The SF Anti-Mask League of 1919(twitter.com)
twitter.com
The SF Anti-Mask League of 1919
https://twitter.com/timkmak/status/1251936242834563073
207 comments
See also this article from the LA Times, comparing the LA vs. SF reactions to the 1918-1919 pandemic: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-19/coronavi...
>On Jan 17, the day the masking ordinance went into effect, the # of new cases/deaths declined, the first decline in quite some time. This continued until the epidemic faded.
same-day effect, especially on the number of deaths, of the masks? To me it sounds like it peaked and started to decline before any effects from the masks as the masks effect on the death number would take a few days at least. I mean i'm not against the masks, i do think they have positive effect, it is just in that case it seems that the mask ordinance came too late. It was already something like 2 months of the raging second wave.
same-day effect, especially on the number of deaths, of the masks? To me it sounds like it peaked and started to decline before any effects from the masks as the masks effect on the death number would take a few days at least. I mean i'm not against the masks, i do think they have positive effect, it is just in that case it seems that the mask ordinance came too late. It was already something like 2 months of the raging second wave.
Sounds like the ordinance was announced before hand and then was going to be required on that day. So people likely began wearing them more before that day.
It feels like the lesson here is that enforcement with arrests is going to provoke a backlash, whereas convincing people it's good for them is a better strategy.
To me it seems the opposite - persuasion didn't get people to wear masks, and enforcement did.
yes, that's because you're reading it the way the author wants you to. There are other ways to read the same set of facts.
Sure. I just happen to agree with the author's reading and disagree with yours. You're placing a very high weight on relatively mild side effects (a small amount of political dissent and violence), and a low weight on the main effects (a reduction in R0 for the duration of the measures).
One bomb, which would have killed maybe low-single-digit numbers of people if it had worked; and a demonstration which erased the effects of maybe a half a week of compulsory mask-wearing.
One bomb, which would have killed maybe low-single-digit numbers of people if it had worked; and a demonstration which erased the effects of maybe a half a week of compulsory mask-wearing.
Only if you assume people never change. I’m willing to bet people would respond differently today - in times where a record will severely impact your career potential.
Is there any reason to believe that gauze masks are even slightly effective against influenza?
The flu can stay viable in air for hours, and the individual exhaled airborne particles are vastly smaller than the holes in gauze -- it's "breathable" (allows moisture droplets to pass)
I suspect the mechanism of action is inconveniencing people into not leaving home at all, a no-pants order would probably have worked as well or better
The flu can stay viable in air for hours, and the individual exhaled airborne particles are vastly smaller than the holes in gauze -- it's "breathable" (allows moisture droplets to pass)
I suspect the mechanism of action is inconveniencing people into not leaving home at all, a no-pants order would probably have worked as well or better
One of the mistakes in considering mask usage is falling into an all or nothing trap.
A hypothetical mask that reduces the chance of someone else catching a disease from you by 30% would provide a significant drag on the R0 of the disease, hastening the end of the epidemic.
Also, infection rates of several types of viruses, including flu and enterovirus, dropped significantly in southeast asian countries that moved to universal mask wearing during this pandemic. Since most people weren’t wearing N95 PPE, that implies that even surgical masks are effective at slowing the spread of several types of viruses.
Also, you know, there is a reason why surgeons wear them.
A hypothetical mask that reduces the chance of someone else catching a disease from you by 30% would provide a significant drag on the R0 of the disease, hastening the end of the epidemic.
Also, infection rates of several types of viruses, including flu and enterovirus, dropped significantly in southeast asian countries that moved to universal mask wearing during this pandemic. Since most people weren’t wearing N95 PPE, that implies that even surgical masks are effective at slowing the spread of several types of viruses.
Also, you know, there is a reason why surgeons wear them.
Here's the thing. These masks are meant to be used and then disposed of. In a hospital, under normal conditions, there is a protocol to follow in their use. But the overwhelming majority of people are not going to be using them properly. Instead, they're going to end up wearing their very own little petri dishes on their face.
Originally, we were told masks wouldn't help. Now, we're told they will. Obviously, the science here isn't settled. Mask use is more political than anything.
Here's an article: "Cloth masks – dangerous to your health?"
https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/health/cloth-masks-–-dange...
And then there's this:
"Sweeping mask recommendations—as many have proposed—will not reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission, as evidenced by the widespread practice of wearing such masks in Hubei province, China, before and during its mass COVID-19 transmission experience earlier this year."
And, further on down:
"[An experimental study] seeking a reason for the failure of cloth masks required for the public in stopping the 1918 influenza pandemic, found that the number of cloth layers needed to achieve acceptable efficiency made them difficult to breathe through and caused leakage around the mask."
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commenta...
Originally, we were told masks wouldn't help. Now, we're told they will. Obviously, the science here isn't settled. Mask use is more political than anything.
Here's an article: "Cloth masks – dangerous to your health?"
https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/health/cloth-masks-–-dange...
And then there's this:
"Sweeping mask recommendations—as many have proposed—will not reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission, as evidenced by the widespread practice of wearing such masks in Hubei province, China, before and during its mass COVID-19 transmission experience earlier this year."
And, further on down:
"[An experimental study] seeking a reason for the failure of cloth masks required for the public in stopping the 1918 influenza pandemic, found that the number of cloth layers needed to achieve acceptable efficiency made them difficult to breathe through and caused leakage around the mask."
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commenta...
>Here's an article: "Cloth masks – dangerous to your health?"
>https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/health/cloth-masks-–-dange....
Jesus, how do people get away with articles and studies like this. The control they used was:
>‘standard practice’, which comprised mask use in a high proportion of participants.
So ultimately they're comparing cloth masks to surgical masks and, no shit, surgical masks are better. How they draw the conclusion that cloth masks are dangerous is beyond me.
>https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/health/cloth-masks-–-dange....
Jesus, how do people get away with articles and studies like this. The control they used was:
>‘standard practice’, which comprised mask use in a high proportion of participants.
So ultimately they're comparing cloth masks to surgical masks and, no shit, surgical masks are better. How they draw the conclusion that cloth masks are dangerous is beyond me.
From the article:
"The study found respiratory infection was much higher among healthcare workers wearing cloth masks.
"The penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% compared to medical masks with 44%."
"The study found respiratory infection was much higher among healthcare workers wearing cloth masks.
"The penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% compared to medical masks with 44%."
Yes, they are obviously not as good as a real medical mask.
That doesn't mean they are dangerous compared to wearing no mask.
That doesn't mean they are dangerous compared to wearing no mask.
I can see them becoming dangerous if they aren’t washed, but that should be easy for a cloth mask that is machine wash friendly. Reusing a disposable mask that can’t be washed is probably a bad idea.
People aren't going to wash them often enough. People are going to stuff them in their pocketbooks, or in the car, then put them on when they go into a store — and then stuff them right back in. It doesn't matter what is "easy" or not. And, truth be told, it isn't all that easy.
People will have to plan their trips, put the mask on, come home and wash them in the sink. In the meantime, they shouldn't be putting the mask in their pockets, purses, etc. People are not going to be handling and using their masks properly. Because doing so will be a "pain in the ass."
And, keep in mind, in NY the governor has explicitly said that "face coverings" are okay, if you don't have a mask. You just need something. That "makes sense." So, you have people wearing kerchiefs and such.
Mask orders are going to end up offering no significant protection, give people a false sense of security, and perhaps end up making some people more sick. Just watch!
People will have to plan their trips, put the mask on, come home and wash them in the sink. In the meantime, they shouldn't be putting the mask in their pockets, purses, etc. People are not going to be handling and using their masks properly. Because doing so will be a "pain in the ass."
And, keep in mind, in NY the governor has explicitly said that "face coverings" are okay, if you don't have a mask. You just need something. That "makes sense." So, you have people wearing kerchiefs and such.
Mask orders are going to end up offering no significant protection, give people a false sense of security, and perhaps end up making some people more sick. Just watch!
I don't know about the flu. Covid-19 is supposed to be spread mainly through respiratory droplets which settle on surfaces fairly quickly and which can be blocked by masks.
Well, I'd argue Covid-19 isn't supposed to infect us at all. I certainly didn't consent to Covid-19 coming into my body.
And handwashing frequently is supposed to stop Covid-19 dead in its tracks. That's what our leaders told us.
I think it's reasonable to say we don't understand Covid-19 completely, and that the information we do receive is often filtered. So for now, I am taking basic precautions against all-of-the-above, until we have hard data to the contrary: contact, large droplets, and aerosol.
And handwashing frequently is supposed to stop Covid-19 dead in its tracks. That's what our leaders told us.
I think it's reasonable to say we don't understand Covid-19 completely, and that the information we do receive is often filtered. So for now, I am taking basic precautions against all-of-the-above, until we have hard data to the contrary: contact, large droplets, and aerosol.
> So for now, I am taking basic precautions against all-of-the-above, until we have hard data to the contrary: contact, large droplets, and aerosol.
Probably wise. I take the same approach.
Probably wise. I take the same approach.
According to this post, the data showed that it was effective.
Placebo or coincidence?
Placebo or coincidence?
Masks are effective at stopping people from unintentionally infecting others.
See: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/well/live/coronavirus-fac...
"Even a simple mask is very effective at trapping droplets from your coughs and sneezes. A recent study published in Nature from the University of Hong Kong and the University of Maryland asked 111 people, infected with various viral illnesses (influenza, rhinovirus and a more-mild coronavirus), to exhale into a giant funnel. Sometimes their noses and mouths weren’t covered; other times they used a simple, not-particularly-well-fitted mask.
Without the masks, the infected people exhaled contagious droplets and aerosols, tiny particles that linger in the air, about 30 percent of the time they were tested. When the infected patients wore a mask, it blocked nearly 100 percent of viral droplets and some of the aerosol particles."
See: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/well/live/coronavirus-fac...
"Even a simple mask is very effective at trapping droplets from your coughs and sneezes. A recent study published in Nature from the University of Hong Kong and the University of Maryland asked 111 people, infected with various viral illnesses (influenza, rhinovirus and a more-mild coronavirus), to exhale into a giant funnel. Sometimes their noses and mouths weren’t covered; other times they used a simple, not-particularly-well-fitted mask.
Without the masks, the infected people exhaled contagious droplets and aerosols, tiny particles that linger in the air, about 30 percent of the time they were tested. When the infected patients wore a mask, it blocked nearly 100 percent of viral droplets and some of the aerosol particles."
But in 1918 they were using specifically gauze, presumably because it's easier to breathe through, or maybe just because it seems medical-y.
The study in the NYT article is using non-woven paper masks, which act a decent barrier to ballistic particles. Gauze would be way less effective than even loose woven fabric at stoping the 5um particles they're measuring. Like the paper masks, it would be completely ineffective at stopping the influenza-carrying aerosols.
