Poll of the Day > Why the hell are people still complaining about masks?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Wearing a mask is to protect others, it's understandable if people don't care about others.
It is however, rude.

adjl posted...

but you can predict it reliably enough that considering you responsible for that outcome is perfectly reasonable

I'm glad you thinks so. The predictable outcome of lockdowns, mask regulations, and vaccine mandates was to make people resistant to them. Less people complied than if you had approached them rationally because it became a political statement to go against them. These measures damaged the economy. They increased political polarization. They lead to social unrest. And they failed to stop the contagious diseases you're so worried about. So they did those things for no reason. Now hold the politicians who implemented them accountable for actively making the world around them worse

adjl posted...

If you dump a bucket of water on somebody's head, you are responsible for them getting wet. If you shoot somebody, you are responsible for them bleeding. If you refuse to wear a mask around somebody while potentially being infectious, you are responsible for them getting sick.

Funny how the subject we were discussing was personal responsibility yet the person these things happen to have no responsibility to avoid a predictable outcome. If you see up ahead that someone is on a scaffold is washing windows and a bucket of water falls on you, then you were too close to the scaffold. If you're at a firing range and the bullet hits you instead of the target, then you shouldn't have run in front of it. If you believe that there is a pandemic going around and you got sick, well you decided what level of precaution you were comfortable with at the time you were exposed.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

The predictable outcome of lockdowns, mask regulations, and vaccine mandates was to make people resistant to them. Less people complied than if you had approached them rationally because it became a political statement to go against them.

See, now this is a clear example of trying to avoid personal responsibility. Choosing to reject sensible safety regulations because doing so is a political statement is 100% your choice. Absolutely, no question, this is not something anyone can possibly argue against except maybe by bringing mental illness into the question, and even then there's little basis to suggest that the government should eschew necessary public health measures to appease a handful of people whose mental health issues make it impossible for them to respond appropriately.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

And they failed to stop the contagious diseases you're so worried about. So they did those things for no reason.

By and large, in the areas with good compliance rates, they did help significantly to keep case rates down. Failing to completely stop it doesn't mean they existed for no reason. Why do you people struggle so much with the concept of partial success?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Funny how the subject we were discussing was personal responsibility yet the person these things happen to have no responsibility to avoid a predictable outcome.

But that's not at all what I said. You're making up completely different scenarios where the dumper/shooter has less responsibility (although if you're shooting at a target while there's anyone down range at all, you are absolutely liable for hitting them because that's extremely fundamental range safety and violating it means you're an idiot who should never be anywhere near a gun). Textbook strawman, next.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

If you believe that there is a pandemic going around

As an aside, do you believe there's a pandemic going around?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

If you believe that there is a pandemic going around and you got sick, well you decided what level of precaution you were comfortable with at the time you were exposed.

There are indeed precautions that can be taken at a personal level, and people should be taking those. Those precautions, however, are not perfect, and people refusing to take precautions still leaves a significant risk to others in spite of their personal protective measures. Ergo, people that are deliberately creating increased risk for others are not welcome in society.

Remember: Locking out plague rats is a precaution you can take to protect yourself from the disease they carry. If you're going to put the onus on people to protect themselves from the risk you want to inflict on them, don't complain when they enact one of the most effective protective measures of all.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

they failed to stop the contagious diseases you're so worried about. So they did those things for no reason.

lol they absolutely did make a huge impact on the spread

Why do you people keep arguing with Skard, he's shown multiple times that he doesn't live in our reality

Mostly, because he's clearly unwell and I'm hoping I can do something to fix that. Failing that, because he's occasionally dangerous and I'm hoping I can do something to fix that. Failing that, because I don't want any confused people to think he might have a valid point.

adjl posted...

See, now this is a clear example of trying to avoid personal responsibility. Choosing to reject sensible safety regulations

That's not personal responsibility though. You can argue they have a responsibility in the form of a social or legal obligation, but that's not the same thing as personal responsibility. You keep mistaking that term to mean other things.

adjl posted...

doing so is a political statement

You see, this is where they are taking personal responsibility. They have a concern about the role of government in society. They're acting in a way that addresses that concern. They're taking personal responsibility for their own needs.

adjl posted...

there's little basis to suggest that the government should eschew necessary public health measures

That's not the role of government.

adjl posted...

a handful of people whose mental health issues make it impossible for them to respond appropriately.

