Run away from no-mask people

[jobo]

In 2015, Rush Limbaugh said the same stuff about smoking, @jobo. He hadn't seen proof, it's not really hurting anyone, etc. He probably convinced a few folks like some notable characters on this forum that warnings about the risks of smoking are overblown and taking away people's liberty etc.

Now he's dying from stage four lung cancer.

well i lived through smoking being a wholesome activity to being a health hazard, and it not the same at all,

there was decades of evidence available and people answered simple questions about it, but they still didn't ban it, why was that ?

if you have the answers to those simple questions please enlighten me or at least say you dont know, rather than going for false equivalency arguments

 

[Graywalker]

freedom generally does give you the right to risk another life

No, no it doesn't.

 

[Steve]

well i lived through smoking being a wholesome activity to being a health hazard, and it not the same at all,

there was decades of evidence available and people answered simple questions about it, but they still didn't ban it, why was that ?

if you have the answers to those simple questions please enlighten me or at least say you dont know, rather than going for false equivalency arguments

You say that they're not the same at all, as though that is a fact. However, I disagree. In my opinion, they are very similar.

Here are a couple of other, very similar situations: chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) in football and soccer players, and black lung in coal miners and people who worked around asbestos. Do some research. In all three cases (smoking, CTE, and black lung) there was a progression over years from denial to deflection to acceptance. We've moved through the entire cycle with Black Lung, though it literally took several decades to go from denial to actually admitting there is a direct causal relationship between breathing asbestos or coal dust and premature death from respiratory failure. We are also at that point with smoking, and the timeframe was very similar. CTE is on a similar timeline, though we're still at the point where we are saying "they know the risks."

Personally, I'm generally okay with people killing themselves slowly if they choose, provided the risks are well known and clear. however, where it starts to affect other people (i.e., secondhand smoke and spreading a contagious virus like COVID-19), I think my right to life and the pursuit of happiness trumps (no pun intended) your right to be a selfish a-hole.

 

[Steve]

No, no it doesn't.

LOL. Risking someone else's life is, depending on the specifics, somewhere on the spectrum from assault to murder, depending on how successful and intentional you are.

 

[jobo]

No, no it doesn't.

well it does, the freedom to put your kid in a car is increasing the risk to that child

 

[Graywalker]

If you wish to enjoy Freedom...you need to understand Individual Responsiblity inside a community ,in order for your freedom to be maintained and respected by those around you.

We need to remember that we share space with others.

 

[Graywalker]

well it does, the freedom to put your kid in a car is increasing the risk to that child

But, you do not have the freedom, in not using a seatbelt...that is where the true risk lays.

You have the freedom to jump off of a cliff, but you do not have the freedom to push another off and risk their lives.

 

[jobo]

You say that they're not the same at all, as though that is a fact. However, I disagree. In my opinion, they are very similar.

Here are a couple of other, very similar situations: chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) in football and soccer players, and black lung in coal miners and people who worked around asbestos. Do some research. In all three cases (smoking, CTE, and black lung) there was a progression over years from denial to deflection to acceptance. We've moved through the entire cycle with Black Lung, though it literally took several decades to go from denial to actually admitting there is a direct causal relationship between breathing asbestos or coal dust and premature death from respiratory failure. We are also at that point with smoking, and the timeframe was very similar. CTE is on a similar timeline, though we're still at the point where we are saying "they know the risks."

Personally, I'm generally okay with people killing themselves slowly if they choose, provided the risks are well known and clear. however, where it starts to affect other people (i.e., secondhand smoke and spreading a contagious virus like COVID-19), I think my right to life and the pursuit of happiness trumps (no pun intended) your right to be a selfish a-hole.

occupation health is one of my numerous post grad qualifications and im aware of all those, i was in the forefront of asbestos control in this country and no they are not at all similar to smoking or the other thinkgs you mentioned

there is an increasing body of evidence about head trauma, have they banned heading footballs or boxing, no they haven't

a government that allows heading of footballs or boxing is failing in its public health duties if there is i controvertible evidence, is there incontrovertible evidence ?

there is no evidence incontrovertible or otherwise that reducing a group size from 8 to 6 has an effect at all on the spread of covid

if im wrong post it up, you can find it easily enough if it exists

 

[Gerry Seymour]

occupation health is one of my numerous post grad qualifications and im aware of all those, i was in the forefront of asbestos control in this country and no they are not at all similar to smoking or the other thinkgs you mentioned

there is an increasing body of evidence about head trauma, have they banned heading footballs or boxing, no they haven't

a government that allows heading of footballs or boxing is failing in its public health duties if there is i controvertible evidence, is there incontrovertible evidence ?

there is no evidence incontrovertible or otherwise that reducing a group size from 8 to 6 has an effect at all on the spread of covid

if im wrong post it up, you can find it easily enough if it exists

Governments tend to balance protection with freedom. Until it impacts others intolerably (either directly, like second-hand smoke - or indirectly, via the economic cost).