"nearly 100%" is a pretty big misstatement of the study as well, while it showed a statistically significant difference between the groups, so much of the no-mask control group recorded 0 virus load from droplets that the size of the effect can't be meaningfully quantified
The study in the NYT article is using non-woven paper masks, which act a decent barrier to ballistic particles. Gauze would be way less effective than even loose woven fabric at stoping the 5um particles they're measuring. Like the paper masks, it would be completely ineffective at stopping the influenza-carrying aerosols.
"nearly 100%" is a pretty big misstatement of the study as well, while it showed a statistically significant difference between the groups, so much of the no-mask control group recorded 0 virus load from droplets that the size of the effect can't be meaningfully quantified
But see this research, which found masks didn't help prevent covid-19 from leaving infected people.
https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2764367/effectiveness-sur...
If people are going to wear masks we need to make sure that they don't touch the mask or their face, or that they wash their hands immediately after doing so.
https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2764367/effectiveness-sur...
If people are going to wear masks we need to make sure that they don't touch the mask or their face, or that they wash their hands immediately after doing so.
The choice is not between "completely useless" and "100% effective". That is false dichotomy. Things like masks can be 70% effective which is already making situation better, although not perfect.
I will rephrase you:
> If people are going not to wear masks we need to make sure that they don't touch their face or that they wash their hands immediately after being in contact with anything anything would be in contact too.
Same thing, the washing hands and keeping distance is stuff you are supposed to whether you wear mask or not. Mask is not putting you into additional danger as far as I know. We don't need to put special additional conditions on masks wearing.
I will rephrase you:
> If people are going not to wear masks we need to make sure that they don't touch their face or that they wash their hands immediately after being in contact with anything anything would be in contact too.
Same thing, the washing hands and keeping distance is stuff you are supposed to whether you wear mask or not. Mask is not putting you into additional danger as far as I know. We don't need to put special additional conditions on masks wearing.
> The choice is not between "completely useless" and "100% effective". That is false dichotomy. Things like masks can be 70% effective which is already making situation better, although not perfect.
Sure. Masks have a plausible mechanism of action. Now show me using good evidence that masks i) don't increase risk and ii) decrease risk.
At the moment the mechanism for increased risk is as plausible as the mechanism for decreased risk. Masks are uncomfortable and people need to adjust them during the day -- this is an increase in face touching, and masks are by definition contaminated.
> the washing hands and keeping distance is stuff you are supposed to whether you wear mask or not
The only point of wearing masks is when you cannot socially distance yourself from other people. That's why masks are being pushed so hard now -- to end the lockdowns and get people back into work.
Sure. Masks have a plausible mechanism of action. Now show me using good evidence that masks i) don't increase risk and ii) decrease risk.
At the moment the mechanism for increased risk is as plausible as the mechanism for decreased risk. Masks are uncomfortable and people need to adjust them during the day -- this is an increase in face touching, and masks are by definition contaminated.
> the washing hands and keeping distance is stuff you are supposed to whether you wear mask or not
The only point of wearing masks is when you cannot socially distance yourself from other people. That's why masks are being pushed so hard now -- to end the lockdowns and get people back into work.
> At the moment the mechanism for increased risk is as plausible as the mechanism for decreased risk.
It does not seem to me. There is like no study that shows masks increase risk of spreading infection and I have seen multiple that show it takes it at least somehow down. (I am lazy to search it down again. In pretty much all these discussions someone linked.)
> Masks are uncomfortable and people need to adjust them during the day -- this is an increase in face touching, and masks are by definition contaminated.
Even if this was true, you are still less likely to infect others if you are asymptomatic. It is not just about you. And as someone who was wearing mask for multiple weeks (they were mandated here), it is not some kind of horrible uncomfortable.
> The only point of wearing masks is when you cannot socially distance yourself from other people. That's why masks are being pushed so hard now -- to end the lockdowns and get people back into work.
You are also meeting people in stores, in public transport, when walking on the street anywhere. Even in lockdown, people still need to eat. Sure you don't need mask when you are alone in the forrest. You dont need to wash hands there either and can touch your face as much as you like (at least not due to coronavirus).
When I am alone in my house with supplies, I dont need to do anything special and I can touch my face as much as I want. All other measures apply only when you are in space shared with other people.
It does not seem to me. There is like no study that shows masks increase risk of spreading infection and I have seen multiple that show it takes it at least somehow down. (I am lazy to search it down again. In pretty much all these discussions someone linked.)
> Masks are uncomfortable and people need to adjust them during the day -- this is an increase in face touching, and masks are by definition contaminated.
Even if this was true, you are still less likely to infect others if you are asymptomatic. It is not just about you. And as someone who was wearing mask for multiple weeks (they were mandated here), it is not some kind of horrible uncomfortable.
> The only point of wearing masks is when you cannot socially distance yourself from other people. That's why masks are being pushed so hard now -- to end the lockdowns and get people back into work.
You are also meeting people in stores, in public transport, when walking on the street anywhere. Even in lockdown, people still need to eat. Sure you don't need mask when you are alone in the forrest. You dont need to wash hands there either and can touch your face as much as you like (at least not due to coronavirus).
When I am alone in my house with supplies, I dont need to do anything special and I can touch my face as much as I want. All other measures apply only when you are in space shared with other people.
Is the argument you're making that we're trying to compare:
1) masks decrease the spread of disease by decreasing your germy breath from spreading and by decreasing you from breathing someone else's germy breath
2) masks increase the spread of disease by causing you to touch your mask with your germy hand, which increases the chance that germs can spread from your hand to your mouth?
and that the benefits of (1) do not outweigh the downsides of (2)?
I think that could be easily proven by showing that it's very unlikely to spread germs through the air but very likely to spread germs via touch.
1) masks decrease the spread of disease by decreasing your germy breath from spreading and by decreasing you from breathing someone else's germy breath
2) masks increase the spread of disease by causing you to touch your mask with your germy hand, which increases the chance that germs can spread from your hand to your mouth?
and that the benefits of (1) do not outweigh the downsides of (2)?
I think that could be easily proven by showing that it's very unlikely to spread germs through the air but very likely to spread germs via touch.
2) Being related to specific mask wearing seems implausible to me.
One of the fun highlights of this disease has been the official advice to not touch your face, followed immediately by the realization that we all touch our faces a lot. The idea that masks specifically cause you to touch your face more than we already are doesn’t pass the sniff test.
One of the fun highlights of this disease has been the official advice to not touch your face, followed immediately by the realization that we all touch our faces a lot. The idea that masks specifically cause you to touch your face more than we already are doesn’t pass the sniff test.
Also, if you are having to touch your face a lot while wearing a mask, you have the wrong mask. I wear one to the grocery store and after an initial adjustment I don't usually have to touch it again.
For 2. you'd either be contaminated directly from those particles landing on your face or by you touching your face directly, anyway, so I'd consider 2. to not be a strong argument against masks, anyway.
> Masks are uncomfortable and people need to adjust them during the day -- this is an increase in face touching, and masks are by definition contaminated.
Which is part of why the anti-mask narrative has been so harmful. Recommended mask wearing should have started back in early March so that everyone could gain experience before the virus was so widespread - knowing how to adjust their mask so it was comfortable, becoming used to it and not fidgeting, and learning how to incorporate mask donning/doffing into their overall hygiene procedures.
It also would have been nice to get data on the growth of cases with mask usage but without shutdown. Now we're left with the decision of whether we're ready for cases to start growing at some unknown faster rate.
Which is part of why the anti-mask narrative has been so harmful. Recommended mask wearing should have started back in early March so that everyone could gain experience before the virus was so widespread - knowing how to adjust their mask so it was comfortable, becoming used to it and not fidgeting, and learning how to incorporate mask donning/doffing into their overall hygiene procedures.
It also would have been nice to get data on the growth of cases with mask usage but without shutdown. Now we're left with the decision of whether we're ready for cases to start growing at some unknown faster rate.
[deleted]
Interesting, they state the conclusion that "both surgical and cotton masks seem to be ineffective in preventing the dissemination of SARS–CoV-2 from the coughs of patients with COVID-19 to the environment"
But they also say this: "The median viral loads after coughs without a mask, with a surgical mask, and with a cotton mask were 2.56 log copies/mL, 2.42 log copies/mL, and 1.85 log copies/mL, respectively."
That seems like a significant reduction in transmitted viral load? I would think that masks can have a positive impact even if they aren't perfect filters. If you look at their table of data, the reduction trend is consistent across their tests. But between the small number of patients(4) and samples, and the number of Petri dishes that came back as 'Not Detected', it seems like a pretty low powered study. :-/
They are also explicitly testing coughs. I wonder about the effects on filtering droplets generated from normal breathing and talking.
But they also say this: "The median viral loads after coughs without a mask, with a surgical mask, and with a cotton mask were 2.56 log copies/mL, 2.42 log copies/mL, and 1.85 log copies/mL, respectively."
That seems like a significant reduction in transmitted viral load? I would think that masks can have a positive impact even if they aren't perfect filters. If you look at their table of data, the reduction trend is consistent across their tests. But between the small number of patients(4) and samples, and the number of Petri dishes that came back as 'Not Detected', it seems like a pretty low powered study. :-/
They are also explicitly testing coughs. I wonder about the effects on filtering droplets generated from normal breathing and talking.
Indeed, the actual numerical results in the article table shows that masks are very effective, so it's puzzling where their narrative conclusions came from.
Lower numbers may not have enough of an effect on transmission rates.
A log-reduction of around 0.5 isn't much. "very effective" would be like 3-4 which even this n=4 study is enough to rule out
0.5 log-load reduction is a 66% decrease. A 1.5 reduction is 96%, which is N95 standard. Starting from 2.56, a log reduction of 3-4 is impossible.
In any case, the large number of NDs (not detected) everywhere in the table, but especially inside the masks after the patient just coughed in them (which the authors struggle to explain), makes this entire experiment very suspect. (Just look at the reported results for patient 4, which make no sense at all!)
In any case, the large number of NDs (not detected) everywhere in the table, but especially inside the masks after the patient just coughed in them (which the authors struggle to explain), makes this entire experiment very suspect. (Just look at the reported results for patient 4, which make no sense at all!)
The problem is that 99%+ of viruses are either harmless or symbiotic so any method that cant tell harmful from harmless might not give valid results.
> 99%+ of viruses are either harmless or symbiotic
There is no such thing as a symbiotic virus.
There is no such thing as a symbiotic virus.
Placental mammals need certain endogenous retroviruses in order to reproduce.
> I would think that masks can have a positive impact even if they aren't perfect filters.
