Also, there’s psychological costs to wearing a mask. I mean, it sucks.
I’m not sure how to define those costs (I don’t think it’s causing people to commit suicide) but it’s a bigger deal than the money involved.
Mechanism of spread is still the same, so a century or more of epidemiology is unlikely to be altered based on omicron. Also, omicron has only been around at significant levels, so it’s very unlikely that any solid, new research will come out on it for several months or more as we’re still in the data collection stage.
Masks are mandatory here right now, and have been mandatory for probably more than a year now. Compliance with the mask mandates seem to be extremely strong. I think I’ve seen about 5 people not wearing them at the grocery store in the last year.
I’m not really seeing a psychological cost to wearing the mask. It’s a PITA with my glasses fogging up when going from warm to cold or vice versa, on the other hand, it does a pretty good job of keeping my face warm when the wind is blowing and it’s cold.
Have we had to do a cost-benefit analysis on the eta:psychological harm from mandating air bags, wearing seat belts and not allowing drinking and driving?
Fauci recently said just about everyone is going to catch omicron. If this happens, then pediatric cases will be about the same everywhere.
In my kid’s case, I’ve given up on trying to put glasses on her. And on understanding what she’s saying most of the time when her mask is on.
In my own case, I’ve just noticed it sucks, and I like to take off my mask as soon as I can. Unlike other clothing. It’s probably most comparable to seatbelts and carseats, I guess.
Current Canadian case data shows that the unvaccinated get covid more frequently than the vaccinated, and are 15x more likely to end up in the ICU.
Masking slows the spread of covid, which helps to prevent hospitals from becoming overwhelmed which is already resulting in military medical staff having to be used to supplement hospital staff.
It’s kind of ridiculous that Americans are unwilling to do the absolute minimum to try and reduce the spread of a highly contagious disease. Yes the masks are annoying, but it’s really not that hard to wear one, particularly if it would help to keep a working medical system in place.
1 Like
Well, I do agree with you on all this.
How is it a “big thing”? A mask? It’s not expensive, it’s not complicated, it isn’t detrimental to you well being.
Vaccines are a big thing? In what way other than a distrust of vaccine? Because that’s exactly the same as declining to serve in the military because…well,because I don’t want to.
How about seat belts…I’m so fat it hurts, so I don’t want to…is that a reason not to not mandate seatbelts for everyone? Bear in mind seatbelts protect the wearer, but they also protect other drivers. No one wants to be responsible for killing someone else, even if it is an accident. It’s a societal “good thing”.
What is the principle involved here?
1 Like
I think it’s “F*ck you, I’ve got mine”.
1 Like
And helps prevent the potential rapid development/spread of new, more dangerous, mutations.
1 Like
It’s a “big thing” when a governor looks at statewide data and makes decisions based on that. For example, in IL, Chicago data is going to dominate that result; so those of us in the Po’ are “held hostage” for a Chicago problem. If decisions are based on a more local level (e.g., county health departments), I’m good with local mask mandates.
Not sure how a “national mask mandate” will be useful outside of interstate/international travel will be useful apart from providing guidance to states–who then provide additional guidance to local levels.
1 Like
It’s the same principle that allows us to drive cars all the time, everywhere we want to go, at deadly speeds, without much consideration for the fact that lots of people are killed by cars.
That is not a principle. It’s an observation. If your trying to make an analogy using risk/benefit, try something else.
Because the exact same logic can be used for seatbelts. Accidents rarely happen, and if I die, it’s on me. The other driver will just have to learn to live with his bad lack of killing me. My kids will just learn that sometimes you have to pay a pric for freedom. That’s pretty weird.
So it comes down to…I don’t want to…? The data about transmissions is not relevant only in urban areas. It’s about biology, and I’m pretty certain the rural population isn’t a whole lot different. The opportunities for mass exposure are much lower…no mass transit, stadiums, etc… but your local Walmart, church, and Applebees are all in play.
You seem to object to being told what to do in service of your fellow citizens. Okay, I get that. But that is kinda a central purpose of government , especially in a liberal democracy.
I don’t follow the seatbelt argument here. I’m saying that we drive speeds that kill other people, both with and without seatbelts, and we also put our own family at risk when we drive around, whether or not they’re wearing seatbelts.
The deaths are fairly low, but they’re not negligible. We are doing a risk-benefit analysis, on a societal level when we regulate cars, and on a personal level whenever we drive somewhere unnecessarily.
I guess you’re right it’s an observation rather than a principle. I’ll get you a principle later.
Why is the mask mandate required? It’s not to stop the spread, but to slow it down.
Why does it need to be slowed down? So that hospitals aren’t “overrun” treating something that is generally preventable so that those who need treatment can get it.
What if the healthcare system in my area isn’t being overrun? What if the local numbers aren’t growing at the same rate as the more urban areas? Why in this scenario are people expected to respond to a problem existing elsewhere and doesn’t have any direct impact on the local community.
And my prior post is clear that I don’t object to “being told what to do in service of [my] fellow citizens.” I don’t see why my liberties should be curtailed for a problem that doesn’t exist in my area. Whether I mask or not in Southern IL isn’t going to help the Chicago problem one iota.
2 Likes
As a private citizen, my liberties being curtailed should be done by the legislature, not the executive branch.
Temporary measures are fine for a new threat that not much is known about, but continued enactment of those measures need to be done through the legislature. Otherwise, we’re talking about having an autocracy/monarchy/dictatorship; not a democracy outlined by the Constitution.
3 Likes
My impression was a lot of the curtailment of liberties was done through long existing legislation. Public health orders and quarantine rules have been covered in legislation practically forever.
Couple notes–
1, your COVID cases do influence Chicago’s cases, since it spreads.
2, hospitals tend to share patients, especially within a state.
3, rural areas are not doing great right now, including southern IL.
https://dph.illinois.gov/covid19/data/hospitalization-utilization.html
(Otherwise, I agree, rules should be sculpted to fit local circumstances.)
Worse is when that governor uses data from other states in the region that don’t even directly border his state & makes decisions based on that.
1 Like
We don’t have a functional legislature.