If being against the "everything" part, but admitting that there are indeed rackets and obviously many want to influence the public discourse (and those with money have more ability to do it) is a bit too complicated, well, sorry. — ssu

No need to apologise, I just find the position absurd. You admit that "there are indeed rackets and obviously many want to influence the public discourse (and those with money have more ability to do it)", but then want to argue that sometimes they...just don't.

Were they having a collective day off? Did they suddenly find themselves in a Disney film and have a change of heart? Were they just about enact their plans to manipulate the media narrative in their favour when the junior secretary runs in and say "well, what luck, that all just happened anyway!"

Having admitted that extremely powerful forces are capable of manipulating government, media and other industries to act in ways that are favourable to their interests, it pretty much stands to reason that they will just continue to do so on every occasion until something prevents them. It stands out as an oddity when someone wants to make the claim that 'on this occasion they just didn't', certainly when presented without any evidence at all.

If they didn't, why not? even if things were going that way anyway, why not push them further?

Thanks for the article links. Some hilarious journalism, the Scientific American piece was brilliant...

several large mainstream publications, in complicity with politicians of both major political parties

...What? Complicity between government and media? Where have I heard that suggestion before?

The effect is the manufactured consent

...Come now, how could governments and media possibly 'manufacture' consent? This is starting to sound like some kind of 'paranoid conspiracy'.

News media are helping to shape public opinion

...No! Why have they started doing that all of a sudden, when their previous scaremongering and daily publication of case numbers obviously had no effect at all on public opinion. Those naughty journalists...

Two white men frame what they think is rational, deeming any questioning of their stand as irrational.

...Disgraceful, to think people could frame their own opinion as rational and all opposing opinion as irrational - where could they have gotten that idea from?

Oh, and I particularly liked...

the official death toll

...'official' as in produced by government agencies...the same governments you've just accused of colluding with media to mislead people. My, they are capricious aren't they? One minute the source of gospel truth, the next downright liars... It's no wonder we can't trust them (except when they advise things we agree with, of course, when it would be nothing but rampant paranoia to not trust them unquestioningly)

Were they having a collective day off? — Isaac

Haha.

You don't see the obvious illogicality in everything is a racket? So, all the media does is to lie? Not even a single issue that is truthful or objective? Not even one? All issues are done further the financial interests of the extremely wealthy? And somehow we cannot see what part is motivated by an agenda? Or at least someone like me (I guess).

, I just find the position absurd. You admit that "there are indeed rackets and obviously many want to influence the public discourse (and those with money have more ability to do it)", but then want to argue that sometimes they...just don't. — Isaac

What is absurd about it?

Perhaps I'll give an obvious example.

Remember the Occupy Wall Street -protests some years ago? Russia Today reported them with good objective journalism and interviewed the various protesting people, which obviously didn't come from a certain mold and had quite variegated views. For them, objectivity worked well as it was to show that people are unhappy about issues in the US. Compared to American media covering the protests, RT was better. But then when it was Russian people demonstrating against Putin, yes, RT did cover them too, but you obviously noticed the difference. Suddenly the protesters weren't interviewed as much and RT was a lot more like the US media, even more cautious not to give the protesters a voice. The agenda part was obvious. And then if it something that TRULY is in the interest of Putin, then they stick to the official line. (With the US the obvious example when the country actually goes to war. The reporting isn't like during the Vietnam war, when the military didn't actually bother so much with keeping the media in line. And didn't understand what the impact is when the soldier on the field is interviewed and has a voice.)

So would I say that RT lies all the time? Of course not.

The issue is that you can perfectly read Chinese, Iranian, Russian or American news outlets and notice just where the media bias is, yet to see that they report issue with adequate journalism and when it's obvious when they have an agenda. Why I chose RT above is that here the link is obvious, just as with Chinese media. With US media it can be a bit different as the not all adhere to one agenda.

Let's stick to the topic of this thread. So @Punshhh started it two years ago when it wasn't yet called a pandemic. Is everything about it a lie?

