What struck me about Aaron Herzberg’s lengthy list of adverse consequences of wearing facemarks at Brownstone Institute:
One of the most trenchant arguments made by proponents of forced masking is some variation of “it’s just an inconvenienceâ€, so/and/or “why do you have to make such a big deal about itâ€. (To be clear, this is not a legitimate scientific or factual argument for the adoption of any policy, but that is not what this article is about.) I am largely going to avoid the issues unique to masking children – what is plainly institutionalized child abuse – and for people with disabilities or past trauma, as many of the harms inflicted by masks are readily apparent and easily articulable.
On the surface, this contention seems like a morally and factually compelling argument. After all, if masks had any meaningful efficacy, wouldn’t it be a worthwhile tradeoff to endure a little discomfort to reduce the far worse suffering and death that would otherwise be inflicted by covid?
Yet this argument – “what’s the big deal†– does not square with how many people experience masks and mask mandates, including practically everyone who disagrees with masking as a policy. It is undeniable that millions of people are considerably more tormented by facemasks than what we would expect is reasonable or even possible for something that is indeed merely an “inconvenienceâ€. People generally do not profoundly suffer from trivialities.
is that I honestly don’t think I experience any of them. My greater concern about them which I don’t see in his list is moral hazard, i.e. that wearing facemasks could encourage people to take risks they otherwise would avoid. I just found it interesting to hear how other people experience them.
Damn near impossible on a cold day if you wear glasses.
If you wear glasses and hearing aid’s you’re likely to drop $5,000
on the ground when you take the mask off.
But, Omicron is everywhere and if it saves even one life………..
The typical cloth or paper mask provides little or no protection from airborne particles like viruses, although they do trap the larger droplets if you sneeze or cough, so you do protect others somewhat, if you wear one.
On the other hand, after two years of this, at least least one-third of the people don’t know how to wear a mask. I routinely see people with their noses fully exposed, and some people wear them on their chins, exposing their mouths, too.
One is reminded that a majority of the American people, maybe 60%, have an IQ below 100.
PS. Vox Day is citing European data that show fully vaccinated people are much more likely (by a large factor) to contract the omicron variant than unvaccinated people. Which would mean that the vaccines not only do not protect against the new variant, they predispose people to get it.
I do not find that surprising. Vaccines only protect against a limited number of small mutations from the original disease they were designed for. What I do find surprising is the number of Vaccine Enhanced Adverse Reactions, which is very much larger for the covid vaccines than for any other. The swine flu vaccine was withdrawn when it exhibited much smaller VEAR’s than covid does.
When someone uses the “it’s a minor inconvenience” argument for any mandated government policy, you instantly know the argument is weak. There are a lot of things that are inconveniences, that doesn’t justify mandating them.
Policies, whatever they are, but particularly government mandates that carry real penalties, need to be justified of efficacy and cost-benefit terms.
And one of the dumb things about current mask mandates is they assume that all masks are created equal when we have a lot of information showing that they aren’t.
I was hoping for something objective and all I am seeing is this guy talking about his feelings. His feelings in reaction to masks and his feelings about the people who say we should wear them. Feelings. Fears, anger, lots of anger.
I guess I should have expected this. This is the approach by the modern GOP to lots, maybe most of what they do. Lots of investigations, including ones by fellow Republicans and even with auditors they chose, and they can find any evidence that there were the fraudulent votes they believe. The claims get investigated, they dont find any substance but Republicans FEEL that they won.
So you wont often find Republicans engaging on masks or much of anything having to do with covid based upon objective measures. It’s feelings. Its “I read something by someone I dont know making some claims”, again not based upon objective measures.
Drew expressed concern that I might continue to base my medical practice based upon the medical literature. I will admit it would be much easier to practice based upon my feelings. A lot less work, a lot less reading. A lot less meeting with other people to make sure we do the right things. Really, if I could just say “some doctor in Iowa” does it this way and everyone accepted that as a valid way to make decisions it would cut my meetings time by 90%. But its just wrong to practice that way.
“When someone uses the “it’s a minor inconvenience†argument for any mandated government policy, you instantly know the argument is weak. ”
I agree, but I think understand it. It is an attempt to respond to the emotional based arguments about masks. Person A says masks make me feel bad. Person B says it is a minor inconvenience. Both are arguing feelings. I prefer literature based arguments but I keep learning over and over that conservatives just arent interested or are unequipped to do that.
