Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, we've seen in this very thread, examples of posters who extol mask-wearing as a wise and productive habit, during a "regular" flu season. Never mind the coronavirus... it - that is, marks - are proposed as being a judicious remedy and good preventative measure. If this view gains traction, then politicians who seek to codify mask-wearing as a policy, would attract votes from the safety-contingent... and if this contingent becomes large enough, then those votes translate into a winning campaign.
It was not terribly long ago, that drunk-driving was regarded as a minor foible, and something that decent people avoid if possible, but not, say, at the price of getting stranded alone at a bar at night. Then the culture changed, beginning in the 70s and accelerating in the 80s. By 1990, drunk driving came to be a heinous offence. A politician who sought to make drunk-driving a felony, in 1935, would have been widely panned. A politician who did the same in 1985, would be regarded as forward-thinking and a true leader.
It's not far-fetched to expect a similar evolution, with masks.
That isn't even a question; it is a certainty. The only question is one of timing and degree. Personal freedom, lost in the name of safety, comes to be regarded as some trite frippery that good and decent people ought to surrender as part of the social contract, as part of the price of having a civilization in the first place. Insistence on the primacy of such freedoms is regarded as being the hallmarks of savages, of brutes unworthy of the privilege of partaking in civilized society.
You're quite right, about "our culture". But it remains to show, that such cultural construct is somehow flawed or morally wrong. In other words, it remains to show, that "the benefit of the collective" is a legitimate benefit at all, let alone, a benefit of such gravity, that "individual sacrifice" is at all merited.
you make my arguments better than I do. Feel free to take charge of this thread anytime you wish.
With a well-educated, empathetic populace I would definitely agree that legislating common sense public health measures would be counterproductive and unnecessary; but if the numbers these past months have taught us anything it is that large swathes of the American population cannot be relied upon to exercise good judgment or hygiene and therefore there is little else to do than to introduce legislation to coerce the behavior that we cannot rely upon our citizens to do voluntarily. Otherwise we will continue to see the infection and death toll rise.
Our culture is simply ill-equipped to deal with a situation that asks for voluntary, individual sacrifice for the benefit of the collective; it is literally the opposite of the American ethos of rabid individualism. Selfishness is baked into our collective consciousness and millions of preventable infections and 100k+ deaths haven't done anything to change this.
A well educated population would know that the medias sole purpose in life is to generate views. Thats done through fear.
A well educated population would understand that infections constitute a tiny percentage of the population, and that of those infected, a fraction of them have symptoms serious enough for a hospital visit, let alone being life threatening.
A well educated population would recognize anecdotal claims like, "what if you are asymptomatic and you bring covid home to your grandmother!" as fear mongering, and that when taken as raw numbers, of infected vs seriously ill; this disease is downright harmless.
Getting us back on track, I feel, to much chagrin, that these mask rules are going to stay with us indefinitely, in a rapidly evolving form; because too many people fear the world just outside their door.
A well educated population would know that the medias sole purpose in life is to generate views. Thats done through fear.
A well educated population would understand that infections constitute a tiny percentage of the population, and that of those infected, a fraction of them have symptoms serious enough for a hospital visit, let alone being life threatening.
A well educated population would recognize anecdotal claims like, "what if you are asymptomatic and you bring covid home to your grandmother!" as fear mongering, and that when taken as raw numbers, of infected vs seriously ill; this disease is downright harmless.
Getting us back on track, I feel, to much chagrin, that these mask rules are going to stay with us indefinitely, in a rapidly evolving form; because too many people fear the world just outside their door.
I agree that there has been fear-mongering; at the same time it's a fact that in the United States > 120,000 people have died in a matter of months as a direct result of contracting the virus.
As an earlier poster mentioned, it all depends upon what values we collectively believe should be held as a society and that's a philosophical topic which is probably better suited for a different discussion. That said, many countries have decided that the inconvenience of many in terms of mask wearing and social distancing is a suitable tradeoff for preventing the deaths of a few; but that may not be a trade the American public is willing to make.
I see some people opting to wear masks from here on out, as someone else said, similar to how many east Asian countries have been wearing masks (due to pollution) for years prior to COVID. However, I do see it being a more optional thing, similar to how those countries were prior to COVID. It will likely be the same thing for things like contact-less food delivery, curbside no contact pickup, etc.; they will likely always be an option from here on out, but not required. But I just don't see the level of caution people are using this year for COVID to be lasting for too long after this year. But I could be totally wrong.
