YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

Cassius said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

the governments decision to end the mandate to wear mask doesn't change the responsibility that comes with my freedom. Wearing a well fitting well designed mask in confined areas is a small burden and has been shown to lower transmission rates (even if only a little). Because of those two things I still wear one. The fact that someone would see my decision to do that in any type of negative way shows how ridiculously politicized such a simple decision has become. Such a response seriously brings into question whether that persons judgement is being clouded by politics.

---

There is no evidence of aggregate, reduced transmission of a virus related to donning masks. If you want to wear one, do it. But drop the nonsense about doing it based on evidence of reduced rates of transmission.

---

It's a beautiful day, and I'm sitting on my back porch enjoying a beer so I'm not going to track down citations (besides reading the cdc guidelines recommended to me by one of the ill informed posters above) but focused studies I've read showed that good masks worn properly reduce the transmission of particles that we know transmit the disease. Given that fact and the absence of conclusive studies either way on population transmission the CONSERVATIVE approach to this problem given the low cost of wearing a mask would be to wear one properly fitted.

---

The same CDC that said masks don't work? Which CDC on which day should we consider their guidance valid? We already know that masks do not stop this virus. We have reams of real world data from all over the country and world showing mask usage with zero correlation that they do anything. We have scientists who are on record saying the masks can't stop SARS type viruses...didn't stop the last SARS outbreak....but it will stop this one for...reasons?

But, you've already moved my direction anyway by staying there are no conclusive studies so we should just wear a mask...just in case. Again, feel free to wear one. No one is going to yell at you for it. FTR, I wear one into businesses that require it, so I'm not joyfully double birding people with no mask on as I waltz into a business. I won't be wearing one in businesses that don't require it though because they do nothing except restrict my breathing and they are dehumanizing.

---

Excuse me if I was not clear my intention was not to concede there is no evidence that shows aggregate transmission is not affected by masks only that it's not necessary for my point. Btw you originally cited the cdc not me.
To frame the problem in a different way. If you were running a business that depended on meeting tight deadlines with crucial people working in confined spaces with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake would you pay the people a little extra money to compensate for hassle of wearing a mask given the potential risk aversion masks would give you?

---

If actual efficacy of the mask is not necessary to your point, then all we have done here is create a self-fulfilling prophecy that they are part of the cost of doing business just so people won't sh^t themselves in unnecessary fear. No value add; no actual preventative feature....just an actual adult pacifier like Maroon said earlier. All just so people can go through life under a false sense of security.

What a damn ridiculous premise to live under. You are essentially proposing a solution that is looking for a problem. If your employees are working in close quarters with an endemic virus that bypasses pretty much everything but an N95 mask, they are going to catch it regardless of a mask or not. I guess if it makes them feel better and allows you to maintain peak employee productivity until one of them catches the virus (regardless of a mask or not) then feel free to provide them masks or pay them more.

You are wasting your money though because they are going to get it anyway.

---

Actually in life you have to make all kinds of decisions without conclusive aggregate studies so no it's not a damn ridiculous premise to live under. We do it everyday. Generally you use your intuition to make those decisions. As I stated earlier our intuition tends to fail us in low probability high risk situations. In the business example I used of course you would follow all reasonable protocols social distancing, extra cleaning, installing proper filtration systems, and if you had 100s of millions of dollars at stake the smart thing to do would be to have your employees wear proper masks (because the cost is low) based on none aggregate transmission studies. It's just simple risk mitigation when the cost is high. The worst thing that can happen to you as a company in that situation is to loose the contract because of an outbreak you could have prevented. It's the smart thing to do in the face of so many unknowns.

austagg99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

Cassius said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

the governments decision to end the mandate to wear mask doesn't change the responsibility that comes with my freedom. Wearing a well fitting well designed mask in confined areas is a small burden and has been shown to lower transmission rates (even if only a little). Because of those two things I still wear one. The fact that someone would see my decision to do that in any type of negative way shows how ridiculously politicized such a simple decision has become. Such a response seriously brings into question whether that persons judgement is being clouded by politics.

---

There is no evidence of aggregate, reduced transmission of a virus related to donning masks. If you want to wear one, do it. But drop the nonsense about doing it based on evidence of reduced rates of transmission.

---

It's a beautiful day, and I'm sitting on my back porch enjoying a beer so I'm not going to track down citations (besides reading the cdc guidelines recommended to me by one of the ill informed posters above) but focused studies I've read showed that good masks worn properly reduce the transmission of particles that we know transmit the disease. Given that fact and the absence of conclusive studies either way on population transmission the CONSERVATIVE approach to this problem given the low cost of wearing a mask would be to wear one properly fitted.

---

The same CDC that said masks don't work? Which CDC on which day should we consider their guidance valid? We already know that masks do not stop this virus. We have reams of real world data from all over the country and world showing mask usage with zero correlation that they do anything. We have scientists who are on record saying the masks can't stop SARS type viruses...didn't stop the last SARS outbreak....but it will stop this one for...reasons?

But, you've already moved my direction anyway by staying there are no conclusive studies so we should just wear a mask...just in case. Again, feel free to wear one. No one is going to yell at you for it. FTR, I wear one into businesses that require it, so I'm not joyfully double birding people with no mask on as I waltz into a business. I won't be wearing one in businesses that don't require it though because they do nothing except restrict my breathing and they are dehumanizing.

---

Excuse me if I was not clear my intention was not to concede there is no evidence that shows aggregate transmission is not affected by masks only that it's not necessary for my point. Btw you originally cited the cdc not me.
To frame the problem in a different way. If you were running a business that depended on meeting tight deadlines with crucial people working in confined spaces with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake would you pay the people a little extra money to compensate for hassle of wearing a mask given the potential risk aversion masks would give you?

---

If actual efficacy of the mask is not necessary to your point, then all we have done here is create a self-fulfilling prophecy that they are part of the cost of doing business just so people won't sh^t themselves in unnecessary fear. No value add; no actual preventative feature....just an actual adult pacifier like Maroon said earlier. All just so people can go through life under a false sense of security.

What a damn ridiculous premise to live under. You are essentially proposing a solution that is looking for a problem. If your employees are working in close quarters with an endemic virus that bypasses pretty much everything but an N95 mask, they are going to catch it regardless of a mask or not. I guess if it makes them feel better and allows you to maintain peak employee productivity until one of them catches the virus (regardless of a mask or not) then feel free to provide them masks or pay them more.

You are wasting your money though because they are going to get it anyway.

---

Actually in life you have to make all kinds of decisions without conclusive aggregate studies so no it's not a damn ridiculous premise to live under. We do it everyday. Generally you use your intuition to make those decisions. As I stated earlier our intuition tends to fail us in low probability high risk situations. In the business example I used of course you would follow all reasonable protocols social distancing, extra cleaning, installing proper filtration systems, and if you had 100s of millions of dollars at stake the smart thing to do would be to have your employees wear proper masks (because the cost is low) based on none aggregate transmission studies. It's just simple risk mitigation when the cost is high. The worst thing that can happen to you as a company in that situation is to loose the contract because of an outbreak you could have prevented. It's the smart thing to do in the face of so many unknowns.

---

I understand all of that. Thus, it's a manufactured problem with a manufactured solution so we can all just simply move past it. In your words, it becomes risk mitigation to grease the wheels and ensure some normalcy. In more direct terms, it's "Fine, I'll wear a mask or give you a mask so you'll STFU and let life get back to some normalcy." We are essentially saying the same thing at this point.

We will compromise the hell out of it while doing it though. Some of the solutions you mention make sense from a business; they also don't have a direct impact on human behavior (EX: better filtration systems).

What you are ignoring (and what almost everyone on the left is ignoring) is the negative effect of a society all wearing masks. It's a cultural shift on a macro level that will be yet another practice that incrementally undermines our society. And I don't think that's an exaggeration. It's already happened and the conflicting efficacy of masks by supposed scientific authorities has exacerbated the situation.

It's completely dehumanizing; most of us don't even make eye contact with another in public anymore because the mask makes it easy to self-isolate and ignore other people. We are already imploding in this country between the right and the left and now one side (the left) is largely tyrannically in lockstep about all of us wearing masks.

Normalizing a dehumanizing practice is basically throwing fuel onto the fire that is our current discourse in this country.

YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

Cassius said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

the governments decision to end the mandate to wear mask doesn't change the responsibility that comes with my freedom. Wearing a well fitting well designed mask in confined areas is a small burden and has been shown to lower transmission rates (even if only a little). Because of those two things I still wear one. The fact that someone would see my decision to do that in any type of negative way shows how ridiculously politicized such a simple decision has become. Such a response seriously brings into question whether that persons judgement is being clouded by politics.

---

There is no evidence of aggregate, reduced transmission of a virus related to donning masks. If you want to wear one, do it. But drop the nonsense about doing it based on evidence of reduced rates of transmission.

---

It's a beautiful day, and I'm sitting on my back porch enjoying a beer so I'm not going to track down citations (besides reading the cdc guidelines recommended to me by one of the ill informed posters above) but focused studies I've read showed that good masks worn properly reduce the transmission of particles that we know transmit the disease. Given that fact and the absence of conclusive studies either way on population transmission the CONSERVATIVE approach to this problem given the low cost of wearing a mask would be to wear one properly fitted.

---

The same CDC that said masks don't work? Which CDC on which day should we consider their guidance valid? We already know that masks do not stop this virus. We have reams of real world data from all over the country and world showing mask usage with zero correlation that they do anything. We have scientists who are on record saying the masks can't stop SARS type viruses...didn't stop the last SARS outbreak....but it will stop this one for...reasons?

But, you've already moved my direction anyway by staying there are no conclusive studies so we should just wear a mask...just in case. Again, feel free to wear one. No one is going to yell at you for it. FTR, I wear one into businesses that require it, so I'm not joyfully double birding people with no mask on as I waltz into a business. I won't be wearing one in businesses that don't require it though because they do nothing except restrict my breathing and they are dehumanizing.

---

Excuse me if I was not clear my intention was not to concede there is no evidence that shows aggregate transmission is not affected by masks only that it's not necessary for my point. Btw you originally cited the cdc not me.
To frame the problem in a different way. If you were running a business that depended on meeting tight deadlines with crucial people working in confined spaces with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake would you pay the people a little extra money to compensate for hassle of wearing a mask given the potential risk aversion masks would give you?

---

If actual efficacy of the mask is not necessary to your point, then all we have done here is create a self-fulfilling prophecy that they are part of the cost of doing business just so people won't sh^t themselves in unnecessary fear. No value add; no actual preventative feature....just an actual adult pacifier like Maroon said earlier. All just so people can go through life under a false sense of security.

What a damn ridiculous premise to live under. You are essentially proposing a solution that is looking for a problem. If your employees are working in close quarters with an endemic virus that bypasses pretty much everything but an N95 mask, they are going to catch it regardless of a mask or not. I guess if it makes them feel better and allows you to maintain peak employee productivity until one of them catches the virus (regardless of a mask or not) then feel free to provide them masks or pay them more.

You are wasting your money though because they are going to get it anyway.

---

Actually in life you have to make all kinds of decisions without conclusive aggregate studies so no it's not a damn ridiculous premise to live under. We do it everyday. Generally you use your intuition to make those decisions. As I stated earlier our intuition tends to fail us in low probability high risk situations. In the business example I used of course you would follow all reasonable protocols social distancing, extra cleaning, installing proper filtration systems, and if you had 100s of millions of dollars at stake the smart thing to do would be to have your employees wear proper masks (because the cost is low) based on none aggregate transmission studies. It's just simple risk mitigation when the cost is high. The worst thing that can happen to you as a company in that situation is to loose the contract because of an outbreak you could have prevented. It's the smart thing to do in the face of so many unknowns.

