Your Trumpish paranoia is not mine to answer. It's probably caused by paedophile reptilian aliens who jet around in space-ships aiding Democrats.Nick_A wrote: ↑August 2nd, 2021, 3:00 pmWhy are you so in favor of inviting unmasked illegal aliens to invade the country infecting granny? What did granny do to deserve contamination?Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 2nd, 2021, 2:42 pmOur various vaccines are pretty effective (~95%) against the original variant, but only offer ~66% protection from infection by the delta variant. So, when the virus "encounters an 'unmasked' healthy vaccinated person", it might well infect them. If they are young and fit, there is a good chance that they will show no symptoms, so they won't even know that they are able to infect Granny, who might well die as a result.
This topic is nothing less than dangerous misinformation.
To Mask or Not to Mask - which is safer?
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8232
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: To Mask or Not to Mask - which is safer?
"Who cares, wins"
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: To Mask or Not to Mask - which is safer?
Firstly, imagine a fixed number of viral particles floating around in a given environment/room. Further imagine a 'masked' vulnerable un-vaccinated elderly lady (who was too vulnerable to receive the vaccine) is within this room. I think we all agree that this poor lady is at great risk here in this environment. So now imagine that an 'unmasked' healthy (w/ strong immune system) vaccinated young man walks into the same room as this poor lady. What happens now, is this lady now "more safe" or "less safe"?
- A. She is definitely less safe -- because people who don't wear masks are highly likely to shed viral particles back into the environment, creating a greater viral load (and risk) to this poor lady.
B. She is potentially less safe -- because we don't know if this young man is a shedder or not.
C. She is twice as safe -- because the more people that share the same viral load within a given environment, the lower the proportional risk is to any individual within that environment.
D. She is more than twice as safe -- because this young man is maskless he is breathing in these viral particles, thereby reducing the total number of viral particles within the room. The longer he stays, the less contaminated the room, and the safer the lady becomes.
E. Both C & D
I would like to see where everybody stands on this. My vote is obviously E, ...but what say you?
chewybrian
Consul
Gee
Leontiskos
LuckyR
Nick_A
Pattern-chaser
Sculptor1
Steve3007
Sy Borg
Tegularius
-
- Posts: 502
- Joined: May 11th, 2021, 11:20 am
Re: To Mask or Not to Mask - which is safer?
-
- Posts: 502
- Joined: May 11th, 2021, 11:20 am
Re: To Mask or Not to Mask - which is safer?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: To Mask or Not to Mask - which is safer?
Best case: He doesn't have the virus and the vaccination succeeded in teaching his immune system to recognize the virus (about a 90% chance of that). So he is unlikely to be made seriously ill himself by the virus particles in the room and it won't reproduce in him as much as it would in an-unvaccinated person, or in a person for whom the vaccine didn't work, but it can still reproduce in some parts of his body, like the nasal cavity. If there is enough virus in the room to be dangerous to the lady, then the amount of virus killed by his immune response is insignificant compared to the total amount in the room. So the extent to which he filters virus from the room is negligible compared to other factors. And after the aerosol containing virus particles settles onto surfaces, obviously he doesn't filter it from the room at all.
Worst case: The vaccination didn't succeed (10% chance) and he is actually already infectious, but is asymptomatic, possibly because he is in the early stages. He therefore adds more to the danger to the lady. The extent to which he does this depends on various things like how close he comes to the woman and how much (if at all) he talks, sings, coughs and sneezes.
So the closest to my view is probably B.
-
- Posts: 3364
- Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm
Re: To Mask or Not to Mask - which is safer?
It really doesn't make a difference. People wearing masks are always scratching their nose defeating the assumed purpose of a mask. Then those like Nancy Pelosi would take hers off while no one is looking. So in reality, it doesn't make a differenceRJG wrote: ↑August 3rd, 2021, 7:45 am Hey all, I know everyone enjoys the friendly bashing, but please try to answer this question seriously --
Firstly, imagine a fixed number of viral particles floating around in a given environment/room. Further imagine a 'masked' vulnerable un-vaccinated elderly lady (who was too vulnerable to receive the vaccine) is within this room. I think we all agree that this poor lady is at great risk here in this environment. So now imagine that an 'unmasked' healthy (w/ strong immune system) vaccinated young man walks into the same room as this poor lady. What happens now, is this lady now "more safe" or "less safe"?
