Mask question

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes I have heard this recently as well, mostly from healthcare providers, which is a bit disheartening.
And it’s disheartening to me that so many health care providers who should have certain standards when it comes to science and evidence-based medicine, are essentially saying, “If a vaccine gets rushed to market, way faster than any other vaccine ever, it is sacrilege to question its safety or efficacy”.
That's fine. I'll gladly take their spot in line. I've never had a problem from a vaccine. Statistics are greatly in my favor. Sign me up.

It's just funny how bad people are at assessing risk. One's chance of dying of COVID-19, if you get it, is approximately 1 in 384 or 0.26% per CDC (less if > age 50). The chance of dying from a vaccine is approximately 1 in 100,000 or 0.001%. So they choose the one that is 260 times more likely to kill them (getting COVID) and have an irrationally high fear of both.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
And it’s disheartening to me that so many health care providers who should have certain standards when it comes to science and evidence-based medicine, are essentially saying, “If a vaccine gets rushed to market, way faster than any other vaccine ever, it is sacrilege to question its safety or efficacy”.

Why?

Q: How many medicines are "rushed to market" due to one or two efficacy studies funded by the manufacturers, to be later discredited when tested in larger scale populations?

A: Like the majority of them?
 
vaccines cause autism
:corny:
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users
Members don't see this ad :)
That's fine. I'll gladly take their spot in line. I've never had a problem from a vaccine. Statistics are greatly in my favor. Sign me up.

It's just funny how bad people are at assessing risk. One's chance of dying of COVID-19, if you get it, is approximately 1 in 384 or 0.26% per CDC (less if > age 50). The chance of dying from a vaccine is approximately 1 in 100,000 or 0.001%. So they choose the one that is 260 times more likely to kill them (getting COVID) and have an irrationally high fear of both.

How do you assess risk of morbidity?

I challenge you to talk about COVID-19 morbidity and not mortality.

I, and the vast majority of other people, are not worried about mortality.

Just stop with the mortality talk!!!!!!
 
... most of our politiicans are clearly in the Lane 1 camp, whereby everyone should live forever, no one should ever die, and no risk is acceptable.
Well, yeah. My "lane" idea is more for an individual what mindset to choose as a way to move forward, considering everything else going on around them outside their control, including that created by the politicians. As far as the politicians go, the lane #1 "lockdown forever" camp tends to be in the blue states. They think eliminating police and having their citizens burning down and looting their own cities while spreading COVID is okay because "hurt feelings" and "life isn't fair," but hardworking, law-abiding people can't send their kids back to school despite the 0% risk of them dying, because "teachers are special." I can't help them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You know it is really possible for an informed individual, such as myself, to question the risks and benefits of taking a vaccine vs protecting oneself from getting the virus and not be considered irrational.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
How do you assess risk of morbidity?

I challenge you to talk about COVID-19 morbidity and not mortality.

I, and the vast majority of other people, are not worried about mortality.

Just stop with the mortality talk!!!!!!

I don't have numbers for morbidity in otherwise healthy people. Most people I know who've had it and recovered have no sequelae (I have at least 6 friends who have had it and recovered). Morbidity is likely a real thing in the 10-20% of people who get "severe illness".
 
I don't have numbers for morbidity in otherwise healthy people. Most people I know who've had it and recovered have no sequelae (I have at least 6 friends who have had it and recovered). Morbidity is likely a real thing in the 10-20% of people who get "severe illness".

:thumbup:
 
You know it is really possible for an informed individual, such as myself, to question the risks and benefits of taking a vaccine vs protecting oneself from getting the virus and not be considered irrational.
You're right. Your chance of dying or having life altering consequences from either covid or the vaccine are pretty small, so it's all good either way.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
You're right. Your chance of dying or having life altering consequences from either covid or the vaccine are pretty small, so it's all good either way.

I agree. It is pretty small. 0.1% in my hypothetical example is small.

I've yet to get symptomatic from COVID and I've been treating it more or less for 6 months.



So this all goes back to my post in the circle-jerking thread from a few days ago:
-- https://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/how-long-should-the-lock-down-last.1405336/post-21993312 --

Just about every other major country has found a way to contain the virus through a variety of mechanisms. They are opening up. They are going back to restaurants. They are playing professional sports. They are distancing themselves, wearing masks, washing hands, allowing low and medium risk people to go back to work and being very careful with high risk people like the elderly, those in nursing homes, etc. And they all have steadily decreasing new infection rates.