---

I understand all of that. Thus, it's a manufactured problem with a manufactured solution so we can all just simply move past it. In your words, it becomes risk mitigation to grease the wheels and ensure some normalcy. In more direct terms, it's "Fine, I'll wear a mask or give you a mask so you'll STFU and let life get back to some normalcy." We are essentially saying the same thing at this point.

We will compromise the hell out of it while doing it though. Some of the solutions you mention make sense from a business; they also don't have a direct impact on human behavior (EX: better filtration systems).

What you are ignoring (and what almost everyone on the left is ignoring) is the negative effect of a society all wearing masks. It's a cultural shift on a macro level that will be yet another practice that incrementally undermines our society. And I don't think that's an exaggeration. It's already happened and the conflicting efficacy of masks by supposed scientific authorities has exacerbated the situation.

It's completely dehumanizing; most of us don't even make eye contact with another in public anymore because the mask makes it easy to self-isolate and ignore other people. We are already imploding in this country between the right and the left and now one side (the left) is largely tyrannically in lockstep about all of us wearing masks.

Normalizing a dehumanizing practice is basically throwing fuel onto the fire that is our current discourse in this country.

---

Just to be clear the problem wasn't manufactured, successfully working through it has been my business life for the last 9 months. If I am willing to take low cost risk mitigation at work to make money then I think it would bring into question my morality if I didn't try to do it in my personal life. It's the whole individual moral responsibility part that goes along with living in a free society. The feedback I've gotten at work is that the social distancing is far more dehumanizing than simply wearing a mask but I do think your concern is valid. I just think it falls into the long term cumulative costs I addressed above. Given current trends we will not be in a COVID pandemic for too much longer.

What annoys me so much about mask mandates is that wearing a non n95 mask is stupid and pointless. They must as well have signs out front that they "to shop here you must wear a pink ***** hat". It would accomplish the same thing as masks, which is nothing to prevent the spread and solely to virtue signal.

I'll keep doing what I've been doing. Avoid places that require masks as much as possible, and when that doesn't work, only wear it if asked by store management.

BrazosDog02 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

I still wear one (N95) and don't care what other people think. Just saw an uncle die from it, and I don't want to bring it home to my wife who has a compromised upper respiratory system and fights off pneumonia periodically from head colds that go south quickly. I'll stop wearing it when I'm comfortable with that decision, and not until then.

---

Yep.

I'm going to wear my mask because people are disgusting. I might even carry my 6' hiking pole and aggressively poke at those who don't maintain distance like on Southpark just because I love messing with anti maskers. At 6'2" and 190 lbs I can get away with just about anything.

---

I can't wait till we happen across each other.

Maroon Dawn said:

---

BrazosDog02 said:

---

barnyard1996 said:

---

Tom Doniphon said:

---

Quote:

---

6'2" and 190

---

---

He'll flip ya.

---

Tee hee. I love messing with all these antimaskers. They remind me of having kids when they were 5. They'd lay down and throw a fit when asked to eat their peas. They made a big old stink over it and fussed and whined but in the end they did what they were told and it was a non issue.

I've never seen an antimasker throw a fit and follow through with. Just internet chatter.

They've been silently obeying and now that Abbott lifted the restriction they have a renewed badassery with which to champion the cause. The sad fact is that if they want to patronize establishments after Friday, some will have to tuck their tail and do what they are told and scurry back to their car where they have all of their masks and put it on. That or not shop there and I'm betting they'll shop. Them having masks in their car is a testament to the fact they won't follow through.

---

Why are you so giddy about the enforcement of something even the CDC has been forced to admit doesn't work and is purely an emotional pacifier for adults

---

Now I REALLY can't wait till we happen across each other.

austagg99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

Cassius said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

the governments decision to end the mandate to wear mask doesn't change the responsibility that comes with my freedom. Wearing a well fitting well designed mask in confined areas is a small burden and has been shown to lower transmission rates (even if only a little). Because of those two things I still wear one. The fact that someone would see my decision to do that in any type of negative way shows how ridiculously politicized such a simple decision has become. Such a response seriously brings into question whether that persons judgement is being clouded by politics.

---

There is no evidence of aggregate, reduced transmission of a virus related to donning masks. If you want to wear one, do it. But drop the nonsense about doing it based on evidence of reduced rates of transmission.

---

It's a beautiful day, and I'm sitting on my back porch enjoying a beer so I'm not going to track down citations (besides reading the cdc guidelines recommended to me by one of the ill informed posters above) but focused studies I've read showed that good masks worn properly reduce the transmission of particles that we know transmit the disease. Given that fact and the absence of conclusive studies either way on population transmission the CONSERVATIVE approach to this problem given the low cost of wearing a mask would be to wear one properly fitted.

---

The same CDC that said masks don't work? Which CDC on which day should we consider their guidance valid? We already know that masks do not stop this virus. We have reams of real world data from all over the country and world showing mask usage with zero correlation that they do anything. We have scientists who are on record saying the masks can't stop SARS type viruses...didn't stop the last SARS outbreak....but it will stop this one for...reasons?

But, you've already moved my direction anyway by staying there are no conclusive studies so we should just wear a mask...just in case. Again, feel free to wear one. No one is going to yell at you for it. FTR, I wear one into businesses that require it, so I'm not joyfully double birding people with no mask on as I waltz into a business. I won't be wearing one in businesses that don't require it though because they do nothing except restrict my breathing and they are dehumanizing.

---

Excuse me if I was not clear my intention was not to concede there is no evidence that shows aggregate transmission is not affected by masks only that it's not necessary for my point. Btw you originally cited the cdc not me.
To frame the problem in a different way. If you were running a business that depended on meeting tight deadlines with crucial people working in confined spaces with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake would you pay the people a little extra money to compensate for hassle of wearing a mask given the potential risk aversion masks would give you?

---

If actual efficacy of the mask is not necessary to your point, then all we have done here is create a self-fulfilling prophecy that they are part of the cost of doing business just so people won't sh^t themselves in unnecessary fear. No value add; no actual preventative feature....just an actual adult pacifier like Maroon said earlier. All just so people can go through life under a false sense of security.

What a damn ridiculous premise to live under. You are essentially proposing a solution that is looking for a problem. If your employees are working in close quarters with an endemic virus that bypasses pretty much everything but an N95 mask, they are going to catch it regardless of a mask or not. I guess if it makes them feel better and allows you to maintain peak employee productivity until one of them catches the virus (regardless of a mask or not) then feel free to provide them masks or pay them more.

You are wasting your money though because they are going to get it anyway.

---

Actually in life you have to make all kinds of decisions without conclusive aggregate studies so no it's not a damn ridiculous premise to live under. We do it everyday. Generally you use your intuition to make those decisions. As I stated earlier our intuition tends to fail us in low probability high risk situations. In the business example I used of course you would follow all reasonable protocols social distancing, extra cleaning, installing proper filtration systems, and if you had 100s of millions of dollars at stake the smart thing to do would be to have your employees wear proper masks (because the cost is low) based on none aggregate transmission studies. It's just simple risk mitigation when the cost is high. The worst thing that can happen to you as a company in that situation is to loose the contract because of an outbreak you could have prevented. It's the smart thing to do in the face of so many unknowns.

---

I understand all of that. Thus, it's a manufactured problem with a manufactured solution so we can all just simply move past it. In your words, it becomes risk mitigation to grease the wheels and ensure some normalcy. In more direct terms, it's "Fine, I'll wear a mask or give you a mask so you'll STFU and let life get back to some normalcy." We are essentially saying the same thing at this point.

We will compromise the hell out of it while doing it though. Some of the solutions you mention make sense from a business; they also don't have a direct impact on human behavior (EX: better filtration systems).

What you are ignoring (and what almost everyone on the left is ignoring) is the negative effect of a society all wearing masks. It's a cultural shift on a macro level that will be yet another practice that incrementally undermines our society. And I don't think that's an exaggeration. It's already happened and the conflicting efficacy of masks by supposed scientific authorities has exacerbated the situation.

It's completely dehumanizing; most of us don't even make eye contact with another in public anymore because the mask makes it easy to self-isolate and ignore other people. We are already imploding in this country between the right and the left and now one side (the left) is largely tyrannically in lockstep about all of us wearing masks.

Normalizing a dehumanizing practice is basically throwing fuel onto the fire that is our current discourse in this country.

---

Just to be clear the problem wasn't manufactured, successfully working through it has been my business life for the last 9 months. If I am willing to take low cost risk mitigation at work to make money then I think it would bring into question my morality if I didn't try to do it in my personal life. It's the whole individual moral responsibility part that goes along with living in a free society. The feedback I've gotten at work is that the social distancing is far more dehumanizing than simply wearing a mask but I do think your concern is valid. I just think it falls into the long term cumulative costs I addressed above. Given current trends we will not be in a COVID pandemic for too much longer.

---

In my office we did not wear masks and all continued to work with active COVId.

Modern problems call for modern solutions!

austagg99 said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

the governments decision to end the mandate to wear mask doesn't change the responsibility that comes with my freedom. Wearing a well fitting well designed mask in confined areas is a small burden and has been shown to lower transmission rates (even if only a little). Because of those two things I still wear one. The fact that someone would see my decision to do that in any type of negative way shows how ridiculously politicized such a simple decision has become. Such a response seriously brings into question whether that persons judgement is being clouded by politics.

---

Well, here's the thing. It's political because the left/Covidians have made it political. Hell, they've made it practically a religion as the left seemingly makes most of their secular planks something to worship.

Almost every public altercation we've seen has been caused by mask Nazi's accosting non-mask wearers. So, while you are seeing some ribbing online about wearing one, I highly doubt you will ever see a non-mask wearer accost you in public over it. Why? Because we don't give a sh^t and just want to be left alone. If you want to wear one, then go for it. I have zero issues with you wearing one. I think it's silly considering the data we have but it's fine if you do.

---

You may think it's silly but I've worked as an engineer in high volume high quality manufacturing for over twenty years. In my experience peoples intuitions tend to fail them when looking at low probability high consequence events. Decision making under those circumstances is tough but you typically don't pass up an essentially free opportunity to lower the probability of the bad outcome. Of course there is a crossover point where the risk mitigation doesn't make sense anymore and that can be difficult to determine but with the virus on the decline and vaccines becoming more available it hardly silly of me to wait a few more months when I can be certain by an order of magnitude that we have reached that point.

Your comments above the "silly" statement just lend more credence to my argument that the issue has become over politicized and that has the potential to cloud peoples judgment.

---

It's silly because they don't work. The CDC and multiple studies have said as much. They were/are essentially a Faustian Bargain we all agreed to participate in to allow some semblance of economic normalcy. However, if you personally feel better wearing one then go for it. I don't think anyone has any issues with folks that volunteer to wear masks and no one is going to say anything to you about it most likely.

Absolutely agree with you it has become political and that is because there is little to no legitimacy to the efficacy of masks for COVID. Thus, when a practice is forced upon a people that has no value add and actually does societal harm then that practice naturally becomes political. People tend to revolt against such events.

---

Since you brought the CDC up I went to their website thinking I must have missed something. Turns out your statement about them isn't aligned at all with their current guidance or the studies they cited. I assume you just haven't kept up with it but I suppose it's also
possible you are letting your political leanings blind you. Again the claim isn't that masks are the panacea or anywhere near as important as mask nazi's make them out to be. Only that its perfectly logical to wear them given the low cost to the user and how low probability high consequence events work.
All the statements on this thread about not understanding science etc.. show a lack of understanding of black swan events. Not that a death from COVID caused by not wearing a mask is truly a black swan because we KNOW it will happen to someone given enough interactions. Just that it is like a black swan event because the likelihood of it happening to you is very very small.

