Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

How many masks do you wear?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, whYNOT said:

As were others. "Ignored", in the sense that none of their advice was taken (e.g. keeping schools open) by health departments and governments, and dictatorial measures were enforced instead.

How is "the curve will last longer" advice to keep schools open? There really isn't any logic to keeping schools open. "The curve will last longer, therefore we should do things that will make the curve last shorter" would be poor reasoning because that creates length as the same thing as severity. Length is very different than severity.

9 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I have nowhere suggested only to rely on "natural" herd immunity.

 

11 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Or done no worse. And nearly everyone's lives would have gone on uninterrupted. I'd additionally venture that that solution could not have done any worse in mass suppression of the viral spread. At very least, a greater amount of herd immunity would have been achieved sooner.

I didn't say that you suggested only to rely on natural herd immunity. I said that natural herd immunity is dangerous. Natural herd immunity should be irrelevant precisely because how dangerous it is. If I'm unclear, I'm saying that acquiring herd immunity naturally is dangerous. Immunity itself is of course beneficial even if you get there by dangerous and deadly means.

Here, you suggested that prior to vaccinations, avoiding things like wearing masks and social distancing in general would at least put you closer to herd immunity. And then you added that throwing in vaccinations would put herd immunity even closer. I'm saying that the first part is completely harmful. The second part is correct. This isn't nitpicking, it probably means that you aren't writing clearly and you aren't making sense despite how clear you think you are being. I'm not being dense either, it shouldn't be a surprise that you aren't the most clear writer in the world. That's not an insult, I'm letting you clarify, but I don't like to tolerate such vagueness in a philosophical discussion. 

10 hours ago, whYNOT said:

If those most susceptible people had early removed themselves to total isolation, many and most would not have succumbed. Is that logical enough?

Okay, but that's changing subjects. Attaining herd immunity naturally is dangerous for everyone. Doesn't matter what illness it is. Even the flu.

 

Remember I'm mostly on your side for this topic, it's just not helping your position some of the things you are saying. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 245
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This discussion has been rather far removed from the fundamental principles regarding man’s rights, and has focused instead on notions of aggression, spreading (versus other means), sensory inputs, af

https://youtu.be/ssvSsMqTtjo Kibbe on Liberty: Pandemic imprisoning and the culture war. Perspectives from Britain and the USA. Great conversation.

I wear one when required, out of respect for the fact that a private business is required to enforce the mandate. I never decided on a consistent policy to use in situations where I have a choice. I g

Posted Images

15 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I personally know several individuals, the most cautious or obsessive social distancers, maskers and sanitizers, who caught the virus. Some would not have known of it if they hadn't been tested, a few felt poorly for a while before complete recovery and one I know of died.

Probably because other people didn't wear masks as they should have.  An important benefit of wearing a mask is that it greatly reduces the extent to which the mask wearer spreads virus, thus avoiding unnecessarily infecting other people.  With a disease like COVID-19, it is easy to be contagious without showing any symptoms so far.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Probably because other people didn't wear masks as they should have.  An important benefit of wearing a mask is that it greatly reduces the extent to which the mask wearer spreads virus, thus avoiding unnecessarily infecting other people.  With a disease like COVID-19, it is easy to be contagious without showing any symptoms so far.

But not so. The mask wearing public (here and most places) have also been conditioned, if not always willingly, to conform to the procedures. Which means that everybody in public conducts a measure of self-protection and other-protection, and many as I mention are scrupulous but still contracted the virus - and the infection spread has not stopped dead. Therefore, the measures are insufficient - to inefficacious. Humans are not robotic, can't be controlled every moment in their every act and only so much is humanly possible. I understood your intent has been towards stricter measures on top of already draconian measures which have already curtailed freedom of action, taken away people's activities, plans and aspirations and collectivized society for a long time to come. To little avail. No other alternative presents itself, for those who should and so decide, self-isolate, stay away from all possible sources of infection, thereby keeping fatalities lower, leaving everyone else free to live proper lives - or, win-win. Moral self-responsibility to be raised as primary - look after yourself - as one can't and should not be responsible for all others all or part of the time. No surprises, the moral turns out to be also the practical. 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

From that information, you can only conclude that such measures are not enough on their own to reduce risk to zero. People already know that. You can't conclude that a measure is inefficacious just because it wasn't enough on its own. 

Yup, that's what wearing masks helps to do. 