You don't see the obvious illogicality in everything is a racket? — ssu

Well no. That's like me saying "You don't see the obvious illogicality in everything has a bias", or "everything has an ideological assumption", or "everything is limited by context"... The mere claim of universality is insufficient alone to warrant your concerns. Lots of things are universally the case.

What is absurd about it? — ssu

I explained, but you didn't answer.

What are these forces, you admit exist, doing on the days they don't interfere? Why do they chose not to interfere when you've admitted they're perfectly capable of doing so and it's to their benefit if they do?

To be clear - what's absurd is suggesting that forces which are both capable of, and stand to benefit from, manipulation of the mainstream narrative, simply don't do so for no reason at all.

So would I say that RT lies all the time? Of course not. — ssu

No one is suggesting the media always lie. But in your example its clear the objective is to favour Russia. That fact that the truth happened to do that on any given occasion is irrelevant to understanding the message the media deliver because had the crowd not been that way, the message would have been the same, all that would have changed would be the degree of manipulation required to get to it.

Is everything about it a lie? — ssu

As above, there's no reason not to assume some facts of reality might coincide with the agenda.

The point of all this, as I made clear to frank above is not to make a claim about what is the case.

I have never, and would never, make a truth-claim about the severity of the crisis nor the effectiveness of any if the interventions, my claim here has solely been that it is neither irrational, nor paranoid, nor conspiracy-theory not any of the other labels I've been given, to not trust the mainstream narrative on any of these matters. The mainstream narrative is manipulated by corporate and government powers at least some of the time, we all seem to agree on that, so concluding that this is one of those times is perfectly rational.

No one is suggesting the media always lie. But in your example its clear the objective is to favour Russia. That fact that the truth happened to do that on any given occasion is irrelevant to understanding the message the media deliver because had the crowd not been that way, the message would have been the same, all that would have changed would be the degree of manipulation required to get to it. — Isaac

And many news and media companies have this bias towards their country. In fact, their readers and viewers often do also. I can be rather sure that if/when the Finnish television reports on a Finnish company having problems with a third world government, they will likely be supportive of the view of the Finnish company and be skeptical about the third world officials making complaints.

Yet once you do notice what is the underlying agenda, then you can estimate quite well what is bias, what is the agenda talking and what is objective journalism.

Yet I disagree with "had the crowd not been that way, the message would have been the same, all that would have changed would be the degree of manipulation required to get to it." The message wouldn't be the same. There are the actual events that do happen, you know. Hence the message cannot be the same. You do have the actual events that you then have to report. You may try spinning it, try tell a different story that isn't remotely true to the actual event or simply not to report the event. It all comes down how informed the reader is. Does he or she read different media outlets? Is he or she informed enough to notice what is true or not?

Is he or she informed enough to notice what is true or not? — ssu

How? All of the information most people get is from media of some description, so using their prior 'knowledge' (from previous media reports) to discern bias in current media reports is just question-begging.

Or are you claiming that only newspapers are biased, that other forms of data dissemination are somehow immune?

Here's a good article from Jacob Hale Russell giving really good overview of how these narratives are built, here with cloth masking, but the same applies to any narrative.

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/the-mask-debacle

I’m well aware that the government can invent crimes and violate its charter of rights and freedoms. I’m just saying it’s wrong and tyrannical to do so.

If BLM blockaded the US capital NOS would be singing a different tune.*

Just more ingroup-outgroup posturing.

I love when you foam at the mouth.

I love when you foam at the mouth. — NOS4A2

Spoken like a true troll. Well done.

How? All of the information most people get is from media of some description, so using their prior 'knowledge' (from previous media reports) to discern bias in current media reports is just question-begging. — Isaac

No, they don't.

History tells a lot of the why the present is the way it is. Television news isn't where you get to know things. Books, documentaries, studies, seminars, lectures. There you can gather the kind of knowledge you need to put things to perspective. And you can (and should) listen and read opposing views.

It starts from the basics you learn at school. And now it's so easy to circumvent the journalist just by looking up the actual documents, listen to what the politicians actually have said, not the points that a journalist has selected to pick up and made an interpretation of his or her own about it.

All you need is some time and interest.

