The infuriating rise of anti science behavior in every corner of society.

submitted by Bogos from self.GenderCritical

There is zero difference between the imaginary thinking of anti-vaxxers (people who don’t vaccinate at all), anti-maskers, and TRA ideology claiming gender is sex, and biology doesn’t exist.

This is infuriating and we are sliding backwards as a society. We are letting group think regulate scientific and government policy. It’s ironic that TRA ideology in its current form (denial of biology) has emerged during Trumps term- this is the mirror image of what the right is doing. Edit: I’m criticizing the left in this one point for being non GC. The other anti science points are on both sides, though the US president is dangerously ignorant himself and drives the anti-mask problem.

I’m just so fed up. I can’t search for any women’s health term or explanation without a call out to trans women and notice that they might not experience the same thing. Yes, because they are biological men- even in the most understanding and sympathetic interpretation how can this be the best way forward for the medical community?

all 94 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 60 insightful - 2 fun60 insightful - 1 fun61 insightful - 2 fun -  (28 children)

It bothers me, too. The anti-science left that hypocritically holds "science" in an almost religious regard compared to the right, yet doesn't actually understand science. It's baffling. The best I can come up with is that as a society, we've upheld religious beliefs to equal fact. Kansas teaches intelligent design alongside evolution because we're a country founded on religious freedom, and we have to respect everyone's beliefs. Along the way, the line has blurred for those without much scientific (and sometimes with plenty of it) education and literacy combined with having to be nice and respect all beliefs has led us here.

[–]Bogos[S] 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

Yes, a lot of what I said exists on both left and right. What issues do you have with the left specifically in regard to science, beyond what I mentioned ?

[–][deleted] 22 insightful - 1 fun22 insightful - 0 fun23 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

You've basically summed it up - though, I think there's an argument to be made for holistic medicine folks. I'm not necessarily dismissing herbal or traditional medicines, but for some, it becomes an ideology not based in reality (I'm thinking the essential oil women).

[–]Bogos[S] 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I sympathize with that completely. I have someone close to me and everything is solved with magic drops

[–]catoboros 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

The placebo effect is real. Placebos have a place where evidence-based medicine is ineffective or has intolerable side-effects.

[–][deleted] 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I mean, we could argue the same about the families that try to pray away their children's illness with the placebo effect. It's still anti-science to believe in essential oils or healing prayer.

[–]catoboros 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Not quite. Double-blind studies have shown prayer to have either no effect (if unknown to the object) or be slightly harmful (if known to the object). Cardiac patients, if I recall correctly.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Why are we treating science like a God? Maybe science doesn't know everything. They can't even explain consciousness.

[–]Realwoman 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Science is very much aware many things are unknown and scientists always point that out. Every scientific paper includes limitations. Woo, on the other hand, claims to have all the answers and the claims are not supported by evidence or they're unfalsifiable. You can objectively prove if a treatment works for a certain condition and after the evidence has been well established, the method becomes regulars medicine.

[–]Bitchcraft 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Science is based on epistemic humility. As in: "we concede we don't know things and the burden of proof is on the one proposing an explanation".

Pro-Science people don't say "science knows everything". Pro-Science people say "science is the best chance we have to figure out the most". The reason science can't explain consciousness is because currently there is no approach to explaining consciousness that doesn't involve pulling things out of your ass, which science rejects.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Science is massively politically driven. According to current science, gender dysphoria is no longer a mental illness (even thought it was just until a few years ago). Should we assume that this is the only area where politics takes precedence over fact?

[–]Bitchcraft 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

According to current science

Science is a method, not an opinion. Some academics say that, and many oppose then. Academia and science are also not the same thing. There are many areas where the opinions of scientists are split, political or not. Science can't and shouldn't work as an authority. It's a practice. You don't need a license to apply scientific methods and have an opinion on a subject in scientific discourse.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Psychology is a social "science" that desperately wants to be a physical science with a pretty horrible history to that fact.

