Mask of the beast (aka tinfoil hat time Part II)

I think it's silly to argue that wearing a bit of cloth in front of our faces is the mark of the beast. But what if it's a trial run to see how many people comply?

Based on the science we are being fed from public sources the case for masks is at least somewhat questionable.

If my mask stops dangerous particles, presumably your mask will stop them as well which means I don't need to wear one if I don't feel the need.
If the dangerous droplets I exhale fall out of the air within 3-6 feet based on a horizontal trajectory (i.e. being breathed out of my mouth), then presumably anything breathed out of my nose will have a near-vertical trajectory meaning that unless you're washing my feet they're going to fall out of the air long before they get near anyone else. But apparently it's critical for my nose to be covered.
Aerosol particles are small enough not to be affected by gravity, and small enough to go right through a bit of cloth, rendering the cloth of questionable effectiveness anyway.

And yet we're told the constant mantra - my mask protects you and your mask protects me. It takes away the freedom to show a lack of fear by not wearing a mask, because not wearing one is tantamount to telling everyone around you that you want them to die. It's an absurd twisting of logic but to the Facebook generation it makes sense. And increasingly as large corporations want to stay ahead of the PR stunt curve they insist on people wearing bits of cloth, except they don't really insist in case you get violent with the minimum wage greeter who isn't going to wrestle a 300lb bodybuilder over a bit of cloth for $7.25 an hour. So it becomes harder to buy without a mask.

It's also questionable why it needs to be so forcefully mandated to wear a bit of fabric. From what I'm seeing as long as there's a critical mass of people who do, the benefit (such as it is, assuming there is a meaningful benefit) is gained. Statistics already suggest that 80-85% of people are complying. So why does it have to be mandatory - if it was advisory the chances are many people would comply, many of the current people who refuse would comply, and the ones who really don't want to wear a bit of cloth or the ones who can't for whatever medical reason aren't turned into pariahs. But still the silly enforcement continues.

What if this is an experiment in using social pressure to bully people into compliance with something that otherwise makes less sense than we're being told?

 

If a mask protects the wearer, then the non-wearer should have no concerns, as according to classic Darwinism, the non-wearer will be the one eliminated from the gene pool and the species will thereby be improved.

The vast majority of deaths have occurred in segments of the population that had significant underlying health conditions, most notably, diabetes, coronary, and pulmonary disease brought about by obesity. They were going to die anyway, so to quote Ebeneezer, better they should die quicker and eliminate the excess population, according to prevailing public policy. Perhaps we would be better off shaming BigMac eaters, Twinkie eaters, and those drinking 87 oz Cokes while eating high carb low fat snacks. And nursing homes? Geez, we need to completely shut those death traps down. No, wait, they do seem to be an excellent holding zone for getting rid of those that are no longer economically productive to society. Carousel, Class of 2020.

"Love your neighbor" is just that. Love your neighbor, and to mask or not to mask is not implicated in that command. After all, to be truly loving in the COVID context, one must totally and absolutely quarantine oneself to avoid all appearance of evil. Loving my neighbor is bringing them food, caring for them, providing for them, even financially.
Refusing to wear a mask does not gamble my neighbor's life, because my neighbor does not need to leave his or her home if they have a compromised immune system, a significant underlying health issue, or are afraid of infection. My neighbor is the one making choices to expose themselves, I am not forcing myself on my neighbor. Loving my neighbor would be providing for them in their infirmity.

We historically quarantine the sick and the weak, not the healthy and the strong. Something about this entire response smacks of Big Brotherism.

That being said, I typically wear a mask when I go in a public place, mostly to frustrate the security cameras and the face recognition software installed by the Chinese government infiltrators of the DNC. Plus, I really like the smell of my own breath. And don't forget the added benefit of luring the weak into thinking that they are safe. And, I have serious doubts about the efficacy of wearing a sock over your head from a disease prevention measure, as it probably does nothing more than create a false sense of security. I typically wear a mask when walking around the office space, but not when I am in my office with the door closed. I figure you come in my office, you risk whatever, COVID being the least of your worries.

