The core point of this paper is that despite researchers not agreeing on the effectiveness of masks, even slight effectiveness can have exponential results due to the way communities spread viruses. My specific concerns aren't actually addressed. The researchers of this paper would have used standard statistic distributions likely mapping virus transmission in populations not already expecting to social distance etc... (i don't have time to completely verify this but it's a plausible assumption on my part because that tends to be what researchers do) to assess probability and avoid specific adjustments for human behavior, as I indicated.
Regardless, masks do work somewhat seems to be the evidence. Somewhat of it working is better than nothing seems to be the sentiment. That is ultimately the argument. I would agree with this sentiment but that's an individual choice not something that should be government mandated.
Why were we not required to wear masks prior to covid-19? Why is it right for the government to force this on citizens? Viruses are a part of nature and we shouldn't be giving up our individual liberties over a virus with such a small death rate. If you feel covid-19 is a risk then wear a mask. It will still be effective for you. Yes, it would be more effective if other people wore masks but you'd also have less chance of dying from a car crash if more people rode bikes to work etc... It is not anyone's place to force masks on other people.
Just like with gun control or any other issue. It's a liberty vs. safety issue at its core. And how long do you want this to go on for? You're opening up the floodgates with these masks. What happens if there's no vaccine? Then what? Masks forever? What if covid-19 goes away? Now you've set a precedent that all people should wear masks to avoid viral transmissions so we should be wearing one for the flu, which also kills many people. What happens if there is a vaccine but compliance for the vaccine is low? You realize people will advocate that we keep wearing masks because low vaccine uptake + social distancing + masks is even better protection? Thus we've now cornered ourselves into a situation where the masks never end. Worse yet, people who want the masks to end will start coming up with vaccine passports to encourage more people to get the vaccine so we can stop wearing masks. Masks will start to be used as a weapon against people to force vaccinations.
The whole thing is wrong wrong wrong. The good from mandated mask use does not outweigh the bad. I am perfectly fine accepting masks probably help somewhat but it should be up to every individual to choose to wear a mask or not.
Interesting, I thought you were a little more pro-mask. While there does exist a group of "masks are completely ineffective, period" group. I'd say many of these people are just taking that stance because they're mostly against them having to be forced or socially guilt tripped into wearing one.
On the flip-side to these anti-mask to the extreme people, there are pro-mask people to the extreme. I've seen people try to blame a lack of mask use on everything. If a covid-19 stat is bad, it's because no one is wearing masks. To these people masks are the difference between a second lock-down or not and it's a do or die situation for them to such an extent that people are getting killed for not wearing masks.
The reality is that a second lock-down will be decided by the government and no amount of mask wearing or not will decide if there's a second lock-down because there is no actual metric by which to measure whether one should actually engage in a second lock-down or not. We could literally not lock-down anything, not mandate masks and open everything. There's no reason we can't. A choice of a lock-down is a choice and masks are never going to be the make or break to someone making that choice. The hysteria of mask wearing goes both ways, which is another reason governments shouldn't be mandating on masks and staying the hell away from them because they're too political for such little gain.
The core point of this paper is that despite researchers not agreeing on the effectiveness of masks, even slight effectiveness can have exponential results due to the way communities spread viruses. My specific concerns aren't actually addressed. The researchers of this paper would have used standard statistic distributions likely mapping virus transmission in populations not already expecting to social distance etc... (i don't have time to completely verify this but it's a plausible assumption on my part because that tends to be what researchers do) to assess probability and avoid specific adjustments for human behavior, as I indicated.
Regardless, masks do work somewhat seems to be the evidence. Somewhat of it working is better than nothing seems to be the sentiment. That is ultimately the argument. I would agree with this sentiment but that's an individual choice not something that should be government mandated.
Why were we not required to wear masks prior to covid-19? Why is it right for the government to force this on citizens? Viruses are a part of nature and we shouldn't be giving up our individual liberties over a virus with such a small death rate. If you feel covid-19 is a risk then wear a mask. It will still be effective for you. Yes, it would be more effective if other people wore masks but you'd also have less chance of dying from a car crash if more people rode bikes to work etc... It is not anyone's place to force masks on other people.
Just like with gun control or any other issue. It's a liberty vs. safety issue at its core. And how long do you want this to go on for? You're opening up the floodgates with these masks. What happens if there's no vaccine? Then what? Masks forever? What if covid-19 goes away? Now you've set a precedent that all people should wear masks to avoid viral transmissions so we should be wearing one for the flu, which also kills many people. What happens if there is a vaccine but compliance for the vaccine is low? You realize people will advocate that we keep wearing masks because low vaccine uptake + social distancing + masks is even better protection? Thus we've now cornered ourselves into a situation where the masks never end. Worse yet, people who want the masks to end will start coming up with vaccine passports to encourage more people to get the vaccine so we can stop wearing masks. Masks will start to be used as a weapon against people to force vaccinations.
The whole thing is wrong wrong wrong. The good from mandated mask use does not outweigh the bad. I am perfectly fine accepting masks probably help somewhat but it should be up to every individual to choose to wear a mask or not.
Interesting, I thought you were a little more pro-mask. While there does exist a group of "masks are completely ineffective, period" group. I'd say many of these people are just taking that stance because they're mostly against them having to be forced or socially guilt tripped into wearing one.
On the flip-side to these anti-mask to the extreme people, there are pro-mask people to the extreme. I've seen people try to blame a lack of mask use on everything. If a covid-19 stat is bad, it's because no one is wearing masks. To these people masks are the difference between a second lock-down or not and it's a do or die situation for them to such an extent that people are getting killed for not wearing masks.
The reality is that a second lock-down will be decided by the government and no amount of mask wearing or not will decide if there's a second lock-down because there is no actual metric by which to measure whether one should actually engage in a second lock-down or not. We could literally not lock-down anything, not mandate masks and open everything. There's no reason we can't. A choice of a lock-down is a choice and masks are never going to be the make or break to someone making that choice. The hysteria of mask wearing goes both ways, which is another reason governments shouldn't be mandating on masks and staying the hell away from them because they're too political for such little gain.