 

[lklawson]

No-maskers don't think about the welfare of other people. All they care about is their own welfare, which is why they only care about the effect of the mask on the wearer, not on the people around the wearer.

A big problem with individualist societies is their very narrow definition of "kin."

Or it could be that they don't actually believe that not wearing a mask is harming anyone else, even if you believe it is.

There's no reason to automatically assume (literally) evil intentions and every reason to believe otherwise and the same goes for most people who don't want to wear a mask. It's not because they don't care if they hurt someone else, it's because they don't believe it is hurting anyone else.

 

[jobo]

But, you do not have the freedom, in not using a seatbelt...that is where the true risk lays.

You have the freedom to jump off of a cliff, but you do not have the freedom to push another off and risk their lives.

a seat belt may reduce the risk, the jury is still out on that one with young children

but the kid is more at risk in a car than at home, you have used your freedom to free movement and to own a motor vehicle to increase the risk to another

how many kids die or are injured in multi vehicle pile ups each year whilst sitting in their bed room, not to many i suspect

 

[mograph]

I don't think you understand what Franklin meant when he wrote “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”.

The "essential liberty" was a legislative body's (The Pennsylvania Assembly) freedom to tax landowners (The Penn family, who governed remotely) for Pennsylvania's defense. He was not talking about individual liberty, certainly not in the petty "you can't make me wear a mask" way that some describe it today.

The Assembly wanted to tax the wealthy Penns' lands to pay for defense. The Penns said, "no, you can't ever tax us, but we'll give you some money to pay for the defense, as long as you never tax us. Franklin was writing about the Penns, who offered to purchase temporary safety, but they did not want the essential liberty that comes from a governing body's ability to raise funds to defend the long-term security of the colony.

"... the “essential liberty” to which Franklin referred was thus not what we would think of today as civil liberties but, rather, the right of self-governance of a legislature in the interests of collective security."

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said

 

[jobo]

Governments tend to balance protection with freedom. Until it impacts others intolerably (either directly, like second-hand smoke - or indirectly, via the economic cost).

but it just your circular argument, show that the numbers they have come up are more effective than double the amount or less effective than half the amount

 

[Steve]

well it does, the freedom to put your kid in a car is increasing the risk to that child

One is not free to commit murder, though you can do it. Freedom is doing something without reprisal or repurcussion. Putting your child at risk involves a lot of repurcussion should the child be injured or killed.

This isn't about bubble wrapping everyone. I think most or all countries have safety requirements for kids. If your child is unrestrained and you get into an accident, I am pretty sure than on top of everything else you will be held accountable for failing to take reasonable steps to keep the child safe.

 

[lklawson]

My sister in-law works at a hospital. She sees it everyday and states it is definitely real.

My wife manages a grocery store, and is strict about wearing a mask. She will have your butt arrested if you are not wearing one and refuse to leave. Not one positive case at the store, the other stores were laxed and didn't care, every other store had cases.

Besides, we have been dealing with what to wear in stores as long as I can remember.

"No shoes, no shirt, no service"

Never understood what the big deal is about wearing a mask. Sure I have heard the "Freedom" crowd...but Freedom does not Grant you the right to risk another's life.

The real question at hand is how much does not wearing a mask endanger some one else' life? Those who are opposed generally believe that not wearing a mask does no more to endanger someone else's life than before COVID19.

That's what many in this thread are missing. For some reason, many seem to believe that "no maskers," "bare-faces," or whatever, are just being selfish, immoral, and evil. At best, many seem to believe that they are vastly smarter than the "bare-faces" because they're listening to the "right" experts. Guess what? They think the same thing.

This whole thread is stupid.

