Well said.

If the facts don't fit the agenda, disregard them, or even better yet, lie about them. Is anyone left who is truly agnostic and just follows the facts wherever they lead?

Their numbers seem to be dwindling. I'm reminded of the following article – not so much a summary of facts (and I disagree with some of the arguments), but an interesting opinion piece about how we got to where we are: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...-babel/629369/

Please expound. I would to know how history has shown us we can trust government.

Again, in the example of COVID alone, the CDC/White House refuses to suggest healthier lifestyles as a defense against COVID, and pushes Big Pharma solutions. They shutdown parks and outdoor recreational spaces, gyms, etc., instead of promoting these resources for healthier lifestyles.

This is a totally fair question. History is indeed full of reasons to distrust government. In many ways, the post-New Deal America and the level of prosperity attained by the masses during that time was unparalleled in human history. The way I look at it, assuming one has a basic level of trust in say, elections, we the people have the ability to decide (with many caveats, of course) who is in charge of things. While all people are imperfect (and thus are the systems they devise and work within), I think America has put together and sustained something pretty remarkable, and I'd hate to see it all fall apart. History has shown that once people stop believing in government altogether, things tend not to go well.

Yes read that before. Interesting and provocative certainly, but IMO tried to weave together too many strands and ended up being a bit incoherent.

General observation: It isn't difficult defining "they," no matter what the topic (not necessarily political.) Listen to what is said, and what is done, then make note of who is saying or doing it.

Not many. It is what one should do.

Actually, the hypocrisy lies completely with you. You probably didn't read the whole paper. You cite quotes from an abstract and you don't even understand the meaning behind what you are quoting. Because "further studies are needed" doesn't mean that the effects are harmful. Standards are set in industry below what is envisioned to be the harmful level, and if there is uncertainly in risk estimates, levels are set even lower. But...there you go, taking a "sky is falling" approach to rationalize your choice. That's fine. There's no public mask mandate so do what you want and without regard to other people. And keep using terms like "face diaper" in an attempt to belittle those that wear masks. You could save the extra letters when you type, and call them masks; that's what they are. And if you're going to pretend that you've done your own research, then at least admit that you didn't read the whole paper and that you have no evidence that the CO2 levels are harmful. There would appear to be much more prima facie evidence from the thousands of professionals that wear masks (and the millions that have worn them in the past for their jobs) that indicate that those levels are not harmful.

I didn't said it is more harmful. I said I'm not going to be an experiment to determine if it is or isn't. Common sense says, if we aren't supposed to breathe in CO2, having an elevated CO2 level for an extended period of time will be harmful, at least over time. I'm glad you've studied each individual person to determine every short term and long term effect of masks in their profession to tell me they're safe.

I'm sorry you're offended by the term "face diapers" when describing a symbol of rising suicide rates, child development issues, economic issues, tyranny, etc.

You do you. Don't tell me how to live. That's the bottom line. And given the past couple of years of mandates, the pushback in discussions like this is needed to make sure that line isn't crossed again.

It is interesting that you are able to make a causal link between mask-wearing and suicide.

I'd like to point out that a lot of people in the medical profession have committed suicide because they have to attend to people with Covid that have refused to wear a mask.

Also, as for masks as "a symbol of tyranny" and "a symbol of economic issues"–

symbol: a thing that represents or stands for something else

To ignore the actual, practical purpose of masks in favor of a (literally) imaginary symbolism is so very bizarre.

The main thing he is.

“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.” George Carlin sure got that correct.

I think it illustrates what I was saying, that some people's takes seem to be driven by agenda instead of or in addition to data. It's pretty clear there is a strong correlation in general between people's views on vaccines, masks, etc. and their political leanings. In both directions, that's not aimed at anyone in particular. In other words, before any of this started, you could have predicted where most people would be.

It is not a casual link. https://www.verywellmind.com/cdc-sui...h-data-5209227

Although we don’t know exactly what has led to the overall reported declines and increases in suicide rates, experts believe the COVID-19 pandemic may have played a part.

