help me to understand purpose of mask

[TheNomad]

(05-31-2020, 07:19 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(05-31-2020, 04:22 PM)TheNomad Wrote:

(05-31-2020, 02:22 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: It won't destroy the human race.  Covid-19 basically doesn't cause deaths in children and young adults.  At worst, it will just kill people at a younger age.  But, I'd rather have those extra years of life, as I think most people would.

Would the whole world be told to STOP and not go anywhere if it was not that dangerous?

It's dangerous for old people, and old people are in charge.

I'm getting to consider myself "old" but I dread the mask.  I would rather have the virus and whatever that brings than to live my life under this wretched thing. 

If I have to be real, the mask is changing us on a fundamental level.  Every person we see or come into contact with is a potential threat.  Every person and item we come into contact with "could kill us".  We are not interacting the same any more.  We cannot.  Forced covering of faces is a cross of very real existential rights and liberties we enjoy as Americans.

I am NOT downplaying a threat to health and safety.  BobButler and those like him I feel are just really quick to give in to such a thing without even wanting to know about repercussions long-term.  Acting quickly is a sign of fear.  I am against anything that originates from fear.

[David Horn]

(05-31-2020, 10:16 PM)TheNomad Wrote: I'm getting to consider myself "old" but I dread the mask.  I would rather have the virus and whatever that brings than to live my life under this wretched thing. 

If I have to be real, the mask is changing us on a fundamental level.  Every person we see or come into contact with is a potential threat.  Every person and item we come into contact with "could kill us".  We are not interacting the same any more.  We cannot.  Forced covering of faces is a cross of very real existential rights and liberties we enjoy as Americans.

You seem to have a case of galloping paranoia. Seek help!

TheNomad Wrote:I am NOT downplaying a threat to health and safety.  BobButler and those like him I feel are just really quick to give in to such a thing without even wanting to know about repercussions long-term.  Acting quickly is a sign of fear.  I am against anything that originates from fear.

Acting responsibly is not a fear response. It's common sense. You don't put your hand on a hot stove either, but I doubt you feel your liberties are under threat because you can't.

[Eric the Green]

(05-31-2020, 10:16 PM)TheNomad Wrote:

(05-31-2020, 07:19 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(05-31-2020, 04:22 PM)TheNomad Wrote:

(05-31-2020, 02:22 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: It won't destroy the human race.  Covid-19 basically doesn't cause deaths in children and young adults.  At worst, it will just kill people at a younger age.  But, I'd rather have those extra years of life, as I think most people would.

Would the whole world be told to STOP and not go anywhere if it was not that dangerous?

It's dangerous for old people, and old people are in charge.

I'm getting to consider myself "old" but I dread the mask.  I would rather have the virus and whatever that brings than to live my life under this wretched thing. 

If I have to be real, the mask is changing us on a fundamental level.  Every person we see or come into contact with is a potential threat.  Every person and item we come into contact with "could kill us".  We are not interacting the same any more.  We cannot.  Forced covering of faces is a cross of very real existential rights and liberties we enjoy as Americans.

I am NOT downplaying a threat to health and safety.  BobButler and those like him I feel are just really quick to give in to such a thing without even wanting to know about repercussions long-term.  Acting quickly is a sign of fear.  I am against anything that originates from fear.

Precautions against disease does not originate from fear, but from concern for peoples' health. Fear is indeed something to watch and control. Beyond an original response to danger, it is not helpful; it is like an alarm clock that has no off button. However, here fear is used as a slogan to oppose needed precautions and safety measures. Trump is using it as a means to stir his base with another of his hoax theories.

Wearing masks is definitely not something we want to do. If Trump and other rulers in various places had acted more quickly to test and quarantine those who had the virus, they would not be necessary by now. So it is not the fault of those who support or ask people to wear masks now that we have to wear masks, but those who opposed wearing masks months ago whose fault it is. And then there are those using this pandemic as an opportunity to promote their conspiracy theories about vaccines. Once we get a safe and effective vaccine, wearing masks will decline and disappear.

How much of a danger is a new disease such that we have to take these precautions that are uncomfortable and separate ourselves from each other? It is a question, but obviously it has to do with how contagious the disease is. Many dangerous pandemics have happened, some more deadly than this one, but I doubt that there has been one as contagious as this one in perhaps a century, at least.

Again you claim that these precautions are violating our rights. People on-line have a strong tendency to simply ignore what other people write. I don't know why that is, but many people do it. I have already told you that we do not have a right to endanger others.

[Eric the Green]

(05-30-2020, 09:26 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: I see Eric has turned this into some kind of political thing.  The truth is, both blue and red political advocates were telling people not to wear masks early on, red because they don't like governmental restraint even when collective action is needed, and blue because they wanted the pandemic to get worse and destroy the economy, giving them a better chance to win in November.  Masks are not a political thing.