I think masks will endure till about a year from now. At that point if the disease has a few months of inactivity pretty much everywhere the usage will drop and disappear. The authority for requiring them is under emergency empowering laws such as New York Executive Law Section 29. I am providing that as Google fodder since just about every state has its equivalent. At some point they will need some more durable authority and getting that through a state legislature is easier said than done.
Even the 50 mph national speed limit was raised to 55 when legislation was passed, effective March 1, 1974. Even that eventually died.
Even the 50 mph national speed limit was raised to 55 when legislation was passed, effective March 1, 1974. Even that eventually died.
Yes. The demise of the 55 mph speed limit is the one storied example of an intrusive imposition, initially "temporary", that endured for a whole generation, until finally it was rescinded. Ending that baleful law took a courage and level of organization that I didn't suspect was possible. So perhaps there is also hope, for the maskpocolypse to also eventually end... even if I don't live long enough (whether due to the virus, or otherwise) to see it.
This is arrantly true. Our liberties are of course circumscribed by many factors, of which the principal one is how our actions harm other people. The mask-advocates are evidently asserting, that an unmasked person, however ostensibly healthy and innocent of any malice or desire to harm, is nevertheless an unwitting participant in a chain of potential harm. Just being human, occupying a physical space, and breathing - are potentially threatening activities. It is therefore reasonable to curtail the threat, by mandating masks.
The counter-argument is lengthy. The outline is that the virus is a naturally occurring malady. We are all, as natural creatures, part of the virus's transmission. While it is noble (if futile - see below) for us to make concerted attempts to break the chain of transmission, to mandate doing so, is hubris. Second, most of the banned behaviors noted by Silibran are crimes of action. We yell "Fire!", we abuse kids, we beat dogs. The one exception is nudity. It is as it were a non-act... the failure to don clothes. It criminalizes the failure to do something "good" (wear clothes), instead of the action of doing something bad (beating, molesting, frightening, insulting,...). As can be surmised from the above, I think that anti-nudity laws are idiotic, and really, much resemble statutes that mandate masks.
What's "too much" is not the asking, but the projection of the full power and majesty of the government, to mandating a certain act... and to the point of this thread, to likely keep this mandate in place permanently.
Without trying to sound heroic, or even being facetious, all of these things appeal to me. Though a rather strident atheist, I'm now actually well-disposed to becoming a churchgoer, not because suddenly I've found Jesus, but from a desire to make a point.
To be brutally honest, my belief is that we'll all ultimately contract the virus, and perhaps multiple times... that millions of Americans are going to die, and perhaps hundreds of millions of people around the globe. It's akin to the tiresome quip about the expert marksman, who taunts his adversaries: "You can try to run, but all that that means, is that you'll die tired". The implication is that the expert-shot will kill his quarry, no matter what said quarry tries. All that's accomplished by trying to forestall the inevitable, is that one dies tired.
I would rather die fresh and vigorous.
Your post is the very definition of hubris. While you are out there making your point, please stay away from those of us who are not interested in courting disease and death.
Yes. The demise of the 55 mph speed limit is the one storied example of an intrusive imposition, initially "temporary", that endured for a whole generation, until finally it was rescinded. Ending that baleful law took a courage and level of organization that I didn't suspect was possible. So perhaps there is also hope, for the maskpocolypse to also eventually end... even if I don't live long enough (whether due to the virus, or otherwise) to see it.
Only difference between a 55 mph federal law and these mask mandates is simple. There is no federal law mandating mask wearing. You are complaining about a law that does not exist.
We have state and local authorities using emergency powers to mandate masks. Tell me which emergency state and local orders have never been rescinded?
Masks whether worn voluntarily or by government mandate will be with us a long time. In Asia people have worn masks for years especially during the flu season. We’re in a health crisis and masks are one way of limiting the spread of COVID-19.
What we are facing now from some people are the science deniers. The so called give me liberty or death types who apparently would rather die than than wear a simple mask in public when they can’t social distance. Irregardless of fines there will always be the Luddites among us who reject common sense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