That is when behavior comes in. If people are more likely to ignore social distancing if they wear a mask then you might get the opposite effect, as social distancing is seen as better protective measure than masks.
This is one of the reasons why the health department in my nation only recommend masks for risk groups, like if you are working with elderly people.
That is when behavior comes in. If people are more likely to ignore social distancing if they wear a mask then you might get the opposite effect, as social distancing is seen as better protective measure than masks.
This is one of the reasons why the health department in my nation only recommend masks for risk groups, like if you are working with elderly people.
This is a completely speculative conjecture known as risk compensation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation). It's often brought up in opposition of mandatory safety measures (quite prominently around seat belt legislation in the 1970s), but AFAIK it's never been shown to be numerically significant.
Risk compensation, as in the idea that people are more conservative when they feel more at risk, is pretty well founded. It's risk homeostasis, namely the idea that people will voluntarily increase their risk until a target level is reached, that's controversial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation#Risk_homeost...
I recall reading some interesting research on this when it comes to playgrounds: these days unforgiving concrete is being replaced with bouncy rubber, and the compensation/homeostasis theory is that kids are playing in riskier ways because small tumbles don't hurt them any more.
I recall reading some interesting research on this when it comes to playgrounds: these days unforgiving concrete is being replaced with bouncy rubber, and the compensation/homeostasis theory is that kids are playing in riskier ways because small tumbles don't hurt them any more.
The people responsible at the health department could be wrong, as they are just employees, and could be misinformed/ill-trained. It is a speculative theory, and the official statement empathize that the singular most important thing people should do is is to stay at home if they are sick. The medical benefits of mask for people without symptoms is not clear (but I would be interesting to read research if someone can link that), and there is a supply demand right now to get mask to those groups that really need them.
It is not a black and white issue of seat belt where there is ample proven evidence that in basically any car crash a seat belt is better than no seat belt. There is no shortage of seat belts, nor has there ever been one. The focus of car safety has also primarily focused on speed, where the survivable limit goes up if the driver has a seat belt, but even that higher limit is still much lower than the speed of many drivers. Thus the message there is to inform drivers the importance of both the benefit of seat belts, but also the critical message that speed more or less determine if a person is going to live or die. Even if people would risk compensate and go from the survivable speed without seat belt and increase their speed to survivable speed with seat belt, it would still be lower than what many people already drive their cars at. The worst case scenario of seat belts would thus be an improvement. We can not say the same thing about social distancing, where going out sick with a mask on is still a very bad idea.
Thus the recommendation from the health department is right now that masks should go to those in risk groups and people who are sick should stay home. If research later show that people without symptoms reduces risk of infecting others by wearing a medical mask, and the supply of masks increases, then they will likely change their recommendation based on the changed situation and facts.
(Small meta comment, but it is interesting how skeptical people are of the medical department that is responsible for handling the pandemic. It is true that critical questioning any government recommendation is useful, but maybe a bit more open minded discussion would be better).
It is not a black and white issue of seat belt where there is ample proven evidence that in basically any car crash a seat belt is better than no seat belt. There is no shortage of seat belts, nor has there ever been one. The focus of car safety has also primarily focused on speed, where the survivable limit goes up if the driver has a seat belt, but even that higher limit is still much lower than the speed of many drivers. Thus the message there is to inform drivers the importance of both the benefit of seat belts, but also the critical message that speed more or less determine if a person is going to live or die. Even if people would risk compensate and go from the survivable speed without seat belt and increase their speed to survivable speed with seat belt, it would still be lower than what many people already drive their cars at. The worst case scenario of seat belts would thus be an improvement. We can not say the same thing about social distancing, where going out sick with a mask on is still a very bad idea.
Thus the recommendation from the health department is right now that masks should go to those in risk groups and people who are sick should stay home. If research later show that people without symptoms reduces risk of infecting others by wearing a medical mask, and the supply of masks increases, then they will likely change their recommendation based on the changed situation and facts.
(Small meta comment, but it is interesting how skeptical people are of the medical department that is responsible for handling the pandemic. It is true that critical questioning any government recommendation is useful, but maybe a bit more open minded discussion would be better).
It was suspect with bicycle helmets. But alternative hypothesis is that if helmets are mandated, people dont use bikes as much for transportation or causual pleasure rides, biking only for serious sport (making incidents go up per ride).
I really dislike this all or nothing attitude. It poses so many requirements that people are going to give up on it. It is the same as all the bullshit that flew around in Feb. regarding how you shouldn't be wearing a mask and that you might increase your risk of infection by wearing a mask. Its all bullshit. Yes, you should not be hoarding a supply of n95 masks because these need to go to healthcare workers. But yes you should be wearing something, even a cloth mask if you are going out to a grocery store or anywhere in public with other people around. Is it going to stop it completely? No, but I think we have enough of an idea about the science that the viral load plays into the chances of getting infected.
So why don't we try to do our best and wear masks of any type that we can, and prevent the spread no matter how small? I am just sad people like you have really hurt countries. I know in America we should have been pushing the agenda that we should be wearing masks outside, we should not be hoarding medical masks, we should be washing our hands, and even more importantly we should be taking body temps before entering buildings.
So why don't we try to do our best and wear masks of any type that we can, and prevent the spread no matter how small? I am just sad people like you have really hurt countries. I know in America we should have been pushing the agenda that we should be wearing masks outside, we should not be hoarding medical masks, we should be washing our hands, and even more importantly we should be taking body temps before entering buildings.
[deleted]
The person you are replying to is talking specifically about Influenza which isn't spread as widely through droplets, while COVID-19 is spread this way almost exclusively.
"Most experts think that flu viruses spread mainly by droplets..." (https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/spread.htm)
Mainly /= exclusively. COVID as far as we know are spread exclusively through droplets. Influenza can be aerosolized https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/flu/transmission.html
Yeah, I read the thread earlier today, and it seemed like there was some causality fallacy. At one point in the thread he says the cases dropped the weak masks were reinstated...but that doesn't really make sense, because viruses have incubation lags. That's not to say it had -no- effect or that it wouldn't have a larger effect in COVID19, but the evidence in the thread seemed pretty weak to me outside of pure anecdote and headline/timeline cherry picking.
Actually, it’s worse than you remember.
> “On Jan 17, the day the masking ordinance went into effect, the # of new cases/deaths declined, the first decline in quite some time. > > This continued until the epidemic faded, a signal that the mask ordinance had helped wipe out the Spanish Flu in San Francisco”
Why on earth would anybody believe it was the masks that helped when reading the “evidence” in the first paragraph? The cases dropped the very same day the law was passed! So I’m supposed to believe that in just a few hours, the law had a measurable effect?! I don’t think so.
My guess is that people had already seen the cases and deaths rising again in newspaper reports and had stopped going out as much again. Perhaps they had even started wearing masks again.
I’m not trying to say masks are pointless. I’m trying to say that this narrative is absurd.
> “On Jan 17, the day the masking ordinance went into effect, the # of new cases/deaths declined, the first decline in quite some time. > > This continued until the epidemic faded, a signal that the mask ordinance had helped wipe out the Spanish Flu in San Francisco”
Why on earth would anybody believe it was the masks that helped when reading the “evidence” in the first paragraph? The cases dropped the very same day the law was passed! So I’m supposed to believe that in just a few hours, the law had a measurable effect?! I don’t think so.
My guess is that people had already seen the cases and deaths rising again in newspaper reports and had stopped going out as much again. Perhaps they had even started wearing masks again.
I’m not trying to say masks are pointless. I’m trying to say that this narrative is absurd.
Cases will start showing up after a few days so by the end of the week one would expect cases to go down a bit.
There is evidence that homemade masks are slightly effective: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2440799/
One aspect of why any sort of mask is encouraged is that it helps prevent the unconscious face touching. I scratch at the side of my chin/beard when i'm thinking. With the mask on i sense it's present and causes me to stop the urge.
Masks need constant rearrangement.
People wearing masks constantly touch the mask, often without washing their hands afterwards.
People wearing masks constantly touch the mask, often without washing their hands afterwards.
Curios if you have actually tried wearing a mask?
I touch my face way less with one and think about it each time i do. yes i rearrange the mask sometimes, but then i go wash my hands.. and as i wear a mask more, my need to rearrange it drops.
it also is a social cue for anyone around me to think about the hygiene issues if they see me touch the mask which they don't get when i am not wearing a mask.
I touch my face way less with one and think about it each time i do. yes i rearrange the mask sometimes, but then i go wash my hands.. and as i wear a mask more, my need to rearrange it drops.
it also is a social cue for anyone around me to think about the hygiene issues if they see me touch the mask which they don't get when i am not wearing a mask.
The mask covers up your primary facial mucous membranes. (nose & mouth, but not eyes)
The virus will not go through your hands or face. Wear a mask, avoid touching your eyes (wear glasses?) and you're most of the way there. Keep washing your hands anyway though.
The virus will not go through your hands or face. Wear a mask, avoid touching your eyes (wear glasses?) and you're most of the way there. Keep washing your hands anyway though.
Is there any reason to believe that coughing into the crook of your elbow is effective? Yes. Neither is N95 certified, but they are both physical impediments to particles directly flying out of your mouth/nose onto other people. Why is this hard to believe?
That's where social sciences come in.
Because people associate wearing a mask with disease, restrictions, illness and so on. A mask taps into beliefs and deep-seated fears about society, the wider world, uncertainty, personal freedom, body autonomy and public health. As such, in Western culture, wearing masks carries widespread stigma:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/04/america...
https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/wearing-a-mask-while-a...
Wearing a mask is a stark wake up call whereas many people simply want to go to business-as-usual as before. During the 1918 pandemic, SF ordered people to wear masks several times. At one point, some people were fed up and started an "anti-mask league".
Today, washing your hands is not questioned, and social norms dictate that one washes their hands at various times. It's something you get taught to do from a young age. That wasn't always the case, as washing hands was heavily opposed in the 19th century when it was first suggested by Ignaz Semmelweiss and Florence Nightingale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
It took time, campaigning and a lot of education across several generations to get to this point.
Because people associate wearing a mask with disease, restrictions, illness and so on. A mask taps into beliefs and deep-seated fears about society, the wider world, uncertainty, personal freedom, body autonomy and public health. As such, in Western culture, wearing masks carries widespread stigma:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/04/america...
https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/wearing-a-mask-while-a...
Wearing a mask is a stark wake up call whereas many people simply want to go to business-as-usual as before. During the 1918 pandemic, SF ordered people to wear masks several times. At one point, some people were fed up and started an "anti-mask league".
Today, washing your hands is not questioned, and social norms dictate that one washes their hands at various times. It's something you get taught to do from a young age. That wasn't always the case, as washing hands was heavily opposed in the 19th century when it was first suggested by Ignaz Semmelweiss and Florence Nightingale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
It took time, campaigning and a lot of education across several generations to get to this point.