Books, documentaries, studies, seminars, lectures. — ssu

...are all forms of media.

Or are you seriously of the opinion that whilst the unrivalled lobbying power of the largest organisations the world's ever seen has dominated the notoriously powerful mass media, but they've somehow met their match at a handful of tweed-suited university deans and the barely functional management of the main academic journals?

now it's so easy to circumvent the journalist just by looking up the actual documents, listen to what the politicians actually have said, not the points that a journalist has selected to pick up and made an interpretation of his or her own about it. — ssu

So now we are to do our own research? So you'd disagree with the widespread proscriptions around pandemic about doing one's own research?

I completely agree with you here, but I think you're naïve if you want to suggest this approach applies to the "most people" my comment is about.

Or are you seriously of the opinion that whilst the unrivalled lobbying power of the largest organisations the world's ever seen has dominated the notoriously powerful mass media, but they've somehow met their match at a handful of tweed-suited university deans and the barely functional management of the main academic journals? — Isaac

No, but those notoriously powerful mass media or the "unrivalled lobbying power of the largest organisations" aren't so insuperable as you portray them.

It's not them, it is up to yourself to make up your mind!

Yet the discourse has been framed unhelpfully as a meaningless oversimplification: “masks work” versus “masks don’t work.” — Russell and Patterson

Should be something like: masks can help (when used right).
The politicized rabble and ideological opinions, don't somehow change the facts/evidence. :shrug:
So what if I have to mask up while out on the town?
Dissidence for dissidence's sake is teenage politics/behavior, mala fides.
We do our best to figure things out bona fides, like the truth of the matter for example :ghasp:, and take it from there.
Hopefully we can get over the hurdle, the sooner the better, without unnecessarily risking lives, or whatever some caution might have prevented.


^{• How efficient are facial masks against COVID-19? Evaluating the mask use of various communities one year into the pandemic (Jul 21, 2021)
• Surgical masks reduce COVID-19 spread, large-scale study shows (Sep 1, 2021)
• (meta) Do face masks work? Here are 49 scientific studies that explain why they do (Sep 17, 2021)
• Why We Need to Upgrade Our Face Masks—and Where to Get Them (Sep 30, 2021)
• What’s the best MASK to protect me from the Delta variant? (Oct 6, 2021)
• An Ocean Away, I Found Some Common Sense on Mask Wearing (Oct 12, 2021)
• How well masks protect (Dec 2, 2021)
• Face mask fit modifications that improve source control performance (Dec 15, 2021)
• N95, KN95 Or Cloth Masks? What To Wear To Best Protect Against Omicron (Jan 10, 2022)
• What Do Masks Do to Kids? (Feb 7, 2022)
• Children and COVID-19: State-Level Data Report}

Yet the discourse has been framed unhelpfully as a meaningless oversimplification: “masks work” versus “masks don’t work.” — Russell and Patterson


Should be something like: masks can help (when used right). — jorndoe

Yep. So why isn't it?

The point being made is that if masks only help when used right, why mandate them in situations when you know they're not going to be used right (primary age schoolchildren, reluctant Republicans, dottering retired hedge-fund managers who've never lifted a finger to help others in their life...)?

What is the public health benefit of a policy which you know isn't going to work?

We do our best to figure things out bona fides, like the truth of the matter for example :ghasp:, and take it from there. — jorndoe

Are you seriously that partisan? Who's 'we' here? 'We' the good people of 'science' unaffected by bias, bribery, lobbying, zeitgeist, peer pressure, careerism, ideology...the saints standing above the rest of humanity mired in those things. Do you realise how arrogant that sounds?

And this 'citation bombshell' tactic is pathetic...

• How efficient are facial masks against COVID-19? Evaluating the mask use of various communities one year into the pandemic (Jul 21, 2021) — jorndoe

Specifically states...

Studies suggest the use of masks mainly in the healthcare facilities...Optimum use of face masks with additional precautions has been found to be useful controlling the spread of the respiratory viruses

...which supports the argument in the piece.

