Blaming deaths on such a belief is rather silly. If anything, the opposite belief was promoted. But as they found out the hard way, you cannot police a virus by denying people’s rights.

Blaming deaths on such a belief is rather silly. — NOS4A2

Well, ignoring causation is rather silly, too. If a belief leads folk not to wear masks, and as a result people die...

you cannot police a virus by denying people’s rights. — NOS4A2

See Australia, Israel, Singapore...

But then you have long had a disregard for evidence, so I'm not expecting much.

Such choices are best left to personal morality, whether derived from religion, philosophy, tradition, etc. — NOS4A2

When people think, e.g., that being required to wear a mask is a violation of their "rights" I don't think we can expect much of them in the way of personal morality, if that includes any sacrifice or conduct on their part for the benefit of others.

Try this. From The America Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...".

Relevant here is the notion of unalienable rights. News flash: all the rest are alienable. Your - or anyone's - imagined "right" to do what you or he or she wants, in America, is simply stupid ignorance proud because it can walk upright on its hind legs. The real disease in America is just that ignorance. The remedy is a die-off of the ignorant without replacement. With education reform - if - we'll start to be in pretty good shape in about twenty years.

When people think, e.g., that being required to wear a mask is a violation of their "rights" I don't think we can expect much of them in the way of personal morality, if that includes any sacrifice or conduct on their part for the benefit of others.

Do you believe a government should be able to force you to wear clothing you do not like?

See Australia, Israel, Singapore...

But then you have long had a disregard for evidence, so I'm not expecting much.

What about them? You claim you have evidence for something, but for what you do not say.

Do you believe a government should be able to force you to wear clothing you do not like? — NOS4A2

Do you believe you have a right to wear what you want? And on the assumption you do, wherefrom, how from?

The average person doesn't want to be exposed as having been so thoroughly and easily fooled into changing their behavior, and thus will grasp wildly at any and all means to justify their behavior. People need to see themselves as "the good guy", and will gladly and eagerly demonize anyone else whose behavior deviates enough from their own, especially when they've been handed the tools to do so by institutions that they still see as being credible and trustworthy.

The idea that human life is so precious and simply must be preserved at any cost is absurd. If human life is so precious, why has America been in armed conflict for such a high percentage of its existence? Why then can I walk into any store and buy a case of alcoholic beverages and a carton of cigarettes? Why can I break a bone and subsequently become hopelessly addicted to painkillers? If human life is so damned precious, why then are my kids so much more likely to be killed by police than a so-called-terrorist?

I think the real issue here isn't so much that our lives must be protected from the newest boogeyman, as much as people want to abdicate personal responsibility in exchange for a (false) sense of security. It's like a game, people aren't winning unless they've discovered new and interesting ways to play "us versus them". For all the whining about inclusivity and tolerance, the definition of what is and is not acceptable sure does seem to narrow more and more each year.

Lockdowns are exercises in control, more useful in reshaping the minds of docile and malleable people than actually preventing harm.

I do for the simple reason that I am able to dress myself.

Do you believe a government should be able to force you to wear clothing you do not like? — NOS4A2

Come, that isn't at issue.

The law is quite clear that governments, federal, state and local, have what are called "police powers"--by which they may exercise reasonable control over persons and property within their jurisdictions in the interest of general health, safety and welfare. Traffic laws and regulations represent the exercise of police powers; so do laws regulating the practice of medicine, licensing; so do laws imposing requirements to assure general health.

The requirement that masks be worn in certain circumstances during a pandemic is an example of the exercise of police power by government.

Of course, what's of greatest significance is the requirement of reasonableness. It happens there's a huge body of case law dealing with when the exercise of that power is reasonable. Determining what's reasonable requires investigation of evidence, and a balancing of the interests of individuals and those of society in general (i.e., those of other people).

So, we consider the interests of individuals who don't want to wear masks because it's inconvenient or uncomfortable, and make a decision regarding what is more important--their convenience or the possible spread of a disease that in some cases at least may be deadly, and which is burdening the health care system to the extent it's difficult for patients with or without the disease to be treated effectively. That's the nature of the question to be addressed, the judgment to be made, because there is, alas, no legal right not to wear masks nor (I would say) is there a natural or moral right not to wear them.

I'm one of those who would say the interests of the individuals who don't want to wear masks are far less important than the interests of people/society in general in such circumstances, and exercise of police power is reasonable even though the resulting law would require people to undergo the titanic effort of wearing a mask sometimes.

