Coronavirus pandemic

[corco]

The decision to wear a mask is one I make freely. I also freely negatively judge people who do not wear masks and freely do not spend money at establishments that don't freely choose to be good neighbors and take this seriously. If you accept the premise that public health officials are generally acting in good faith, this has nothing to do with questioning authority and everything to do with being a good neighbor.

This is a big reason why the bad advice early on about not wearing masks was so damaging. In that particular instance, they arguably weren't acting in good faith (more concerned about the mask supply chain instead of overall effectiveness), which has unfortunately made it harder for many to trust them now. As a result, we all suffer, because insufficient precautions being taken means the virus doesn't go away, in turn meaning we all, regardless of how much we trust/distrust the government or public health officials, have to continue dealing with the situation far longer than we would have needed to.

I don't think they were acting in bad faith - the supply chain concern was very very valid at the time in an era where nobody knew just how bad this was going to get and people were actively hoarding large quantities of supplies - I just think the messaging retroactively ended up not looking good.

The initial argument was "don't wear a mask" because people were hoarding and stocking up on N95 masks that hospitals needed,so "don't wear a mask" was the right argument at the time. Some small minority of people were making cloth face masks but the vast majority of people who wanted to mask up were trying to buy PPE that was better used in hospitals, so "a mask is minimally helpful" was a good way to nip it in the bud. Given the run on PPE during the initial wave I think the call to citizens to not put pressure on the supply chain was the right one, even if the messaging doesn't look all that great in hindsight. It's easy to look back and say they should have messaged it better as this being a case of triage, but given how paranoid people were for a month and how much strain it put on the supply chain I'm not sure how effective that would have been.

We also didn't know as much about how the virus was transmitted in the early days (how much was from airborne v. contact, etc). We were also in a different world then, where the order of the day was "stay at home," which rendered masks wholly unnecessary. Now that the order of the day is "live your lives with caution," the whole mask thing becomes more important. I'm sure the preference of public health officials is that from a pure public health standpoint we all still stay at home, but they're only one voice at the table (and this is fine!), so their recommendations have to adapt based on what our leaders collectively agree on. While I agree it's easy to look back in hindsight and say "our public health people screwed up the messaging," the reasoning made sense at the time and still logically tracks today.

I suppose the overall issue is this whole situation is very nuanced and humans collectively aren't all that great at nuance. We want clean, simple answers to complex questions and sometimes that's not possible.

[SEWIGuy]

Smart people make corrections when they realize their initial thoughts were wrong.  They recieve and process additional information, and change course accordingly.

[Max Rockatansky]

Speaking of "safe"  does anyone know when this whole American cultural preoccupation with "safety"  started?

If I were to take a guess at this question, it would be when cars went into hyper-mode to be safe, which would be the advent of the airbag.  While seatbelts became mandatory first, the laws concentrated on those in the front seat, and the penalties were a slap on the risk and only enforced when another violation was noticed first.  When auto manufacturers had to chose between automatic seat belts or airbags, the overwhelming majority went with airbags.  And after that is when you saw a serious increase in the yearn for safety.

Heh...I remember a lot of import cars had those automatic seat belts standard and the air bags were the option.  That was also the era when anti-lock brakes were more of an optional item instead of being even close to mandatory.  I seem to recall there was a lot of news stories in the early 1990s promoting the use of air bags as a life saving device.  If I recall correctly the main counter points were increased costs and less fuel efficiency due to increased weight. 

[kalvado]

The decision to wear a mask is one I make freely. I also freely negatively judge people who do not wear masks and freely do not spend money at establishments that don't freely choose to be good neighbors and take this seriously. If you accept the premise that public health officials are generally acting in good faith, this has nothing to do with questioning authority and everything to do with being a good neighbor.

This is a big reason why the bad advice early on about not wearing masks was so damaging. In that particular instance, they arguably weren't acting in good faith (more concerned about the mask supply chain instead of overall effectiveness), which has unfortunately made it harder for many to trust them now. As a result, we all suffer, because insufficient precautions being taken means the virus doesn't go away, in turn meaning we all, regardless of how much we trust/distrust the government or public health officials, have to continue dealing with the situation far longer than we would have needed to.

I don't think they were acting in bad faith - the supply chain concern was very very valid at the time in an era where nobody knew just how bad this was going to get and people were actively hoarding large quantities of supplies - I just think the messaging retroactively ended up not looking good.