- A. She is definitely less safe -- because people who don't wear masks are highly likely to shed viral particles back into the environment, creating a greater viral load (and risk) to this poor lady.
B. She is potentially less safe -- because we don't know if this young man is a shedder or not.
C. She is twice as safe -- because the more people that share the same viral load within a given environment, the lower the proportional risk is to any individual within that environment.
D. She is more than twice as safe -- because this young man is maskless he is breathing in these viral particles, thereby reducing the total number of viral particles within the room. The longer he stays, the less contaminated the room, and the safer the lady becomes.
E. Both C & D
I would like to see where everybody stands on this. My vote is obviously E, ...but what say you?
@chewybrian
@Consul
@Gee
@Leontiskos
@LuckyR
@Nick_A
@Pattern-chaser
@Sculptor1
@Steve3007
@Sy Borg
@Tegularius
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: To Mask or Not to Mask - which is safer?
-
- Posts: 3364
- Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm
Re: To Mask or Not to Mask - which is safer?
In a free society a person chooses to wear a mask during a non emergency. In a slave state the government makes you wear a mask. Your choice is freedom or slavery.Tegularius wrote: ↑August 3rd, 2021, 4:24 amWhat I don't get is in what way is wearing a mask a form of government control. What's the connection? People have always worn masks especially during the flu season without being required to. There are many forms of overt government control but how wearing a mask is one of them is a mystery to me.Nick_A wrote: ↑August 2nd, 2021, 12:39 pm RJG
These mask requirements are pure politics. Do you think if there was any sense in it, the government would invite millions of maskless illegal aliens into the country to spread a deadly virus? Of course not. Who can be so callous. Doing so would be treason. The fact that it is not and the practice is openly accepted just proves the government wants the people to get used to being controlledBe rational. Don't adhere to the irrational game of "let the rare exceptions dictate the general rule". This only results in more harm than good.
Demanding that lifeguards no longer jump into the pool to save an infant who fell in the deep end for fear that the lifeguards themselves might drown (or accidentally drown the infant) is highly irrational, and results in more harm than good.
Demanding that ambulance drivers no longer respond to the home or scene of an accident for fear of getting in an accident themselves (or accidentally killing someone) is highly irrational, and results in more harm than good.
Demanding that healthy vaccinated people put on masks for fear of dying themselves (or killing someone else) is highly irrational, and results in more harm than good.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7066
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: To Mask or Not to Mask - which is safer?
There is so much wrong with this scenario.RJG wrote: ↑August 3rd, 2021, 7:45 am Hey all, I know everyone enjoys the friendly bashing, but please try to answer this question seriously --
Firstly, imagine a fixed number of viral particles floating around in a given environment/room. Further imagine a 'masked' vulnerable un-vaccinated elderly lady (who was too vulnerable to receive the vaccine) is within this room. I think we all agree that this poor lady is at great risk here in this environment. So now imagine that an 'unmasked' healthy (w/ strong immune system) vaccinated young man walks into the same room as this poor lady. What happens now, is this lady now "more safe" or "less safe"?
Bad analogy. Unmasked healthy individuals are perfectly capable of bringing viruses into that environment.
So she is less safe with any other people in the room.
No one is "too vulnerable" to recieve a vaccination., because the vaccination is SAFE.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: To Mask or Not to Mask - which is safer?
This is such a misapplication of logical inference as to be nonsensical. All laws are violent and coersive. Does Nick mean to say that any government that passes laws enslaves its citizens? How about speed limits? Are all speed limits (during a non-emergency, of course) enslaving?
The logical error is thinking that because some institution or practice resembles slavery in one way, it is morally equivalent to slavery. Using this exact logic we could say (with equal validity to Nick's nonsensical statement) "In a free society people should be able to kill other people if they want to. In a slave state, murder is outlawed. Your choice is freedom or slavery."
-
- Posts: 3364
- Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm
Re: To Mask or Not to Mask - which is safer?
In a free society laws are passed by the mutual consent of the governed That is the purpose of the Congress. In a slave state laws are passed by the dictates of the govenment. The purpose of the governed is to obey their superiors not make laws.Ecurb wrote: ↑August 3rd, 2021, 1:01 pmThis is such a misapplication of logical inference as to be nonsensical. All laws are violent and coersive. Does Nick mean to say that any government that passes laws enslaves its citizens? How about speed limits? Are all speed limits (during a non-emergency, of course) enslaving?