They are not zero. They will never get to zero in the next few years.

But 'Merica is the only place where rates are going up needlessly. There is nothing special about this virus as it spreads in the US, vs Europe and Asia. We can keep new infections very low. Never zero.

We could do things like every other country who went through a major outbreak, but we choose not to for a variety of reasons most of which come down to stubborn ideology. It's quite sad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
I'll tell you who I'm jealous of. One of the docs that works with me, her husband and two kids. Also, my wife's friend, her husband and two kids. They all got COVID in the past two weeks, they all are completely fine now. All eight, two entire families of four, done, immune and COVID is in their past. No need to worry of give a flying **** about any of this BS. I'm jealous.

And don't tell me about "we don't know if infection provides immunity, blah, blah, blah..." It does. People that have had this twice are reportable cases and likely aberrations, or one positive a false positive. I call BS on that. That's completely rare. It's not a thing. We've had millions of positives now, such that double positives would be well known by now if it was common enough thing to worry about. So, throw that garbage panic porn out.

Either way, both of these families know they're exceedingly likely to be immune for the near future, or at a minimum, that their bodies can handle this virus with n o o o problemo, especially if they got it again with at least some partial immunity.

Two families, all positive, recovered uneventfully and no worries (all healthy <50). Done.

They lived their lives, obviously didn't take as good precautions as the rest of us and NOW ARE FINE, with no worries. While the rests of us are still washing our hands 'till they bleed and nervously type away, "Oy vay, the numbas, didja see da numbas!"

Who's better off?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
We could do things like every other country who went through a major outbreak, but we choose not to for a variety of reasons most of which come down to stubborn ideology. It's quite sad.
This is not the first time Americans have chosen freedom over security. We're a stubborn lot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Laws or not, I think mask wearing will be here to stay for a long time, like it has been in other democratic societies, such as Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, etc. It was commonplace there because of their experience with SARS/MERS, but now we are experiencing it. If you study the history of the so-called 'spanish flu', universal masking had become commonplace in this country as well. Heck, there was one incident then where a policeman shot someone for refusing to wear a mask!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Laws or not, I think mask wearing will be here to stay for a long time, like it has been in other democratic societies, such as Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, etc. It was commonplace there because of their experience with SARS/MERS, but now we are experiencing it. If you study the history of the so-called 'spanish flu', universal masking had become commonplace in this country as well. Heck, there was one incident then where a policeman shot someone for refusing to wear a mask!

I've been to Japan and South Korea. While mask-wearning is common, it's not universal, and it's not required to enter businesses or do activities of daily life. I'd be okay with this, if people want to voluntarily wear them, but not have threat of law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Let Darwinism run it’s course. We’ve gotta get over the idea that we can save people from themselves. I’d be much more apt to adopt mask wearing if I actually was at risk.
 
I'll tell you who I'm jealous of. One of the docs that works with me, her husband and two kids. Also, my wife's friend, her husband and two kids. They all got COVID in the past two weeks, they all are completely fine now. All eight, two entire families of four, done, immune and COVID is in their past. No need to worry of give a flying **** about any of this BS. I'm jealous.

And don't tell me about "we don't know if infection provides immunity, blah, blah, blah..." It does. People that have had this twice are reportable cases and likely aberrations, or one positive a false positive. I call BS on that. That's completely rare. It's not a thing. We've had millions of positives now, such that double positives would be well known by now if it was common enough thing to worry about. So, throw that garbage panic porn out.

Either way, both of these families know they're exceedingly likely to be immune for the near future, or at a minimum, that their bodies can handle this virus with n o o o problemo, especially if they got it again with at least some partial immunity.

Two families, all positive, recovered uneventfully and no worries (all healthy <50). Done.

They lived their lives, obviously didn't take as good precautions as the rest of us and NOW ARE FINE, with no worries. While the rests of us are still washing our hands 'till they bleed and nervously type away, "Oy vay, the numbas, didja see da numbas!"

Who's better off?

Yup I hear ya. If we want to take a look at who is better off in the past, then your friends who survived the COVID are better off

Are they still social distancing and wearing masks and all that? My guess is they probably are, or probably forced to. But maybe they are not as careful as they once were.



Let's look at the future though. Because we can potentially change the future and not the past.