---

The CDC just admitted the other day that the difference between a masked population catching COVID and a non-masking population catching COVID are less than 1%

Masks don't work

They are pacifiers to make adults feel safe because no government official was willing to be honest and say "short of locking every American into their home, there is nothing we can do about COVID until a vaccine is developed"

To want to be worried about killing someone via COVID is like worrying about killing someone from spreading the flu

You've probably done it in your lifetime but you don't really care

---

The fact that you are talking about stats in the range of 1% shows just how clueless you are about the comparison to black swan events I am making. I've read a lot of your post so just to pacify you a bit I actually voted for Trump.

---

Listen here, six-sigma: mandated mask use by an entire population is nowhere near "an essentially free opportunity" to reduce risk.

If you imposed an economic cost on my business of comparable size to the social cost of mandated masking, and yielded a risk reduction of this trivial size, not only would you be fired, but you would be charged with professional malpractice and stripped of your professional credentials.

You basically just made a "better safe than sorry" argument, which says a lot about the risk sophistication of your profession.

45-70Ag said:

---

beerad12man said:

---

MarathonAg12 said:

---

Because the mandate ends Wednesday.....

What are you confused by?

---

Well in fairness who is going to enforce it or care now that won't on Wednesday?

But I would say regardless that logic states it will be a gradual thing. Not all at once

---

Houston police chief announced today if someone doesn't wear a mask in a business that says mask required, that person will be arrested and charged with criminal trespass.

---

Thats not what he said. He said they would be committing criminal trespass and subject to arrest. I guarantee you they would not be arrested. They would be cited, maybe, after they were escorted from the store.

austagg99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

Cassius said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

the governments decision to end the mandate to wear mask doesn't change the responsibility that comes with my freedom. Wearing a well fitting well designed mask in confined areas is a small burden and has been shown to lower transmission rates (even if only a little). Because of those two things I still wear one. The fact that someone would see my decision to do that in any type of negative way shows how ridiculously politicized such a simple decision has become. Such a response seriously brings into question whether that persons judgement is being clouded by politics.

---

There is no evidence of aggregate, reduced transmission of a virus related to donning masks. If you want to wear one, do it. But drop the nonsense about doing it based on evidence of reduced rates of transmission.

---

It's a beautiful day, and I'm sitting on my back porch enjoying a beer so I'm not going to track down citations (besides reading the cdc guidelines recommended to me by one of the ill informed posters above) but focused studies I've read showed that good masks worn properly reduce the transmission of particles that we know transmit the disease. Given that fact and the absence of conclusive studies either way on population transmission the CONSERVATIVE approach to this problem given the low cost of wearing a mask would be to wear one properly fitted.

---

The same CDC that said masks don't work? Which CDC on which day should we consider their guidance valid? We already know that masks do not stop this virus. We have reams of real world data from all over the country and world showing mask usage with zero correlation that they do anything. We have scientists who are on record saying the masks can't stop SARS type viruses...didn't stop the last SARS outbreak....but it will stop this one for...reasons?

But, you've already moved my direction anyway by staying there are no conclusive studies so we should just wear a mask...just in case. Again, feel free to wear one. No one is going to yell at you for it. FTR, I wear one into businesses that require it, so I'm not joyfully double birding people with no mask on as I waltz into a business. I won't be wearing one in businesses that don't require it though because they do nothing except restrict my breathing and they are dehumanizing.

---

Excuse me if I was not clear my intention was not to concede there is no evidence that shows aggregate transmission is not affected by masks only that it's not necessary for my point. Btw you originally cited the cdc not me.
To frame the problem in a different way. If you were running a business that depended on meeting tight deadlines with crucial people working in confined spaces with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake would you pay the people a little extra money to compensate for hassle of wearing a mask given the potential risk aversion masks would give you?

---

Maybe, but that is not at all the same problem. In fact, it's a completely different situation.

The_Fox said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

Cassius said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

the governments decision to end the mandate to wear mask doesn't change the responsibility that comes with my freedom. Wearing a well fitting well
designed mask in confined areas is a small burden and has been shown to lower transmission rates (even if only a little). Because of those two things I still wear one. The fact that someone would see my decision to do that in any type of negative way shows how ridiculously politicized such a simple decision has become. Such a response seriously brings into question whether that persons judgement is being clouded by politics.

---

There is no evidence of aggregate, reduced transmission of a virus related to donning masks. If you want to wear one, do it. But drop the nonsense about doing it based on evidence of reduced rates of transmission.

---

It's a beautiful day, and I'm sitting on my back porch enjoying a beer so I'm not going to track down citations (besides reading the cdc guidelines recommended to me by one of the ill informed posters above) but focused studies I've read showed that good masks worn properly reduce the transmission of particles that we know transmit the disease. Given that fact and the absence of conclusive studies either way on population transmission the CONSERVATIVE approach to this problem given the low cost of wearing a mask would be to wear one properly fitted.

---

The same CDC that said masks don't work? Which CDC on which day should we consider their guidance valid? We already know that masks do not stop this virus. We have reams of real world data from all over the country and world showing mask usage with zero correlation that they do anything. We have scientists who are on record saying the masks can't stop SARS type viruses...didn't stop the last SARS outbreak....but it will stop this one for...reasons?

But, you've already moved my direction anyway by staying there are no conclusive studies so we should just wear a mask...just in case. Again, feel free to wear one. No one is going to yell at you for it. FTR, I wear one into businesses that require it, so I'm not joyfully double birding people with no mask on as I waltz into a business. I won't be wearing one in businesses that don't require it though because they do nothing except restrict my breathing and they are dehumanizing.

---

Excuse me if I was not clear my intention was not to concede there is no evidence that shows aggregate transmission is not affected by masks only that it's not necessary for my point. Btw you originally cited the cdc not me.
To frame the problem in a different way. If you were running a business that depended on meeting tight deadlines with crucial people working in confined spaces with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake would you pay the people a little extra money to compensate for hassle of wearing a mask given the potential risk aversion masks would give you?

---

If actual efficacy of the mask is not necessary to your point, then all we have done here is create a self-fulfilling prophecy that they are part of the cost of doing business just so people won't sh^t themselves in unnecessary fear. No value add; no actual preventative feature....just an actual adult pacifier like Maroon said earlier. All just so people can go through life under a false sense of security.

What a damn ridiculous premise to live under. You are essentially proposing a solution that is looking for a problem. If your employees are working in close quarters with an endemic virus that bypasses pretty much everything but an N95 mask, they are going to catch it regardless of a mask or not. I guess if it makes them feel better and allows you to maintain peak employee productivity until one of them catches the virus (regardless of a mask or not) then feel free to provide them masks or pay them more.

You are wasting your money though because they are going to get it anyway.

---

Actually in life you have to make all kinds of decisions without conclusive aggregate studies so no it's not a damn ridiculous premise to live under. We do it everyday. Generally you use your intuition to make those decisions. As I stated earlier our intuition tends to fail us in low probability high risk situations. In the business example I used of course you would follow all reasonable protocols social distancing, extra cleaning, installing proper filtration systems, and if you had 100s of millions of dollars at stake the smart thing to do would be to have your employees wear proper masks (because the cost is low) based on none aggregate transmission studies. It's just simple risk mitigation when the cost is high. The worst thing that can happen to you as a company in that situation is to loose the contract because of an outbreak you could have prevented. It's the smart thing to do in the face of so many unknowns.

---

I understand all of that. Thus, it's a manufactured problem with a manufactured solution so we can all just simply move past it. In your words, it becomes risk mitigation to grease the wheels and ensure some normalcy. In more direct terms, it's "Fine, I'll wear a mask or give you a mask so you'll STFU and let life get back to some normalcy." We are essentially saying the same thing at this point.

We will compromise the hell out of it while doing it though. Some of the solutions you mention make sense from a business; they also don't have a direct impact on human behavior (EX: better filtration systems).

What you are ignoring (and what almost everyone on the left is ignoring) is the negative effect of a society all wearing masks. It's a cultural shift on a macro level that will be yet another practice that incrementally undermines our society. And I don't think that's an exaggeration. It's already happened and the conflicting efficacy of masks by supposed scientific authorities has exacerbated the situation.

It's completely dehumanizing; most of us don't even make eye contact with another in public anymore because the mask makes it easy to self-isolate and ignore other people. We are already imploding in this country between the right and the left and now one side (the left) is largely tyrannically in lockstep about all of us wearing masks.

Normalizing a dehumanizing practice is basically throwing fuel onto the fire that is our current discourse in this country.

---

Just to be clear the problem wasn't manufactured, successfully working through it has been my business life for the last 9 months. If I am willing to take low cost risk mitigation at work to make money then I think it would bring into question my morality if I didn't try to do it in my personal life. It's the whole individual moral responsibility part that goes along with living in a free society. The feedback I've gotten at work is that the social distancing is far more dehumanizing than simply wearing a mask but I do think your concern is valid. I just think it falls into the long term cumulative costs I addressed above. Given current trends we will not be in a COVID pandemic for too much longer.

---

In my office we did not wear masks and all continued to work with active COVId.

Modern problems call for modern solutions!

---

I assume no one suffered serious consequences from that so that's awesome! Unfortunately, I know of businesses that tried to do the same thing and ended up with dead employees (actually the specific case Im thinking of the owner died). The fact that you posted about your case as if it has any meaning to my argument tells me you don't understand it.

FratboyLegend said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

the governments decision to end the mandate to wear mask doesn't change the responsibility that comes with my freedom. Wearing a well fitting well designed mask in confined areas is a small burden and has been shown to lower transmission rates (even if only a little). Because of those two things I still wear one. The fact that someone would see my decision to do that in any type of negative way shows how ridiculously politicized such a simple decision has become. Such a response seriously brings into question whether that persons judgement is being clouded by politics.

---

Well, here's the thing. It's political because the left/Covidians have made it political. Hell, they've made it practically a religion as the left seemingly makes most of their secular planks something to worship.

Almost every public altercation we've seen has been caused by mask Nazi's accosting non-mask wearers. So, while you are seeing some ribbing online about wearing one, I highly doubt you will ever see a non-mask wearer accost you in public over it. Why? Because we don't give a sh^t and just want to be left alone. If you want to wear one, then go for it. I have zero issues with you wearing one. I think it's silly considering the data we have but it's fine if you do.

---

You may think it's silly but I've worked as an engineer in high volume high quality manufacturing for over twenty years. In my experience peoples intuitions tend to fail them when looking at low probability high consequence events. Decision making under those circumstances is tough but you typically don't pass up an essentially free opportunity to lower the probability of the bad outcome. Of course there is a crossover point where the risk mitigation doesn't make sense anymore and that can be difficult to determine but with the virus on the decline and vaccines becoming more available it hardly silly of me to wait a few more months when I can be certain by an order of magnitude that we have reached that point.

Your comments above the "silly" statement just lend more credence to my argument that the issue has become over politicized and that has the potential to cloud peoples judgment.

---

It's silly because they don't work. The CDC and multiple studies have said as much. They were/are essentially a Faustian Bargain we all agreed to participate in to allow some semblance of economic normalcy. However, if you personally feel better wearing one then go for it. I don't think anyone has any issues with folks that volunteer to wear masks and no one is going to say anything to you about it most likely.

Absolutely agree with you it has become political and that is because there is little to no legitimacy to the efficacy of masks for COVID. Thus, when a practice is forced upon a people that has no value add and actually does societal harm then that practice naturally becomes political. People tend to revolt against such events.

---

Since you brought the CDC up I went to their website thinking I must have missed something. Turns out your statement about them isn't aligned at all with their current guidance or the studies they cited. I assume you just haven't kept up with it but I suppose it's also
possible you are letting your political leanings blind you. Again the claim isn't that masks are the panacea or anywhere near as important as mask nazi's make them out to be. Only that its perfectly logical to wear them given the low cost to the user and how low probability high consequence events work.
All the statements on this thread about not understanding science etc.. show a lack of understanding of black swan events. Not that a death from COVID caused by not wearing a mask is truly a black swan because we KNOW it will happen to someone given enough interactions. Just that it is like a black swan event because the likelihood of it happening to you is very very small.