This could easily be in reference to the politicians who didn't follow their own mandates. Whether you agree with the mandates or not, the way to respond appropriately is to be consistent and not a hypocrite.

adjl posted...

Why do you people struggle so much with the concept of partial success?

It's because people don't consider it a success by any measure. The people you're asking about weren't concerned with infection rates. If you're only looking at infection rates as though that's all that matters then you don't care to understand their perspective.

adjl posted...

But that's not at all what I said. You're making up completely different scenarios where the dumper/shooter has less responsibility

You were vague about details. You were talking about a predictable outcome. I added details to make it clear that the outcome should be predicable to the person they were happening to as well. The dumper/shooter have the same responsibility they did originally. What is different is that the other person shares in that responsibility.

adjl posted...

that's extremely fundamental range safety

It's also fundamental range safety to stay out of the firing range. In the details I added I was referring to someone well away from danger suddenly and unexpectedly placing them self in danger.

adjl posted...

As an aside, do you believe there's a pandemic going around?

What has the mainstream media been saying about lately? They get things wrong so often. If they're still saying there is one I would take that to mean there isn't.

adjl posted...

people refusing to take precautions still leaves a significant risk to others

That's not what we're talking about though. The subject was personal responsibility. That means taking responsibility for ones own health. Without any reliance on others to do it for you.

adjl posted...

Remember: Locking out plague rats is a precaution you can take to protect yourself from the disease they carry. If you're going to put the onus on people to protect themselves from the risk you want to inflict on them, don't complain when they enact one of the most effective protective measures of all.

Why do I still get the impression that you think personal responsibility means forcing other people to do what you want them to? If you are locked in a room and there are rats outside the room, then you don't have to go out and you don't have to let them in. If the level of precaution you're most comfortable with is to seclude yourself, then I have no problem with that. But it sounds like you're suggesting that I should have a problem with what you're alluding to. If the room is instead society at large, well you're not keeping those people out, they already were part of society to begin with. It's authoritarian to think you determine if they remain. Don't be surprised if the room belongs to the rats.

adjl posted...

Mostly, because he's clearly unwell and I'm hoping I can do something to fix that.

Occasionally you provide some entertainment. More often than not it just frustrates me how don't think about what you quoted.

adjl posted...

I don't want any confused people to think he might have a valid point.

So far I'm not convinced you know what my point is.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/6/5/0/AAQ2WmAADATC.jpg

They talk about personal responsibility and then go nuts over wearing a mask.

If we all took the personal responsibility to wear a mask for a couple of years, we could not only eradicate COVID but the common cold as well.

I seem to recall pointing this out to you before.

It is NOT easy to eradicate a disease at all. Only two human diseases have been wiped out, smallpox and rindopest. While several others (like polio) are on their back legs, it's VERY hard even with diseases that are not particularly infectious and easily vaccinated. It took us decades to wipe out smallpox, until 1977, and that was relatively easy to stop once a workable vaccine was discovered. Covid 19 is highly infectious and has multiple strains already. Pretty much the only way it could have been stopped is if patient 0 had been identified immediately and the whole place quarantined. We still have no clue who patient 0 is or even if this virus came from a bat or a Chinese lab (let's not get into that). Even then the vaccine is NOT 100% effective especially if you're going with, say, the Chinese version. Even if it was and everyone was on board with it, it would likely take DECADES to actually finally wipe out and that's assuming no new strains immune to the vaccine popped up.

So no, there was never any realistic hope of 'wiping out COVID'. That's why the goal was to 'flatten the curve'. I.E. make it so that it spread slower so the hospitals could handle it; not wipe it out. Cause there was no way it was going to be wiped out from day 1.

Ebola seems to be wiped out. You never hear about it.

MagicalPrincess posted...

Ebola seems to be wiped out. You never hear about it.

