all 22 comments

[–]StillLessons 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

There was a thread just yesterday regarding the science of wearing masks.

https://www.technocracy.news/censored-a-review-of-science-relevant-to-covid-19-social-policy-and-why-face-masks-dont-work/

An element that you are missing is that masks have been swept up into the debate on censorship. Speaking for myself, for example, what pisses me off about the debate surrounding mask use is that articles such as the one I link to here are being suppressed, and with a very heavy hand. I have a background in research science, and I want to know the facts about this obviously important question. What far too few people understand is that science actually has little to do with conclusions. The important element of "science" is the process of arriving at conclusions. In other words, science is the argument. By having people argue both sides, we can find the position that best fits our observations.

This is the problem with the mask debate. No debate is permitted. At all. And then the preferred conclusion is portrayed as science. That's bullshit. Nothing more and nothing less.

I admit right now I don't know whether masks are effective or not. Because I am not being allowed to find out. I wear a mask because it is more convenient than getting into fights with rabid mask believers wherever I go, but that does not mean I am confident they work.

The political dimension of this debate has swallowed any rational approach, and the same people censoring content are demanding that either we wear masks or we are not to be allowed to exist in society. That's not machismo; it's recognizing tyrannical speech suppression for what it is.

[–]Leo_Littlebook[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Firstly, since you wear a mask, you are not part of the problem, but you've been influenced by those who are. So let's evaluate your evidence:

Japanese study is irrelevant due to N being 2 colds over 32 people. Looks like kids transmitted more colds than workplace. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/

Cowling, B. et al. (2010) finds evidence of reduced transmission and less of reduced infection. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and it's irrelevant to my argument whether masks protect self. Moreover, it's obvious that masks do protect self for general public, if only by inhibiting hand to mucus membrane contact.

bin-Reza et al. (2012) same.

Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) finds no benefit for N95 over surgical masks, which supports my argument for comfortable public mask usage, and is otherwise irrelevant.

Offeddu, V. et al. (2017): Your summary contradicts the abstract, which states

"Meta-analysis of observational studies provided evidence of a protective effect of masks (OR = 0.13; 95% CI: 0.03–0.62) ... against severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)."

This is wasting my time. I'll stop there.

Furthermore, if there were any benefit to wearing a mask, because of the blocking power against droplets and aerosol particles, then there should be more benefit from wearing a respirator (N95) compared to a surgical mask

Nonsense. There are malefits to wearing a respirator which have unknown effects on mask utility. I do not recommend N95 masks for general public use. They are more expensive and complicated and thus may get changed and cleaned less frequently, causing harm. And they may reduce oxygen availability. They're overkill.

https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/07/18/0139209/face-masks-offer-more-protection-from-coronavirus-than-many-think

That's not machismo; it's recognizing tyrannical speech suppression for what it is.

Refusing to wear masks due to pro-masker censorship is macho reactance.

Your objections are exposed as sophistical. There is no more sound basis to challenge public anti-epidemial mask use than there is to challenge hand washing, and this fact is obvious common sense. Picking this issue to argue for free speech is self-defeating, since prevailing heretical misinformation is already costing lives. The correct approach is to discredit MSM sources for their early denial of mask effectiveness motivated by PPE shortage, and establish independent heterodox source credibility by advocating practical 80-20 voluntary public mask use. There is a happy medium between East Asian neurotic mask culture and American macho mask rejection.

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

Masks are purely political. Almost all of Coronavirus response is purely political.

That's why the recommendations change based on your political affiliation, and why black people are apparently immune to coronavirus when they are engaging in riots.

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

I don't think masks are purely political, but I do think politics have had a bigger role with them than there shoulda been. Look at all people being called idiots for going to the beach, meanwhile the mainstream media has put out numerous articles claiming that the BLM protests did little to spread the virus.

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

Reasoning in reverse from MSM cant will result in the conclusion that all truth is subjective politics. Which is why you don't determine truth by what a liar says.

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Masks reduce spread, it's just that politicians care more about their political careers than they do the health of their constituents.

There's a hairy constitutional rights question here, because even though there is supreme court precedent establishing that measures that curb individual rights can be imposed in certain circumstances, you are still arresting protesters, and you're going to be smeared as someone that doesn't care about minorities and is part of "the system".

Fair or not, the reason the protesters got a pass is because they have political clout. But I would disagree if you're saying that the evidence doesn't point to masks reducing the spread of COVID-19.

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

Fauci said at first that masks don't reduce the spread, and everyone shamed people for questioning that narrative. Relatively recently, Fauci admitted that he was lying because there weren't enough masks.

Frankly, he should be fired on the spot for that. His job should be telling the truth, not lying then smugly explaining that his lie was for the greater good.

Now that there are masks, they are acting the exact same except in the polar opposite direction.