We have huge fines here in South-East Asia, if you leave home without a mask. Even if probability of decrease transmitting 10%, on 1 million cases it's 100 thousand people.
Are the fines more of a signal (i.e. fines for jaywalking) or are they more cut in stone and expecting recuperation?
So what was the problem with the masks? The thread calls it "The dollar sign is exalted above the health sign" but why was this a money tradeoff? Due to the cost of the masks?
Business leaders were opposed to the mask ordinance because they thought it would reduce the people shopping in the stores.
Wearing the masks was seen as uncomfortable and so people didn’t want to do it.
Wearing the masks was seen as uncomfortable and so people didn’t want to do it.
Although I think it's worth noting that this blunts the analogy; they thought it would reduce the people shopping in the stores, because the stores were open and not shut by mandate.
It's funny how logic operates. Dead customers come a lot less in stores. Masking is a little discomfort for prolonged "benefits" (morality quotes). Business type persons should know better about long term investment..
But all too many (which doesn't mean a multitude), will not look past a hit, especially if they are running with out much of a safety net.
I think of at meat processing plant in South Dakota that had a large outbreak, and why, when a plant was still able to run, management didn't take drastic measures to ensure that employees wouldn't get sick and bring about a full stoppage. Same thing is Halle I gotta at hospitals and other places too, all around the country.
I think of at meat processing plant in South Dakota that had a large outbreak, and why, when a plant was still able to run, management didn't take drastic measures to ensure that employees wouldn't get sick and bring about a full stoppage. Same thing is Halle I gotta at hospitals and other places too, all around the country.
This is a great example of "there is nothing new under the sun".
People may feel we live in unique times, but yet again, not much has changed since 1919.
People may feel we live in unique times, but yet again, not much has changed since 1919.
Haha, well... we’re still just a bunch of Homo Sapiens.
This is a great reminder of the inevitable tragedy of knowledge lost across generations. Could we as a species do better?
This is a great reminder of the inevitable tragedy of knowledge lost across generations. Could we as a species do better?
> not much has changed since 1919.
The 1919 SF Chronicle was easier to read.
The 1919 SF Chronicle was easier to read.
Since they didn't have Reddit as a source, they actually had to put some effort into stories!
And people actually paid for it, too!!
True. All this has made me want to read a book-length treatment of the 1918-1919 pandemic. The lived experience of a fast moving global pandemic had completely receded from our own understanding until this came along.
I'm half way through "The Great Influenza - The Epic Story of the Deadliest Plague in History" it's excellent.
paypalcust83(1)
Early 1900's were also the heyday of eugenics.
The author above says civil libertarians were worried about a slippery slope, where mask laws could lead to forced vaccines "or any experiment or indignity." I think anti-mask concern is more interesting in that context.
The author above says civil libertarians were worried about a slippery slope, where mask laws could lead to forced vaccines "or any experiment or indignity." I think anti-mask concern is more interesting in that context.
The restless extrovert's outlook is super bizarro. I'm personally looking forward to wearing a mask long after this pandemic has passed, to defend my privacy against ubiquitous facial recognition.
I want to live in a world where these things aren't legally mandated, but everyone does them because they're good ideas. Apparently that world is impossible.
It's similar to the people that don't wear their seatbelt to somehow stick it to the government. Apparently their driving is so lame that they've never appreciated the seatbelt while cornering? Sigh.
I want to live in a world where these things aren't legally mandated, but everyone does them because they're good ideas. Apparently that world is impossible.
It's similar to the people that don't wear their seatbelt to somehow stick it to the government. Apparently their driving is so lame that they've never appreciated the seatbelt while cornering? Sigh.
> I want to live in a world where none of these things are legally mandated, but everyone does them because they're good ideas. Apparently that world is impossible.
Helmet laws in the several US states are a good example, I grew up in SoCal, where its mandated for bikes/motorcycles, but more importantly spent a lot of time in 4 wheel motorsports and saw their efficacy on more occasions than I can count. I used to be the only one to wear one during canyon carving as well as track events.
I didn't ride a motorcycle until I got to CO, where helmets are optional, and despite that I would never swing a leg over a bike without one. The only people I ever see ignore helmets are harley riding guys with bare skin exposed all over, often way older, as most of the sport bike community understand that gear is everything in even a low speed, low side if they've been in one.
After a lowside myself with cheap gear, except my helmet as that was a $700 write off, due to a negligent driver and inexperience on my part (specifically: how not to panic towards that as it frequently occurs on the street) I learned the hard way how important 'dressing for the crash' really is and not just a helmet only priority.
The only time I ever rode without a helmet was riding my motorcycle from one end of the parking lot to my storage unit (maybe 1/2 mile, if that) during my first incoming snap frost/blizzard and it felt so incredibly stupid at 10MPH in 1st gear feathering the throttle I'd never do it again.
I'm not sure what serious lack of self preservation you must have to ever willingly ride at speed without one, but perhaps its not so bad to weed that out of the gene pool and not having it expedites the process?
Helmet laws in the several US states are a good example, I grew up in SoCal, where its mandated for bikes/motorcycles, but more importantly spent a lot of time in 4 wheel motorsports and saw their efficacy on more occasions than I can count. I used to be the only one to wear one during canyon carving as well as track events.
I didn't ride a motorcycle until I got to CO, where helmets are optional, and despite that I would never swing a leg over a bike without one. The only people I ever see ignore helmets are harley riding guys with bare skin exposed all over, often way older, as most of the sport bike community understand that gear is everything in even a low speed, low side if they've been in one.
After a lowside myself with cheap gear, except my helmet as that was a $700 write off, due to a negligent driver and inexperience on my part (specifically: how not to panic towards that as it frequently occurs on the street) I learned the hard way how important 'dressing for the crash' really is and not just a helmet only priority.
The only time I ever rode without a helmet was riding my motorcycle from one end of the parking lot to my storage unit (maybe 1/2 mile, if that) during my first incoming snap frost/blizzard and it felt so incredibly stupid at 10MPH in 1st gear feathering the throttle I'd never do it again.
I'm not sure what serious lack of self preservation you must have to ever willingly ride at speed without one, but perhaps its not so bad to weed that out of the gene pool and not having it expedites the process?
As I was reading OP's article, another article (pay walled) showed up in the side feed detailing how my town back in SoCal is having, what apparently is becoming ubiquitous in the country, anti-quarantine protests today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHmDeqdRdLk
I'm so glad I moved out for good this time, its sadly a pro military and Trump part of Southern Orange County that happens to have some of the most beautiful coast lines and best surfing on the mainland... I just looked into to it and it seems its also happening in Colorado Springs, which is also deeply pro Military and is dependent on its economy.
Which is odd, because in the Northern part we have people calling the police to tell them about the influx of out of state plates that been seen recently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHmDeqdRdLk
I'm so glad I moved out for good this time, its sadly a pro military and Trump part of Southern Orange County that happens to have some of the most beautiful coast lines and best surfing on the mainland... I just looked into to it and it seems its also happening in Colorado Springs, which is also deeply pro Military and is dependent on its economy.
Which is odd, because in the Northern part we have people calling the police to tell them about the influx of out of state plates that been seen recently.
Don't act surprised that people are getting cabin fever. It didn't help that when California entered the lockdown, there were no exit criteria, they're still pretty murky, and despite the rate of new cases being pretty stable for the past few weeks, there are still new regulations (face masks, park and beach closures) when the data point to staying the course being effective.
> Don't act surprised that people are getting cabin fever.
First, California is still on partial lock-down, not full lock down. You're still allowed to go outside for exercise and essential shopping with social distancing in the best case scenario. That's farm from ideal, but way more relaxed then most of the World when trying to tackle the spread of COVID. Several posters here are from Spain or Italy, they couldn't/cannot leave their homes at all!
In the worst case its almost entirely unchanged: I've seen several examples of Youtube celebrities coming in from out of state on their motorcycles to to do a mini tour, ride while the roads are practically empty and the weather is good (Maxwrist) to shoot new videos for their channels; to professional motorcycle riders extending their stays (Scott Redding) in SoCal to take advantage of weather and riding conditions under relaxed lock-down conditions as opposed to Europe where they're from to prepare for what, if it is done at all, will be a very short but intense season.
With that said, the sooner this ends the sooner we can try and get back to trying to rebuild our lives. I personally was on Round 2 at SpaceX.
Its useless to protest under these conditions, and only further increases contagion which will put a strain on the local economy further. As well as hospitals and all essential workers within them and will extend the stay at home orders.
Personally, this is one of the things I can't stand about being home in California anymore; for most, Nature doesn't bite back often enough, so most people think they can do as they please and seldom experience just how harsh Nature can be so that gives them a sense of entitlement and a false sense of confidence that they're immune to consequence.
Those of us that were born there and span several generations are acutely aware that earthquakes, fires, and torrential floods are game-changers and has significantly impacted every single generation so its best to conduct oneself with that in mind so we can get on with living our lives as soon as possible.
The weather is such a double edged sword. I highly doubt these people would be out pulling this stunt if they got the 10 inches of snow we got this week in CO.
First, California is still on partial lock-down, not full lock down. You're still allowed to go outside for exercise and essential shopping with social distancing in the best case scenario. That's farm from ideal, but way more relaxed then most of the World when trying to tackle the spread of COVID. Several posters here are from Spain or Italy, they couldn't/cannot leave their homes at all!
In the worst case its almost entirely unchanged: I've seen several examples of Youtube celebrities coming in from out of state on their motorcycles to to do a mini tour, ride while the roads are practically empty and the weather is good (Maxwrist) to shoot new videos for their channels; to professional motorcycle riders extending their stays (Scott Redding) in SoCal to take advantage of weather and riding conditions under relaxed lock-down conditions as opposed to Europe where they're from to prepare for what, if it is done at all, will be a very short but intense season.
With that said, the sooner this ends the sooner we can try and get back to trying to rebuild our lives. I personally was on Round 2 at SpaceX.
Its useless to protest under these conditions, and only further increases contagion which will put a strain on the local economy further. As well as hospitals and all essential workers within them and will extend the stay at home orders.
Personally, this is one of the things I can't stand about being home in California anymore; for most, Nature doesn't bite back often enough, so most people think they can do as they please and seldom experience just how harsh Nature can be so that gives them a sense of entitlement and a false sense of confidence that they're immune to consequence.
Those of us that were born there and span several generations are acutely aware that earthquakes, fires, and torrential floods are game-changers and has significantly impacted every single generation so its best to conduct oneself with that in mind so we can get on with living our lives as soon as possible.
The weather is such a double edged sword. I highly doubt these people would be out pulling this stunt if they got the 10 inches of snow we got this week in CO.
