Hacker News Reader

Comment by ardy42 | Hacker News Reader

> This is democracy, both side will fight and to convince other. Whoever gain the majority/power is the winner.

> Unless facebook taking sides, i don't think it harm democracy. Both side too can utilize facebook for their advantage.

The problem is, for the most part, there's harm to democracy if no compromise is ever reached, and the "fight" on every issue becomes constant and intractable.

For instance, the fight around the response to COVID has pretty thoroughly undermined the response to it. You have people refusing to wear masks for the most part to just to say "fuck you" to the other side.

This kind of over-the-top fractiousness is a clear propaganda win for authoritarianism. China, for instance, is pretty effectively using it (and their corresponding success) to reduce the appeal of democracy among its people.

View on HN

I think The fight is inevitable. Eventually winner will emerge, democracy doesn't care who the winners is and how it get there as long as both side still allowed to fight.

Even to reach compromise, fight may still be necessary.

>You have people refusing to wear masks for the most mart to just to say "fuck you" to the other side.

Mask has real downside (for some people), you can't just dismissed that (not just to say fuck you), although there is of course people like that.

Similarly, You have to acknowledge there also people who want to force other to wear mask to just to say "fuck you" to the otherside.

> Mask has real downside (for some people),

Name one. -- Not including the rare medical condition where having anything touching your face is incredibly painful.

One. Wearing Mask can be uncomfortable, and it is real downside (at least for me)

I'm sorry. Grow up.

I wear a mask 8 hours a day. Surgeons do for longer.

Is it really that much to ask? I honestly don't understand this mindset.

Its fine for you doesn't mean its fine for other.

Not everyone the same.

Whether its too much or not can be different for different people.

Its not hard to understand right?

> Its fine for you doesn't mean its fine for other.

True. I mentioned that disease which causes actual pain.

That is a legitimate reason.

However

If your reasoning is "It's uncomfortable" you are being ridiculously childish, and risking the lives of others.

I literally cannot understand the "I would rather risk killing someone than having this piece of cloth on my face for a few hours" mindset.

EDIT: Spelling (that -> than)

>That is a legitimate reasons

So you get to decide which are legitimate and which are not?

>If your reasoning is "It's uncomfortable" you are being ridiculously childish, and risking the lives of others.

Likewise, I can also says your decision to force other to wear mask is childish.

You also get to decide what childish and what is not?

>I literally cannot understand the "I would rather risk killing someone than having this piece of cloth on my face for a few hours" mindset.

The risk always exist whatever you do but the chance of that happening is very very low. Not 0, anything can happen, but very low.

Driving car in the road has non zero risk of killing people too but we do it anyway.

> So you get to decide which are legitimate and which are not?

No, but I get to have an opinion, which I stated. A doctor would be better suited to decide which is legitimate or not.

The condition I was referring to was Trigeminal Neuralgia. If a doctor says that it's okay to not wear a mask because "it's uncomfortable", then okay.

I somehow suspect you'll have difficulty with that.

> Likewise, I can also says your decision to force other to wear mask is childish.

I would agree... If people could be trusted to wear masks.

> You also get to decide what childish and what is not?

No, but I can call someone baselessly risking others lives childish. Probably selfish as well.

> Driving car in the road has non zero risk of killing people too but we do it anyway.

Of course. However, driving has a obvious and very real benefit: being able to move yourself effectively from location to location.

Is avoiding some mild discomfort really a worthy risk/benefit trade off?

Sure, you have opinion, i have opinion.

Medical reason is not the only reason for it to be legitimate.

You too are selfish for forcing other people to wear mask.

>Is avoiding some mild discomfort really a worthy risk/benefit trade off?

Very much Yes

> Medical reason is not the only reason for it to be legitimate.

I agree. I could also understand not being able to afford a mask.

Somehow I suspect that's not the case.

> You too are selfish for forcing other people to wear mask.

