And once again, back.
This past Saturday for “THE GAME”
There are no purposes to mutations unless they are carried out by rational individuals (i.e. a mutatation to lower virulence yet still provide an antigenic challenge substatial enough to set immunity in action in the case of a human gene splicing for immunization purposes i.e. an attenuated viral end-product).
Great. Then please link me to one study that defines masks, shows them in a widespread social situation, and shows how it stops epidemics and/or wider pandemics.
Public health advice is that masks have worth and value in fighting the spread of this virus.
However, to play Devils Advocate, this crisis didn’t emerge in a vacuum.
I have yet to see any kind of authoritative statement that anything other than an effective vaccine can truly stop this pandemic. Everything I have seen suggests that no amount of preventive measures other than complete and competent isolation can do anything other than slow its spread.
I gave several examples.
That’s exactly right Ridge (as is your whole post).
And that itself is enough of a goal to justify the effort. Just “slowing the spread” until a vaccine is available can save hundreds of thousands of lives. Listen to the guidance from public health officials and follow it.
All that means is that people may need a booster, depending on how long the immunity lasts. That is no reason to stop trying to slow the spread.
What are you saying maybe to? That saving hundreds of thousands of lives justifies the efforts to slow the spread??? That is odd.
But apparently you have an objection to requiring masks, or even strongly promoting them from a public health standpoint. And that is the real issue.
That is exactly why it cannot be left up to the individual. (What if I said about 10% of pregnant women would choose to have an abortion if you told them they could? Would you just say “I have no objection to their carrying their baby to term if they want to” ? I think you would like to mandate that they give childbirth a try instead.)
It is a matter of degree, isn’t it? Do you have a problem with something like mandatory masks in public that only obstructs the economy a tiny bit?
Of course the details of what you mean by “unduly” is crucial in understanding this objection.
Well, we certainly wouldn’t want to ask much of people just to save a few hundred thousand lives, would we?
And if the disease is not that adaptable, your policy of surrender to the virus would not make much sense, would it?
Your recommendations all add up to that goal, whether you meant to or not.
That’s exactly what will happen if we let this virus run rampant through society. On the other hand, reducing the spread is what allows more business openings.
If it ends up endemic in its present form, there won’t be an economy to open up.
“Maybe” the efforts to slow the spread will save lives. Maybe not.
I do not object to people wearing masks or promoting them. I object to requiring them, as it is uncertain whether or to what degree they prevent the spread of the disease. That’s the issue in this thread. If it doesn’t really prevent the disease, it’s just a cult ritual.
Where’s your proof that it will?
Show us that it’s not capable of what’s said in the article and we’ll examine that.
Evidence?
It probably is already.
LeafByNiggle:
Where’s your proof that it will?
Unnecessary and unreasonable requirement is not logical.
No country is stupid enough to try it. Even Sweden is not doing that. They still ban public gatherings of more than 50 people. Restaurants are required to implement measures to avoid crowding of people in queues. They are required to provide guests with soap and water for hand washing or hand sanitizer. They are required to inform guests about how they can decrease the risk of spreading infection. These are requirements, not just recommendations.
Evidence?
There’s plenty of that. Just google it. One example: