Back to masks for us

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Dude, calm down. The poster was not serious. But really, as a med student, you have no idea how common (what you call) the ignorant are. 99% of unvaccinated cases are those who are ignorant, not the examples you cited. The people who should have their medical license yanked are the frauds and charlatans who are so-called doctors promoting this anti-vax BS. They are not competent doctors.
Oof this reminds me of another recent thread:


Yes they should have their licenses revoked and honestly should be prosecuted with federal charges

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Hate for patients is not understandable. Half the MIs are because people don't do anything about their CAD. HTN and Diabetes, two other common things that lead to various serious sequelae commonly seen in hospitals are also many times because people don't take these chronic conditions seriously and we still treat them. If you don't want to treat these patients in the hospital then leave the hospital and go work in an outpatient primary care office where situations are non-emergent and you can cherry pick the patients who agree with you and send the ones who don't agree with you off

Except that people with CAD and HTN aren't killing other people with their selfishness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I would hope so, but it seems like some SDNers think its a proposal that might be worth considering...

Yea, way to post only part of what I said since the rest of my post doesn't fit with your pot-stirring interpretation. But I mean, why let truth and facts get in your way?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I don't think @MedScat and I took issue with your comment because such a policy would be impossible to implement??

I was shocked that you and others would even consider such a morally-repugnant and illogical method to enforce vaccine compliance.

Wait, wait, wait. When was the last time you were in a natural disaster? When they told you to evacuate, did they not say "if you choose to stay, we can't come help you if you get into trouble"? When was the last time you saw some joker surfing during a hurricane? You think they have a lifeguard (or hell even an EMT) to swim into the waves and save you when you're flailing about to be washed out to sea? It isn't punishment. It's that there are limited resources and that it's not worth the lifeguard risking his life because you couldn't be bothered to follow the rules.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
It's soooooo obvious from this thread who was and wasn't playing a clinical role in this pandemic. For people to act like it's a brand new revolutionary thought to triage resources is crazy to those of us who lived to see people who were really, really sick denied ICU admission or ventilators because resources were scarce and a decision was made that in order to save every person who had a chance of survival, we had to sacrifice others.

I was as disgusted as some of these posters when this first was a thing, but make no mistake, it WAS a thing and it was the right thing under the circumstances.

For anyone who actually wants to educate themselves instead of wagging their fingers at those of us who lived through it, it's called Crisis Standards of Care. You might do some reading.



 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 3 users
We withhold donated organs from those who have a high likelihood of not having a successful outcome from receipt of said organ. You do not withhold a liver from a dying alcoholic to punish them for being an alcoholic.

So…you’re OK with withholding treatment from someone based on their action.

Great, we’re on the same page, just draw the lines at a different place.
 
It's soooooo obvious from this thread who was and wasn't playing a clinical role in this pandemic. For people to act like it's a brand new revolutionary thought to triage resources is crazy to those of us who lived to see people who were really, really sick denied ICU admission or ventilators because resources were scarce and a decision was made that in order to save every person who had a chance of survival, we had to sacrifice others.

I was as disgusted as some of these posters when this first was a thing, but make no mistake, it WAS a thing and it was the right thing under the circumstances.

For anyone who actually wants to educate themselves instead of wagging their fingers at those of us who lived through it, it's called Crisis Standards of Care. You might do some reading.




When I get privileges to treat pts in ICU, and we get pretty much blanket immunity, and we have tents in parking lots, and multiple colleagues have died, that’s when you need to lay some of the blame on people who refuse to do even the simplest things to help their community….yet we are still expected to pull out all the stops to treat them? 🤔🤔
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Wait, wait, wait, who mentioned legal penalties?
What exactly do you think a mask mandate is? There is a difference between the government recommending something and a mask mandate. Generally that implies a legal penalty for noncompliance. In my state, noncompliance with the mask mandate is a misdemeanor offense and carries criminal penalties. Specifically, the penalty is one year in jail and/or a fine not to exceed $5000. Something similar exists in many or most states. Generally, there is some statute that criminalizes disobeying an executive order.
 
Last edited:
What exactly do you think a mask mandate is? There is a difference between the government recommending something and a mask mandate. Generally that implies a legal penalty for noncompliance. In my state, noncompliance with the mask mandate is a misdemeanor offense and carries criminal penalties. Specifically, the penalty is one year in jail and/or a fine not to exceed $5000. Something similar exists in many or most states. Generally, there is some statute that criminalizes disobeying an executive order.

No one is going to be arrested for not wearing a mask. That's fear-mongering. State statutes have ridiculous things in them. Doesn't mean these are anything that will realistically happen.
 
So where do those limits to personal freedom end? Why is it ok to say you can't blast your music at 3 am, but not ok to say wear a mask when you go to the grocery store? What's the difference?
Well, for one, telling someone what they can’t do is generally less restrictive than telling someone that they must do something. Prohibiting “fighting words” is less restrictive than compelled speech. Prohibiting speeding is less restrictive than compelling someone to drive under the speed limit. Additionally, when mask mandates cover all public areas, they are broader in scope. Prohibitions on blasting music at 3 AM impact a small portion of people’s lives. Namely, it only impacts that portion of a person’s life spent at 3 AM with a desire to blast music. Mask mandates impact nearly the entirety of a person’s public life. Those are some of the differences.
I don't think they're an anarchist. I think anyone who thinks mask mandates go too far is selfish.
Well, I think we get to this point a little later.
The above is all common sense and no one said otherwise. I'm not sure what your point is except to say "everyone has an opinion"?
My point is that you are refusing to recognize that this is just a difference of values. You’re not considering that people may legitimately take issue with mask mandates for understandable reasons. Your immediate reaction is to dismiss those with a different opinion as ignorant or immoral. That is a simplistic worldview. Not only that, but you’re never going to persuade anyone with that approach.
I can claim with certainty that the value they place on this is wrong because we know that masks reduce transmission of Covid. We know this. It's a fact. There is no harm in wearing a mask for the overwhelming majority of people. So when something causes you no harm and, in turn, helps others, possibly even saves lives, prevents lockdowns, and allows us to get a leg up on a disease that's paralyzed the country for over a year, I can say definitively you are wrong for placing higher value on individual liberty. It's like me saying "I'm going to drive 75 mph in a school zone because I place a high value on individual liberty and **** those school kids!"
You’re assuming you know that there is no cost associated with wearing a mask, but that is subjective. Some people are very bothered by wearing masks. Others aren’t. Telling people who are bothered by wearing masks that there is no cost associated with wearing one is silly. That is like telling someone who hates chocolate that chocolate is delicious. Where exactly do you think that gets us? Also, equating not wanting the government to mandate mask wearing to driving recklessly in a school zone is preposterous. These things aren’t even remotely similar. First of all, the person who is against mask mandates might voluntarily wear a mask. Even if they didn’t, the idea that one individual not wearing a mask at one moment in time is as dangerous as someone driving through a school zone at 75 mph is laughable.
Yes, they are.
Wow. Compelling argument.
I'm not going to turn this into a philosophical debate because it's not. It's a debate about a very specific thing at a very specific point in history for a very specific reason.
What about this is not a philosophical debate? How do you justify your position if not philosophically? Why are your values such as they are? How could you possibly pretend to answer these questions if not with philosophy?
Don't believe this for a second and even if true, it's a ridiculous way to look at this. The "sum diminution of everyone's freedom" for putting a mask on? Give me a break.
Again, your argument hinges on dismissing the experience of others rather than grappling with the fact that mask wearing is not actually without costs. This is unpersuasive. I, too, could just dismiss every piece of evidence that runs counter to my position, but that wouldn’t really serve to bolster my argument.
 