---

The CDC just admitted the other day that the difference between a masked population catching COVID and a non-masking population catching COVID are less than 1%

Masks don't work

They are pacifiers to make adults feel safe because no government official was willing to be honest and say "short of locking every American into their home, there is nothing we can do about COVID until a vaccine is developed"

To want to be worried about killing someone via COVID is like worrying about killing someone from spreading the flu

You've probably done it in your lifetime but you don't really care

---

The fact that you are talking about stats in the range of 1% shows just how clueless you are about the comparison to black swan events I am making. I've read a lot of your post so just to pacify you a bit I actually voted for Trump.

---

Listen here, six-sigma: mandated mask use by an entire population is nowhere near "an essentially free opportunity" to reduce risk.

If you imposed an economic cost on my business of comparable size to the social cost of mandated masking, and yielded a risk reduction of this trivial size, not only would you be fired, but you would be charged with professional malpractice and stripped of your professional credentials.

You basically just made a "better safe than sorry" argument, which says a lot about the risk sophistication of your profession.

---

If the cost of wearing a mask or supplying your employees with proper masks is too high to you and your business then it may be a risk with taking. This thread is not anoint government mandated mask laws.

No Spin Ag said:

---

I've gotta say I thought for sure I'd see an uptick in people not wearing masks, but I've been to two department stores, a grocery store, a chain barber shop, and Cracker Barrel, and it's still 99.99% people still wearing their masks.

Would you guys attribute this to just a Texan thing, and waiting until Wednesday, or something else?

---

It's f'n sad. Normal decent people just hate unwanted attention and confrontation and want to be left alone. They know that the odds of being approached by some awkward deranged liberal loser skyrocket if you don't wear the stupid dirty piece of cloth over your face at all times.

I used to be this way but now I am hoping for confrontation. I will verbally annihilate any liberal who says a f'n peep and if they want to make it physical, I've just been looking for a good reason for years. I would love nothing more. We need to start getting mean...and physical if need be. It's all they will understand.

austagg99 said:

---

FratboyLegend said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

the governments decision to end the mandate to wear mask doesn't change the responsibility that comes with my freedom. Wearing a well fitting well designed mask in confined areas is a small burden and has been shown to lower transmission rates (even if only a little). Because of those two things I still wear one. The fact that someone would see my decision to do that in any type of negative way shows how ridiculously politicized such a simple decision has become. Such a response seriously brings into question whether that persons judgement is being clouded by politics.

---

Well, here's the thing. It's political because the left/Covidians have made it political. Hell, they've made it practically a religion as the left seemingly makes most of their secular planks something to worship.

Almost every public altercation we've seen has been caused by mask Nazi's accosting non-mask wearers. So, while you are seeing some ribbing online about wearing one, I highly doubt you will ever see a non-mask wearer accost you in public over it. Why? Because we don't give a sh^t and just want to be left alone. If you want to wear one, then go for it. I have zero issues with you wearing one. I think it's silly considering the data we have but it's fine if you do.

---

You may think it's silly but I've worked as an engineer in high volume high quality manufacturing for over twenty years. In my experience peoples intuitions tend to fail them when looking at low probability high consequence events. Decision making under those circumstances is tough but you typically don't pass up an essentially free opportunity to lower the probability of the bad outcome. Of course there is a crossover point where the risk mitigation doesn't make sense anymore and that can be difficult to determine but with the virus on the decline and vaccines becoming more available it hardly silly of me to wait a few more months when I can be certain by an order of magnitude that we have reached that point.

Your comments above the "silly" statement just lend more credence to my argument that the issue has become over politicized and that has the potential to cloud peoples judgment.

---

It's silly because they don't work. The CDC and multiple studies have said as much. They were/are essentially a Faustian Bargain we all agreed to participate in to allow some semblance of economic normalcy. However, if you personally feel better wearing one then go for it. I don't think anyone has any issues with folks that volunteer to wear masks and no one is going to say anything to you about it most likely.

Absolutely agree with you it has become political and that is because there is little to no legitimacy to the efficacy of masks for COVID. Thus, when a practice is forced upon a people that has no value add and actually does societal harm then that practice naturally becomes political. People tend to revolt against such events.

---

Since you brought the CDC up I went to their website thinking I must have missed something. Turns out your statement about them isn't aligned at all with their current guidance or the studies they cited. I assume you just haven't kept up with it but I suppose it's also
possible you are letting your political leanings blind you. Again the claim isn't that masks are the panacea or anywhere near as important as mask nazi's make them out to be. Only that its perfectly logical to wear them given the low cost to the user and how low probability high consequence events work.
All the statements on this thread about not understanding science etc.. show a lack of understanding of black swan events. Not that a death from COVID caused by not wearing a mask is truly a black swan because we KNOW it will happen to someone given enough interactions. Just that it is like a black swan event because the likelihood of it happening to you is very very small.

---

The CDC just admitted the other day that the difference between a masked population catching COVID and a non-masking population catching COVID are less than 1%

Masks don't work

They are pacifiers to make adults feel safe because no government official was willing to be honest and say "short of locking every American into their home, there is nothing we can do about COVID until a vaccine is developed"

To want to be worried about killing someone via COVID is like worrying about killing someone from spreading the flu

You've probably done it in your lifetime but you don't really care

---

The fact that you are talking about stats in the range of 1% shows just how clueless you are about the comparison to black swan events I am making. I've read a lot of your post so just to pacify you a bit I actually voted for Trump.

---

Listen here, six-sigma: mandated mask use by an entire population is nowhere near "an essentially free opportunity" to reduce risk.

If you imposed an economic cost on my business of comparable size to the social cost of mandated masking, and yielded a risk reduction of this trivial size, not only would you be fired, but you would be charged with professional malpractice and stripped of your professional credentials.

You basically just made a "better safe than sorry" argument, which says a lot about the risk sophistication of your profession.

---

If the cost of wearing a mask or supplying your employees with proper masks is too high to you and your business then it may be a risk with taking. This thread is not anoint government mandated mask laws.

---

Meaning the economic cost? Just the economic cost? like they only cost $0.12 apiece?

A pure financial ROI. That's what you are arguing?

Whether it is or not, seems to me like you see a few trees but never the forest.

BrazosDog02 said:

---

barnyard1996 said:

---

Tom Doniphon said:

---

Quote:

---

6'2" and 190

---

---

He'll flip ya.

---

Tee hee. I love messing with all these antimaskers. They remind me of having kids when they were 5. They'd lay down and throw a fit when asked to eat their peas. They made a big old stink over it and fussed and whined but in the end they did what they were told and it was a non issue.

I've never seen an antimasker throw a fit and follow through with. Just internet chatter. .

---

A guy who is 6'2" and 190 doesn't seem all that imposing if he says "tee hee."

austagg99 said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

Cassius said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

the governments decision to end the mandate to wear mask doesn't change the responsibility that comes with my freedom. Wearing a well fitting well
designed mask in confined areas is a small burden and has been shown to lower transmission rates (even if only a little). Because of those two things I still wear one. The fact that someone would see my decision to do that in any type of negative way shows how ridiculously politicized such a simple decision has become. Such a response seriously brings into question whether that persons judgement is being clouded by politics.

---

There is no evidence of aggregate, reduced transmission of a virus related to donning masks. If you want to wear one, do it. But drop the nonsense about doing it based on evidence of reduced rates of transmission.

---

It's a beautiful day, and I'm sitting on my back porch enjoying a beer so I'm not going to track down citations (besides reading the cdc guidelines recommended to me by one of the ill informed posters above) but focused studies I've read showed that good masks worn properly reduce the transmission of particles that we know transmit the disease. Given that fact and the absence of conclusive studies either way on population transmission the CONSERVATIVE approach to this problem given the low cost of wearing a mask would be to wear one properly fitted.

---

The same CDC that said masks don't work? Which CDC on which day should we consider their guidance valid? We already know that masks do not stop this virus. We have reams of real world data from all over the country and world showing mask usage with zero correlation that they do anything. We have scientists who are on record saying the masks can't stop SARS type viruses...didn't stop the last SARS outbreak....but it will stop this one for...reasons?

But, you've already moved my direction anyway by staying there are no conclusive studies so we should just wear a mask...just in case. Again, feel free to wear one. No one is going to yell at you for it. FTR, I wear one into businesses that require it, so I'm not joyfully double birding people with no mask on as I waltz into a business. I won't be wearing one in businesses that don't require it though because they do nothing except restrict my breathing and they are dehumanizing.

---

Excuse me if I was not clear my intention was not to concede there is no evidence that shows aggregate transmission is not affected by masks only that it's not necessary for my point. Btw you originally cited the cdc not me.
To frame the problem in a different way. If you were running a business that depended on meeting tight deadlines with crucial people working in confined spaces with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake would you pay the people a little extra money to compensate for hassle of wearing a mask given the potential risk aversion masks would give you?

---

If actual efficacy of the mask is not necessary to your point, then all we have done here is create a self-fulfilling prophecy that they are part of the cost of doing business just so people won't sh^t themselves in unnecessary fear. No value add; no actual preventative feature....just an actual adult pacifier like Maroon said earlier. All just so people can go through life under a false sense of security.

What a damn ridiculous premise to live under. You are essentially proposing a solution that is looking for a problem. If your employees are working in close quarters with an endemic virus that bypasses pretty much everything but an N95 mask, they are going to catch it regardless of a mask or not. I guess if it makes them feel better and allows you to maintain peak employee productivity until one of them catches the virus (regardless of a mask or not) then feel free to provide them masks or pay them more.

You are wasting your money though because they are going to get it anyway.

---

Actually in life you have to make all kinds of decisions without conclusive aggregate studies so no it's not a damn ridiculous premise to live under. We do it everyday. Generally you use your intuition to make those decisions. As I stated earlier our intuition tends to fail us in low probability high risk situations. In the business example I used of course you would follow all reasonable protocols social distancing, extra cleaning, installing proper filtration systems, and if you had 100s of millions of dollars at stake the smart thing to do would be to have your employees wear proper masks (because the cost is low) based on none aggregate transmission studies. It's just simple risk mitigation when the cost is high. The worst thing that can happen to you as a company in that situation is to loose the contract because of an outbreak you could have prevented. It's the smart thing to do in the face of so many unknowns.

---

I understand all of that. Thus, it's a manufactured problem with a manufactured solution so we can all just simply move past it. In your words, it becomes risk mitigation to grease the wheels and ensure some normalcy. In more direct terms, it's "Fine, I'll wear a mask or give you a mask so you'll STFU and let life get back to some normalcy." We are essentially saying the same thing at this point.

We will compromise the hell out of it while doing it though. Some of the solutions you mention make sense from a business; they also don't have a direct impact on human behavior (EX: better filtration systems).

What you are ignoring (and what almost everyone on the left is ignoring) is the negative effect of a society all wearing masks. It's a cultural shift on a macro level that will be yet another practice that incrementally undermines our society. And I don't think that's an exaggeration. It's already happened and the conflicting efficacy of masks by supposed scientific authorities has exacerbated the situation.

It's completely dehumanizing; most of us don't even make eye contact with another in public anymore because the mask makes it easy to self-isolate and ignore other people. We are already imploding in this country between the right and the left and now one side (the left) is largely tyrannically in lockstep about all of us wearing masks.

Normalizing a dehumanizing practice is basically throwing fuel onto the fire that is our current discourse in this country.

---

Just to be clear the problem wasn't manufactured, successfully working through it has been my business life for the last 9 months. If I am willing to take low cost risk mitigation at work to make money then I think it would bring into question my morality if I didn't try to do it in my personal life. It's the whole individual moral responsibility part that goes along with living in a free society. The feedback I've gotten at work is that the social distancing is far more dehumanizing than simply wearing a mask but I do think your concern is valid. I just think it falls into the long term cumulative costs I addressed above. Given current trends we will not be in a COVID pandemic for too much longer.