[–]OrneryStruggle 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

To be fair most contemporary psychology research is actually biology research, and involves stuff like staining brain slices, genetically engineering rats to have cancer to measure their hormone levels, etc.

But the woo-woo "personality psychology" and clinical psych fields are... a mess. Anything to do with the DSM in particular is politicking all the way through.

[–]Lilith_Fair 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Antivax is not limited to the right. It crosses party line and there are a lot of holistic, hippie types who buy into all that, as well as all the Gwenyth Paltrow Goop crap. I've seen tons of lib-fem type moms-the kind who are all into natural foods, everything "natural" and organic, save-the-earth types who are very much antivax too. They blog about it with arguments backed by "science".

[–]RestingWitchface 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think the reason why many women are into natural foods, alternative therapies, etc. is because the mainstream healthcare system has failed them so badly. I have a lot of personal experience with this – in 2013, I became very sick with a severe virus and nobody could help me. I was sick for years on end, and I basically had doctors telling me I was mentally ill (despite testing positive for the virus showing a very clear trigger). When I was in this position, alternative therapies became very attractive because they offered to actually help me. The one I tried actually did help. I am not an anti-vaxxer, but I completely sympathise with women who have no trust in medicine/science, because I have experienced its failings first-hand. I think the medical community should start taking responsibility for those failures rather than painting those women as crazy or naive. It has been my experience more than a few times that the advice I got from other women was better than anything offered by my doctor.

[–]OrneryStruggle 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I tried some alternative therapies for some of my health issues which actually had a good track record of showing efficacy in clinical trials - a lot of medications that actually work are only "naturopathic" because they are natural and thus can be sold OTC without a script, but can do similar things to drugs on the market. Ephedra is one example from Chinese medicine. For a lot of women with weird health issues no one knows how to treat, this makes naturopathic medicines attractive I think BECAUSE it is all OTC and doesn't require a prescription, and therefore self-medication is possible.

They actually did help (I had a very clearly quantifiable symptom which resolved almost immediately upon starting them), and my GP ended up telling me to keep it up, so it's not even like doctors don't accept "alternative" therapies at times. I had a specialist actually recommend an OTC "natural" medicine for a symptom once.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Anti vax is most definitely not a conservative stance. Almost majority of the anti vaxxers I know are liberals. Places like Mississippi and other republican states have made it compulsory to have vaccines to attend public schools vs California and New York that have made it optional if parents object. I feel like politically anti vaxxers definitely lean liberal.

[–]denverkris 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You think right wingers are anti vax? I thought that was a lefty thing.

[–]Aquadog 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I've seen it in 3 spheres:

  1. Granola people.

  2. Conspiracy-theorist "Vaccines make you gay"/big pharma etc.

  3. Whataboutism people who were probably vaccinated but want to play "devil's advocate."

[–]denverkris 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ya, I know several number 1's who are super far left that are anti vax.

[–]Realwoman 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Donald Trump has expressed anti vax sentiments

[–]denverkris 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Ok. And so has Jenny McCarthy.

[–]Realwoman 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I was just giving you an example of a right wing leader with anti vax beliefs. A lot of left wing people and people with no political affiliation have those same beliefs, too

[–]denverkris 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

That's fine. May just be that all the irl anti vaxxers I know are super left leaning, whereas I dont any right wingers with those sentiments. But that's certainly not proof of anything.

[–]arc-en-ciel 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

How can any science class teach intelligent design and still claim to be scientific? Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom to misinform.

[–]Archie 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you. I miss downvotes sometimes, there is no way to know if people actually approve of this post or if it's just old enough to have accumulated them. No public school should be teaching religious theories, that's not what religious freedom is.

[–]jkfinn 22 insightful - 1 fun22 insightful - 0 fun23 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I understand what you're attempting to say about the rise of Trumpsters and transgender, but actually the only resistance to trans in the U.S. is from the right (apart from GC critics). I do believe that liberalism is trans' most potent support system, even though trans is a reactionary cult.

