you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 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 -  (2 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] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

  • 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.