Dr. Fauci on wearing masks. WTF?

[Jebus]

If I remember correctly, the initial data indicated mostly contact spread. Perhaps that had something to do with Fauci's mask recommendations?

Even if that were the case, wouldn't masks be helpful in keeping the virus off people's hands?

[thebestofenergy]

And you're willfully ignoring the fact that without people wearing masks, people would take the pandemic less seriously - wearing masks is a strong social signal that carefulness needs to be payed, and the situation is dangerous.

Wait, are you literally saying masks are good because they supposedly incite fear in people? That destroying peoples' immune systems with fear in the middle of a pandemic is somehow a good thing? I think that is one of the most stupid things I have heard in my life.

The actual stupidest thing you've seen in your life is probably your comprehension and ability to stay honest.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Read my comment again. Sometimes it's like you don't understand basic English.

'Wait, are you literally saying not wearing masks is good because it supposedly incites fear in people, making them behave more fearfully? That destroying peoples' immune systems with fear in the middle of a pandemic is somehow a good thing? I think that is one of the most stupid things I have heard in my life.'

Two people can play the same dumb game, Teo. Start being honest for once.

[teo123]

It reminded me of those flawed studies we had to critique in Research Design 101 back in university

Is there a better one?

The main purpose of wearing masks is to protect OTHER people.

Let's say so. Is there evidence they are useful for that purpose? Masks clearly do not stop all droplets. Blow on some glass while wearing a mask. See how the glass gets foggy? That's a sign that the mask did not stop some small droplets, and those small droplets can still carry the virus. See those videos where people blow while wearing masks on cold weather so that droplets can be seen: masks let many small droplets, perfectly capable of carrying the virus, through them. Not to mention coronaviruses can probably survive outside of a droplet for some period of time.

Next time you mention a study, provide some citation so we don't have to go looking for it.

I thought the Danish study about masks was really famous.

Wait, are you literally saying not wearing masks is good because it supposedly incites fear in people, making them behave more fearfully?

Not making people afraid is the primary reason I am wearing a mask now, not because I am convinced they work. At the beginning of the pandemic, I truly believed that COVID is significantly more dangerous to young people than influenza is and that masks protect us. I was even wearing them outside, like when I was visiting the local prison.

By the way, what do you think about wearing masks outside? The Croatian "ustavni sud" ("constitutional court", I guess that would be the equivalent of the Supreme Court) decided there was no evidence masks help outside and that mandating masks outside is therefore unconstitutional. I think a similar thing happened in Germany as well.

[thebestofenergy]

Not making people afraid is the primary reason I am wearing a mask now, not because I am convinced they work.

You just managed to defeat your own argument, congratulations.
Not wearing masks is supposedly not lulling people into a false sense of security, by making them more alert and careful, which according to you, being more alert and careful would equal to destroying them with fear (thus bad).
And wearing masks is supposedly lulling people into a false sense of security, by making them more relaxed and less afraid (as you just stated), which according to you is not destroying them with fear (thus good).
So then you closed the case, wearing masks is good, as lulling people into a false sense of security (according to you) is good to not make them afraid (also according to you) and not destroy them with fear.

You had just equated giving a signal to be careful with making people crumble with fear - which is laughable logic and a terrible strawman, but that is apparently what you believe (you're probably against road signs that say 'danger ahead', as you would have people fall of the cliff behind the turn ahead on the road, rather than destroy their immune system with fear in a moment of danger while driving. Sometimes I wonder if you read the stuff you write.)

