> I find this need for certainty to be the most embarrassing part of this whole pandemic. What kind of person really cares how effective they are?
A scientist.
There are a great many things that we did during this pandemic that had no evidence whatsoever, and turned out to be wrong. Some turned out to be harmful (over-ventilation, for example). Are mask mandates one of these things? I have no idea. Neither do you.
It isn't wrong to admit that we don't know, because that's the first step to finding the answer.
Your argument would be sound except that masks are regarded as being completely safe. They are a no risk shot at saving lives. So again, what is the purpose of sowing this type of division amongst people?
> Your argument would be sound except that masks are regarded as being completely safe.
Prove it. So many assertions...so little actual evidence.
And for the record, I'm not talking about silly stuff like "wearing a mask raises my CO2 level". There's a very serious debate to be had about risk compensation -- because of the over-the-top messaging about masks, a large number of people think they're personally protected when wearing them. That can make people do risky things. Howard's review skims over the issue and pretends it is settled. It is not.
It's not clear at all that masks -- and in particular, mask mandates -- have a positive net effect. The RCTs on the subject certainly do not support strong claims of effectiveness.
No bud, after how you chose to speak to TheOtherHobbes, I'm not interested in continuing this. I have no interest in trying to educate you because with all due respect, you're far too unkind for me to devote more time to.
You've made up your mind and all you're doing is hurting people. This is pointless and I'm not going to be fodder for more of your bullying.
Ah yes...I'm "hurting people"...by asking questions and talking about evidence. An illustration of the major intellectual tragedy of 2020.
If we cannot ask questions and discuss them rationally without being accused of "hurting people", science is dead. This is a fundamentally anti-intellectual reaction, it is a way of villainizing people who question your opinions, and pointing it out is not unkind.
The one thing that defines fervent anti-maskers, anti-vaxxers, the "let's open for business while people are still dying" crowd, and others with bizarre beliefs is that they make their statements with absolute certainty, and with no admission that they might ever be wrong.
Medical understanding of Covid has made huge strides over the last year, precisely because doctors and researchers never claimed to be omniscient about the virus.
Meanwhile the deniers are still claiming the virus is "just a bad case of flu" and "masks don't do anything" and "lockdowns don't work" in spite of the accumulated mountain of evidence that those statements are nonsense.
> The one thing that defines fervent anti-maskers, anti-vaxxers, the "let's open for business while people are still dying" crowd, and others with bizarre beliefs is that they make their statements with absolute certainty, and with no admission that they might ever be wrong.
You have now commented twice in response to me, and in one post you cited an editorial in Nature as definitive proof of "the science" on masks, and now you are making black and white claims that would seem to group together people who question masks with "anti-vaxers" and other negative charicatures.
To the extent that I am making a claim here, it is that we need to be more circumspect in our discussions of science. I am advocating for less certainty, and more humility.
You seem to be making claims with a great deal of certainty.
> The one thing that defines fervent anti-maskers, anti-vaxxers, the "let's open for business while people are still dying" crowd, and others with bizarre beliefs is that they make their statements with absolute certainty, and with no admission that they might ever be wrong.
> Meanwhile the deniers are still claiming the virus is "just a bad case of flu" and "masks don't do anything" and "lockdowns don't work"
> There is no "uncertain marginal effect." The science is in, and it's clear.
> The political point here is that masks - which have now been proven to be helpful - are only considered a 'politically fraught act' by people who want to politicise the Covid response.
> For people who are rational about this, there is no issue. For people who are hostile to public rationality, there is.
All of these are examples of black/white thinking, straw-man and red-herring logical fallacies.
And again, this is cruel and divisive. At this point, you’re not being a scientist or even being critical. You’re just being cruel because you need to be right. That’s beyond me, dude.
I have never spoken to an individual with less understanding of humans or human emotion than you. That's almost amazing except that at this point, it's pathetic and dangerous for the world. Your entire tone is egotistical, overly aggressive and rude. Now no more of this, I genuinely wish that I had never engaged with you.
A scientist.
There are a great many things that we did during this pandemic that had no evidence whatsoever, and turned out to be wrong. Some turned out to be harmful (over-ventilation, for example). Are mask mandates one of these things? I have no idea. Neither do you.
It isn't wrong to admit that we don't know, because that's the first step to finding the answer.