People are also protesting in CO. It didn't snow everywhere.
https://denver.cbslocal.com/video/4519624-hundreds-gather-at...
https://denver.cbslocal.com/video/4519624-hundreds-gather-at...
I know it didn't. I even mentioned them in my previous post, those guys are from the Colorado Springs (south) and I underscored some of the obvious underlying issues to the dilemma and drew parallels to the ones happening in SoCal: pro military and dependence for their local economy, and a big pro trump supporter area.
I even saw it became a meme to call them 'Karen' on social media, and I don't even follow SM, as you can see them in action during this 'protest' making an unnecessary scene in the middle of the street:
https://twitter.com/eugenegu/status/1252099015891496960
Yes, that's a nurse she is racially berating; the same people dealing with medical supplies shortages, patient exposure, and being over worked during this pandemic.
I even saw it became a meme to call them 'Karen' on social media, and I don't even follow SM, as you can see them in action during this 'protest' making an unnecessary scene in the middle of the street:
https://twitter.com/eugenegu/status/1252099015891496960
Yes, that's a nurse she is racially berating; the same people dealing with medical supplies shortages, patient exposure, and being over worked during this pandemic.
Is there anything else that you want to "weed out of the gene pool"?
> I'm personally looking forward to wearing a mask long after this pandemic has passed, to defend my privacy against ubiquitous facial recognition.
I'm not sure I would "look forward" to that, if you mean that in the colloquial sense.
I'm not sure I would "look forward" to that, if you mean that in the colloquial sense.
Chinese on camera facial recognition is able to identify peolke even when wearing a mask.
I think if you combine it with a cycling cap/baseball hat it's more effective, since cameras are usually placed higher than one's eyes.
I think if you combine it with a cycling cap/baseball hat it's more effective, since cameras are usually placed higher than one's eyes.
On to gait recognition and non-stop location tracking it is, then. :-(
Pretty confusing that the first tweet starts with 2018, should be 1918 I guess. Man I hate platforms that don't allow editing ones sentences, like Whatsapp. So often I find mistake, very often the last word that was autocorrected between the time I typed it and hit enter and couldn't stop my finger from going down on that send key anymore.
Can somebody please explain this expression: "I'm not kidding I went HAM researching this"
Masks could have prevented the quarantines, and will be needed again when they end. The quarantines are a last resort, after the failure of public policy and non-medical-interventions to contain the virus.
I made a video which shows that masks are the answer, there is no shortage, and that our government leaders were wrong in telling us not to wear them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppiPaYI-x4E
I made a video which shows that masks are the answer, there is no shortage, and that our government leaders were wrong in telling us not to wear them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppiPaYI-x4E
You should consider making a short article instead. No one will watch 30 minutes.
someone on reddit found some disturbing astroturfing
https://old.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/g3sw2l/the_user_udr...
lots of new facebook groups like pages asking for reopening, then retweeted by the president
crowds are so weird
https://old.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/g3sw2l/the_user_udr...
lots of new facebook groups like pages asking for reopening, then retweeted by the president
crowds are so weird
Journalists found ties* on Friday too »
While protesters in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and other states claim to speak for ordinary citizens, many are also supported by street-fighting rightwing groups like the Proud Boys, conservative armed militia groups, religious fundamentalists, anti-vaccination groups and other elements of the radical right.
…
It was organized by the Michigan Conservative Coalition, which Michigan state corporate filings show has also operated under the name of Michigan Trump Republicans. It was also heavily promoted by the Michigan Freedom Fund, a group linked to the Trump cabinet member Betsy DeVos.
…
In fact the man is Phil Robinson, the prime mover in a group called the Michigan Liberty Militia, whose Facebook page features pictures of firearms, warnings of civil war, celebrations of Norse paganism and memes ultimately sourced from white nationalist groups like Patriot Front.
…
The protest has been heavily promoted by the Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF), which counts among its donors “dark money” funds linked to the Koch brothers such as Donors Capital Fund, and Castle Rock, a foundation seeded with part of the fortune of Adolph Coors, the rightwing beer magnate.
…
The event is also being promoted on a website dedicated to attacking Little for his response to Covid-19. That website was set up by the Idaho businessman, pastor and one-time Republican state senate candidate, Diego Rodriguez.
Rodriguez launched the website at an Easter service held in defiance of the governor’s orders on Easter Sunday, which was also addressed by Ammon Bundy, the leader of the militia occupation of the Malheur national wildlife refuge in 2016 that become a rallying point for the anti-government right in the US.
…
Included in that number are members of the 3% of Washington, a group which has held a series of open-carry rallies in Seattle, featuring speeches from the far-right protest leader, Joey Gibson.
* https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/17/far-right-coro...
While protesters in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and other states claim to speak for ordinary citizens, many are also supported by street-fighting rightwing groups like the Proud Boys, conservative armed militia groups, religious fundamentalists, anti-vaccination groups and other elements of the radical right.
…
It was organized by the Michigan Conservative Coalition, which Michigan state corporate filings show has also operated under the name of Michigan Trump Republicans. It was also heavily promoted by the Michigan Freedom Fund, a group linked to the Trump cabinet member Betsy DeVos.
…
In fact the man is Phil Robinson, the prime mover in a group called the Michigan Liberty Militia, whose Facebook page features pictures of firearms, warnings of civil war, celebrations of Norse paganism and memes ultimately sourced from white nationalist groups like Patriot Front.
…
The protest has been heavily promoted by the Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF), which counts among its donors “dark money” funds linked to the Koch brothers such as Donors Capital Fund, and Castle Rock, a foundation seeded with part of the fortune of Adolph Coors, the rightwing beer magnate.
…
The event is also being promoted on a website dedicated to attacking Little for his response to Covid-19. That website was set up by the Idaho businessman, pastor and one-time Republican state senate candidate, Diego Rodriguez.
Rodriguez launched the website at an Easter service held in defiance of the governor’s orders on Easter Sunday, which was also addressed by Ammon Bundy, the leader of the militia occupation of the Malheur national wildlife refuge in 2016 that become a rallying point for the anti-government right in the US.
…
Included in that number are members of the 3% of Washington, a group which has held a series of open-carry rallies in Seattle, featuring speeches from the far-right protest leader, Joey Gibson.
* https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/17/far-right-coro...
I worry that the modern definition of "astroturfing" is so broad that it can be applied to any kind of large-scale organizing. It shouldn't be surprising to discover that the anti-shutdown movements in various states have ties with each other and with anti-shutdown politicians.
Astroturfing is actually appropriate. The movement pretends to be grassroots. This looks like it was organized in multiple states (possibly even countries) by the same organization, that's not grassroots.
I would say almost all modern protests are like that - driven by specific politicians and their media colleagues.
Based on what evidence?
It's kind of a grey area and debatable. A group of people starts protesting on a small scale, and then quickly gets a lot of professional and political help, along with a lot of attention from media that wants to push a narrative.
Based on what evidence?
My point was that, for something that is fairly grey such as the coordination versus spontaneity of protesters, you're not going to get solid evidence.
Any disinterested search for truth here would involve reams of original-source facts. This is probably not the right forum for that.
FWIW I did not make the claim for which you are requesting evidence. I just don't think asking for evidence in this case will be very fruitful.
Any disinterested search for truth here would involve reams of original-source facts. This is probably not the right forum for that.
FWIW I did not make the claim for which you are requesting evidence. I just don't think asking for evidence in this case will be very fruitful.
Fair enough.
I would take it at face value for now. I think astroturfing can be emmergent and dangerous regardless of political execution or oversight.
Astroturfing by its definition cannot be emergent behavior. If it’s emergent, then it’s grass roots and not astroturfing.
You are right. I suppose I am too loose with my understanding of action as a byproduct of external influence versus direct sponsorship. As an example, the former would be a vague cultural sublimation of influence from a position of power, and the latter would be an immediate demand from a position of power.
There is a distinction between “having ties” and “all the domains were registered in very short order, and the signs have similar typography”
I'm not sure I agree. Consider the example of BLM. You can tell two equally true stories:
* Black Lives Matter was a grassroots movement, where a bunch of individual people across the country organically discovered the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag and felt it summarized their thoughts on current events.
* Black Lives Matter was a organized effort by Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi to drum up public support for their preferred economic and social policies. They learned how to do this at BOLD, a little-known organization teaching people how to shape the public's anger in ways that serve their political goals.
* Black Lives Matter was a grassroots movement, where a bunch of individual people across the country organically discovered the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag and felt it summarized their thoughts on current events.
* Black Lives Matter was a organized effort by Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi to drum up public support for their preferred economic and social policies. They learned how to do this at BOLD, a little-known organization teaching people how to shape the public's anger in ways that serve their political goals.
"Ties to each other" is one thing. The same person registering all the domains within minutes of one another, and populating them with cut-and-pasted content, is quite another.
This and that they literally started over night. Since the lockdown is new I find this reasonable.
The original link above is saying that there was a website for every state started at the same time by the same person (by looking at whois info):
https://www.reddit.com/r/maryland/comments/g3niq3/i_simply_c...
Many of these so-called grassroots movements are not spontaneous.
https://www.reddit.com/r/maryland/comments/g3niq3/i_simply_c...
Many of these so-called grassroots movements are not spontaneous.
There was a claim going around that those were actually registered by someone who opposed this movement to stop supporters from registering the names. Which is, of course, the trouble with claims of "astroturfing" - anyone can spot a movement in its early moments and take actions like registering domain names.
A more readable version: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1251936242834563073.html
There's nice article courtesy UMich as well: https://www.influenzaarchive.org/cities/city-sanfrancisco.ht...
Thanks! I wanted to share this with my dad and with the difficulty I had finding the "show thread" button on the Twitter mobile site I knew he would only see the first tweet then bounce.
Twitter UI is a disaster.
Yes, although in fairness to Twitter for this particular use case... publishing something of this length is not what Twitter was meant for.
That's the thing, though. We see these long, essay-like Twitter threads all the time because although it may not have been built with this use case in mind, people publish where they know the eyeballs are. And if the eyeballs are on Twitter, that's where people are going to publish, irrespective of how terrible the platform is for longer writing.
I know the character limit is a part of Twitter's ethos, but given that it is now a place where important information of longer character lengths is published, and given that it's a nightmare to read (or write) a thread of two dozen tweets, I really wish they'd consider giving some sort of better-suited home for this kind of content. Maybe they leave tweets at the current character length, but introduce some new product where longer stuff can be posted.
I know the character limit is a part of Twitter's ethos, but given that it is now a place where important information of longer character lengths is published, and given that it's a nightmare to read (or write) a thread of two dozen tweets, I really wish they'd consider giving some sort of better-suited home for this kind of content. Maybe they leave tweets at the current character length, but introduce some new product where longer stuff can be posted.