It's a bunch of people, on both sides, who are apparently convinced that the other side is either stupid or evil (or both).

You've all segmented into your own private little enclaves, all tribal and everything, and have both started assigning beliefs to "the other side" without ever actually, truly and honestly, looking at what the other side really believes and thinks. This looks very much like the lead up to actual wars between nations where each nation begins assigning evil motives and thoughts to the other. No one cares if what they're hearing about the other side is true or not. They're the "others" and are therefore automatically evil and wrong.

Egads, I hate humans sometimes. Feh!

You guys have fun with your thread here where each side mentally dehumanizes the other. I'm going to go to the corner and pray for a giant asteroid. Maybe the next species God puts here won't be such giant dumazzes.

 

[jobo]

One is not free to commit murder, though you can do it. Freedom is doing something without reprisal or repurcussion. Putting your child at risk involves a lot of repurcussion should the child be injured or killed.

freedom is the ability to make choices, the state restricts some choices, like murder or put caveats on them, like a driving licence

but the point im dealing with is the state does not restrict all choices that increase the risk to others,
i spent a big chunk of my life doing risk assessment that could seriously impact the well being of others. the government required it, they didn't expect more of us than to reduce the risk to an ''acceptable'' amount, that was and still is a value judgement of cost against consequence

we were still putting people at risk

if you accept that, then we can avoid a circular argument

 

[mograph]

Or it could be that they don't actually believe that not wearing a mask is harming anyone else, even if you believe it is.

There's no reason to automatically assume (literally) evil intentions and every reason to believe otherwise and the same goes for most people who don't want to wear a mask. It's not because they don't care if they hurt someone else, it's because they don't believe it is hurting anyone else.

Well, it's not as if non-maskers are epidemiologists who have done multiple studies that show that masks are completely ineffective in protecting people around the mask wearer. In other words, non-maskers have no direct evidence of the complete ineffectiveness of masks: there is uncertainty, from their perspective.

Scientists say something, government says something, and nobody is seeing people drop like flies in the streets, foaming at the mouth. There is conflicting information. There is uncertainty.

So, in the face of uncertainty, they do not decide to be prudent.
They do not decide to wear a mask just in case it might actually protect other people.

They want to think of themselves as strong, independent people, partly because of their national culture.
But they also want to think of themselves as good, caring people (not evil).

But what do they do? How do they resolve this conflict, this cognitive dissonance?
They tell themselves that they are not hurting people in order to maintain their self-image as both strong, and caring: they tell themselves (and others) that masks do not protect other people.

People do this sort of thing all the time.

 

[lklawson]

Well, it's not as if non-maskers are epidemiologists who have done multiple studies that show that masks are completely ineffective in protecting people around the mask wearer. In other words, non-maskers have no direct evidence of the complete ineffectiveness of masks: there is uncertainty, from their perspective.

Scientists say something, government says something, and nobody is seeing people drop like flies in the streets, foaming at the mouth. There is conflicting information. There is uncertainty.

So, in the face of uncertainty, they do not decide to be prudent.
They do not decide to wear a mask just in case it might actually protect other people.

They want to think of themselves as strong, independent people, partly because of their national culture.
But they also want to think of themselves as good, caring people (not evil).

But what do they do? How do they resolve this conflict, this cognitive dissonance?
They tell themselves that they are not hurting people in order to maintain their self-image as both strong, and caring: they tell themselves (and others) that masks do not protect other people.

People do this sort of thing all the time.

Run away from no-mask people

 

[Deleted member 39746]

To your addendum - it shouldn't be about "have to". It's such an easy thing for anyone to do, unless they have really severe asthma or emphezema or such (in which case, they should be protecting themselves in every way they possibly can, as they are at very high risk). And while outdoors is usually less dangerous for transmission (air currents break up the "clouds" of virus people leave in the air, so there's no high concentration), that's only true in relatively sparsely populated areas. If 40 people are hanging around together outside, that has the potential to overcome that advantage (unless there's a strong wind).

its very much the minority that wear them outside, and when they dont have to. Its not the law to wear them outside here so the police cant do anything, and thats also why there is a space reccomendation and a group size limit.

I dont overly care anymore, i am probbly going to get what ever if i get what ever.

 

[lklawson]

I dont overly care anymore, i am probbly going to get what ever if i get what ever.

Remember, when you "flatten the curve," the area under the curve is still the same.