[–]Jamiethiel2018 22 insightful - 1 fun22 insightful - 0 fun23 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

God, I wish, unfortunately Obama, by executive order, redefined sex to mean gender identity in Title IX. I certainly had no idea. Odd it wasn't publicized as the civil rights breakthrough of our time. Edit: spelling.

[–]leculdesac 21 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 0 fun22 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The Pritzker (transgender) medical empire is a big donor and influence behind Obama. They'll step right back in when the Biden-Placeholder-DNC candidate wins in November. God help us all. Terrible choices in front of us.

[–]Jamiethiel2018 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Exactly, and it would come as no surprise if big pharma played both sides to influence policy.

It's an unusually uncomfortable position to be in. I wonder how many working class & poor families went with the enemy of my enemy is my friend in the last election. I've certainly come out wiser, but Jesus, the cost is too damn high.

I'm going to see what Libertarians are actually saying, though I'm not going in open minded.

[–]Yubin 19 insightful - 1 fun19 insightful - 0 fun20 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

imho that is because people pick one "scientist" or misinterpret some scientific study, or pick one that is biased in the first place, and then blindly believe in it and label everyone who criticises it as "science-denier". Criticising and questioning is the very basis of science. Its a problem when someone doesn't allow criticism and shuts everything down with "but scientist x said its like that!!", that applies to anti-vaxxers just as much as to "the climate apocalypse is comming!" doomers.

The WHO scientists believed in December 2019 that CoVid can't be transmitted from human to human. The UN climate scientists believed 10 years ago that the Arctic would be ice free by 2020.

[–]Archie 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

They didn't "believe" that, it was the latest information that they got. This is weird, you understand how a single study is not enough information, and then in your last paragraph you talk as if they were not aware of it.

[–]Yubin 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

nah, those are examples about how you can justify every believe with "science" if you are just cherry picking and unscientific enough.

You can also use it as an example about how "scientists" can be biased. The IPCC, the UN scientists who make prognoses about climate change, still exist and still believe the very same thing, they just postpone the apocalypse every 10 years by 10 years. You will never hear the IPCC say "ok, we were wrong 10 years ago and adjusted our methods and will analyse how we could be so wrong" - which would be the scientific approach. They have a systematic bias, because if they wouldn't have a most-recent apocalypse to run after, they would lose funding. You can argue if they are right now or not, but you can't argue their bias away.

Same with the WHO. When they made their statement about CoVid not being able to be transmitted from human to human, it was their reaction to counter scientists who said that CoVid should be taken serious and is a threat. The statement itself was politically motivated. They could have just NOT said anything as long as they don't know.

If you want to spread fake news and disinformations about CoVid, look no further, the WHO has statements according to every bias you want. i.e. the latest information by the WHO is that asymptomatic transmission is rare and unlikely, which means that face masks useless. If you want to be an anti-masker, use the statements of the "scientists" of the WHO.

Every "science denier" movement is based on a biased scientist or organisation that they blindly believe in. NEVER believe a study without knowing it's methods and possible bias.

[–]Sun_bear 18 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 0 fun19 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

When you say anti-masker, do you mean people who are skeptical about the efficiency of home-made cloth masks for preventing viruses from spreading? Because there's hardly an overwhelming body of evidence that proves such masks are beneficial and there's plenty of evidence that says the opposite, see here for example:

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577

[–]Bogos[S] 45 insightful - 2 fun45 insightful - 1 fun46 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

There’s plenty of evidence demonstrating masks lessen transmission. Nothing is 100%.

Further the virus is spread through respiratory droplets, common sense will tell you masks lessen the droplets hitting other people. That doesn’t mean you should have a false sense of security, it is one measure but also one very easily implemented .

You link cloth vs medical mask- buy a medical mask they are widely available.

