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 .

@Metacat

An excellent post!

Doesn't it really need a thread of its own? In fact each of your points could be the basis for a long thread of its own. There are weeks of ethical, logical, epidemiological, political and legal discussions in there!

And I'm leaving it there. As long as people are smugly typing about kids dying, their having no responsibility to others, and all CVs/CEVs having definitively had the chance to have a working vaccine and an expectation that anyone with valid fears stays indefinitely? Well, with that level of arrogance and rather ignorance, I want no more of it. To everyone who contributed with something more thoughtful, who struggles deeply with mask-wearing or who got us all thinking - I personally genuinely do want to understand the arguments behind not wanting to wear a mask any more - thanks. Unfortunately, the rest of your team are undermining your cause somewhat by effectively shouting their selfishness from the rooftops; and I've no expectation I can change that. There are always some. :(

@Metacat

I agree there are some appalling arguments against masks, but my main concern about them is the damage the disposable ones are doing to the environment, and we all know vulnerable communities abroad pay for this. What are your thoughts on that angle?

If you agree, have fun with the activities. If you disagree – why not explain why in more detail, with data/links/suggestions; help others to understand!

But with so many different issues going on this would be completely chaotic and impossible to follow in one thread. We can even stay on topic with one issue to discuss

Thanks, Muriel! I'd love to argue them out, but not many posters get past the cliches I've typed. Some of the posts above have, quite frankly, scared me. I may be back - quarantining, and bored as hell - but hearing people favour not wearing masks over their own kids' lives (and believing they truly mean that) and quite so explicitly rejecting all social responsibility as if they never had any in any context (again, where do you start) is so damning, I don't want to interact too much further right now - hence the catch-all post. :)

We should choose one at a time, and thrash them all out. Or mask-cliche bomb Mumsnet with a dedicated thread for each! :)

Slippery, thanks for engaging - just saw. A really tough one. I'm guilty in various ways here, in that I don't do enough for the environment and prioritise it in other areas of my life, either. I'm not irresponsible, but I'm also not very proactive. The reasons I don't do so are various, from laziness at one end of the spectrum (I don't recycle enough) to rational decisions not to at the other. I'd put masks in the latter category; I value the immediate impact on human life of upholding mask-wearing more than a more abstract, intangible impact on the environment - and human lives - in the longer-term in stopping wearing them. Not an ideal response, I know...

@Metacat

Thanks, Muriel! I'd love to argue them out, but not many posters get past the cliches I've typed. Some of the posts above have, quite frankly, scared me. I may be back - quarantining, and bored as hell - but hearing people favour not wearing masks over their own kids' lives (and believing they truly mean that) and quite so explicitly rejecting all social responsibility as if they never had any in any context (again, where do you start) is so damning, I don't want to interact too much further right now - hence the catch-all post. :)

Fair enough. But you're only going to get even more superficial discussion by putting so many issues into one post!

Like brexit, I find the pandemic and the response to it absolutely fascinating. Both do unfortunately attract a lot of ignorant, emotive nonsense, and covid has an additional draw for the sanctimonious and the anxious, who mostly create more noise than light. So it's really hard to discuss properly on a board like this.

There is no way that non mask wearers and mask wearers after the 19th are suddenly going to agree with each other about this issue.

Everyone has their own reasons for how they make their decision about this and everyone should be left alone to make this decision.

I'm certainly not going to be swayed by posters on mumsnet hurling abuse at one another and offering up statistics one way or the other.

Consider me typing a smiley that represents a mirthless laugh, Muriel! I'm new to Mumsnet, so dunno if you can do this, but if you can, do have a look at other mask debates I've posted on. I've selected individual arguments like those listed above, and offered explanations, research-based evidence, links and anecdotes, responded to all-comers and addressed all concerns... And it's usually lasted a few posts before A) The majority of the attackers have disappeared without replying to my replies to them (hmm...); B) The remainder have descended into petty sniping reminiscent of kiddies. The catch-all post is precisely because of that!

It looks from your post like you get what I'm saying and have seen it yourself... Another reason I find society depressing as hell nowadays.
It's sometimes kind of like we're collectively DEvolving... Goodbye social responsibility and critical thinking!

