I told you.

[TheCountOfNowhere]

London house prices are collapsing.... I told you 

[satsuma]

26 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

Steve you asked for verifiable scientific facts - people provide them and you bat them away as if irrelevant, or with a pithy dismissive. That isn't a reasoned mind and being as you appear to be intelligent enough you should know agar petri dishes are standard practice. 

You also dodge quite a lot of people's answers / ignore realworld scenarios presented to you. I don't understand how an intelligent person who embraces science can dogmatically cling to a conclusion of there's no proof in the face of proof.

If you are of the notion of that inspite of that evidence, you believe your personal freedoms should override any measure even if proven to work then simply state and debate that. Don't make out the evidence of efficacy of protections is your standpoint by contradicting it.

And also take the time to read the reply I gave earlier to your 'is one life worth it' view because I really do think if you're advocating sacrificing a few others so you don't have to social distance or wear a mask you really have lost the argument and become that you say you hold in contempt / would take a lot to make you wear the uniform of

Very reasonable response.  Hopefully food for higher thought 

[MARTINX9]

12 minutes ago, TheCountOfNowhere said:

London house prices are collapsing.... I told you 

Sadly no one has told the people trying to sell London properties yet!

[A.steve]

1 hour ago, Staffsknot said:

And also take the time to read the reply I gave earlier to your 'is one life worth it' view because I really do think if you're advocating sacrificing a few others so you don't have to social distance or wear a mask you really have lost the argument and become that you say you hold in contempt / would take a lot to make you wear the uniform of

No, I am not advocating sacrificing anyone.  Quite the opposite.  I'm stating that the political reaction to the pandemic is not justified by the reality of the situation - and that inappropriate top-down over-reactions are more likely to 'sacrifice the innocent'... in ways the alleged "science" does not consider.

[Pmax2020]

On 8/22/2020 at 2:18 PM, A.steve said:

It would take a coherent, reasonable, sensible and constrained justification that was proportionate to the genuine risks.

For example, I could easily be convinced to wear a surgical mask if I was about to perform a surgical operation... and I had done all the other preparations.  Of course, this is unlikely to be a scenario with which I must deal in the forseeable future... as I do not envision myself performing surgical operations.

The issue I have with people that don’t wear masks is the majority of them are fundamentally selfish. 
 

Supposing in the fullness of time we learn that masks/face coverings actually only reduced the R value by 0.005. Result! What a simple, low cost, minimal sacrifice adaption it would of been to reduce the spread of the virus in conjunction with a range of other measures and strategies. 
 

I think what makes the non-wearers worse is they think it’s all about them. Even if you believe they are truly ineffective, why not just put it in to give the likes of shop workers that extra bit of confidence and support from their customers. Who knows how many of them fear for not only their jobs and but also their well-being whilst working on the front line.

[A.steve]

  

11 minutes ago, Pmax2020 said:

The issue I have with people that don’t wear masks is the majority of them are fundamentally selfish.

  Do you have any evidence to back this up, or are you just being presumptive?

11 minutes ago, Pmax2020 said:

Supposing in the fullness of time we learn that masks/face coverings actually only reduced the R value by 0.005. Result! What a simple, low cost, minimal sacrifice adaption it would of been to reduce the spread of the virus in conjunction with a range of other measures and strategies.

What happens if, in the fullness of time, we discover that the authoritarian interventions have led to a population with rampant anxiety disorders and other mental health problems... causing orders of magnitude more deaths than those caused by COVID19... and where the lives and livelihoods of millions have been needlessly ruined?  Would you also declare that a "Result!"?

 

[Staffsknot]

9 hours ago, A.steve said:

No, I am not advocating sacrificing anyone.  Quite the opposite.  I'm stating that the political reaction to the pandemic is not justified by the reality of the situation - and that inappropriate top-down over-reactions are more likely to 'sacrifice the innocent'... in ways the alleged "science" does not consider.

Several provided you clear evidence of the masks efficacy with real world examples. You do not dispute these with any measure of counterstudies or evidence to the contrary. Yet said you would wear one if the facts backed it up.

