Opinion Are face masks going to make a comeback in 2025?

[UberHere]

The frustrating thing is the people defending that stuff will have a “this house believes in science” sign on their lawn.

It’s more frustrating to me when I see people today still trying to justify forcing businesses to remain closed for what was nearly a year in some states, as if that was good thinking.

 

[Scerpi]

This is just a dismissive response filled with anger. The things @Scerpi highlighted in the tweets happened. The medium of their presentation shouldn’t be grounds for dismissal.

But they’ll unironically post articles from CNN and MSNBC like those two outlets haven’t been guilty of spreading more lies than any other outlet and didn’t take money from Pfizer to promote their vaccines under the guise “unbiased news”

 

[BFoe]

This is just a dismissive response filled with anger. The things @Scerpi highlighted in the tweets happened. The medium of their presentation shouldn’t be grounds for dismissal.

Not angry, but certainly I’m dismissive, yes. And while I’ll admit that my patience for the social-media-post-spamming that the WR Righties constantly engage in is very low, there are a couple of legitimate reasons to be dismissive of posts like that.

The main reason is that the post (and others of his) is a strawman. There is a big difference between a claim that the COVID guidelines in question were entirely made up and not based on any science—which, again, is totally false—and the idea that certain legislators made bad decisions, didn’t adhere to guidelines themselves that they should’ve, or that guidelines were applied by certain people at certain times in certain places in ways that don’t make sense, or that people were negatively affected in various ways because of the guidelines. —I have never made a claim that every single legislative decision anyone ever madewas good or done correctly. He doesn’t take up the substance of my claims, but pivots to try and make me defend a position I’ve never taken.

Secondly, I don’t know the context of the tweets, and unlike him, I don’t take that shit at face value.
—Is the event being described accurately? What exactly happened, when in the pandemic was it, what was the situation with regard to virus spread and infection rate, how overloaded were the local healthcare providers, and so on? It would take a bunch of research work on my part to put the event in its proper context, and for what? Even if I were to agree with him that an event was bad, or a guideline was stupidly applied, that doesn’t change any argument I’ve made that I can think of.

You know why you don’t give a fuck?

Because your head is up your ass and refuse to acknowledge the truth and would prefer to deny you were played

lol… enjoy your ignorance

Right up above in my reply to Rob is why. Again, I’ve provided sources ITT for the science behind the social distancing guideline and where it came from. You want to sidestep that and respond with tweets from jackoffs. Kelley Kga is not a medical processional, and states right on her page that she has no background in epidemiology. Apparently her..uh.. “expertise” is that people in her life told her that she’s really good at digesting data and talking about it. Like, she literally says that.

Michael P. Senger is an attorney, not a medical professional of any kind, and his claim that there was no science behind lockdowns is not only flatly wrong, but kind of stupid. You need me to explain why having fewer people in contact with one another can slow the spread of a virus? Seriously?

Jennifer Sey is a “retired artistic gymnast” who started an athletics company. She has no science or medical background at all. Are you kidding me with this shit?

 

[BFoe]

But they’ll unironically post articles from CNN and MSNBC like those two outlets haven’t been guilty of spreading more lies than any other outlet and didn’t take money from Pfizer to promote their vaccines under the guise “unbiased news”

No, I posted links to the CDC manuals that list the actual scientific studies that lead to these policies. Don’t act like I was posting CNN and MSNBC articles. I have provided literally hundreds of citations of scientific studies.

 

[Ruprecht]

Too soon. It'd be a struggle to get people to care significantly about HMPV.
Of course hospitals, aged care and those with infants will have to take extra precautions if it goes global.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Not angry, but certainly I’m dismissive, yes. And while I’ll admit that my patience for the social-media-post-spamming that the WR Righties constantly engage in is very low, there are a couple of legitimate reasons to be dismissive of posts like that.

The main reason is that the post (and others of his) is a strawman. There is a big difference between a claim that the COVID guidelines in question were entirely made up and not based on any science—which, again, is totally false—and the idea that certain legislators made bad decisions, didn’t adhere to guidelines themselves that they should’ve, or that guidelines were applied by certain people at certain times in certain places in ways that don’t make sense, or that people were negatively affected in various ways because of the guidelines. —I have never made a claim that every single legislative decision anyone ever madewas good or done correctly. He doesn’t take up the substance of my claims, but pivots to try and make me defend a position I’ve never taken.

Secondly, I don’t know the context of the tweets, and unlike him, I don’t take that shit at face value.
—Is the event being described accurately? What exactly happened, when in the pandemic was it, what was the situation with regard to virus spread and infection rate, how overloaded were the local healthcare providers, and so on? It would take a bunch of research work on my part to put the event in its proper context, and for what? Even if I were to agree with him that an event was bad, or a guideline was stupidly applied, that doesn’t change any argument I’ve made that I can think of.




