Sneezing is an involuntary act of a biological function, where the infected might not even be aware he/she has been infected up to that point. If you’re so worried about the flu, get a flu shot or don’t leave your home. This counter-argument isn’t even in the same zip code as to what the debate here is.
Huh? Singapore certainly does a great job with chewing gum, why not take their example. Hey, you could mandate wearing face masks during flu season, I am sure that would cut down on those flu deaths.
No, it shows the arbitrariness of the rules. 40,000 deaths that could be prevented by a simple law requiring everyone wear masks. The government instituted seat belts in order to reduce traffic fatalities by a much smaller number. So - why not masks? Not even all the time - just during the flu season.
-
because the public would never vote for such an outlandish, impractical law. Flu shots I could see, but face masks are rediculous.
-
Seatbelts are, unobtrusive, easy to use, standard on all vehicles, and just common sense when you’re using a technology (there’s that word again) that can turn a vehicle into a random projectile the weight of a rhino and the momentum of a wrecking ball on a public road.
-
Antibiotics are an applied technology of chemistry upon which misuse would take ignorance and/or going out of your way for absolutely no benefit, yet will still add upon increasing the very real threat of super-resistant strains of bacteria.
Masks would not prevent 40k deaths/year. We cannot eliminate influenza by the use of masks. Not possible.
Requiring them would be unenforceable. People would not stand for it. The government knows that it would not work. It would be a lot of effort and aggravation for very little return.
The fact that we don’t do this shows that government does not set up foolish regulations and rules that are unenforceable and of limited/no use.
Regulations that prevent you from getting a drug that will do you no benefit, but will harm others make sense. Regulations that will force you do buy, and wear an appliance that will do limited public good make no sense.
If you really don’t see this, and are not simply playing devil’s advocate, then I think we’re done here.
They would reduce them by half at least if not more. You’re willing to kill 20k people a year to preserve your precious freedom to walk around without a mask?
ROTFLMAO. So in principle it’s ok, but it is too noticeable and intrusive a grab of freedom so it won’t work. Gotcha. And 20K deaths is “little return”?
You’re completely free to wear a mask on your own. What’s the problem?
What’s in the law a is definitive document too. What’s not banned is legal as well, and it can be changed if most parties want too. You do realize there’s thousands of cities with their own city governments, que no?
However one main difference is
So you’re saying in Libertaria coercing someone into sex against their will can be legal?
Nice to know libertarians support rape. Sick evil fucks. No town I know of would legalize rape.
So other than rape, you already have that now.
No, this is a “fact” you’ve just made up. It has no basis in reality. It is unsupported by any evidence. It is wrong.
I’m having trouble grasping the logic of your argument here. You seem to be saying that the government does not have regulations about what we should wear in public when we sneeze, and that this is functionally equivalent to regulations that forbid you from purchasing and taking antibiotics whenever you feel like it, for no medical purpose.
Because these two situations are identical, this means that regulations as a whole are arbitrary and capricious, and prove that a libertarian government would be much better That about it?
Initiation of force is not legal in Libertaria. “Sexual harassment” isn’t.
It is fully supported by evidence. The main spread vector of flu is through people sneezing, coughing, and not washing their hands after doing that. Legislating mandatory use of masks during flu season would greatly reduce the spread of flu, saving lives.
And no, it is not “identical” to restricting access to antibiotics. No two situations are identical. But it is similar - legislation that would restrict freedom in return for public health improvement. Except the mask thing would save more lives.
This isn’t about spreading flu-this is about making it deadlier for everybody through the misuse of medicine by some.
The flu doesn’t get deadlier due to misuse of antibiotics. Influenza is a virus.
You are of course correct. That’s what I get for typing while being rushed.
No, it is not supported by evidence.
Your figure of 50% reduction in death rate from influenza if masks were mandated is completely fabricated and false.
You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to your own set of facts.
“Facemasks should be considered for use by individuals who enter crowded settings, both to protect their nose and mouth from other people’s coughs and to reduce the wearers’ likelihood of coughing on others;”
Thanks for proving me right.
In addition:
Human influenza is transmitted from person to person primarily via virus-laden large droplets (particles >5 µm in diameter) that are generated when infected persons cough or sneeze; these large droplets can then be directly deposited onto the mucosal surfaces of the upper respiratory tract of susceptible persons who are near (i.e., within 3 feet) the droplet source. Transmission also may occur through direct and indirect contact with infectious respiratory secretions.
The use of surgical or procedure masks by infectious patients may help contain their respiratory secretions and limit exposure to others. Likewise, when a patient is not wearing a mask, as when in an isolation room, having health-care personnel mask for close contact with the patient may prevent nose and mouth contact with respiratory droplets.
=============================
Just because there were no studies conducted doesn’t mean you throw logic out of the window. The masks prevent contact with “virus-laden large droplets… generated when infected persons cough or sneeze”. Since that’s the mode of transmission of the flu … there ya go.
So? Wear a mask then. At least doing so won’t create some super virus that’ll wipe out two or three times as many people.
If anyone needs evidence that Libertarianism is a religion, just read this thread. They have to resort to the same puerile arguments that religious people do to justify their belief in lieu of evidence.
It’s convinced me that libertarianism should never be enacted because of libertarians.
Ya, OK :rolleyes: Did you notice that this advice was only during an Influenza Pandemic? Do you know what a pandemic is?
Please provide a cite that shows that wearing of facemasks by infected persons would reduce the death rate of influenza by 50%.
Alternatively, retract your foolish statement.