Last edited:
No one is going to be arrested for not wearing a mask. That's fear-mongering. State statutes have ridiculous things in them. Doesn't mean these are anything that will realistically happen.
People have been arrested for this in my state. Regardless, when the state backs an edict with the force of law, that is restrictive.

Also, what exactly is your argument? As I’ve established, the difference between a mask mandate and a recommendation is generally the potential for legal penalties. Do you support mask mandates or not?

Come on, dude. You are obviously moving the goalpost. First you were claiming that nobody was talking about penalties. I point out that many states have criminal penalties for disobeying mask mandates and you’re dismissing it because you perceive these crimes as unlikely to be prosecuted.

I’ll go back to my most recent post and reiterate that it seems like you have a habit of just dismissing facts that are inconvenient to your argument rather than actually grappling with them.
 
Last edited:
Well, for one, telling someone what they can’t do is generally less restrictive than telling someone that they must do something. Prohibiting “fighting words” is less restrictive than compelled speech. Prohibiting speeding is less restrictive than compelling someone to drive under the speed limit.

Even if I agreed, who says a mask mandate has to be telling someone what to do. How's this? The mask mandate "prohibits" leaving the home (without a mask). All about how you frame it.

Additionally, when mask mandates cover all public areas, they are broader in scope. Prohibitions on blasting music at 3 AM impact a small portion of people’s lives. Namely, it only impacts that portion of a person’s life spent at 3 AM with a desire to blast music. Mask mandates impact nearly the entirety of a person’s public life. Those are some of the differences

No, prohibitions on blasting music generally go from 11 or 12 until 6 am. So how about we implement a mask mandate from the hours of 11 am or noon until 6 pm? Then would it somehow be ok? It sounds silly to me, but if that's the goalpost, I'll meet you there.

My point is that you are refusing to recognize that this is just a difference of values. You’re not considering that people may legitimately take issue with mask mandates for understandable reasons. Your immediate reaction is to dismiss those with a different opinion as ignorant or immoral. That is a simplistic worldview. Not only that, but you’re never going to persuade anyone with that approach

I'm sorry, what? Have you known me more than 5 minutes? Do you have any idea what I do or don't do? No, of course not, you just assume that I'm "not considering that people may legitimately take issue with mask mandates..." or whatever such nonsense. This is not a value thing. It just isn't, no matter how much you want it to be. It's as much a value thing as allowing kids to learn sex ed during the AIDS epidemic was a so-called "value" thing. It's a life and death thing. If people want to get held up in the values of it, fine, but don't expect those of us who can see the forest past the trees not to call you on it.

You’re assuming you know that there is no cost associated with wearing a mask, but that is subjective. Some people are very bothered by wearing masks. Others aren’t. Telling people who are bothered by wearing masks that there is no cost associated with wearing one is silly. That is like telling someone who hates chocolate that chocolate is delicious

No, it isn't. Not even a little bit. It's this constant coddling of society and what "bothers" them that got us to where we are right now. I'm curious, do you also advocate against seatbelt laws because some people are bothered by seatbelts?

What about this is not a philosophical debate? How do you justify your position if not philosophically? Why are your values such as they are? How could you possibly pretend to answer these questions if not with philosophy?

Because it's not philosophical and the only people who want to turn it into a philosophical question are the ones who are strangely talented at twisting facts. To the rest of us, it's pretty concrete, life and death. If wearing a mask prevents transmission even a little bit, there is no reason not to do it.

Again, your argument hinges on dismissing the experience of others rather than grappling with the fact that mask wearing is not actually without costs. This is unpersuasive. I, too, could just dismiss every piece of evidence that runs counter to my position, but that wouldn’t really serve to bolster my argument

What are these costs? Someone being "bothered" by a mask is not a cost, in my book. The world is not designed to cater to what does and doesn't bother you, society be damned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
People have been arrested for this in my state. Regardless, when the state backs an edict with the force of law, that is restrictive.

Which state? Can you share an article? I googled "arrested for not wearing a mask" and haven't come up with anything despite mask mandates that began last year.

Also, what exactly is your argument? As I’ve established, the difference between a mask mandate and a recommendation is generally the potential for legal penalties. Do you support mask mandates or not?

I think I've been clear on this - I support mask mandates. I've said it and argued in favor of it at least a dozen times on this thread so I don't know why it's confusing.

Come on, dude. You are obviously moving the goalpost. First you were claiming that nobody was talking about penalties. I point out that many states have criminal penalties for disobeying mask mandates and you’re dismissing it because you perceive these crimes as unlikely to be prosecuted

I have yet to see a criminal penalty for not wearing a mask. Please show me. I never once said they're "unlikely to be prosecuted"; I said they're not going to even be arrested. Show me.

I’ll go back to my most recent post and reiterate that it seems like you have a habit of just dismissing facts that are inconvenient to your argument rather than actually grappling with them

This is hilarious because I haven't dismissed a single thing. In fact, I've replied to everything people, including you, have said. Disagreeing with you is not "dismissing" you. But you're free to think what you want. No restriction on free thought...yet.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Sharing my anecdote since the opposite has been stated:

I work COVID and almost all the patients are unvaccinated. Many have vaccinated family who have only mild symptoms at home while they are hospitalized w/ severe symptoms. I'm also seeing the vaccinated-but-sick discharging through the door much more often than through the ceiling.

Overall, I'm encouraged that the vaccine seems to be panning out thus far (again, anecdotally) for my community.