But then again, we should only wash our hands after using the bathroom if we actually pee or crap on our hands, right?

 

I'm not sure what refusing to wear a mask because "freedom" has to do with it. Sure, some people refuse to wear a mask for all sorts of reasons (I refuse to wear a regular mask because after about 10 minutes I struggle to breathe in it and get light headed, but use a bandana or similar because it works).

The "science" we're told to believe shifts by the day. First we're told not to wear masks, then maybe we should, then we shouldn't, then they are mandated. The talk is that my mask protects those around me, even as the masks that are being sold come with disclaimers they don't offer protection against the virus. They apparently stop the larger particles (which is eminently believable) but apparently nobody can explain why my mask stops the particles while your mask does not. And there's precious little explanation for why it's so important to cover the nose, if the droplets coming from my nose have a downward trajectory meaning they're not going to travel far in any direction. And then comes the question of who the mask protects. Originally we didn't need them, then we did, then we didn't, then we had to wear them to protect those around us, then they were to protect us, then they weren't, and now apparently they do protect us. All the while the simple consideration that if my mask stops droplets then surely your mask will stop whatever droplets make it that far gets overlooked.

What does "love my neighbor" look like? Love looks like respect, considering the needs of others, while also considering the needs of all. That doesn't automatically mean putting myself in a place where I can barely breathe but might look like keeping a safe distance from others. Where required one of my other techniques is to pull my shirt up over my face. Probably not as effective as a fancy multiple layer mask but it does have the advantage that I can continue to breathe freely, even if it's not hugely pleasant for me if I've been working in the sun all day. Perhaps most of all "love your neighbor" means not getting in their face whatever choices they make, whether that relates to wearing bits of fabric over their face, staying home more than I might think is necessary, or indeed going out and partying. But, you know, why stop at bits of fabric? When you look at the number of people killed and injured on the roads does "love your neighbor" mean giving up driving? What kind of heartless (expletive) do you have to be, if you put your own convenience over the very lives of others? Or does it just apply to a virus, and indeed to this particular virus rather than any other virus?

One thing "love your neighbor" surely doesn't mean is helping create a false sense of security. The sense that Someone Else is covering the bases to keep them safe so they don't need to look after themselves. So you go into the store and get a shopping cart with a freshly wiped handle (you can even see the assistant wipe it before passing it to you), everybody has a bit of cloth over their face and even the credit card machine gets wiped down after every use. Easy peasy, no need to do anything here, right? Except what about the person who picked up a box of something, read the ingredients and then put it back? Does that box get wiped down? Probably not. Too bad if the person handling it was infected. But when Everybody Else is doing lots of posturing to show how much they care about my safety, at what point does it create the impression that everything is covered?

Perhaps "love your neighbor" also includes helping people to understand relative levels of risk. If you live in lower Manhatten the chances are you're going to come into close contact with a lot of people and you'll want to take lots of precautions. In an area like mine a bit of physical distancing is built into the lifestyle. I can go for a walk around my sleepy small town, be out walking for two hours, and still not come within 100 feet of anyone other than the odd car that passes by. The risk in an area like this is so much lower and yet the fear and doom mongers still talk as if setting foot outside my house without a scrap of cloth over my face is tantamount to killing everyone around me.

One sad reality is that humans are very bad at risk perception and increasingly people want to see things as either Safe or Not Safe. The masses, many of whom insist they "follow the science", don't even seem to be able to cope with the concept that maintaining physical separation that works also requires consideration of relative size of people, wind direction and so on. If I sneeze in your direction my lungs are big enough that they'll blow stuff more than any six feet and if you're downwind of me the chances are you're going to want more like 20 feet. On the other hand if you're back-to-back against someone you can be touching them with much less risk. In the early days we were told this thing causes lung damage, which we all know is a Very Bad Thing. You know, like smoking, which continues at a high rate. Then we were told it causes heart damage, which is also a Very Bad Thing, as the long lines of people at the drive-thru at McDonalds will testify. And then came the reopening, and the people who insisted it was irresponsible to risk your life for the sake of a haircut. Because, you know, driving to the salon is totally risk-free, right?

