Tucker: Masks and social distancing have no basis in science
-
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.
-
wrote on 9 Jul 2020, 15:59 last edited by
I keep a mask in my car.
My wife drove me to the doctor yesterday and of course I forgot the mask.
Coming and going through the doctor's lobby I probably encountered a dozen people, all wearing masks except me. Nobody said anything about it.
I might have received a couple dirty looks, I'm not sure.
I am pretty sure I didn't give anyone the covid. Not that that matters.
-
wrote on 9 Jul 2020, 17:08 last edited by
Not going to quote each of you, but I agree with what you have written.
-
wrote on 9 Jul 2020, 19:58 last edited by
It would be in Trump's political benefit, to state that government cannot and should not require people to wear masks (Larry's point).
Then, he could lay out, again, the science and tests which support wearing masks. And from that, make it an "we're in this together, everyone be a patriotic American and wear a mask." Gosh, I should be working for him, because it's obvious: "Make America Great again, by everyone wearing a mask!" The left would hate it, but would be forced to be a supporter.All-around better way to state it. Brings people together in a social fight against the Wuhan Flu. All genders, colors, etc.
Instead, he's like the mean dad. He's doing the same thing with his demand to open schools. He does seem to love the fight, even if he loses many. Certainly not accused of 4-D chess any longer.
-
wrote on 9 Jul 2020, 21:00 last edited by
I think a lot of business owners would love for the government to be the one doing the mask mandating. I have sympathy for small business owners who don't want to be put into the position of choosing either to explicitly allow non-mask wearing clients, or to explicitly deny them, and then to have to attempt to enforce that.
-
wrote on 9 Jul 2020, 21:13 last edited by
-
I think a lot of business owners would love for the government to be the one doing the mask mandating. I have sympathy for small business owners who don't want to be put into the position of choosing either to explicitly allow non-mask wearing clients, or to explicitly deny them, and then to have to attempt to enforce that.
wrote on 9 Jul 2020, 21:26 last edited by Catseye3 7 Sept 2020, 21:29@Horace I hear you. Maybe it's a matter of firm decision making; are you a man or a mouse. If you present to the world as a business owner who insists his customers go masked (signs, etc) I suspect the world will respect that -- especially if you had strong custom before this. People might grumble, but if they want your product, they will comply. If not, then you need to tighten your belt and continue being able to look in the mirror.
Or you can be laissez-faire and hope you and yours come out all right.
But either way, it'll be easier if you take your stand and stick to your guns and don't waffle and change your mind 12 times a day.
Tough times.
-
wrote on 9 Jul 2020, 22:58 last edited by
North Carolina Sheriffs: It’s not our job to enforce the governor’s ‘mask orders’ – they are ‘not constitutional’
CHARLOTTE, NC – Do it yourself.
That’s essentially the message that a group of sheriffs in North Carolina are sending to the governor over what they believe are unconstitutional mask orders.
Across the country, a number of governors have issued Executive Orders mandating the use of masks while in the public.
The majority of these orders specify that persons who cannot be a minimum of six feet apart and indoors must wear a mask or face a fine or imprisonment. No one disputes that the numbers of positive cases have grown recently, but there is dispute as to what those numbers really mean.
Some believe that the states and/or federal government is skewing the numbers.
One one side, some believe the numbers are worse than what we know of and we are not told the true amount for fear of sparking nationwide panic.
On the other side, some argue the actual number of infected persons is significantly lower than what is provided and that they are using antibody tests as positive cases. Those suggest that the numbers are inflated in order to keep the economy slowed or shut down in order for democrats to remain in power.
There is an old cop saying that pertains to these theories – in every story there are three sides, his side, her side, and the truth. This means that the truth is probably somewhere in the middle of the two arguments, but we may never know.
Regardless of the debate, the Governor of North Carolina feels that face masks need to be worn by people in certain circumstances.
The question that the executive order has raised is simple – is it enforceable by law enforcement? Several elected Sheriffs in North Carolina do not believe that it is and have gone on record advising that they will not enforce the order.
The sheriffs have stated that they believe that wearing of a mask is a personal choice rather than something that can be ordered.
It is their belief that enforcing someone to wear a mask is unconstitutional, and therefore, not enforceable by law enforcement.
Sheriff Jimmy Thornton from Sampson County stated in a Facebook post:
“As Sheriff, it is my sworn duty to enforce laws enacted by our legislature, as well as protect the constitutional rights of all citizens.
It is my belief that Governor Cooper’s executive order mandating face coverings by all citizens in public is not only unconstitutional, but unenforceable. My deputies will NOT enforce an executive order that I feel violates the constitutional liberties of citizens.
The number of cases in Sampson County are reflecting higher than other counties in our State. I do encourage and trust that all citizens will take it upon themselves to carry out the necessary precautions to ensure the safety and protection of themselves and those that surround them.
I am not encouraging negligence, but I would like to reiterate that it is not the Sheriff’s duty to enforce health related mandates unless court ordered by a Judicial Official or the Legislature.”
There were at least ten Sheriffs who agreed with this sentiment and issued similar statements.
-
wrote on 9 Jul 2020, 23:45 last edited by
As I recall from years ago, when I got a traffic ticket, it referred to violation of a specific law or city ordinance. And, as I recall, there was a number associated with the violation, like "violation of #138 speeding" -- something like that.
So, when the governor or mayor states it is "mandatory" to wear a mask, then exactly what law or city ordinance is being violated? I suppose there might be an emergency clause in a policy, but the on-again-off-again is confusing. And, the sheriff's office refusing to enforce makes sense.
-
wrote on 10 Jul 2020, 11:22 last edited by Doctor Phibes 7 Oct 2020, 11:24
@Larry said in Tucker: Masks and social distancing have no basis in science:
Now you're in conspiracy theory territory.
And once again, for the people who didn't read it the first 5000 times, the mask reduces your chance of spreading it, it doesn't stop you getting it.
-
wrote on 10 Jul 2020, 15:00 last edited by
That wasn't meant to be taken seriously.
-
wrote on 10 Jul 2020, 15:04 last edited by
Sadly, and unbelievably, quite a lot of people seem to do so.