Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Face mask or no face mask?

12324262829

Replies

  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,878 Member
    Ya'll leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. We don't mask around here. The biggest threat, as I see it, to our rural community, is those from more densely populated areas trying to get away from the 'rona and putting us as risk. To those of you leaving the areas you no longer feel safe in and coming to our communities because you need fresh air, I'll regurgitate a statement that others have directed towards us for not wearing a mask, "You're selfish".

    I'd also point out that it's becoming more and more regular that individuals forced to wear masks are complaining about personal health problems they are beginning to experience.

    Masks are not intended to protect me I'm told. Masks are intended to reduce the risk I may infecting others. Social distancing is important I'm told. Well, I'll continue taking personal responsibility for myself and you do the same. Feel free to stay away from those of us who don't wear masks. I do not patronize any place that 'requires' me to wear a mask so I'm doing my part to stay away from you.

    If people from other areas were coming to my town bearing potentially infectious diseases, I'd feel even more strongly about them wearing a mask to help protect me in the situations where I may encounter them. And I'd feel even more strongly about wearing a mask to help protect my friends and neighbors from anything that I might have been exposed to due to the increased traffic in my area.

    As a resolution I agree to disagree with your statement.

    On any particular grounds? Just disliking masks?
  • laurenq1991
    laurenq1991 Posts: 384 Member
    edited August 2020
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    Italy's new case numbers, adjusted for population, are nothing compared to ours, and their deaths are not even comparable at the moment, they are so much lower.

    The areas of the US that are having surges are areas that never had a first wave in the first place. Italy already had a first wave. So you really can't compare the two. Also, Italy has HIGHER deaths per million than the US (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/). I know the media loves to act like the US has a way higher death rate than any other country, but that's so untrue.
    The upturn in some European countries hit hard before suggests to me that they are not at herd immunity (which makes it unlikely Sweden is, although I agree its numbers look good currently), and thus that it was the lockdowns that got the numbers under control.

    So the lockdowns just delayed cases and prolonged things, which was exactly my point. Even if Sweden doesn't have herd immunity, which remains to be seen, it still isn't doing much worse deaths-wise than a lot of places that locked down, and it also is doing much better economically and on second-order deaths and negative consequences.
    Reducing total cases until we understand more about the virus and hopefully have treatments that are more effective or a vaccine therefore seems like a good idea.

    Until you consider that the lockdowns kill people too (check out all the sources I posted on my last post).
    IMO, the US has been economically hurt more because we didn't have a more strict lockdown/border closing and instead this is being prolonged with cases at a relatively high level in various places throughout the country.

    Citation needed. We started closing borders in February before many other countries (and were vilified for it at the time).
    I think that was the main reason, but I also think reducing unnecessary deaths from the virus is a good policy. I would say a short lockdown for the purpose of getting cases low enough so that we could trace and quarantine so reduce spread that way (what they did in some other countries) would have been a good thing, but we haven't actually done that. Instead we did this half-kitten thing that is miserable but allows still for extensive community spread many new cases, and thus feels never ending.

    But contact tracing and quarantining just prolongs the pandemic. If hospitals aren't overwhelmed, there isn't much reason to do it. Also, as I already posted, no country has really had a game-changing contact-tracing program. The success of South Korea, for example, probably has a lot more to do with their extremely low obesity rate, considering Japan also has been similarly successful.
    I don't think the difference between places is that alone, no. I think within places some percentage of people not complying is related to the numbers within that place -- people ignoring the rules and having giant house parties, for just one example, I think can cause superspreading events. But this whole X state/country is good, Y state/country is bad is, I think, not a good way to approach the issue.

    And yet you see so many pro-lockdown people saying these kinds of things. You see so many people, even within the US, taking gleeful joy in trashing the US and acting like it's the worst, when factually speaking when you look at the data, it isn't. You see so many people acting like contracting a virus is a moral failing, and equating unknowingly spreading a virus to murder. I thought we got over this regressive and unhelpful behavior during the AIDS pandemic, but apparently not.
    Okay, fair, I was mixing their new cases up with one of the recent spikes in AU. but the fact remains that they have few enough cases that they can address these much more easily than the US can address our cases. I don't get the urge -- and honestly I think it makes the US look foolish -- to act like NZ has something to worry about. We have no hill to stand on here.