For what it's worth I look to gather information from a variety of sources and a variety of media, including media I consider politically biased in both directions. Even when the left-leaning media was howling about Vietnam and 60,000 deaths the CDC's site said 40,000 deaths and I suspect many (most?) of us have encountered situations that cast serious doubts on the accuracy of even the most official figures. I personally know someone who lost a family member to a heart attack but found COVID listed on the death certificate as a primary cause of death. And the last I heard 17 of the 67 county coroners in my state were disputing the official death tolls attributed to their county - presumably these are people who at least have an idea what they are talking about.

As the good Rabbi said above, it's not as simple as saying "love your neighbor, wear a bit of cloth over your face". Some years ago I had a famiy member who was severely immune compromised - even catching a cold could have proved fatal for her. We didn't get to demand that everybody else change their lives to accommodate her, those closest to her took precautions that would have looked paranoid to anyone who didn't know the situation. During allergy season I went several weeks without visiting her because if my nose was a bit runny I couldn't be 100% certain that whether it was my sinuses acting up or the beginning of a cold, and it was safer (for her) not to take the chance. But in this situation, little by little, we are being conditioned to accept a viewpoint that simply living our lives how we choose is somehow selfish or even dangerous.

Even looking at hard numbers doesn't shed a whole lot of fear. My state has a population of about 13,000,000 and a COVID death toll in the region of 7,000. It's estimated that 2/3 of the deaths were in long term care facilities but, even ignoring that, the official death toll (much of which is disputed) represents 0.05% of the population of the state. When you factor in the number of deaths in long term care facilities that figure diminishes further.

 

Yes

I can live with that

I can also live with the possibility that one if the 30000 miles a year I drive will result in the death of an innocent

I take reasonable measures to mitigate the risks but I don’t live in false guilt of potential risk

 

Caustic sarcasm? Are you serious?

Perish the thought people might actually think for themselves. I know we're supposed to blindly follow what our leaders tell us, even when they change their mind and even when they pretty much admit to lying to achieve a specific agenda.

If you find things to be "science denial" how about answering some basic questions? If it's so clear, perhaps explain why a bit of cloth over your face won't protect you but it will protect me? Why will a droplet expelled downwards from my nose present a threat to someone six feet away from me, if a droplet expelled horizontally from my mouth will fall out of the air within 3-6 feet? For that matter, given some of the more petty regulations seen in some areas, why is someone safe while eating a meal but contagious once they have finished their meal? Given the variation in "science based" rules in different nations, is an 8-year-old child safe or deadly? You can't say "it all about the science" when there are so many questions.

But hey, if critical thinking is heartless lack of empathy and caustic sarcasm then I guess I'm caustically sarcastic.

 

I hope you don't drive a motor vehicle then - could you live with yourself if you had an accident and killed someone else?

Part of the critical thinking process is about figuring what's appropriate, what is really like to work, and encouraging other people to figure things that work for them. If you live with someone who is immune compromised you take greater precautions than if you live on your own and never socialise with anyone. If you live in a densely populated area you take different precautions to the person who lives in the middle of nowhere.

Most of all life isn't risk free. None of us are getting out of here alive - the death rate has been pretty steady for a long time at one per person. That's not to say we should be totally flippant about credible threats, it's about considering the level of threat and taking precautions we deem appropriate. We can only go so far down the "brother's keeper" path of figuring we don't know what someone else's circumstances are so we have to do everything possible to eliminate risk from their lives before we end up in all sorts of silly places. Should I avoid shouting across the street to say hello to my friend? What if that shout shocked someone who had a bad heart and they went into cardiac arrest? How far down this path should we go? Should I pass up that very affordable vehicle that meets my needs, knowing that if I buy it someone else might miss out and end up having to walk to work and risk being run over on the road?