Masks work:

https://www.brighamandwomens.org/about-bwh/newsroom/press-releases-detail?id=3608

[–]catoboros 15 insightful - 2 fun15 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

There is also evidence that masks reduce inoculum size, that is, droplets that get through are smaller, resulting in less severe disease because the immune system has longer to mount a defence.

[–]OrneryStruggle 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You responded to an actual peer reviewed study with thousands of participants with a press release about a correlation that most likely is NOT causally related, lmao. This in no way proves masks "work" and it certainly doesn't prove that cloth masks work.

Medical N95 masks (the ones that have some plausible/somewhat evidenced efficacy) are impossible or difficult to purchase for most regular people right now, you need to be trained how to wear them and have them fitted, and they reduce blood oxygen levels which can result in things like road accidents when people pass out wearing them.

[–]venecia 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It really depends on the region of the world. I have a feeling that masks are recommended in the USA because... well... it's a giant fucking petri dish and everyone has it, so anything that MIGHT help at this point is considered a win.

In my country the outbreak has been very well under control, the curve flattened, and we've mostly reopened, and pretty much no one wore masks for routine trips to the shops etc. It was judged by our health authority that the risk of people improperly handling/laundering cloth masks (as untrained people are gonna do) actually adds unnecessary risk for little reward. When that changes, maybe the recommendation will too, because trust in the truth still mostly matters here!

[–]Camberian 20 insightful - 2 fun20 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Masks have been proven to protect very recently and conclusively. They do not protect the wearer overly much (depending on type), they protect the others from you spreading the virus. The scientific and peer reviewed tests have been done years ago, during the heyday of influenza and SARS-1. There have - again - been recent tests, e.g. in the entire city of Jena, as well as scientific tests in lab conditions, which all prove the same thing.

The reason why quite a few countries chose not to acknowledge that masks help, was not because of potential improper handling or unnecessary risks. It was because in all of these countries there were not enough masks available for the entire population, especially medical-grade masks. A lot of these countries are currently coming about 100% now that masks have become widely available again.

[–]venecia 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh yeah, you definitely have a point. They didn't want people using surgical masks and to save those for first responders.

We did have our national guidelines that specifically mentioned improper handling, and a few groups have disagreed and pushed for an all-masks policy, but for now the government is opting out. Aside from like, trains and buses, we all socially distance as default lol.

[–]OrneryStruggle 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Where's that conclusive proof then? You must have heard of it before the WHO did.

Countries making masks mandatory when COVID-19 is no longer an epidemic there and in the middle of non-flu season is just hilarious security theater to make it seem like politicians are doing something to "keep people safe" when they're actually safe because the epidemic is over.

[–]WildApples 17 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

There is a massive difference between denying the existence and effect of concrete, biological facts like sex chromosomes and questioning abstract scientific theories that are based on hypotheses extrapolated from artificial laboratory conditions. There are many ways to misrepresent and overstate scientific results, and there are are many logical fallacies and forms of groupthink perpetuated in the name of science. Science has been used and misused for centuries to corroborate prejudicial ideas and foist erroneous information on the public. The simple fact that someone appeals to scientific authority does not in itself make something factual or correct. I am more concerned about people who approach science from an anti-intellectual, religious perspective and get upset when people question "Science." True science is based on questioning. That is how scientific consensus improves, and sound theories are able to withstand doubts and questions. Getting upset that people dare to question a consensus is itself anti-scientific and comes from the same illiberal place that TRA ideology comes from. It is all about trying to force one's beliefs on everyone else and eliminate discourse.

[–]Bogos[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

Care to explain further? So you’re saying there’s convincing evidence that you shouldn’t vaccinate at all or wear a mask in public? Could you provide a study to back up your opinion? Because i would be happy to engage in discussion of those or similar topics- whatever it is that you think people accept blindly in the name of “science.”

[–]Oneofthesesigns 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Not the person you replied to but but some of the biggest pop science is based on this misunderstanding of how lab science applies to the real world. Remember Bt corn and the monarch butterflies? Time ran a watered down version of the science basically that bt corn pollen is the leading cause of monarch population decline. Ok the study they cited didn't say that and time's target audience is a) not inclined to read the actual study and b) not scientifically literate enough to understand it.

