Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Derid
Just because mitigation does not in this case reduce impact to zero does not mean it is without benefit. What I read from your argument is that restrictions should be increased to be more effective under the current circumstance, not done away with.

You misunderstood me. I think in 2022 mantaining restrictions is fallacy of sunk costs. I did support lockdowns 2 years ago in a beleif that COVID could be contained until it could be stopped with vaccines. Both of these assumptions turned out to be false. The situation right now is different and requires re-evaluation of cost vs. benefit.

You can't keep making 2020 arguments today, you have to adjust your views to account for the new situation.

What we have right now is Iraq war, only with COVID. What is your exist plan?


We aren't talking about lockdowns though. New situation has me thinking, as I stated, that N95 class masks should probably be the benchmark. Wearing a mask does not inflict any harm on the wearer. If we find it aceptable to require people to wear a shirt that isn't see-through in public, I don't see why it is unreasonable to require masks that are effective against transmission of disease.

Exit? I think it is possible that masks will become a standard fashion accessory for the forseeable future.

I do not pretend that requiring masks will eliminate COVID. In large part because so many people refuse to do so. That being said, I'm pretty sure every reputable study has concluded that if everyone wore good masks in public and got vaccinated that COVID spread would be drastically reduced.

But I also think that masking oneself appropriately to prevent spreading illness to others is a matter of basic deceny. I therefor have no objection to legal enforcement provided that the punishment fits the crime. The 'punishment' as far as I can discern has been limited to eviction from said premises, so this seems non-problematic. If people were being jailed or massively fined for simply stepping foot somewhere, that may be different. But asking someone to leave seems like a reasonable response, and refusing to comply not reasonable unless it can be shown where their burden of compliance is somehow significant or their actual human rights are being trampled upon.

Wearing a mask lowers the chances of spreading illness to others, the better the mask the lower the chance. Being vaccinated lowers the risk of contracting disease and therefore spreading it to others, though as noted breakthrough infections are certainly a thing and people with them are certainly contagious. Still, I'd say the right of people to endure less risk to their actual safety in the public domain far outweights the desires of others to not wear a mask, or even their desire to visit public areas where the establishment requires certain measures. (regardless of whether those measures are prompted by govt)

We cannot pretend that mask wearing especially is onerous or does not make a difference.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)