I'm legit having a conversation with an alt-right nutbag on reddit about how the Polio vaccine is still important

...his argument is we don't need it because we don't poop in the streets :V

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/1/2/AAQ2WmAAC48I.jpg

how is this deadlier than ebola?

Krazy_Kirby posted...

how is this deadlier than ebola?

Probably cuz it killed way more people

Ya, what number is bigger - 30% of Europe... or 2% of EARTH

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

That's not personal responsibility though.

It very much is. If you don't think it is, it's either because you don't understand the concept, or because you don't understand what "it" is referring to in this case (that is, blaming the existence of public health guidelines for the decision to ignore sound public healthy advice instead of taking personal responsibility for that decision).

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

That's not the role of government.

Enacting laws to ensure the safety of the public is very much part of the role of government.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

This could easily be in reference to the politicians who didn't follow their own mandates. Whether you agree with the mandates or not, the way to respond appropriately is to be consistent and not a hypocrite.

While you're not wrong, and a great many public figures are indeed being hypocritical about mask usage, that's entirely ancillary to anything we're talking about.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

It's because people don't consider it a success by any measure.

And that is objectively incorrect. Anyone who thinks that infection, hospitalization, and death rates are not measures of how successful interventions have been for dealing with a public health crisis can be safely ignored because they very obviously have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...
You were vague about details. You were talking about a predictable outcome. I added details to make it clear that the outcome should be predicable to the person they were happening to as well.

Also known as a strawman argument: Fabricating a position nobody actually holds because you find that easier to defeat, then defeating it and acting like you've made a point anyone should care about.

I didn't say any of that. You chose to make up me saying that because it was easier to argue against "me" that way. Don't do that.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...
It's also fundamental range safety to stay out of the firing range.

It is, but when lives are on the line, everybody has a responsibility to behave safely. If you make a habit of shooting when somebody's down range, you'll be kicked out of any well-managed firing range faster than you can say "oops," and may even face criminal charges depending on how egregious the details of the offense are. That is emphatically not responsible firearm usage.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...
What has the mainstream media been saying about lately? They get things wrong so often. If they're still saying there is one I would take that to mean there isn't.

That's stupid. There's really nothing more to say about that.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...
That's not what we're talking about though. The subject was personal responsibility. That means taking responsibility for ones own health. Without any reliance on others to do it for you.

And as has been covered exhaustively, personal responsibility includes taking responsibility for the consequences of one's own actions. Those who spread disease can and should be held accountable for doing so, and they are responsible for that decision and its consequences.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...
Why do I still get the impression that you think personal responsibility means forcing other people to do what you want them to?

Because you decided that's what everyone that disagrees with you is saying and have been doing whatever mental gymnastics you can - including blatant strawman fallacies - to maintain that belief regardless of what anyone is saying.

Personal responsibility does not entail forcing others to do anything. It does, however, mean that those who - through deliberate action or inaction - cause harm to others can be held accountable for that harm, as they are personally responsible for the decisions they made. Personal responsibility doesn't entail forcing people to do anything, but responding to decisions for which they are personally responsible can.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...
If the room is instead society at large, well you're not keeping those people out, they already were part of society to begin with.

And you can't lock out rats that are already been living in the room you would prefer to be rat-free? Nonsense. We employ all manner of exterminators and other pest control specialists to accomplish exactly that. Sure, the rats will complain, but they're rats. Who cares what they have to say?

MagicalPrincess posted...

Ebola seems to be wiped out. You never hear about it.

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ebola-virus-disease (there's a list of outbreak data near the bottom)

It's about as common now as it was prior to the 2014-16 outbreak, maybe a bit less (that outbreak led to an effective vaccine and quite a few other advances in treating and controlling it, which help a lot). It was never a particularly common disease, nor one that's particularly relevant outside of Africa; the 2014 outbreak was quite exceptional (hence it got so much media coverage). It's to be expected that it wouldn't get much attention now.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

how is this deadlier than ebola?

Ebola's CFR is much, much higher, but Ebola is orders of magnitude less transmissible. As such, the 2014 Ebola outbreak killed ~14,000 people globally in two years. Covid has killed 6 million in the same time frame, which means it's 428 times more deadly.