Batting away things as pseudo science then claiming unscientific 'personal space' is a lot of double think.

Now if it is your position that the virus itself / risk posed does not justify the 'imposition' of protective measures. As stated 41000 people (or whatever you believe the figure to be so let's not dive off into a rabbit hole) prove otherwise. So you are not prepared to add to that total but also not prepared to take any steps that restrict your freedoms - explain how those can co-exist. You are deciding your freedoms vs other people's lives in favour of the former.

8 hours ago, A.steve said:

What happens if, in the fullness of time, we discover that the authoritarian interventions have led to a population with rampant anxiety disorders and other mental health problems... causing orders of magnitude more deaths than those caused by COVID19

That is a hypothetical to the extreme and whatabouttery you would call out. It is akin to hiding all the life rings on a boat because they might cause anxiety of drowning - I'm sorry your husband died today madam but think of the panic attacks we'll save in the next 12 months.

More importantly imagine the mental health worries and anxiety you personally cause walking up to a shopkeeper or employee serving you as they wear their provided PPE, if they refuse your custom if you refuse a mask do you go quietly or tell them it is due to infringement of your personal freedoms? Do you think they get a warm glow or a panic having no idea where you've been or what other measures you've ignored as imposition? Might you be the anxiety causing these deaths - you can't know with any degree of accuracy. 

Is prelonging the virus by not taking every available and practical countermeasure not increasing the anxieties and pressures? Or should we open up and limit those anxieties and traumas to the families of those who catch it. I take it you would have a different view on things if you were watching someone you cared about slip away possibly after a visit. 

Now final point - you cherry pick and ignore quite a lot of people's information like you are trying to find something you can dispute in a sea of indisputable fact. Often picking up tiny fragments of post while ignoring general theme.

No rebuttals of evidence except by pithy comment, no counter argument to the public toilet analogy, road closure situation or realworld pub event.

So let me be clear. You treasure your freedoms - fine - but if your actions help contribute to a local lockdown ( and others have shown they increase risk of spreading the virus) aren't you removing the very freedoms you claim to be defending and more besides, not just for you but for others. Aren't you spreading the anxiety you say will cause untold deaths and mental trauma ( lockdown anxiety) and in your distopian vision aren't you providing the path for so called authoritian regime because 'look people were asked and they can't be trusted to do it voluntarily...'

Edited August 24, 2020 by Staffsknot
Typo

[A.steve]

47 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

That is a hypothetical to the extreme and whatabouttery...

That's my interpretation of the extraordinary, unprecedented, authoritarian demands.

You are concerened exclusively about one risk - I am taking a broader view.

[A.steve]

On 23/08/2020 at 01:11, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

Yeah it's MASSIVELY draconian being asked politely to wear a mask whenever you are indoors close to others.

But we are not talking about a polite request to wear a mask whenever you are indoors and close to others, are we?  I have also made clear that my objection to mask wearing only applies where mask wearing is unnecessary and unjustified.

Have you properly read the 2020C5 legislation?  It's enlightening.

Edited August 24, 2020 by A.steve

[Riedquat]

1 hour ago, A.steve said:

But we are not talking about a polite request to wear a mask whenever you are indoors and close to others, are we?  I have also made clear that my objection to mask wearing only applies where mask wearing is unnecessary and unjustified.

Have you properly read the 2020C5 legislation?  It's enlightening.

You won't get anywhere arguing with people who can be panicked into doing anything if it's in the name of "safety." Using that word means it shall not be questioned.

[A.steve]

49 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

You won't get anywhere arguing with people who can be panicked into doing anything if it's in the name of "safety." Using that word means it shall not be questioned.

I accept that it may be futile... but... I have this irrational hope that at least one person might find reassurance that they are not isolated when they consider the whole charade to be dangerously bonkers.