---

In my office we did not wear masks and all continued to work with active COVId.

Modern problems call for modern solutions!

---

I assume no one suffered serious consequences from that so that's awesome! Unfortunately, I know of businesses that tried to do the same thing and ended up with dead employees (actually the specific case Im thinking of the owner died). The fact that you posted about your case as if it has any meaning to my argument tells me you don't understand it.

---

Are you a liberal? If so, I do not believe a word you say, no offense. Dishonesty and deception are major cornerstones of the godless liberal faith.

30wedge said:

---

BrazosDog02 said:

---

barnyard1996 said:

---

Tom Doniphon said:

---

Quote:

---

6'2" and 190

---

---

He'll flip ya.

---

Tee hee. I love messing with all these antimaskers. They remind me of having kids when they were 5. They'd lay down and throw a fit when asked to eat their peas. They made a big old stink over it and fussed and whined but in the end they did what they were told and it was a non issue.

I've never seen an antimasker throw a fit and follow through with. Just internet chatter. .

---

A guy who is 6'2" and 190 doesn't seem all that imposing if he says "tee hee."

---

6'2" 190 is not imposing at all. That's just a tall vegan. Prob a low T hipster.

It's embarrassing how many anti-maskers just follow along with everyone and keep wearing masks anyway.

Grow a *********pair and take your damn freedom back. Pathetic.

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

Cassius said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

the governments decision to end the mandate to wear mask doesn't change the responsibility that comes with my freedom. Wearing a well fitting well
designed mask in confined areas is a small burden and has been shown to lower transmission rates (even if only a little). Because of those two things I still wear one. The fact that someone would see my decision to do that in any type of negative way shows how ridiculously politicized such a simple decision has become. Such a response seriously brings into question whether that persons judgement is being clouded by politics.

---

There is no evidence of aggregate, reduced transmission of a virus related to donning masks. If you want to wear one, do it. But drop the nonsense about doing it based on evidence of reduced rates of transmission.

---

It's a beautiful day, and I'm sitting on my back porch enjoying a beer so I'm not going to track down citations (besides reading the cdc guidelines recommended to me by one of the ill informed posters above) but focused studies I've read showed that good masks worn properly reduce the transmission of particles that we know transmit the disease. Given that fact and the absence of conclusive studies either way on population transmission the CONSERVATIVE approach to this problem given the low cost of wearing a mask would be to wear one properly fitted.

---

The same CDC that said masks don't work? Which CDC on which day should we consider their guidance valid? We already know that masks do not stop this virus. We have reams of real world data from all over the country and world showing mask usage with zero correlation that they do anything. We have scientists who are on record saying the masks can't stop SARS type viruses...didn't stop the last SARS outbreak....but it will stop this one for...reasons?

But, you've already moved my direction anyway by staying there are no conclusive studies so we should just wear a mask...just in case. Again, feel free to wear one. No one is going to yell at you for it. FTR, I wear one into businesses that require it, so I'm not joyfully double birding people with no mask on as I waltz into a business. I won't be wearing one in businesses that don't require it though because they do nothing except restrict my breathing and they are dehumanizing.

---

Excuse me if I was not clear my intention was not to concede there is no evidence that shows aggregate transmission is not affected by masks only that it's not necessary for my point. Btw you originally cited the cdc not me.
To frame the problem in a different way. If you were running a business that depended on meeting tight deadlines with crucial people working in confined spaces with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake would you pay the people a little extra money to compensate for hassle of wearing a mask given the potential risk aversion masks would give you?

---

If actual efficacy of the mask is not necessary to your point, then all we have done here is create a self-fulfilling prophecy that they are part of the cost of doing business just so people won't sh^t themselves in unnecessary fear. No value add; no actual preventative feature....just an actual adult pacifier like Maroon said earlier. All just so people can go through life under a false sense of security.

What a damn ridiculous premise to live under. You are essentially proposing a solution that is looking for a problem. If your employees are working in close quarters with an endemic virus that bypasses pretty much everything but an N95 mask, they are going to catch it regardless of a mask or not. I guess if it makes them feel better and allows you to maintain peak employee productivity until one of them catches the virus (regardless of a mask or not) then feel free to provide them masks or pay them more.

You are wasting your money though because they are going to get it anyway.

---

Actually in life you have to make all kinds of decisions without conclusive aggregate studies so no it's not a damn ridiculous premise to live under. We do it everyday. Generally you use your intuition to make those decisions. As I stated earlier our intuition tends to fail us in low probability high risk situations. In the business example I used of course you would follow all reasonable protocols social distancing, extra cleaning, installing proper filtration systems, and if you had 100s of millions of dollars at stake the smart thing to do would be to have your employees wear proper masks (because the cost is low) based on none aggregate transmission studies. It's just simple risk mitigation when the cost is high. The worst thing that can happen to you as a company in that situation is to loose the contract because of an outbreak you could have prevented. It's the smart thing to do in the face of so many unknowns.

---

I understand all of that. Thus, it's a manufactured problem with a manufactured solution so we can all just simply move past it. In your words, it becomes risk mitigation to grease the wheels and ensure some normalcy. In more direct terms, it's "Fine, I'll wear a mask or give you a mask so you'll STFU and let life get back to some normalcy." We are essentially saying the same thing at this point.

We will compromise the hell out of it while doing it though. Some of the solutions you mention make sense from a business; they also don't have a direct impact on human behavior (EX: better filtration systems).

What you are ignoring (and what almost everyone on the left is ignoring) is the negative effect of a society all wearing masks. It's a cultural shift on a macro level that will be yet another practice that incrementally undermines our society. And I don't think that's an exaggeration. It's already happened and the conflicting efficacy of masks by supposed scientific authorities has exacerbated the situation.

It's completely dehumanizing; most of us don't even make eye contact with another in public anymore because the mask makes it easy to self-isolate and ignore other people. We are already imploding in this country between the right and the left and now one side (the left) is largely tyrannically in lockstep about all of us wearing masks.

Normalizing a dehumanizing practice is basically throwing fuel onto the fire that is our current discourse in this country.

---

Just to be clear the problem wasn't manufactured, successfully working through it has been my business life for the last 9 months. If I am willing to take low cost risk mitigation at work to make money then I think it would bring into question my morality if I didn't try to do it in my personal life. It's the whole individual moral responsibility part that goes along with living in a free society. The feedback I've gotten at work is that the social distancing is far more dehumanizing than simply wearing a mask but I do think your concern is valid. I just think it falls into the long term cumulative costs I addressed above. Given current trends we will not be in a COVID pandemic for too much longer.

---

In my office we did not wear masks and all continued to work with active COVId.

Modern problems call for modern solutions!

---

I assume no one suffered serious consequences from that so that's awesome! Unfortunately, I know of businesses that tried to do the same thing and ended up with dead employees (actually the specific case Im thinking of the owner died). The fact that you posted about your case as if it has any meaning to my argument tells me you don't understand it.

---

Are you a liberal? If so, I do not believe a word you say, no offense. Dishonesty and deception are major cornerstones of the godless liberal faith.

---

I've never voted for a democrat in my life. I'm not sure how you would define a modern conservative but I think the new deal and the great society are a bunch of bs.

FratboyLegend said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

FratboyLegend said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

the governments decision to end the mandate to wear mask doesn't change the responsibility that comes with my freedom. Wearing a well fitting well designed mask in confined areas is a small burden and has been shown to lower transmission rates (even if only a little). Because of those two things I still wear one. The fact that someone would see my decision to do that in any type of negative way shows how ridiculously politicized such a simple decision has become. Such a response seriously brings into question whether that persons judgement is being clouded by politics.

---

Well, here's the thing. It's political because the left/Covidians have made it political. Hell, they've made it practically a religion as the left seemingly makes most of their secular planks something to worship.

Almost every public altercation we've seen has been caused by mask Nazi's accosting non-mask wearers. So, while you are seeing some ribbing online about wearing one, I highly doubt you will ever see a non-mask wearer accost you in public over it. Why? Because we don't give a sh^t and just want to be left alone. If you want to wear one, then go for it. I have zero issues with you wearing one. I think it's silly considering the data we have but it's fine if you do.

---

You may think it's silly but I've worked as an engineer in high volume high quality manufacturing for over twenty years. In my experience peoples intuitions tend to fail them when looking at low probability high consequence events. Decision making under those circumstances is tough but you typically don't pass up an essentially free opportunity to lower the probability of the bad outcome. Of course there is a crossover point where the risk mitigation doesn't make sense anymore and that can be difficult to determine but with the virus on the decline and vaccines becoming more available it hardly silly of me to wait a few more months when I can be certain by an order of magnitude that we have reached that point.

Your comments above the "silly" statement just lend more credence to my argument that the issue has become over politicized and that has the potential to cloud peoples judgment.

---

It's silly because they don't work. The CDC and multiple studies have said as much. They were/are essentially a Faustian Bargain we all agreed to participate in to allow some semblance of economic normalcy. However, if you personally feel better wearing one then go for it. I don't think anyone has any issues with folks that volunteer to wear masks and no one is going to say anything to you about it most likely.

Absolutely agree with you it has become political and that is because there is little to no legitimacy to the efficacy of masks for COVID. Thus, when a practice is forced upon a people that has no value add and actually does societal harm then that practice naturally becomes political. People tend to revolt against such events.

---

Since you brought the CDC up I went to their website thinking I must have missed something. Turns out your statement about them isn't aligned at all with their current guidance or the studies they cited. I assume you just haven't kept up with it but I suppose it's also
possible you are letting your political leanings blind you. Again the claim isn't that masks are the panacea or anywhere near as important as mask nazi's make them out to be. Only that its perfectly logical to wear them given the low cost to the user and how low probability high consequence events work.
All the statements on this thread about not understanding science etc.. show a lack of understanding of black swan events. Not that a death from COVID caused by not wearing a mask is truly a black swan because we KNOW it will happen to someone given enough interactions. Just that it is like a black swan event because the likelihood of it happening to you is very very small.

---

The CDC just admitted the other day that the difference between a masked population catching COVID and a non-masking population catching COVID are less than 1%

Masks don't work

They are pacifiers to make adults feel safe because no government official was willing to be honest and say "short of locking every American into their home, there is nothing we can do about COVID until a vaccine is developed"

To want to be worried about killing someone via COVID is like worrying about killing someone from spreading the flu

You've probably done it in your lifetime but you don't really care

---

The fact that you are talking about stats in the range of 1% shows just how clueless you are about the comparison to black swan events I am making. I've read a lot of your post so just to pacify you a bit I actually voted for Trump.

---

Listen here, six-sigma: mandated mask use by an entire population is nowhere near "an essentially free opportunity" to reduce risk.

If you imposed an economic cost on my business of comparable size to the social cost of mandated masking, and yielded a risk reduction of this trivial size, not only would you be fired, but you would be charged with professional malpractice and stripped of your professional credentials.

You basically just made a "better safe than sorry" argument, which says a lot about the risk sophistication of your profession.

---

If the cost of wearing a mask or supplying your employees with proper masks is too high to you and your business then it may be a risk with taking. This thread is not anoint government mandated mask laws.

---

Meaning the economic cost? Just the economic cost? like they only cost $0.12 apiece?

A pure financial ROI. That's what you are arguing?

Whether it is or not, seems to me like you see a few trees but never the forest.

---

No actually I see a forest (and enjoy being in it) but just do what I can to keep from getting hit by a falling tree.

austagg99 said:

---

FratboyLegend said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

FratboyLegend said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

the governments decision to end the mandate to wear mask doesn't change the responsibility that comes with my freedom. Wearing a well fitting well designed mask in confined areas is a small burden and has been shown to lower transmission rates (even if only a little). Because of those two things I still wear one. The fact that someone would see my decision to do that in any type of negative way shows how ridiculously politicized such a simple decision has become. Such a response seriously brings into question whether that persons judgement is being clouded by politics.