The logical error is thinking that because some institution or practice resembles slavery in one way, it is morally equivalent to slavery. Using this exact logic we could say (with equal validity to Nick's nonsensical statement) "In a free society people should be able to kill other people if they want to. In a slave state, murder is outlawed. Your choice is freedom or slavery."
Modern man has been taught to admit their stupidity and demand a government that will tell them what to do. Praise of individuality and self reliance is a thing of the past
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: To Mask or Not to Mask - which is safer?
Bunk! You may admit your stupidity (being a "modern man"), but I don't, and you are insulting me if you say I do. "Self reliance" is, in today's economic climate, non-existant. Do you grow your own food, build your own house, and cure your own diseases? If not, you can hardly claim self-reliance.Nick_A wrote: ↑August 3rd, 2021, 1:51 pm
In a free society laws are passed by the mutual consent of the governed That is the purpose of the Congress. In a slave state laws are passed by the dictates of the govenment. The purpose of the governed is to obey their superiors not make laws.
Modern man has been taught to admit their stupidity and demand a government that will tell them what to do. Praise of individuality and self reliance is a thing of the past
In the U.S., laws are passed mainly in state legislatures and local governments, not in the U.S. Congress (although some are passed in the Congress). We (like all other Western nations) have a Representative government. The "consent of the governed" merely suggests that the representatives are duly elected.
IN the U.S. (and other countries) laws are passed to protect the public. Hence speed limits. mandatory seat belts, laws prohibiting murder, and (at times) requiring masks. If masks are required, you need not wear them in your own home. But if you go out in public, you must comply with legitimate, reasonable rules, including, among other things, mask-wearing, speed-limits, and stop signs. If you don't, you are not only breaking the law, but, which is worse, proving yourself to be a self-centered, egotistical twit.
- Leontiskos
- Posts: 695
- Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas
Re: To Mask or Not to Mask - which is safer?
I think chewybrian already stated the crucial premise correctly:RJG wrote: ↑August 3rd, 2021, 7:45 am Hey all, I know everyone enjoys the friendly bashing, but please try to answer this question seriously --
Firstly, imagine a fixed number of viral particles floating around in a given environment/room. Further imagine a 'masked' vulnerable un-vaccinated elderly lady (who was too vulnerable to receive the vaccine) is within this room. I think we all agree that this poor lady is at great risk here in this environment. So now imagine that an 'unmasked' healthy (w/ strong immune system) vaccinated young man walks into the same room as this poor lady. What happens now, is this lady now "more safe" or "less safe"?
- A. She is definitely less safe -- because people who don't wear masks are highly likely to shed viral particles back into the environment, creating a greater viral load (and risk) to this poor lady.
B. She is potentially less safe -- because we don't know if this young man is a shedder or not.
C. She is twice as safe -- because the more people that share the same viral load within a given environment, the lower the proportional risk is to any individual within that environment.
D. She is more than twice as safe -- because this young man is maskless he is breathing in these viral particles, thereby reducing the total number of viral particles within the room. The longer he stays, the less contaminated the room, and the safer the lady becomes.
E. Both C & D
I think the basic problem with the Pac-Man theory is that vaccinated individuals can catch the virus, can be harmed by the virus, and can spread the virus. The second problem has to do with C. If a number of uncontagious individuals share the same contagious space then sure, the individual risk is reduced. But 1) we don't know how much the risk is reduced, and 2) there is no good reason to believe that all the individuals sharing the space are not contagious. Each of the individuals in the space who are contagious are acting as an anti-Pac-Man, not a Pac-Man, and if they wore a mask they would be doing everyone else a favor.chewybrian wrote: ↑August 2nd, 2021, 7:23 pmYou real anchor premise is that we (the vaccinated) are shop vacs that will clean the air of the virus for the unvaccinated, AND that this cleansing effect is a benefit which outweighs the risk of catching the virus and passing it on.
I admit that your theory has a non-zero chance of being correct, but you would have to harvest the data and run the various probabilities for it to be remotely credible. Given the data we currently possess (which chewybrian has presented) we have every reason to believe that your theory is erroneous.
Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
-
- Posts: 502
- Joined: May 11th, 2021, 11:20 am
Re: To Mask or Not to Mask - which is safer?
