EPTI might be remembering wrong but I seem to remember those reports suggesting that masks don’t make you immune to coronavirus and you’re better off social distancing or staying at home.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2331
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
StalkerTL
212 Posts
I might be remembering wrong but I seem to remember those reports suggesting that masks don’t make you immune to coronavirus and you’re better off social distancing or staying at home. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On May 29 2020 01:12 StalkerTL wrote: Isn’t whole thing about mask wearing about limiting the spread? Cloth masks limiting the ejection of droplets when sneezing or coughing, the leading cause of coronavirus spread, seems super intuitive. I might be remembering wrong but I seem to remember those reports suggesting that masks don’t make you immune to coronavirus and you’re better off social distancing or staying at home. It was a weird argument. People basically said that without 100% effectiveness, why bother. But as time went on, virologists and whatnot were able to explain dynamics like critical colony size and whatnot to explain that even if a single corona virus enters your body, it isn't GG. 50% better than 100% chance of infection...etc I had an argument with a friend and he was saying if viruses are around 100 nanometers, why bother with a mask that only filters 500 nanometers and above. Then I explained viruses can't fly. They need droplets to move around and survive. those droplets are large. Lots of little things like that require explanations and time. I don't blame people for not knowing about a deeply technical topic that requires specialization. But I do blame them for not listening to experts after the explanation. My friend totally understood and was cool afterwards, but things like that are why it was difficult at first. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On May 29 2020 00:04 IgnE wrote: Remember a couple months ago when people (on this forum) were saying that wearing masks was worse than not wearing masks? I'm still willing to say so. Between the heavy breathing, the significant increase in face-touching, and the tendency of many to cover the mouth but not the nose, I am not at all convinced that they help. I still wear one, though, because I have to. | ||
|
StalkerTL
212 Posts
Early reports have suggested Japan’s death rate has actually lowered this quarter, reversing the trend where the ever increasingly aging population die off in ever increasing amounts. A side effect of mass mask wearing and social distancing is that old people aren’t getting the flu as regularly. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24023 Posts
On May 29 2020 01:05 Mohdoo wrote: I don't see why that wouldn't be true. Lots of disinformation. It was a weird situation and I don't blame people for not knowing what is true. But once all the dust settled, as we are now, conservatives are not declining masks because of the WHO. It is a deep insecurity that they perpetuate. Probably some, but it also comes out of a prioritization of personal comfort over community. Plenty of them simply don't care if others get sick/die and see it as doing Darwin's work. There's a lot of Dwights out there too | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On May 29 2020 01:32 GreenHorizons wrote: Probably some, but it also comes out of a prioritization of personal comfort over community. Plenty of them simply don't care if others get sick/die and see it as doing Darwin's work. There's a lot of Dwights out there too https://www.reddit.com/r/cringe/comments/grltbz/big_brains_at_work_in_the_state_of_alabama/ One interesting thing about this is how many people address their own mortality and risk. Not a single one talks about infecting someone else. Multiple ways to interpret that, but I see it as their first response being to be defensive of themselves, rather than simply not even caring about grandma. They all have grandmas. The issue is that they don't want to be perceived as weak. I'm no psychologist but it is very consistent with rural America. Their entire culture is a mess as it pertains to perceived strength. Edit: In general, always assume negative emotions come from feelings of weakness or powerlessness, not malice. Most times when people get angry it is because they feel attacked or threatened, even if it isn't obvious why that is. I think social conservatives accidentally can't be concerned with grandma because of the dilemma of openly advertising the fact that they are taking precautions to protect themselves. Slaves of their own animalistic philosophies. Ayn Rand did some serious damage to their culture. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9060 Posts
So many mysteries surround Donald Trump: the contents of his tax returns, the apparent miracle of his graduation from college. Some of them are merely curiosities; others are of national importance, such as whether he understood the nuclear-weapons briefing given to every president. I prefer not to dwell on this question. But since his first day as a presidential candidate, I have been baffled by one mystery in particular: Why do working-class white men—the most reliable component of Donald Trump’s base—support someone who is, by their own standards, the least masculine man ever to hold the modern presidency? The question is not whether Trump fails to meet some archaic or idealized version of masculinity. The president’s inability to measure up to Marcus Aurelius or Omar Bradley is not the issue. Rather, the question is why so many of Trump’s working-class white male voters refuse to hold Trump to their own standards of masculinity—why they support a man who behaves more like a little boy. The Atlantic User was warned for this post | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On May 29 2020 00:54 GreenHorizons wrote: Wegandi wasn't alone Not to mention WHO: Don’t Wear Face