No, I never said or implied that. So count me out of that idea. Trump turned this into a political thing early. He said it was a hoax to boost the Democrats. Then he urged on the demonstrations against the lockdowns, demonstrations financed by rich reactionary people including some in his administration. He made opposition to lockdowns political, pitting economic interests against health ones and making the economic interest a Republican stance. He supports conspiracy theories which are useful for deceiving and riling up the people and causing chaos; that is his aim. 

But I am happy that some Republican governors did not turn this crisis political, like those of ND, OH and MD, and I give them credit.

I admit though, now that Trump's response has ruined the economy, it could be a silver lining to this thing if Trump loses. He can no longer claim that he has made America great again. That's good, since he never did. Keys are starting to turn quickly against Trump in the Lichtman List. His horoscope score marginally better than Biden's may not save him.

But I never wanted the pandemic to get worse; I followed it from the start, including here, hoping it would not spread. It ruins our chances for a full life and puts us all in danger. I didn't want that.

[TheNomad]

What about "super carriers" who never get sick yet infect everyone else. Do you advocate those people be locked up totally separate outside the general population (basically in prison)? I dont know anyone who WANTS to go to a hospital for this. They fear worse may happen to you there. If you get tagged as + you will be tracked forever.

So, the question is, the "supercarrier" person is immune and should not even have to wear the mask because this thing does not harm them. UNLESS BobButler wants to lay blame on nature for making that person immune and lock them up to save HIM.

This thread is: IS IT ABOUT ME OR ABOUT YOU?

I haven't heard anyone really address that.

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-02-2020, 11:38 PM)TheNomad Wrote: What about "super carriers" who never get sick yet infect everyone else.  Do you advocate those people be locked up totally separate outside the general population (basically in prison)?  I dont know anyone who WANTS to go to a hospital for this.  They fear worse may happen to you there.  If you get tagged as + you will be tracked forever.  

So, the question is, the "supercarrier" person is immune and should not even have to wear the mask because this thing does not harm them.  UNLESS BobButler wants to lay blame on nature for making that person immune and lock them up to save HIM.

This thread is: IS IT ABOUT ME OR ABOUT YOU?

I haven't heard anyone really address that.

To start with, a supercarrier is not one who is immune, but one who through behavior infects many people.  Many with the bug find out about it before they infect anyone else.  A supercarrier might be the person with the bug who goes to choir practice and infects half the choir.  A infected person who attends a church service, who goes to work at a nursing home, meat packing plant or prison without taking precautions could well become a supercarrier.  If you go to a beach, park or demonstration without the proper precautions, you could spread the virus widely.

Still, the infected person who is immune exists.

I would not blame nature for making the bug or for anything else.  Well, I have considered the hypothetical Mother Nature who contemplates how Man treats his only planet, reaches up on the shelf, and picks up and opens a bottle labeled COVID-19.  Does that make her an evil spirit, or did Man ask for it?  Fortunately hypothetical.

I would blame the person who knows he is infectious and takes no precautions to prevent his infection from spreading.  This is comparable to carrying a gun around with no safety and has a flaw such that it goes off randomly.  You are not careless with other people’s lives.  An infected person ought to quarantine and do things such as wearing a mask if that quarantine is apt to be broken.  Someone who is deliberately infecting others might be arrested and prosecuted for manslaughter under existing law.  People who wear no mask in this era of not enough tests are hardly any different.  People who put their own ease and comfort above other people’s lives are morally reprehensible.

Now it really isn't about me personally.  I am in isolation.  Supercarriers are not apt to come in contact with me due to an excess of precaution.  They will, however, effect their own community.  They will kill.  If you are identifying with the supercarriers and not wearing PPE it becomes about you.

[TheNomad]

I will take the learning. I should have used air quotes. I personally meant to convey those who will not get sick yet are spreading.

However, you mentioned how such a person is infecting at such a huge rate compared to others, do special properties apply to them, then? Lock Her Up? As in, lock up him or her that is spreading too fast/too much compared to others? Is that not the same as the mask? To cut down the risk to the infectable populace?

That may not be hypothetical. It may be real if science can track whom that person is. So, let's talk about it now before it becomes law suddenly overnight when fear grips rest homes.

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-04-2020, 12:51 AM)TheNomad Wrote: I will take the learning.  I should have used air quotes.  I personally meant to convey those who will not get sick yet are spreading.

However, you mentioned how such a person is infecting at such a huge rate compared to others, do special properties apply to them, then?  Lock Her Up?  As in, lock up him or her that is spreading too fast/too much compared to others?  Is that not the same as the mask?  To cut down the risk to the infectable populace?