On a different tack, having read about philosophy (from the perspective of an amateur enthusiast) I have been genuinely surprised at the number of official positions that seemed to reflect (the most basic) text-book examples of failure of reason.  At times, it felt as if speeches and statements had been constructed to allow anyone, with a passing interest in philosophy, to dismiss the entire position.  I have wondered if this was intended to create conflict between those with "the right kind of" education... and those without.

Edited August 24, 2020 by A.steve

[scottbeard]

11 hours ago, Pmax2020 said:

The issue I have with people that don’t wear masks is the majority of them are fundamentally selfish. 
 

Supposing in the fullness of time we learn that masks/face coverings actually only reduced the R value by 0.005. Result! What a simple, low cost, minimal sacrifice adaption it would of been to reduce the spread of the virus in conjunction with a range of other measures and strategies. 
 

I think what makes the non-wearers worse is they think it’s all about them. Even if you believe they are truly ineffective, why not just put it in to give the likes of shop workers that extra bit of confidence and support from their customers. Who knows how many of them fear for not only their jobs and but also their well-being whilst working on the front line.

I disagree.   I'm happy to wear a mask if it makes an appreciable difference.  If it makes a tiny difference i'm not, because it's an uncomfortable nuisance - especially for those who have to wear one all day for work (which must be horrible).

You can't just say "if it makes ANY positive difference, no matter how small, it's worth it" because you're ignoring the downsides, and even a small downside multiplied by 7 billion people in the world becomes collectively a big downside.

[dugsbody]

23 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

I disagree.   I'm happy to wear a mask if it makes an appreciable difference.  If it makes a tiny difference i'm not, because it's an uncomfortable nuisance - especially for those who have to wear one all day for work (which must be horrible).

But if you don't know - and as a lay person trying to sift through the information is difficult or impossible - then why not wear a mask because the possibility exists that it works to help stop the spread, the positive knock on effects of which are large, and the down side to yourself is tiny. You soon get used to it.

It's a no brainer in my view, but then my friends tell me I'm too rigidly logical, so maybe I'm missing some important emotional aspect that makes people not want to wear them.

I just put the mask on and get on with it, there are much bigger things to whinge about if whinging is your thing.

[Riedquat]

27 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

I disagree.   I'm happy to wear a mask if it makes an appreciable difference.  If it makes a tiny difference i'm not, because it's an uncomfortable nuisance - especially for those who have to wear one all day for work (which must be horrible).

You can't just say "if it makes ANY positive difference, no matter how small, it's worth it" because you're ignoring the downsides, and even a small downside multiplied by 7 billion people in the world becomes collectively a big downside.

Very well said.

Things should be done because there's a good enough reason for doing them, not because there's not much of a reason not to. The latter attitude is unfortunately very prevalent; not only is it absurd in its own right but also encourages a boy who cried wolf type response.

With masks there seems probably sufficiently good reason in some circumstances, such as buses and trains, but the case hasn't really be made for everywhere those saying "just wear them" like to complain about (and where what risk there is is probably more effectively mitigated by being careful about where you point your face).

There's of course also a balancing act between being too specific and too general, a sad trend though is to go for the easy option of blanket coverage, and attack someone on a train for not wearing one even if they're the only person in the carriage.

Edited August 24, 2020 by Riedquat

[Staffsknot]

2 hours ago, A.steve said:

That's my interpretation of the extraordinary, unprecedented, authoritarian demands.

You are concerened exclusively about one risk - I am taking a broader view.

Again you've skipped past all the bits you have trouble arguing such as circular things as 'allowing authoritarian regimes and creating anxieties in the future' while glazing over the fact your very actions are more likely to cause those very anxieties now and be the very reason government doesn't ask it has to mandate through extraordinary use of powers.

Now I repeat you state you don't want to sacrifice anyone, but you refuse to have any measures reduce risks that impinge on your freedoms. What about all the illegal raves, the pub outbreak - they were exrrcising their freedoms. Their took a view on their risk and then infected 3rd parties. Your rights 'freedom' to do whatever seems to be greater than the right to life of a stranger.