Disagree. Is it really that selfish to say "Hey, please endure some temporary mild discomfort with no lasting affects, in order to protect others?"

> Very much Yes

I have no words for this. You are either the best troll I've seen in a while, or are -- imho -- a ridiculously childish fool who is both weak, and hardhearted.

>Is it really that selfish to say "Hey, please endure some temporary mild discomfort with no lasting affects, in order to protect others?"

For some people, including me, its major discomfort and they never asked for protection.

You are trying to force your interest againts other people in interest, yes that is selfish too.

How is it a troll? It is true i find mask inconvenience and uncomfortable. Risk of seriously sick from covid ? very very low. Not sure what else to say.

> You are trying to force your interest againts other people in interest, yes that is selfish too.

Actually, I'm in one of the age groups/health levels that is safest from covid. I'm trying to help protect my community, not myself.

> Risk of seriously sick from covid ? very very low.

See math above for my thoughts on this.

> How is it a troll?

That wasn't the only option I listed. This applies to "it's major discomfort" as well.

Its good you are to trying to help but forcing other people who don't want to wear mask againts their interest is not helping, its selfish.

>See math above for my thoughts on this.

The number of death is still very low

I don't at all mind wearing a mask when I go out, and the risk of causing harm is higher now, but wouldn't "I would rather risk killing someone than having this piece of cloth on my face for a few hours" apply in December of 2019 for example? I think this is what makes the perceived seriousness of the virus such a central point of conflict, as it determines what people see as the appropriate level of response.

> I think this is what makes the perceived seriousness of the virus such a central point of conflict, as it determines what people see as the appropriate level of response.

I have to agree there. The hospitals in my hometown are getting to the breaking point, and people are dying. It seems reasonable to expect some sort of response under the circumstances.

>>> One. Wearing Mask can be uncomfortable, and it is real downside (at least for me)

>> I'm sorry. Grow up. I wear a mask 8 hours a day. Surgeons do for longer. Is it really that much to ask? I honestly don't understand this mindset.

> Its fine for you doesn't mean its fine for other. Not everyone the same. Whether its too much or not can be different for different people. Its not hard to understand right?

Some people aren't fine having a DD or getting a taxi after a night out, and would rather drive themselves home drunk. Those people have a far greater likelihood of getting into a crash that kills themselves or others.

Your decisions and actions can have real consequences for others, it's not just about your personal preferences. Reflect on that and take the GGP's advice.

I didn't says decision and action can't have real consequences. Every action will have its consequences.

Forcing other to wear mask has its consequences too.

> Forcing other to wear mask has its consequences too.

Like lower death rates and being able to reopen everything more completely and earlier?

Decision to open has nothing to do mask. Its politics. I never support the lockdown in the first place, regardless of mask.

And whether mask actually help with the pandemic, its still inconclusive.

>Decision to open has nothing to do mask. Its politics.

Decisively false. Masks influence pandemic influences lockdown.

> And whether mask actually help with the pandemic, its still inconclusive.

Do you have a credible source for that?

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

> no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others.

Still need a source. I wasn't asking for a source on if they protect the wearer, I was asking for a source for "whether mask actually help with the pandemic"

> Forcing other to wear mask has its consequences too.

As you've said before, people like you would be forced to wear something you think is uncomfortable. I'd even be forced to play the world's smallest violin for you.

The thing is, you have to weigh those consequences (ideally non selfishly), not just assert they exist.

So, one the one hand, you have minor inconvenience and intolerable oppression of having to think of others for even a second. On the other hand, you have hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths and the economic toll of a poorly-managed pandemic.

I don't know, seems like a tough call. /s

You dismissed my concern as "minor inconvenience". I acknowledge that for you its minor but for me its major inconvenience.

Its not clear that thousand of deaths will be avoided if everyone wear mask.

I agree that it is poorly managed pandemic, that is the decision to do lockdown.