Now to apply that to masks. Is woven cotton fabric capable of stopping a free floating virus? No, but that doesn't mean there aren't real world factors at play that cause masks to reduce the spread that aren't present when testing if cotton fabric blocks viruses. Do masks stop droplets, people from touching their face, picking their nose? Do they serve as a reminder that there is a pandemic and cause people to alter their behavior/hygiene in other ways?

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'll give you an example of how scientific studies can be manufactured to promote an agenda. I'm not saying the same applies to everything but treating science like a religion to just believe everything that comes out of scientists is the same as blindly believing in a religion.

50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists To Point Blame At Fat

[–]Rationalmind 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I can't ever tell if anti-vaxxers are right or left wing. Anti-vaxx could be the most overlap because it has both Christian Science and crunchy hippy.

You get anti-maskers but you also get public health experts denying that protests are linked to covid case increases.

Allowing anyone to suppress inconvenient facts is our downfall. There should be safeguards against this selfish behavior

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It really pisses me off that they are saying the protests didn’t cause a rise when the spike coincides with the protests. 60000 people in Seattle somehow didn’t cause a spike. Some hundred at a beach did. Such a load of bullshit.

[–]Rationalmind 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Exactly, it’s bullshit. Welcome to the left’s gaslighting. I felt crazy until I watched The Hill on YouTube: https://youtu.be/EkDh5BmMkdY

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The reasoning they gave us is that they wore masks and they were moving. 60000 people don’t move that fast. They moved like molasses. They also have jobs in restaurants and bars and other places that can transmit it. Also do people think they were being honest when asked? Did Washington actually have that many contact tracers to follow up with 60000 people? Their hand waving away these gatherings while admonishing picnics or even any outdoor activities, where by the way people followed strict social distancing by easily 50 feet, really didn’t help people trust government directives. You shouldn’t mix politics with science because people need to be able to trust their leaders. Our rise in cases is definitely because each political side is being negligent.

[–]Rationalmind 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Agreed. Also from what I could tell the protestors were not good at wearing masks. About 1/3 weren’t in a mask and another 2/3 would take them off to scream, do an interview, or just adjust their comfort.

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

This post really bothers me because of how anti-science, or at least ignorant of science, it comes across as. I'm not familiar with the evidence for and against vaccinations, so can't really comment on that. I did do some reading on masks at the beginning of the pandemic and there doesn't seem to be any real scientific support for people to wear masks other than well-fitted N95 masks in health care settings. The sex vs gender thing is the one with the most obvious evidence, but it wouldn't be science if people weren't allowed to ask questions and figure it out for themselves. Science, when it works right, stands up to scrutiny so doesn't need to be afraid of it, and even welcomes it to make sure findings stand up to scrutiny. There are plenty of scientific questions where the answers are not as cut-and-dried as the media/popular opinion (or the oversimplified stories they tell undergraduates for that matter) make them out to be.

We are letting group think regulate scientific and government policy.

Well, yes, this happens. Group think interferes with science by cherry-picking or pushing for answers prematurely. Science is a method for figuring things out, and policy is often unscientific because of people's emotions. I would argue this is true for both pushing gender identity and pushing masks. I would argue that the "consensus" on human-caused global warming is also oversimplified. I'm not sure that matters as much in the short term, but in the long term it might emphasize the wrong solutions.

I am often disappointed in how ideologically-driven radical feminism is. It is strongest when it is evidence-based, and I wish it were that way all the time, but no, out comes the dogma time and time again.

I think to be good at science you have to get comfortable with both not having answers and also finding answers you don't like. Living with ambiguity rather than needing certainty. Science can't give you certainty a lot of the time, but it may give you options you hadn't thought of for solving problems.

I assume I will get blocked for this opinion. Whatever. I'm grateful to those who respond objectively on this sort of thing.