• Surgical masks reduce COVID-19 spread, large-scale study shows (Sep 1, 2021) — jorndoe

This is the Bangladesh RCT. It showed that "cloth masks did not offer a statistically significant rate reduction (cloth mask: 0.74%, control: 0.76%, P=0.540)"

• (meta) Do face masks work? Here are 49 scientific studies that explain why they do (Sep 17, 2021) — jorndoe

I can't access this site in Europe

• Why We Need to Upgrade Our Face Masks—and Where to Get Them (Sep 30, 2021) — jorndoe

Actually supports the argument that cloth face masking doesn't work. As does...

• What’s the best MASK to protect me from the Delta variant? (Oct 6, 2021) — jorndoe

...not sure what you're trying to say with these. Perhaps embed your citations within the context of an actual argument rather than just spew them all up at the end?

• An Ocean Away, I Found Some Common Sense on Mask Wearing (Oct 12, 2021) — jorndoe

Is an opinion piece. I already have your opinion, citing someone else's opinion is not evidence of anything other than that someone else also thinks that way. Just padding out your citations with puff pieces doesn't help your credibility.

• How well masks protect (Dec 2, 2021) — jorndoe

The trial referenced was still a mechanistic trial not an RCT and it didn't measure the endpoint (reduction in infection) only mechanism of particle filtration. Even then the reduction from surgical to cloth masks shows "decreasing from ~78% at 0.3 micron size to ~5% at the 10 micron size" that cloth masking will be rendered ineffective in reducing the clinical endpoint after a few hours.

• Face mask fit modifications that improve source control performance (Dec 15, 2021) — jorndoe

Another mechanistic trial. These tell us nothing.

Let's say the shedding of viral particles is reduced by 11% (the figure from your most recent mechanistic trial), that means that one of two things can bring the number of viral particles up to a level where infection is likely...

1) taking off your mask
2) spending ~11% more time in that environment

So either masking is pointless in environments you're spending little time in (they were safe anyway, low chance of encountering sufficient viral particles), or masks are useless in environments you spend hours in (like school) because even at 11% reduction the air is going to fill with viable particles within a matter of hours and you're screwed.

• N95, KN95 Or Cloth Masks? What To Wear To Best Protect Against Omicron (Jan 10, 2022) — jorndoe

This one actually states “Cloth masks are little more than facial decorations. There's no place for them in light of Omicron,” - Do you even read these first?

• What Do Masks Do to Kids? (Feb 7, 2022) — jorndoe

From the study itself

the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; just because there is no research showing something exists doesn’t mean it’s not happening. And there are few long-term studies on masks and development because we’ve only been wearing them widely in the United States for two years or so

Since when did public health policy become - "we'll mandate something and if anyone happens to turn up some data that it's harmful we'll stop". what on earth happened to 'Do No Harm'?

Are you seriously advocating the enaction of health policy on the basis that there's no trial out there on the matter so we can do what we like?

• Children and COVID-19: State-Level Data Report — jorndoe

I don't know what this one's supposed to show other than that children are at virtually zero risk from this and are more likely to be run over on the way to mask store than they are to die from the disease it's supposed to offer an miniscule amount of protection from, if they're worn right (which they're not).

___

Besides which, none of this is the point.

You've got trials showing masks are effective but they've got some issues (reliance on mechanism rather than RCT, no clinical endpoint measures, low rates of reduction problematic in long-term exposure environments...)

I've got some trials which show masking is ineffective - mentioned in the article, but here's a good summary too.

That's the makings of a discussion. You know...where people talk about the pros and cons, look at the evidence, hold different opinions. The point of the article I posted was that this is not what we have.

As I've said ad nauseam now I don't have any problem at all with you looking at your collection of evidence and concluding that, for you, masks are the best bet.

I have a problem with you insisting that unless I reach the same conclusion as you I'm somehow either mentally or morally deficient. It's just school-yard tribalism and it's downright irresponsible when there's a public health emergency that needs a serious clear-headed response.

those notoriously powerful mass media or the "unrivalled lobbying power of the largest organisations" aren't so insuperable as you portray them.

