Will you get vaccinated against COVID once it's available?

[G1911]

.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

No, he abandoned his argument that it’s about saving other people’s lives to argue it’s when the state tells him he should to save lives.

Again you are overlooking my basic point that I was not aware of any information in 2019 that would have led me to consider wearing a mask. It has nothing to do with the state other than that the state typically would be a major source of information.

[G1911]

.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

So your argument is that you only have to do it when the state or social pressure is there? I’m not sure what body you think would advise you in a way that widely disseminates the narrative so broadly except the state and its organs (CDC). I’m happy to stand corrected if such an organization exists. Clearly it cannot be about actual risk, if we are so worried about people with a 95% effective vaccine now, but didn’t give a hoot about disease in 2019.

No, my argument is that when one has good reason from whatever source to believe his conduct may be detrimental to others, and there is a way to mitigate that that isn't terribly restrictive, one should do that. You keep conflating this point with other issues and trying to twist my argument.

Whether in fact masks help is a separate point certainly worth discussing, but my argument assumes (as I have conceded) that they are helpful to others.

[G1911]

.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Specific criticisms please.

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

An evidence review of face masks against COVID-19

Abstract

The science around the use of masks by the public to impede COVID-19 transmission is advancing rapidly. In this narrative review, we develop an analytical framework to examine mask usage, synthesizing the relevant literature to inform multiple areas: population impact, transmission characteristics, source control, wearer protection, sociological considerations, and implementation considerations. A primary route of transmission of COVID-19 is via respiratory particles, and it is known to be transmissible from presymptomatic, paucisymptomatic, and asymptomatic individuals. Reducing disease spread requires two things: limiting contacts of infected individuals via physical distancing and other measures and reducing the transmission probability per contact. The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles in both laboratory and clinical contexts. Public mask wearing is most effective at reducing spread of the virus when compliance is high. Given the current shortages of medical masks, we recommend the adoption of public cloth mask wearing, as an effective form of source control, in conjunction with existing hygiene, distancing, and contact tracing strategies. Because many respiratory particles become smaller due to evaporation, we recommend increasing focus on a previously overlooked aspect of mask usage: mask wearing by infectious people (“source control”) with benefits at the population level, rather than only mask wearing by susceptible people, such as health care workers, with focus on individual outcomes. We recommend that public officials and governments strongly encourage the use of widespread face masks in public, including the use of appropriate regulation.

Also.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2776536

[Republicaninmass]

When the hysteria and anxiety around getting the disease is 99% WORSE than the disease itself, there is some sort of disconnect. I'm talking in the low risk category. People under 60 with no comorbidities.

Could have been Cuomo/deblasio, here in NY and their:


"It's like fighting air, we cant control it" comment

Call for 50,000 ventilators

Call for aircraft carrier and javits center to be used as hospitals.

People didnt use their common sense. They wore masks outside because they were told to. Many looked down on others as "doing the wrong thing for the country". Now CDC says it fine. Well actually there was never a risk of contracting it outside. There was 100 cases attributed to a Singaporean construction site that were miscatagorized.

Believe half of what you see and none of what you read or hear. Rely on what you know to be true. The same thing happened in 1918 and we didnt understand the science behind, but we've acted the same. Wait until these roaring 20s pass, to see how we really fared.

[G1911]

.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

So your argument is that you only have to do it when the state or social pressure is there? I’m not sure what body you think would advise you in a way that widely disseminates the narrative so broadly except the state and its organs (CDC). I’m happy to stand corrected if such an organization exists. Clearly it cannot be about actual risk, if we are so worried about people with a 95% effective vaccine now, but didn’t give a hoot about disease in 2019.

For example, I am pretty diligent about recycling what I can. Nobody knows if I do or don't, there is no state or social pressure, but I do it because I feel it's the right thing to do so in a miniscule way I do my part.