No masks after 19th July- despite the scientific consensus for them

[herecomesthsun]

I happened to notice that we had reached 1000 posts on the other thread - so I started a new one .

I don't *like" wearing a mask (mind you I could probably also get an exclusion on respiratory illness grounds) but given the actual viral pandemic & the rationale & emerging evidence for decreasing spread, they're a good idea.

I didn't like wearing a seatbelt over my bump when pregnant either, but I researched the safest way to do it & I wore one.

@RufustheBadgeringReindeer

Similar to @herecomesthsun - I hated wearing a seatbelt over my bump.

I hate the feeling of a seatbelt strap near my neck - and others could relate this to a previous past trauma.

I consider myself low risk, never had an accident, low insurance premium.

So - because I feel very uncomfortable/my personal risk assessment of me is low/I could potentially damage my baby in an accident/I feel it’s affecting my mental health - should I stop wearing a seatbelt?

And if the answer to that is yes, then it needs to apply to anyone else who feels that way too. Or anyone else who feels that way - but for different reasons.
And then the knock on effect will be - why the hell should I wear one if other people are not.

@UndercoverToad
Well you could, but of course you would be fined in you were caught, because seatbelts are a legal requirement. In the context of this thread the better question would be should the law be changed to abolish compulsory seatbelt wearing.

I suppose, if comparing the seatbelt scenario with mask wearing, those who don't like seatbelts will wear theirs but cause those around them to disengage.

I would be more comfortable if simple measures were retained in enclosed or busier public spaces.

Work/office/education bubbles could rely on frequent testing

All a bit pointless when you see the crowds at football stadiums.

(Incidentally, it's not something I feel strongly about at all, but if pushed I would say no, on the basis that seatbelts don't interfere with life in the way that face masks do, and so don't engage the same sort of rights, and don't need to be justified in the same way.)

@MurielSpriggs

(Incidentally, it's not something I feel strongly about at all, but if pushed I would say no, on the basis that seatbelts don't interfere with life in the way that face masks do, and so don't engage the same sort of rights, and don't need to be justified in the same way.)

When I was pregnant, I found wearing a seatbelt more uncomfortable than wearing a mask, and for the same sort of reason. It interfered with my bodily comfort in quite a direct sort of way.

I still thought that the theoretical and legal reasons for wearing the seatbelt were more important than my immediate preference.

I wouldn't say that facemasks "interfere with life" at all; I wouldn't put it like that. I barely notice it until I've been wearing it for several minutes. I tried running upstairs in one this morning (in the context of needing to get a train ticket before the train came) and it got a bit uncomfortable then, eventually.

I think it should be mandatory to wear face masks in places that the vulnerable need to access. Until we are endemic with little/no risk of becoming pandemic. So:

Hospitals, clinics, dentists etc, public transport and shops.

If it’s left to personal choice, there will be anger, division, resentment and confusion. There will be some business managers saying yes, and some saying no. There will be say e.g shop workers who feel their employer is failing in their duty of care.

I volunteer as a vaccinator one day a week. Waiting to hear that those attending will still be required to wear a mask. If not, I will no longer be donating my time.

Thanks for your detailed replies, Muriel.

I have to confess to being a bit bemused by my calls for open debate being seen as evidence of a wholesale rejection of a liberal-rights base premise - unless that perception simply relies on my lack of knowledge of the law and the consequent challenge of expressing myself in the terms you’re using, with specific reference to the legal concept of residual freedom.

With reference to the this, I‘m keen to understand more. You offer the phrase „good reason“ as the defining factor in a government ultimately legislating to impose a particular measure such as a mask mandate in limited contexts. This is what interests me. You and/or others referred in earlier posts to 1) the natural default being „no masks“ and 2) there not being sufficient evidence of the benefits they offer to mandate them. In the framework you outline, 2) presumably establishes the failure of a mask mandate to meet the definitive test of a „good reason“, but I don’t understand how that conclusion has been reached (eg. the removal of previously mandated masks at a time of high infection rates and several months before many younger adults have been double-jabbed; the global consensus - again, that word‘s important - re. their value; some evidence of majority views being their retention on public transport). How, in this context, is 1) a mask mandate in limited contexts (shops, transport) determined not to meet the test of a „good enough reason“? As it seems to be a valid argument - if not in a court of law - that removing the mask mandate may have a proportionately more negative effect on the populace than retraining it - ie. the default may become the de facto imposition in leading to the loss of default liberties eg. freedom to work safely - how US this conclusion reached, this test of „good reason“ met? Especially in the face of popular opposition (seatbelts, again, initially resisted, then mandated...) Can you kind of synthesise those 2 issues with your legal framework in layperson‘s terms for me? Really curious as, as you say, it gets to the heart of our conflict!

@Parker231 you absolute star, the people at my vax centre were amazing and I’m so grateful to them.

This is what annoys me. The views of someone like @parker231 will be over ridden by the dominant individualists who have contributed very little to helping others.

Wearing a mask is to protect others.

[quote UndercoverToad]@Parker231 you absolute star, the people at my vax centre were amazing and I’m so grateful to them.

