It’s not just money - people emulate their leaders. The Republicans have made wearing masks a political rather a public health issue. If Trump wore a mask in front of the camera so would his followers. He doesn’t so the most devout refuse to, because they want to be like their leader.
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends the economy.
Pst. At least translate it into latin like did
What exactly is the point of mandating masks when most of the people wear them incorrectly?
I really have wanted to tell a number of men that I hope their beards stay healthy.
One thing I don’t see in any such conversation is this: If I’m not able to work because my industry (education) is not functioning, I’m not paying taxes to help keep the government going, (the feds can print more money, but state and local governments can’t) and I can’t pay medical bills if i get sick. The economy is more than just greedy business owners. It’s utilities and doctors and food producers that we need to survive.
We can’t have a true conversation because we are too divided. I could cite many articles that have different perspectives about the data, but most would refuse to even consider looking at them because they refuse to consider the source. When only one opinion is acceptable, that opinion will become dogma.
Most people I see wearing masks are wearing them correctly, but even if they’re not doing so 100%, a face covering reduces the number of droplets floating in the air. The more people who wear face coverings, the fewer droplets. It’s simple math. Math isn’t political. It’s neither registered Republican or Democrat; it’s just a representation of fact.
We can’t have a true conversation because some people don’t respect research and evidence. I accept and acknowledge that there’s a lot that we don’t know about this virus, but there’s already a lot that we do know about the virus, and about epidemiology in general.
Don’t keep us hanging. Cite.
There is absolutely a flip side to that coin, which is to say that we can’t have a true conversation because some people advocate social policy in the name of science. And in most cases, they don’t even realize they are doing it. You shouldn’t be surprised by the result, after all, if you put marine biologists in charge of coastal development.
Tell me where this has been done, and what you object to. I might actually agree with you - or not.
I’ve linked articles from WND and Daily Wire before. Dopers have replied that they refuse to click on such links.
Here’s an article showing different opinions about the report that COVID19 cases may have been underreported. There’s a reason to reopen.
https://twitchy.com/brads-313037/2020/06/28/nbc-journalist-katy-tur-has-alarming-news-about-covid-cases-being-under-tabulated-then-gets-schooled-how-this-is-actually-good-news/
WND is my go to site for all things epidemiological . . . and Obama birth certificate related.
CMC
Quite reasonably so. Ditto twitchy.com, from a look at their front page.
My point. Refusing to even look at someone’s different opinion. No point in trying to have a conversation with close-minded people.
WHAT?? What do you think this is-- EUROPE?? We don’t believe in those godless social(ist) safety nets! You’re thinking of countries that have stuff like, oh, universal free health care (yeah, it’s paid for by higher taxes, but everyone shares the burden). This is America where people have fought and died (and are still dying) for the right to take care of themselves on their own with no meddling or buttinsky-ism by the federal government.
Hey, the IRS threw $1,200 at (almost) everyone-- even some dead people, including my mother. If $1,200 in totally free money can’t get you through then you’re just a weak, lazy, slackoff loser. Got it?
[/bitter sarcasm]
Uhu, well why is it that when I see a challenge like that one the cites are the pits for omitting the context? Point being that demanding open mindedness requires also very good cites, not opinions from McExperts.
This one is not different, the blogessors there concentrate on the “herd immunity” “good news” when the experts are not so happy:
CDC: COVID-19 cases may be 10 times higher than reported
The higher infection estimate does not mean the US is close to ‘herd immunity’
Still, he said a “significant majority” of people in the U.S. — possibly more than 90 percent of the population — remain susceptible to the virus. Redfield urged people to continue social distancing, wearing masks and washing their hands to mitigate the spread of the virus.
“This outbreak is not over. This pandemic is not over. The most powerful tool that we have, the most powerful one, is social distancing,” he said.
Now, notice that the cite I used was the right winger Roll Call, it can be dismissing usually but in this case they do the proper thing of citing the source properly and not cherry pick like the sources you used.
There were also more Anonymous posters at Twitchy that harped on the rate of death to be less than the worst proyections, therefore “lets open now!”
Forgetting that even at about 1% death rate, the disease is still worse than the flu.
The 2003 SARS epidemic, which began in November 2002 and ran through July 2003, had a mortality rate of 9% to 10%, he said, meaning roughly 10% of the people who caught it eventually died.
Since COVID-19 emerged in China two and a half months ago, “it clearly is not as lethal … but it certainly spreads better,” he said, adding seasonal flu has a mortality rate of 0.1%.
The WHO’s estimated mortality rate for COVID-19 started off at 2%, Fauci said. If you count all the estimated cases of people who may have it but haven’t been diagnosed yet, the mortality rate is probably closer to 1%, he said, “which means it’s 10 times more lethal than the seasonal flu.”
The H1N1 “swine flu” epidemic in 2009 was even less lethal than regular seasonal flu, Fauci said.
So, yeah; before daring others to look at lousy opinions do some research to check if the sources you use are not pulling a fast one.
Opinion? Nobody is asking you to cite your freakin’ opinion. We are in the middle of a fucking pandemic, people are dying by the hundreds of thousands, and you want to pull the indignant “My opinion is just as valuable as yours!” card? I think Harlan Ellison said it best: “Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that’s horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it’s nothing. It’s just bibble-babble. It’s like a fart in a wind tunnel, folks.”
Once upon a time, politics wasn’t part of research, and people who had different findings could still get published. Now political correctness has a firm grip on scientific journals, and you don’t get published if you don’t toe the party line. Mark of the Beast. Bow down and worship what you are told, or you don’t get to buy or sell in the marketplace of ideas.
“Once upon a time…” seems like an appropriate start in a defense of baseless opinions.
This post fairly SCREAMS for cites.
Scientific journals can’t be trusted, Twitter dumps on the other hand…
CMC
Wait… were you bringing facts or opinions? I thought you were bringing facts.
Now, that is really silly considering that I did read your cite, that is was a cite full of stupid opinions did not help your position.
So, yeah, isn’t it neat to look at why the opinions of those dumb bloglessors are incomplete or misleading?