You said earlier that people being irresponsible is why COVID is going strong. So COVID is still spreading because people are just so irresponsible and not masking up but the flu (along with pneumonia and others) stopped spreading because people are so responsible and masked up? Or maybe a reasonable person could deduce that the flu is now apart of their COVID statistics because if you really believe less than 100 people got the flu in a week in a country with over 300 million you have zero concept of reality. Surely the flu should be extinct after this year, right? The death rate trend from 2020 was also in line with the last 5 years in the US with no significant bumps in deaths of old people. The COVID numbers went up drastically after people started wearing masks and the masks were forced upon people in every major store. And areas that did minimal to no lockdowns and mask stuff like Sweden and Florida aren't doing any worse than California and other places with strict lockdowns. California's infection rate is actually higher than Florida's. It didn't get rid of the flu and it's beyond ridiculous that you would even pretend that you did.
Forget the statistics about whether masks are effective. It's really irrelevant, to be honest. & don't conflate it with shutting down businesses. Let's keep it to masks only.
Let's suppose they're only 10% effective for argument's sake. I think you could get on board with that supposition.
So you have a 10% less chance of killing another human being. Not someone who's disposable because they're old or sickly, an actual human being. Someone with thoughts and dreams and family members. A human being. Someone who is loved.
You would kill someone because you give more shits about a minor inconvenience?
That's what I personally don't understand about people who refuse to wear masks.
If you're right, you had to do something that's somewhat inconvenient for a while for no reason.
If you're wrong, you could fucking kill another person. You could kill a human being.
Why is this even up for debate? Anyone who has questions about it is a sack of trash.
Are you saying that if there's a risk of someone dying by you not taking up a mild inconvenience then you would be responsible for any death that may occur as a consequence of you not taking on that mild inconvenience that would of lessened the odds of someone's death?
If so then to what extent does that moral formula go?
My viewpoint is that it's useless to talk about the efficacy of masks. It doesn't matter.
The CDC has gone back & forth. There's not really solid evidence either way.
But that's irrelevant. Because we are talking about something that's such a minor inconvenience. If people who don't believe wearing masks is effective, and they're right, then yeah, they have inconvenienced themselves for no reason. If they happen to be wrong though, then they're risking other people's health and even their lives. So, if you weigh both possible outcomes, one has serious consequences. The other does not. It doesn't seem like much of a choice to me.
If you're asking whether I think anyone who does not wear a mask is a murderer?
There's no intent. People don't refuse to wear masks so they can go cough on grandmas. If they did become an asymptomatic carrier, they wouldn't know it. & it's a contageous disease. There's no way to definitively prove that person A gave it to person B & C; it could be picked up anywhere.
What I do think: refusal to wear a mask is reckless and selfish behavior. If someone told me I had to do something minorly inconvenient & it had the potential to save a human life, I would just do it. No questions asked. But that's me.
Once COVID-19 is resolved would you continue to wear a mask to reduce the chance of spreading the flu which could unfortunately reach an elderly person and potentially result in their death as not everybody shows flu symptoms initially as it would be a minor inconvenience compared to a terrible outcome you may not be aware you're potentially putting in the works?
Yes. In the future when I get the flu, I will be wearing a mask if I go out. The low flu numbers this year are impressive.
Fortunately, you can't asymtomatically spread the flu. You know when you have it & I think it should be normalized to wear a mask in public if you're sick.
Interesting. Just a heads up, we both agree on the masks point, I'm just picking your brain.
So how far would that go? Would it be exclusive to illness that could be fatal or all things that has potential to be fatal? For example, if you drive would you give up the car for cycling so that there's less potential for an unexpected crash that is fatal?
I have zero concept of reality yet you're the one actively rejecting it. You can't convince someone of anything if they're so delusional they just reject the evidence.
It's like arguing with flat-Earthers. They have all the data in the world working against them but if you present it you just get, "NASA is lying."
I love watching masks forced on ignorant people. It makes me indescribably happy. I was in a store the other day and this guy tried to come in without a mask. A worker didn't even ask if he had one. She just straight up handed him one and said, "Here's your mask."
