Tucker: Masks and social distancing have no basis in science
-
wrote on 9 Jul 2020, 13:37 last edited by
The experts have told us masks work. They have told us that masks don't work. They have told us oops, masks do work. They have told us that the virus can live for days on metal surfaces like hand rails, on plastic bags from the store, etc. Now As tells us the experts say the virus has to stay in liquids to remain viable.
Meanwhile, anyone who dares object to the government demanding that everyone wear a mask are ridiculed, accused of being "anti-science", and no one seems interested in even listening to their reasons, much less considering their view. It HAS to be just some deplorable anti-science Trump supporting fool anyway, and after all, the "wear a mask or we will mock you" crowd are superior in every way, particularly when it comes to intelligence....
But these self proclaimed geniuses include those who believe that unless we completely eliminate the use of carbon based fuels we will all die in 12 years - and they've been telling us this for 40 plus years now... and by golly the government has to ORDER us to wear masks because if it doesn't demand it these knuckle dragging deplorable are too stupid to wear a mask...
None of the self proclaimed geniuses want to hear about the fact that the biggest reason some people balk at being ordered by government to wear a mask is because it is unconstitutional for the government to force us to wear something, and the supreme court has declared that to be the case numerous times. It is not because they are "anti-science", it is NOT because they don't care about others - it is because they are getting tired of watching these "geniuses" gradually chip away at our constitutional rights. Next thing you know these geniuses will want to eliminate the police forces that protect us, etc.... oh wait.....
Ask people to wear masks. Don't order them to do it.
-
wrote on 9 Jul 2020, 13:58 last edited by Doctor Phibes 7 Sept 2020, 13:58
If a supermarket requires people to wear masks in order to enter, what kind of imbecile is going to argue about the US Constitution with a bunch of poor college kids working in a supermarket?
Just put on a mask you stupid fuck.
(That's the generic 'you stupid fuck', not anybody in particular)
-
wrote on 9 Jul 2020, 14:05 last edited by
A supermarket has every legal right to require everyone wear a mask if they want to come in their store. The government does NOT have the right to order us to wear a mask in supermarkets. That is the issue.
-
wrote on 9 Jul 2020, 14:07 last edited by
Remember this in November when the mask thing is probably the final nail in Trump’s coffin.
All of us that wear a mask know that it is no big deal, the I I can’t breathe bullshit not withstanding.
And if you are not wearing a mask in public inside I am going to avoid you not so much for Covid fear but I don’t want to be associated with anyone who won’t do something that is tantamount to tying your shoes. Just get the fuck away from me.
-
A supermarket has every legal right to require everyone wear a mask if they want to come in their store. The government does NOT have the right to order us to wear a mask in supermarkets. That is the issue.
wrote on 9 Jul 2020, 14:11 last edited by@Larry said in Tucker: Masks and social distancing have no basis in science:
A supermarket has every legal right to require everyone wear a mask if they want to come in their store. The government does NOT have the right to order us to wear a mask in supermarkets. That is the issue.
That doesn't seem to the actual issue for most people I've seen complaining.
On a side note, does the government have the right to require us to wear clothes? I reckon if I wandered into the street wearing nothing but a mask, I'd be arrested. So the government can force us to wear something so that we don't frighten old ladies, but it can't force us to wear something so that we don't kill old ladies.
-
wrote on 9 Jul 2020, 14:11 last edited by
Again, by attempting to explain an important issue regarding this matter, I'm apparently being labeled as a "No masker"...
-
Again, by attempting to explain an important issue regarding this matter, I'm apparently being labeled as a "No masker"...
wrote on 9 Jul 2020, 14:12 last edited by@Larry said in Tucker: Masks and social distancing have no basis in science:
Again, by attempting to explain an important issue regarding this matter, I'm apparently being labeled as a "No masker"...
I'm not implying that. Sorry if it came across that way.
-
@Larry said in Tucker: Masks and social distancing have no basis in science:
A supermarket has every legal right to require everyone wear a mask if they want to come in their store. The government does NOT have the right to order us to wear a mask in supermarkets. That is the issue.
That doesn't seem to the actual issue for most people I've seen complaining.
On a side note, does the government have the right to require us to wear clothes? I reckon if I wandered into the street wearing nothing but a mask, I'd be arrested. So the government can force us to wear something so that we don't frighten old ladies, but it can't force us to wear something so that we don't kill old ladies.
wrote on 9 Jul 2020, 14:15 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in Tucker: Masks and social distancing have no basis in science:
@Larry said in Tucker: Masks and social distancing have no basis in science:
A supermarket has every legal right to require everyone wear a mask if they want to come in their store. The government does NOT have the right to order us to wear a mask in supermarkets. That is the issue.
That doesn't seem to the actual issue for most people I've seen complaining.
On a side note, does the government have the right to require us to wear clothes? I reckon if I wandered into the street wearing nothing but a mask, I'd be arrested. So the government can force us to wear something so that we don't frighten old ladies, but it can't force us to wear something so that we don't kill old ladies.
I'm not saying the constitution says the government can't require people to wear clothes. I'm saying the supreme court says it is unconstitutional for the government to tell us what clothes to wear.
-
@Larry said in Tucker: Masks and social distancing have no basis in science:
A supermarket has every legal right to require everyone wear a mask if they want to come in their store. The government does NOT have the right to order us to wear a mask in supermarkets. That is the issue.
That doesn't seem to the actual issue for most people I've seen complaining.