It's not them, it is up to yourself to make up your mind! — ssu

Right. So you'd agree with me, on this topic, then, that the presentation of data from the CDC, FDA, journals, experts etc. should not be presented as if it were gospel truth, but rather as contributions to be critiqued like any other (within the bounds of our prior knowledge)?

Because it seems you've been arguing the opposite in the past, though I may have misinterpreted.

If so, then we find ourselves in agreement.

I’m well aware that the government can invent crimes and violate its charter of rights and freedoms. I’m just saying it’s wrong and tyrannical to do so. — NOS4A2

Why do you complain about the self-evident truth, and insist that it's somehow "wrong"? What qualifies as a "crime" is what the government dictates is a crime. Isn't that self-evident to you? And that dictation must be allowed to change with an evolving society. Or do you think that the original laws, those of Draco or something like that, should persist unchanged, forever and ever, dictated to never be allowed to change?

I think you have things backward. To make a "charter" which forces the government to adhere in a fixed way, to some dictate which would cripple its capacity to "invent crimes" is what is tyrannical. In reality, the government needs to be able to "invent crimes" faster than the criminals can act them out. But as you correctly indicate, giving a government the power which it needs, to properly govern an evolving society, is fraught with disagreement, therefore very problematic. And it's a problem which obviously has not been solved.

Right. So you'd agree with me, on this topic, then, that the presentation of data from the CDC, FDA, journals, experts etc. should not be presented as if it were gospel truth, but rather as contributions to be critiqued like any other (within the bounds of our prior knowledge)? — Isaac

Nobody is a gospel of truth. And since a global pandemic hit us, it's totally understandable that there are errors, overreactions and misguided attempts as there also can be successful decisions. Good example of this is how totally different was the response in Sweden compared to other Nordic or European countries. A totally different response on the lockdown issue simply shows that these aren't things that are "right" or "incorrect". And the Swedes are totally happy with the path that their social democrat government put them. Even if the deaths were a little bit higher in Sweden, they weren't all that higher at all.

There's just this level of hostility towards different opinions, and also the ease in how the discourse can be manipulated. But that doesn't mean one cannot make sense about it.

Because it seems you've been arguing the opposite in the past, though I may have misinterpreted. — Isaac

That can indeed have happen, because I also don't find an obvious disagreement here.

Who's 'we' here? — Isaac

We is euphemistically anyone operating bona fides. Aren't you? (Like concern for each other?)

This is the [...] — Isaac

... which together with the rest (some of which were listed), taken together, tell us where things are at. Not sure why anyone would call that pathetic. :shrug: However tediously long, Russell and Patterson make good points (also mentions *cough* motivated reasoning).

I can't access this site — Isaac

Attached as markdown to retain links.

evidence and concluding that, for you, masks are the best bet — Isaac

For me? It's a social thing. I'm not aware of many masking up when on their own. You honestly think you live in a different world, however it works doesn't apply to you?

like the truth of the matter for example :gasp: — jorndoe

... doesn't depend on he-said-she-said, rather, the discourse is to figure it out bona fides, that's kind of the reason for the discussions in the first place, resulting in practicalities. :mask:

it's downright irresponsible when there's a public health emergency that needs a serious clear-headed response. — Isaac

Irresponsible indeed. And, indeed, serious clear-headed and in everyone's best interest, concern for each other. :mask:

something like: masks can help (when used right). — jorndoe

^{(Maybe go back to covering the scandals?)}

markdown — jorndoe

Sorry, markdown is just plain text, a simple format that can represent some formatting and links and such. Can be saved and opened as any other plain text file.

I also don't find an obvious disagreement here. — ssu

Cool.

We is euphemistically anyone operating bona fides. Aren't you? (Like concern for each other?) — jorndoe

You used the term in response to mask mandates. Masks were mandated by a specific group of people, so referring to them in that way is a judgment on those specific people, not just some euphemistic group. I'm attacking that judgment.

Not sure why anyone would call that pathetic — jorndoe

Because it was so obviously partisan. You just chucked as many pro-mask studies as you could find. The existence of a pro-mask position among scientists is not in doubt so there's nothing contributed by them.