We have smoking bans in public places - they infringe on smokers rights to smoke openly, but that is because the non-smoker inhaling it and dying through someone else's life choice 'freedom' might be a bit peed off at their lot. Society and gov legislation decided that 'Draconian' step might save a few lives.

Now Steve you can rail all you want but answer me these

- Do you access public services

- Would or Do you distance and wear a mask in a shop

- Are you currently employed / furloughed

- If so have you expressed these views to your employer / work colleagues so you can be maintained on work from home / furlough

- If the gov had asked politely and not passed legislation would you social distance / wear a mask or is it another dead end pointless statement as the outcome would be the same

[scottbeard]

12 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

But if you don't know - and as a lay person trying to sift through the information is difficult or impossible - then why not wear a mask because the possibility exists that it works to help stop the spread, the positive knock on effects of which are large, and the down side to yourself is tiny. You soon get used to it.

It's a no brainer in my view, but then my friends tell me I'm too rigidly logical, so maybe I'm missing some important emotional aspect that makes people not want to wear them.

I just put the mask on and get on with it, there are much bigger things to whinge about if whinging is your thing.

I rely on scientists to determine the efficacy of masks, and government to make laws taking that science into account.

If the law says "wear a mask" I wear one.

My point is, wearing a mask does NOT have a zero downside - it's unpleasant and it costs money buying masks.  Therefore, I expect the health benefits to society to collectively exceed the collective cost and nuisance of wearing them.  I can't decide that for myself - and it's not my job to do so.

But if you're as logical as you say, surely that's the logical cost/benefit approach - not to say (as you seem to be saying) "well the POSSIBILITY exists that it MIGHT help so let's do it".  

[A.steve]

15 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

... creating anxieties in the future' while glazing over the fact your very actions are more likely to cause those very anxieties now ...

I'm talking about policies (and public reaction to them) creating anxieties now.  If questioning authoritarianism is unacceptable, then civilization has utterly failed.  I do not think (or, perhaps, I just hope) we are not yet in this situation.

15 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

... but you refuse to have any measures reduce risks that impinge on your freedoms.

An obnoxious misrepresentation.  I do not accept your authority and I will not be attempting to answer your intrusive personal questions.  I am not obliged to justify myself to you and I reject your ad-hominem attack.

4 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

If the law says "wear a mask" I wear one.

A difficulty we face today is establishing what is, and what is not, law.

 

Edited August 24, 2020 by A.steve

[Staffsknot]

1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

You won't get anywhere arguing with people who can be panicked into doing anything if it's in the name of "safety." Using that word means it shall not be questioned.

Already explained I have a background in risk planning for diving, expeds, etc... not sure of your relevant qualifications.

You see nannying in name of 'safety' please define which proven measures are nannying. Again as explained at great length many times personal risk is fine if only impacts personal risk. This is not the case. Saying 'nannying safety' is the new 'political correctness gone mad' to push out nonsense.

Dive example a buddy check - 2 sets of eyes on what done before you get in the water - seems nannying as my risk - but a f$$k up may kill you both. How does this relate? Well if you catch the virus you aren't in splendid isolation as you go about your day.

Steve is ignoring social distancing and any measure imposed. However if it is asked not imposed we're probably getting the same outcome. He can confirm this I've asked.

He opposes Draconian lockdown but won't take mitigating steps that might prevent one. He is the man who causes a law then shouts 'state oppression', 'I told you so'

[A.steve]

9 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

Already explained I have a background in risk planning for diving, expeds, etc... not sure of your relevant qualifications.

...

Steve is ignoring social distancing and any measure imposed.

...

He opposes Draconian lockdown but won't take mitigating steps that might prevent one. He is the man who causes a law then shouts 'state oppression', 'I told you so'

Do you believe your "background in risk planning" means that your opinion is more valid than other peoples' opinions?  Do you think it entitles you to make false assertions about people who disagree with you?

Edited August 24, 2020 by A.steve
Grammar!

[Staffsknot]

33 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Very well said.

Things should be done because there's a good enough reason for doing them, not because there's not much of a reason not to. The latter attitude is unfortunately very prevalent; not only is it absurd in its own right but also encourages a boy who cried wolf type response.