If wearing a mask works for you then by all means wear a mask. I wouldn't tell anyone that they shouldn't wear a mask - I don't know whether you are immune compromised, live with someone who is immune compromised, or simply have a different approach to risk than I do. I question whether they are effective in the ways we are told - not least because public figures appear unable to get their story straight about whether that bit of cloth over my face protects me or you or both - and I question the merits of suffering real and immediate issues for a benefit that is largely theoretical and mostly available by other means (if you don't like me being near to you, keep your distance. If I see you in a store and I don't know you the chances are I don't want to be intimately close to you regardless of the coronavirus)

The rules may work for some. They don't work so well if you struggle to breathe through a face mask. They don't work very well if you're severely claustrophobic. They don't work at all if you're hard of hearing and can't draw any cues from watching someone's lips. And some of the rules are just petty tyranny that seem to be more about shutting down businesses than accomplishing anything useful.

 

I can't abide conspiratorial thinking.
It's fine to question our political leaders or scientific community or consider risk management. At the end of the day we are in month about month 8 of a global pandemic the likes of which has not been seen in over a hundred years. I'm totally expecting conflicting reports and changing guidelines because the studies have no lengthy baselines to work with, or new information comes out that may offer better avenues to mitigate the virus.
And people are people and going to make dumb decisions or do things for personal benefit. There's nothing new to that.

 

I can't wait to see the two sides spin the motorcycle rally in Sturgis, regardless of the data points.

 

Heh.

Good to see you again, Fenris.

 

I find it intriguing to consider where things might be going, especially in the light of an article I read where some leader or another talked about how wearing a mask was a gesture of solidarity. I wish I could find the article - as soon as people talk of "gestures of solidarity" it essentially means they struggle to come up with any other justification. If I'm on a construction site I don't care about solidarity with others - I wear a hard hat to protect my head. If I'm lifting cellulose insulation or grinding concrete I wear a respirator - I don't want to breathe that stuff and really couldn't care less about gestures and posturing. If wearing a mask is about gestures it suggests it's not about science. Hence sometimes I look at changing rules, rules that make no sense (such as the one in PA that says as soon as you've finished your meal you can't order more beer, but nobody can say what counts as a meal or how you aren't contagious as long as you leave a few uneaten fries on your plate), and wonder where things are really going.

I get that a lot of things are unknown and we're learning new things all the time. That doesn't explain lots of gaps in what we're being told, which leads back to questions that some would consider conspiracy theories. For what it's worth sometimes I'm curious to ponder whether something is even technically possible, such as the idea of Bill Gates microchipping vaccine doses. For something like that you need to really tighten the tinfoil hat way past the point it cuts off all circulation but even so it's interesting to think about whether it could work, even if there is virtually no benefit to anyone (globalist evil cabals included) in actually doing it.

True, it's just a very different proposition if millions of people become the unwitting and unwilling subjects in an experiment that harms them for reasons they struggle to determine.

 

Politics is indeed the art of "doing things for personal benefit."

Was reading an article last night on the Asian flu epidemic in the USA in 1968. 60 million infected, 120K dead, and no vaccine ever.

Yet ob ba di, ob ba dah, oh, life goes on.

 

It seems politics is the art of doing what's best for me while pretending I'm doing what's best for you.

In 1968 there was no "orange man bad" slogan so no need to endlessly howl about how the sky was falling. There was no social media to push one side of the argument while censoring the other side. And there was no "guns bad" howling so no attempt to compare going out without a bit of cloth over your face to spraying gunfire into a crowd.

 

"Spraying gunfire into a crowd..."

Ah, the Capone/Chicago 2 step. Some things never change.

Was reading some stats on shooting and homicides in Chi-Town last night. Un-freak-ing believable.

 

Sadly it seems black lives don't matter if they are ended by other black lives.