Hacker News Reader

Comment by whatshisface | Hacker News Reader

Well, you'd expect anyone with good skills for telling good arguments from bad ones would end up favoring masks in the first place, so consequently you wouldn't expect people who thought masks wouldn't help to identify the implications of the contamination for their position.

View on HN

Alternatively, mask arguments are ultimately emotional for one (both at this point?) side at some point and there is no overcoming emotion with logic or evidence.

There's a middle ground along the lines of we should keep wearing them in enclosed public spaces until a significant percentage of the population is vaccinated. But there are also significant contingents of anti-maskers on the one hand and you have to wear masks anywhere outside your home period on the other.

The arguments that both sides use to support their positions don’t recognize such a limitation, so why should the middle ground you propose be where we draw the line? People opposed to masks claim an infringement in their rights. People in favor of masks all the time claim it’s a small price to pay for the greater good.

As an aside, it’s interesting to view the masks in light of people’s opinions on Muslim countries’ head covering requirements for women. People against them say it’s an infringement on women’s rights. People for them say it’s a small price to pay for the greater good.

The case for the greater good is a lot stronger in one case than the other.

You're talking about the Muslim head covering requirement here, right? Because it seems to both protect from COVID and protect from whatever harm the Muslim countries think women showing a little skin will cause. Do you think that Western countries should also ban women from being outside without a head covering (for the greater good, of course)? If not, why not? If it is because it's an infringement on women's rights, why do their rights matter more than anyone else's?

Do you see how the whole thing has become emotional and why having the mask argument is a bit silly at this point?

>whatever harm the Muslim countries think women showing a little skin will cause

Is there really a case for that? I thought that was just something the authorities made up. In contrast, COVID is actually real. I would find it pretty surprising if they were offering justification for their cultural norms on a factual or material basis.

It's an interesting claim you make about the authorities making something up. Compare your views on COVID mask usage and the changing requirements/recommendations from the authorities (CDC, WHO, whatever your local health organization is) with Muslim countries' "made up" justifications. At least the Muslim countries are consistent.

Masks prevent aerosol transmission independently of whatever the official guidance happens to be today. That's a material, factual basis for wanting people to wear them - independent of whatever cultural norm different people happen to adopt around it. There isn't a corresponding basis for those cultural norms in Muslim countries, which are self-sustaining cultural norms with no material condition at their core.

Well it seems like you've shifted the goal posts now to me. The original conversation was about whether a certain government mandate (read: official guidance) is supportable by a "greater good" argument and now you've changed it to a question of whether or not it's supportable by (what you deem) a "material, factual" basis. In fact, you've tried to remove the government mandate part from the entire conversation!

I'm sure the Muslim countries think that their basis is just as material and factual as the COVID science. I don't know why you're arguing here: head coverings are de facto masks as long as they cover the face, you should be in favor of mandatory use. It aligns with your material, factual basis. You've yet to articulate a reason why a head covering mandate is a bridge too far. Keep in mind that men are more susceptible to COVID than women and so there may be an argument to be made that constraining women will help to protect the most vulnerable sex (men).

I say all this to emphasize that public policy debates are not so easy when both sides come to the table in bad faith and with an agenda.

It's not, but it's still a false equivalent.

That is not a middle ground. That is an extreme position.

Using a roughly tested vaccination which does not even stop the spread of the virus (from vaccinated people that is) widespread, sounds not like a good proposition.

Also lethality of COVID-19 turns out to be ~0.23%[0]. And while we know nothing of long-term effects of the new gene therapy vaccination, it already seems more deadly than COVID-19 short-term[1].

Maybe gene therapy vaccinations will be the future (that could be game changing), but this whole disaster really steals credibility.

[0]:https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf

[1]:https://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html

You are either confused in several different ways or intentionally spreading misinformation.

Please stop.

WHO and CDC are sources of misinformation? What are you talking about?

Linking to the top level of VAERs and claiming it says something it doesn't is the issue. You also seem to misunderstand the mechanism of action of the various vaccines.

"You also seem to misunderstand the mechanism of action of the various vaccines."

> I did not say anything about the mechanism.

"Linking to the top level of VAERs and claiming it says something it doesn't is the issue."

> That is not what you said tho. You said I spread misinformation. I did point to top level because the links to the actual query are not working after a few days. Just query it for COVID-19 vaccines and sort it by events reported or pick death as symptom beforehand.

Result: 3.5% dead. There is no distinction made if it is coincidence (which is not made with COVID-19 as well) and it's not representative, given that elderly are vaccinated first. Average age of vaccination is 50 years afaik. It's even a pretty high lethality compared to COVID-19 lethality for an average age of 80 btw.

More than 90 million people have been administered the vaccines.

You are using the wrong denominator.

Deaths reported as adverse events aren't necessarily due to the vaccine (they may be reported simply because they happen after administration of the vaccine).

The vaccines do not gene edit (this is what 'gene therapy' implies).

Like I said, you are confused in multiple ways and should stop.

"You are using the wrong denominator."

> I did not use a denominator. It was the CDC. Do you have a problem with their methodology?

"Deaths reported as adverse events aren't necessarily due to the vaccine (they may be reported simply because they happen after administration of the vaccine)."

> You repeated what I said, but omitted a part. This distinction is not made (and cannot be made most of the time) with COVID-19. It's therefore an equivalent comparison. Well, as long as you compare it to mortality rate on population rather than infected that is (0.23% is for infected).

"The vaccines do not gene edit (this is what 'gene therapy' implies)."

> I'm not even sure why you are so annoyed by gene therapy. It plays no part in my argument. If you don't like gene therapy, then call it new vaccination method X. It's weird how people are alarmed by the moniker "gene therapy", but do it anyway if you don't call it like that.

"Like I said, you are confused in multiple ways and should stop. "

> You said I spread misinformation while using CDC and WHO. That was clearly not correct. Direct your anger at my argument and not at me please; maybe you see the futility of your anger then.

You, with no acknowledgement, edited the worst of it out of your initial comment!

My goodness.

What are you talking about? It sounds to me like you are out of arguments.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com