I don't think you are taking in what I've been saying.

Perhaps if you did not superficially pull out one-liners to quote you'd see the bigger picture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Known: Coronavirus is harmful-to-fatal for (let us assume) one-to-ten percent of a population. Advanced age and/or presence of comorbidity have been well-established as the dangers.

Question: What should such individuals in such a category do about it?

Question: What does the remainder of the population do? And ought do?

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because I quote one line doesn't mean that I'm not trying to give you you a big picture response. But it edited the response because I wasn't interested anymore in continuing that conversation. If you want a different kind of response that is less about criticism, don't be so pessimistic and negative. I mean, I'd rather talk about voluntary measures you can do around your own community so that the impulse reaction by people didn't have to be "it's either the government that sets rules or there are no rules whatsoever!"

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Known: Coronavirus is harmful-to-fatal for (let us assume) one-to-ten percent of a population. Advanced age and/or presence of comorbidity have been well-established as the dangers.

Question: What should such individuals in such a category do about it?

Question: What does the remainder of the population do? And ought do?

Q1: Invalid response - Such individuals must be allowed to function normally, and although at highest risk, they have the ¬right¬ to go out and about, unmolested by the virus and protected by everybody else. Their lives are everybody's business.

Q2: Invalid response - The healthy/young/active bulk of the population must abide by the strict laws and social conforms to protect the elderly-unwell and defend their ¬right¬ to venture out. Also, thereby, "defeating" the virus by a concerted, mass effort. We are all in this together...

Q1: one has the right to do whatever one chooses. There is not 'a right' to evade reality, the reality which is if you are at risk, you could well be a victim of the transmitted virus. Therefore, such a person should preferably remove himself from normal activities, self-quarantine, for the duration - or, may take chances if he/she wants at their own risk. Your life is your own.

Q2: again, one has the right to act for one's own life. One has not the moral responsibility to live for general others' health and protection - their survival -  i.e. the 'common good of society'. This group can very safely operate as normal fulfilling their own purposes and needs. They are not to be sacrificed nor to self-sacrifice, for 'society'. They can continue taking care of themselves and their own. (Your life is your own). Secondarily, the usual and worthy common courtesy and rights-observation towards others applies. Rest assured, there is a huge reservoir of benevolence around when the responsibility/guilt for others is not pressured on people.

"We are all in this together" is the great lie. The suffering of individuals who have lost their livelihoods (etc.) and face uncertain and bleak futures cannot be collectively shared.

By this scientific, radical, objectively ethical method is the only rational method I think. Of course, Covid-19 (and whatever virus comes next) will spread through the healthy population unchecked, but many will develop anti-bodies and (as a by-product only, not the aim), develop some "natural" herd immunity, until eventually most people are vaccinated ("artificial" herd immunity?). Still there will be the existence of health risks and fatalities, but hardly more than for influenza. 

Many physical lives survive and man's life goes on unbroken.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, whYNOT said:

But not so. The mask wearing public (here and most places) have also been conditioned, if not always willingly, to conform to the procedures. Which means that everybody in public conducts a measure of self-protection and other-protection, and many as I mention are scrupulous but still contracted the virus - and the infection spread has not stopped dead. Therefore, the measures are insufficient - to inefficacious. Humans are not robotic, can't be controlled every moment in their every act and only so much is humanly possible. I understood your intent has been towards stricter measures on top of already draconian measures which have already curtailed freedom of action, taken away people's activities, plans and aspirations and collectivized society for a long time to come. To little avail. No other alternative presents itself, for those who should and so decide, self-isolate, stay away from all possible sources of infection, thereby keeping fatalities lower, leaving everyone else free to live proper lives - or, win-win. Moral self-responsibility to be raised as primary - look after yourself - as one can't and should not be responsible for all others all or part of the time. No surprises, the moral turns out to be also the practical. 

You ignore my point, and you ignore the fact that many people refused to wear masks, thereby endangering others.

You sloppily fail to distinguish between mask wearing and other measures.

I am not advocating any particular measure or set of measures; I am saying that wearing masks is an expression of respect for the rights of others, and that it would be more effective if more people practiced it.

Lots of people holed up in nursing homes, isolated from normal visits, and still died. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

whYNOT,

You ignore that young people without comorbidities are still at some risk of death or other serious harm.

You conflate reasonable respect for the rights of others with self-sacrifice.