You're originally defending not wearing masks, because it would make people be more careful (which you equate with fear) - and thus, people being fearful, would not be lulled in a false sense of security.
Now you're saying the opposite, where that sense of danger is apparently bad because fear is bad, and wearing masks to not make people afraid is a good thing, even though it would lull them into a false sense of security.
For people to not be lulled into a false sense of security, they need some signals to be careful, which according to you is destroying people with fear.
So no matter what, it's bad according to you.
Is wearing masks good or bad for people's mental health?
1. Does not wearing masks make people not be lulled in a false sense of security (according to you positive) because they would be more careful and scared (according to you negative), or
2. does it lull them in a false sense of security (according to you negative) because they would not be careful and scared without signals given by the masks (according to you positive)?
Make up your mind, you're confused.
According to your logic (after equating giving signals to be careful with destroying people through fear), either case leads to a contradiction and confusion, because you're considering being 'lulled into a false sense of security' as a negative, which opposes 'being given signals to be careful' that you view as a negative as well, so no matter which one you pick you closed yourself in a box with your logic: you have to choose either one or the other, and you placed a bad value on both of them even though they're opposite, so you can never pick a winning situation with wearing or not wearing masks, always leading either to people being lulled into a false sense of security, or to people being destroyed by fear.

[teo123]

Not making people afraid is the primary reason I am wearing a mask now, not because I am convinced they work.

You just managed to defeat your own argument, congratulations.
Not wearing masks is supposedly not lulling people into a false sense of security, by making them more alert and careful, which according to you, being more alert and careful would equal to destroying them with fear (thus bad).
And wearing masks is supposedly lulling people into a false sense of security, by making them more relaxed and less afraid (as you just stated), which according to you is not destroying them with fear (thus good).
So then you closed the case, wearing masks is good, as lulling people into a false sense of security (according to you) is good to not make them afraid (also according to you) and not destroy them with fear.

You had just equated giving a signal to be careful with making people crumble with fear - which is laughable logic and a terrible strawman, but that is apparently what you believe (you're probably against road signs that say 'danger ahead', as you would have people fall of the cliff behind the turn ahead on the road, rather than destroy their immune system with fear in a moment of danger while driving. Sometimes I wonder if you read the stuff you write.)

You're originally defending not wearing masks, because it would make people be more careful (which you equate with fear) - and thus, people being fearful, would not be lulled in a false sense of security.
Now you're saying the opposite, where that sense of danger is apparently bad because fear is bad, and wearing masks to not make people afraid is a good thing, even though it would lull them into a false sense of security.
For people to not be lulled into a false sense of security, they need some signals to be careful, which according to you is destroying people with fear.
So no matter what, it's bad according to you.
Is wearing masks good or bad for people's mental health?
1. Does not wearing masks make people not be lulled in a false sense of security (according to you positive) because they would be more careful and scared (according to you negative), or
2. does it lull them in a false sense of security (according to you negative) because they would not be careful and scared without signals given by the masks (according to you positive)?
Make up your mind, you're confused.
According to your logic (after equating giving signals to be careful with destroying people through fear), either case leads to a contradiction and confusion, because you're considering being 'lulled into a false sense of security' as a negative, which opposes 'being given signals to be careful' that you view as a negative as well, so no matter which one you pick you closed yourself in a box with your logic: you have to choose either one or the other, and you placed a bad value on both of them even though they're opposite, so you can never pick a winning situation with wearing or not wearing masks, always leading either to people being lulled into a false sense of security, or to people being destroyed by fear.

I think comparing mask mandates with road safety is a vastly inappropriate analogy. Seatbelts significantly decrease your chances of dying in a car accident, and what seatbelts are doing and what they are not doing can easily be understood by an average person. As such, mandating seatbelts probably has good consequences. Compare that with mask mandates. Masks provide, if anything, only marginal protection, and it is not obvious to an average person how exactly they are achieving that. Plus there is an obvious downside for masks: people touching their faces more often. Put together, it is hard to tell whether mask mandates are likely to help. The downsides of people misunderstanding how masks work and behaving as if they provide some protections they do not provide, or the downside of masks inciting anxiety in people (I am not sure if there are any studies about that.), or the downside of people touching their faces more often... those can easily, unlike with seatbelts, offset the marginal protection that masks provide.