How about just show the first 280 characters bump the limit to 10k or 30k. The experience won't change at all for people skimming their twitter feed. They'll still only see what look like 280 character tweets.
I know there will a long list of replies of the opinion that this would kill twitter. There's no way to know except to try it and I wish they would. The 280 character limit is a net negative for society at large and I feel they already have the eyes so letting people write longer replies will only increase engagement IMO.
I know there will a long list of replies of the opinion that this would kill twitter. There's no way to know except to try it and I wish they would. The 280 character limit is a net negative for society at large and I feel they already have the eyes so letting people write longer replies will only increase engagement IMO.
Editable tweets are a problem when combined with retweets and likes: you could end up liking something you really don't endorse and being harassed for it.
(I also suspect immutability simplifies their infrastructure a lot)
(I also suspect immutability simplifies their infrastructure a lot)
That's not a real problem. Facebook public posts can be edited, shared, and liked. No one complains about that. I frequently edit my public posts to correct typos and such.
> That's not a real problem. Facebook public posts can be edited, shared, and liked. No one complains about that. I frequently edit my public posts to correct typos and such.
Socially, Twitter is more of a public forum than Facebook, though. That could change how people use and perceive the feature on the different platforms.
Socially, Twitter is more of a public forum than Facebook, though. That could change how people use and perceive the feature on the different platforms.
They could allow edits only within a short timeframe.
It's perfectly fine
Can we stop posting twitter treats?
No. I'm not a fan of the format either, but if that's the way that someone chooses to disseminate informative content then style concerns are insufficient reason to forego it. The bikeshed doesn't have to be blue.
This is not a civil rights thing. This is a public health thing.
Being opposed to keeping crowds off of beaches and people from infecting one another in restaurants is akin to advocating against vaccinations or seatbelt use.
Right now we are in the middle of a flaming inferno and there is a vital role for our democratically elected government to play in mandating mask use and other measures. This is very much a war like moment and we should unify in our resolve to defeat our shared enemy.
Being opposed to keeping crowds off of beaches and people from infecting one another in restaurants is akin to advocating against vaccinations or seatbelt use.
Right now we are in the middle of a flaming inferno and there is a vital role for our democratically elected government to play in mandating mask use and other measures. This is very much a war like moment and we should unify in our resolve to defeat our shared enemy.
Comparing the SF health officer from 1918-1919 to Dr. Fauci is a bit rough since Dr. Fauci was anti-mask and also said the risk of coronavirus was miniscule in mid-February.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/02/17/nih-di...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/02/17/nih-di...
From the same article: If that testing shows the virus has slipped into the country in places federal officials don't know about, "we've got a problem," Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told USA TODAY's Editorial Board Monday.
So when the situation changed, his view also changed.
So when the situation changed, his view also changed.
He was also anti-mask, as I pointed out, as was the CDC/WHO despite a decade's worth of use by Asian countries who didn't wait on RCTs.
It's going to require better citations than that to label Fauci "anti-mask."
Your source possibly supports "ambivalently-mask," but even that would be debatable.
His comments seem fair given the situation and knowledge at the time, as well as the political balance he was striking with his public comments.
Your source possibly supports "ambivalently-mask," but even that would be debatable.
His comments seem fair given the situation and knowledge at the time, as well as the political balance he was striking with his public comments.
"When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?" -- John Maynard Keynes
Yeah because he knew that there was a supply crunch at the time and wanted them to go to first responders. Morever there is not solid evidence that mandatory masks are necessary, as Singapore hasn't mandated them, and amidst other social distancing procedures and testing regime, they have kept numbers relatively low.
Singapore has mandated masks effective April 14, and cases have recently exploded largely due to unchecked transmission in dorms for foreign workers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_S...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_S...
And this whole discussion is about some presumed opinions about masks from February.
> Short of that, Fauci says skip the masks unless you are contagious,
I think since February we’ve learned more and more that people without symptoms are contagious. The only way to follow Fauci’s advice in that case is to wear a mask because we don’t know if we have the virus or not.
See this email from a government doctor on Feb 23: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/11/us/politics/coronavirus-r...
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/04/11/us/politics/11dc-...
I think since February we’ve learned more and more that people without symptoms are contagious. The only way to follow Fauci’s advice in that case is to wear a mask because we don’t know if we have the virus or not.
See this email from a government doctor on Feb 23: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/11/us/politics/coronavirus-r...
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/04/11/us/politics/11dc-...
> I think since February we’ve learned more and more that people without symptoms are contagious.
Here's an article from January[1]:
> "There's no doubt after reading this paper that asymptomatic transmission is occurring," said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases. "This study lays the question to rest."
I've noticed a lot of excuses for poor decisions, as well as rewriting of history that's only a couple of months old. I doubt we're going to see much accountability for the way the pandemic was mishandled.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/31/health/coronavirus-asymptomat...
Here's an article from January[1]:
> "There's no doubt after reading this paper that asymptomatic transmission is occurring," said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases. "This study lays the question to rest."
I've noticed a lot of excuses for poor decisions, as well as rewriting of history that's only a couple of months old. I doubt we're going to see much accountability for the way the pandemic was mishandled.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/31/health/coronavirus-asymptomat...
The mortally of corona is minuscule in the 3rd world populations that have born the brunt of previous epidemics.
IT's deadly primarily in populations of people(usually elderly) who can afford the health care needed to keep chronic health issues managed through medication.
the failure of covid-19 to materialize in the slums of Nairobi or poor rural districts of Thailand caused a lot of complacency among western planners who presumed that if it did not hit there it would not affect them.
IT's deadly primarily in populations of people(usually elderly) who can afford the health care needed to keep chronic health issues managed through medication.
the failure of covid-19 to materialize in the slums of Nairobi or poor rural districts of Thailand caused a lot of complacency among western planners who presumed that if it did not hit there it would not affect them.
Not for nothing...that paper was later debunked. Fauci was way out over his skis on that one:
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/report-of-asympto...
Current thinking is that there's statistical evidence for pre-symptomatic transmission about 2-3 days before symptoms appear:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138665322...
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/report-of-asympto...
Current thinking is that there's statistical evidence for pre-symptomatic transmission about 2-3 days before symptoms appear:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138665322...
The question then in context become if mask helps during those 2-3 days before symptoms appear. There is a few links above that links to the effectiveness against coughing and sneezing, but I would guess those are symptoms.
Nobody knows. We know that "real" masks (i.e. n95 or better) are effective when worn properly, but many people don't wear them properly.
The evidence for effectiveness of other kinds of masks in the prevention of virus transmission is weak, at best.
The evidence for effectiveness of other kinds of masks in the prevention of virus transmission is weak, at best.
Unfortunately, respectable publications have been pushing that paper recently as proof we knew about asymptomatic transmission back in January for stupid, partisan, political reasons.
It's very easy to forget that current decisions and past decisions operate on vastly different kinds of knowledge.
It's easy to look back in time and say "Someone knew the right answer."
It's very hard to stand in the present and say "Of the 20 people who each have a different answer they believe is right, I am going to select the really right one."
Often, the optimal decision is to hedge and delay until information becomes clearer.
It's easy to look back in time and say "Someone knew the right answer."
It's very hard to stand in the present and say "Of the 20 people who each have a different answer they believe is right, I am going to select the really right one."
Often, the optimal decision is to hedge and delay until information becomes clearer.
Anyone citing that paper recently is being irresponsible. It was debunked about a week after the pre-print went up on the server.
In this case, you can read the email from Dr Robert Kadlec, the US Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at HHS (Edit: provided corrected title), in February that I embedded in my original post
He was shocked to learn of the asymptomatic transmission in mid-late February. This is a key person in determining the US strategy. Not rewriting history, it’s a email that was sent at the time.
As someone else pointed out, that preliminary report from Jan 30 Fauci referred to was debunked within a few days as that specific person actually was showing symptoms.
He was shocked to learn of the asymptomatic transmission in mid-late February. This is a key person in determining the US strategy. Not rewriting history, it’s a email that was sent at the time.
As someone else pointed out, that preliminary report from Jan 30 Fauci referred to was debunked within a few days as that specific person actually was showing symptoms.
Agreed - South Korea was wearing masks long before the CDC's announcement that masks could be useful in stopping the spread.
Also, from the post it says that masks were useful in stopping the Spanish Flu. It's amazing that we didn't learn that in 100 years.
Also, from the post it says that masks were useful in stopping the Spanish Flu. It's amazing that we didn't learn that in 100 years.
Japan and Singapore also have prevalent mask wearing, but are seeing a resurgence in cases.
Singapore previously discouraged mask wearing. Only recently it mandated them, and now community transmission is plummeting. The resurgence in cases is only in migrant worker dormitories, where unfortunately 10-20 people share a room and it's extremely hard to prevent transmission. https://www.moh.gov.sg/news-highlights/details/38-more-cases...
I'm really not sure there is a causal link there between masks and cases, singapore is also doing extensive tracing and testing (except for their migrant workers it seems).
> but are seeing a resurgence in cases
It's a reasonable low-value point in the broader discussion, however it's absurd as a reference of much consequence, given the outcomes in Japan and Singapore have been nothing less than extraordinary.
Compared to the US and Europe, Japan is sitting next to Wuhan. They have the oldest large population on earth. They have 127 million people. They have a per 100k persons Covid mortality rate of 0.17 --- 1/30th that of Germany, 1/68th that of the US, 1/169th that of France.
Read that again. Japan's per capita mortality rate is 1/169th that of France. Not a typo.
Mask up accordingly.
It's a reasonable low-value point in the broader discussion, however it's absurd as a reference of much consequence, given the outcomes in Japan and Singapore have been nothing less than extraordinary.
Compared to the US and Europe, Japan is sitting next to Wuhan. They have the oldest large population on earth. They have 127 million people. They have a per 100k persons Covid mortality rate of 0.17 --- 1/30th that of Germany, 1/68th that of the US, 1/169th that of France.
Read that again. Japan's per capita mortality rate is 1/169th that of France. Not a typo.
Mask up accordingly.
Time will tell.
Comparing mortality rates per capita at the start of a crisis when it hasn't spread at the same time/rate in all countries isn't very illuminating (and yes we are at the start, not the middle and certainly not the end). It needs to get to a certain number of cases before it can start to spread exponentially.
After a slow start Japan now has an out of control outbreak and has just declared a state of emergency - it's probably too late to contain it in cities like Tokyo. I sincerely hope they do manage to get it under control because as you say they have an elderly population but apparently hospitals are already close to overwhelmed in Tokyo and a resurgence has happened in Hokaido.