On a side note, does the government have the right to require us to wear clothes? I reckon if I wandered into the street wearing nothing but a mask, I'd be arrested. So the government can force us to wear something so that we don't frighten old ladies, but it can't force us to wear something so that we don't kill old ladies.
wrote on 9 Jul 2020, 14:16 last edited by Aqua Letifer 7 Sept 2020, 14:16@Doctor-Phibes said in Tucker: Masks and social distancing have no basis in science:
@Larry said in Tucker: Masks and social distancing have no basis in science:
A supermarket has every legal right to require everyone wear a mask if they want to come in their store. The government does NOT have the right to order us to wear a mask in supermarkets. That is the issue.
That doesn't seem to the actual issue for most people I've seen complaining.
I keep coming across the religious argument online: that it's evil to wear masks because it covers up faces that were made in the image of God. I honestly cannot understand how some people have become so stupid. We're now talking "the power to unmake society" levels of stupid.
-
wrote on 9 Jul 2020, 14:17 last edited by
Yes, that's just plain stupid.
-
wrote on 9 Jul 2020, 14:18 last edited by Doctor Phibes 7 Sept 2020, 14:18
I'm not at all happy with the idea that the government should force us to wear masks, however we're left with the problem that some people are just stupid assholes, and this is a matter of public safety.
Some people think that speed limits are unconstitutional or unnecessary too. Obviously, most people would agree that they're morons, and we need protecting from them. How do we deal with the case of masks?
-
wrote on 9 Jul 2020, 14:24 last edited by
Speed limits are constitutional. Driving is a priveledge, not a right.
-
wrote on 9 Jul 2020, 14:28 last edited by
In general, from a moral perspective things stop being considered a right when you will do others harm by exercising them. So, nobody has the right to put others in unnecessary danger, and has an obligation to take due care and attention to avoid doing so.
The question is, at what point does refusal to wear a mask become an unacceptable danger to others.
-
wrote on 9 Jul 2020, 14:34 last edited by
I understand that, and agree. But it's been 5 months now and the experts have told us 3 different things about the effectiveness of masks. Currently the experts tell us masks protect the one wearing it, not those around him. Wouldn't that mean the one at risk is the one without a mask and not those around him?
-
In general, from a moral perspective things stop being considered a right when you will do others harm by exercising them. So, nobody has the right to put others in unnecessary danger, and has an obligation to take due care and attention to avoid doing so.
The question is, at what point does refusal to wear a mask become an unacceptable danger to others.
wrote on 9 Jul 2020, 14:35 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in Tucker: Masks and social distancing have no basis in science:
In general, from a moral perspective things stop being considered a right when you will do others harm by exercising them. So, nobody has the right to put others in unnecessary danger, and has an obligation to take due care and attention to avoid doing so.
The question is, at what point does refusal to wear a mask become an unacceptable danger to others.
Right around 6 feet.
But we can say seven or five to make Copper feel better.
-
I understand that, and agree. But it's been 5 months now and the experts have told us 3 different things about the effectiveness of masks. Currently the experts tell us masks protect the one wearing it, not those around him. Wouldn't that mean the one at risk is the one without a mask and not those around him?
wrote on 9 Jul 2020, 14:39 last edited by@Larry said in Tucker: Masks and social distancing have no basis in science:
I understand that, and agree. But it's been 5 months now and the experts have told us 3 different things about the effectiveness of masks. Currently the experts tell us masks protect the one wearing it, not those around him. Wouldn't that mean the one at risk is the one without a mask and not those around him?
I think they've been saying that the mask protects other people, since it stops us spreading it if we wear a mask. Not so much the other way around. The people at risk are those around the infected person, and the mask protects them.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html
The most benefit is derived when both people wear masks.
And obviously, experts can be wrong, but it's the best we've got.
They're typically wrong a lot less often than non-experts.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Tucker: Masks and social distancing have no basis in science:
In general, from a moral perspective things stop being considered a right when you will do others harm by exercising them. So, nobody has the right to put others in unnecessary danger, and has an obligation to take due care and attention to avoid doing so.
The question is, at what point does refusal to wear a mask become an unacceptable danger to others.
Right around 6 feet.
But we can say seven or five to make Copper feel better.
wrote on 9 Jul 2020, 14:46 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer said in Tucker: Masks and social distancing have no basis in science:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Tucker: Masks and social distancing have no basis in science:
In general, from a moral perspective things stop being considered a right when you will do others harm by exercising them. So, nobody has the right to put others in unnecessary danger, and has an obligation to take due care and attention to avoid doing so.
The question is, at what point does refusal to wear a mask become an unacceptable danger to others.
Right around 6 feet.
But we can say seven or five to make Copper feel better.
OK, let's get more technical.
How about a mean value of required separation of 6 feet, with an uncertainty of 1 foot (with a level of confidence of who-the-fuck-knows percent)?
-
wrote on 9 Jul 2020, 15:17 last edited by
When both sides wear masks the rate of spread drops so much that you actually have a chance at a real economy.
Imagine that. But maybe Carville is wrong, maybe it’s not the economy stupid. It’s spite to the death.
-
When both sides wear masks the rate of spread drops so much that you actually have a chance at a real economy.
Imagine that. But maybe Carville is wrong, maybe it’s not the economy stupid. It’s spite to the death.
wrote on 9 Jul 2020, 15:22 last edited by@Loki said in Tucker: Masks and social distancing have no basis in science:
When both sides wear masks the rate of spread drops so much that you actually have a chance at a real economy.
Imagine that. But maybe Carville is wrong, maybe it’s not the economy stupid. It’s spite to the death.
Spite to the death would appear pretty normal for humans.
-
When both sides wear masks the rate of spread drops so much that you actually have a chance at a real economy.
Imagine that. But maybe Carville is wrong, maybe it’s not the economy stupid. It’s spite to the death.
wrote on 9 Jul 2020, 15:55 last edited by@Loki said in Tucker: Masks and social distancing have no basis in science:
When both sides wear masks the rate of spread drops so much that you actually have a chance at a real economy.
Imagine that.
Preach, man.