[thebestofenergy]

I think comparing mask mandates with road safety is a vastly inappropriate analogy.

I'm not sure if you're trolling at this point.
You can't just state random things and not explain why. The rationale is perfectly comparable.

Seatbelts significantly decrease your chances of dying in a car accident, and what seatbelts are doing and what they are not doing can easily be understood by an average person. As such, mandating seatbelts probably has good consequences.

Masks significantly decrease your chance of catching and spreading COVID (and thus, increase yours and others' chance of survival), and what masks are doing and what they are not doing can easily be understood by an average person. As such, mandating masks probably has good consequences.

Masks provide, if anything, only marginal protection

How would you know, exactly?
You keep pulling random claims out of your ass, without knowing how to substantiate them.

Only a little while ago you thought that viruses did not exist, then you thought COVID was fully airborne, and now you think masks don't do that much.
You know what all of those have in common? They're driven by your bias for irrational hatred towards governments, so you try and find conspiracy theories or random bullshit to support anything you can find that the government is lying about or doing wrong.
You keep making absurd claims without knowing the basics of what you're talking about, and you're going to keep being seen as an idiot.

and it is not obvious to an average person how exactly they are achieving that.

Speak for yourself.
Not everybody is as stubborn as you.

Plus there is an obvious downside for masks: people touching their faces more often.

'Plus, there is an obvious downside for seatbelts: people adjusting them more often, and being more distracted.'

Put together, it is hard to tell whether mask mandates are likely to help. The downsides of people misunderstanding how masks work and behaving as if they provide some protections they do not provide, or the downside of masks inciting anxiety in people (I am not sure if there are any studies about that.), or the downside of people touching their faces more often... those can easily, unlike with seatbelts, offset the marginal protection that masks provide.

'Put together, it is hard to tell whether seatbelt mandates are likely to help. The downsides of people misunderstanding how seatbelts work and behaving as if they provide some protections they do not provide, or the downsides of seatbelts inciting anxiety of people, or the downsides of people touching their seatbelts more often and being distracted... those can easily, unlike masks, offset the marginal protection that seatbelts provide.'

I already explained in bold a few comments before that you have the burden of proof of that stance (a claim against scientific consensus), and you obviously ignored it, as you do with anything you don't like to hear.

You have the burden of proof to show that masks are very much less protective than what people think on average AND that people while wearing masks behave in a way that increases risk they put themselves and others in MORE than the masks decrease the risk for themselves and others - or your entire claim that masks are counterproductive makes no sense. (demonstrate your claim with numbers and valid proof, not just arrogantly assuming your biased intuition is any valid, when in reality it has been nothing but consistently wrong)

Or you can keep repeating the same unsubstantiated and ridiculous 'arguments' over and over, which is the only thing you've been doing so far - after they've been addressed more times than you can count and you've been shown to have the burden of proof multiple times - , and this can go on forever.
You say A, I counter by saying B and waste my time explaining things, and then you say A again because you have no clue how to respond to B, and you're too stuck up to change your mind.
So if you want to keep going like this and you want to be this dishonest when in reality you have no idea how things actually work, go ahead.
This is not the first time you willfully ignore things that would prove you have no idea what you're talking about and show you're wrong. You keep doing it. Do you understand it's dishonest?

You also completely ignored my previous comment, why even quote it.

In my previous comment I already showed you why you defeated your previous argument, so I guess you not answering concedes that then.
After all, your exaggerations and dishonesty is backfiring on you when you equal being careful with being destroyed by fear - now you can't even make sense of things anymore without admitting you were being dishonest when you did that.
But hey, if you want to just ignore things and stubbornly push ahead by making the same claims ad nauseum without ever supporting them with sound reasoning and valid statistics, they're going to sound dumber and dumber each time you make them.

[teo123]

@thebestofenergy, why do you think the burden of proof is on me? You are one advocating government forcing people to wear masks, that is, you are one advocating the use of force. If you are advocating for the use of force, the burden of proof is on you.