Given that this spike happened post 7/4, it seems that social distancing and masking (the two big variables that were cast aside for 4th of July celebrations) seem to have merit in practice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Even if I agreed, who says a mask mandate has to be telling someone what to do. How's this? The mask mandate "prohibits" leaving the home (without a mask). All about how you frame it.
Seriously? Mandating a mask in public indoor spaces is pretty sweeping and impacts the day-to-day, routine lives of most people.

Of course there is some level of analysis at which many edicts of compelled behavior can be viewed as prohibitions. One could frame compelled speech as simply being a prohibition on speaking in any way that is not sanctioned. The question is what this level of analysis actually adds to the discussion.

The level of analysis that frames mask mandates as edicts of compelled behavior seems appropriate because it acknowledges that the scope of such mandates is broad and impacts huge portions of people’s routine lives. The level of analysis that claims that the mandates are just prohibitions because people could simply sequester in their homes to avoid their impact doesn’t seem to have much value. What does this consider that the the alternative does not? That it’s technically a choice to not go to public spaces? That is, of course, true. It is also minimally relevant.
No, prohibitions on blasting music generally go from 11 or 12 until 6 am. So how about we implement a mask mandate from the hours of 11 am or noon until 6 pm? Then would it somehow be ok? It sounds silly to me, but if that's the goalpost, I'll meet you there.

Okay, fine. The prohibition on blasting music spans from 11 to 6. It only impacts people at those times when they are awake between 11 and 6 and desire to blast music at those times. That is a pretty narrow impact.

Mask mandates cover all times, including times when most people are awake. It also covers many public places where people routinely are throughout the course of a day. It’s pretty obvious that mask mandates are more intrusive than prohibitions on loud music.
I'm sorry, what? Have you known me more than 5 minutes? Do you have any idea what I do or don't do? No, of course not, you just assume that I'm "not considering that people may legitimately take issue with mask mandates..." or whatever such nonsense. This is not a value thing. It just isn't, no matter how much you want it to be. It's as much a value thing as allowing kids to learn sex ed during the AIDS epidemic was a so-called "value" thing. It's a life and death thing. If people want to get held up in the values of it, fine, but don't expect those of us who can see the forest past the trees not to call you on it.
How is it not a value thing? How does the notion that this is a “life or death thing” lead to the conclusion that mask mandates are good policy? Please refrain from any value judgments in your proof.
No, it isn't. Not even a little bit. It's this constant coddling of society and what "bothers" them that got us to where we are right now. I'm curious, do you also advocate against seatbelt laws because some people are bothered by seatbelts?

I haven’t spent a good deal of time thinking about seatbelt laws, but I suppose that I do object to them. I don’t oppose mandatory seatbelts in newly built cars. I also highly recommend wearing a seatbelt and do so myself. However, I also think that it should be an adult individual’s right to decide if they want to wear one.
Because it's not philosophical and the only people who want to turn it into a philosophical question are the ones who are strangely talented at twisting facts. To the rest of us, it's pretty concrete, life and death. If wearing a mask prevents transmission even a little bit, there is no reason not to do it.

This is not obvious, though. Do you believe that every intervention that would reduce deaths is justified? What if we just incarcerate people for life for a reckless driving charge? Let’s assume we had good data that doing so would reduce the number of MVA fatalities. Is this something we should do? If not, why not? I assume that it has something to do with philosophy and values.
What are these costs? Someone being "bothered" by a mask is not a cost, in my book. The world is not designed to cater to what does and doesn't bother you, society be damned.
This is an example of you dismissing evidence does not suit you. Yes, you have responded to my point, but your response is essentially that you don’t consider a detriment incurred by others to be a cost. That is a very convenient definition of cost.

Which state? Can you share an article? I googled "arrested for not wearing a mask" and haven't come up with anything despite mask mandates that began last year.
I won’t specifically say where I am located, but here are some examples:

New York:

Connecticut:

Maryland:
 
Seriously? Mandating a mask in public indoor spaces is pretty sweeping and impacts the day-to-day, routine lives of most people.

Of course there is some level of analysis at which many edicts of compelled behavior can be viewed as prohibitions. One could frame compelled speech as simply being a prohibition on speaking in any way that is not sanctioned. The question is what this level of analysis actually adds to the discussion.

The level of analysis that frames mask mandates as edicts of compelled behavior seems appropriate because it acknowledges that the scope of such mandates is broad and impacts huge portions of people’s routine lives. The level of analysis that claims that the mandates are just prohibitions because people could simply sequester in their homes to avoid their impact doesn’t seem to have much value. What does this consider that the the alternative does not? That it’s technically a choice to not go to public spaces? That is, of course, true. It is also minimally relevant.


Okay, fine. The prohibition on blasting music spans from 11 to 6. It only impacts people at those times when they are awake between 11 and 6 and desire to blast music at those times. That is a pretty narrow impact.

Mask mandates cover all times, including times when most people are awake. It also covers many public places where people routinely are throughout the course of a day. It’s pretty obvious that mask mandates are more intrusive than prohibitions on loud music.

How is it not a value thing? How does the notion that this is a “life or death thing” lead to the conclusion that mask mandates are good policy? Please refrain from any value judgments in your proof.


I haven’t spent a good deal of time thinking about seatbelt laws, but I suppose that I do object to them. I don’t oppose mandatory seatbelts in newly built cars. I also highly recommend wearing a seatbelt and do so myself. However, I also think that it should be an adult individual’s right to decide if they want to wear one.


This is not obvious, though. Do you believe that every intervention that would reduce deaths is justified? What if we just incarcerate people for life for a reckless driving charge? Let’s assume we had good data that doing so would reduce the number of MVA fatalities. Is this something we should do? If not, why not? I assume that it has something to do with philosophy and values.

This is an example of you dismissing evidence does not suit you. Yes, you have responded to my point, but your response is essentially that you don’t consider a detriment incurred by others to be a cost. That is a very convenient definition of cost.


I won’t specifically say where I am located, but here are some examples:

New York:

Connecticut:

Maryland:
So the details of those cases matter.

In the NYC one, she both refused to put on a mask AND refused to leave the subway station. She wasn't arrested for not wearing a mask. Also, if you read later into the article you get this: "Shortly after Rozier's arrest, Mayor Bill de Blasio condemned the incident as "just not right" during a news conference and announced NYPD officers were no longer allowed to arrest anyone who was not wearing a protective face mask."

The Connecticut one is short on details but given that this was in a court house its likely he also had a chance to either wear a mask or leave. Refusing the leave a court house is a fast way to get arrested mask or not.

The Maryland one said charged, not arrested. Sounds like a citation but I can't prove that one either way.