    So how do you think NZ will get out of lockdown? Because they already tried eradication once and it failed. And even if they did somehow manage to eradicate it, they'd have to close their borders forever. Even if a vaccine comes, which could take years, no vaccine in history has ever been 100% effective.
    If they get fast and reliable tests, as we seem to have here (although not in adequate numbers right now, they seem mostly to be used for bigwigs, although U of IL is hoping to use them as part of its on campus efforts), then they could use those going forward and not be cutoff.

    But they are testing already. Testing hasn't been a problem in any Western country for months.
    I realize that, and made it clear I was referring to our EARLY response although response time is way too long even now. If you reread what I said, I said that we needed to be doing that early on, when test and trace was still a possibility. Now it seems too late with the level of cases we currently have.

    The thing is, studies indicate that COVID-19 was already community spreading in the US and Europe in November or December 2019, possibly even earlier. We didn't even know that COVID-19 existed until January 2020, and it took time to develop a test for it. There was no way that we could have tested and traced every case under the circumstances, because it was already widespread by the time we could feasibly develop a test, and because of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic spread.
    Does it matter if Germany is missing a lot of cases if it's cases are as low as they are (as shown by deaths per capita -- a much better way to compare likely cases per country since everyone is missing lots of cases). They are in a position to safely open schools, it seems.

    Well, it depends. If you're one of the pro-lockdown "if it prevents only one death!" type of people, then yeah, it does matter. I'm more of a "look at the situation in aggregate" type of person. And most public health experts believe schools should be reopened even in the US. There really hasn't been a sufficient explanation about why Germany has such a low death rate though. From what I've read, researchers don't really think contact tracing is a huge contributor to it.

    This study took place from January to April. That was months ago. I'm talking about the lockdowns that are going on now.
    Also, the rules you are talking about are Stage 4 rules in place in discrete parts of AU with spiking cases

    It's for the entire state of Victoria. Victoria has 1/4th of the population of Australia (about 6.5 million people out of a total population of about 25.5 million). Other areas are now coming under the same restrictions as well.
    but they are temporary, and for a much shorter time than the shutdowns that parts of the US have been dealing with

    Hey, remember when the US lockdowns were supposed to be "for two weeks to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed"?
    I personally think that: (1) no more than 5 km from your house, and (2) no more than 1 hour outside make no sense (and may be counterproductive), but that doesn't hurt the economy more than the US style shutdowns would, I wouldn't think.

    It hurts mental and physical health, promotes authoritarian overreach, and does absolutely nothing to stop spread. Especially as it promotes obesity which is one of the top risk factors for dying from COVID-19.
  • laurenq1991
    laurenq1991 Posts: 384 Member
    Personally and this is just my opinion I don't care about the "endgame" or what it will be like 2 years down the track. I'm concentrating on the here and now.

    No offense, but that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of in my life. No public policy should ever be enacted without thinking of the long-term effects, especially one as historically unprecedented as this.

  • slimgirljo15
    slimgirljo15 Posts: 269,084 Member
    edited August 2020
    Personally and this is just my opinion I don't care about the "endgame" or what it will be like 2 years down the track. I'm concentrating on the here and now.

    No offense, but that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of in my life. No public policy should ever be enacted without thinking of the long-term effects, especially one as historically unprecedented as this.

    No offense taken,you're entitled to your opinion of course, as am I.
  • slimgirljo15
    slimgirljo15 Posts: 269,084 Member
    PaperDoll_ wrote: »
    I like Tea Tree face masks. It leaves my skin nice and glowing. It also smells really nice.

    And for the 10 minutes it’s on, I feel like Kermit the Frog. 🐸

    😂 thanks for the laugh
  • mockchoc
    mockchoc Posts: 6,573 Member
    mockchoc wrote: »
    [I don't know enough about all the science and stuff but going back to some of your earlier posts about police in Australia being more forceful than perhaps they should be. I don't know if they were over the top or what happened in each case but I would only like to chime in on if people aren't doing anything wrong then tell the police where or what you are doing and then they don't need to be doing more to keep everyone safe. Tell them where you are going etc... Show you are where you are supposed to be and don't lie. How hard is that??? Then we are all helping to get this sorted. I'm in Queensland and not seen some of the stuff you say happen either like slimgirlJo in NSW. Yeah ok maybe it's not on the news. Who knows but do the right thing and we'll get over this crap sooner.

