What percent of public mask wearing is actually effective?

[WuWei]

@Jezcoe

@zantax

They should repeal the mandate and call it Darwin’s law.

Except that one doesn’t always die in an accident.

There is no public health issue with seatbelts. My wearing a seatbelt will not save you if we are in an accident together.

[WuWei]

@Jezcoe

Do it… And … Go!

There you go.

[WorldWatcher]

@WuWei

@WorldWatcher

@WuWei

@WorldWatcher

Didn’t say it was.

Yes you did.

Again snipping the post to change context.

No where did I say that masks remove risk, we were talking about reducing risk. Two different subjects.

WW

I didn’t change the context of anything. I quoted a complete sentence out of your post, so stop whining.

Now:

This is what you offered as “proof”…

@WorldWatcher

There are 131,000 public school buildings in the US.

If not wearing masks result in an outbreak in 100.

And if wearing masks results in an outbreak in 10.

To this question:

@WuWei

If an outbreak occurs, did it lower the risk?

That is not proof, it would be an assumption. You want to give credit for the positive while ignoring the negative. Pure confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance.

There were mask mandates in place, even in Texas, during the last two spikes. The faith-based claim out of a lab is that “it would have been much worse without masks!” Maybe, but that’s not proof.

You guys do that all the time.

“Obamacare will lower healthcare costs!”

“Mine went up.”

*it would have gone up a lot more without Obamacare!"

I don’t have a problem with it *until you start mandating stuff and punishing people for not submitting * Then it becomes a problem.

If you want to mandate stuff and force people, the onus is on you to prove the juice is worth the squeeze at the point of attack and under operating conditions. Not some BS lab study by eggheads.

You’ve made the case for masks… not cloth face covering mandates.

What is an acceptable body count to determine the level of “proof” that would satisfy you and over what time frame for these studies on comparative infection and death rates?

BTW - There are ALREADY studies that show masks (both N95 and cloth) lower the risk of infection. The question was about lowering risk, not reducing it to 0.

WW

[WuWei]

@WorldWatcher

What is an acceptable body count to determine the level of “proof” that would satisfy you and over what time frame for these studies on comparative infection and death rates?

For mandate? That’s a high bar.

[WuWei]

@WorldWatcher

BTW - There are ALREADY studies that show masks (both N95 and cloth) lower the risk of infection.

In a lab.

We don’t live in labs.

My counter evidence is the mandates in place the last two spikes. The mandates didn’t work.

[zantax]

@WuWei

@WorldWatcher

BTW - There are ALREADY studies that show masks (both N95 and cloth) lower the risk of infection.

In a lab.

We don’t live in labs.

My counter evidence is the mandates in place the last two spikes. The mandates didn’t work.

Are you implying the lab results didn’t include someone like this?

[zantax]

Or his girlfriend.

[Jezcoe]

@WuWei

@Jezcoe

@zantax

They should repeal the mandate and call it Darwin’s law.

Except that one doesn’t always die in an accident.

There is no public health issue with seatbelts. My wearing a seatbelt will not save you if we are in an accident together.

Or if you survive and are then debilitated then there is a social cost to bringing you care.

If that cost can be mitigated by a seat belt, then it is a net positive.

No one is an island.

[zantax]

@Jezcoe

@WuWei

@Jezcoe

@zantax

They should repeal the mandate and call it Darwin’s law.

Except that one doesn’t always die in an accident.

There is no public health issue with seatbelts. My wearing a seatbelt will not save you if we are in an accident together.

Or if you survive and are then debilitated then there is a social cost to bringing you care.

If that cost can be mitigated by a seat belt, then it is a net positive.

No one is an island.

Do we get to mandate family planning too? How about black diamond ski trails? Activities that are hard on joints? That last one is really expensive by the way.

[Jezcoe]

@zantax

@Jezcoe

@WuWei

@Jezcoe

@zantax

They should repeal the mandate and call it Darwin’s law.

Except that one doesn’t always die in an accident.

There is no public health issue with seatbelts. My wearing a seatbelt will not save you if we are in an accident together.

Or if you survive and are then debilitated then there is a social cost to bringing you care.

If that cost can be mitigated by a seat belt, then it is a net positive.

No one is an island.