I think New Zealand (where mask wearing is not prevalent) is also a counter-example to your thesis that mask wearing has significantly changed outcomes. Not even hard lockdowns have helped in Europe (though they probably help get it under control). Test and tracing to eliminate outbreaks in detail has definitely been the most significant factor IMO, as practiced in both in New Zealand and South Korea, and interestingly Germany - which has probably seen as many early cases as France/Italy/Spain/UK due to being at the centre of Europe but has kept this relatively under control so far without tight lockdowns and without mask wearing.
There will certainly be a lot of interesting studies after this is all over comparing mitigation measures - at the moment it is not so clear which ones work, and at which stage in outbreaks they are most useful.
Comparing mortality rates per capita at the start of a crisis when it hasn't spread at the same time/rate in all countries isn't very illuminating (and yes we are at the start, not the middle and certainly not the end). It needs to get to a certain number of cases before it can start to spread exponentially.
After a slow start Japan now has an out of control outbreak and has just declared a state of emergency - it's probably too late to contain it in cities like Tokyo. I sincerely hope they do manage to get it under control because as you say they have an elderly population but apparently hospitals are already close to overwhelmed in Tokyo and a resurgence has happened in Hokaido.
I think New Zealand (where mask wearing is not prevalent) is also a counter-example to your thesis that mask wearing has significantly changed outcomes. Not even hard lockdowns have helped in Europe (though they probably help get it under control). Test and tracing to eliminate outbreaks in detail has definitely been the most significant factor IMO, as practiced in both in New Zealand and South Korea, and interestingly Germany - which has probably seen as many early cases as France/Italy/Spain/UK due to being at the centre of Europe but has kept this relatively under control so far without tight lockdowns and without mask wearing.
There will certainly be a lot of interesting studies after this is all over comparing mitigation measures - at the moment it is not so clear which ones work, and at which stage in outbreaks they are most useful.
>There will certainly be a lot of interesting studies after this is all over comparing mitigation measures - at the moment it is not so clear which ones work, and at which stage in outbreaks they are most useful.
So many variables. I wonder how clear things will become even in hindsight. Of course, it doesn't keep people today from being very certain and very dogmatic and very strident today about the right things to do on Twitter, Facebook, and elsewhere.
So many variables. I wonder how clear things will become even in hindsight. Of course, it doesn't keep people today from being very certain and very dogmatic and very strident today about the right things to do on Twitter, Facebook, and elsewhere.
What happened in Germany is weird. The Italian outbreak seems to have originated there, but for some reason it was much worse then the German one, and I don't think Germany had the kind of widespread testing back then that they do now and the total number of cases they were reporting seems a little low for them to be exporting cases.
They did do a lot of testing compared to other EU nations like the UK which was even slower to start testing. I too am puzzled by their very different figures and extensive testing seems to be the answer (500k tests per week) - the UK is still not testing in the community in contrast and is doing far fewer tests. This is the only major difference I can think of.
https://bgr.com/2020/03/26/coronavirus-testing-explains-germ...
https://bgr.com/2020/03/26/coronavirus-testing-explains-germ...
And since February, we all learned a tremedous amount about Covid-19. I'll take advice from experts who change their opinion when data and information changes over any expert who never changes his opinion by virtue of having been right once early on. because the latter part is usually as much "luck" as anything else.
Many of the experts in Asia with first hand experience of dealing with SARS (eg professors Gabriel Leung, Yuen Kwok Yung etc [0][1]) were calling for masks to be worn in late January, or earlier even. Their simple advice has been right on the money and is basically unchanged since than.
Whereas the advice from the WHO and their dependents has been muddled, illogical, and inconsistent, with increasing amounts of 'wriggle room'
Also the hospitals where there are zero cases of staff infection and care homes free of infection spread are using PPE levels well above what the WHO recommends.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcbJdRb6mds [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv7trxYtMzY
Whereas the advice from the WHO and their dependents has been muddled, illogical, and inconsistent, with increasing amounts of 'wriggle room'
Also the hospitals where there are zero cases of staff infection and care homes free of infection spread are using PPE levels well above what the WHO recommends.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcbJdRb6mds [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv7trxYtMzY
IMHO this shows how important cultural differences are. In Asia, it is kind of normal to wear a mask in public. At least Europe, not so much. So there is this barrier to overcome.
And then there is messaging. There are still not nearly enough PPE going around for medical professionals, back in february it was even worse. Calling for people to wear masks would have made this situation even worse. Now, this kind comes around to bite officials, it was still the right thing to do, if you ask me.
And then, back in February, Europe had a lot less cases.
And then there is messaging. There are still not nearly enough PPE going around for medical professionals, back in february it was even worse. Calling for people to wear masks would have made this situation even worse. Now, this kind comes around to bite officials, it was still the right thing to do, if you ask me.
And then, back in February, Europe had a lot less cases.
I find the conclusion that the masks helped a little puzzling. I'm sure it indeed slowed the rate of infection, but what they ultimately wanted to happen was fewer total people getting sick. With constant travel through SF, slowing the infection doesn't seem like it should produce that result, just spread it out over more time.
The problem here is that when you start passing laws and fines on people not for causing damage to other but "for their own good" that are essentially violating core principles of modern democracy(as in the right to assembly, or conduct commerce), the state are taking on the persona of an "benevolent dictatorship" which are bound to drive some people towards contrarianism.
The measures taken might be completely right from an medical science perspective but we have moved away from a system where an enlightened monarch or central committee makes decisions on behaf of the ignorant people because history have shown that such systems always devolve into conspiracies against the many by the powerful few, so we cannot respond to every minor crisis by having the government adopt the tactics and language of an benevolent dictatorship and must govern by consent, ie it's the scientists job to make the public understand the risks/benefits not dictate solutions.
The measures taken might be completely right from an medical science perspective but we have moved away from a system where an enlightened monarch or central committee makes decisions on behaf of the ignorant people because history have shown that such systems always devolve into conspiracies against the many by the powerful few, so we cannot respond to every minor crisis by having the government adopt the tactics and language of an benevolent dictatorship and must govern by consent, ie it's the scientists job to make the public understand the risks/benefits not dictate solutions.
Where do you get the idea that masks are only about the person's own good, and not to prevent damage to others?
From the enlightened central committee, who have yet to pass an law making it illegal to unknowingly walk the streets while being infected with an virus(and even the common cold is deadly to the vulnerable).
At what point will it ever be legal again to break isolation, and where were the constitutional process that allowed the government to restrict fundamental rights no simple parliamentary majority can interfere with?
This is the problem you have an government making decree's it never had the authority to do because of an "crisis" with no clear star/end condition, which basic sociology predicts will lead to people getting contrarian views and reactions especially if the response to criticism is an "call to authority" no matter how deserved that call is.
At what point will it ever be legal again to break isolation, and where were the constitutional process that allowed the government to restrict fundamental rights no simple parliamentary majority can interfere with?
This is the problem you have an government making decree's it never had the authority to do because of an "crisis" with no clear star/end condition, which basic sociology predicts will lead to people getting contrarian views and reactions especially if the response to criticism is an "call to authority" no matter how deserved that call is.
Spreading a deadly virus causes damage to others.
I'm gonna suggest that normal functioning of our normal system of government might be something we all just have to live with for now. If folks want to argue that we live in a monarchy, I think the place to start is to bring a little bit of civics to the table and explain why they think that idea is plausible.
I'm gonna suggest that normal functioning of our normal system of government might be something we all just have to live with for now. If folks want to argue that we live in a monarchy, I think the place to start is to bring a little bit of civics to the table and explain why they think that idea is plausible.
These laws are not “for their own good”. That is the massive mistake that caused Mike Pence and health officials to urge everyone as late as March 2nd not to buy masks, while the virus was spreading.
The masks are not to protect you - it’s to protect others from you!
Let me put it this way: every infected person who wears a mask reduces R0. The outbreaks and pandemic can be stopped. The quarantines and economic damage won’t be needed.
We don’t know who’s infected, so everyone has to wear masks and washing hands when entering a building. People should be fined by private businesses and buildings for violating this.
And on a public level, this is like getting a DUI.
The masks are not to protect you - it’s to protect others from you!
Let me put it this way: every infected person who wears a mask reduces R0. The outbreaks and pandemic can be stopped. The quarantines and economic damage won’t be needed.
We don’t know who’s infected, so everyone has to wear masks and washing hands when entering a building. People should be fined by private businesses and buildings for violating this.
And on a public level, this is like getting a DUI.
You’re absolutely right. It’s important to remember that we’re in a panic right now and we won’t necessarily make the best decisions. I just read a book about the Salem witch trials and the Spanish Inquisition (poor timing I guess) but I feel extra scared right now.
This is more than individual protections. Just as you aren't allowed to drive drunk because you will damage others in addition to yourself.
Democracy is wonderful and all but it's simply too slow to use it for absolutely everything. Plus, I would argue that, when it comes to highly-specialized fields like virology, the "ignorant public" does still exist - Boris Johnson just demonstrated that even the best-educated in the world can be incredibly ignorant in this or that area of science.
We have democracy. The OP seems to be arguing against governments and laws irrespective of democracy.
Do we have fundamental civil right doing this crisis?
Go read any constitution of a democratic state, they all contain protection of activities that is being restricted as a part of the corona containment measures, and in many cases without any legislative process let alone that needed to change an constitution.
Representative Democracy always contains an explicit contract on where the governments mandate to regulate ends, which is often as important to the freedom of it's public then the mere presence of an vote for representatives.
Go read any constitution of a democratic state, they all contain protection of activities that is being restricted as a part of the corona containment measures, and in many cases without any legislative process let alone that needed to change an constitution.
Representative Democracy always contains an explicit contract on where the governments mandate to regulate ends, which is often as important to the freedom of it's public then the mere presence of an vote for representatives.
Your first paragraph is a real argument. Do you want to dip into the actual US constitution and try to itemize which rights you agree we still have and which rights you're arguing we've lost? That would make sense to me. (I claim the second, third and fourth amendments are doing fine right now. If you want, you can pick one or more and say the government is infringing on them.)
The second and third paragraphs in your comment, I'm sorry, appear to be just fluff. Which specific constitution? What do the words actually say? We can read the real words in an actual constitution ... or we can generalize and, I'm sorry, in my opinion that amounts to blowing smoke.
The second and third paragraphs in your comment, I'm sorry, appear to be just fluff. Which specific constitution? What do the words actually say? We can read the real words in an actual constitution ... or we can generalize and, I'm sorry, in my opinion that amounts to blowing smoke.
Start with the UN declaration of human rights.
You no longer have the right of assembly(article 20), nor freedom if movement(article 13) there is good reasons why this is restricted doing an pandemic but it's still an restriction of an fundamental right.