Steve
“…moral hazard, i.e. that wearing facemasks could encourage people to take risks they otherwise would avoid.”
I think that is correct. Or their assessment of risks, and associated costs, differ from others.
I see we have another appeal to the holy grail of standard medicine as the truth above all else. Nonsense. Its been moving like the proverbial slippery, and ever changing, slope since day one.
Remember two weeks to bend the curve? How quaint. Celebrities made TV appeals like stooges in support. Here we are down the road. We talk about mandates, even for young children. We have people who have in fact, or are being threatened with loss of jobs, for non-compliance. Businesses and their employees destroyed. School children losing precious school time. (and if we are honest, that’s driven by teachers unions – a political issue).
We have something new: lockdowns of healthy people. And as pointed out earlier in comments, non-compliance runs rampant. Are you a favored class, like a BLM protester? No mask needed as your loot and commit arson mostly peacefully. Further, only the N95 masks are truly significantly effective…………if used properly. That’s a big if, and where is the massive effort to manaufacture and distribute those? And do I need to mention the all too common photos of political leaders and bureaucrats not wearing their oh-so-important masks? Rules for thee, but not…………. You won’t get compliance that way.
Andy is correct to be circumspect. Authoritarian positions being taken; scold personal choice. Changing rules. A strange devotion to vaccines, with not nearly the same emphasis on therapeutics. And cost/benefit, something we practice every single day of our lives, is given hardly a nod. And lastly, you can find all kinds of sensible medical professionals taking varying positions.
Lest anyone think I’m some sort of antivaxxer, I would note that I’m initially double dosed (Pfizer) and boosted. My considered choice.
And wouldn’t you know it, I’m now recovering from Omicron. I guess the virus didn’t get the memo.
Best I can tell the two weeks to flatten the curve actually came from the Trump leadership while a lot fo public health people thought it would take longer. What we know is that it was pretty successful. Within 2-3 months the death rate from a covid infection dropped by close to half. Delaying cases to a later date saved many lives.
It is really weird to hear complain that things changed as we learned more about a new virus and approaches were changed. Really have to appreciate that Drew advocates for the same level of behavior as a criminal. If looters dont have to wear masks then he shouldn’t either. Anyway, based on literature driven evidence I supported the Desantis decision to let people go maskless on beaches. Transmission risk outdoors is minimal. Same with the BLM people. I guess it is a clever political argument and entertains conservatives but there isn’t any evidence it is a good argument.
Steve
â€And what we saw just in third quarter, we’re seeing it continue into fourth quarter, is that death rates are up 40% over what they were pre-pandemic,†he said.
“Just to give you an idea of how bad that is, a three-sigma or a one-in-200-year catastrophe would be 10% increase over pre-pandemic,†he said. “So 40% is just unheard of.â€
Davison was one of several business leaders who spoke during the virtual news conference on Dec. 30 that was organized by the Indiana Chamber of Commerce.
Most of the claims for deaths being filed are not classified as COVID-19 deaths, Davison said.â€
https://www.thecentersquare.com/indiana/indiana-life-insurance-ceo-says-deaths-are-up-40-among-people-ages-18-64/article_71473b12-6b1e-11ec-8641-5b2c06725e2c.html
The deaths and injuries covered by these claims were probably people mandated to be fully vaccinated by the companies in which they were employed. When you compare this group with the general public, the general public’s numbers of death and long term injury were more normal.
All the talk about these vaccines being “safe†is starting to crumble under the weight of evidence (still being called misinformation by vaccine advocates) that continues to roll in. It probably won’t be until we reach some crisis point, where these awful vaccines are deservedly being labeled “crimes against humanity,†that the spell of their so-called efficacy is broken. This will include the isolating protocols of mask and social distancing that have plagued this virus almost from the very beginning.
The word “probably” is bearing an awful lot of the weight in that sentence.
Dave, the data given by the CDC and big pharma has been less than accurate or straightforward throughout this “pandemic.†Citing “probably,†IMO, is more honest in allowing the possibly of discrepancies about a statement of fact, when compared to how vaccine advocates treat those who oppose vaccines – with a combination of reputation assassination or outright censorship of contrary narratives to the government/bureaucratic approved ones.