Greta, a 47 yo woman with a husband, 2 kids and a dog, is on HFNC in the ICU because one of your doctor friends unknowingly infected Jimmy, who then infected Tamika, who then infected Ken. Ken infected Greta unknowingly when they were at the bank not wearing their masks properly. I will already tell you that Greta will survive. She will have spent 10 days in the hospital, get a bill for 15K (she had good insurance), and will feel like **** for the next 2 months. But she is alive. phew.


Bob is a 55 yo man who came by your place to mow your lawn. He doesn't even realize it, but he is alive because he is being careful and is trusting of others around him. And because you are being careful you have not infected him. At some point you came into contact with Tamika, but you didn't get sick. That is good! And now Bob isn't going to get sick.


Who is better off?



Remember it's rational to take a position "I don't want to get sick". And if all I have to do is social distance, wash hands, wear a mask, not eat at a restaurant, maybe not fly, don't go to weddings, miss out on Dead and Co, and don't go to sporting events for the next 1-2 years ---> with an extremely low chance I ever get infected as a result of those actions

vs

getting infected with COVID-19 and
- 80% I feel nothing
- 10% I feel like I had the flu for 5 days then get over it,
- 6% I feel like I had the flu for 10 days then get over it,
- 3% I feel like I had the flu for 1 month then get over it,
- 0.8% I get hospitalized, survive, with a long recovery,
- 0.2% I die

well...you know what one I would make.
 
If those that are old or diseased are naturally selected out of the population does it leave behind a human race that can better thrive?
Wait. I don't get it. Are you saying wolves would handle this pandemic better because they're better at offing their old? I didn't hear the British dude, get into anything related to pandemics or natural selection. I'm not seeing the tie in from this wolf video to COVID, or am I?
 
Yup I hear ya. If we want to take a look at who is better off in the past, then your friends who survived the COVID are better off

Are they still social distancing and wearing masks and all that? My guess is they probably are, or probably forced to. But maybe they are not as careful as they once were.



Let's look at the future though. Because we can potentially change the future and not the past.


Greta, a 47 yo woman with a husband, 2 kids and a dog, is on HFNC in the ICU because one of your doctor friends unknowingly infected Jimmy, who then infected Tamika, who then infected Ken. Ken infected Greta unknowingly when they were at the bank not wearing their masks properly. I will already tell you that Greta will survive. She will have spent 10 days in the hospital, get a bill for 15K (she had good insurance), and will feel like **** for the next 2 months. But she is alive. phew.


Bob is a 55 yo man who came by your place to mow your lawn. He doesn't even realize it, but he is alive because he is being careful and is trusting of others around him. And because you are being careful you have not infected him. At some point you came into contact with Tamika, but you didn't get sick. That is good! And now Bob isn't going to get sick.


Who is better off?



Remember it's rational to take a position "I don't want to get sick". And if all I have to do is social distance, wash hands, wear a mask, not eat at a restaurant, maybe not fly, don't go to weddings, miss out on Dead and Co, and don't go to sporting events for the next 1-2 years ---> with an extremely low chance I ever get infected as a result of those actions

vs

getting infected with COVID-19 and
- 80% I feel nothing
- 10% I feel like I had the flu for 5 days then get over it,
- 6% I feel like I had the flu for 10 days then get over it,
- 3% I feel like I had the flu for 1 month then get over it,
- 0.8% I get hospitalized, survive, with a long recovery,
- 0.2% I die

well...you know what one I would make.
This would be a lot easier to answer rationally if you left out the missing out on Dead and Co part.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Laws or not, I think mask wearing will be here to stay for a long time, like it has been in other democratic societies, such as Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, etc. It was commonplace there because of their experience with SARS/MERS, but now we are experiencing it. If you study the history of the so-called 'spanish flu', universal masking had become commonplace in this country as well. Heck, there was one incident then where a policeman shot someone for refusing to wear a mask!
Mask Lives Matter
 
MAGA mask, because if they are going to force me to wear one, may as well trigger some folks in the process.
 
An ethical consideration I want to bring up that I have been considering from the very beginning. Please consider for a second, but then feel free to trash on if you completely disagree. GeneralVeers' posts also get at some of the ethical considerations of this virus and keep sparking me to think about.

Any time we first encounter something in life we naturally ask, "Is this good or bad?" From an ecological and human race standpoint, I think we never adequately asked this question with this virus. Is there any chance it is good? Does nature periodically taking control actually make the human race stronger? If those that are old or diseased are naturally selected out of the population does it leave behind a human race that can better thrive? I certainly understand that this has some negative connotations. I'm by no means advertising eugenics. As usual we have quickly run down a path though without looking at history and asking the bigger questions in order to better consider all of the implications.