The initial argument was "don't wear a mask" because people were hoarding and stocking up on N95 masks that hospitals needed,so "don't wear a mask" was the right argument at the time. Some small minority of people were making cloth face masks but the vast majority of people who wanted to mask up were trying to buy PPE that was better used in hospitals, so "a mask is minimally helpful" was a good way to nip it in the bud. Given the run on PPE during the initial wave I think the call to citizens to not put pressure on the supply chain was the right one, even if the messaging doesn't look all that great in hindsight. It's easy to look back and say they should have messaged it better as this being a case of triage, but given how paranoid people were for a month and how much strain it put on the supply chain I'm not sure how effective that would have been.

We also didn't know as much about how the virus was transmitted in the early days (how much was from airborne v. contact, etc). We were also in a different world then, where the order of the day was "stay at home," which rendered masks wholly unnecessary. Now that the order of the day is "live your lives with caution," the whole mask thing becomes more important. I'm sure the preference of public health officials is that from a pure public health standpoint we all still stay at home, but they're only one voice at the table (and this is fine!), so their recommendations have to adapt based on what our leaders collectively agree on. While I agree it's easy to look back in hindsight and say "our public health people screwed up the messaging," the reasoning made sense at the time and still logically tracks today.

I suppose the overall issue is this whole situation is very nuanced and humans collectively aren't all that great at nuance. We want clean, simple answers to complex questions and sometimes that's not possible.

Going to "use cloth mask instead, save cool stuff for hospitals" could be a much safer message

[corco]

Going to "use cloth mask instead, save cool stuff for hospitals" could be a much safer message

Probably in hindsight that would have been the right message to use but at the time a) nobody had really studied the effectiveness of cloth masks so there wasn't much in the way of data to support that statement and b) given how people were hoarding medical supplies anyway I'm not sure people would have respected the latter part of that statement.

[kalvado]

Going to "use cloth mask instead, save cool stuff for hospitals" could be a much safer message

Probably in hindsight that would have been the right message to use but at the time a) nobody had really studied the effectiveness of cloth masks so there wasn't much in the way of data to support that statement and b) given how people were hoarding medical supplies anyway I'm not sure people would have respected the latter part of that statement.

b) agreed
a) using a napkin/elbow to cover one's cough is as old as idea of respiratory infection.

[kphoger]

If you can afford to keep your child safe regardless of the additional hassle or loss of time, you do so ... you're basically proving the point that it's okay to do things that may not be safe because that's okay in another land.

I do believe it's OK to do things that may not be safe.  Period.  Safety is not my number one priority.

no one is suggesting that you accept what the government says without question.  The appropriate question are, why should I wear a mask?  Or, why would wearing a mask help?

[...]

So yes HB.  Ask all the questions you want.  But in the end, those questions will be answered with facts.  And the facts support the position that wearing a mask is important.

But that really isn't your problem.  You don't want to ask questions and have them answered with facts.  You simply don't want to wear a mask and are using a dippy "freedom" argument to justify it.

Fallacy of equivocation.  Your suggestion is not what "questioning the government" means.

You're basically saying that we may question only the reasons and rationale behind what the government says, but that we must not question what the government says–that we must only accept and obey it.

[hotdogPi]

It's not just the government; scientists are also saying to wear a mask.

[kphoger]

It's not just the government; scientists are also saying to wear a mask.

That wasn't the point of his question.

[kphoger]

The pertinent question is shown below.

Why is it so terrible to question the government's actions about this, while it's actually encouraged to protest other acts?

[Roadgeekteen]

The pertinent question is shown below.

Why is it so terrible to question the government's actions about this, while it's actually encouraged to protest other acts?

Because not just the government is saying that we should wear masks. Health experts are saying the same thing.

[kphoger]

OK, to spell it out:  It was suggested that people should wear a mask specifically to signal a willingness to accept what the government says.  See below.

Wearing a mask is ... the least one can do ... to signal a general willingness to accept ... the government recommendations

The question was then asked:  Why is an unwillingness to accept what the government says so "unfortunate" in this context, while it's both actively and tacitly encouraged in other contexts?  (Those specific contexts should be obvious.)

[formulanone]

OK, to spell it out:  It was suggested that people should wear a mask specifically to signal a willingness to accept what the government says.  See below.

Wearing a mask is ... the least one can do ... to signal a general willingness to accept ... the government recommendations

The question was then asked:  Why is an unwillingness to accept what the government says so "unfortunate" in this context, while it's both actively and tacitly encouraged in other contexts?  (Those specific contexts should be obvious.)

The argument had bits of straw popping out it anyhow. Nobody was always conditioned to deny everything or accept everything unless they're on the desperate fringes of society.