[thebestofenergy]

why do you think the burden of proof is on me?

I already explained it. Go back and read.
You want to be spoon-fed?

You are one advocating government forcing people to wear masks, that is, you are one advocating the use of force. If you are advocating for the use of force, the burden of proof is on you.

Force doesn't mean burden of proof.
I guess you would also be telling people supporting seatbelt mandates that they have the burden of proof, as they're advocating for force - even though scientific consensus supports the stance that seatbelts (like masks) are a major positive and prevent countless deaths, and scientific consensus agrees they should be used and mandatory for safety. Don't be daft.

[teo123]

Force doesn't mean burden of proof.

What do you mean it does not? Especially in this case, when you are essentially saying people should be forced to wear masks not because there are many people too selfish to wear a mask (something with game theory), but because many people are too stupid. Why isn't everybody as smart as you are? Why would you be smarter than everybody else? It seems like a such an arrogant and extraordinary claim.

I guess you would also be telling people supporting seatbelt mandates that they have the burden of proof

Seatbelt mandates helping is a far less extraordinary claim than mask mandates helping. All experts agree seatbelts help. But not all experts agree masks help, and, those experts who think that masks help, they mostly think masks provide only marginal protection.

[thebestofenergy]

Force doesn't mean burden of proof.

What do you mean it does not?

I mean what I said. Force doesn't have to mean burden of proof. And you don't even explain why it would, you just state it does, as usual, without any logic supporting what you say.
An example why force wouldn't mean burden of proof is seatbelts mandates - I guess you ignored that as well?
Other examples where force doesn't mean burden of proof - helmet mandates, self defense, speed limit regulations, arrests to stop harmful behavior, and a million other things. What all those have in common, is that they're already justified because of the nature of what they're trying to do, and they have already been shown to save lives significantly, and way more than they may harm people - just like masks.
You're not going to go to someone defending him/herself from an attacker, or to a cop arresting someone trying to detonate a bomb and kill others, and ask them for the burden of proof to justify why they're doing it, right? You would have the burden of proof saying that what they're doing is not good.
The fact that masks help and save countless lives has been proven way beyond reasonable doubt for anyone that isn't a complete moron, and scientific consensus supports that. So, obviously, enforcing it has already been shown to be the best course of action.
Thus, if you want to go against what has been shown to be the best course of action objectively (through scientific consensus), you have the burden of proof.

You made the claim masks are counterproductive, so you have the burden of proof for that claim (and to prove beyond reasonable doubt masks are counterproductive, you have to show it is with good data and sound reasoning - as explained by the bold sentence).

when you are essentially saying people should be forced to wear masks not because there are many people too selfish to wear a mask (something with game theory), but because many people are too stupid.

I never said this.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

You're the only dishonest idiot in this forum that doesn't get banned after effectively trolling like this.

Seatbelt mandates helping is a far less extraordinary claim than mask mandates helping. All experts agree seatbelts help. But not all experts agree masks help, and, those experts who think that masks help, they mostly think masks provide only marginal protection.

'Masks mandates helping is a far less extraordinary claim than seatbelts mandates helping. All experts agree masks help. But not all experts agree seatbelts help, and, those experts who think that seatbelts help, they mostly think seatbelts provide only marginal protection.'

Keep making an idiot out of yourself, it's like you've specialized in this: you, again, go back to saying your original points without supporting your arguments with good data or answering to other people's points - do you never learn your lesson?
Start addressing what I said, respond, and either show how it's wrong or accept you are.
If you ignore everything all the time and just keep repeating the same stuff like a broken disc, you're really a lost hope. You've regressed over the years instead of improve, and I'm not sure how you managed to do that. Start addressing what I'm saying or stop replying, hearing the same (already counterargued to the moon) stuff over and over + your multiple strawmen is just obnoxious and boring. No wonder people don't engage with you when you behave like this.