Just saw a propaganda video on PBS explaining why masks are good. They showed how masks keep the air movement from our coughing from going as far.
This presumes that everyone is always stationary. But people cannot social distance from other peoples' "wake". That cloud of COVID you expired doesn't follow you, it hangs in the air, until the next person walks through your cloud.
Paul: But on the other hand, the mask drastically slows or even captures the larger droplets which can contain the virus. A lot of what is shown escaping the masks in that video is vapor and not condensed liquid, right? There is absolutely no doubt that the virus is able to be spread by someone wearing a mask. It is also true that a mask inhibits a person's ability to spread the virus. If I walk by someone who has the virus and sneezes, I'd much prefer that they were where wearing a mask than that I get sprayed directly in the face! Once again, anything that minimizes contact with virus laden mucous or saliva seems like a good idea to me.
Me: Yes, the risk is lower. The government tells us that risk is acceptable, but people will die. Isn't that the criteria, that people will die? Why are those deaths acceptable?
Paul: I believe it’s a stretch to say that they are saying any deaths are acceptable. They’re saying fewer deaths is better. I don’t believe it’s possible to lower the risk to zero. This doesn’t mean I’m ok with people dying, it just means I acknowledge that some people will.
Me: The economy was closed for the sake of saving lives. The mask mandate is to save lives. Every death is an excuse to point to peoples' selfishness.
If some level of death is acceptable, then why should the line be drawn where it is? Who gets to decide the acceptable level of deaths?
Paul: Rich, do you think they start with a number and reverse engineer regulations to allow that many deaths?
Me: No, I think the death issue is only valuable for the political impact. COVID is way less dangerous than we've been told, but it's useful in an election year.
Paul: Yes, both parties are using it to polarize their base.
Me: So the masks are not necessary.
Me: BOZEMANDAILYCHRONICLE.COM Wearing a mask in public is true sign of patriotism
Paul: Necessary for what? They help save a few lives. Speed limits help save lives too, but many lives are lost by those traveling the speed limit. That’s no reason to remove speed limits.
Paul: Rich, in regard to the opinion in the Chronicle, that’s an extreme view. We should balance that with the extreme on the other side adds simply be reasonable!
Rich: But it is a reason to lower the speed limit, or even eliminate cars. Too risky.
Paul: Rich, lots of work goes into establishing the speed limit for a given stretch of road. It’s not reasonable to eliminate cars. I’d just like to see existing traffic rules enforced. The whole “everyone did what was right in their own eyes” is in full effect on the roads (and everywhere else). I believe it’s reasonable to wear a mask. I believe we should be willing to wear one in public places to help keep each other healthier.
Me: In other words, it is reasonable to exchange deaths on the highway for the convenience or necessity of travel. It is reasonable to have a 75 mph limit even though 55 would save tens of thousands of lives.
Therefore, it is reasonable to not have masks.
Paul: I’m not surprised you went there, but I’d say no. It’s reasonable to have a speed limit in order to help save lives. It’s reasonable to wear a mask to help save lives. It may not be reasonable to make everyone wear a self-contained breathing apparatus, even if it would save more lives. That’s a better analogy.
Steve: It has been six months now, and I doubt that there is a human in the US of A that has not been exposed, at least in a secondary manner. Despite the precautions, we still get some new cases, and despite people's lack of caution, most of us are not getting sick. One starts to wonder if all of the precautions are effective or not.
Me: Exactly.
No comments:
Post a Comment