We typically make individual decisions which range from "mostly harmless" and "good", because it's difficult to impossible to foresee the impact and chaos of all decision-making. In most cases, there's little to no impact that hasn't been dealt with. But when calculated as a total, the masses can make lots of minor decisions with harsh consequences. (Personally, I think that's just a natural law of entropy...it's largely inescapable in a society that increases in sheer numbers and consumption.) Masses of people play into a lot of hive-mind thinking, because deep thought and judgement about science, medicine, statistics, risk, can be difficult for those who only read in memetic structures and sound bites.

I think the rallying cry of "Flatten the Curve" has been lost in all this; it wasn't about stopping COVID-19 dead in its tracks, just reasonably keeping as many people out of hospitals as possible.

Speaking of "safe"  does anyone know when this whole American cultural preoccupation with "safety"  started?

If I were to take a guess at this question, it would be when cars went into hyper-mode to be safe, which would be the advent of the airbag.  While seatbelts became mandatory first, the laws concentrated on those in the front seat, and the penalties were a slap on the risk and only enforced when another violation was noticed first.  When auto manufacturers had to chose between automatic seat belts or airbags, the overwhelming majority went with airbags.  And after that is when you saw a serious increase in the yearn for safety. 

Maybe some of us realized at 40,000 people were dying every year and wanted to do something about it (but still eat the unhealthy things and keep most speed limits in place).

[corco]

The pertinent question is shown below.

Why is it so terrible to question the government's actions about this, while it's actually encouraged to protest other acts?

Because that's a weird false equivocation that doesn't account for context.

There's nothing wrong with questioning government in either case. If you want to debate the effectiveness of face masks or even the motivations of policymakers, fine, that's great. If you want to debate the role of systemic racism in America, fine, great.

The devil is in the details though when it comes to willfully disregarding government in the form of not wearing a mask or mass protests. Divorcing the timing of how this has come about for a second,look at it from a game theory perspective for each issue:

Four possibilities on masks:
1. Government is right on masks and you wear a mask - you have helped stopped the spread of disease
2. Government is right on masks and you do not wear a mask - you have willfully endangered other people
3. Government is wrong on masks and you wear a mask - you've been somewhat inconvenienced for no reason
4. Government is wrong on masks and you don't wear a mask - no effect one way or another

The worst case downside for wearing a mask is that you're doing something that is somewhat annoying for no reason and are inconvenienced by that. This is not a significant sacrifice.

The best case upside for wearing a mask is that you're actively saving lives.

Based on that game theory, it makes sense to wear a mask.
--

Four possibilities on protests:
1. There is a systemic racism problem that leads to people dying and you support protests to resolve - you have raised awareness of an issue and have helped to save lives
2. There is a systemic racism problem that leads to people dying and you do not support protests to resolve - you are a racist
3. There is no systemic racism problem that leads to people dying and you support protests to resolve - there is some unnecessary graffiti/property damage
4. There is no systemic racism problem that leads to people dying and you do not support protests to resolve - no effect

The worst case scenario for protesting is that we end up with some property damage that can be repaired.
The best case scenario for protesting is that you're actively saving lives.

Based on that game theory, it makes sense to support protests.

--

At least to me, that's why willfully disregarding government to protest perceived racism is a far more noble pursuit than willfully disregarding government to protest perceived inconvenience(?) for having to wear a mask.

Certainly I think it's fair to say that the motives of those protesting masks are more rooted in the individual ("I don't like wearing a mask and think this is inconvenient") where the motives of those protesting systemic racism are more rooted in the community ("I don't think black people should be killed by police if they haven't committed a capital offense").

As a patriotic American, I care about my country, and so I'm always going to be more sympathetic to those who are trying to collectively improve their community than those who are trying to avoid individual inconvenience.

[SEWIGuy]

OK, to spell it out:  It was suggested that people should wear a mask specifically to signal a willingness to accept what the government says.  See below.

Wearing a mask is ... the least one can do ... to signal a general willingness to accept ... the government recommendations

The question was then asked:  Why is an unwillingness to accept what the government says so "unfortunate" in this context, while it's both actively and tacitly encouraged in other contexts?  (Those specific contexts should be obvious.)

Hold on.  You snipped out half of his setence.  He said...  "It's literally the least one can do, not just to stop the spread of COVID, but also just to signal a general willingness to accept the current situation and the government recommendations that come along with it."

It is obvious that the context of his quote was rooted into the helping to stop the spread of COVID.

[kalvado]

If you can afford to keep your child safe regardless of the additional hassle or loss of time, you do so ... you're basically proving the point that it's okay to do things that may not be safe because that's okay in another land.

I do believe it's OK to do things that may not be safe.  Period.  Safety is not my number one priority.

There is an additional qualifier - safety of those around you.
I may care less if my neighbor works on a flimsy ladder - I may offer a better one if I have it, but that's about it. Safety glasses and hard hat? Same thing.  Burning things with chunks of wood flying out? Not so fast, burning up my place is now at stake. 
Virus is, by its nature, is a collective problem.  Your lack of mask is a direct threat to me, so it is not you doing unsafe things (your call man!) but you affecting me.