Beyond that, if you oppose seat belt laws I'm not sure there's any productive discussion to be had between you and Mass Effect since that's a chasm that just isn't going to be crossed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
So the details of those cases matter.

In the NYC one, she both refused to put on a mask AND refused to leave the subway station. She wasn't arrested for not wearing a mask. Also, if you read later into the article you get this: "Shortly after Rozier's arrest, Mayor Bill de Blasio condemned the incident as "just not right" during a news conference and announced NYPD officers were no longer allowed to arrest anyone who was not wearing a protective face mask."

The Connecticut one is short on details but given that this was in a court house its likely he also had a chance to either wear a mask or leave. Refusing the leave a court house is a fast way to get arrested mask or not.

The Maryland one said charged, not arrested. Sounds like a citation but I can't prove that one either way.

Beyond that, if you oppose seat belt laws I'm not sure there's any productive discussion to be had between you and Mass Effect since that's a chasm that just isn't going to be crossed.
My argument was that mask mandates inherently involve potential legal penalties. Mass Effect then made the point that nobody is getting arrested for violating a mask mandate. Presumably this point was made as an attempt to rebut my assertion that mask mandates carry potential legal penalties.

You can try to fight reality as much as you want, but the facts are that:

a) Mask mandates do carry potential legal penalties (my primary assertion before we got lost on the weeds of arrests vs prosecutions, etc.)
b) People have, in fact, been arrested for violating mask mandates.
 
Seriously? Mandating a mask in public indoor spaces is pretty sweeping and impacts the day-to-day, routine lives of most people.

So does a mandating shoes in public indoor spaces. What's your point? The only difference between a mask mandate and a shoe mandate is that we grew up with the latter, we're used to it, it's all we've known so we do it.

Of course there is some level of analysis at which many edicts of compelled behavior can be viewed as prohibitions. One could frame compelled speech as simply being a prohibition on speaking in any way that is not sanctioned. The question is what this level of analysis actually adds to the discussion.

About as much as the argument that mask mandates are wrong because we can't force people to put something on their face. (All the while, we do force people to put something across their bodies when they drive).

The level of analysis that frames mask mandates as edicts of compelled behavior seems appropriate because it acknowledges that the scope of such mandates is broad and impacts huge portions of people’s routine lives

Impacts it how though? That is the question. The idea that masks somehow harm people has been debunked and continues to be more than a little ridiculous. So how exactly does it impact them?

The level of analysis that claims that the mandates are just prohibitions because people could simply sequester in their homes to avoid their impact doesn’t seem to have much value. What does this consider that the the alternative does not? That it’s technically a choice to not go to public spaces? That is, of course, true. It is also minimally relevant

Minimally relevant? Are you kidding??? It's about as minimally relevant as it would be if I said to someone who didn't want to wear a shirt or shoes "don't go to the store then". It's a choice and in this day and age of mail-to-order everything if someone doesn't like mask mandates, there is literally no reason they have to be in a public indoor space.

Okay, fine. The prohibition on blasting music spans from 11 to 6. It only impacts people at those times when they are awake between 11 and 6 and desire to blast music at those times. That is a pretty narrow impact

So the determination of what is a meaningful impact vs not is made by you? Is wearing shoes in a store narrow impact also? Seat belt? What about policies about removing hats when indoors? Or clear bags at the stadium? People acting like this is all brand new and we've never before imposed rules in society and suddenly we want to and it'll be the end of a civilization as we know it are so hyperbolic and melodramatic, that the rest of us just can't take these people seriously. Yes, you're right, this isn't the way to get people to change their behavior, but there comes a point when enough is enough and people just need to grow the hell up, accept certain facts - like COVID is raging like never before - and do your part because it's your responsibility to society and the country.

How is it not a value thing? How does the notion that this is a “life or death thing” lead to the conclusion that mask mandates are good policy? Please refrain from any value judgments in your proof

You're right, some people are selfish jerks and don't care about anyone but themselves, so in that sense, it is a value thing. For the rest of us, when the country's on fire, we don't invoke values as a placeholder for "I don't wanna and no one can make me!"

I haven’t spent a good deal of time thinking about seatbelt laws, but I suppose that I do object to them. I don’t oppose mandatory seatbelts in newly built cars

Why?

This is not obvious, though. Do you believe that every intervention that would reduce deaths is justified?

Of course not, but when the cost is literally nothing, why not? Masks do not harm you.

What if we just incarcerate people for life for a reckless driving charge? Let’s assume we had good data that doing so would reduce the number of MVA fatalities. Is this something we should do? If not, why not? I assume that it has something to do with philosophy and values

No, for a variety of reasons, including that we need prison space for homicide. But that aside, I'm not opposed to DUI and reckless drivers having their licenses permanently yanked.

This is an example of you dismissing evidence does not suit you

No, this is not evidence. Any parent will tell you that their kid will be "bothered" by cleaning his room too or "bothered" by eating his veggies. You don't just say "oh ok let's not bother you then, you don't have to do that". Sometimes you have to call a spade and spade and being "bothered" by something that will not adversely affect you, but will help save lives is not a reason not to do it. Also, I treat people with behavioral disorders and you'll be shocked (not really) to learn how many feign being bothered because they just don't like being told what to do. They refuse on principle, and tell me so as they ask for the letter that excuses them from following rules.

Yes, you have responded to my point, but your response is essentially that you don’t consider a detriment incurred by others to be a cost

I'll ask again - what detriment? Why can no one answer that question? Everyone wants to pretend there are all these issues with masks yet everyone responds with vague "bother" or "detriment" or "cost" without any specific problem. Don't accuse me of dismissing things you haven't even given me to dismiss.

I already read VA Hopeful Dr's post and agree with it that your examples don't pass muster. The details matter, much like language.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
My argument was that mask mandates inherently involve potential legal penalties. Mass Effect then made the point that nobody is getting arrested for violating a mask mandate. Presumably this point was made as an attempt to rebut my assertion that mask mandates carry potential legal penalties.

Except that you're not showing me that people were arrested for violating a mask mandate. In NYC, the person was arrested for not leaving the subway since she wasn't wearing a mask, not for not wearing a mask. In CT, the person was arrested for not leaving the courthouse (and this one actually is law, separate from the mask mandate - federal buildings have certain laws and if you don't abide by them, you WILL be asked to leave and if you don't leave, you WILL be arrested; don't ask me how I know). In MD, it also doesn't say arrest. So I'm still not buying it.

You can try to fight reality as much as you want, but the facts are that:
a) Mask mandates do carry potential legal penalties (my primary assertion before we got lost on the weeds of arrests vs prosecutions, etc.)