An example that I gravitate to involves how reintroduction of wolves impacted an entire ecosystem for the better.



Reminds me of how wildebeest saved the Serengeti.





But to your question....if everybody has a "right to life" then the virus is a bad thing. If everybody were to fend for themselves, then the virus would be a good thing. Cull the herd as they say.

EMTALA is getting in the way of culling the herd.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I also think we haven't seen viral disease impact the older demographic of society in the past this greatly, because we never lived this long before 100 years ago. It wasn't medicine that had this impact (with a slight nod to Penicillin), but due to running water and improved sanitiation.

View attachment 312436
I seem to recall reading something that basically said vaccination made the biggest difference because when you significantly reduced childhood deaths then life expectancy jumped markedly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I've been to Japan and South Korea. While mask-wearning is common, it's not universal, and it's not required to enter businesses or do activities of daily life. I'd be okay with this, if people want to voluntarily wear them, but not have threat of law.

Are you sure there are't rules/laws about masking now in South Korea or Japan? Have you been to either country during the pandemic?
Curious why you draw the line at masks. Do you feel the same way about seatbelts?
 
I don't think the way the government is doing things makes sense, but isn't a role of our government to try to protect its citizens?
not from ourself, the role is to protect our rights which is drastically different than govt making decisions about your risk tolerance
 
Why are these worse than other things the government regulates? Do you think the government should stop regulating the following @sb247?

-Licensing for medical practitioners
-Health and sanitation standards for restaurants
-Licensing and safety standards for day cares
-Traffic safety
-Motor vehicle safety standards
-Nudity laws

The government shutdown was awful for many businesses, no doubt, but it seems like one of the biggest issues was an inadequate bailout (contrast with the UK, that actually paid employees salaries etc).

As to the masks, why is this so onerous? Why is it more of an invasion than a seatbelt? What would you propose as an alternative?
We don’t need govt doing most of that beyond some basic traffic safety directions and keeping pervs from flashing people in public.

The alternative is the govt tell us there is a disease out there that has some as yet unquantifiable risk and that everyone needs to decide for themselves how tolerant they are of that risk
 
MAGA mask, because if they are going to force me to wear one, may as well trigger some folks in the process.

I would be delighted to see trump supporters wearing MAGA masks, and I’m definitely not in that camp. This isn’t about politics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
Nudity laws

After reading this thread earlier today I was thinking - PANTS! WHO NEEDS EM?

I mean, how long must this go on? Even if it seems obvious, there is actually no evidence that pants prevent sexually transmitted diseases.

Also, sometimes my undercarriage gets sweaty, and I'd be much more comfortable if I could just take my pants off.

Government ought to keep their laws, and pants, off my body.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 7 users
And it’s disheartening to me that so many health care providers who should have certain standards when it comes to science and evidence-based medicine, are essentially saying, “If a vaccine gets rushed to market, way faster than any other vaccine ever, it is sacrilege to question its safety or efficacy”.

Can you provide the source for that quote, or is it actually something you've perceived but never heard?
 
After reading this thread earlier today I was thinking - PANTS! WHO NEEDS EM?

I mean, how long must this go on? Even if it seems obvious, there is actually no evidence that pants prevent sexually transmitted diseases.

Also, sometimes my undercarriage gets sweaty, and I'd be much more comfortable if I could just take my pants off.

Government ought to keep their laws, and pants, off my body.

ITA. I mean, I was super bummed when San Francisco enacted a public nudity statute. Who cares if little kids see naked men (it was pretty much men) on the way to school?

Guess school isn't an issue for now, so repeal the public nudity statute!
 
The alternative is the govt tell us there is a disease out there that has some as yet unquantifiable risk and that everyone needs to decide for themselves how tolerant they are of that risk

People can make some good decisions with that info.

Thank god few people want to live in a world like the one above.

That might work if the world had 7.5M people, not 7.5B
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
not from ourself, the role is to protect our rights which is drastically different than govt making decisions about your risk tolerance
We don’t need govt doing most of that beyond some basic traffic safety directions and keeping pervs from flashing people in public.

The alternative is the govt tell us there is a disease out there that has some as yet unquantifiable risk and that everyone needs to decide for themselves how tolerant they are of that risk

This sounds like libertarianism.