> You dismissed my concern as "minor inconvenience". I acknowledge that for you its minor but for me its major inconvenience.

I did, because your concern is something that should be dismissed. The hypothetical drunk driver I mentioned earlier almost certainly has similar rationalizations for his irresponsible behavior, too. But no one is swayed by his insistence that not driving drunk would have caused "major inconvenience" to him.

Refusing to wear a mask in this environment is like deciding to drive drunk. Don't be like a drunk driver, be a responsible person.

Likewise don't be suprised when other people can also simply dismissed your concern.

No, the different is the risk of not wearing mask way way lower than drunk driving.

About 1.5 times as many people died of Covid in the last seven days than people who died due to drunk driving in 2016.

Drunk driving may be more dangerous to the individual, but not all wearing masks appears to be doing much more damage.

For context, the number of covid related deaths over the past week are equivalent to 5.47 times the number of people killed in 9/11.

These numbers don't include those who survive but suffer from lasting effects caused by covid.

Sources:

https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/impaired_driving/im...

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_deathsinlast...

Edit: Add Drunk ... 9/11.

Edit 2: Change the paragraph about 9/11 to be more respectful.

Edit 3: Add comment about lasting effects.

Covid related death is a highly inflated number, i mean it include people who die and happen to be tested positive for covid, not just die due to covid.

Okay. So, according to [0], about 6% of the covid related deaths have only covid as a cause.

According to [1], there have been 291,522 covid related deaths since Jan 21 of this year, and according to [2], there were 2,977 fatalities in 9/11.

All numbers are rounded to the nearest whole number. EDIT: Except for the 6% and final results, for obvious reasons.

291,522 * .06 = 17,491 deaths with no related comorbidity. This number happens to be still ~1.7 times the number of drunk driving related deaths in 2017.

Finally...

17,491 / 2,977 = 6 times the number of people who were killed by 9/11 with no comorbidities.

---

Now, lets do the math for this past week.

16,308 * .06 = 978.48 deaths with no comorbidities.

2,977 / 978 = 3 -- So last week was equivalent to one third of 9/11 for deaths with no comorbidities.

As deaths are expected to climb, we can expect to have at least the equivalent of 9/11 every three weeks for a while.

And none of this math includes those who were mostly fine, but happened to have a small condition that was lumped in, causing them to not be counted in the 6%.

[0] https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/514915-is-us-covid-19...

[1] https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_totaldeaths

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11...

So by your number, only 978 death last week ? Even if its true that is still such a low number and probably skewed towards old people.

With this number you want to have shutdown business, restrict business, prevent gathering, implement all those silly safety theatre for the rest of population? Yeah very very not worth it.

978 deaths is equivalent to 1/18 of the entire year to date. The rate is increasing, and there's only one way to stop it.

Edit: And again, this number is with absolutely no comorbidities. Had diabetes for your whole life? not counted. Broke your arm? not counted. High blood pressure? not counted.

Plenty of people who would've lived decades more are not included in this number.

> With this number you want to have...

> shutdown business

Nope. I want masks and social distancing.

I recognize that businesses need to be open. Heck, I'm still working.

> restrict business

Depending on your point of view, yes.

Meaning that I think social distancing should be practised at all businesses, and people should decide themselves not to go to businesses that they don't have to. Note, this is "Free market" restriction, not government mandated.

> prevent gathering

Not precisely. I would say don't gather with people from outside of your region, and social distance when you do gather with people inside your region.

> safety theatre

Still waiting on a source for this, assuming you are talking about masks.

I haven't said anything about any measures other than the above, and masks to point.

>978 deaths is equivalent to 1/18 of the entire year to date. The rate is increasing, and there's only one way to stop it.

Its still such a low number. There is no conclusive evidence that mask will reduce the death and even if wearing mask will avoid those 978 death, it still not worth it.

Don't get me wrong, reducing death is good and I will support it but not if it require forced mask/lockdown.