    So you aren't concerned, at all, about the authoritarian overreach that made it illegal to go outside and to make a living, in a matter of weeks, with zero due process? That really doesn't bother you, even a tiny bit?
    ReenieHJ wrote: »
    In order for this to turn around in a major way, compliance has to be 100% and that just isn't going to happen here. :(

    Literally no public health effort ever predicts 100% compliance. It's just not possible. Especially considering what we're asking people to give up -- the things that make us human, like social interaction and work. Trying to beat COVID-19 with lockdowns is like trying to beat the HIV epidemic by banning sex. It just goes against human nature, and the longer it goes on, the less possible it becomes for people to continue. (Which is why suicides and drug overdoses are way up this year!)
    Yeah, I have a liberal arts degree. They taught me basic math and physics, though, which is why I think it’s bizarre to say that New Zealand is doing worse than we are. You have 133 times the chance of being dead if you live here versus New Zealand. They may have deaths tomorrow, but... physics... a lot can happen between now and tomorrow, while the people in America who are already dead are not suddenly going to come alive again.

    Maybe you should actually read and comprehend the multiple posts I've already made on why New Zealand's strategy is problematic, then. How do you think they are going to get out of this lockdown?

    Do you realise that is why there are sex toys and hands. You Don't have to have sex with others or just do it with your other half and not half of the town. lol
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 9,523 Member
    Here in California it’s a mandate to wear a mask and I’m glad! In the City of West Hollywood they are now fining people for not wearing a mask and I’m glad! All indoor dining in restaurants is closed but they allow outdoor dining with tables 6 feet apart where mask wearing is not mandated but even then I wear a face shield and have learned to eat under the face shield lol. When I go to the beach in a non-crowded area, I take it off, but that’s it. I think if everyone just wore the stupid mask for 14 days, stayed to themselves and didn’t cheat, we would have been over this months ago! dal354tefra5.jpeg

    9xtb5ce8monu.gif

    Matt Damon, put your mask on and keep your hands away from your face!
  • Here in California it’s a mandate to wear a mask and I’m glad! In the City of West Hollywood they are now fining people for not wearing a mask and I’m glad! All indoor dining in restaurants is closed but they allow outdoor dining with tables 6 feet apart where mask wearing is not mandated but even then I wear a face shield and have learned to eat under the face shield lol. When I go to the beach in a non-crowded area, I take it off, but that’s it. I think if everyone just wore the stupid mask for 14 days, stayed to themselves and didn’t cheat, we would have been over this months ago! dal354tefra5.jpeg

    9xtb5ce8monu.gif

    Matt Damon, put your mask on and keep your hands away from your face!

    Canned footage, but that was clever :)
  • Theoldguy1
    Theoldguy1 Posts: 2,276 Member
    ReenieHJ wrote: »
    Wearing a mask in public, for me, has become like wearing a seat belt. I feel naked without it. Plus it covers my teeth in case I didn't see the broccoli.

    I wear one when required, but counting the days until not required. Will wear seat belt forever.
  • laurenq1991
    laurenq1991 Posts: 384 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    You are attributing stuff that annoys you in the media to me, which is unfair.

    No I didn't. I said "the media" is inaccurately representing statistics. You claimed that Italy had a lower death rate than the US, and I corrected it, with sources.
    Also, I think you are biased (assuming you are describing accurately what it is like around you) in that you are in one of the areas of the country where people may be verbally aggressive to those not wearing masks. Where I am, no one says anything, and it seems like (from what others have said) that in most areas of the country you are more likely to get mocked for wearing a mask.

    Well, I could just as well say you're biased for assuming that in "most" places you are likely to get mocked for wearing a mask. Most metropolitan areas are on the mask-shaming side of things, as are a lot of suburbs. That's not what I've seen online, either. There are videos online from all over the country of people getting yelled at and even beat up for not wearing a mask.
    If Italy doesn't have herd immunity (and the new cases don't seem to be in entirely different parts of Italy than that hit hard before), then we can't assume anyone does.

    Yes, exactly. But my point is, even if Sweden doesn't have herd immunity, their death rate is still on par with many European countries that locked down, such as Italy. Even if they do have an increase in cases at some point, as is happening in Italy, France, etc. it's probably not going to be worse than whatever is happening in these other European countries that locked down, based on historical precedent and the fact they've been open the whole time and therefore likely had more spread so far than these locked-down countries.