11 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Many physical lives survive and man's life goes on unbroken.

And therefore it's not so bad that some individuals die?  You sound suspiciously collectivist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

You ignore my point, and you ignore the fact that many people refused to wear masks, thereby endangering others.

You sloppily fail to distinguish between mask wearing and other measures.

 

Again, your presumption that one's life is the property of others and theirs belongs to one. If "many people" refuse to wear masks they must be forced to or arrested, right? Every do-good ideology will resort to forcible means to its ends.

Can I repeat: one is not "endangering others" where they don't go (to be endangered). But you'd have someone walking across a freeway to prove that the drivers would (somehow) save him from injury. That argument is an evasion of reality. The same evasion that causes many fatalities from Covid - i.e. Big G will care for us and so will other people.

Clearly DM, moral self-responsibility is distasteful to you but having the burden of responsibility for others is right, loving and moral. Have you read any Objectivist ethics and individual rights literature?

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

whYNOT,

You ignore that young people without comorbidities are still at some risk of death or other serious harm.

You conflate reasonable respect for the rights of others with self-sacrifice.

And therefore it's not so bad that some individuals die?  You sound suspiciously collectivist.

I ignored nothing: "Still there will be the existence of health risks and fatalities" I wrote.

What do you call being prevented from the normal function of a productive, healthy life because of the risks others - not as healthy or frail - face? That is sacrifice.

I believe that spreading out equal suffering for all, is what you indicate and implicitly aim for. That is altruism. 

OF course some people died and will die. A virus can be lethal. Limitation of fatalities, however, is highly possible with rational thinking and self-interest .

As some died from flu every year that went almost unnoticed. As about 55 million die from all causes annually. What to do you want - to save the world and humanity from mortality?

 

Figure 4 is a bar graph showing the age-adjusted death rates for the 10 leading causes of death in the United States in 2018 and 2019.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

If "many people" refuse to wear masks they must be forced to or arrested, right?

I don't see anywhere that Doug said or suggested people should be forced to wear masks or arrested if they don't wear masks. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

I don't see anywhere that Doug said or suggested people should be forced to wear masks or arrested if they don't wear masks. 

 

And where does "initiation of force" lead you to? One falls foul of the law (against initiating force), not so?

This habit you have of replying on others' behalf. Allow him to speak for himself.

Doug: Is it right that people be forced by law to wear masks?

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Just because I quote one line doesn't mean that I'm not trying to give you you a big picture response. But it edited the response because I wasn't interested anymore in continuing that conversation. If you want a different kind of response that is less about criticism, don't be so pessimistic and negative. I mean, I'd rather talk about voluntary measures you can do around your own community so that the impulse reaction by people didn't have to be "it's either the government that sets rules or there are no rules whatsoever!"

I fail to see the pessimism and negativity that concerns you so much. The solution to handling a pandemic could be win-win, a positive for everyone (unless anyone fantasizes that not a single life should be lost to a virus).

Here we Objectivists are, equipped with the knowledge of the moral-practical tools to use and everyone is backing off from employing them. The ethics are as much essential in bad or uncertain times, and can be applicable to the general society also.

You would be surprised how much ready acceptance there is in the greater community to a self-interested, self-responsible response to this virus. Talk with people. Many have seen the damage that restrictions on their and others' freedom of action have effected. Some elderly individuals are horrified that this injustice has been committed against the able and healthy on their behalf, for their 'protection'. But those penalized have been made to believe the doctrine that living their lives matters less and doesn't count when other people might die and have died. And that the harsh, collective protocols are the only method to deal with a pandemic. They struggle in silence while businesses are bankrupted and their employment possibilities and future prospects dwindle with the economy. I know this is world-wide. It goes for "your own community" too.

There's an opportunity here to show those many serious about their independent, productive lives that rational self-interest - at minimum, concern for one's own life - is a moral good, nothing to feel guilty of. Not necessarily to persuade them of Objectivism, but a step to a rational society. 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

You would be surprised how much ready acceptance there is in the greater community to a self-interested, self-responsible response to this virus.

Absolutely, I don't think acquiescence to government demand is remotely part of at least the American way of thinking about many pandemic responses. I've said before I don't think masks in America are a reflection of bowing down to government overlords that told them to wear masks. I truly think most Americans wear a mask because they have decided on their own terms that is worth it to do voluntarily. When I talk about masks, I only mean to say that it makes rational sense regardless of if the government agrees. I don't care that the government agrees nor do I think they should enforce it.