That being said, I can support voluntary mask recommendation though.

> Its still such a low number.

Again, there are much more than this that should be attributed to covid, these are just the most perfectly healthy people who still died, despite medical care.

> There is no conclusive evidence that mask will reduce the death

Have you looked at any other countries handling of the pandemic?

> and even if wearing mask will avoid those 978 death, it still not worth it

Again. Much more than 978 deaths.

> That being said, I can support voluntary mask recommendation though.

How do you feel about businesses requiring masks for entry?

> these are just the most perfectly healthy people who still died, despite medical care

Of course, it could still happen but the chance are very low, flu still kills thousand of people every year, despite of vaccine.

>Have you looked at any other countries handling of the pandemic?

at least one country I know doesn't have mask mandate: sweeden.

not a country but Florida doesn't have statewide mask mandate and they are handling it very well (in my opinion). Went there for a week this past few months, so much better than other state. I would consider moving there.

>Again. Much more than 978 deaths.

How much more ? Whats the evidence that those 978 is avoidable because of mask ?

>How do you feel about businesses requiring masks for entry?

I think its silly but their business their rule as long as I can choose other business that doesn't require mask or if I have business I can choose to not requiring mask.

> How much more ?

This seems like a good method of determining this [0].

> Whats the evidence that those 978 is avoidable because of mask ?

Physics, New Zealand, Japan, most other countries.

> How much more ?

This seems like a good method of determining this [0].

> as long as I can choose other business that doesn't require mask or if I have business I can choose to not requiring mask.

So what if all businesses require masks?

[0] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

>Physics,

How the physics work in this case?

virus particle is much smaller than mask pores, especially with most mask that worn by general public

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RaBLKKXJt4

> New Zealand, Japan, most other countries.

In those countries, What evidence that it is the mask that responsible for it ?

Sweden, Florida, South Dakota doesn't have mask mandate and they are doing very well.

>So what if all businesses require masks?

very unlikely, even if that the case then if I own business I can have competitive advantage by attracting customer that don't like mask.

> How the physics work in this case?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32371934/

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.19.20071779v...

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RaBLKKXJt4

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcnTNQG1_WkZ5h7go3B0Ntw/abo...

This about page looks... not so trustworthy.

"SECOND OPiNION!!" -- Capitalization and punctuation taken from page.

> Sweden, Florida, South Dakota

https://www.mediaite.com/news/sweden-once-heralded-for-avoid...

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/florida/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/south-dakota-covid-kristi-noem-...

>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32371934/

'Our results indicate that surgical face masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza viruses from symptomatic individuals.'

Doesn't say anything about clothes mask that most people use.

>https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.19.20071779v...

Its say it may block some droplet, and even then require 2 or 3 layers of cloth. Does not saying anything about whether it can reduce virus transmission.

>This about page looks... not so trustworthy.

The page looks has nothing to do with the content/argument.

>https://www.mediaite.com/news/sweden-once-heralded-for-avoid...

So ? They have no mask mandate and still no lockdown and live is pretty much still normal there.

>https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/florida/

So ? They are doing very well. I went there for visit myself recently and considering moving there.

>https://www.cbsnews.com/news/south-dakota-covid-kristi-noem-...

So ? She is doing the right thing and the state are doing well too.

A summary of this conversation so far:

---

You've moved the goalpost:

Masks don't work -> Some masks don't work.

---

Sources you've provided:

A paper that didn't cover the topic you were "refuting" with it: ( https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817 )

A YouTube video from a "doctor" who has provided no certifications, claims to be non political and is promoting a debunked theory (hydroxychloroquine), and has fixed the typo I pointed out to you to you the other day, so congrats on that one.

---

Topic you've not responded about:

Death's.

Both amount: ( https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm )

And the rate increase demonstrated in the math earlier.

---

Unless you can provide some more substantive evidence than "I feel" and "This rando on YouTube agrees with me", I don't see any reason to continue this conversation further.

