There are many things that, if just an individual does, is no big deal, but if we all do, can be disastrous. Since it is always in an individual’s self interest to allow others to bear the burden of externalities of their actions, allowing individuals to determine when it is appropriate for others to bear that burden will always lead to sub optimal outcomes for society.
Sometimes, most times, even, freedom wins over the minor disruption to society, and selfish actions can be allowed. I do not see this as one of those times.
As a believer in universal morality and Kant’s law, I would have to say that that it is in fact very wrong to do something that would be bad if everyone does it.
“Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
That can easily be taken to absurdity though. Take the new report of a novel swine flu virus that may be as bad or worse than COVID-19. If we weren’t in the current pandemic would you be masking up to prevent you spreading the new virus? I would guess not. There has to be some incidence rate near you before it makes sense. What is that rate and how to define near are most likely different for each individual and society. If I lived in a county that still had 0 infections would I need to wear a mask if I never left the county, how about the state? New Zealand has 22 infectious people in their country all in isolation, their country policy is that masks are detrimental to health individuals at this point in their crisis is that immoral?
I doubt anyone has answers to exactly define these gray areas but I think they are gray and not black and white like you are proposing.
I’m not sure what source they’re using for this but in the case of Oregon it’s bullshit. We were pretty steady around 5000 total cases but in the past couple weeks it’s jumped up to about 8500. Shit, we got 120 new cases in a week in one of the least populated counties in the state, all from one bunch of idiots who just HAD to go to their megachurch and refused to mask up for services. They subsequently tested everyone in the church and found over 250 of the 365 members tested positive. Cops blowing off tons of tear gas at protesters isn’t helping either.
Sorry Irishman, I’m with jackdavincii on the wording of your OP. A person can be unwilling to kill anybody yet still not want to wear a mask. Even though I do prefer to wear masks and am terrified of the disease and its effects on me/my family/my community, it is disingenuous to imply that people who don’t want to wear masks want to actively kill other human beings.
Look, there’s two ways someone can react when accused of murderous intent.
You know what, I don’t want to murder people so I’ll start wearing masks.
&@$#% you!!!
If you were looking to start a debate and not just rant against straw men, why poison the well?
In my experience the opinions of Hilarity_N.Suze and Balthisar are typical among those who do not wear masks. Another opinion I’ve seen in the wild is that children won’t put up with the masks, which I think is actually pretty reasonable - I can’t think of a good way around it. I haven’t met anyone who took the “I have a right to endanger myself and others” stance who wasn’t already a complete crackpot.
I’m not sure where you get black and white and taking things to absurdity. The entire point of such a law is to give a reasonable metric with which to apply common sense.
My point was only in response to where you said it was fine if an individual did not mask up, but it would be a problem if others followed that example. My point is, if it is problematic if others follow an example, then it is problematic for the individual as well.
Obviously, if it doesn’t make sense for the community to be wearing masks, it doesn’t make sense for the individual either.
Just because someone doesn’t have murderous intent does not mean that they may not be willing to perform actions that result in the death of others.
The OP does not say that those who do not wear masks have murderous intent, so it would be disingenuous to imply that he said that people who don’t want to ear masks want to actively kill other human beings.
The OP compares it to drunk driving, and I doubt that there are any who get behind the wheel drunk with the intent to kill. The strawman and well poisoning would be those who say that the OP says that they want to actively kill others.
“Willing to kill” is different from “want to kill.” You have chosen to accuse the OP of saying that non mask wearers want to kill others, rather than that they are simply willing to kill others. I don’t understand how you didn’t see the difference, as it is pretty enormous.
Now, while your post does level some pretty nasty accusations based on nothing more than your misunderstanding of common and simple words, I don’t think that it has to poison the well, as long as you have learned something from your error.
What do you think “everyone” is made up of? “Everyone” is made up of a lot of individual decisions.
And, unless the person’s been nowhere at all for more than two weeks and has during that time been in no contact whatsoever with anyone else who’s been anywhere, it is indeed wrong and irrational for them to say they’ve got no chance of passing it on. Small chance, maybe; but not no chance.
Not if nobody else in the county ever leaves the county, and nobody ever comes into the county from anywhere else.
That strikes me as highly unlikely to be what’s happening.
New Zealand sealed their borders, and was able to. No county in the USA is able to seal its borders, or as near as I can tell is trying to.
Kids often have to do things they don’t want to. They have to learn to wear clothes, which in warm weather most of them don’t take to at first. They have to sit in car seats, or at least sit down in the car and not jump on top of a parent while they’re driving. They have to not grab other people’s stuff and run off with it. They have to wear shoes to come into the store.
And now they have to wear masks to come into the store, or otherwise to come close to people. How is that different from any of the rest of that? – The exemption over here is for under two, and that does make sense, because infants who are in genuine breathing difficulties often can’t express it and can’t remove an obstruction.
I know all of that. Infinitesimally small is close enough to “impossible” that it’s, well, impossible. In a universe where anything is possible, there’s an infinitesimally small chance that a sperm whale will materialize above my house, crash land upon it, and crust it. I’m also comfortable saying that it’s impossible for that to happen. The sun will come up tomorrow; it’s impossible that it won’t.