There are those who deny there is a pandemic, or deny that masks are needed, or deny that vaccines should be given, but then the issue is whether the exercise of police power in this case is reasonable. We're not considering whether there's such a thing as a right not to be inconvenienced in these circumstances.

The question goes not to what you can clothe yourself in, but what you want to wear. You claim a right to wear what you want. I simply want to know what you base that claim of right on, because I am pretty sure that no such right exists.

As a practical matter and within broad limits, of course you seem to, and that agreed. But the question here goes to right.

I disagree. It’s never reasonable to give a government the power to force people what to wear, and to sacrifice human rights on the alter of the “common good”. Some are forced to wear hijabs by law and for the same specious reason, some version or other of the “general good”, the existence of which can be seriously questioned.

I would also argue that if you need police powers to protect you from someone not wearing a mask, you’re doing it wrong, and probably shouldn’t be out in public anyways.

The use of police powers is a failure of public health policy in my mind.

The question goes not to what you can clothe yourself in, but what you want to wear. You claim a right to wear what you want. I simply want to know what you base that claim of right on, because I am pretty sure that no such right exists.

As a practical matter and within broad limits, of course you seem to, and that agreed. But the question here goes to right.

I have the right because it is my body. What gives you or anyone else the right to force me what to wear?

Because not wearing the mask has a chance to affect other people’s bodies negatively in this case. Same reason you don’t have a right to steal or kill.

I do for the simple reason that I am able to dress myself. — NOS4A2

You’re also able to still and kill. Do you have a right to do those?

So does going outside. So does playing baseball. Everything we do has a chance to negatively affect other people’s bodies.

Yup, so we outlaw the ones that have risks we deem high enough. Like stealing. Or killing. Or not wearing a mask during a pandemic.

Maybe read here: .

But you base your right in your possession of your body. Since when does having a body establish more than just a few rights. And I suspect you are not grasping the significance of "right" in its absolute sense of right as right.

@Banno
I plead with you to remain humble but do as you wish.
As with many things in life we do the best we can with what we know, when we know better we do better.
If you want to drill down on the number of deaths, how each state handled it is different.
We are a Union of very individual states not a homogeneous state called the USA.
Together we did push forward Operation Warp Speed and have done an Amazing job with the rest of the world to bring an effective Vaccine to put into people's arms.
It's a shame that your view of Americans is glossed over with our governments action or inaction.
We were in uncharted waters and the fact that you and I are still here to debate it is an amazing outcome :flower:

Yup, so we outlaw the ones that have risks we deem high enough. Like stealing. Or killing. Or not wearing a mask during a pandemic.

Until someone comes along and deems masks to be risky, then you’re left wondering why you gave up your right in the first place.

How in the world is wearing a mask risky? If someone suggests so they’ll at best be ignored.

Unless they have the force of law behind their edicts, then you can’t ignore it.

We were in uncharted waters — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Unfortunately with a mentally incompetent and dangerous a**hole in the wheelhouse.

Geographically captains more recently are always in chartered waters, but the waters themselves are never charted but are always new. And up to the end of the 19th century, captains were often in uncharted waters. The point being that the real issue is the quality of the captains. So in fact the United State of America did not do the best it could. We did not even come remotely close. And the failures are across the board, large and small, and in many cases will be enduring. There is no defense for the unspeakable. There is only taking stock, acknowledging, and trying to figure out how to never, ever, again screw up so completely. If you're not ready for that, and apparently lots of people are not, therapy is the right action to take. It's not about politics; it's about a life consumed with craziness and absurdity.

500,000+ dead, and what did our captain say? "No, I'm not responsible." Churchill had something to say about that kind of leadership. "He should be pole-axed."

nos4. Go get infected with covid. Spread it to your family and friends. And when you recover, come back and tell us about your experience; maybe then you'll know something. Until then, you're not even making sense.

nos4. Go get infected with covid. Spread it to your family and friends. And when you recover, come back and tell us about your experience; maybe then you'll know something. Until then, you're not even making sense.

I know how to care for myself and my family and unlike yourself I don’t need bureaucrats and officials to hold my hand while doing so. I also don’t need to sacrifice mine or my children’s rights to protect Tim from a virus any grown adult can avoid on his own accord.