---

Well, here's the thing. It's political because the left/Covidians have made it political. Hell, they've made it practically a religion as the left seemingly makes most of their secular planks something to worship.

Almost every public altercation we've seen has been caused by mask Nazi's accosting non-mask wearers. So, while you are seeing some ribbing online about wearing one, I highly doubt you will ever see a non-mask wearer accost you in public over it. Why? Because we don't give a sh^t and just want to be left alone. If you want to wear one, then go for it. I have zero issues with you wearing one. I think it's silly considering the data we have but it's fine if you do.

---

You may think it's silly but I've worked as an engineer in high volume high quality manufacturing for over twenty years. In my experience peoples intuitions tend to fail them when looking at low probability high consequence events. Decision making under those circumstances is tough but you typically don't pass up an essentially free opportunity to lower the probability of the bad outcome. Of course there is a crossover point where the risk mitigation doesn't make sense anymore and that can be difficult to determine but with the virus on the decline and vaccines becoming more available it hardly silly of me to wait a few more months when I can be certain by an order of magnitude that we have reached that point.

Your comments above the "silly" statement just lend more credence to my argument that the issue has become over politicized and that has the potential to cloud peoples judgment.

---

It's silly because they don't work. The CDC and multiple studies have said as much. They were/are essentially a Faustian Bargain we all agreed to participate in to allow some semblance of economic normalcy. However, if you personally feel better wearing one then go for it. I don't think anyone has any issues with folks that volunteer to wear masks and no one is going to say anything to you about it most likely.

Absolutely agree with you it has become political and that is because there is little to no legitimacy to the efficacy of masks for COVID. Thus, when a practice is forced upon a people that has no value add and actually does societal harm then that practice naturally becomes political. People tend to revolt against such events.

---

Since you brought the CDC up I went to their website thinking I must have missed something. Turns out your statement about them isn't aligned at all with their current guidance or the studies they cited. I assume you just haven't kept up with it but I suppose it's also
possible you are letting your political leanings blind you. Again the claim isn't that masks are the panacea or anywhere near as important as mask nazi's make them out to be. Only that its perfectly logical to wear them given the low cost to the user and how low probability high consequence events work.
All the statements on this thread about not understanding science etc.. show a lack of understanding of black swan events. Not that a death from COVID caused by not wearing a mask is truly a black swan because we KNOW it will happen to someone given enough interactions. Just that it is like a black swan event because the likelihood of it happening to you is very very small.

---

The CDC just admitted the other day that the difference between a masked population catching COVID and a non-masking population catching COVID are less than 1%

Masks don't work

They are pacifiers to make adults feel safe because no government official was willing to be honest and say "short of locking every American into their home, there is nothing we can do about COVID until a vaccine is developed"

To want to be worried about killing someone via COVID is like worrying about killing someone from spreading the flu

You've probably done it in your lifetime but you don't really care

---

The fact that you are talking about stats in the range of 1% shows just how clueless you are about the comparison to black swan events I am making. I've read a lot of your post so just to pacify you a bit I actually voted for Trump.

---

Listen here, six-sigma: mandated mask use by an entire population is nowhere near "an essentially free opportunity" to reduce risk.

If you imposed an economic cost on my business of comparable size to the social cost of mandated masking, and yielded a risk reduction of this trivial size, not only would you be fired, but you would be charged with professional malpractice and stripped of your professional credentials.

You basically just made a "better safe than sorry" argument, which says a lot about the risk sophistication of your profession.

---

If the cost of wearing a mask or supplying your employees with proper masks is too high to you and your business then it may be a risk with taking. This thread is not anoint government mandated mask laws.

---

Meaning the economic cost? Just the economic cost? like they only cost $0.12 apiece?

A pure financial ROI. That's what you are arguing?

Whether it is or not, seems to me like you see a few trees but never the forest.

---

No actually I see a forest (and enjoy being in it) but just do what I can to keep from getting hit by a falling tree.

---

Are you passingly familiar with the manufacturing process for the vanes used in commercial jet engines, or at least the level of QC and precision required?

Thought I would finish off the weekend by saying masks are worthless and you don't have to wear one if you don't want to.

FratboyLegend said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

FratboyLegend said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

FratboyLegend said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

the governments decision to end the mandate to wear mask doesn't change the responsibility that comes with my freedom. Wearing a well fitting well designed mask in confined areas is a small burden and has been shown to lower transmission rates (even if only a little). Because of those two things I still wear one. The fact that someone would see my decision to do that in any type of negative way shows how ridiculously politicized such a simple decision has become. Such a response seriously brings into question whether that persons judgement is being clouded by politics.

---

Well, here's the thing. It's political because the left/Covidians have made it political. Hell, they've made it practically a religion as the left seemingly makes most of their secular planks something to worship.

Almost every public altercation we've seen has been caused by mask Nazi's accosting non-mask wearers. So, while you are seeing some ribbing online about wearing one, I highly doubt you will ever see a non-mask wearer accost you in public over it. Why? Because we don't give a sh^t and just want to be left alone. If you want to wear one, then go for it. I have zero issues with you wearing one. I think it's silly considering the data we have but it's fine if you do.

---

You may think it's silly but I've worked as an engineer in high volume high quality manufacturing for over twenty years. In my experience peoples intuitions tend to fail them when looking at low probability high consequence events. Decision making under those circumstances is tough but you typically don't pass up an essentially free opportunity to lower the probability of the bad outcome. Of course there is a crossover point where the risk mitigation doesn't make sense anymore and that can be difficult to determine but with the virus on the decline and vaccines becoming more available it hardly silly of me to wait a few more months when I can be certain by an order of magnitude that we have reached that point.

Your comments above the "silly" statement just lend more credence to my argument that the issue has become over politicized and that has the potential to cloud peoples judgment.

---

It's silly because they don't work. The CDC and multiple studies have said as much. They were/are essentially a Faustian Bargain we all agreed to participate in to allow some semblance of economic normalcy. However, if you personally feel better wearing one then go for it. I don't think anyone has any issues with folks that volunteer to wear masks and no one is going to say anything to you about it most likely.

Absolutely agree with you it has become political and that is because there is little to no legitimacy to the efficacy of masks for COVID. Thus, when a practice is forced upon a people that has no value add and actually does societal harm then that practice naturally becomes political. People tend to revolt against such events.

---

Since you brought the CDC up I went to their website thinking I must have missed something. Turns out your statement about them isn't aligned at all with their current guidance or the studies they cited. I assume you just haven't kept up with it but I suppose it's also
possible you are letting your political leanings blind you. Again the claim isn't that masks are the panacea or anywhere near as important as mask nazi's make them out to be. Only that its perfectly logical to wear them given the low cost to the user and how low probability high consequence events work.
All the statements on this thread about not understanding science etc.. show a lack of understanding of black swan events. Not that a death from COVID caused by not wearing a mask is truly a black swan because we KNOW it will happen to someone given enough interactions. Just that it is like a black swan event because the likelihood of it happening to you is very very small.

---

The CDC just admitted the other day that the difference between a masked population catching COVID and a non-masking population catching COVID are less than 1%

Masks don't work

They are pacifiers to make adults feel safe because no government official was willing to be honest and say "short of locking every American into their home, there is nothing we can do about COVID until a vaccine is developed"

To want to be worried about killing someone via COVID is like worrying about killing someone from spreading the flu

You've probably done it in your lifetime but you don't really care

---

The fact that you are talking about stats in the range of 1% shows just how clueless you are about the comparison to black swan events I am making. I've read a lot of your post so just to pacify you a bit I actually voted for Trump.

---

Listen here, six-sigma: mandated mask use by an entire population is nowhere near "an essentially free opportunity" to reduce risk.

If you imposed an economic cost on my business of comparable size to the social cost of mandated masking, and yielded a risk reduction of this trivial size, not only would you be fired, but you would be charged with professional malpractice and stripped of your professional credentials.

You basically just made a "better safe than sorry" argument, which says a lot about the risk sophistication of your profession.

---

If the cost of wearing a mask or supplying your employees with proper masks is too high to you and your business then it may be a risk with taking. This thread is not anoint government mandated mask laws.

---

Meaning the economic cost? Just the economic cost? like they only cost $0.12 apiece?

A pure financial ROI. That's what you are arguing?

Whether it is or not, seems to me like you see a few trees but never the forest.

---

No actually I see a forest (and enjoy being in it) but just do what I can to keep from getting hit by a falling tree.

---

Are you passingly familiar with the manufacturing process for the vanes used in commercial jet engines, or at least the level of QC and precision required?

---

My experience is with high volume high quality manufacturing where the consequences of a mistake will ruin you financially. Anything to do with a jet engine would be low volume high risk but I can imagine the challenges involved.

austagg99 said:

---

FratboyLegend said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

FratboyLegend said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

FratboyLegend said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

the governments decision to end the mandate to wear mask doesn't change the responsibility that comes with my freedom. Wearing a well fitting well designed mask in confined areas is a small burden and has been shown to lower transmission rates (even if only a little). Because of those two things I still wear one. The fact that someone would see my decision to do that in any type of negative way shows how ridiculously politicized such a simple decision has become. Such a response seriously brings into question whether that persons judgement is being clouded by politics.

---

Well, here's the thing. It's political because the left/Covidians have made it political. Hell, they've made it practically a religion as the left seemingly makes most of their secular planks something to worship.

Almost every public altercation we've seen has been caused by mask Nazi's accosting non-mask wearers. So, while you are seeing some ribbing online about wearing one, I highly doubt you will ever see a non-mask wearer accost you in public over it. Why? Because we don't give a sh^t and just want to be left alone. If you want to wear one, then go for it. I have zero issues with you wearing one. I think it's silly considering the data we have but it's fine if you do.

---

You may think it's silly but I've worked as an engineer in high volume high quality manufacturing for over twenty years. In my experience peoples intuitions tend to fail them when looking at low probability high consequence events. Decision making under those circumstances is tough but you typically don't pass up an essentially free opportunity to lower the probability of the bad outcome. Of course there is a crossover point where the risk mitigation doesn't make sense anymore and that can be difficult to determine but with the virus on the decline and vaccines becoming more available it hardly silly of me to wait a few more months when I can be certain by an order of magnitude that we have reached that point.

Your comments above the "silly" statement just lend more credence to my argument that the issue has become over politicized and that has the potential to cloud peoples judgment.

---

It's silly because they don't work. The CDC and multiple studies have said as much. They were/are essentially a Faustian Bargain we all agreed to participate in to allow some semblance of economic normalcy. However, if you personally feel better wearing one then go for it. I don't think anyone has any issues with folks that volunteer to wear masks and no one is going to say anything to you about it most likely.

Absolutely agree with you it has become political and that is because there is little to no legitimacy to the efficacy of masks for COVID. Thus, when a practice is forced upon a people that has no value add and actually does societal harm then that practice naturally becomes political. People tend to revolt against such events.

---

Since you brought the CDC up I went to their website thinking I must have missed something. Turns out your statement about them isn't aligned at all with their current guidance or the studies they cited. I assume you just haven't kept up with it but I suppose it's also
possible you are letting your political leanings blind you. Again the claim isn't that masks are the panacea or anywhere near as important as mask nazi's make them out to be. Only that its perfectly logical to wear them given the low cost to the user and how low probability high consequence events work.
All the statements on this thread about not understanding science etc.. show a lack of understanding of black swan events. Not that a death from COVID caused by not wearing a mask is truly a black swan because we KNOW it will happen to someone given enough interactions. Just that it is like a black swan event because the likelihood of it happening to you is very very small.