In theory only.

b) People have, in fact, been arrested for violating mask mandates

No, they haven't. If they have, show me proof. Your examples above are not it for reasons already stated. The police are not roaming the streets and waiting to arrest you for not wearing a mask. If I go into a Piggly Wiggly without shoes and am asked to leave and refuse, then yea, I may be arrested. But I wasn't arrested for not wearing shoes. I was arrested because I refused to leave the Piggly Wiggly which requires shoes. There's a difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
So does a mandating shoes in public indoor spaces. What's your point? The only difference between a mask mandate and a shoe mandate is that we grew up with the latter, we're used to it, it's all we've known so we do it.

Right, and most people are also not used to wearing banana hammocks. I don't think that it's unreasonable that someone would feel that it was intrusive if the government made them start wearing a banana hammock. Masks are not part of normative dress like shoes are. There is also a difference between wearing something that covers the face and wearing something on your feet in terms of physical comfort and social dynamics.

About as much as the argument that mask mandates are wrong because we can't force people to put something on their face. (All the while, we do force people to put something across their bodies when they drive).

That did not answer the question. Nice try, though.

Impacts it how though? That is the question. The idea that masks somehow harm people has been debunked and continues to be more than a little ridiculous. So how exactly does it impact them?

How exactly does one "debunk" the idea that masks harm people? Is the only harm you recognize some sort of medical injury?

I happen to believe that the ability to make choices about what I wear on my face is worth something. Taking away the ability to make that choice does harm people. You have deprived them of a personal liberty. This deprivation can also be described as a harm. This is not some sort of neologistic use of the word. People talk this way about deprivations of rights all the time. Just read some court filings.

Minimally relevant? Are you kidding??? It's about as minimally relevant as it would be if I said to someone who didn't want to wear a shirt or shoes "don't go to the store then". It's a choice and in this day and age of mail-to-order everything if someone doesn't like mask mandates, there is literally no reason they have to be in a public indoor space.

Yeah, it's technically a choice to enter public, but this is minimally relevant to a discussion of individual liberties. To demonstrate this, just imagine we've gone back to the time of segregation. Now imagine the politicians saying that black people aren't really being harmed because segregation only applies to public spaces and they could choose to just remain on their private property. Or imagine that the police arrested someone for spreading communist propaganda but then claimed that it's not actually restricting freedom of speech because they're free to distribute fliers on their own private property.

Practically, there is always a recognition that the technical possibility of never entering public is not a realistic option. As such, we generally act as if an edict broadly governing public behavior are broadly restrictive, regardless of the fact that it is possible to be a hermit.

So the determination of what is a meaningful impact vs not is made by you? Is wearing shoes in a store narrow impact also? Seat belt? What about policies about removing hats when indoors? Or clear bags at the stadium? People acting like this is all brand new and we've never before imposed rules in society and suddenly we want to and it'll be the end of a civilization as we know it are so hyperbolic and melodramatic, that the rest of us just can't take these people seriously. Yes, you're right, this isn't the way to get people to change their behavior, but there comes a point when enough is enough and people just need to grow the hell up, accept certain facts - like COVID is raging like never before - and do your part because it's your responsibility to society and the country.

Well . . . yes. This is a debate. Do I really have to explain how debates work?

One person takes a position and another person gets to argue for an alternative position. My position is that mask mandates have a broader impact than noise ordinances, for the reasons I described. You haven't actually addressed that position, or those reasons. You've just come back with a list of other policies, hoping that you can get me to take another position that might be seen as unpopular. That is not actually an argument.

I'm being hyperbolic? COVID is raging like never before? Really? You think that the situation we are in now is worse than the first wave of COVID? We're currently in freezer truck morgue territory?

You're right, some people are selfish jerks and don't care about anyone but themselves, so in that sense, it is a value thing. For the rest of us, when the country's on fire, we don't invoke values as a placeholder for "I don't wanna and no one can make me!"

This is essentially an ad hominem against somebody. Against who it is unclear. Is it towards me, people who disagree with mask mandates, or people who refuse to wear masks? In any case, it doesn't require a response.


This is really getting pretty off-topic but this is the last I'll say on the issue of seatbelts. I believe that there is a compelling state interest in ensuring that cars are reasonably safe. This is why I also don't have an issue with the requirement that new cars have back-up cameras. This compelling state interest stems from a consumer protection duty to shield consumers from companies that might make unreasonable sacrifices to safety in the interest of economy. I don't believe that there is generally a compelling state interest in protecting people from themselves.

Of course not, but when the cost is literally nothing, why not? Masks do not harm you.

The cost is not nothing. Again, you are ignoring any cost that you personally do not understand. There is a cost to restricting liberty. Some people find masks very uncomfortable. You dismiss this, but it does not make it untrue. Again, not all harms are medical harms.

No, for a variety of reasons, including that we need prison space for homicide. But that aside, I'm not opposed to DUI and reckless drivers having their licenses permanently yanked.

But why not? You could save lives by keeping them in prison. If you let them out, some of them will inevitably wind up driving again even without a license. They'll just wind up killing more people. What if we had the space for them in the prison, and that wasn't an issue. Shouldn't we just give them life in prison to protect the other drivers on the road?

No, this is not evidence. Any parent will tell you that their kid will be "bothered" by cleaning his room too or "bothered" by eating his veggies. You don't just say "oh ok let's not bother you then, you don't have to do that". Sometimes you have to call a spade and spade and being "bothered" by something that will not adversely affect you, but will help save lives is not a reason not to do it. Also, I treat people with behavioral disorders and you'll be shocked (not really) to learn how many feign being bothered because they just don't like being told what to do. They refuse on principle, and tell me so as they ask for the letter that excuses them from following rules.

Again, you are just dismissing anything that conflicts with your point of view. How is it not evidence? You claimed that there is no cost to wearing a mask. I pointed out that many people are subjectively bothered by wearing a mask. You claim that this is not evidence of a cost. Why? Because you have some convenient personal definition of cost that excludes subjective negative impacts as potential costs.

I'll ask again - what detriment? Why can no one answer that question? Everyone wants to pretend there are all these issues with masks yet everyone responds with vague "bother" or "detriment" or "cost" without any specific problem. Don't accuse me of dismissing things you haven't even given me to dismiss.

