It's incredible watching people mistake inconvenience for oppression.
It's incredible watching people mistake inconvenience for oppression.
This is really interesting. Mark Cuban hired a service to go out and secretly look at restaurants and other businesses that have reopened in Dallas, and see if they were complying with the Covid-19 guidelines issued by the governor.
96% were not fully compliant.
It's pretty clear now that some restrictions have been lifted, most people are just saying 'screw it, we had to watch Netflix for a month so I'm not going to be told what to do anymore'. And of course, there is really no enforcement or repercussions.
https://blogmaverick.com/2020/05/07/...-its-not-good/
Dan, I respect you I really do, but there are some things that I am not okay with, one of those things is the erosion of the natural right known as liberty. Here is a definition...
"the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views."
My way of life is not and never has been the Kong way of life. But I am against top down authoritarism that you and others on this board seem advocate. Correct me if I am wrong but didn't you say you would be okay forcing people to use a program similar to the Chinese QR code on the phones.
While 1984 is not the best example, I can easily see that it is an an example of a top down authoritarian (anti liberty) government that includes snitches. Here is an example on page 25 of my copy, "hardly a week passed in which the Times did not carry a paragraph describing how some eavesdropping little sneak--'child hero' was the phrase generally used--had overheard some compromising remark and denounced his parents to the Thought Police."
Now please tell me how I have missed the mark regarding liberty and 1984?
It seems the experts think it's useless to wear a mask, unless you got the virus. If saliva tests become easier to get, I hope people who don't want to wear masks will get tested and will be willing to wear them, if tested positive. After all, it's believed masks are more effective in not spreading the virus from a positive wearer.
Alternative to the dreaded nasal swab? OSU lab ready for COVID tests using simpler, safer saliva samples:
https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/alte...b1822ba27.html
It was the same way at the Perkins Rd. Wal-Mart in Stillwater Sunday afternoon. It was mostly the workers wearing masks. With only 22 cases in Stillwater with 21 recovered, the virus is no longer seen as a serious threat. Hopefully, no alarming spiking in coming weeks. Remaining college students are leaving from their leases expiring, so I predict no spiking. Young people are more likely not to take the pandemic seriously.
I'm just going to keep posting this over and over again: Face Masks Against COVID-19: An Evidence Review
MASKS MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE. EVERYONE SHOULD WEAR MASKS WHEN SOCIAL DISTANCING IS NOT POSSIBLE. NOT WEARING A MASK PUTS OTHER PEOPLE AT RISK.Abstract: The science around the use of masks by the general public to impede COVID-19 transmission is advancing rapidly. Policymakers need guidance on how masks should be used by the general population to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we synthesize the relevant literature to inform multiple areas: 1) transmission characteristics of COVID-19, 2) filtering characteristics and efficacy of masks, 3) estimated population impacts of widespread community mask use, and 4) sociological considerations for policies concerning mask-wearing. A primary route of transmission of COVID-19 is likely via small respiratory droplets, and is known to be transmissible from presymptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. Reducing disease spread requires two things: first, limit contacts of infected individuals via physical distancing and contact tracing with appropriate quarantine, and second, reduce the transmission probability per contact by wearing masks in public, among other measures. The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces the transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected droplets in both laboratory and clinical contexts. Public mask wearing is most effective at stopping spread of the virus when compliance is high. The decreased transmissibility could substantially reduce the death toll and economic impact while the cost of the intervention is low. Thus we recommend the adoption of public cloth mask wearing, as an effective form of source control, in conjunction with existing hygiene, distancing, and contact tracing strategies. We recommend that public officials and governments strongly encourage the use of widespread face masks in public, including the use of appropriate regulation.
You keep posting the same dangerous misinformation over and over. Why?
I'm just going to keep posting this over and over again: Face Masks Against COVID-19: An Evidence Review
MASKS MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE. EVERYONE SHOULD WEAR MASKS WHEN SOCIAL DISTANCING IS NOT POSSIBLE. NOT WEARING A MASK PUTS OTHER PEOPLE AT RISK.
If Masks make such a huge difference why can’t we open everything up? Either they work 100% or they are useless. Isn’t it very possible people going to grocery store collect virus on their mask and take home or to other stores and expose it? I doubt most are throwing away. Lots are homemade cloth masks which if not washed as soon as leaving store just collect virus right? Details matter.
I heard a joke this weekend that kind of compares. Does underwear stop a fart? If you think about it the virus is so small masks are mostly a feel good story unless its been fitted, has no leaks and is of a certain type. And then its disposed of before putting in car.
Yikes. You realize there's a huge gap between "either it solves everything or it does nothing," right? Masks help but they're not a panacea. They decrease emissions through droplets, especially from nasopharyngeal droplets which is thought to be the most contagious source of Covid-19 spread. Wearing masks and increasing social distancing lowers the odds of spread even further. We have no silver bullet for this thing, or really any sort of effective therapy, so every measure we can do to lower the spread of the disease is beneficial. Thinking in a dichotomous "either it works all the time or not at all" way is incredibly simple-minded and wrong.
Oh and breaking news: most White House staffers will now wear masks to limit the spread of Covid-19 in the White House. Must be because they actually do have a limiting effect: https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...rus-update-us/
You went for the fart analogy... I like the pee one better. If someone is gonna pee on your leg, even knowing that your jeans are not waterproof, would you rather be wearing pants when they pee on you or not? And would you rather they ALSO be wearing jeans before they pee on your leg?
I guess since you might feel the wet anyways, why bother wearing the jeans to protect from the pee spray right?
I appreciate the response and respectfully disagree with your conclusion, but I at least understand your reasoning. I'll make my points brief so as not to get this thread too far off topic.
All people who are members of a society must enter a social contract where you trade rights for responsibilities and vice versa... liberty/security and individual/society always exist on spectrum, not a binary. Citizens are asked to follow many laws and policies in exchange for various benefits. I am guessing you okay with a police force existing, for example. How is that different than public health measures during a pandemic? Comparing a totalitarian, dystopian government seeking to maintain absolute control to democratically elected leaders (despite our democracy problems) who don't even want to maintain shelter-in-place a day longer than is needed is quite a stretch. Do you honestly think Big Brother and David Holt are comparable?
I am obviously in favor of civil liberties, including around privacy issues. Regarding the use of tracing tech, no one is okay with Chinese surveillance (much of which they've copied from the U.S.), but other countries have figured out responsible ways to using tracing tech, which allows their citizens more liberty in other areas of their lives. It's a tradeoff. Of course, surveillance tech deserves a lot of scrutiny and transparency, but I won't dismiss it out of hand. And, if you own a smartphone, your data is already being trafficked. If you're really concerned with privacy then you should be protesting Google, Facebook, and pretty much all "smart" technologies that operate under a form of surveillance capitalism that has no respect for your privacy or digital labor.
Anyway, we've both responded and I don't want to get too far off track, but we could continue discussing privately if you want. Cheers.
Bunty, that's a bad idea. People shouldn't have to get tested unless they have symptoms or believe they've been exposed. Just because someone doesn't want to wear a mask doesn't mean that they should be tested. We are not living in a totalitarian regime where we invade people's privacy and medical rights.
Insofar as the comment above regarding the social contract, which one are you referring to? There are at least two that I am aware: Rousseau and Locke. They are very different in terms of what the "social contract" means.
Seriously, if I were you, I would be much more concerned about reports fewer people are wearing masks than about my thoughts on the subject. At least this article concluded that cloth masks are better than nothing: https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/...s-coronavirus/
By the way, I wish the study you posted was peer reviewed. It say's it's not.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Bookmarks