The us constitution without post 1965 caselaw and amendments is not defining an modern democracy as and modern civics almost universally equate the term democracy with the UN Charter of Human Rights.
Of cause you could use the old definition where any system of voting(even one where only 10% of the public have the right to vote) is an democracy but that would be pointless in an modern context.
You no longer have the right of assembly(article 20), nor freedom if movement(article 13) there is good reasons why this is restricted doing an pandemic but it's still an restriction of an fundamental right.
The us constitution without post 1965 caselaw and amendments is not defining an modern democracy as and modern civics almost universally equate the term democracy with the UN Charter of Human Rights.
Of cause you could use the old definition where any system of voting(even one where only 10% of the public have the right to vote) is an democracy but that would be pointless in an modern context.
The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is unfortunately riddled with qualifications and exceptions. Article 29 is especially problematic:
> (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
So after layout out various high-minded (if occasionally contradictory) ideals, they immediately follow up by saying that these "rights", which are apparently not universal and thus not really rights at all, are subject to broadly-defined "limitations" which amount to a laundry-list of excuses states have used throughout history to justify denying people their fundamental rights: "morality, public order and the general welfare". Has there ever been any infringement of the rights of speech, assembly, movement, or property which wasn't justified (publically, at least) on the basis of one of those categories?
If you strike out Article 29 as well as the "attacks upon his honour and reputation" part of Article 12 (which is directly contrary to freedom of speech), the "arbitrary" qualifiers in Articles 14, 15, and 17 which render the surrounding statements meaningless, the frankly irrelevant opinion statement "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society" in Article 16, and Articles 22 through 27—in their entirety—then you would actually have a Universal Declaration of Human Rights worthy of the name. The authors started out reasonably well but failed to resist the impulse to throw in one contradictory article after another toward the end. You can see this reflected in the style of the text: the early articles are short and to the point, but as you read further down the document they get longer and more complicated, and start talking more about obligations and limitations than actual rights.
The US Constitution may not be perfect but at least it didn't fall into the trap of trying to carve out exceptions and limitations, pre-justifying the infringement of fundamental rights whenever the exercise of that right becomes inconvenient for the state, or enshrining an entitlement to a certain standard of living or to specific goods or services which can only be provided by infringing on the rights of others.
> (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
So after layout out various high-minded (if occasionally contradictory) ideals, they immediately follow up by saying that these "rights", which are apparently not universal and thus not really rights at all, are subject to broadly-defined "limitations" which amount to a laundry-list of excuses states have used throughout history to justify denying people their fundamental rights: "morality, public order and the general welfare". Has there ever been any infringement of the rights of speech, assembly, movement, or property which wasn't justified (publically, at least) on the basis of one of those categories?
If you strike out Article 29 as well as the "attacks upon his honour and reputation" part of Article 12 (which is directly contrary to freedom of speech), the "arbitrary" qualifiers in Articles 14, 15, and 17 which render the surrounding statements meaningless, the frankly irrelevant opinion statement "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society" in Article 16, and Articles 22 through 27—in their entirety—then you would actually have a Universal Declaration of Human Rights worthy of the name. The authors started out reasonably well but failed to resist the impulse to throw in one contradictory article after another toward the end. You can see this reflected in the style of the text: the early articles are short and to the point, but as you read further down the document they get longer and more complicated, and start talking more about obligations and limitations than actual rights.
The US Constitution may not be perfect but at least it didn't fall into the trap of trying to carve out exceptions and limitations, pre-justifying the infringement of fundamental rights whenever the exercise of that right becomes inconvenient for the state, or enshrining an entitlement to a certain standard of living or to specific goods or services which can only be provided by infringing on the rights of others.
Jesus its an epidemic emergency. Get over yourself - every restriction for public health doesn't have to be campaigned against as a critical attack on your freedom.
You want to know who the snowflakes are now - its the angry crowds that can't spend time at home with their own thoughts, without working themselves into a froth.
You want to know who the snowflakes are now - its the angry crowds that can't spend time at home with their own thoughts, without working themselves into a froth.
The angry mobs is also 110% predictable and it's an clear indictment against the competency of the state that it so far have not been prepared to deal with what is an normal reaction to emergency powers being imposed with little warning/debate.
]
My argument is not that the measures are wrong but that the messaging is indicative of an state that have lost it's willingness/ability to seek consensus, which can develop into a problem that can make the corona pandemic hitting the semi-affluent retiree communities look like an minor event in an interesting decade.
While the measures might be fully correct(mostly i agree with them) "the shut up and listen to your betters" mentality/rhetoric is only going to make the group of people fed up with the way they have been ignored for decades go even more rogue as they gather more and more "evidence" that their rights are being actively trampled on and become more willing to "fight the power!!" regardless of the "collateral damage" for doing so.
While the measures might be fully correct(mostly i agree with them) "the shut up and listen to your betters" mentality/rhetoric is only going to make the group of people fed up with the way they have been ignored for decades go even more rogue as they gather more and more "evidence" that their rights are being actively trampled on and become more willing to "fight the power!!" regardless of the "collateral damage" for doing so.
> state that have lost it's willingness/ability to seek consensus
They seek consensus. The consensus this time just happened to be different than your personal opinion. That's an indictment against egotism, not against government.
They seek consensus. The consensus this time just happened to be different than your personal opinion. That's an indictment against egotism, not against government.
where are the transcript of adversarial hearings and the ratified constitutional amendment.
When you cant even get the head of state to fully endorse the consensus and face major dissent then what basis have we to claim it was an consensus to begin with.
The problem is of cause that the panic induced rush to do something let to an consensus without quorum. And while the rush might have been justified it needs validation by an actual quorate consensus on an near daily basis as emergency decisions to suspect rights have an lifetime of days not months.
Lockdown is after all also how authoritarian states typically respond to political unrest, so we need to keep being vigilant that they only exists for the purpose of spreading and actively expanding epidemic.
When you cant even get the head of state to fully endorse the consensus and face major dissent then what basis have we to claim it was an consensus to begin with.
The problem is of cause that the panic induced rush to do something let to an consensus without quorum. And while the rush might have been justified it needs validation by an actual quorate consensus on an near daily basis as emergency decisions to suspect rights have an lifetime of days not months.
Lockdown is after all also how authoritarian states typically respond to political unrest, so we need to keep being vigilant that they only exists for the purpose of spreading and actively expanding epidemic.
I get it - 'the state' is at fault in every case, either by doing too much or too little. Whatever.
Just so you know, this is an old problem in American democracy, which has risen to the Supreme Court over a hundred years ago, and been settled in favor of public health.
It is not a slippery slope to authoritarianism, it is an extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures (i.e. wartime, smallpox). As a nation, we’ve long ago decided and upheld the idea that public health is more valuable than individual liberty, in times like these.
If you’re curious, the case is Jacobson v Massachusetts. Excerpted from Wikipedia:
> Harlan ruled that Massachusetts was justified in mandating vaccination: "there are manifold restraints to which each person is necessarily subject for the common good". While Harlan supported such restraints, he also warned that if the state targeted specific individuals or populations to unnecessary restrictions, the court might have to step in to protect them.
> That was a few years after Wong Wai v. Williamson in which a federal circuit court injunction in San Francisco was overturned. It required all Chinese residents of San Francisco to get a dangerous bubonic plague inoculation if they wished to leave the city, which Judge William Morrow ruled was "boldly directed against the Asiatic or Mongolian race as a class".
It is not a slippery slope to authoritarianism, it is an extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures (i.e. wartime, smallpox). As a nation, we’ve long ago decided and upheld the idea that public health is more valuable than individual liberty, in times like these.
If you’re curious, the case is Jacobson v Massachusetts. Excerpted from Wikipedia:
> Harlan ruled that Massachusetts was justified in mandating vaccination: "there are manifold restraints to which each person is necessarily subject for the common good". While Harlan supported such restraints, he also warned that if the state targeted specific individuals or populations to unnecessary restrictions, the court might have to step in to protect them.
> That was a few years after Wong Wai v. Williamson in which a federal circuit court injunction in San Francisco was overturned. It required all Chinese residents of San Francisco to get a dangerous bubonic plague inoculation if they wished to leave the city, which Judge William Morrow ruled was "boldly directed against the Asiatic or Mongolian race as a class".
The us constitution is also a fairly week document that don't even protect things as basic as "free speech" if you read rulings like the infamous Brandenburg ruling, that contract to it's rhetoric did not involve anyone "yelling fire in an crowded theater" but someone advocating people being drafted the army dong WWI to challenge the legality of the draft, and refuse to report as instructed to the muster stations.
This might be the one time the crisis is real and not invented but how do we make sure that all of the emergency measures including all new surveillance tech deployed is mothballed under seal. the second it's no longer an emergency and that an correct review happens afterwards.
The us supreme court have an long tradition of reading the us constitution with an very open mind to the needs of the state itself, especially in rulings that predate the US signing the UN Charter of Human rights.
This might be the one time the crisis is real and not invented but how do we make sure that all of the emergency measures including all new surveillance tech deployed is mothballed under seal. the second it's no longer an emergency and that an correct review happens afterwards.
The us supreme court have an long tradition of reading the us constitution with an very open mind to the needs of the state itself, especially in rulings that predate the US signing the UN Charter of Human rights.
It looks like a pretty good strategy is to allow people who believe this to go out and kill themselves. On the other hand, what if they’re right and no ones going to die over this? You could require that they pay into a hazard bond that pays out back to them if they don’t get sick.
It doesn't just affect them. People who would otherwise not have been infected will likely contract the virus (and possibly due) due to increased community spread from those who do not respect public health guidelines.
This isn't like riding a motorcycle without a helmet. I personally don't care if they want to go kill themselves, but these people are also at the grocery store, or walking in neighborhoods, or at the gas station -- infecting and possibly killing others.
Even riding a motorcycle without a helmet has externalities - more severe injuries from accidents could raise insurance rates across the board, and these people take from the ER/ICU capacity that others could use.
I guess you could have a policy of just letting them die if they get into an accident without a helmet, but that its own host of problems.
I guess you could have a policy of just letting them die if they get into an accident without a helmet, but that its own host of problems.
In fact not wearing a helmet might be cheaper - a quick death versus a lifetime of care.
They unfortunately wind up taking up hospital beds from people who weren't stupid.
There are many many stupid/dangerous things that people do that can land them in hospital (extreme sports being maybe the biggest example), but for better or worse these aren't banned.
But those things generally don't pose an obvious risk to other people: a paraglider who trains above a kindergarten will be regarded differently to one who trains on a mountainside. And infectious disease is worse yet: the negligent sufferer can harm others not just through direct infection but also indirectly, e.g. by sickening hospital staff.
https://www.stlouisfed.org/~/media/files/pdfs/community-deve...