I already read VA Hopeful Dr's post and agree with it that your examples don't pass muster. The details matter, much like language.
Except that you're not showing me that people were arrested for violating a mask mandate. In NYC, the person was arrested for not leaving the subway since she wasn't wearing a mask, not for not wearing a mask. In CT, the person was arrested for not leaving the courthouse (and this one actually is law, separate from the mask mandate - federal buildings have certain laws and if you don't abide by them, you WILL be asked to leave and if you don't leave, you WILL be arrested; don't ask me how I know). In MD, it also doesn't say arrest. So I'm still not buying it.



In theory only.



No, they haven't. If they have, show me proof. Your examples above are not it for reasons already stated. The police are not roaming the streets and waiting to arrest you for not wearing a mask. If I go into a Piggly Wiggly without shoes and am asked to leave and refuse, then yea, I may be arrested. But I wasn't arrested for not wearing shoes. I was arrested because I refused to leave the Piggly Wiggly which requires shoes. There's a difference.

The detriment is the restriction of individual freedom resulting from a mandate that is enforced on threat of legal penalty.

Again, you are composing a fallacious argument structure by moving the goalposts. I'll be more explicit about how you're doing it this time:

The basic form of this sub-argument has been:

Me: Mask mandates restrict individual liberty because inherent to the idea of a mask mandate is the possibility of legal penalties.
You: Nobody is talking about legal penalties (goalpost: legal penalties for violating mask mandates).
Me: Violating a mask mandate is a misdemeanor offense in several states, punishable by fine or jail time.
You: That's absurd. Nobody is getting arrested for violating mask mandates (goalpost: arrest for violating a mask mandate).
Me: People have been arrested and charged with violating mask mandates.
You: I don't buy it. Besides, the examples you provided involved people being arrested while doing something else illegal. (goalpost: arrest for violating a mask mandate without a concomitant offense.)

Let me bring us back to your post that started this line or argument:

Wait, wait, wait, who mentioned legal penalties?

Just admit it. You were wrong about this. There are legal penalties for violating mask mandates. These penalties are not theoretical, as several people have been charged with violating them (whether or not they were arrested before being charged).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Since someone not wearing a mask can get me (and by proxy, my family) sick, I’m okay with penalties… same as any public nuisance laws… which have a long history in English common law.

It appears people need to read more history.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
My argument was that mask mandates inherently involve potential legal penalties. Mass Effect then made the point that nobody is getting arrested for violating a mask mandate. Presumably this point was made as an attempt to rebut my assertion that mask mandates carry potential legal penalties.

You can try to fight reality as much as you want, but the facts are that:

a) Mask mandates do carry potential legal penalties (my primary assertion before we got lost on the weeds of arrests vs prosecutions, etc.)
b) People have, in fact, been arrested for violating mask mandates.
Though fines would probably be sufficient but…

Excellent.
1628650922983.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Since someone not wearing a mask can get me (and by proxy, my family) sick, I’m okay with penalties… same as any public nuisance laws… which have a long history in English common law.

It appears people need to read more history.
Cognitive dissonance. Trump’s presidency really exposed people.
 
Compared to masks, how scared are they of vaccines?
Magnitudes more. Its an interesting thing to look at. You have people scared to wear masks, scared to get the covid vaccine, scared to get any vaccine. I’d have to think more about it to understand where the different thresholds come from. Ultimately its just their brain subconsciously doing a risk assessment.

Can anyone tell me why the words fear, scared, afraid aren’t being used in these discussions? By the government or media? One conspiracy theory I do endorse are these agencies want you to be afraid.
 
Question if you have a minute, @viralhiker :

Do people think it will have a seasonal pattern like cold and flu? Or an all-year-round thing? I would venture to guess seasonal given more people gathering indoors to hide from the cold but I don't know as much about the virus as you all do and it *is* quite a bit more contagious than the flu.
 
Question if you have a minute, @viralhiker :

Do people think it will have a seasonal pattern like cold and flu? Or an all-year-round thing? I would venture to guess seasonal given more people gathering indoors to hide from the cold but I don't know as much about the virus as you all do and it *is* quite a bit more contagious than the flu.
While historically seasonality was thought to be related to unknown viral surges that had a temporal relation (recognized for over a millennia), that actual causes remained obscure.

However, at this juncture, I'm convinced that seasonality is just a reflection and artifact of human behavior. For instance, we saw no flu in pediatrics this past year despite it being flu season (like zero cases which is unheard of) and have seen overwhelming RSV despite it not being RSV season. The only reason for this (besides the predominance of COVID in the adult vectors) is the change in human behavior and nothing more.
 
  • Like
  • Hmm
Reactions: 2 users
While I’m talking about Trump, heres another interesting thing. If Trump would’ve stayed President, we likely would not be in this mess. My rationale is he would’ve focused on being the great covid savior, pushing the vaccine. In hindsight, perhaps it would’ve been objectively better for the country (in the short term) if that were the case.
 
While I’m talking about Trump, heres another interesting thing. If Trump would’ve stayed President, we likely would not be in this mess. My rationale is he would’ve focused on being the great covid savior, pushing the vaccine. In hindsight, perhaps it would’ve been objectively better for the country (in the short term) if that were the case.
No because Twitter will still ban him, making the situation worse
 
Right, and most people are also not used to wearing banana hammocks. I don't think that it's unreasonable that someone would feel that it was intrusive if the government made them start wearing a banana hammock. Masks are not part of normative dress like shoes are. There is also a difference between wearing something that covers the face and wearing something on your feet in terms of physical comfort and social dynamics.

Oh yes, that's definitely an accurate analogy. What, was a rerun of Friends on or something? Princess Consuela Banana Hammock would agree with me by the by.

How exactly does one "debunk" the idea that masks harm people? Is the only harm you recognize some sort of medical injury?

You realize how silly that sounds when you address it to a psychiatrist? I have patients who come in telling me how "bothered" they are by the mask because they don't like being told what to do. It does not cause them harm. That is my expert opinion.

I happen to believe that the ability to make choices about what I wear on my face is worth something. Taking away the ability to make that choice does harm people. You have deprived them of a personal liberty. This deprivation can also be described as a harm. This is not some sort of neologistic use of the word. People talk this way about deprivations of rights all the time. Just read some court filings

I'm sick of the snowflake thinking as more and more people propagate faulty interpretations of their rights and then erroneously claim to have been injured because they were "deprived" of it. Which right is it that a mask mandate infringes on exactly? Liberty? Not so. You can do all the things you were doing before, just with a mask. So which right is it? And more importantly, how does being "deprived of this liberty" harm you? Does it cause emotional distress? Depression? Anxiety? What does it do to harm you? It also should be noted that no one is telling you you HAVE to wear a mask. A mask mandate would require you to do so in indoor public spaces. So just avoid indoor public spaces if you don't want to wear one. It really isn't that hard. The rest of us should not have to sacrifice our health because of your belief that your liberty has been infringed upon.