Right up above in my reply to Rob is why. Again, I’ve provided sources ITT for the science behind the social distancing guideline and where it came from. You want to sidestep that and respond with tweets from jackoffs. Kelley Kga is not a medical processional, and states right on her page that she has no background in epidemiology. Apparently her..uh.. “expertise” is that people in her life told her that she’s really good at digesting data and talking about it. Like, she literally says that.

Michael P. Senger is an attorney, not a medical professional of any kind, and his claim that there was no science behind lockdowns is not only flatly wrong, but kind of stupid. You need me to explain why having fewer people in contact with one another can slow the spread of a virus? Seriously?

Jennifer Sey is a “retired artistic gymnast” who started an athletics company. She has no science or medical background at all. Are you kidding me with this shit?

The point is that the outrageous lengths that authoritarian state governments went were NOT based on science. Which was what @Scerpi pointed out.

 

[BFoe]

The point is that the outrageous lengths that authoritarian state governments went were NOT based on science. Which was what @Scerpi pointed out.

The fact that not every single state, county, city, and municipality (or even federal government) got everything right has never been in dispute though—at least not by me. This is true of governments that tried to apply COVID guidelines as well as those that refused to apply them.

 

[Rob Battisti]

The fact that not every single state, county, city, and municipality (or even federal government) got everything right has never been in dispute though—at least not by me. This is true of governments that tried to apply COVID guidelines as well as those that refused to apply them.

And it can be easily argued that they not only didn’t get “everything right” but the overwhelming majority of what they did was wrong.

This is the basis of the anger from people like me and @Scerpi.

 

[TriangleMonkey]

Masks LoLoLoLoLoLoLoLoLoLoLoLoL


The uglies love’em

 

[Lycandroid]

And it can be easily argued that they not only didn’t get “everything right” but the overwhelming majority of what they did was wrong.

This is the basis of the anger from people like me and @Scerpi.

and it can be easily argued that getting "everything right" was never the goal.

 

[Rob Battisti]

and it can be easily argued that getting "everything right" was never the goal.

When the outcome was majority bullshit then it’s permissible to be pissed off

 

[BFoe]

And it can be easily argued that they not only didn’t get “everything right” but the overwhelming majority of what they did was wrong.

This is the basis of the anger from people like me and @Scerpi.

Wrong how? Saying something is wrong because it’s unscientific or not backed by data is wholly different than saying something is wrong because we did something in abundance of caution that later data showed was unnecessary, or wrong because someone wrote a dumb law or misapplied a good law.
—Social distancing is backed by scientific data and makes sense.

NY passing a law to cap building capacity by number of people instead of percentage, doesn’t make sense.

A woman not being allowed to approach the casket of a dead relative doesn’t make sense.

You work in HR, don’t you? Certainly you must’ve have written or helped implement rules and guidelines that are good in themselves but get misapplied by idiots. But that wasn’t the biggest issue the US had with COVID.

The biggest problem with the COVID policies in the US was that half the country simply refused to participate, and this started all the way at the top with Trump and his refusal to publicly take the pandemic seriously and listen to experts.
That has always been the main issue. Social distancing, masks, quarantines, vaccines, and even lockdowns, are common-sense reactions to a pandemic with a novel virus. This issue should never have been political, but since it was made political (by Trump and his supporters), I think it’s clear that we were on the right side of this issue by and large, and conservatives absolutely were not.

 

[BFoe]

and it can be easily argued that getting "everything right" was never the goal.

I think getting everything right should always be the goal, it’s just an unattainable one. Especially when dealing with a pandemic in the US which obviously is rare, and one involving a novel virus that we didn’t know anything about.

 

[Lycandroid]

I think getting everything right should always be the goal, it’s just an unattainable one. Especially when dealing with a pandemic in the US which obviously is rare, and one involving a novel virus that we didn’t know anything about.

when people would point out that they weren't getting everything right they were punished, people lost their jobs. Experts in many fields were silenced and shown the door for pointing out that science was incorrect. Getting it right can not possibly be the goal when you make up your mind from day one what you are going to do and then punish everyone who stands against that. The whole ivermectin thing is the perfect example. If getting it right was ever the goal the phrase horse paste would never have entered the discussion.

 

[BFoe]

when people would point out that they weren't getting everything right they were punished, people lost their jobs. Experts in many fields were silenced and shown the door for pointing out that science was incorrect. Getting it right can not possibly be the goal when you make up your mind from day one what you are going to do and then punish everyone who stands against that. The whole ivermectin thing is the perfect example. If getting it right was ever the goal the phrase horse paste would never have entered the discussion.

1. I said getting it right should be the goal.

2. Nobody made up their minds on “day 1” to do something and then punish everyone who disagreed with this alleged thing. That never happened.

3. Ivermectin really should’ve never been in the conversation for very long. It never had very convincing data as to its efficacy against COVID, and study after study proved it worthless across various metrics regardless of how it was administered. The whole Ivermectin thing is a great example of a large group of people (conservatives Americans) refusing to change their views in the face of scientific evidence because “conspiracy reasons.”

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Why would I wear a mask if I’m not fucking sick?

I’ve got my flu shot so I’m not going to be spreading that.

Not how that works, but ok.