(And, I think, all that's partly bc of t'interweb - what should have been a marvellous invitation to share knowledge and debate, but overtaken by the distorting effects of anonymity & the echo chamber etc.The irony is tragic!)

@Metacat

Slippery, thanks for engaging - just saw. A really tough one. I'm guilty in various ways here, in that I don't do enough for the environment and prioritise it in other areas of my life, either. I'm not irresponsible, but I'm also not very proactive. The reasons I don't do so are various, from laziness at one end of the spectrum (I don't recycle enough) to rational decisions not to at the other. I'd put masks in the latter category; I value the immediate impact on human life of upholding mask-wearing more than a more abstract, intangible impact on the environment - and human lives - in the longer-term in stopping wearing them. Not an ideal response, I know...

That’s fair enough, thanks for responding.

I am a cloth mask wearer and will continue to wear one mainly because I’ve heard what it means to the CEV that other people do, so I am not an anti-masker.

I think it’s about proportionality.

The climate change thing is, in my opinion, already causing human suffering beyond what we in this country can imagine, things like communities being unable to farm the crops they rely on to eat etc. Masks are obviously only a very small part of that, but I think they are also only a small part of not transmitting covid to others. I think it has to be demonstrated that masks do make a sufficient difference to justify the billions of them being manufactured and discarded. It’s not a case of “well we may as well wear them, no reason not to” for me, whereas a lot of people seem to think there’s no real downside to them.

(FFP3 masks the evidence is very good as to high levels of protection, I’m talking about the surgical ones).

I personally think climate change is far more important than covid when you look at protecting vulnerable people internationally. Obviously we need to consider our clinically vulnerable (and i have followed every rule for that reason) but I think we do have to consider the effect of what we are doing to combat covid as well and I rarely hear it mentioned which frustrates me.

Out of interest @metacat are your very thought-provoking "masktivities" something you've put together for discussion in a student philosophy tutorial? That looks like being a very interesting class!

It's interesting that I have no problem people wearing masks if they don't want to, but the pro maskers keep belittling and calling people names.

Excellent posts @Metacat - particularly your list of logical fallacies, many of which sound very familiar to me as a reasonably frequent visitor to these boards.

@Metacat - good lists!

I don't think we are going to convince each but it is good to hear the views of those who would prefer mask laws to continue.

order-order.com/2021/07/08/piers-morgans-performative-fake-covid-fears-ignored-by-him-at-wembley/

All good points, Slippery. I can see why you find it frustrating; it doesn't come up much, does it? I still err on valuing doing what I can re: the more immediate, concrete threat, and measurable - however limited - impact; as we know masks save lives, I know I can make a difference wearing one... but in 2 generations' time, people may be looking back and cursing that view...

Hey, Muriel. Initially, it was just to assuage my own frustration! I was mentally muttering Bingo! Bingo! as I read these threads (The "So, you want us to wear masks beyond 19th = for ever!" one really rankles!) But I did think they'd be interesting in an IB theory-of-knowledge class, or an English language lesson on rhetoric and logic - but not until they've lost the potential for controversy; sometime in some idyllic future when we've worked out a way of living with Covid that doesn't provoke so much discord! It is also ethics and philosophy, though, isn't it, I guess. Covid's thrown up a lot of epistemological conundrums, in a weird way.

Oh, good old Piers.

(Prat).

@Metacat

And I'm leaving it there. As long as people are smugly typing about kids dying, their having no responsibility to others, and all CVs/CEVs having definitively had the chance to have a working vaccine and an expectation that anyone with valid fears stays indefinitely? Well, with that level of arrogance and rather ignorance, I want no more of it. To everyone who contributed with something more thoughtful, who struggles deeply with mask-wearing or who got us all thinking - I personally genuinely do want to understand the arguments behind not wanting to wear a mask any more - thanks. Unfortunately, the rest of your team are undermining your cause somewhat by effectively shouting their selfishness from the rooftops; and I've no expectation I can change that. There are always some. :(

I think you’ve missed the point spectacularly.