Masks I remember thinking it odd at the time I got so much pushback for pointing out masks would be a common sense part of any reopening/mitigation plan. That’s the odd thing about this. The experts were right when they said masks were ineffective and should not be used. The experts were right when they said masks should be used and mandated their use. Because you see, they were wrong in the first case for all the right reasons. No such allowances are extended to protestors or people fed up with the doublespeak. Look at protests, riots, arson, and looting in cities. The case in many of them is that they occur after something outrageous or shocking happens, and the majority of the damage is leveled at small business owners, minority shop owners, local randos not remotely involved. The proximate effects are not really tied to the actual cause. Shift over to the lockdown protestors. They can’t change a governors order by fiat, no matter how it’s ignored by the governor & their staff, or how capricious the enforcement and target selection is. What they can do is refuse to wear a mask and gather in front of city hall or governors mansion. They’re at least getting attention to their anger, though just like in the previous example, critics say it’s the worst attention imaginable. Also, the biggest loudmouths always get the interviews and retweets, not someone who can articulate the reasons carefully. It’s only on live TV where the everyman gets his voice sometimes (see + Show Spoiler + Those are just a couple things feeding into this disconnect between people so confused at Trump’s enduring support, while themselves making excuses for why they can deny someone’s blackness, or make up new sexual assault allegation guidelines when the target changes. The last four-ish years show this is unlikely to change, and the future will probably hold more mock astonishment over why dumb people vote against “their own self interest.” Trump’s your most fitting leader for that hubris, so seriously enjoy your presidents next year or five years. | ||
|
Slydie
1939 Posts
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks No, you can not only blame supply shortage. The studies on the subject have inconclusive results. Source: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12330388 It is also impossible at this point to single out the effect of masks alone apart from the multitude of other measures taken to limit the virus. Why are you claiming with such certainty it is so important? Given that the virus barely spreads outside anyway, I think it is safe to say they are completely useless there, unless you are in an extremely packed group for a long time, and it that case, touching an infected masks should be as much of a concern. Have some Asian countries which dealt well with the virus had masks as a part of their strategy? Yes, but along with lots of other things. Can the virus be beaten without the government recommending the use of masks in public? Also yes, just look at Iceland and Norway. There was also a study showing that the most infected place in hospitals were the room where protective gear was removed, not by the patients. I will dig it up later if needed. The Chinese have indeed tried to use their supply of protective gear to gain political influence in Norway, and there is no reason to believe they have not done so elsewhere as well. They are exporting for billions! Source in Norwegian. https://www.aftenposten.no/okonomi/i/aw608M/kinesiske-selskaper-ga-oslo-smittevernutstyr-ba-om-politikermoeter-og-oppmerksomhet? | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9060 Posts
On May 29 2020 02:58 Slydie wrote: Why does everybody know that the "truth" is that masks are super important, even though the WHO only changed their recommendation to "if you have sympthoms". Check for yourself. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks No, you can not only blame supply shortage. The studies on the subject have inconclusive results. Source: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12330388 It is also impossible at this point to single out the effect of masks alone apart from the multitude of other measures taken to limit the virus. Why are you claiming with such certainty it is so important? Given that the virus barely spreads outside anyway, I think it is safe to say they are completely useless there, unless you are in an extremely packed group for a long time, and it that case, touching an infected masks should be as much of a concern. Have some Asian countries which dealt well with the virus had masks as a part of their strategy? Yes, but along with lots of other things. Can the virus be beaten without the government recommending the use of masks in public? Also yes, just look at Iceland and Norway. There was also a study showing that the most infected place in hospitals were the room where protective gear was removed, not by the patients. I will dig it up later if needed. The Chinese have indeed tried to use their supply of protective gear to gain political influence in Norway, and there is no reason to believe they have not done so elsewhere as well. They are exporting for billions! Source in Norwegian. https://www.aftenposten.no/okonomi/i/aw608M/kinesiske-selskaper-ga-oslo-smittevernutstyr-ba-om-politikermoeter-og-oppmerksomhet? Did you know that the places with most blood in hospitals are trauma wards and ORs, not inside the patients? | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On May 29 2020 02:58 Slydie wrote: Why does everybody know that the "truth" is that masks are super important, even though the WHO only changed their recommendation to "if you have sympthoms". Check for yourself. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks No, you can not only blame supply shortage. The studies on the subject have inconclusive results. Source: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12330388 It is also impossible at this point to single out the effect of masks alone apart from the multitude of other measures taken to limit the virus. Why are you claiming with such certainty it is so important? Given that the virus barely spreads outside anyway, I think it is safe to say they are completely useless there, unless you are in an extremely packed group for a long time, and it that case, touching an infected masks should be as much of a concern. Have some Asian countries which dealt well with the virus had masks as a part of their strategy? Yes, but along with lots of other things. Can the virus be beaten without the government recommending the use of masks in public? Also yes, just look at Iceland and Norway. There was also a study showing that the most infected place in hospitals were the room where protective gear was removed, not by the patients. I will dig it up later if needed. The Chinese have indeed tried to use their supply of protective gear to gain political influence in Norway, and there is no reason to believe they have not done so elsewhere as well. They are exporting for billions! Source in Norwegian. https://www.aftenposten.no/okonomi/i/aw608M/kinesiske-selskaper-ga-oslo-smittevernutstyr-ba-om-politikermoeter-og-oppmerksomhet? Mask effectiveness is not a valid topic of debate. It is pounded to death after years of research in many contexts: nanotechnology, physics, virology, epidemiology and chemistry. We have needed to understand this way before covid. Pretending this is anything more than trivial to determine is nonsense. Our analysis techniques are way more than is necessary. All viruses are different, but the core fundamentals of things like mean-free-path and other baseline ideas conclude they are a good idea, regardless of the numeric effectiveness. This thread is better than allowing for a debate on if masks help or not. It is on par with vaccine debates. I understand it is unlikely you are in a field that directly relates to filtration or infection, but for those of us in those industries, I'm sorry, but it is a baseline core truth, not a maybe. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18863 Posts
| ||
|
Vivax
22370 Posts
On May 29 2020 04:40 farvacola wrote: The uncorroborated draft of Trump’s executive order on social media I’ve seen is basically a textbook demonstration of how to write a patently unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech, so if it turns out to be legit, expect legal fireworks to follow in short order. Barr wouldn't still be leading the DoJ if he went against Trumps wishes. DJT reactions to dissent are to replace them with yes-men. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On May 29 2020 04:40 farvacola wrote: The uncorroborated draft of Trump’s executive order on social media I’ve seen is basically a textbook demonstration of how to write a patently unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech, so if it turns out to be legit, expect legal fireworks to follow in short order. My understanding is that something like this would get canceled pending review generally, right? The default while it is sorted out is to deny it and go back to normal? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18863 Posts
As a general rule, US common law on laws governing speech before it’s made (prior restraints) requires that those laws be narrowly tailored to address a compelling government interest, and they need to be specific enough to put everyone on notice as to what speech will and won’t be prohibited. A blanket assignment of liability to a speech platform subject to the whims of some determination committee, which is the basic outline of what I’ve seen, is susceptible to numerous first amendment challenges, including overbreadth and vagueness. | ||
|
Oleo
Netherlands283 Posts
On May 29 2020 03:19 Mohdoo wrote: Mask effectiveness is not a valid topic of debate. It is pounded to death after years of research in many contexts: nanotechnology, physics, virology, epidemiology and chemistry. We have needed to understand this way before covid. Pretending this is anything more than trivial to determine is nonsense. Our analysis techniques are way more than is necessary. All viruses are different, but the core fundamentals of things like mean-free-path and other baseline ideas conclude they are a good idea, regardless of the numeric effectiveness. This thread is better than allowing for a debate on if masks help or not. It is on par with vaccine debates. I understand it is unlikely you are in a field that directly relates to filtration or infection, but for those of us in those industries, I'm sorry, but it is a baseline core truth, not a maybe. Mask effectiveness is absolutely a valid topic of debate. Although obviously a mask will block the spread of virusparticles, there are many situations where the spread of virusparticles will be approx. 0%. A mask will have no effectiveness in a situation where proper distancing and proper hygienic measures are applied. A mask is technically effective. A mask is situation dependant effective or ineffective/counterproductive. Therefore a discussion about where to use masks and where not to use masks, f.i. use them in public transport, dont use them walking down the street on a uncrowded village sidewalk, is a valid topic of debate, but maybe not in this topic. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
Klobuchar now completely eliminated as VP User was warned for this post | ||
|
farvacola
United States18863 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9060 Posts
| ||
|
brian
United States9641 Posts
ok to be fair it says he was only involved in the shooting death, reviewing the complaints there are no actual details. i hope more details come out on it, see how many murders committed with a badge one can hide. the article also mentioned he had shot a third person. you would think if you manage to frequently be involved in lethal violence maybe you’d want to take him off the force. but no. oral reprimand and back to work. | ||
| ||
