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 .

@UndercoverToad

I’m going full hazmat after July 19th.

:)

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

This is the way law works though.

In criminal law, there is a presumption of innocence, hence the defendant literally has to do nothing, it is up to the crown to prove their case, beyond reasonable doubt.

Likewise, in the civil courts, it is up to the claimant to prove their case, on the balance of probabilities. The defendant has no obligation to do anything at all (and is often well-advised to just stay schtum)

Anyway, In general, the status quo is the thing that wins the day - it is up to whomever wishes to have that changed in some way to prove their case, not the other way around.

This is the logic I am applying to the mask debate. The status quo is no masks, therefore it is for the other side to prove their case.

It's all very well intellectualising this debate and it is certainly an improvement from mid slinging - thank you @Metacat, but I feel like we are getting further and further away from the important thing - people. How does not wearing a mask affect people positively versus others negatively, and to what extent? That's what it comes down to, for me. A minor inconvenience versus a potentially life or death difference for others.

*mud slinging

It's more than a minor inconvenience to me. They affect my vision and breathing. I struggle to hear and make myself heard. I can't wait until they're optional

@Enb76

You would rather you and your children have a greater chance of death than that you wear a mask?

I'm with Xenia - the chance of death minuscule and I'm not risk averse. My child and I slide down mountains, ride horses, cycle everywhere and wild swim. We have more chance of dying or being seriously injured by anyone of those things than harmed by Covid.

I'll take my chances, thank you. As for other people, they should do what is best for them.

Same!

@EmmaOvary

It's all very well intellectualising this debate and it is certainly an improvement from mid slinging - thank you *@Metacat*, but I feel like we are getting further and further away from the important thing - people. How does not wearing a mask affect people positively versus others negatively, and to what extent? That's what it comes down to, for me. A minor inconvenience versus a potentially life or death difference for others.

If enough people agree with you, then mask wearing will become the new norm and there will be no need for legislation.

If the majority oppose mask wearing, then, as we live in a democracy, they should not be made mandatory and there will be no need for legislation.

So either way, mask wearing should remain a matter of personal choice.

I really don't think the question of whether mask mandates reduce overall cases in a country over a period of time is settled.

If you look at the table of deaths per 100,000 caused by covid, you would have to torture the data to decide that stronger mask mandates correlate with lower deaths for European countries.

Czech, Bulgaria, Italy and Belgium, for example, have all had much harsher mask mandates than we have and all have higher deaths.

If you look at comparisons of mask mandates in different US states they are very weakly correlated with fewer covid deaths (barely statistically significant) and states with harsher mask laws generally had harsher lockdowns in general.

What we can say beyond doubt is that they have not prevented exponential growth of covid.

I think there is a huge difference between studies in a lab which show that you breathe out fewer droplets wearing a mask (and I can well believe this is true) versus looking at how they have performed in the real world over a longer period. It may be that you can show a small benefit in the real world if you look at the data in the right way but it is very difficult to show a significant one over time.

So I think the pro mask camp overestimates the benefit at a population level (and underestimates the downsides which for me are much more about communication than comfort). And maybe vice versa for anti-mask people.

Also, if you are arguing for mask mandates to remain in place on the basis that this might protect vaccinated vulnerable people, I cannot see how this rationale will ever change. CV people will likely always be at some risk from covid and other viruses (and other viruses which we don't vaccinate against could well pose more of a risk than covid, which we can vaccinate against). The risk may be less than it is now at some point depending on case numbers but it will still be there. I think if it is your view that we should wear masks indefinitely to protect vulnerable people you should be honest about that (or explain when you think it might be reasonable to remove the mask mandate). A society where everyone is masked long-term in certain situations has different implications to this being the case temporarily (e.g. on children's speech development and the ability of deaf people to participate in society and potentially lower immunity to common illnesses in the whole population).

@Enb76

Do they wear a snowsuit when they slide down a mountain - or go naked in the middle of a blizzard?

Do they wear a helmet when they cycle, do their bikes have brakes?

Do you swim in rat infested waters, or swim with dangerous algae?

Or do you actually take some safety measures?

What consensus is that then?

@EmmaOvary

It's all very well intellectualising this debate and it is certainly an improvement from mid slinging - thank you *@Metacat*, but I feel like we are getting further and further away from the important thing - people. How does not wearing a mask affect people positively versus others negatively, and to what extent? That's what it comes down to, for me. A minor inconvenience versus a potentially life or death difference for others.

against a minute pptential life or death difference for others.

There- fixed it now

[quote UndercoverToad]@Enb76

Do they wear a snowsuit when they slide down a mountain - or go naked in the middle of a blizzard?

Do they wear a helmet when they cycle, do their bikes have brakes?

Do you swim in rat infested waters, or swim with dangerous algae?

Or do you actually take some safety measures?[/quote]
Well, we do, and the risk is still higher than the risk of COVID.

@Watchingyou2sleezes

What consensus is that then?

The scientists who say things "we like" are all in agreement. The other scientists who say things "we don't like" are obviously wrong or have ulterior motives.

I wonder if there is scientific consensus that demonstrates that the current escalation in case numbers (at a time when masks are required) will be halted if the virus realises that people are still wearing masks.

It is not minor inconvenience - I cannot see properly or breath acceptably nor think properly. Also it means people cannot smile or talk to others they meet, children they see do not see normal humans - it has a massive awful impact much much greater and worse than the health issues. So thankfully masks go on 19 July, at long last.

[quote UndercoverToad]@Enb76

Do they wear a snowsuit when they slide down a mountain - or go naked in the middle of a blizzard?

Do they wear a helmet when they cycle, do their bikes have brakes?

Do you swim in rat infested waters, or swim with dangerous algae?

Or do you actually take some safety measures?[/quote]
This goes to the very heart of the debate though:

All of those safety measures are matters of personal choice, none of them are legally mandated.

As should wearing a mask/remaining at home or any other covid ‘safely measures’ an individual may choose to take, based on their own risk assessment of their circumstances.

A few thoughts, tho I'm basically on the same page as EmmaOvary (I've tried to offer evidence - "intellectualise" - etc., Emma, bc your focus on the human side just isn't enough for so many...)

Re: "The status quo is no masks, therefore it is for the other side to prove their case." - I'd ask what decided this particular status quo, though? It wasn't the status quo a short while ago. It isn't necessarily the status quo globally. What changed, besides higher numbers and exhaustion among the populace? Did these changes legitimise this decision? Where did this decision come from? In a court of law, there's a formal process to ensure the defence and prosecution are both considered, the balance of evidence weighed, and a considered conclusion drawn. In this context, in contrast, the government's decisions are coloured by political allegiances, vote-seeking etc. That's why I feel balanced debate is essential. I do see what you mean about the weight of responsibility being on the prosecution to rest their case, but the defence having the right to remain silent isn't the same as the defence's mitigations being ignored or not addressed...

Re: The list of risky activities many engage in: but can we equate a series of adventure sports people choose to do for pleasure with the day-to-day necessity of catching the tube and shopping for essentials that people have no choice but to undertake? Fancying going abseiling and caving for fun is hardly comparable to having to expose yourself, as a CEV individual, to a greater risk of Covid if you don't want to lose your job...

Re: masks: jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536 & en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus; the first, the current consensus on masks as I understand it; the second, why a consensus like this is likely the best we're going to get on masks, and a whole range of other similarly high-stakes issues - something being a consensus as opposed to black & white / all or nothing shouldn't, to my mind, preclude action in line with that consensus - if we waited for more than a consensus, we'd be waiting counterproductively long on a whole range of urgent issues (incl. eg. climate change), as "pure" results are just not how scientific research works in some contexts, as I understand it.

PS With thanks to the poster who started this thread for the masks article (I think - hope I got that right!)

Xenia, are these - "it means people cannot smile or talk to others they meet, children they see do not see normal humans" - really such an issue if retained only in shops & on transport, a proportionately very short period in a full day, when balanced against their potential to lower cases & save lives?

Re: the seeing, breathing & thinking, sorry to hear this; it sounds like they have a dramatic impact in your case & is why exemptions in extreme circumstances are so important.

Hello @Metacat

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

Yes, and occasionally I think the tools which judges develop to analyse difficult questions have wider application, I think this is one of them.

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.

I think it's helped to crystallise the heart of our disagreement, which is this: the law, I and (I think) @GreenWillow approach this from the western liberal tradition. It's produced the notion of residual freedom. The presumption is that you are free to do what you want unless there is good reason for the state to interfere. The obverse of that would be a system in which the state can intervene in any way it thinks expedient for its own objectives, and the burden is on the citizen to show why the intervention is wrong.

In other words not only is my framework from earlier this evening not going to help us iron out our disagreements. We don't even get to step 1 of that framework, because you don't accept its liberal rights-based premise.

I would just add that I think politics might be moving in your direction - away from the post-1945 liberal consensus towards something more authoritarian, but I find that terrifying!

@MurielSpriggs but surely - when faced with a global pandemic - the best response is a collective response.

The countries that fared the best have harnessed their collective altruism.
The individualistic societies have not fared so well - and I think a big part of that is to do with the government we put in power/our reactance to rules imposed/our pursuit of personal freedom.
No way are we moving towards authoritarianism. I think the government has attempted to impose measures (poorly) and we - as a nation who question/ not used to any type of control - are up in arms.
Authoritarianism is the Philippines where you are threatened with jail if you don’t take the vaccine. Or China.

@GreenWillow you are required to wear seat belts/car seats for children by law. There is an argument that a seat belt could rupture your spleen/why should I wear one? Because the benefit to save lives outweighs the risks. And because the law has been in place for so long now that no one really questions it.
You are not allowed to freely drive your car at any speed you like - and that rule helps to protect others.

@Xenia

It is not minor inconvenience - I cannot see properly or breath acceptably nor think properly. Also it means people cannot smile or talk to others they meet, children they see do not see normal humans - it has a massive awful impact much much greater and worse than the health issues. So thankfully masks go on 19 July, at long last.

No they won't, not in hospitals for example.

They will stop being used, by some people, in some places.

@Xenia that is such an overreaction.

Good grief. You’d think surgeons are all gasping for air/can’t communicate/all have mental health issues from being required to wear a mask at work. Perhaps they should all ditch their PPE. How would that work?

[quote UndercoverToad]@Xenia that is such an overreaction.

Good grief. You’d think surgeons are all gasping for air/can’t communicate/all have mental health issues from being required to wear a mask at work. Perhaps they should all ditch their PPE. How would that work?[/quote]
xenia is describing how she feels, not everyone else

I find breathing in a mask a wee bit difficult (it was much more difficult last year but i had an undiagnosed medical issue which wasnt helping) i dont feel i can get air in BUT im certainly able to manage for 2 to 3 hours depending on the mask. Its not been necessary for me to go longer than that