Why are people so anti mask?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
You said earlier that people being irresponsible is why COVID is going strong. So COVID is still spreading because people are just so irresponsible and not masking up but the flu (along with pneumonia and others) stopped spreading because people are so responsible and masked up? Or maybe a reasonable person could deduce that the flu is now apart of their COVID statistics because if you really believe less than 100 people got the flu in a week in a country with over 300 million you have zero concept of reality. Surely the flu should be extinct after this year, right? The death rate trend from 2020 was also in line with the last 5 years in the US with no significant bumps in deaths of old people. The COVID numbers went up drastically after people started wearing masks and the masks were forced upon people in every major store. And areas that did minimal to no lockdowns and mask stuff like Sweden and Florida aren't doing any worse than California and other places with strict lockdowns. California's infection rate is actually higher than Florida's. It didn't get rid of the flu and it's beyond ridiculous that you would even pretend that you did.
--
CountessDouche
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
S0UNDS_WEIRD
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
You're quite literally losing sight of the issue.
Forget the statistics about whether masks are effective. It's really irrelevant, to be honest. & don't conflate it with shutting down businesses. Let's keep it to masks only.
Let's suppose they're only 10% effective for argument's sake. I think you could get on board with that supposition.
So you have a 10% less chance of killing another human being. Not someone who's disposable because they're old or sickly, an actual human being. Someone with thoughts and dreams and family members. A human being. Someone who is loved.
You would kill someone because you give more shits about a minor inconvenience?
That's what I personally don't understand about people who refuse to wear masks.
If you're right, you had to do something that's somewhat inconvenient for a while for no reason.
If you're wrong, you could fucking kill another person. You could kill a human being.
Why is this even up for debate? Anyone who has questions about it is a sack of trash.
--
[Old Memory]
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I'm actually curious about your position here.
Are you saying that if there's a risk of someone dying by you not taking up a mild inconvenience then you would be responsible for any death that may occur as a consequence of you not taking on that mild inconvenience that would of lessened the odds of someone's death?
If so then to what extent does that moral formula go?
--
CountessDouche
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
My viewpoint is that it's useless to talk about the efficacy of masks. It doesn't matter.
The CDC has gone back & forth. There's not really solid evidence either way.
But that's irrelevant. Because we are talking about something that's such a minor inconvenience. If people who don't believe wearing masks is effective, and they're right, then yeah, they have inconvenienced themselves for no reason. If they happen to be wrong though, then they're risking other people's health and even their lives. So, if you weigh both possible outcomes, one has serious consequences. The other does not. It doesn't seem like much of a choice to me.
If you're asking whether I think anyone who does not wear a mask is a murderer?
There's no intent. People don't refuse to wear masks so they can go cough on grandmas. If they did become an asymptomatic carrier, they wouldn't know it. & it's a contageous disease. There's no way to definitively prove that person A gave it to person B & C; it could be picked up anywhere.
What I do think: refusal to wear a mask is reckless and selfish behavior. If someone told me I had to do something minorly inconvenient & it had the potential to save a human life, I would just do it. No questions asked. But that's me.
--
[Old Memory]
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Once COVID-19 is resolved would you continue to wear a mask to reduce the chance of spreading the flu which could unfortunately reach an elderly person and potentially result in their death as not everybody shows flu symptoms initially as it would be a minor inconvenience compared to a terrible outcome you may not be aware you're potentially putting in the works?
--
CountessDouche
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yes. In the future when I get the flu, I will be wearing a mask if I go out. The low flu numbers this year are impressive.
Fortunately, you can't asymtomatically spread the flu. You know when you have it & I think it should be normalized to wear a mask in public if you're sick.
--
[Old Memory]
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Interesting. Just a heads up, we both agree on the masks point, I'm just picking your brain.
So how far would that go? Would it be exclusive to illness that could be fatal or all things that has potential to be fatal? For example, if you drive would you give up the car for cycling so that there's less potential for an unexpected crash that is fatal?
I have zero concept of reality yet you're the one actively rejecting it. You can't convince someone of anything if they're so delusional they just reject the evidence.
It's like arguing with flat-Earthers. They have all the data in the world working against them but if you present it you just get, "NASA is lying."
I love watching masks forced on ignorant people. It makes me indescribably happy. I was in a store the other day and this guy tried to come in without a mask. A worker didn't even ask if he had one. She just straight up handed him one and said, "Here's your mask."
It was epic.