---

The CDC just admitted the other day that the difference between a masked population catching COVID and a non-masking population catching COVID are less than 1%

Masks don't work

They are pacifiers to make adults feel safe because no government official was willing to be honest and say "short of locking every American into their home, there is nothing we can do about COVID until a vaccine is developed"

To want to be worried about killing someone via COVID is like worrying about killing someone from spreading the flu

You've probably done it in your lifetime but you don't really care

---

The fact that you are talking about stats in the range of 1% shows just how clueless you are about the comparison to black swan events I am making. I've read a lot of your post so just to pacify you a bit I actually voted for Trump.

---

Listen here, six-sigma: mandated mask use by an entire population is nowhere near "an essentially free opportunity" to reduce risk.

If you imposed an economic cost on my business of comparable size to the social cost of mandated masking, and yielded a risk reduction of this trivial size, not only would you be fired, but you would be charged with professional malpractice and stripped of your professional credentials.

You basically just made a "better safe than sorry" argument, which says a lot about the risk sophistication of your profession.

---

If the cost of wearing a mask or supplying your employees with proper masks is too high to you and your business then it may be a risk with taking. This thread is not anoint government mandated mask laws.

---

Meaning the economic cost? Just the economic cost? like they only cost $0.12 apiece?

A pure financial ROI. That's what you are arguing?

Whether it is or not, seems to me like you see a few trees but never the forest.

---

No actually I see a forest (and enjoy being in it) but just do what I can to keep from getting hit by a falling tree.

---

Are you passingly familiar with the manufacturing process for the vanes used in commercial jet engines, or at least the level of QC and precision required?

---

My experience is with high volume high quality manufacturing where the consequences of a mistake will ruin you financially. Anything to do with a jet engine would be low volume high risk but I can imagine the challenges involved.

---

I'm enough of a nerd that the book I'm currently reading is called The Perfectionists and is basically about the history of increasing engineering tolerances.. A little embarrassing but I recently picked up an old car restoration project and the concept of mechanical tolerances struck me as interesting.

No Spin Ag said:

---

I've gotta say I thought for sure I'd see an uptick in people not wearing masks, but I've been to two department stores, a grocery store, a chain barber shop, and Cracker Barrel, and it's still 99.99% people still wearing their masks.

Would you guys attribute this to just a Texan thing, and waiting until Wednesday, or something else?

---

I went to two doctor offices last week. Everyone at each was wearing masks.

Also, at the pharmacy.

austagg99 said:

---

FratboyLegend said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

FratboyLegend said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

FratboyLegend said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

the governments decision to end the mandate to wear mask doesn't change the responsibility that comes with my freedom. Wearing a well fitting well designed mask in confined areas is a small burden and has been shown to lower transmission rates (even if only a little). Because of those two things I still wear one. The fact that someone would see my decision to do that in any type of negative way shows how ridiculously politicized such a simple decision has become. Such a response seriously brings into question whether that persons judgement is being clouded by politics.

---

Well, here's the thing. It's political because the left/Covidians have made it political. Hell, they've made it practically a religion as the left seemingly makes most of their secular planks something to worship.

Almost every public altercation we've seen has been caused by mask Nazi's accosting non-mask wearers. So, while you are seeing some ribbing online about wearing one, I highly doubt you will ever see a non-mask wearer accost you in public over it. Why? Because we don't give a sh^t and just want to be left alone. If you want to wear one, then go for it. I have zero issues with you wearing one. I think it's silly considering the data we have but it's fine if you do.

---

You may think it's silly but I've worked as an engineer in high volume high quality manufacturing for over twenty years. In my experience peoples intuitions tend to fail them when looking at low probability high consequence events. Decision making under those circumstances is tough but you typically don't pass up an essentially free opportunity to lower the probability of the bad outcome. Of course there is a crossover point where the risk mitigation doesn't make sense anymore and that can be difficult to determine but with the virus on the decline and vaccines becoming more available it hardly silly of me to wait a few more months when I can be certain by an order of magnitude that we have reached that point.

Your comments above the "silly" statement just lend more credence to my argument that the issue has become over politicized and that has the potential to cloud peoples judgment.

---

It's silly because they don't work. The CDC and multiple studies have said as much. They were/are essentially a Faustian Bargain we all agreed to participate in to allow some semblance of economic normalcy. However, if you personally feel better wearing one then go for it. I don't think anyone has any issues with folks that volunteer to wear masks and no one is going to say anything to you about it most likely.

Absolutely agree with you it has become political and that is because there is little to no legitimacy to the efficacy of masks for COVID. Thus, when a practice is forced upon a people that has no value add and actually does societal harm then that practice naturally becomes political. People tend to revolt against such events.

---

Since you brought the CDC up I went to their website thinking I must have missed something. Turns out your statement about them isn't aligned at all with their current guidance or the studies they cited. I assume you just haven't kept up with it but I suppose it's also
possible you are letting your political leanings blind you. Again the claim isn't that masks are the panacea or anywhere near as important as mask nazi's make them out to be. Only that its perfectly logical to wear them given the low cost to the user and how low probability high consequence events work.
All the statements on this thread about not understanding science etc.. show a lack of understanding of black swan events. Not that a death from COVID caused by not wearing a mask is truly a black swan because we KNOW it will happen to someone given enough interactions. Just that it is like a black swan event because the likelihood of it happening to you is very very small.

---

The CDC just admitted the other day that the difference between a masked population catching COVID and a non-masking population catching COVID are less than 1%

Masks don't work

They are pacifiers to make adults feel safe because no government official was willing to be honest and say "short of locking every American into their home, there is nothing we can do about COVID until a vaccine is developed"

To want to be worried about killing someone via COVID is like worrying about killing someone from spreading the flu

You've probably done it in your lifetime but you don't really care

---

The fact that you are talking about stats in the range of 1% shows just how clueless you are about the comparison to black swan events I am making. I've read a lot of your post so just to pacify you a bit I actually voted for Trump.

---

Listen here, six-sigma: mandated mask use by an entire population is nowhere near "an essentially free opportunity" to reduce risk.

If you imposed an economic cost on my business of comparable size to the social cost of mandated masking, and yielded a risk reduction of this trivial size, not only would you be fired, but you would be charged with professional malpractice and stripped of your professional credentials.

You basically just made a "better safe than sorry" argument, which says a lot about the risk sophistication of your profession.

---

If the cost of wearing a mask or supplying your employees with proper masks is too high to you and your business then it may be a risk with taking. This thread is not anoint government mandated mask laws.

---

Meaning the economic cost? Just the economic cost? like they only cost $0.12 apiece?

A pure financial ROI. That's what you are arguing?

Whether it is or not, seems to me like you see a few trees but never the forest.

---

No actually I see a forest (and enjoy being in it) but just do what I can to keep from getting hit by a falling tree.

---

Are you passingly familiar with the manufacturing process for the vanes used in commercial jet engines, or at least the level of QC and precision required?

---

My experience is with high volume high quality manufacturing where the consequences of a mistake will ruin you financially. Anything to do with a jet engine would be low volume high risk but I can imagine the challenges involved.

---

Well, I don't know much about it either, but I saw a documentary once and let's just say it is a part that comes off an assembly line, and must be produced to a very high tolerance and very high quality. The reason is obvious, if it breaks or fails, it can take out an entire engine, and potentially even an entire airliner.

OK, so on this assembly line, there are engineers, and QC guys. Those guys jobs are very important, IN THEIR SILO.

Those guys should be empowered to make recommendations or exercise business discretion that improves the QC and tolerance of the parts. They should be empowered to make operating decisions like shutting down production or even trashing an entire product batch if parts fall outside of specification. But beyond that, they are outside their sandbox. The cost of throwing out some parts or making incremental investment seems to fit the "low cost" or "essentially free" characterization you used above.

Now, should these guys be allowed to recall an entire product batch that has already shipped? Maybe, that could be debated.

Should those guys be allowed to re-engineer an entire product line for incremental QC / precision? Probably not, that decision gets made above their pay grade by people who take production into account, but consider other issues.

Should these guys be allowed to remove the part from the marketplace because it doesn't meet a hypothetical higher level of quality they personally feel is necessary for maximum safety? Um, no. They should be fired for even suggesting such a thing.

Should these guys be able to declare all the different engine brands their parts end up in "unsafe" because they discovered that a statistically significant number of parts slipped through their inspection process? NO. There is a burden of proof far higher than that.

What happened with Covid is we somehow empowered these guys ground the entire domestic air travel fleet because they needed time to figure some stuff out with respect to these parts they couldn't quite make sense of. Don't worry they said. It will take some time, but not too much.

When the boss asked "how long", what do you think they said? 15 days

Well, the story ends like this. A plane crashed. The guys got the parts figured out, it took them about 35 days to do that.

But we kept the planes grounded and the schools closed and the business impaired and the people frustrated and everybody wrapped up in histrionics for a whole other year, and we still aren't done. We have paid one of the highest prices ever paid in the history of America. This is the point I was making in my original post to you. The social and psychological costs of the masks alone are not justifiable even if they reduced daily risk by 50%.

We should have just let another couple planes crash and been done with it.

FratboyLegend said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

FratboyLegend said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

FratboyLegend said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

FratboyLegend said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

the governments decision to end the mandate to wear mask doesn't change the responsibility that comes with my freedom. Wearing a well fitting well designed mask in confined areas is a small burden and has been shown to lower transmission rates (even if only a little). Because of those two things I still wear one. The fact that someone would see my decision to do that in any type of negative way shows how ridiculously politicized such a simple decision has become. Such a response seriously brings into question whether that persons judgement is being clouded by politics.

---

Well, here's the thing. It's political because the left/Covidians have made it political. Hell, they've made it practically a religion as the left seemingly makes most of their secular planks something to worship.

Almost every public altercation we've seen has been caused by mask Nazi's accosting non-mask wearers. So, while you are seeing some ribbing online about wearing one, I highly doubt you will ever see a non-mask wearer accost you in public over it. Why? Because we don't give a sh^t and just want to be left alone. If you want to wear one, then go for it. I have zero issues with you wearing one. I think it's silly considering the data we have but it's fine if you do.

---

You may think it's silly but I've worked as an engineer in high volume high quality manufacturing for over twenty years. In my experience peoples intuitions tend to fail them when looking at low probability high consequence events. Decision making under those circumstances is tough but you typically don't pass up an essentially free opportunity to lower the probability of the bad outcome. Of course there is a crossover point where the risk mitigation doesn't make sense anymore and that can be difficult to determine but with the virus on the decline and vaccines becoming more available it hardly silly of me to wait a few more months when I can be certain by an order of magnitude that we have reached that point.

Your comments above the "silly" statement just lend more credence to my argument that the issue has become over politicized and that has the potential to cloud peoples judgment.

---

It's silly because they don't work. The CDC and multiple studies have said as much. They were/are essentially a Faustian Bargain we all agreed to participate in to allow some semblance of economic normalcy. However, if you personally feel better wearing one then go for it. I don't think anyone has any issues with folks that volunteer to wear masks and no one is going to say anything to you about it most likely.

Absolutely agree with you it has become political and that is because there is little to no legitimacy to the efficacy of masks for COVID. Thus, when a practice is forced upon a people that has no value add and actually does societal harm then that practice naturally becomes political. People tend to revolt against such events.

---

Since you brought the CDC up I went to their website thinking I must have missed something. Turns out your statement about them isn't aligned at all with their current guidance or the studies they cited. I assume you just haven't kept up with it but I suppose it's also
possible you are letting your political leanings blind you. Again the claim isn't that masks are the panacea or anywhere near as important as mask nazi's make them out to be. Only that its perfectly logical to wear them given the low cost to the user and how low probability high consequence events work.
All the statements on this thread about not understanding science etc.. show a lack of understanding of black swan events. Not that a death from COVID caused by not wearing a mask is truly a black swan because we KNOW it will happen to someone given enough interactions. Just that it is like a black swan event because the likelihood of it happening to you is very very small.

