The Dangerous Irrationality of Masking our Vaccinated People

[RJG]

As I said there and elsewhere, I can see mask wearing, to some extent, continuing when social distancing has stopped and normal life has returned, as it is practiced in Japan, for example, and was before Covid-19. Hence my prediction is that by March 2022 social distancing will have gone and normal life will have resumed as set out in the June 21st section of the phased reduction to which I linked. That doesn't necessarily mean an end to all masks. If normal life has resumed, without social distancing, but a lot of people are still wearing masks in public places I will regard myself as having won. Do you disagree with that?

Yes, I agree and likewise expect some people will still mask and social distance themselves out of irrational fear. No problem with that regarding our bet.

My point is that "success" (low death rates) should not be dependent on masking and social distancing, but instead be 'independent' of masking/social distancing.

[Steve3007]

My point is that "success" (low death rates) should not be dependent on masking and social distancing, but instead be 'independent' of masking/social distancing.

Yes. Success would be low death rates in the absence of compulsory social distancing. So I agree with you that the low death rates we're currently experiencing, since they've been achieved with compulsory social distancing, don't yet constitute success.

Once all compulsory social distancing has been removed I'd be surprised if many people still decide to voluntarily keep it up. I suspect that once compulsory mask wearing has been removed some people will keep wearing them. It's interesting how quickly it has become entirely normal, and second nature, to put on the mask while walking from the car to the supermarket.

[Steve3007]

Yes, the Bolsonaro disaster in Brazil is what would now be happening in other countries if they took RJG's "unmask those I deem to be healthy and encourage them to mix!" attitude.

You are twisting my words. I said "vaccinated" and other healthy immune (those that have previously been infected and now immune) should rip off their masks and start socializing asap.

You've gradually modified your message. You started by stating things like how pleased you were to see young healthy people freely mixing and socializing with no masks. For example:

https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... 77#p377677

I remain hopeful (in the absence of our governments coming to its senses) that enough healthy people will involve themselves in civil disobedience against the irrationality of masking and social distancing. For example, when I saw on TV the large un-masked crowds of mostly young healthy people celebrating and partying the latest Super Bowl victory, it gave me hope that we can save ourselves, despite ourselves.

https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... 29#p378229

I would also highly recommend that healthy school age kids and young adults also join into the fray and join in. Every bit helps.

I think "unmask those I deem to be healthy and encourage them to mix!" is a reasonable summary of what you've said there. It's a recipe for disaster that has been followed in Brazil. Bolsonaro's motive is different to yours but the message, and therefore the end result, is the same.

Do you still take hope from seeing TV images of large un-masked crowds of mostly young healthy people celebrating and partying?

[RJG]

You've gradually modified your message. You started by stating things like how pleased you were to see young healthy people freely mixing and socializing with no masks. For example:

Your examples are from a different topic altogether. The name of this topic is "The Dangerous Irrationality of Masking our Vaccinated People". And I think I have been pretty consistent staying on topic with this particular argument.

If you wish to argue what I said in a different topic, then go to that topic and make your point. This topic is specifically about the dangerous irrationality of masking (and social distancing) our vaccinated (and other immune) people.

Do you still take hope from seeing TV images of large un-masked crowds of mostly young healthy people celebrating and partying?

In regards to this specific topic, if these people are vaccinated; immune, then this is a no-brainer -- absolutely YES! They should be out socializing big time to help stop this virus.

And once we understand the idiocy of masking our vaccinated/immune people, can we then move on to step two and possibly understand the idiocy of masking/social distancing our young healthy people, which is explained in my other topic ("Will Continued Social Distancing Ultimately Destroy All Human Life on this Planet").

BUT, the longer we wait to stop this virus, the more dangerous this virus (and its mutations) become, therefore we will soon run out of young healthy people available to participate in achieving herd immunity (as the new mutations have a greater effect on younger people now than before with the original strain). Not only that, but our vaccinated people will soon be no longer available to also participate in herd immunity because the newer strains/mutations are more resistant to the new vaccines (and will become even more so as time goes on and newer more deadlier mutations develop).

We are foolishly playing a losing battle. The longer we wait to stop this virus, the deeper in the hole we put ourselves into. If we don't throw our full army of available people ASAP to stop this virus, we will lose the battle of the survival-of-the-fittest.

In other words, we can't keep on playing defense (hiding via social distancing/masking) and being reactive (create new vaccines after the fact), we have to go on offense and be proactive to defeat this virus. The only means to stop this virus is what mother nature gave us, and that is to implement herd immunity. Never in the history of mankind have we ever done something so stupid (dangerous and irrational) and prevented herd immunity by masking and social distancing our healthy and immune people.

Social distancing and masking our healthy immune people is the opposite of herd immunity. Preventing our immune people from socializing within the herd allows the virus to continue to grow/mutate and become a bigger badder monster. If we want to defeat it, there is no better time than NOW. For everyday we wait to implement herd immunity is another day deeper in the grave. Soon the hole we keep digging will be too deep to get ourselves out of.