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun -  (9 children)

How is it anti science? It's common knowledge that putting a physical barrier over one's mouth and nose helps reduce the spread of respiratory diseases. It's the reason we are taught to cover our mouths when we cough or sneeze. That's what a mask does.

|I did do some reading on masks at the beginning of the pandemic and there doesn't seem to be any real scientific support for people to wear masks other than well-fitted N95 masks in health care settings.

They key here being "at the beginning of the pandemic". When this all started the CDC was advising against the use of surgical masks because 1. they do not protect the wearer and 2. there were concerns about healthcare professionals not having enough supplies. Both very valid points. Medical experts have since changed their stance on masks since this started as we've learned more about the virus and how it spreads. Use of cloth masks is now encouraged and even mandated in many states.

No, you won't find data suggesting that face masks protect the wearer unless it's an N-95. We can agree there. However it's not about whether they protect the wearer, it's about protecting others from the wearer's respiratory droplets. The data gathered suggests that novel coronavirus can be transmitted through people who are pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic. It is different from many other illnesses in that you do not need to show symptoms to be contagious. If everyone wears a mask when in public indoor spaces, including those who don't yet know they're infected or possibly may never know they're infected, it functions as a sort of herd immunity by reducing the rate of transmission.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I second this. The reason WHY people ask you to wear masks is to protect others not yourself. We are learning more and more about this disease so what was said in December may not be valid now as we learn more about it.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I know WHY, thanks. I did my reading in February, and was reading on masks, not Covid-19, where there has been considerably less new information.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

  • Lumping three different issues together as if they are all the same. If there is a problem with interpretation of findings in one area, discuss that in detail instead of throwing up your hands at people who disagree with you and saying they don't know how to science properly. Maybe some of them do, and you are the one who doesn't.
  • Using group-think to combat group-think. There is much more scientific consensus in some areas than in others, but even when there is consensus, scientists may change their minds down the road.

Specifically wrt masks, a century of research vs a few months of panic? I highly doubt that there has been so much peer-reviewed experimental research that has come out on mask-wearing in the last few months (that for some reason didn't show up in headlines or on r/coronavirus) that I need to update my reading already. For me it all comes across as emotional labour: wear masks to help keep others calm, because so many people are just not used to dealing with health risks and get freaked out about it. As a disabled person in chronic poverty who just does not have the spoons for all this, I am tired of always being asked to cater to others' emotional needs. If you're sick, stay home. Cover your coughs and sneezes. Give people room to breathe. Wear a mask if you want. But don't make me "perform" safety with homemade masks because you're anxious. TBH this reminds me a lot of the panic and over-reaction to 9/11 by people who were surprised something like that could happen.

[–]OrneryStruggle 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You are entirely correct that masks are just safety theater to make people feel safer and calmer and like they are "doing something."

I am also sick of being asked to make my chronically ill ass sicker so that other people feel like they have control over nature.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

"Lumping three different issues together as if they are all the same. " OP did not say they were exactly the same, but the science denial is shared between those three groups.

"Using group-think to combat group-think." Where did OP say we should combat the current TRA and anti-vaxx groupthink with more groupthink? By calling the president dangerously ignorant? By saying the anti mask movement is a problem?

"even when there is consensus, scientists may change their minds down the road." This is literally what happened when the CDC changed its stance on masks since the pandemic started, yet you're adamant you don't need to update your readings on how medical experts have changed their advice.

" I am tired of always being asked to cater to others' emotional needs" I'd understand if we were discussing emotional needs, but there is nothing "emotional" about harm reduction with regard to keeping vulnerable populations healthy and trying not to overburden the healthcare system.

" If you're sick, stay home. Cover your coughs and sneezes." Many who are infected do not know soon enough to self isolate and are not staying home.

"Give people room to breathe" https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0764_article

Article about how keeping your distance is not enough when air conditioning recirculates air in an enclosed space. Granted, this was in a restaurant, and people can't feasibly wear masks when eating, but the same concept applies to any enclosed space with a similar airflow.