What the article was opposing was the narrative. Discussion of masks being inadequate were banned, actually banned. People espousing the idea were labelled paranoid, conspiracy theorists. (Same happened with the lab leak theory - not a one off). That's not a matter that's resolved by saying "well, some scientists believed masks were helpful". It's got a really serious impact on the way science is conducted.

It's a social thing. I'm not aware of many masking up when on their own. You honestly think you live in a different world, however it works doesn't apply to you? — jorndoe

No, but in a situation of uncertainty, its not appropriate for one group to simply impose their favoured strategy over another, and certainly not to lie about certainty in order to do so.

(Maybe go back to covering the scandals?) — jorndoe

This is the scandal. Discussion of legitimate scientific dissent was actually banned. You don't think that's scandalous?

(Thanks for sorting that markdown for me, it was an interesting read)

, don't put words in my mouth. Add don't forget to mask up appropriately, where appropriate. :mask:


On a different note, someone out there posted this:

don't put words in my mouth — jorndoe

Well, let's make it simple. Do you think that the suppressing of dissenting scientific opinion was justified or not? If you do, on what ground?

Why do you complain about the self-evident truth, and insist that it's somehow "wrong"? What qualifies as a "crime" is what the government dictates is a crime. Isn't that self-evident to you? And that dictation must be allowed to change with an evolving society. Or do you think that the original laws, those of Draco or something like that, should persist unchanged, forever and ever, dictated to never be allowed to change?

I think you have things backward. To make a "charter" which forces the government to adhere in a fixed way, to some dictate which would cripple its capacity to "invent crimes" is what is tyrannical. In reality, the government needs to be able to "invent crimes" faster than the criminals can act them out. But as you correctly indicate, giving a government the power which it needs, to properly govern an evolving society, is fraught with disagreement, therefore very problematic. And it's a problem which obviously has not been solved.

It’s evident to me that laws can be either just or unjust, right or wrong. There is no human right the government has not violated. The government murders, steals from, and enslaves human beings, all of which would subject you or I to swift punishment, and rightfully so.

Defining the limits of the state is not tyranny, at least in theory, but a check on arbitrary power and the monopoly of violence. The expansion of this power should be crippled at every instance, and in my opinion, removed entirely.

Unfortunately, Canada’s charter of rights and freedoms has served only as a small hurdle to its tyranny. Rather than outright prohibit people from freedom of movement, it forces the airlines to enforce rigid restrictions, and travellers to undergo harsh quarantine measures at their own expense. Rather than enforce its discriminatory policies against those who refuse Pfizer vaccines, it forces the private citizen to do it. Rather than freeze and steal the contents of someone’s bank account, it forces the banks to do it. It gets around violating its own charter by forcing those who are not beholden to it to do it for them.

I think that the Canadian government is noticing that Canadians are not what they are stereotypically portrayed to be.

But anyway, any Western government going with mandatory vaccinations is just asking for it and deserves the consequences it gets. Few if any are like the Austrians. It's just stupidity.

Unfortunately, Canada’s charter of rights and freedoms has served only as a small hurdle to its tyranny. Rather than outright prohibit people from freedom of movement, it forces the airlines to enforce rigid restrictions, and travellers to undergo harsh quarantine measures at their own expense. Rather than enforce its discriminatory policies against those who refuse Pfizer vaccines, it forces the private citizen to do it. Rather than freeze and steal the contents of someone’s bank account, it forces the banks to do it. It gets around violating its own charter by forcing those who are not beholden to it to do it for them. — NOS4A2

I don't understand any of your concerns here. Laws of self-regulation exist for many industries, especially concerning safety issues. The government passes the safety rule and makes the companies enforce it within, often requiring a report to the government. So in an industry like the food industry, which has enormous safety implications, instead of having a massive army of government inspectors, the dairies, packing plants, and places like that, must hire their own inspectors. It is a far more efficient way of handling the enforcement of safety standards, to have the ones engaged in the activity enforce the regulations upon themselves. But we can still be critical of these practices, and some of the effects. For instance, it is overwhelmingly unfair to small businesses, to force them to have an inspector on the payroll. Likewise, it is unfair to a person who owns one truck and moves goods for a livelihood, to be subjected to the exact same fines for safety violations, as a multimillion dollar transport company, if the fines become similar to a tax on the industry.