Do we get to mandate family planning too? How about black diamond ski trails? Activities that are hard on joints? That last one is really expensive by the way.

Where the cost is low for mitigation then there is no problem.

Once again… the all or nothing approach is dumb.

[zantax]

@Jezcoe

@zantax

@Jezcoe

@WuWei

@Jezcoe

@zantax

They should repeal the mandate and call it Darwin’s law.

Except that one doesn’t always die in an accident.

There is no public health issue with seatbelts. My wearing a seatbelt will not save you if we are in an accident together.

Or if you survive and are then debilitated then there is a social cost to bringing you care.

If that cost can be mitigated by a seat belt, then it is a net positive.

No one is an island.

Do we get to mandate family planning too? How about black diamond ski trails? Activities that are hard on joints? That last one is really expensive by the way.

Where the cost is low for mitigation then there is no problem.

Once again… the all or nothing approach is dumb.

Hard to characterize government mandated safety equipment in today’s cars as low cost.

[WuWei]

@Jezcoe

@WuWei

@Jezcoe

@zantax

They should repeal the mandate and call it Darwin’s law.

Except that one doesn’t always die in an accident.

There is no public health issue with seatbelts. My wearing a seatbelt will not save you if we are in an accident together.

Or if you survive and are then debilitated then there is a social cost to bringing you care.

If that cost can be mitigated by a seat belt, then it is a net positive.

Nolm one is an island.

Or if I die because I wasn’t wearing it and save the "social cost’.

Are you really trying to claim seatbelt laws were passed to save on the “social costs” of accidents?

By that logic we shouldn’t be mandating anything that saves anyone over 65

[WuWei]

@Jezcoe

Where the cost is low for mitigation then there is no problem.

You don’t know the cost for the mask mandate mitigation.

[WuWei]

@Jezcoe

Once again… the all or nothing approach is dumb.

You are the one demanding mandates for all.

[Jezcoe]

@zantax

@Jezcoe

@zantax

@Jezcoe

@WuWei

@Jezcoe

@zantax

They should repeal the mandate and call it Darwin’s law.

Except that one doesn’t always die in an accident.

There is no public health issue with seatbelts. My wearing a seatbelt will not save you if we are in an accident together.

Or if you survive and are then debilitated then there is a social cost to bringing you care.

If that cost can be mitigated by a seat belt, then it is a net positive.

No one is an island.

Do we get to mandate family planning too? How about black diamond ski trails? Activities that are hard on joints? That last one is really expensive by the way.

Where the cost is low for mitigation then there is no problem.

Once again… the all or nothing approach is dumb.

Hard to characterize government mandated safety equipment in today’s cars as low cost.

Compared to the alternative?

Yeah… pretty low cost.

[Jezcoe]

@WuWei

@Jezcoe

@WuWei

@Jezcoe

@zantax

They should repeal the mandate and call it Darwin’s law.

Except that one doesn’t always die in an accident.

There is no public health issue with seatbelts. My wearing a seatbelt will not save you if we are in an accident together.

Or if you survive and are then debilitated then there is a social cost to bringing you care.

If that cost can be mitigated by a seat belt, then it is a net positive.

Nolm one is an island.

Or if I die because I wasn’t wearing it and save the "social cost’.

Are you really trying to claim seatbelt laws were passed to save on the “social costs” of accidents?

By that logic we shouldn’t be mandating anything that saves anyone over 65

Go ahead and do that if you want.

I tend to not go for sociopathic strawmen.

[Jezcoe]

@WuWei

@Jezcoe

Where the cost is low for mitigation then there is no problem.

You don’t know the cost for the mask mandate mitigation.

Masks are cheap.

[Jezcoe]

@WuWei

@Jezcoe

Once again… the all or nothing approach is dumb.

You are the one demanding mandates for all.

If a locality wants to mandate something, then that is on them.

Baring a locality from doing so is silly.

[WuWei]

@Jezcoe

Go ahead and do that if you want.

I tend to not go for sociopathic strawmen.

Do what? You’ve already made it a law with punishment.

[Jezcoe]

@WuWei

@Jezcoe

Go ahead and do that if you want.

I tend to not go for sociopathic strawmen.

Do what? You’ve already made it a law with punishment.

Arguing just to argue is cool.