Lokarin posted...

Ya, what number is bigger - 30% of Europe... or 2% of EARTH

I think you're confusing Ebola with Bubonic Plague. In terms of per capita mortality, while I don't have data immediately to hand, I could believe that the Black Death was worse than Covid. Obviously, Covid hasn't killed 30% of Europe, so it doesn't really measure up. It's also still not as bad as the 1918 flu pandemic, whether we're talking raw or per capita numbers. This is why I make a habit of calling it the "worst public health crisis in a century": It's very definitely not the worst in history, it's just worse than anything since that 1918 flu.

Wanded posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/1/2/AAQ2WmAAC48I.jpg

It spreads through droplets, not air, so usually the paper mask is pretty solid baseline protection. However, you can also use eye/face shields, which I have done at work; if you are concerned about exposure I would actually recommend doing so.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

how is this deadlier than ebola?

It depends on your metric. Lethality vs ability to spread vs how well it can be treated/cured. A combination of high lethality + high ability to spread + low ability to treat makes for a truly devastating condition. If, for example, Ebola was an airborne infection, we would be absolutely fucked, as I think the droplet-borne COVID-19 pandemic has nicely illustrated, but we are fairly competent at preventing Ebola from spreading too far, so despite its extreme lethality, its inability to spread like wildfire causes the death toll to be lower.

...

As for Black Death, we can treat it now. You need to keep things in perspective- how bad a thing is in relation to what tools we have to combat it, and how effective those tools are. Public health is not a simple subject.

Unbridled9 posted...

I seem to recall pointing this out to you before.

It is NOT easy to eradicate a disease at all. Only two human diseases have been wiped out, smallpox and rindopest. While several others (like polio) are on their back legs, it's VERY hard even with diseases that are not particularly infectious and easily vaccinated. It took us decades to wipe out smallpox, until 1977, and that was relatively easy to stop once a workable vaccine was discovered. Covid 19 is highly infectious and has multiple strains already. Pretty much the only way it could have been stopped is if patient 0 had been identified immediately and the whole place quarantined. We still have no clue who patient 0 is or even if this virus came from a bat or a Chinese lab (let's not get into that). Even then the vaccine is NOT 100% effective especially if you're going with, say, the Chinese version. Even if it was and everyone was on board with it, it would likely take DECADES to actually finally wipe out and that's assuming no new strains immune to the vaccine popped up.

So no, there was never any realistic hope of 'wiping out COVID'. That's why the goal was to 'flatten the curve'. I.E. make it so that it spread slower so the hospitals could handle it; not wipe it out. Cause there was no way it was going to be wiped out from day 1.

While truly eradicating diseases is indeed far, far more difficult than many people realize, and the term gets thrown around a lot because it's a dramatic word that feels exciting to use (which is fair, honestly) even though it's not entirely accurate, there's a ton of middle ground between true eradication and reducing case rates to levels that can be easily managed long-term. That's what we've done with measles and polio and all those other diseases that kids get vaccinated for, and there's really no reason Covid couldn't have joined that list.

Instead, because people pushed back against control measures, herd immunity doesn't look like it's going to be attainable. We've got decent vaccination rates in many areas, but they're still way too low in many others, and even those areas that do have good vaccination rates are treating that as a reason to give up on the other precautions that lower the herd immunity threshold instead of waiting until case rates get low enough to justify that (which is not nearly as impossible as people want to think it is to justify resisting countermeasures). The end result of that has been Delta, Omicron, and whatever other variants we'll see in the future that will keep messing with the vaccines' ability to manage the disease.

In effect, the vision many countries seem to be accepting is to have Covid become what Polio was in the 50's: A persistent public health threat that will see periodic regional outbreaks that maim/kill a bunch of people until some new miracle treatment comes along that is enough to turn the tide (which, in Covid's case, will probably be a vaccine that's flexible enough to pre-empt future variants and/or vaccinate against all possible dangerous strains). There's no reason Covid couldn't have ended up stabilizing where Polio is today, but people were a little too attached to the idea of pretending that we're not at war.