On it's face I've always found libertarianism to seem logical and reasonable. It's about being free. "You don't infringe my rights and I won't infringe yours." Sounds great. I even went to a bunch of their meetings in college. I really wanted it to work out and there are certain aspects of libertarianism I can still get behind. Yet, like communism, once you start getting into the actual details I find things run off the tracks pretty quickly.

Like what is the common ground between what one libertarian wants vs another? In my experience, it usually boils down to what one libertarian feels he/she needs from the government to maximally benefit his/her direct needs without the consideration of others. For example, you say you want basic traffic safety directions but if I'm a libertarian living in northern Idaho I sure as hell don't need or want those rules messing up my roads or my day (oh but I will need somebody to build and maintain those roads and would appreciate your tax dollars to do so). Similarly, if you're an urban-dwelling libertarian who bikes to work you sure as hell want there to be rules and order for traffic on the streets (well, just enough to protect you...but not so much that they slow you down). It's fun to hear my libertarian friends argue about this stuff.

But what I find truly sublime is the Cato Institute (a mega libertarian think tank) list of countries where people have the most freedoms. SPOILER ALERT: the US isn't in the top 10, but most of the countries that are have a sizable amount of *gasp* government-supported social and health services: Human Freedom Index
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
Why do we need laws about people flashing people in public? Sounds less deadly and less of a strain on the economy and health system than ignoring masking rules to prevent SARS-CoV-19.

Agreed with @namethatsmell that the US is far from the most free country in the world, unless one defines that totally by firearm regulations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
The masks v pants comparison is a classic logical fallacy and accurately represents those who value security over freedom.

The thread hit its high point when a few posters realized the inevitability of mortality and the benefits of natural selection.
 
The masks v pants comparison is a classic logical fallacy and accurately represents those who value security over freedom.

The thread hit its high point when a few posters realized the inevitability of mortality and the benefits of natural selection.

Then why have any medical care at all? Certainly we should not be trying to decrease our infant mortality rate; ultimate survival of the fittest.
 
I also think we haven't seen viral disease impact the older demographic of society in the past this greatly, because we never lived this long before 100 years ago. It wasn't medicine that had this impact (with a slight nod to Penicillin), but due to running water and improved sanitiation.

View attachment 312436

You mean it wasn’t vaccinations?

I would be delighted to see trump supporters wearing MAGA masks, and I’m definitely not in that camp. This isn’t about politics.

I’m no trump supporter either. I just think it would be funny to get a rise out of people. Could pair the mask with a BLM t-shirt to really throw people for a loop.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Are you sure there are't rules/laws about masking now in South Korea or Japan? Have you been to either country during the pandemic?
Curious why you draw the line at masks. Do you feel the same way about seatbelts?

This is not an apt comparison. Driving is not a right, and seatbelts may be required. Don't like it? Don't drive. This is why auto-insurance can be government mandated, but health insurance as a consequence of living cannot.

To go out in public, engage in commerce, and engage in leisure activity are human rights.

I have not been to either during the pandemic, for obvious reasons. But that wasn't the discussion. When the pandemic is over what is the "new normal"? I stated I have no objection to greater mask usage as long as it's not legally required.
 
You mean it wasn’t vaccinations?



I’m no trump supporter either. I just think it would be funny to get a rise out of people. Could pair the mask with a BLM t-shirt to really throw people for a loop.

The irony is that most of us can't wear MAGA stuff out in public. We might be verbally harassed, assaulted, or could lose our jobs. The left touts #tolerance and #diversity but practice just the opposite. For them diversity is all about skin color, but diversity of thought is forbidden.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
This is not an apt comparison. Driving is not a right, and seatbelts may be required. Don't like it? Don't drive. This is why auto-insurance can be government mandated, but health insurance as a consequence of living cannot.

To go out in public, engage in commerce, and engage in leisure activity are human rights.

I have not been to either during the pandemic, for obvious reasons. But that wasn't the discussion. When the pandemic is over what is the "new normal"? I stated I have no objection to greater mask usage as long as it's not legally required.

Is engaging in commerce truly a human right? Who decides this? Are stores and airlines allowed to require mask use? Or would that be a violation of other's human rights to commerce? Isn't it a human right not to be infected by others? Who has determined what is a human right? How about going naked? Not a human right? Should there be any limitations on the human right of leisure activity; some leisure activity could cause direct harm to others? How should this be decided?

As to MAGA, no law against that. Certainly people have been harassed for that, but also for BLM paraphernalia. So it appears that diversity of thought is not valued by the right, either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top