[Steve3007]

...For example, when I saw on TV the large un-masked crowds of mostly young healthy people celebrating and partying the latest Super Bowl victory, it gave me hope that we can save ourselves, despite ourselves.

Do you still take hope from seeing TV images of large un-masked crowds of mostly young healthy people celebrating and partying?

In regards to this specific topic, if these people are vaccinated; immune, then this is a no-brainer -- absolutely YES! They should be out socializing big time to help stop this virus.

And you can tell that they're immune, and will therefore suck up the virus, from how they look on TV?

[Steve3007]

Your examples are from a different topic altogether. The name of this topic is "The Dangerous Irrationality of Masking our Vaccinated People". And I think I have been pretty consistent staying on topic with this particular argument.

I noted that you'd modified your message. I don't really buy the idea that a shift in position doesn't count if the shift happens across different topics. Of course, there's nothing inherently wrong with modifying the message/shifting the position. There's nothing wrong with changing our minds in the light of evidence or arguments from others. Most of us do it from time to time. But if I were to change my mind about something I don't think it would make any difference if I'd expressed my former view and my latter view in different topics or in the same one.

For example, you're currently discussing the nature of time with Scott in the "The Logical Implications of CTD" topic. The views you've recently expressed there are broadly consistent with the views you've expressed on the nature of time in various other topics. If they weren't consistent with them, I'd conclude that you'd changed your mind to some degree. That wouldn't be affected by the fact that the new views were stated in a different topic from the old ones.

[RJG]

And once we understand the idiocy of masking our vaccinated/immune people, can we then move on to step two and possibly understand the idiocy of masking/social distancing our young healthy people, which is explained in my other topic ("Will Continued Social Distancing Ultimately Destroy All Human Life on this Planet").

I noted that you'd modified your message. I don't really buy the idea that a shift in position doesn't count if the shift happens across different topics. Of course, there's nothing inherently wrong with modifying the message/shifting the position.

I haven't shifted/modified my position. Masking (and social distancing) our young healthy people is just as foolish as masking our vaccinated people. I just think it is easier to make others see the idiocy of masking our vaccinated people than the idiocy of masking young healthy people. Once people understand the utter foolishness of masking our vaccinated people, then maybe, hopefully, they can also then realize the utter foolishness of masking our young healthy people. Step 1 first, then step 2.

In regards to this specific topic, if these people are vaccinated; immune, then this is a no-brainer -- absolutely YES! They should be out socializing big time to help stop this virus.

And you can tell that they're immune, and will therefore suck up the virus, from how they look on TV?

I said "if" they are immune, then it is a no-brainer. From their appearance on TV, they all look young and healthy. Neither vaccinated people nor young healthy people (at this time) should be masked or socially distanced. We need these people to stop this virus. Intentionally keeping them hidden and away from the virus is as foolish as intentionally keeping our white blood cells away from a bodily infection.

[Steve3007]

I said "if" they are immune, then it is a no-brainer. From their appearance on TV, they all look young and healthy.

OK, I see. They look young and healthy on TV therefore you conclude that they probably are immune and you therefore conclude that they should be socializing, to suck up and kill the virus, and that's why you said you're glad to see them doing so. You're still glad to see them doing so. That position hasn't changed. Got it.

As we know I fundamentally disagree with you and you fundamentally disagree with me on this and that hasn't changed. I think your advice, when followed, is demonstrably catastrophic. You think the same of mine.

Good! We still know where we stand!

[RJG]

As we know I fundamentally disagree with you and you fundamentally disagree with me on this and that hasn't changed. I think your advice, when followed, is demonstrably catastrophic. You think the same of mine.

And I suppose, when the virus gets much worse this time next year, that you will be part of the group that demands we need MORE masking/social distancing/lockdowns? ...yes?

And then I suppose, when this results in things becoming much much worse the following year, that you will be part of the group that demands we need even MORE masking/social distancing/lockdowns? ...possibly mandating hazmat suits for everyone left alive? ...yes?


***********
There is only one way (herd immunity) to stop this virus. And if we continue to intentionally prevent stopping this virus, then the virus won't stop. -- It is as simple as that.

Being "reactive" (by developing vaccines after-the-fact) but yet still "hiding" (social distancing) from the virus doesn't stop the virus. Developing vaccines after-the-fact while continuing social distancing is like a dog chasing its tail -- we can never catch up to the latest mutations that are being intentionally and foolishly caused/perpetuated by the continued social distancing of our healthy immune people. -- It's a very foolish no-win scenario.

[Steve3007]

And I suppose, when the virus gets much worse this time next year, that you will be part of the group that demands we need MORE masking/social distancing/lockdowns? ...yes?

If, despite vaccination programs, the virus is much worse this time next year then, yes, if we want to stop it from killing people then we will need to return to social distancing. If we don't want to stop it from killing people then we don't need to do that.

As I've said (and as is the subject of our wager) I don't think it will be much worse this time next year, at least in the UK. As I've said, I think the vaccination programs both now and to come will mean that Covid-19 will be managed in roughly the same way that influenza is.