Yeah, it's technically a choice to enter public, but this is minimally relevant to a discussion of individual liberties. To demonstrate this, just imagine we've gone back to the time of segregation. Now imagine the politicians saying that black people aren't really being harmed because segregation only applies to public spaces and they could choose to just remain on their private property

Really? I'm going to assume it's late where you are and that's why you thought this was an appropriate comparison.

Or imagine that the police arrested someone for spreading communist propaganda but then claimed that it's not actually restricting freedom of speech because they're free to distribute fliers on their own private property

Well that would be infringing on a right - the right to free speech. What right does a mask infringe on again? Put another way, what right does a mask infringe on that wearing shoes or wearing a shirt does not?

Practically, there is always a recognition that the technical possibility of never entering public is not a realistic option

Why not? We're talking indoor public spaces. Why is it not realistic? Difficult sure, but plenty realistic.

One person takes a position and another person gets to argue for an alternative position. My position is that mask mandates have a broader impact than noise ordinances, for the reasons I described

Except that you can't describe it, not to mention your feeling that you're somehow harmed due to the attack on your liberty does not outweigh public safety. If it did, then drunk driving would be legal.

You haven't actually addressed that position, or those reasons. You've just come back with a list of other policies, hoping that you can get me to take another position that might be seen as unpopular. That is not actually an argument

Of course it is. It's pointing out your hypocrisy.

I'm being hyperbolic? COVID is raging like never before? Really? You think that the situation we are in now is worse than the first wave of COVID? We're currently in freezer truck morgue territory?

Uh, yes. Take a look at FL and AR sometime.

This is essentially an ad hominem against somebody. Against who it is unclear. Is it towards me, people who disagree with mask mandates, or people who refuse to wear masks? In any case, it doesn't require a response

It's against people who refuse to wear masks in general, no one person. On the general forums, I try not to go after individual people. All my "you" and "your" is in generalities, not specifics.

This is really getting pretty off-topic but this is the last I'll say on the issue of seatbelts. I believe that there is a compelling state interest in ensuring that cars are reasonably safe

And they don't have a compelling state interest in ensuring the Covid spread slows?

This is why I also don't have an issue with the requirement that new cars have back-up cameras. This compelling state interest stems from a consumer protection duty to shield consumers from companies that might make unreasonable sacrifices to safety in the interest of economy. I don't believe that there is generally a compelling state interest in protecting people from themselves

Except we're not talking about protecting people "from themselves" with Covid. We're talking about protecting OTHERS.

The cost is not nothing. Again, you are ignoring any cost that you personally do not understand. There is a cost to restricting liberty. Some people find masks very uncomfortable. You dismiss this, but it does not make it untrue. Again, not all harms are medical harms

And you are being dismissive and short-sighted in assuming that because I dismiss claims of harm, it means I don't understand it. I can totally understand it and STILL dismiss it as hogwash. Being uncomfortable is NOT a harm. Harm means injury. Discomfort is not injury. I was uncomfortable in my raincoat last week because it was hot. I can definitively say, I was not harmed. When we call these things "harms", it diminishes REAL harm, medical, psychological or otherwise.

But why not? You could save lives by keeping them in prison. If you let them out, some of them will inevitably wind up driving again even without a license. They'll just wind up killing more people. What if we had the space for them in the prison, and that wasn't an issue. Shouldn't we just give them life in prison to protect the other drivers on the road?

Oh give me a break. Putting someone in prison for life is not the same as wearing a damn mask. This is why the anti-mask people have no friends on the other side and have become a laughing stock, because of ridiculous analogies like this (and the segregation one, as if their plight could ever be viewed in the same context as segregation)

Again, you are just dismissing anything that conflicts with your point of view. How is it not evidence?

Just because you say something does not make it evidence. My friend claims that a Z-pack always cures her cold. Is that evidence that Z-pack is the cure for a cold?

You claimed that there is no cost to wearing a mask. I pointed out that many people are subjectively bothered by wearing a mask.

Bothered is not a harm and that's the last I'll say in that because it's clear you're reaching for anything you possibly can to make a point that's ridiculous.

You claim that this is not evidence of a cost. Why? Because you have some convenient personal definition of cost that excludes subjective negative impacts as potential costs

Uh yes. It's called being a physician and more importantly, a psychiatrist. Even if someone is "bothered" (which is another word for annoyed) by a mask, it will not, in any way, shape, or form cause them harm (i.e. it will not cause them injury), medical or psychological. You heard it here first. It won't do it. Feel free to pass it along.

I should add that if it does cause them harm, as in because of the mandate, they are injured in some way psychologically due to feeling their liberty has been attacked, then they need treatment. DBT is usually good for developing coping skills and distress tolerance.

Just admit it. You were wrong about this. There are legal penalties for violating mask mandates. These penalties are not theoretical, as several people have been charged with violating them (whether or not they were arrested before being charged)

I mean, if it makes you feel better, I'll admit that I hadn't heard of anyone getting cited for this. But I 100% vehemently disagree that people are being arrested/charged for not wearing masks. They are perfectly allowed not to wear masks as they roam the great outdoors or go to more private indoor spaces. There is a difference there and if you don't see it, that's the problem.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
I read that the rate of “breakthrough” infection rate is only like 0.2% for the vaccinated though.
I think the Cape Cod study has people concerned, as 75% of those infected were vaccinated, and it was a not insignificant number of people. The problem with COVID is that it spreads like wildfire indoors due to the nature of microdroplet transmission. 200 people indoors for hours together every day would certainly result in transmission if someone were to be infected with Delta, regardless of vaccination status.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Right, and most people are also not used to wearing banana hammocks. I don't think that it's unreasonable that someone would feel that it was intrusive if the government made them start wearing a banana hammock. Masks are not part of normative dress like shoes are. There is also a difference between wearing something that covers the face and wearing something on your feet in terms of physical comfort and social dynamics.



That did not answer the question. Nice try, though.



How exactly does one "debunk" the idea that masks harm people? Is the only harm you recognize some sort of medical injury?

I happen to believe that the ability to make choices about what I wear on my face is worth something. Taking away the ability to make that choice does harm people. You have deprived them of a personal liberty. This deprivation can also be described as a harm. This is not some sort of neologistic use of the word. People talk this way about deprivations of rights all the time. Just read some court filings.