[kphoger]

The worst case scenario for protesting is that we end up with some property damage that can be repaired.

I hesitate to post this, at the risk of this turning even more political than it already has.  But I don't believe that what you typed is the actual worst-case scenario in that context–rather that the police will end up being less willing to intervene in minority disputes, and that even more minority lives will be lost as a result than are currently being lost due to any existing police bias.

(And my own personal research into the data suggests that any police bias leads to only a minuscule disparity between black and white deaths–possibly even so minuscule as to be statistically insignificant–and that we should instead be focusing more of our scrutiny on the parts of the political process that happen after arrest.  But that's a topic for another time and another forum.)

But, other than that, your response was well thought out and presented.

OK, to spell it out:  It was suggested that people should wear a mask specifically to signal a willingness to accept what the government says.  See below.

Wearing a mask is ... the least one can do ... to signal a general willingness to accept ... the government recommendations

The question was then asked:  Why is an unwillingness to accept what the government says so "unfortunate" in this context, while it's both actively and tacitly encouraged in other contexts?  (Those specific contexts should be obvious.)

Hold on.  You snipped out half of his setence.  He said...  "It's literally the least one can do, not just to stop the spread of COVID, but also just to signal a general willingness to accept the current situation and the government recommendations that come along with it."

It is obvious that the context of his quote was rooted into the helping to stop the spread of COVID.

Yes, exactly.  Willingness to bend the knee to the government is hailed as our duty in the context of and in the name of stopping COVID, while such willingness is derided in other contexts.  The willingness to follow government directives in one area of life and the unwillingness in other areas of life–especially by the same individuals–is perplexing to me.

[kphoger]

Your lack of mask is a direct threat to me

No it's not.

[kalvado]

Your lack of mask is a direct threat to me

No it's not.

It is your personal unqualified opinion.
On the same page, you may claim that loaded gun with safety off in the holster is not a threat to anyone;  or a couple of drinks before the drive is OK as you're a great driver - but I may have a different opinion.

[kphoger]

Your lack of mask is a direct threat to me

No it's not.

It is your personal unqualified opinion.
On the same page, you may claim that loaded gun with safety off in the holster is not a threat to anyone;  or a couple of drinks before the drive is OK as you're a great driver - but I may have a different opinion.

My not wearing a mask, my carrying a loaded gun, my getting behind the wheel after a couple of drinks–none of those things would constitute a direct threat to you.  Likewise, your lighting bottle rockets from your back porch would not be a direct threat to me.

[Roadgeekteen]

Your lack of mask is a direct threat to me

No it's not.

It is your personal unqualified opinion.
On the same page, you may claim that loaded gun with safety off in the holster is not a threat to anyone;  or a couple of drinks before the drive is OK as you're a great driver - but I may have a different opinion.

My not wearing a mask, my carrying a loaded gun, my getting behind the wheel after a couple of drinks–none of those things would constitute a direct threat to you.  Likewise, your lighting bottle rockets from your back porch would not be a direct threat to me.

But it constitutes a risk to others.

[kphoger]

But it constitutes a risk to others.

Yep.  But I won't get upset if he chooses to do so.

If he aims that at my house, though, I probably will.

[Roadgeekteen]

But it constitutes a risk to others.

Yep.  But I won't get upset if he chooses to do so.

If he aims that at my house, though, I probably will.

I don't get what you are trying to say.

[kalvado]

Your lack of mask is a direct threat to me

No it's not.

It is your personal unqualified opinion.
On the same page, you may claim that loaded gun with safety off in the holster is not a threat to anyone;  or a couple of drinks before the drive is OK as you're a great driver - but I may have a different opinion.

My not wearing a mask, my carrying a loaded gun, my getting behind the wheel after a couple of drinks–none of those things would constitute a direct threat to you.  Likewise, your lighting bottle rockets from your back porch would not be a direct threat to me.

Well, not to me as I am far away from you. Those closer to you may have a different opinion. And the same thing, you (and me) may take some risks personally and accept some risks from others (my neighbor LOVES fireworks. I occasionally find burnt leftovers on my wooden deck) - but there are limits to what I am willing to tolerate in terms of MY idea of how big that threat is.

[SEWIGuy]

But it constitutes a risk to others.

Yep.  But I won't get upset if he chooses to do so.

If he aims that at my house, though, I probably will.

I don't get what you are trying to say.

What he's trying to do is contruct an argument, no matter how absurd, that defends his decision not to wear a mask even when it is not required.