---

The CDC just admitted the other day that the difference between a masked population catching COVID and a non-masking population catching COVID are less than 1%

Masks don't work

They are pacifiers to make adults feel safe because no government official was willing to be honest and say "short of locking every American into their home, there is nothing we can do about COVID until a vaccine is developed"

To want to be worried about killing someone via COVID is like worrying about killing someone from spreading the flu

You've probably done it in your lifetime but you don't really care

---

The fact that you are talking about stats in the range of 1% shows just how clueless you are about the comparison to black swan events I am making. I've read a lot of your post so just to pacify you a bit I actually voted for Trump.

---

Listen here, six-sigma: mandated mask use by an entire population is nowhere near "an essentially free opportunity" to reduce risk.

If you imposed an economic cost on my business of comparable size to the social cost of mandated masking, and yielded a risk reduction of this trivial size, not only would you be fired, but you would be charged with professional malpractice and stripped of your professional credentials.

You basically just made a "better safe than sorry" argument, which says a lot about the risk sophistication of your profession.

---

If the cost of wearing a mask or supplying your employees with proper masks is too high to you and your business then it may be a risk with taking. This thread is not anoint government mandated mask laws.

---

Meaning the economic cost? Just the economic cost? like they only cost $0.12 apiece?

A pure financial ROI. That's what you are arguing?

Whether it is or not, seems to me like you see a few trees but never the forest.

---

No actually I see a forest (and enjoy being in it) but just do what I can to keep from getting hit by a falling tree.

---

Are you passingly familiar with the manufacturing process for the vanes used in commercial jet engines, or at least the level of QC and precision required?

---

My experience is with high volume high quality manufacturing where the consequences of a mistake will ruin you financially. Anything to do with a jet engine would be low volume high risk but I can imagine the challenges involved.

---

Well, I don't know much about it either, but I saw a documentary once and let's just say it is a part that comes off an assembly line, and must be produced to a very high tolerance and very high quality. The reason is obvious, if it breaks or fails, it can take out an entire engine, and potentially even an entire airliner.

OK, so on this assembly line, there are engineers, and QC guys. Those guys jobs are very important, IN THEIR SILO.

Those guys should be empowered to make recommendations or exercise business discretion that improves the QC and tolerance of the parts. They should be empowered to make operating decisions like shutting down production or even trashing an entire product batch if parts fall outside of specification. But beyond that, they are outside their sandbox. The cost of throwing out some parts or making incremental investment seems to fit the "low cost" or "essentially free" characterization you used above.

Now, should these guys be allowed to recall an entire product batch that has already shipped? Maybe, that could be debated.

Should those guys be allowed to re-engineer an entire product line for incremental QC / precision? Probably not, that decision gets made above their pay grade by people who take production into account, but consider other issues.

Should these guys be allowed to remove the part from the marketplace because it doesn't meet a hypothetical higher level of quality they personally feel is necessary for maximum safety? Um, no. They should be fired for even suggesting such a thing.

Should these guys be able to declare all the different engine brands their parts end up in "unsafe" because they discovered that a statistically significant number of parts slipped through their inspection process? NO. There is a burden of proof far higher than that.

What happened with Covid is we somehow empowered these guys ground the entire domestic air travel fleet because they needed time to figure some stuff out with respect to these parts they couldn't quite make sense of. Don't worry they said. It will take some time, but not too much.

When the boss asked "how long", what do you think they said? 15 days

Well, the story ends like this. A plane crashed. The guys got the parts figured out, it took them about 35 days to do that.

But we kept the planes grounded and the schools closed and the business impaired and the people frustrated and everybody wrapped up in histrionics for a whole other year, and we still aren't done. We have paid one of the highest prices ever paid in the history of America. This is the point I was making in my original post to you. The social and psychological costs of the masks alone are like not justifiable even if they reduced daily risk by 50%.

We should have just let another couple planes crash and been done with it.

---

It seems you are talking about the many problems associated with allowing experts or people with a narrow focus of expertise being allowed make decisions for all of us that require a broader understanding. If that's the case I couldn't agree with you more. People much smarter than me like Hayek and Sowell have written very good books about it. If you are talking about companies whose dependence relies on the narrow focus of manufacturing a product to specific specs then you are dead wrong. In either case you are missing my point because those things only apply to a mask mandate not to someone choosing to mitigate risk because the cost to them is low and the potential negative outcome is high.

austagg99 said:

---

FratboyLegend said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

FratboyLegend said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

FratboyLegend said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

FratboyLegend said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

the governments decision to end the mandate to wear mask doesn't change the responsibility that comes with my freedom. Wearing a well fitting well designed mask in confined areas is a small burden and has been shown to lower transmission rates (even if only a little). Because of those two things I still wear one. The fact that someone would see my decision to do that in any type of negative way shows how ridiculously politicized such a simple decision has become. Such a response seriously brings into question whether that persons judgement is being clouded by politics.

---

Well, here's the thing. It's political because the left/Covidians have made it political. Hell, they've made it practically a religion as the left seemingly makes most of their secular planks something to worship.

Almost every public altercation we've seen has been caused by mask Nazi's accosting non-mask wearers. So, while you are seeing some ribbing online about wearing one, I highly doubt you will ever see a non-mask wearer accost you in public over it. Why? Because we don't give a sh^t and just want to be left alone. If you want to wear one, then go for it. I have zero issues with you wearing one. I think it's silly considering the data we have but it's fine if you do.

---

You may think it's silly but I've worked as an engineer in high volume high quality manufacturing for over twenty years. In my experience peoples intuitions tend to fail them when looking at low probability high consequence events. Decision making under those circumstances is tough but you typically don't pass up an essentially free opportunity to lower the probability of the bad outcome. Of course there is a crossover point where the risk mitigation doesn't make sense anymore and that can be difficult to determine but with the virus on the decline and vaccines becoming more available it hardly silly of me to wait a few more months when I can be certain by an order of magnitude that we have reached that point.

Your comments above the "silly" statement just lend more credence to my argument that the issue has become over politicized and that has the potential to cloud peoples judgment.

---

It's silly because they don't work. The CDC and multiple studies have said as much. They were/are essentially a Faustian Bargain we all agreed to participate in to allow some semblance of economic normalcy. However, if you personally feel better wearing one then go for it. I don't think anyone has any issues with folks that volunteer to wear masks and no one is going to say anything to you about it most likely.

Absolutely agree with you it has become political and that is because there is little to no legitimacy to the efficacy of masks for COVID. Thus, when a practice is forced upon a people that has no value add and actually does societal harm then that practice naturally becomes political. People tend to revolt against such events.

---

Since you brought the CDC up I went to their website thinking I must have missed something. Turns out your statement about them isn't aligned at all with their current guidance or the studies they cited. I assume you just haven't kept up with it but I suppose it's also
possible you are letting your political leanings blind you. Again the claim isn't that masks are the panacea or anywhere near as important as mask nazi's make them out to be. Only that its perfectly logical to wear them given the low cost to the user and how low probability high consequence events work.
All the statements on this thread about not understanding science etc.. show a lack of understanding of black swan events. Not that a death from COVID caused by not wearing a mask is truly a black swan because we KNOW it will happen to someone given enough interactions. Just that it is like a black swan event because the likelihood of it happening to you is very very small.

---

The CDC just admitted the other day that the difference between a masked population catching COVID and a non-masking population catching COVID are less than 1%

Masks don't work

They are pacifiers to make adults feel safe because no government official was willing to be honest and say "short of locking every American into their home, there is nothing we can do about COVID until a vaccine is developed"

To want to be worried about killing someone via COVID is like worrying about killing someone from spreading the flu

You've probably done it in your lifetime but you don't really care

---

The fact that you are talking about stats in the range of 1% shows just how clueless you are about the comparison to black swan events I am making. I've read a lot of your post so just to pacify you a bit I actually voted for Trump.

---

Listen here, six-sigma: mandated mask use by an entire population is nowhere near "an essentially free opportunity" to reduce risk.

If you imposed an economic cost on my business of comparable size to the social cost of mandated masking, and yielded a risk reduction of this trivial size, not only would you be fired, but you would be charged with professional malpractice and stripped of your professional credentials.

You basically just made a "better safe than sorry" argument, which says a lot about the risk sophistication of your profession.

---

If the cost of wearing a mask or supplying your employees with proper masks is too high to you and your business then it may be a risk with taking. This thread is not anoint government mandated mask laws.

---

Meaning the economic cost? Just the economic cost? like they only cost $0.12 apiece?

A pure financial ROI. That's what you are arguing?

Whether it is or not, seems to me like you see a few trees but never the forest.

---

No actually I see a forest (and enjoy being in it) but just do what I can to keep from getting hit by a falling tree.

---

Are you passingly familiar with the manufacturing process for the vanes used in commercial jet engines, or at least the level of QC and precision required?

---

My experience is with high volume high quality manufacturing where the consequences of a mistake will ruin you financially. Anything to do with a jet engine would be low volume high risk but I can imagine the challenges involved.

---

Well, I don't know much about it either, but I saw a documentary once and let's just say it is a part that comes off an assembly line, and must be produced to a very high tolerance and very high quality. The reason is obvious, if it breaks or fails, it can take out an entire engine, and potentially even an entire airliner.

OK, so on this assembly line, there are engineers, and QC guys. Those guys jobs are very important, IN THEIR SILO.

Those guys should be empowered to make recommendations or exercise business discretion that improves the QC and tolerance of the parts. They should be empowered to make operating decisions like shutting down production or even trashing an entire product batch if parts fall outside of specification. But beyond that, they are outside their sandbox. The cost of throwing out some parts or making incremental investment seems to fit the "low cost" or "essentially free" characterization you used above.

Now, should these guys be allowed to recall an entire product batch that has already shipped? Maybe, that could be debated.

Should those guys be allowed to re-engineer an entire product line for incremental QC / precision? Probably not, that decision gets made above their pay grade by people who take production into account, but consider other issues.

Should these guys be allowed to remove the part from the marketplace because it doesn't meet a hypothetical higher level of quality they personally feel is necessary for maximum safety? Um, no. They should be fired for even suggesting such a thing.

Should these guys be able to declare all the different engine brands their parts end up in "unsafe" because they discovered that a statistically significant number of parts slipped through their inspection process? NO. There is a burden of proof far higher than that.

What happened with Covid is we somehow empowered these guys ground the entire domestic air travel fleet because they needed time to figure some stuff out with respect to these parts they couldn't quite make sense of. Don't worry they said. It will take some time, but not too much.

When the boss asked "how long", what do you think they said? 15 days

Well, the story ends like this. A plane crashed. The guys got the parts figured out, it took them about 35 days to do that.

But we kept the planes grounded and the schools closed and the business impaired and the people frustrated and everybody wrapped up in histrionics for a whole other year, and we still aren't done. We have paid one of the highest prices ever paid in the history of America. This is the point I was making in my original post to you. The social and psychological costs of the masks alone are like not justifiable even if they reduced daily risk by 50%.

We should have just let another couple planes crash and been done with it.

---

It seems you are talking about the many problems associated with allowing experts or people with a narrow focus of expertise being allowed make decisions for all of us that require a broader understanding. If that's the case I couldn't agree with you more. People much smarter than me like Hayek and Sowell have written very good books about it. If you are talking about companies whose dependence relies on the narrow focus of manufacturing a product to specific specs then you are dead wrong. In either case you are missing my point because those things only apply to a mask mandate not to someone choosing to mitigate risk because the cost to them is low and the potential negative outcome is high.

---

I think we agree. All I'm saying is the societal and psychological costs of the masks is too high a price to pay for the gained value (meaning seemingly very little). And frankly for any increase in gained value up to an order of magnitude more.

I'm certainly not debating product manufacturing with you.