With masks there seems probably sufficiently good reason in some circumstances, such as buses and trains, but the case hasn't really be made for everywhere those saying "just wear them" like to complain about (and where what risk there is is probably more effectively mitigated by being careful about where you point your face).

There's of course also a balancing act between being too specific and too general, a sad trend though is to go for the easy option of blanket coverage, and attack someone on a train for not wearing one even if they're the only person in the carriage.

Nobody has said wear them walking around The Lakes with your pet dog when nobody else is present. The mask wearing is where social distancing is impossible or in enclosed areas where likely to come into contact with others at close distance. So you are arguing the very thing everyone else has signed up to.

Great 2m or under wear a mask - supermarket indoors not necessary in the car park. So you've just misunderstood the rules.

[Riedquat]

13 minutes ago, A.steve said:

Do you believe your "background in risk planning" means that your opinion is more valid than other peoples' opinions?  Do you think it entitles you to make false assertions about people who disagree with you?

Looks like an appeal to authority fallacy - someone who trots out the tired old "what are your qualifications?" line is doing a fairly routine line of finding excuses to dismiss views that don't align with their own. Throw in a bit of confused equating technical knowledge with thinking they're the only ones who have the right to define what's desirable and that's what you get - that position might mean you're better at assessing what the risks are but it's arrogant to believe it leaves you being able to define a level of acceptability, and even then that position is better shown by demonstration than by claiming "I'm an expert, shut up and only listen to me."

I've also a suspicion that if you're having to search and examine risks all the time you stand a high chance of becoming rather over-sensitive to them, in a similar way to someone who's never thought about them and got lucky is likely to go too far in the other direction.

At any rate the vehement rejection that there could be any nanny state about things really does give a very close-minded impression, someone with no ability to see or understand someone else's point of view. It's one thing to be able to do so and disagree with it, but if you can't see it then you don't even understand what you're arguing against.

[Staffsknot]

14 minutes ago, A.steve said:

Do you believe your "background in risk planning" means that your opinion is more valid than other peoples' opinions?  Do you think it entitles you to make false assertions about people who disagree with you?

The risk background means I have an insight and when someone says nannying individuals with no idea / 'wrong education' or do anything because don't understand safety I'd like them to explain how they came to said conclusion that I'm panicking and not acting with the benefit of a shedload of experience. Including operating in remote regions where healthcare isn't an NHS walkin centre.

I'm asking logical questions. If you would take those steps if it had been on a voluntary basis simply state that. Otherwise whether it is imposed or not is academic really.

Your actions have consequences for others - you are not in splendid isolation. Your actions impact others, that is the point of a pandemic. I am simply determining if you considered those others when you made your choice or if that one didn't register in the personal freedoms debate.

[Riedquat]

9 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

Nobody has said wear them walking around The Lakes with your pet dog when nobody else is present. The mask wearing is where social distancing is impossible or in enclosed areas where likely to come into contact with others at close distance. So you are arguing the very thing everyone else has signed up to.

Great 2m or under wear a mask - supermarket indoors not necessary in the car park. So you've just misunderstood the rules.

Nope. Where have I said anything about walking around the Lakes? But in supermarkets? That's where you really need to start engaging the brain instead of regurgitating lines. My local supermarket doesn't appear to be all that much busier than during lockdown, let alone smaller shops where you may be the only customer in there. Others might've got a lot busier for all I know, but demonstrating that my experience is definitely the exception rather than the norm, that people are now going to be spending a lot more time close together than was the case a couple of months ago and hence the risk has significantly increased (without resorting to "well it's obvious innit?"), that's how you should make your case.

[GeneCernan]

Masks are there to subjugate, humiliate and get people used to compliance. 

If they were that big a deal people would have to wear them all winter to help fight seasonal flu etc....

[Si1]

24 minutes ago, GeneCernan said:

Masks are there to subjugate, humiliate and get people used to compliance. 

 

Stop being such a snowflake. Seriously.