Any number of viral particles (cells) in a space large enough to accommodate an elderly woman and a young man would have to be a very large number, say, a googleplex.RJG wrote: ↑August 3rd, 2021, 7:45 am Firstly, imagine a fixed number of viral particles floating around in a given environment/room. Further imagine a 'masked' vulnerable un-vaccinated elderly lady (who was too vulnerable to receive the vaccine) is within this room. I think we all agree that this poor lady is at great risk here in this environment. So now imagine that an 'unmasked' healthy (w/ strong immune system) vaccinated young man walks into the same room as this poor lady. What happens now, is this lady now "more safe" or "less safe"?
No one can be too vulnerable to get a Covid vaccine without being more vulnerable to Covid infection and/or severe Covid infection. Let’s assume the elderly woman is unvaccinated because she read on the Internet that the FDA’s longstanding charter, I.e. to approve only those drugs that are safe and effective, has been turned aside as part of Warp Speed’s procedures (this despite assurances that no standards were overlooked at any time).
Whenever an unmasked healthy person enters her airspace, what happens is nearly a net-zero improvement of her relative risk, and an even lesser improvement of her absolute risk.
What happens is the unmasked young man adsorbs maybe a billion (my SWAG as a student of pathogenic microbial infections) out of a googleplex of viral cells onto the moist membranes of his buccal mucosa and his conjunctivae.
A healthy immune system will prevent these cells from replicating, thereby killing any colony of viral cells in much the same fashion that bacteriostasis works on bacteria, I.e. by allowing mature cells to die off without replicating.
A billion out of a googleplex of viral cells will not be released into the environment, thereby very slightly making the elderly woman safer.
What is “highly”? Wouldn’t anyone who has become infected, as well as anyone else whose viral load has exceeded a certain threshold, be likely to spew some viral cells back into the environment?
She is potentially insignificantly safer.
Only if the man could remove half a googleplex of viral cells from the given airspace.
Only if the man could remove more than half a googleplex’s worth of virus from the environment.RJG wrote: ↑August 3rd, 2021, 7:45 am D. She is more than twice as safe -- because this young man is maskless he is breathing in these viral particles, thereby reducing the total number of viral particles within the room. The longer he stays, the less contaminated the room, and the safer the lady becomes.
A better choice would be neither C nor D.
-
- Posts: 3364
- Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm
Re: To Mask or Not to Mask - which is safer?
Bunk! You may admit your stupidity (being a "modern man"), but I don't, and you are insulting me if you say I do. "Self reliance" is, in today's economic climate, non-existant. Do you grow your own food, build your own house, and cure your own diseases? If not, you can hardly claim self-reliance.Ecurb wrote: ↑August 3rd, 2021, 2:31 pmBunk! You may admit your stupidity (being a "modern man"), but I don't, and you are insulting me if you say I do. "Self reliance" is, in today's economic climate, non-existant. Do you grow your own food, build your own house, and cure your own diseases? If not, you can hardly claim self-reliance.Nick_A wrote: ↑August 3rd, 2021, 1:51 pm
In a free society laws are passed by the mutual consent of the governed That is the purpose of the Congress. In a slave state laws are passed by the dictates of the govenment. The purpose of the governed is to obey their superiors not make laws.
Modern man has been taught to admit their stupidity and demand a government that will tell them what to do. Praise of individuality and self reliance is a thing of the past
In the U.S., laws are passed mainly in state legislatures and local governments, not in the U.S. Congress (although some are passed in the Congress). We (like all other Western nations) have a Representative government. The "consent of the governed" merely suggests that the representatives are duly elected.
IN the U.S. (and other countries) laws are passed to protect the public. Hence speed limits. mandatory seat belts, laws prohibiting murder, and (at times) requiring masks. If masks are required, you need not wear them in your own home. But if you go out in public, you must comply with legitimate, reasonable rules, including, among other things, mask-wearing, speed-limits, and stop signs. If you don't, you are not only breaking the law, but, which is worse, proving yourself to be a self-centered, egotistical twit.
People voluntarily gather together for mutual benefit. That is what freedom is about. When they are made to do so it is slavery. In the case of masks, there is no emergency. If there were, the government wouldn't invite an invasion of maskless illegal aliens carrying covid into the country. It is a way of breaking you into accepting your modern responsibilities defined by the state. Your modern obligation is to believe, obey, and pay the bills of your government. Objecting just means you will be canceled. See how simple it is.
From Orwell's 1984
Nothing is more annoying to the modern progressive mind than common sense.“Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense.”
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023