    And no matter how long a country locks down, it can't prevent the virus, it can only delay it. So there's no point locking down unless the hospital system is going to be overwhelmed, which, in Sweden, it never was.
    Frankly, what went on in Italy and NYC metro was horrific, and I'd prefer to avoid it elsewhere.

    It hasn't happened anywhere else despite many places being reopened almost totally for months. NY/NJ's situation was obviously due largely to the nursing home mismanagement, as well as poor hospital quality in certain areas (Elmhurst Hospital, for example, is notoriously awful, and was in one of the hardest-hit areas). I don't know what happened in Italy considering they had to triage patients and even NYC didn't, but I know that their medical system gets overwhelmed by the seasonal flu every year, so, maybe it's just not that great.
    In theory, other states here could have seen what was happening with the ones that got hit early and avoided it, and that's why people are saying the states getting hit now (I agree largely fir the first time) should have been more prepared.

    But they did. The case surges now are nothing compared to NYC or Italy. Don't believe the hype. (Source: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm)

    rbeu1i17wy9r.png
    Oh, and we didn't close borders with China in February, not even close,

    Can you do me a favor and at least rudimentarily fact-check these assertions you keep making? Because you keep saying things that are just factually inaccurate. We did restrict travel from China in February, and were criticized for it and called racist at the time. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/02/us/politics/trump-super-bowl-interview-coronavirus.html
    This is where we disagree. It seems to me that what we are doing now is what is prolonging the pandemic.

    How? Can you explain exactly how you think contact tracing and quarantining is going to eliminate the virus, as opposed to just delaying its spread?
    I am not saying any of the things you are arguing against.

    I never said you were.
    Cases will die down again, as they did before. They are quite low compared with ours, and especially look at deaths per capita.

    Ok, so it dies down again, and then what? Everything reopens, cases go up, everything closes, repeat ad infinitum? That's the strategy? If so, what is the end game?
    No one is demanding 100% effectiveness.

    Apparently they are, if entire countries are being shut down over a few hundred cases, and people are demanding shutdown until a vaccine and "if it saves only one life!" Do you think these "shut everything until a vaccine" people are going to accept "oh, wait, the vaccine is only 50 or 70% effective"?
    Schools being reopened in the US in a lot of places would probably lead to more community spread (that was an issue in Israel) because of the number of cases we currently have. And if they lead to even school-focused (students and teachers) outbreaks, the schools will be in a pattern of opening and closing, which is not helpful. I think it is important for schools to be open, as I am worried about the students not getting an education (or showing up at all), which is a problem in my local school district, but with the number of cases we have I don't think they would stay open, and I think we would have a spike. (The most recent studies seem to indicate that earlier beliefs that kids don't spread it are probably wrong.)

    The question is, what is the tradeoff between leaving things open and possibly having a few deaths, and the longer-term health consequences of keeping schools closed? That's a controversial question but that's what officials have to ask. In the H1N1 pandemic, people died as a result of schools being open (someone at my college even did), and yet they mostly stayed open with only a few short-term, localized closures. Now it's considered to be anathema to even bring up the question. Also, it's important to note that countries that left schools open, like Sweden, didn't have much spread within schools. Norway's public health minister stated that she regretted not leaving the schools open and closed them out of "fear."
    But AU actually followed a different path than we did and so didn't have to close schools, etc. The idea that they have been living under this horribly oppressive regime all this time and stuck in their houses since March is really inaccurate.

    When did I ever say they were living under lockdown since March? The lockdown they're living under now is horribly oppressive, but, no, it hasn't been going on since MARCH and I never said it did. However, I doubt they will be out of it anytime soon.
    Also, where I am and where you are, re-opening after two weeks would have likely resulted in hospitals being overwhelmed. My city/state flattened the curve and therefore we didn't end up having the problem with hospital/ICU space it initially looked like we might. But that process was not accomplished after 2 weeks, we weren't to the top of the curve until much later.

    Then why did they tell people it was two weeks, when it was obvious to anyone with a brain that it was going to be longer?

    In the NYC area we could have probably reopened in May or June and been fine. Meanwhile we still aren't reopened fully.
This discussion has been closed.