But this gets into what I meant by pessimism. When I say pessimism, I'm referring to focusing completely on criticism of the opposition and not providing an alternative after finishing the criticism. Then repeating the same process each step along the way when something happens that you don't think is right. Benevolence would be more like focusing what you can do in your own community (you know, the people you value and enjoy being around because they make your life better, I don't mean the collectivist sense of the word community). I prefer to talk about more than the inappropriate and more draconian measures, that is, the voluntary ways and self-interested ways that we could respond to a pandemic. Self isolation for those at risk is one thing that's smart, I'm very supportive of that, but further voluntary action is important as well. 

For instance, how could we encourage people to vaccinate? So far, that one doesn't seem difficult.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Doug: Is it right that people be forced by law to wear masks?

This is a technical question.  I'm not sure what the correct answer is in this case.

It is important to distinguish between such a mandate and other government actions.  You fail to make this distinction.

One reason we've had trouble is that President Trump actively discouraged people from wearing masks, a very destructive act on his part.

You and I disagree on where to draw the line between respect for the rights of others and self-sacrifice.  You keep misrepresenting this disagreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 1/28/2021 at 10:51 AM, Eiuol said:

Why did you post that picture? 

People use a volitional spirit to play with things that scare them, like halloween.  

 Mammals need to feel safe and in control.  The virus makes us feel like we are out of control.  If you can't control the virus you might try to control other people as an attempt to alleviate anxiety.  People are irrational in predictable ways, whether you are for or against the mask, you can find an avalanche of 'evidence' online to support what you want to believe.  

The anxiety the virus causes one person doesn't affect another the same depending on how many people you know personally who died from it.  The anxiety of being told what to do by other people can be just as painful, especially if you have suffered personal abuse, institutional abuse, or malpractice.  

Some people have a very strong physiological disgust mechanism that makes them germ phobic, while plumbers are elbow deep in human waste on a daily basis for years.  

and the executioners face is always well hidden

Edited by Tenderlysharp
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I only wear the one on which I've written "who is John Galt" while I'm at work because in Minnesota my employer is legally responsible for my masking; not me.  Because the state of Minnesota apparently does not see me as a rational adult human being (and, to be fair, I don't see many of them that way either).

That's the only time I wear one.  If I enter a business without one and another customer gets uppity about it I simply point out that less than one percent of the people who catch this disease actually die from it; if they persist then I'll amuse myself at their expense and if an employee does likewise (which has only happened once) then I'll simply take my business elsewhere.

I do this on principle.

 

I don't appreciate being treated like a serf.  I'd balk at it if the disease involved was the common Flu (which is significantly more dangerous than Wuhan Pnemonia - and "COVID" is one of the worst possible names we could be using); I might mask up and act like that for Ebola or something else truly dangerous, but for this?

You know "COVID" just refers to a general class of virus and that it's the specific class that includes most forms of the common cold, don't you?  And that when this all began the CDC itself predicted that EVERYONE will catch this (because it acts much like other common colds) and that very few will be in any danger from it (also for that same reason).

At the beginning of this pandemic (after researching everything I could about this disease) I said that all these FASCIST measures are not for COVID-19 but that the hysteria about COVID is for the purpose of the fascism.  I believe I've already been proven right in spades.  Now that we have a vaccine I think it'll soon be irrefutable.

I mean, the same people who've been talking about "following the science" for almost a year are now wondering exactly what effect a vaccine would even have.  VACCINES!!!  THE SCIENCE ON WHAT VACCINES DO WAS NOT SETTLED IN THIS CENTURY!  Mark my words, though, even after basically everyone has been vaccinated there will be many who insist that the lockdowns and the fascism must continue.  Keep an eye out for precisely whom.

In summary I know EXACTLY where Joe Biden, Anthony Fouche and ESPECIALLY dear leader Tim Walz can insert their worthless masks!

 

PostScript:

 

Originally, I wasn't going to put "who is John Galt" on my mask; I was going to write "a leash is only a rope with a noose at both ends".  I'm still not sure I made the right call in omitting that.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
postscript
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2021 at 2:48 PM, Doug Morris said:

I have tentatively decided that I will wear a mask for longer than Biden says, even if the only reason is to indicate that I don't blindly follow him.