Just as I always say, steve doesn’t argue from principle, but from politics. I don’t care if Trump or Jesus Christ argued for two weeks to bend the curve. It led to exactly what I cited (and predicted). I call them as I see them, no matter.
Try intellectual honesty sometime steve, not blowing Democrats 24/7.
How is anyone supposed to take you seriously when everything you say is filtered through a partisan lens. Trump is gone. Biden is here, and he is failing spectacularly. Everyone can see it. Look, I know you are not a bad guy. But this shouldn’t be political. This very day the CDC is shuckin’ and jivin’ all over the place. And Walensky and Fauci can’t get on the same page.
You wouldn’t know intellectual honesty if it hit you in the face Drew. As I pointed out the lockdowns gave us time to improve the care of covid pts so that the death rate of hospitalized pts dropped by close to half. That is not really in dispute (expect by jan who only believes sources not related to medicine). You are a Trump supporter so they get credit for the initial lockdown but public health people knew all along it was likely we would probably need longer than 2 weeks.
Jan has once again cited an article that doesnt provide any real numbers. We need to see the raw numbers since we dont really expect a lot of deaths in that age group. We should also see the causes of death since as was noted in the article Dave provided many coroners in rural areas are refusing to give the cause of death as covid so we are seeing a lot “cardiac arrest” being listed as cause of death. What we do know is that in Indiana like everywhere else most of the covid admissions are unvaccinated.
https://www.thecentersquare.com/indiana/indiana-s-top-doc-more-people-hospitalized-now-than-before-the-vaccine/article_0516bc1a-696b-11ec-b1e9-73e279cd9b89.html#tncms-source=infinity-scroll-summary-sticky-siderail-latest
Steve
Drs. Steven Hatfill, Peter McCullough, Malone, Kory, Harvey Hirsch and a bevy of other esteemed doctors, in their field of medicine, have given stats and studies questioning these FDA unapproved vaccines’ safety and actual efficacy. What about the Brownstone Institute and their listing of antiviral studies? However, establishment doctors only think out of the establishment box, and merely jeer and diss others who actually have better credentials and background experiences than administrative physicians. Even a Stephen Kirsch, who has collaborated with other scientists and doctors, asks astute questions and openly offers to debate those ( for a million dollars) who disagree with his findings. People, though, only like to criticize but are somehow silent when it comes to coming forth and defending their positions.
Regarding citing “real†numbers, such numbers are usually buried, and then dismissed by the media bullhorn. For instance the government site VAERS has consistently been assessed as underreporting adverse reactions. Some have said the multiplier is anything up to a 100, meaning the deaths reported are but a small fraction of the real number. Such a possibility of so many more deaths somehow escapes more scrutiny, in lieu of all the billions being made by historically unscrupulous pharmaceutical companies – especially Pfizer.
https://d12t4t5x3vyizu.cloudfront.net/nehls.house.gov/uploads/2022/01/JRE-Rogan-Malone-Transcript.pdf
Dr Malone, in an over 40 page transcript from the recently aired and widely heard Joe Rogan show, asserted that 500,000 lives were lost because of the governmentâ€s interference with the early disbursement of antiviral medications.
Jan: the government site VAERS has consistently been assessed as underreporting adverse reactions. Some have said the multiplier is anything up to a 100, meaning the deaths reported are but a small fraction of the real number.
No. You are conflating adverse reactions with deaths. Deaths are a very small fraction of adverse reactions. Nor are the reporting requirements the same as when those studies were made.
And if you are going to cite VAERS as your source, then you need to also note that VAERS specifically notes: “While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable.”
https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html
One of the most trenchant arguments made by proponents of forced
maskingquarantine is some variation of “it’s just an inconvenienceâ€, so/and/or “why do you have to make such a big deal about itâ€.I am largely going to avoid the issues unique to
maskingforcing children to be strapped into child safety seats – what is plainly institutionalized child abuse.It is undeniable that millions of people are considerably more tormented by
facemaskstraffic laws than what we would expect is reasonable or even possible for something that is indeed merely an “inconvenienceâ€.