That may not be hypothetical.  It may be real if science can track whom that person is.  So, let's talk about it now before it becomes law suddenly overnight when fear grips rest homes.

Locking people up seems extreme at this point, but it may come to that if we have continued people who ignore isolation.  In a hypothetical day when we have abundant and quick tests, suppose a cop observes someone who is not wearing a mask while ignoring social distancing.  I could easily see the cop writing that person a ticket that is good for a fine, performing a test on the spot, and doing what is necessary if the person tests positive.  A governor could make this part of an emergency order.  A legislature could pass a new law requiring it.  It depends on how stubborn people are about putting their own comfort ahead of other people's lives.

Most people are only spreading the bug for a few weeks before their immune system eliminates the infection.

[David Horn]

(06-04-2020, 05:24 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(06-04-2020, 12:51 AM)TheNomad Wrote: I will take the learning.  I should have used air quotes.  I personally meant to convey those who will not get sick yet are spreading.

However, you mentioned how such a person is infecting at such a huge rate compared to others, do special properties apply to them, then?  Lock Her Up?  As in, lock up him or her that is spreading too fast/too much compared to others?  Is that not the same as the mask?  To cut down the risk to the infectable populace?

That may not be hypothetical.  It may be real if science can track whom that person is.  So, let's talk about it now before it becomes law suddenly overnight when fear grips rest homes.

Locking people up seems extreme at this point, but it may come to that if we have continued people who ignore isolation.  In a hypothetical day when we have abundant and quick tests, suppose a cop observes someone who is not wearing a mask while ignoring social distancing.  I could easily see the cop writing that person a ticket that is good for a fine, performing a test on the spot, and doing what is necessary if the person tests positive.  A governor could make this part of an emergency order.  A legislature could pass a new law requiring it.  It depends on how stubborn people are about putting their own comfort ahead of other people's lives.

Most people are only spreading the bug for a few weeks before their immune system eliminates the infection.

If we had a modicum of competence to lean on, we wouldn't even be discussing this at all.  The South Koreans did pretty much what you suggest, and it worked well.  On the other hand, Americans are notoriously self-centered, so the fines may need to be rather high for subsequent offenders.  Some people just don't comply, period.

[TheNomad]

(06-04-2020, 08:58 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(06-04-2020, 05:24 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(06-04-2020, 12:51 AM)TheNomad Wrote: I will take the learning.  I should have used air quotes.  I personally meant to convey those who will not get sick yet are spreading.

However, you mentioned how such a person is infecting at such a huge rate compared to others, do special properties apply to them, then?  Lock Her Up?  As in, lock up him or her that is spreading too fast/too much compared to others?  Is that not the same as the mask?  To cut down the risk to the infectable populace?

That may not be hypothetical.  It may be real if science can track whom that person is.  So, let's talk about it now before it becomes law suddenly overnight when fear grips rest homes.

Locking people up seems extreme at this point, but it may come to that if we have continued people who ignore isolation.  In a hypothetical day when we have abundant and quick tests, suppose a cop observes someone who is not wearing a mask while ignoring social distancing.  I could easily see the cop writing that person a ticket that is good for a fine, performing a test on the spot, and doing what is necessary if the person tests positive.  A governor could make this part of an emergency order.  A legislature could pass a new law requiring it.  It depends on how stubborn people are about putting their own comfort ahead of other people's lives.

Most people are only spreading the bug for a few weeks before their immune system eliminates the infection.

If we had a modicum of competence to lean on, we wouldn't even be discussing this at all.  The South Koreans did pretty much what you suggest, and it worked well.  On the other hand, Americans are notoriously self-centered, so the fines may need to be rather high for subsequent offenders.  Some people just don't comply, period.

Americans believe in liberty or death.  What a horrible concept.  We should be subjugated in order to survive en masse.

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-04-2020, 07:08 PM)TheNomad Wrote: Americans believe in liberty or death.  What a horrible concept.  We should be subjugated in order to survive en masse.

Trump seems to be trying. Doesn't seem to be getting very far. What we're seeing is people willing to risk their lives in order to support more equality for blacks. We will see if there are protest bounces in the bug numbers.

[David Horn]

(06-04-2020, 07:08 PM)TheNomad Wrote:

(06-04-2020, 08:58 AM)David Horn Wrote: If we had a modicum of competence to lean on, we wouldn't even be discussing this at all.  The South Koreans did pretty much what you suggest, and it worked well.  On the other hand, Americans are notoriously self-centered, so the fines may need to be rather high for subsequent offenders.  Some people just don't comply, period.

Americans believe in liberty or death.  What a horrible concept.  We should be subjugated in order to survive en masse.

In the real world, not the fantasy we're living through right now, survival is primary. If he was still alive, you could ask Darwin.

There are many ash-heaps of earlier civilizations that failed to understand that concept.