I also don’t need to sacrifice mine or my children’s rights to protect Tim from a virus any grown adult can avoid on his own accord. — NOS4A2

“I don’t mind infecting someone with COVID by not wearing a mask because they could have avoided it (somehow)”

Is that really what you’re saying? And how could Tim avoid it? If you’re infected and you go on a subway without a mask do you expect everyone to up and leave to be safe?

Until someone comes along and deems masks to be risky, then you’re left wondering why you gave up your right in the first place — NOS4A2

Your “right” is societally granted too. You claim you have a right to wear whatever you want based merely on the fact that you can clothe yourself. But as I pointed out, you don’t have a right to steal or kill, even though you have the ability to do so. So the ability to do something doesn’t imply you have a right to do it. Rights come from society. Or at the very least, they don’t come from the ability to do something.

So you need to back up your claim that you have a right to wear whatever you want. You say it’s because you can clothe yourself. But ability is insufficient. So then, on what basis do you say you have a right to wear whatever you want? And if you say something like "Because that is a socially mediated right" or anything to the effect of putting rights in the hands of society (which is where I think they belong) then you would be obligated to wear a mask by the same token. And it would not be within your rights not to wear one.

You claim you have a right to wear whatever you want based merely on the fact that you can clothe yourself. — khaled

And even that isn't true. Decency laws require you to be clothed instead of naked on arguably less important grounds than the requirement to wear a mask. Being naked doesn't kill anyone, it just bothers many people's sensibilities, not wearing a mask while being infectious can kill others either directly or indirectly. The whole argument for "I don't wanna" is specious.

Unfortunately with a mentally incompetent and dangerous a**hole in the wheelhouse. — tim wood

I get that you didn't like President Trump. Noted.

Geographically captains more recently are always in chartered waters, but the waters themselves are never charted but are always new. And up to the end of the 19th century, captains were often in uncharted waters. The point being that the real issue is the quality of the captains. So in fact the United State of America did not do the best it could. We did not even come remotely close. And the failures are across the board, large and small, and in many cases will be enduring. There is no defense for the unspeakable. There is only taking stock, acknowledging, and trying to figure out how to never, ever, again screw up so completely. If you're not ready for that, and apparently lots of people are not, therapy is the right action to take. It's not about politics; it's about a life consumed with craziness and absurdity.

500,000+ dead, and what did our captain say? "No, I'm not responsible." Churchill had something to say about that kind of leadership. "He should be pole-axed." — tim wood

Tell me how many of the 500,000+ dead, my family members among those we lost, would still be alive if President Hillary Clinton had been chosen.

A specific number please: and if you think it would stand at Zero today with her at the helm of this pandemic, save the thread the space and me the time.

Unfortunately with a mentally incompetent and dangerous a**hole in the wheelhouse.
— tim wood
I get that you didn't like President Trump. Noted. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Well it appears we need some clarification. Are you suggesting that Trump is not mentally incompetent and also not an a**hole? I've never knowingly been within 50 mile of the man, but I will concede I do not like him.

And are you suggesting that Trump's choices, decisions, and statements did not have a significant effect, and still will have a significant effect, on the Covid-9 death toll and infection rates?

And why mention Hillary Clinton? Trump's failures and sins are not in virtue of a comparison with her, or with anyone. They are his alone. But I will guess, and that is that the polices of any Democrat president would have differed by so much that deaths might easily be a fraction of what they are. Anywhere from nominal to half.

Here are listings of deaths by countries, You may find it interesting.

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHWA_enUS598US598&ei=Mw9SYNzTBc6SwbkPzb2FsAc&q=covid+mortality+by+counry&oq=covid+mortality+by+counry&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAxQAFgAYLMhaABwAXgAgAGsAYgBrAGSAQMwLjGYAQCqAQdnd3Mtd2l6wAEB&sclient=gws-wiz&ved=0ahUKEwicubWDwrfvAhVOSTABHc1eAXYQ4dUDCA4

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?utm_campaign=homeAdvegas1?

https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2020/health/coronavirus-maps-and-cases/

I know how to care for myself and my family — NOS4A2

And how would you protect your family from someone like yourself?

You're view of what constitute "human rights" seems extremely broad; so broad as to render some of them, at least, trivial. "Give me the right not to wear a mask in public or give me death!" strikes me as a less than inspiring expression of a love for liberty.

Tell me, though--if not because of any law or regulation, do you nonetheless wear a mask in public because of your "personal morality", or do you merely doubt it will have any benefit to others? Another possibility, I suppose, would be that you think if the failure to wear a mask will endanger others, that's not your problem.