" But don't make me "perform" safety with homemade masks because you're anxious." "Don't make me "perform" safety by driving the speed limit in a school zone because you're anxious." That's how this comes across. People are not simply "anxious". People are dying, and the ones that aren't are getting so sick they require resources hospitals may not have due to increased capacity and decreased availability of PPE. I don't know how to express to you that the minor inconvenience of wearing a mask could save lives and ensure hospital workers can give adequate care to all of their patients.

[–]OrneryStruggle 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The people acting like real scientific criticisms of politically-motivated public policy are "anti-science" are the real scientific illiterates here.

And nah, it's actually disabled and chronically ill people with serious conditions who are being harmed by this security theater, the lack of access to medical care was bad enough but the mask hysteria is adding insult to injury. It is vulnerable people who are harmed by these political ploys, actually.

You can choose to drive or not. Driving is not a basic right in any society. When you drive you agree to conform to rules that, when conformed to, maintain your driving privileges. This is not the same as impinging on people's basic rights to exist in a free society.

[–]OrneryStruggle 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, stopping the spray of saliva and mucus when you cough or sneeze (i.e., are having a symptom of illness) prevents the spread of symptomatic illness. Your elbow also is not porous.

This does not at all translate to "common knowledge" that masks reduce the spread of respiratory diseases. In fact there is basically no high quality evidence of any kind that masks reduce the spread of respiratory diseases, ESPECIALLY in asymptomatic people who likely cannot spread them at all. If there were any such evidence someone would have produced and acknowledged it already, but no one appears to be able to find any.

You are entirely wrong that any gathered data suggests sarscov2 is spread by asymptomatic people. No such data exists.

[–]Bogos[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

This post is not anti-science. In case you haven’t noticed thousands of people are dying due to scientific ignorance. All you have to do is look at countries and states where the virus is under control and where its not.

I would be happy to engage with you and discuss any study you would like.

Your understanding of COVID is anti-science and the reason we are in this position.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I disagree with almost everything you've said in your reply. As I said above in reply to someone else, I have problems with:

  • Lumping three different issues together as if they are all the same. If there is a problem with interpretation of findings in one area, discuss that in detail instead of throwing up your hands at people who disagree with you and saying they don't know how to science properly. Maybe some of them do, and you are the one who doesn't.
  • Using group-think to combat group-think. There is much more scientific consensus in some areas than in others, but even when there is consensus, scientists may change their minds down the road

Are you a scientist? I'm unemployed but have three science degrees and two publications in two fields, and have read published studies on these issues. I'm not really interested in engaging with people who make sweeping generalities (I've tried on other issues but find it too exhausting and frustrating) but do enjoy discussing details with fellow science nerds.

I do NOT want to get into the mask issue with you.

All I want is for people to not lump mask-deniers in with sex-deniers, thanks.

[–]OrneryStruggle 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I am a currently working scientist and I agree w/ you and thank you for your thoughtful posts on this thread, this whole narrative as a scientist has just been exhausting. A bunch of people with no clue how the scientific method works screaming at people who are actually informing themselves that they're "anti-science" is just another thing I didn't feel like dealing with this year.

[–]OrneryStruggle 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It is scientific ignorance to think you can "control" a virus.

[–]Archie 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Those are good points to keep in mind in general, but FYI there's plenty of support that the virus is mostly transmitted by aerosols (droplets of water when you breath and speak), and they are stopped by any kind of mask.

[–]OrneryStruggle 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Aerosols are not and cannot be stopped by masks.

Only droplets (which are not the same thing as aerosols) would be, and only by certain kinds of masks, and only for a short time before the mask has to be thrown out.

[–]Archie 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Stop talking with so much confidence about stuff you know nothing about.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7185834/

Overall, we find that combinations of various commonly available fabrics used in cloth masks can potentially provide significant protection against the transmission of aerosol particles.