We’ve done all of the right things; I’m a bit troubled by this upcoming weekend, however, as we will be attending a family social event to which my sister has invited strangers that I know knowing about. Although we will attempt to social distance and enforce masks, I fear that our similar-aged daughters are vectors for transmission unless we physically isolate them. I guess when it’s my time, it’s my time.
In any case, I won’t be so smug on Sunday; I’ll wait 21 days to become smug again. Or, you know, get sick.
The point of my title is not to accuse people of desiring murder. The point is to highlight the ramifications of their choice.
Look, there may not be sufficient traceability data to effectively isolate any one individual choosing to not wear a mask to someone else dying from covid. However, it is a certainty that people choosing not to wear masks will spread the disease and cause more people to die than if everyone wears a mask.
Like a drunk driver doesn’t get into a car thinking, “Let’s see how many people I can now down today,” a person choosing not to wear a mask isn’t typically thinking, “How many people can I infect today?” However, drunk driving is risky behavior we rightfully shame, because the risk of unnecessary death is too high for the benefit gained.
My point is that the risk of not wearing a mask is also too great for any benefit gained.
And I’m especially chafed by the “my rights” crowd. You don’t have the right to not wear pants. Remember “No shirt, no shoes, no service”? So how is mandating wearing masks for public safety somehow more onerous than wearing pants in public or wearing shoes to the store?
Well, we’ve certainly seen some of these “children” throwing tantrums in stores, like the lady here in North Texas that started throwing all her groceries around making a huge mess.
Yeah, but they’re too common.
There must be different levels of “infinitesimal” at play, because a sperm whale materializing above your house is a completely different scale from you might inadvertently pick up a pandemical virus.
Yes, I suppose you have a point… Something about the wording, “how many people are you willing to kill”, irks me - but I can’t seem to rationally articulate what it is, and it is secondary to the substance of this thread, so I may as well admit that I was wrong. Apologies to Irishman.
Specifically, leaving a noncompliant kid in the car or at home while Mom goes shopping is not an option. Neither is Mom going without groceries. I sympathise with her predicament, and I would probably ask the state to take away the children if she made any other choice.
I mean, yes, it reflects poorly on the parent who can’t get her kids to wear a face mask. But not that poorly - unlike normal clothing, even adults have problems wearing facemasks. I can personally attest to the discomfort on my ears and the feeling that your breathing is being restricted. It’s summertime in Florida and the sweat inside a mask is constantly tickling your nose and mouth. Masks aren’t cheap and people often reuse the same mask for days on end, which isn’t a good idea to begin with. All of that sunblock and bug spray and sweat gets soaked up and makes you nausious. With the high humidity it takes extra effort to breathe, and the mask will cling to your face and nostrils which sometimes makes people feel like they are suffocating. I can get over it because I’m an adult. Not only do I have more control over myself, I also understand the reasons and necessity of wearing a mask. I do not expect a four or five year old to “get over it”.
They should be. If masks are required, they should be easily obtainable by all. If the government is going to insist that people wear masks (and it should), it should provide them with masks. If they can send everyone a stimulus check, why can’t they send everyone a couple of masks, or see to it that inexpensive masks are readily available in stores?
There aren’t enough masks to go around. I think the government is actually encouraging people to stop buying masks and start using cloth face coverings which are washable and can be made from eg: rubber bands and an old shirt.
You can find masks at the local gas station, but here they are around $2 per mask, or with daily usage about $60/mo per person. I think we get slightly better prices at my workplace (a doctor’s office).
I picked up masks off Amazon for less than $0.50 each.
Unless you are talking N95 masks, they are not in short supply.
Oh, and The states worker’s comp agency says it’s going to start shipping masks out to businesses, but I haven’t heard anything about that for a while.
Even if someone doesn’t have access to medical quality masks, the use of an improvised mask will serve to limit the dispersal of exhaled droplets. Even a cut up t-shirt will provide some benefit in this regard. Everyone has access to some kind of scrap cloth that can be fashioned into a face covering, so cost should never be a limiting issue.
Of course, a simple cloth will not provide much benefit to the person wearing it. It will only offer limited filtering ability, so the wearer will still be at a high risk of contracting the CV19 if they are in contact with contaminated droplets. But that doesn’t negate the benefit to society that comes from even a trivial mask’s ability to impede droplets.
I think it might be a good idea if masks were rated on two different aspects: How well they protect the wearer and how well they protect others. The results might be:
Bandanna: Low protection for wearer and moderate for others
Medical mask with exhaust valve: High protection for wearer and low for others
Sealed 95 mask: High protection for wearer and high for others
These kinds of ratings would help refute opposition which says masks don’t do anything, since it would highlight the weaknesses and benefits of each kind of mask.
I would consider her as being very safe. I have considered this myself:
Face shield: Protection against virus getting on face and in eyes
Cloth mask: Washable pre-filter to capture large particles (pollen, dust, etc.) which would clog surgical mask
Surgical mask: Filter contaminated droplets
Such a configuration would enable the surgical mask to stay functional longer. Medical workers often have a similar setup, except they have a surgical mask over N95 instead of cloth over surgical.
That’s good for you. An April 27 - May 4 Washington Post-Ipsos poll indicated that 42% of respondents who work with patients in a healthcare setting reported a shortage of surgical masks at their workplace. (Question 39)