You should take it off before you're allowed to if you'd like to prove to yourself that you are still a free man.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What, prytell, is the point of even being alive if we are not free?  I thought it was "liberty or death" and for a very good reason, and I USED TO think that most Americans still remembered that!

 

What did John Galt do when offered the choice of survival while chained to the position of economic dictator versus death?  He laughed at such a stupid offer and asked for death.

 

I mean this.  I am ashamed to be counted as an "American" now.  The majority of us obviously desire the simplicity of slavery, and it's a disgusting thing to see.

 

And I will not pretend that what's going on here is anything else!

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2021 at 4:02 PM, Hermes said:

I believe that spreading germs should be actionable.

Which germs?  Are we talking about Ebola (where the germs are quite likely to cause your internal organs to liquefy and kill you in an extremely painful way) or COVID-19 (where you're actually likely to not even realize you've caught it -being "asymptomatic"- because the vast majority of people are perfectly well-equipped to deal with it the natural way)?

How about after we've vaccinated over half of the population?

 

Typhoid Mary was told many different times that she was causing people to die and just didn't want to hear it.  If I remember correctly she didn't believe in germs (and perhaps it was right to say that such grossly-irrational behavior crossed the line into criminality).

 

But for THIS???  You might as well buy yourself a plastic bubble to live in because it doesn't get less dangerous than this.

I have looked this up and your odds of dying from skin cancer from exposure to sunlight is FAR more likely than dying from the Wuhan Flu.  So if spreading the latter should be a criminal offense then so should be Sunshine.

 

Almost anything in this world that you can think of is more dangerous to you than the Wuhan Flu.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2021 at 11:00 AM, Doug Morris said:

The point is whether not wearing a mask endangers others enough to rise to the level of physical aggression.

It really ought to depend on what you have.

 

I do think it's right that if you know you have AIDS and you have unprotected and uninformed sex with someone, they can sue you.  In the next century if our treatments for AIDS progress to the point where it changes from being a death sentence to more of a minor annoyance (which should happen if we don't blow ourselves up first) then that should also change to match it.

Now, when we discuss Wuhan Pneumonia we are discussing a disease that's usually so mild (BEFORE any treatments or interventions) that many of its carriers don't even realize that they are carriers because they literally have none of its symptoms.

 

To treat the potential spread of THAT as a form of assault it insane.  There's no other word for it than insanity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 weeks to slow the spread, huh?  Well, it is true:

 

A leash is only a rope with a noose at both ends.  And I've been quite tempted for some time now to stop wearing my mask even at work, just to yank a bit on the opposite end of mine.

"If I had a heart I could love you

If I had a voice I would sing"

 

And that's about as much of this subject as I can take tonight.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2021 at 8:06 PM, JASKN said:

Maskers are viewed as part of an international, irrational medical theater movement, abetting the tidal wave of 2020-style stripping of basic human rights. And then you offer derision in response - so why should you receive more than memes?

Because they are stripping us of our rights. Because what's going on is wrong and critically important and someone needs to be able to say something more meaningful than memes.

Don't get me wrong; I feel basically the same way about the mask militia and fully intend to articulate every single reason why. Memes will probably be a useful adjunct to that effort but not a replacement.

On 1/27/2021 at 2:33 PM, Doug Morris said:

To count as physical force, it must to some extent do physical harm, such as physically damaging their body or property, or physically usurping control over their body or property.

EXACTLY.

 

If I wear a cologne to your house which you find unpleasant that might qualify as something (although it does seem a bit silly to call it "force") but as long as it doesn't harm you it should not be a legal matter. If I bring sarin gas to your home (which I hear smells vaguely like almonds) then THAT is force which deserves criminal action.

The disease in question, over which we have all lost our collective marbles; Wuhan Pneumonia is LESS dangerous than the normal flu which comes around and goes around every single year.

 

Where, then, on the grand scale of potential threats does it belong?

 

On 1/28/2021 at 3:17 PM, Doug Morris said:

If I unwittingly spread peanut molecules, this only becomes physical force if it does some kind of physical harm. 

This is not a serious point but the more hysteria I have to put up with over perfectly harmless non-issues the more sympathy I find myself feeling towards social darwinism. If nobody on Earth is ever allowed to enjoy peanut butter again, lest somebody somewhere have an allergic reaction to it, then maybe we really would be better off allowing the weak ones to perish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...