Where "significant" = up to 95% of particles.

[–]OrneryStruggle 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

From the study you linked:

"It is important to note that in the realistic situation of masks worn on the face without elastomeric gasket fittings (such as the commonly available cloth and surgical masks), the presence of gaps between the mask and the facial contours will result in “leakage” reducing the effectiveness of the masks. "

The study goes on to say that there is a huge drop in efficacy if even 1% of the air leaks - but of course, much more than 1% of air leaks when a real mask is being worn. They also note "Opportunities for future studies include cloth mask design for better “fit” and the role of factors such as humidity (arising from exhalation) and the role of repeated use and washing of cloth masks. "

So essentially, this study is saying exactly what I just said.

CIDRAP, the CDC, the WHO, the Oxford center for Evidence Based Medicine and others have all failed to find any evidence whatsoever that cloth masks and even, most likely, surgical masks would reduce viral transmission during this pandemic, so IDK what you think you know more than all the scientists working at all those agencies but this article ain't it.

[–]Thatstealthygal 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I keep seeing statements that JKR etc are basing their arguments on "outdated science". Where is this new science and the rebuttal, if any?

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yep. It’s even like you have to use foreign search engines to get directed to non-trans articles when you search topics regarding bio women (that doesn’t include porn).

[–]onemoredaydream 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

It seems like 2 different types of people who deny science, though.

  1. Ignorant and distrustul: they feel condescended to by doctors and educated people. They doubt the intentions of the medical and scientific community. They strongly believe in alternative ways of "knowing", such as intuition or traditional folk medicine, and believe that these ways of knowing are just as valid as science.

  2. Overly-accommodating: they are motivated by the desire to not offend anyone. They usually have a sense of guilt about their own privilege, and will defer to any demand made of them that references this guilt. They see the science as irrelevant, with the far more relevant factors being other peoples' feelings and sense of comfort.

These are not the same motivations, and I think that the majority of science-deniers fall into 1 of these categories. Of the two, the second type seem like the most willing to read and think (assuming that people wont be able to see that they are reading and thinking thoughtcrime).

[–]Spikygrasspod 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I've noticed that people tend to mix up concepts, values, and evidence.

Finding out that people have different mixes of sexed traits? That's evidence. Deciding how to define which traits make you a man or woman? That's conceptual.

Likewise, redefining 'woman' to mean people who are oppressed on the basis of sex is putting values ahead of concepts. I see what you were trying to do, feminist philosophers, I just think it was a bad move. Seriously, why couldn't you just say that women are female and they're oppressed as a matter of fact, instead of trying to smuggle oppression into the definition?

I've also noticed similar moves in other conversations about social justice. But I don't really want to say anything because I support the general goals, but mostly because people will get up me if I take issue with their redefinitions.

[–]materialrealityplz 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I recommend listening or reading some Jaron Lanier. He talks about the rise of social media and how it becomes impossible to talk about the truth.

"It's become impossible to have a conversation about anything real"

https://youtu.be/KNOlqzMd2Zw

Social media is a huge, huge part it. People live on their phones, on their screens, in echo chambers that enhance their feelings of outrage.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Don't forget the flat earthers too. Just as willfully ignorant as TRAs.

[–]catoboros 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I wonder if this is caused by a safetyist generational culture that discourages contradicting obviously false identity statements, amplified by social media echo chambers in which any dissent runs the risk of exclusion?

[–]OrneryStruggle 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Denying that putting some piece of cheesecloth on your face in the midst of the summer is necessary or useful for preventing a mild flu-like illness is not "anti science" like denying sex is, and I really wish people who don't seem to understand how science works would stop railing on about their fav pet theories and how everyone who doesn't agree with them is wrong.

Sex is a provable, observable reality that has been observed for millennia and is extremely well understood. It is indeed crazy for people to pretend not to believe in it. The same does not hold for masks, or even to some degree for vaccines, since it's not inherently reality-denying to refuse to take a medication even if it is for a stupid reason.