Conversation

Conclusion sparked by the thought that nobody can be stupid enough to believe masking/not-masking is a purely personally risky behavior. You have to willfully ignore how you're socializing your risk. The "tell" is the companion eugenics focus on "only old/sick are vulnerable"
3
35
Replying to
I suspect you overestimate the average person's capacity for clear reasoning. Yes, a blanket anti-mask stance is dumb, but you might be focusing on the most embarrassing & poorly communicated offshoots from a space where there is some truth:
1
Replying to and
Two important points: 1. Most of us are wearing masks that are not tight enough to our face to prevent vapor + aerosol from escaping out the sides. 2. Indoor transmission seems to make up the bulk of all transmission. The formula involves time, volume, etc.
1
Replying to and
These are fairly uncontroversial points I hope. From this we can conclude that outdoor masking is pretty much pointless except in close proximity and face to face. We can also conclude that messaging about indoor transmission is at best overly reductionist.
2
Replying to and
I view what you described partially as an allergic / counterproductive reaction to bad messaging and aggressive official policies on masking. These are unsurprising as our ruling class is of the late-empire sort, defaulting to coercion vs. effective persuasion.
2
Replying to
this is "look what you made me do" abdication of agency and personal responsibility for harm you might cause others, using the state's failures as an excuse... ie malicious
1
Replying to
Making a binary moral matter is unproductive. There's just cause and effect and it's obviously complex and iterative. You and I won't influence these people directly but at least you might have an audience that includes people who make policy.
1