But I don't see that you've expressed any valid objections to the idea of mandating airline companies, and individual travelers themselves, to self-enforce specific safety standards. And it is not in any way comparable to prohibiting people from the freedom of movement. Telling people that they can only move if they take the necessary precautions not to jeopardize the safety of others, is like telling them that if they drive their cars and trucks they must be careful not to run over pedestrians, and this is in no way comparable to outright prohibiting the freedom of movement. And the fact that this might be an added expense to the traveler is completely irrelevant. To exercise one's freedom of movement has always been something which requires expenditure. If to do so in a way which the government decrees as necessary to protect the safety of others, requires an even greater expenditure, then of course we must accept that expense if we want to engage in those forms of movement. Whether or not you agree with what the government decrees as necessary to protect the safety of others, is a different argument from the argument as to whether the government ought to make such decrees.

.

Banned/suppressed, ? No; well, I'd prefer not to. (Might start talking about free speech for that matter I guess.) Discourse is part of figuring things out.

On the other hand, dissidents crippling moving forward is irresponsible, especially in public health, especially with a situation on our hands. (Some dissidents stop listening to others, while insisting that others must hear them.)

Had some careless anti-masker infected my aging parents, then I'd be rather unhappy. Wouldn't you be? And I wouldn't care if they waved a couple of hand-picked articles, while ignoring many others (or ignoring common sense, or being respectful, for that matter). That's what it looks like here in real life.

something like: masks can help (when used right).

On the other hand, dissidents crippling moving forward is irresponsible, especially in public health, especially with a situation on our hands. (Some dissidents stop listening to others, while insisting that others must hear them.) — jorndoe

I agree entirely with the sentiment, but I suspect you're thinking of different people to me. Are you prepared to name names? Who are/were these dissidents who crippled moving forward and stopped listening to others?

Had some careless anti-masker infected my aging parents, then I'd be rather unhappy. — jorndoe

How on earth would you know? The whole point of these articles is that the jury is still out on whether the mask would have helped or not. It depends on the circumstances, including factors which haven't been tested yet.

See this is the problem. You want to turn believing in one specific scientific opinion into a moral duty. It's no longer sufficient that I show due concern for these hypothetical parents, I must additionally believe what you believe about which actions risk their well-being and which don't.

Mandating thresholds of care is fine, foundational to a functioning society. Mandating thresholds of epistemic responsibility I'd also say made sense (if your actions are likely to impact others you ought find out how). But assigning moral blame because I don't agree with the scientists you happen to agree with...?

I'd even go as far as to say that if a person is concerned for their health and they really believe my wearing a mask will protect them, I'm going to wear the mask, it'd be mean not to, but mandating masks on kids, nothing but a 'hope for the best' that it won't do them any harm? How's that 'respectful' exactly?

How on earth would you know? — Isaac

Not going to go over your seemingly epistemic relativism once again, apparently cool with carelessness, in particular not if it could put my aging parents at risk.

Had some careless anti-masker infected my aging parents, then I'd be rather unhappy. Wouldn't you be? — jorndoe

Well?

Well? — jorndoe

You can hardly expect me to answer your questions after refusing to answer mine. I came for a discussion, not a lecture.

Since when did public health policy become - "we'll mandate something and if anyone happens to turn up some data that it's harmful we'll stop". what on earth happened to 'Do No Harm'? — Isaac

It's been like that for as long as I can remember. Vaccinations, hormonal contraceptives, use of plastic, cutting down forests, failing to start building a retirement fund early on, incarcerating 10-year olds with the general population (yay, America thou wonderful!) ...

People tend to be this way: if some measure or other action doesn't have 1. immediate and 2. massive bad consequences, we should go through with it, and whatever negative consequences there are, find a way to blame them on the individual people who experience those consequences.
If the consequences are not immediate and massive, people generally take little heed.