This is what annoys me. The views of someone like @parker231 will be over ridden by the dominant individualists who have contributed very little to helping others.[/quote]
Well said. @Parker231I would do the same as you if people didn't have to wear masks at the centre. Thank you for donating your time.

Woah, reread my last and it's wordy as heck & sounds pretentious! - didn't mean it that way, typed in rush on phone, just keen to understand.

Hello @MetaCat

Don't worry, I'm gonna outword and out-pretentious you!

I have to confess to being a bit bemused by my calls for open debate being seen as evidence of a wholesale rejection of a liberal-rights base premise

Sorry, perhaps my post wasn't very clear. Clearly an open debate is completely in line with a liberal society! What I was saying is that liberal values require that we're free to do as we like unless there is a good reason that we shouldn't. And this means that the burden is on the pro-mask wing to establish that masks are necessary (and continue to be necessary). It's not for the state to take away rights without clear justification.

(Various other rights are currently being taken away from us with no proper justification, and even some of the mechanisms to challenge those decisions are about to be partly dismantled. I do find that alarming, but that's something else!)

In that "framework" post, I suggested that the second test to justify an interference with rights should be good reason, or "legitimate aim". I think the pro-mask wing might be alright on this (but not a foregone conclusion as I understand it). This would involve determining whether ordinary masks do achieve the legitimate aim of preventing serious health problems, and whether covid is still a serious enough threat (compared to other diseases and threats to health) for that purpose to be worth pursuing. I don't think there is universal agreement that masks do achieve all that is claimed for them, and there's the issue of whether the threat of covid is still serious enough in a post-vaccine world for its control to be a legitimate aim. But let's assume that this test is passed.

My greater problem is with the third test, that the interference with rights must be proportionate. I suggested four further tests for that, and it looks like a massively complicated ethical, epidemiological, economic and political issue.

The main questions on this big issue of proportionality would be (1) is the measure (compulsory masks) excessive compared to the objective it achieves and what alternative measures are available to achieve that legitimate aim of keeping transmission at acceptable levels. Arguments here might be that we now have vaccines (a big one). Vulnerable people could wear masks which protect them. Handwashing and sanitisation are much more important in preventing transmission as I understand it. Ventilation. There's a panoply of other measures. The other big factor here is what would masks achieve? How much would they impact on transmission?

(2) The other big question is balancing of rights. This would be much more complex. Quantitatively and epidemiologically how great is the threat? To how many people? What is the cost to the economy and the environment of the measures. How many quality-adjusted life years will the measures save? At what cost? What expenditure are we prepared to incur in other policy areas to save life? Which groups suffer as a result of the measures? Is it justifiable to impose legally a burden on one group to protect the health of others? All really complex questions.

Really difficult questions. I definitely think your original point, that mudslinging and simplistic moralising is not the way to sort this out. Interestingly many of the simplistic points definitely have a place in the overall analysis. But there are so many massively complex issues, it's like a grand-master chess decision, with people shouting on from the sidelines "move the Queen somewhere, it's bigger than all the others"

@MurielSpriggs of the large scale, peer researched studies I’ve seen - yes masks prevent outward aerosol particle transmission.

So by saying only the vulnerable should wear masks - all that will do is stop them transmitting if they are infected.

My understanding is that masks are more about protecting others, not yourself.

And wearing a mask in hospitals/clinics/pharmacy - I’d also add public transport and shops to that list - is not an arduous thing to do (I don’t buy all these claims that it is). I cannot see that the cost benefit analysis would be ‘it’s not worth it’ if it saves lives.

And what I think is unethical is this ‘only the vulnerable should shield, only the vulnerable should wear masks, only the vulnerable should do xyz’. How discriminatory is that?? That we lock away/ take freedom away from the vulnerable - and they get treated like third rate citizens just because I don’t fancy complying with a pretty straightforward safety measure.

[quote UndercoverToad]@MurielSpriggs of the large scale, peer researched studies I’ve seen - yes masks prevent outward aerosol particle transmission.

So by saying only the vulnerable should wear masks - all that will do is stop them transmitting if they are infected.

My understanding is that masks are more about protecting others, not yourself.[/quote]
I believe that's true of the day-to-day masks we all wear. The most protective types of masks are FFP2, FFP3 or N95 respirators, followed by medical-grade surgical masks, which do protect the wearer.

@MurielSpriggs

Hello *@MetaCat*

Don't worry, I'm gonna outword and out-pretentious you!

I have to confess to being a bit bemused by my calls for open debate being seen as evidence of a wholesale rejection of a liberal-rights base premise

Sorry, perhaps my post wasn't very clear. Clearly an open debate is completely in line with a liberal society! What I was saying is that liberal values require that we're free to do as we like unless there is a good reason that we shouldn't. And this means that the burden is on the pro-mask wing to establish that masks are necessary (and continue to be necessary). It's not for the state to take away rights without clear justification.

(Various other rights are currently being taken away from us with no proper justification, and even some of the mechanisms to challenge those decisions are about to be partly dismantled. I do find that alarming, but that's something else!)