It's purely political. Follow orders, don't my question anything.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I can tell you why normal people don't wear them, and wear them improperly. Pure discomfort. Any reason beyond that is just rationalizing. They just don't like it. Unsurprisingly most people are really childish, and little more than older children. This includes plenty of people who vote Democrat as well. There's not some strong ideological reasoning among normal people for being fuckups. They just are.

[–]Leo_Littlebook[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

A cycling neck gaiter is much more comfortable than a surgical mask.

Discomfort doesn't explain the large difference between Republican and Democrat mask use:

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/face-mask-usage-demographic

Republicans feel disempowered and are engaging in reactance, making a petty stand in way that actually harms them in order to defy what they see as illegitimate authority. It's pathetic, because reactance is the resort of the powerless.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

For one thing, you linked a bad summary instead of the original: https://news.gallup.com/poll/315590/americans-face-mask-usage-varies-greatly-demographics.aspx

For another, you will find huge variances in terms of state regions that do not necessarily align fully with politics either. Rather, they align more with degree of infection. The most infected regions have the highest mask usage (Northeast) versus the least (Midwest). The effect is far more powerful and, with a proper analysis, I've no doubt could be found to account for more of the variance than reported political alignment alone.

The problem with interpreting statistics is that raw data, without any confounds to control for, is severely misleading. Especially in a country where geography, population density, and political alignment, tend to correlate. I would not believe, without more extensive research, this truly is some politically motivated reaction based on "feeling disempowered". Most likely, it's the lack of infections in the midwest. The biggest difference is between men and women, too, not even politics.

[–]Leo_Littlebook[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

It doesn't matter whether the causation is that they're conservatives, male, rural, in lower infection rate region, or Republican. All of those factors are correlated and there's no point in trying to disentangle the causation. The relevant point is that those people do eschew masks, exhibit irrational machismo on the topic, and justify it with conservative talking points.

This is very visible in online communities. For example, my anti mask post got a score of 0 on r/conservative and the same arguments got a score of 200 on r/liberal. Your attempts to deny an ideological aspect to this are contrary to fact.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Liberal/comments/htwriq/us_antimask_conservatives_are_motivated_by/

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Not being convinced by an argument is not the same thing as adopting its opposite. All I pointed out, and this is something you should take heed of, is that you do not have the evidence from a poll to conclude the divergence is caused by ideology. On the contrary, both gender and geography independent of political affiliation have a larger effect. That something is rationalized after the fact from a political bent on the internet, so what?

Causation is important. If the cause is geography, infection rates, and the sex of the participants, arguing on an ideological basis of politics will do absolutely nothing.

[–]Leo_Littlebook[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Your explanation is wrong. They are not normal people doing it because discomfort. They are conservatives doing it because conservative reasons. That's what they say when you ask them. Stop being pedantic.

There are plenty of lazy normies, and they are not defending their position in online communities. Those are the people doing it because discomfort.

As someone who participates in multiple conservative online communities, including right-wing Twitter, Gab, Voat, Saidit, a Discord and many RSS feeds, this is beyond obvious.

If you can't admit you were wrong, just shut up.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The plural of anecdote is not data. Since the divide between sex is so much larger, and geography about as large, it's quite obvious political affiliation is not a causal factor. Probably, personality traits associated with sex is far more likely. And with geography, people in less infected areas have less cause to be paranoid. That some people might express these underlying motivations in terms of political objections, well, so what? That wouldn't change their behavior if they did otherwise.

Since you ignored my final point, I'll repeat it: If the underlying cause has nothing to do with political ideology except coincidentally, then trying to argue it on that basis is pointless. Causation is important.

[–]Leo_Littlebook[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You are absurdly pedantic. Conservative vs liberal is a profoundly powerful split in America. Reducing it to sex geography and personality is obscuring, not enlightening. Those differences exists at all times and places, however a left-right ideological split approaching civil war intensity does not. You've latched onto this attempt to reinterpret a survey I only glanced at that confirmed what I already knew from multiple communities. It is clear you are far too up your own skeptical behind to insightfully discuss the forest. Therefore I will block and move on.

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–]Leo_Littlebook[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Studies have found that wearing a mask risks your health.

    No they haven't. At most specific N95 masks have health risks. Which is irrelevant since I didn't advocate N95 use. More irrationality.

    [–]StBlops2cel_is_Lord 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

    Masks do NOTHING but make panicky hysterics feel slightly less panicky.

    [–]Leo_Littlebook[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Thank you for demonstrating my point.

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

    If underpants can't save you from a fart, a facemask won't save you from covid.

    [–]Leo_Littlebook[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    [–][deleted]  (3 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]Leo_Littlebook[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      That's a video. I'm not going to watch it; text is the authoritative medium for this topic.

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Or perhaps they are just listening to different experts.