 

[Lycandroid]

1. I said getting it right should be the goal.

2. Nobody made up their minds on “day 1” to do something and then punish everyone who disagreed with this alleged thing. That never happened.

3. Ivermectin really should’ve never been in the conversation for very long. It never had very convincing data as to its efficacy against COVID, and study after study proved it worthless across various metrics regardless of how it was administered. The whole Ivermectin thing is a great example of a large group of people (conservatives Americans) refusing to change their views in the face of scientific evidence because “conspiracy reasons.”

I think pulling the whole it never happened when it clearly did gaslighting routine is a singular testicle move. Stop that. Ivermectin worked great against previous coronaviruses, the studies that proved it useless as you as only came out after a far more profitable alternative came out. Then you mandate that non only do you have to take this drug, but this is the only one that works. That is in exact opposition of trying to get it right, unless getting it right just refers to higher profits.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Wrong how? Saying something is wrong because it’s unscientific or not backed by data is wholly different than saying something is wrong because we did something in abundance of caution that later data showed was unnecessary, or wrong because someone wrote a dumb law or misapplied a good law.
—Social distancing is backed by scientific data and makes sense.

You are giving an insane amount of good faith toward governments that have shown to get nearly everything wrong in the name of “we just didn’t know at the time so we were extra cautious”. It’s a bullshit position and absolves the people who took the stances they took of any wrong doing.

NY passing a law to cap building capacity by number of people instead of percentage, doesn’t make sense.

A woman not being allowed to approach the casket of a dead relative doesn’t make sense.

Yes, and we could go on and on about what didn’t make sense. Yet, when @Scerpi posted examples you hand waved them away.

This attitude is wrong and is why people get so upset.

You work in HR, don’t you? Certainly you must’ve have written or helped implement rules and guidelines that are good in themselves but get misapplied by idiots. But that wasn’t the biggest issue the US had with COVID.

I did. Idiots at the top in the were filtering bad recommendations to idiots at companies who followed them. I advocated for full WFH and will advocate for it.

The biggest problem with the COVID policies in the US was that half the country simply refused to participate,

This is a gross exaggeration. During the height of the “two weeks to flatten the curve” everyone was utterly freaked and following it. It was only after the CDC claimed natural immunity wouldn’t work and everyone had to wear cloth masks that didn’t filter the virus that people realized it was bullshit.

That has always been the main issue. Social distancing, masks, quarantines, vaccines, and even lockdowns, are common-sense reactions to a pandemic with a novel virus. This issue should never have been political, but since it was made political (by Trump and his supporters), I think it’s clear that we were on the right side of this issue by and large, and conservatives absolutely were not.

I seriously cannot disagree more with this. The Trump side essentially said “do what you want” the left collectively wanted to put people in quarantine camps or jail if they disobeyed.

3. Ivermectin really should’ve never been in the conversation for very long. It never had very convincing data as to its efficacy against COVID, and study after study proved it worthless across various metrics regardless of how it was administered. The whole Ivermectin thing is a great example of a large group of people (conservatives Americans) refusing to change their views in the face of scientific evidence because “conspiracy reasons.”

Really bad take again. Ivermectin was dismissed out of hand along with multiple other interventions before they had even been examined. You’re quick to define bad policy in the name of “we just didn’t know at the time” while dismissing this.

I think pulling the whole it never happened when it clearly did gaslighting routine is a singular testicle move. Stop that. Ivermectin worked great against previous coronaviruses, the studies that proved it useless as you as only came out after a far more profitable alternative came out. Then you mandate that non only do you have to take this drug, but this is the only one that works. That is in exact opposition of trying to get it right, unless getting it right just refers to higher profits.

Exactly

 

[Scerpi]

You are giving an insane amount of good faith toward governments that have shown to get nearly everything wrong in the name of “we just didn’t know at the time so we were extra cautious”. It’s a bullshit position and absolves the people who took the stances they took of any wrong doing.

Yes, and we could go on and on about what didn’t make sense. Yet, when @Scerpi posted examples you hand waved them away.

This attitude is wrong and is why people get so upset.

I did. Idiots at the top in the were filtering bad recommendations to idiots at companies who followed them. I advocated for full WFH and will advocate for it.

This is a gross exaggeration. During the height of the “two weeks to flatten the curve” everyone was utterly freaked and following it. It was only after the CDC claimed natural immunity wouldn’t work and everyone had to wear cloth masks that didn’t filter the virus that people realized it was bullshit.

I seriously cannot disagree more with this. The Trump side essentially said “do what you want” the left collectively wanted to put people in quarantine camps or jail if they disobeyed.

Really bad take again. Ivermectin was dismissed out of hand along with multiple other interventions before they had even been examined. You’re quick to define bad policy in the name of “we just didn’t know at the time” while dismissing this.

Exactly

He dismissed my post just so he would’ve have to dispute it

Which he knew he couldn’t

 

[Lycandroid]

its just sad to see people bending over for the government on an anonymous karate forum. They aren't here bro your kissing and invisible arse.