Yeah, it's technically a choice to enter public, but this is minimally relevant to a discussion of individual liberties. To demonstrate this, just imagine we've gone back to the time of segregation. Now imagine the politicians saying that black people aren't really being harmed because segregation only applies to public spaces and they could choose to just remain on their private property. Or imagine that the police arrested someone for spreading communist propaganda but then claimed that it's not actually restricting freedom of speech because they're free to distribute fliers on their own private property.

Practically, there is always a recognition that the technical possibility of never entering public is not a realistic option. As such, we generally act as if an edict broadly governing public behavior are broadly restrictive, regardless of the fact that it is possible to be a hermit.



Well . . . yes. This is a debate. Do I really have to explain how debates work?

One person takes a position and another person gets to argue for an alternative position. My position is that mask mandates have a broader impact than noise ordinances, for the reasons I described. You haven't actually addressed that position, or those reasons. You've just come back with a list of other policies, hoping that you can get me to take another position that might be seen as unpopular. That is not actually an argument.

I'm being hyperbolic? COVID is raging like never before? Really? You think that the situation we are in now is worse than the first wave of COVID? We're currently in freezer truck morgue territory?



This is essentially an ad hominem against somebody. Against who it is unclear. Is it towards me, people who disagree with mask mandates, or people who refuse to wear masks? In any case, it doesn't require a response.



This is really getting pretty off-topic but this is the last I'll say on the issue of seatbelts. I believe that there is a compelling state interest in ensuring that cars are reasonably safe. This is why I also don't have an issue with the requirement that new cars have back-up cameras. This compelling state interest stems from a consumer protection duty to shield consumers from companies that might make unreasonable sacrifices to safety in the interest of economy. I don't believe that there is generally a compelling state interest in protecting people from themselves.



The cost is not nothing. Again, you are ignoring any cost that you personally do not understand. There is a cost to restricting liberty. Some people find masks very uncomfortable. You dismiss this, but it does not make it untrue. Again, not all harms are medical harms.



But why not? You could save lives by keeping them in prison. If you let them out, some of them will inevitably wind up driving again even without a license. They'll just wind up killing more people. What if we had the space for them in the prison, and that wasn't an issue. Shouldn't we just give them life in prison to protect the other drivers on the road?



Again, you are just dismissing anything that conflicts with your point of view. How is it not evidence? You claimed that there is no cost to wearing a mask. I pointed out that many people are subjectively bothered by wearing a mask. You claim that this is not evidence of a cost. Why? Because you have some convenient personal definition of cost that excludes subjective negative impacts as potential costs.




The detriment is the restriction of individual freedom resulting from a mandate that is enforced on threat of legal penalty.

Again, you are composing a fallacious argument structure by moving the goalposts. I'll be more explicit about how you're doing it this time:

The basic form of this sub-argument has been:

Me: Mask mandates restrict individual liberty because inherent to the idea of a mask mandate is the possibility of legal penalties.
You: Nobody is talking about legal penalties (goalpost: legal penalties for violating mask mandates).
Me: Violating a mask mandate is a misdemeanor offense in several states, punishable by fine or jail time.
You: That's absurd. Nobody is getting arrested for violating mask mandates (goalpost: arrest for violating a mask mandate).
Me: People have been arrested and charged with violating mask mandates.
You: I don't buy it. Besides, the examples you provided involved people being arrested while doing something else illegal. (goalpost: arrest for violating a mask mandate without a concomitant offense.)

Let me bring us back to your post that started this line or argument:



Just admit it. You were wrong about this. There are legal penalties for violating mask mandates. These penalties are not theoretical, as several people have been charged with violating them (whether or not they were arrested before being charged).
Think what you want, but if you get caught without a mask twice in my hospital you're fired

The United States has well defined powers that agencies can use with regard to public health threats. Asking someone to wear a mask to keep their fellow Americans from dying is nothing. You know what they did to get rid of smallpox? They established the Vaccine Corps, a unit that would go to areas with outbreaks and mandate everyone be vaccinated. The penalty for failure to vaccinate? You went to jail, where you were immediately vaccinated. They also burned down the homes of the infected to prevent spread. That? That's all legal. So you can quiet down about a little mask being an overstep. From a precedence perspective, the government has barely used a fraction of their ability to address this pandemic. They've played nice and asked only that you wear a mask to potentially not murder your fellow citizens out of your pathetic act of selfishness
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 7 users
Question if you have a minute, @viralhiker :

Do people think it will have a seasonal pattern like cold and flu? Or an all-year-round thing? I would venture to guess seasonal given more people gathering indoors to hide from the cold but I don't know as much about the virus as you all do and it *is* quite a bit more contagious than the flu.
COVID seems to have strong spread in the summer months in the South, likely due to people congregating in the air-conditioned indoors. It is far more infectious than the cold or flu, and more stable in high temperatures, so it's likely just going to kick around with peaks in the winter and summer and lulls in the fall and spring. Just my two cents, we'll see if it holds up
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Friendly reminder to please keep this thread away from overtly political posts. One post which was overtly political has been deleted, as have a few which quoted it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I gotta say, the protesting of masking in schools and businesses is baffling. Are these the same folks who were upset when it was required to wear pants and underwear in Circle K to get a slushie?
I don't want to live in an America where I can't buy slushies pantsless.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
  • Care
Reactions: 9 users
Don’t have a vaccine card, ambulance doesn’t pick you up 🤔
Not really the medicine I signed up for. It's one thing to triage ICU beds, it's another to not even try. I get the sentiment, but we treat/stabilize who we can first.

I don't like the idea of anything being a hard stop to treatment. I hate that we pretty much do this already with insurance, and honestly I can't help but think any other restrictions will be used to hurt the poorer and browner people in this country (restrictions like these always have).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Not really the medicine I signed up for. It's one thing to triage ICU beds, it's another to not even try. I get the sentiment, but we treat/stabilize who we can first.

I don't like the idea of anything being a hard stop to treatment. I hate that we pretty much do this already with insurance, and honestly I can't help but think any other restrictions will be used to hurt the poorer and browner people in this country (restrictions like these always have).
Yeah, as much as I don't like it I think people are so wired to their lizard brains by politics that holding their bad choices against them when they are infouenced by same is kind of pointless and cruel
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
my school just canceled our white coat ceremony :confused:
 
  • Sad
Reactions: 5 users
why not emergency authorize covid vaccines for kids

Dude, these families won't even wear a damn mask. What makes you think they'd take their kid to be vaccinated?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Dude, these families won't even wear a damn mask. What makes you think they'd take their kid to be vaccinated?
I saw some nurses protesting mandatory vaccines today. They were holding signs that were ironically saying “Don’t fire your real heroes.”
 
  • Haha
  • Okay...
  • Angry
Reactions: 2 users
Top