Edit: Formatting

> https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

from the results itself :

Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection

and from the conclusion :

The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection

> "This rando on YouTube agrees with me"

In the YouTube I linked to She is a medical professional and she listed the research paper she referenced and we are not talking about hydroxychloroquine at all.

>Both amount: ( https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm )

So there is death to covid, i never refute this.

What is the evidence that mask can reduce this death ?

> from the results itself :

Again, taken from the "Limitations" section:

"no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others."

I never said that masks greatly help protect the individual, I said they help slow the spread of the pandemic.

> She is a medical professional

Any chance you could link me to here credentials then? Has she authored any peer reviewed papers?

Actually, I'll look her up. Presuming this [0] is her, she appears to have participated in... no peer reviewed research. In addition, on this [1] website, she both claims to be non political, and to have appeared on this list of shows... "The Tucker Carlson Show, The Ingraham Angle, The Glenn Beck Show, The Charlie Kirk Show, The Dennis Prager Show, Day Star Television"

So, despite her being an obvious liar, at least she is an emergency medical professional, I'll give her that. A shame she's not a virologist.

> What is the evidence that mask can reduce this death ?

We've been over this as well. Masks reduce pandemic reduces death.

Do you have any other sources?

---

[0] https://www.docinfo.org/search/docprofile?docid=CA796BDA-28F...

[1] https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.com/mission-statement/

And just for fun, this is a quote from the paper [0] cited in your YouTube video:

"Nevertheless, the overall 3.4 fold reduction in aerosol copy numbers we observed combined with a nearly complete elimination of large droplet spray demonstrated by Johnson et al. suggests that surgical masks worn by infected persons could have a clinically significant impact on transmission"

[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23505369/

Edit: article -> paper

>suggests that surgical masks worn by infected persons could have a clinically significant impact on transmission

could have, doesn't mean will have

and most people don't use surgical mask

From Above:

> You've moved the goalpost:

> Masks don't work -> Some masks don't work.

Edit: Also, really? You're going to be that pedantic? It's pretty obvious what the intent behind that sentence was.

Until you can provide a better source, I'm done.

for clarification, this is my stance: most mask that is used by general population doesn't work, at least for the purpose of preventing virus.

If you want to force people to wear mask(whether they want it or not) you better come up with strong evidence that it work and the benefit should be more than the downside.

At least I'm still willing to accept compromise by not against voluntary mask.

I know I said I was done, but I ran across this earlier:

https://thehill.com/policy/international/530628-swedens-king...

> If you want to force people to wear mask(whether they want it or not) you better come up with strong evidence that it work and the benefit should be more than the downside.

Already provided both, but we're not going back into that until you have more sources, preferably reputable ones that actually agree with you.

> At least I'm still willing to accept compromise by not against voluntary mask.

That's... not a compromise. That's literally where you started.

>https://thehill.com/policy/international/530628-swedens-king...

I disagree with him by calling it failed. the death rate is not significantly different compared to previous year and most importantly life is still pretty much normal.

>Already provided both, but we're not going back into that until you have more sources, preferably reputable ones that actually agree with you.

You haven't provided strong evidence so far, all the evidence you provided are inconclusive and insufficient.

>That's... not a compromise

What do you mean not compromise ? You wanted mask, I can't support forced mask but still willing to accept voluntary mask. Mask doesn't work but if you want to wear it then its your choice, I think its silly but I won't be against it. That's a compromise.

> That's a compromise.

No, that's a default. You doing your thing and me doing mine.

That's not what a compromise is.

>You doing your thing and me doing mine.

I'm ok with that. you want to wear your mask its up to you, as long as you are not forcing it to other people.

Yes, I know you are OK with that. I said it wasn't a compromise, it's the default.

Did you even read my comment?

Ok fine maybe we interpret compromise differently. Nonetheless I'm still against forced mask mandate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com