-60,000 people die from flu each year."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/a-covid-19-vaccine-will-still-save-lives-even-if-its-not-100-25-effective-experts-say/ar-BB17mjjc

****

Healthcare and schools require manditory vaccinations, so employers requiring employees to be vaccinated may be an option, particularly with a potentially deadly virus. Businesses whose reputation would be damaged if it were known that employees were infected (eg. Amazon, CostCo, Safeway) would require vaccinations for employees, I would think. Whether or not this can be done *quickly* may be a different matter.

"If an employer institutes a mandatory vaccination policy, it could be subjecting itself to potential liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and various state laws. Title VII may require an employer to provide a reasonable accommodation to an employee with religious beliefs that prevent him or her from taking vaccines. Likewise, individuals with certain disabilities may not be able to have certain vaccinations due to the risk that they will exacerbate their medical conditions. Further, unionized employers may be prohibited from imposing mandatory vaccinations without first bargaining with the union. ... If an employer institutes a mandatory vaccination policy, it could be subjecting itself to potential liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and various state laws. Title VII may require an employer to provide a reasonable accommodation to an employee with religious beliefs that prevent him or her from taking vaccines. Likewise, individuals with certain disabilities may not be able to have certain vaccinations due to the risk that they will exacerbate their medical conditions. Further, unionized employers may be prohibited from imposing mandatory vaccinations without first bargaining with the union.

https://www.bipc.com/can-healthcare-providers-require-employee-vaccinations

Don't forget flu is optional and for many people isn't life threatening. So there's far less pressure on people to take the jab each year than there is for far more deadly diseases. Furthermore because it changes each year that again makes it harder to combat and get a nation wide herd immunity because you're having to do it every single year; whilst things like measles its a one time thing and some others are one-time with boosters every few years.


Corona would likely see a greater portion of the population take up the option of the jab. The issue it would have in uptake though would be less, I'd imagine, refusal to want to be immunized and more a risk of taking a very new drug that won't have any long term testing by its very nature of being so new.
So I can see it being one of those situations where early on it requires more pressure to get taken up and could take huge hits in uptake if any scare stories come out in the media.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Consider some analogies. if I accidentally knock an ice cube onto the floor, and leave without knowing, then someone comes and slips on it, cracks their head and dies, have I killed them?

Yes, through negligence. Manslaughter charges, IIRC, can be brought if proven, depending on the circumstances, such as it being your job to check the state of your workplace.

If a soldier in Afghanistan accidentally initiates an IED, that kills his comrade but not him, do we accuse him of killing that man?

Wartime incident, and risk of death is accepted by anyone posted there. Those planting the IED are blamed.

As for the flu jab, I buy one each year. I do not qualify for a free one, but I live and work around those who need the herd immunity to work.

I actually feel this will probably kill the anti-vax movement. Sure there will still be some crawling along, but it will lose anything resembling widespread support. Because when a vaccine does hit there will be HUGE numbers of people taking it, but no spike whatsoever in autism or any other made-up effects.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I actually feel this will probably kill the anti-vax movement. Sure there will still be some crawling along, but it will lose anything resembling widespread support. Because when a vaccine does hit there will be HUGE numbers of people taking it, but no spike whatsoever in autism or any other made-up effects.

I agree that provided the Corona vaccine (assuming we get one of course) works well and doesn't have any major/widespread side effects then its going to push back the anti-vac groups a lot. Many of them have gained traction partly because so many of the diseases that are heavily vaccinated are just not a risk for people so they don't "see" it. Corona has hit the whole world in one big go, generation wise it should likely be a huge display of the power of vaccination.

Of course if any mass deployed vaccine (even in another country) gets any major medical problems linked to it then it could very well have the complete opposite effect for some regions/nations

You're not thinking like the sort of people who believe this gak in the first place.

Assuming a safe and effective Coronavirus vaccine, the anti vax movement will adapt to explain it away. The most obvious hand wave is that it's for a different disease and it's the childhood ones that cause autism. But I could quite plausibly see it go as far as the government(or whoever) have engineered it so it doesn't cause issues because they need the adult population healthy to serve whatever agenda they're being credited with.

Do not underestimate a conspiracist's ability to bend the facts to fit their truth.

True, but at the same time its much harder to deny when the rest of the world is getting back to normality through the vaccine. Of course there will always be the fringe groups convinced that its a plot to spy on us or to inject alien babies into us or some other idea. You won't change them (but you might kick them out of the workplace if corona vaccines become mandatory to work in any team/public environment - handled at a job by job basis*)
However an effective vaccine for a virus that has directly affected most people (even if just inconveniencing them) and that allows people to "get back to normal" is going to likely sway a lot of the middle ground of anti-vac people and considerably cut down on the ability of the ring-leaders to recruit more to their cause.


Though again I say that this is all fine in theory, but assumes that the vaccine both works and is not later proven to have major/widespread negative side effects.


*though I could see governments perhaps stepping in with policies like "any community/public work mandates corona vaccines)