“It’s been clear throughout the pandemic that the overall impact on the population’s mental health has been significant,” says Christine Moutier, MD, Chief Medical Officer at the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP).

I've talked to many people in the mental health and teaching professions. The developmental decline because of "expert" mandates is scary, and the increase in mental health issues is even worse.

How did Biden just get COVID multiple times in the span of a couple of weeks? Did he not wear a mask? Was he not vaxxed? Oh wait. Don't blame non-mask wearers for medical professionals committing suicide. That's despicable, and exactly why there is so much judgement on the pro-mask crowd. The shame they cast on people who won't comply is disgusting.

Decisions have consequences. The mental health and economic consequences are going to prove to be more detrimental to society than COVID itself. The main at-risk population for COVID deaths were also at risk with the common cold. "Experts" and politicians hid behind these people to enact overreaching government policies that saved very few, if any, lives. Businesses were shutdown, mental health crisis spiked, lives were completely altered. The anger lies with the "experts"/politicians.

Again, until someone can explain why healthier lifestyles/eating habits weren't/aren't promoted, any pro-mask/COVID fear mongering argument is worthless.

Going by pictures anyhow, my impression is that Biden is not vigilant about wearing a mask. Perhaps not practical given his job. Plus, based on what I've read, anything short of a KN 95 isn't going to be terribly effective anyhow.

This. One of the faces of the "pandemic", who is part of the at risk population, doesn't consistently practice what he and his counterparts preach.

To boot, the N95 mask statement is correct as well, yet those flimsy blue "Made somewhere in Asia" masks are what is pushed to the general public.

It's a dog and pony show.

Right, I guess what I'm trying to figure out is what is the agenda?

"I'm against any authority telling me what to do, ever"?
"Wearing a mask makes me look stupid, so I refuse to wear one"?

Unfortunately, I suspect that in some cases the agenda at work is not that of the one espousing the opinion.

The agenda of which side are you trying to figure out?

Well, my last sentence applies across the political spectrum, but the two specific hypotheticals are directed toward those who might agree with things you've posted. Do either of those align with your views?

I agree with you on two points:
1. Many politicians have demonstrated hypocrisy. Witness Newsom and Garcetti partying at the Super Bowl maskless. And Obama not wearing one at his birthday bash while insisting the staff did.
2. The government failed miserably to explain the differences among masks. And it seemed willful.

No. And part of the issue is that's how the anti-mask/anti-covid fear side is portrayed - basically anarchists who will love under no authority.

Maintaining basic rights is the overall "agenda" which shouldn't be an argumentative goal.

That's fair. Can you clarify which "basic rights" are of concern here?

Is it the government's duty/job/obligating to mandate what I wear/my health choices?

Or should they simply provide unbias information and allow each individual to decide?

Certainly not, but I'd guess they have not done that to you, have they? I'd wager that you have the ability to live the entire rest of your life without ever putting a mask on.

My view is that the government failed miserably with the pandemic, especially at the beginning. I have a hard time believing that "bias" is really at play, other than a bias toward trying to save lives. Take Fauci, for example. There are plenty of reasons to criticize him, but the fact that he has worked an stayed on for the current and previous administrations (and has been willing to publicly contradict politicans over and over, even to his personal and family's detriment) tells me that his expertise and experience are not to be dismissed out of hand.

They did for 2 years, so I'm not sure what your point is. What would stop them from doing that again? The precedent set by their COVID decisions is a dangerous one.


Oh yeah, Fauci is an honorable saint. I'm sure his highest-for-a-government-official paycheck has nothing to do with him staying on. His connections to the Wuhan Lab are fine, too. How he handled AIDs was immaculate, as well.

That's strange. I know many people who never/barely left their home during those two years and they never once put a mask on.

Nobody called him a saint. That is a straw man. And I agree, his salary is ridiculous and may be a factor. If my family was regularly getting death threats, I'd probably quit, even if I was making his salary.

Question: how do you feel about seat belt laws? Or motorcycle helmet laws?