If the starting point were an equal line up between ‘mask’ and ‘no mask’ then I could see the logic behind your analysis.

This isn’t the case though.

The default position in society is ‘no mask’, therefore it is up to the ‘mask’ side of the debate to make their case, not the other way around.

Therefore, the ‘no mask’ side of the debate is presumed to be the one that ‘wins’

I see nothing that constitutes a valid rebuttal from the other side at all tbh.

Good point @GreenWillow

This is all very interesting.

This goes back to the civil liberties discussion, which didn't go very well last time. Clearly the presumption is that people can wear what they like. Mandating masks is (we pretty much all agreed) an interference with a basic liberty.

If I can loosely impose some legal logic here from the jurisprudence of human rights, the usual way of analysing whether it is acceptable for the state to interfere with a human right (for example to compel mask wearing) is to ask whether:

1. the interference is prescribed by law (ie there have to be clear unambiguous rules)

2. the interference is in pursuit of a "legitimate aim". Here the pro-mask wing would need to establish that they do significantly prevent transmission.

3. the interference is proportionate. This is the big one, where most arguments would occur, and where most of the points from the post of @Metacat would come to be analysed.

Are you still awake? Proportionality is usually analysed by four further tests

The restriction must:

(i) have a sufficiently important objective,

(ii) be rationally connected to accomplishing that objective,

(iii) have no reasonable less intrusive alternative, (very important) and

(iv) strike a fair balance between individual rights and public interests (very tricky to analyse).

Anyway, I think that framework provides an excellent basis for weighing up the pros and cons.

Yes, still awake - I’m fairly well up on human rights law, and I endorse your use of this framework.

I agree that the proportionality test is the big one here, but I think the arrival of vaccines make a huge difference.

In the pre-vaccine covid world, yes, I’d agree that this level of interference was proportionate to prevent the collapse of the nhs.

Now that we have the vaccine, I think decisions on proportionality look rather different.

The nhs is looking unlikely to collapse, so the arguments have shifted to those that seek to prevent individual illness/suffering. In my view, although any human suffering is inherently something awful, this is insufficient to justify state interference on this level.

In short, this is no longer ‘necessary in a democratic society’ which is always the ultimate test.

Muriel, great post - fascinating. Are you in law?

GreenWillow, correct me if I've misunderstood, because I'm still reeling!

Your suggestion that, because "The default position in society is 'no mask', therefore it's up to the ‘mask’ side of the debate to make their case, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND" feels like the most audacious - and potentially scary - justification for not offering meaningful counter-arguments that I've seen anywhere so far.

Two responses:

1. If you want some detailed counter-arguments and rebuttals, I and others have offered quite a few on other threads, including on the "Hooray!" one preceding this; incidentally, these do cover mask efficacy (where other posters helped me realise that an understanding of the complexity of scientific research in this area and the definition - and process of building - scientific consensus are key; we address this).

2. Any suggestion that the dominant side in any conflicted issue or debate need not offer explanations/defences/rebuttals is the thin end of a lethal wedge, at the opposite end of which lies, quite frankly, totalitarianism. I'd always thought it was incumbent on the majority party (AKA, by your reasoning, the party holding the "default position", and, in government, the party legislating in line with this position) to justify and defend their views in open debate with the opposing side in a democratic society! And this is more widely applicable: whether it's kids in the playground trying to get their football back from the bullying teens; scientists presenting a controversially revised understanding of previously established "knowledge"; women advocating for more rights in a patriarchal society; or the prosecution challenging the courtroom's "dominant side" of innocent until proven guilty - in all these and others, including masks, EXCHANGE of data and views has to be possible; there has to be accountability. How else can we ensure fairness and make progress?!

If people are beginning to believe that any dominant voice, BY VIRTUE OF THEIR DOMINANCE (not intending to shout; really wanted to emphasise & can't bold!), no longer has the responsibility to answer to queries and challenges, then, quite frankly, we're in far more trouble as a nation than I'd thought.

Re: your latest and proportionality - yes, this word really sums it up, doesn't it. Which leads to the central question of the proportionality of a mask mandate, which is where views become really divisive. It's difficult.

I’m going full hazmat after July 19th.