And then I suppose, when this results in things becoming much much worse the following year, that you will be part of the group that demands we need even MORE masking/social distancing/lockdowns? ...possibly mandating hazmat suits for everyone left alive? ...yes?

You've mentioned hazmat suits several times before. Obviously you'll know that I regard it as absurd. No. There will be no hazmat suits. As discussed previously many times with me and other posters, your ideas as to how the virus is transmitted, how it is sucked up by the immune, what it does when it is in the environment, etc, are simply factually wrong.

But anyway, the point of our wager was that we don't need to keep endlessly explaining to each other like this how our different universes work. We can wait and see who's right. You've been saying for a long time now that if we don't unmask the "healthy" (those people on TV) immediately then later: catastrophe, extinction, etc. As of now, where I live, that unmasking hasn't happened. I, for example, have had my first vaccine dose and I still wear a mask. So do others. We will be doing so until at least June. So that immediate unmasking you've called for hasn't happened. So we know what you predict will happen as a result.

Let's see if it does.

[RJG]

As I've said (and as is the subject of our wager) I don't think it will be much worse this time next year, at least in the UK.

I hope you are right.

As I've said, I think the vaccination programs both now and to come will mean that Covid-19 will be managed in roughly the same way that influenza is.

I would agree with you if we didn't mask and social distance our healthy and immune/vaccinated people - just like we do with influenza!

In other words, influenza is kept in check and manageable because we did not prevent the inherent herd immunity protection in our population. We did not mask and socially distance our healthy and immune people.

If we prevent the mass socialization of healthy/immune people within the herd (population) then we lose the inherent herd immunity protection, which means covid cannot be kept in check (nor manageable).

[Steve3007]

As you know, I disagree with the above, so let's see.

I just got back from a lunchtime trip to the supermarket, wearing a mask, as was almost everyone else there. We didn't immediately unmask months ago when you first started telling people they had to do so. We're not immediately unmasking now. We won't be doing so in the immediate future. According to you, that unequivocally means we're doomed. Let's see.

[LuckyR]

As you know, I disagree with the above, so let's see.

I just got back from a lunchtime trip to the supermarket, wearing a mask, as was almost everyone else there. We didn't immediately unmask months ago when you first started telling people they had to do so. We're not immediately unmasking now. We won't be doing so in the immediate future. According to you, that unequivocally means we're doomed. Let's see.

Big on theory, bereft of data.

[RJG]

I just got back from a lunchtime trip to the supermarket, wearing a mask, as was almost everyone else there. We didn't immediately unmask months ago when you first started telling people they had to do so. We're not immediately unmasking now. We won't be doing so in the immediate future. According to you, that unequivocally means we're doomed.

Yes, if you have already been vaccinated and/or otherwise healthy, and still wearing a mask and social distancing, then, from my perspective, you are part of the problem; you are contributing to the inevitable doom.

If we are too ignorant and arrogant to save ourselves then we (humans) will all perish from this planet. If we continue to arrogantly and blindly follow and be led by bad science (bad science = science that disregards logic), then we (humans) are all doomed. ...probably within 10 years, ...I am deadly serious here.

If we don't come to our senses before this next big wave, and if we again irrationally and naively respond with more social isolation (masking; social distancing; lockdowns) of our 'healthy' people, then the party is over, ...I see no way to turn back from the inevitable outcome. And unfortunately, when this next wave hits, there will be too many people (including politicians) that will foolishly demand MORE social distancing of everyone (including the smaller potential army of 'healthy' people), which is akin to the irrationality of taking more poison to help cure us of being poisoned.

Bottom-line: logically, and contrary to the bad science, the more we mask/social distance our 'healthy' population, the faster and deeper in the hole we get. We can only go so deep before we can't ever get back out.

[Steve3007]

I just got back from a lunchtime trip to the supermarket, wearing a mask, as was almost everyone else there. We didn't immediately unmask months ago when you first started telling people they had to do so. We're not immediately unmasking now. We won't be doing so in the immediate future. According to you, that unequivocally means we're doomed.

...Bottom-line: logically, and contrary to the bad science, the more we mask/social distance our 'healthy' population, the faster and deeper in the hole we get. We can only go so deep before we can't ever get back out.

As I've said before, call me cynical but I strongly suspect that there are no circumstances under which you will concede to having been wrong on this. As I said in the post quoted above, you said some time ago that we are doomed if we don't unmask the healthy immediately. We haven't done so. Therefore your position now should be that we're doomed no matter what we do from this point. That should translate to "we have already gone so deep into the hole that we will now not be able to get out no matter what we do". But I think you're leaving yourself the option, whenever masking does eventually end, of being able to say "Phew! They saw sense just in time!" or similar.

I think the hole metaphor, regardless of how long the digging continues, will end with: "Phew! They stopped digging just before the hole got too deep to get out of it!". The depth at which the hole, in your view, becomes too deep to get out of it will in all circumstances be just a little bit deeper than the point at which the digging stopped, regardless of when that turns out to be.

Just a cynical theory! Let's see!