In that "framework" post, I suggested that the second test to justify an interference with rights should be good reason, or "legitimate aim". I think the pro-mask wing might be alright on this (but not a foregone conclusion as I understand it). This would involve determining whether ordinary masks do achieve the legitimate aim of preventing serious health problems, and whether covid is still a serious enough threat (compared to other diseases and threats to health) for that purpose to be worth pursuing. I don't think there is universal agreement that masks do achieve all that is claimed for them, and there's the issue of whether the threat of covid is still serious enough in a post-vaccine world for its control to be a legitimate aim. But let's assume that this test is passed.

My greater problem is with the third test, that the interference with rights must be proportionate. I suggested four further tests for that, and it looks like a massively complicated ethical, epidemiological, economic and political issue.

The main questions on this big issue of proportionality would be (1) is the measure (compulsory masks) excessive compared to the objective it achieves and what alternative measures are available to achieve that legitimate aim of keeping transmission at acceptable levels. Arguments here might be that we now have vaccines (a big one). Vulnerable people could wear masks which protect them. Handwashing and sanitisation are much more important in preventing transmission as I understand it. Ventilation. There's a panoply of other measures. The other big factor here is what would masks achieve? How much would they impact on transmission?

(2) The other big question is balancing of rights. This would be much more complex. Quantitatively and epidemiologically how great is the threat? To how many people? What is the cost to the economy and the environment of the measures. How many quality-adjusted life years will the measures save? At what cost? What expenditure are we prepared to incur in other policy areas to save life? Which groups suffer as a result of the measures? Is it justifiable to impose legally a burden on one group to protect the health of others? All really complex questions.

Really difficult questions. I definitely think your original point, that mudslinging and simplistic moralising is not the way to sort this out. Interestingly many of the simplistic points definitely have a place in the overall analysis. But there are so many massively complex issues, it's like a grand-master chess decision, with people shouting on from the sidelines "move the Queen somewhere, it's bigger than all the others"

Ffs - it’s wearing a mask. The handwringing that goes on about civil liberties is so pretentious. It doesn’t reduce oxygen supply in any way -otherwise how would surgeons and theatre staff manage in operations lasting many hours. There is evidence that it helps reduce transmission. There is a very clever manipulation going on by media and government though. They describe the 19th as Freedom day - which gives the impression that losing masks is “ freeing””. But it’s not to millions of vulnerable people or workerswho come into contact with the general public as part of their jobs. And the absolute crap about virtue signalling - it’s not virtue signalling it’s just common decency . Which many folk on this thread seem to lack

@RunnerDown

The handwringing that goes on about civil liberties is so pretentious

I did warn you in paragraph 1

Precisely @RunnerDown. I wholeheartedly agree. Well said.

I like the chess analogy - totally (and the people yelling, "Move the Knight diagonally - it goes DIAGONALLY, FFS!", too - also doesn't help!)

Thanks for such a detailed (and wordy, but not remotely pretentious) explanation :)). So helpful and interesting.

I can see that "legitimate aim" defends the populace from the imposition of arbitrary or abusive measures... but surely there are situations, like now, in which the context in and needs of a country shift so dramatically "overnight" (pandemic) that any assumption of the legitimacy of the previous status quo or default (no masks) is thrown into question. That would catapult a government into a position in which to NOT legislate may be seen as an abdication of their responsibility to protect the populace - an abuse in itself. But popular opinion and politics are unlikely to move at the same pace as the rapidly changing context, meaning a populist government can rely on the familiarity of the status quo versus the challenge of presenting a convincing burden of proof in such a complex context in a virtual abdication of their responsibilities - the default of no masks becomes the politically safer option for them, if the more lethal option for their people. Kind of like a retired doctor averting their eyes to drive past a road accident rather than facing the risks of intervening and being challenged over their decisions.

Re: all of this, I totally agree re. the loss of democratic checks and balances we're seeing (or our realisation that what we have is already inadequate - honour codes among the dishonourable, marking their own homework etc.) - I find it really depressing & scary. They're more important than ever, from both our perspectives.

Maybe I wish it WAS all being decided in a court of law!

NB. I believe surface transmission & handwashing are now understood to be far less significant than minimising aerial transmission - I do think the science has moved on there? Maybe others can confirm. But there again, that reinforces the complexity of it all as we rely on an evolving science.

[quote UndercoverToad]@RufustheBadgeringReindeer

Similar to @herecomesthsun - I hated wearing a seatbelt over my bump.

I hate the feeling of a seatbelt strap near my neck - and others could relate this to a previous past trauma.

I consider myself low risk, never had an accident, low insurance premium.

So - because I feel very uncomfortable/my personal risk assessment of me is low/I could potentially damage my baby in an accident/I feel it’s affecting my mental health - should I stop wearing a seatbelt?[/quote]
What is it you think I’ve said?

Cos I can’t see anything in my posts that suggests I’m not going to continue wearing a mask

Or indeed that I disagree with the wearing of masks post July 19th