Stupid and basically another money grab/tax so some blowhards can collect larger paychecks in the name of "public safety". The risks of not wearing one are well known. If someone doesn't want to wear one or the other, that should be their right.

Should I have the right to smoke in a restaurant?

A few things here--I said that you have made a causal link between mask-wearing and suicide rates, not a casual link.

Second: the article you link to from verywellmind.com does not even mention masks. Yet you somehow attribute increased suicide rates for certain subsections of the population to mask-wearing.

Third: Biden's case of Covid was quite mild, which is likely attributable to his being vaccinated. His second positive test is likely related to his taking of paxlovid.

Fourth: You keep saying that CDC discourages healthy lifestyles, yet have not presented a reason for thinking this, other than they have discouraged large gatherings in the name of sports.

Who bears the additional healthcare costs from the incremental accident injuries due to not wearing them?

Did you have a baby during the pandemic where you HAD to leave the house? Did you have a job that tried to force you into the office, only to segregate you into vaxxed/non vaxxed, and mandate masks for the non vaxxed?

I did choose not to go to sporting events that required masks. Even at doctor's offices for baby appointments, I did not wear the mask over my nose.

Fauci is not an "expert". He's an egotistical hypocrite.

I don't have a uterus, so no.

Also no, but that's on the employer.

Thanks for proving my point that your rights were not taken away.

Perhaps he's both. Egotistical hypocrites are a dime a dozen in Washington.

Should be up to the restaurant, right counselor?

If you dont want to be around smoke, dont go to a cigar bar

So you object to laws that ban public smoking?

"Legally" It should be up the restaurant owner no? Hell I havent smoked in years, but what you do in your establishment has nO effect on me. I just wont go, that's my choice, and I dont need a mandate to keep me away.

If the restaurant allows it, sure. But I doubt many wohld. The second-hand smoke health effects on others are well know.

Boil this down to a victimless crimes debate. Is the action of someone harming someone else physically or financially? If the answer is no, how is that a crime?

Good catch on my misread. Regardless, it still stands. My link was between COVID mandates and suicide rates/mental health/development. Masks are encompassed in that discussion.

If the people mandating masks are also mandating detrimental measures, why should someone believe the masks work? That's my line of thinking, and the line of thinking of many. The response was never and still isn't consistent.

Convenient that every celebrity/figurehead hasn't died from COVID despite being in the at risk population and ignoring their own words a majority of the time.

Mouthpiece Psaki was literally asked, point blank, if the US will go the way of Europe is promoting healthier lifestyles as a defense against COVID, to which she said that they are confident in their approach.

Maybe we should audit our healthcare system and come up with a more competitive system to lower costs in general? That's a different discussion for a different day.

I am fine personally with most smoking bans. If you need to smoke, don't do it around other people.

That's not on the employer when the federal government implements penalties for companies who don't comply with their restrictions, forcing companies to comply.

If you're not going to have a legitimate discussion, why comment?

I get it, its nasty, but it should be up to the owners to decide. What's next, not serving regular soda due to diabetes? They tried!

This is such a great counterargument. If public health is so important, why aren't all unhealthy things outlawed?

No money in the cure!

Slippery slope argument. I don't buy it. The reason for smoking bans is to protect others, not to save people from themselves.

Even in such a situation, employees have the choice to go get another job.

Just as you call Fauci an "expert" (rather than an expert) because you don't like what you hear from him, contributions to the discussion which are not to your liking are "illegitimate"?

I am not really sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying no celebrities have died of Covid?

If you are saying that, are you saying that there is some type conspiracy theory sparing celebrities?

I think you've highlighted the basis of anger for the anti-mask/mandate argument. Pretty slippery slope, and hypocritical, no?

So you're in favor of the upheaval of the lives of individuals based on how government sees for?

I call Fauci an "expert" because he botched AIDS, is connected to the Wuhan Lab, and has flip flopped more than a pancake, all the whole collecting the largest taxpayer funded paycheck in our government.