Masks are dumb. Here’s why.

[John Dule]

So if anything can be worn as a mask, including a bandana, then how effective is this ‘rule’ anyway?

Permanent lung damage and liver failure are “barely harmful?”

Nobody here has any illusions about a utopia. The fact that 4.3 million people have gotten this virus and you aren't one of them speaks to the innate injustice of the world.

[John Dule]

So if anything can be worn as a mask, including a bandana, then how effective is this ‘rule’ anyway?

Permanent lung damage and liver failure are “barely harmful?”

Nobody here has any illusions about a utopia. The fact that 4.3 million people have gotten this virus and you aren't one of them speaks to the innate injustice of the world.

Out of 7 billion people lol

Out of 320 million. That is just the number for the US.

[John Dule]

So if anything can be worn as a mask, including a bandana, then how effective is this ‘rule’ anyway?

Permanent lung damage and liver failure are “barely harmful?”

Nobody here has any illusions about a utopia. The fact that 4.3 million people have gotten this virus and you aren't one of them speaks to the innate injustice of the world.

Out of 7 billion people lol

Out of 320 million. That is just the number for the US.

I was clearly counting the world.

And you were clearly uninformed, so I corrected you.

[John Dule]

Even a simple bandana stops you from touching your nose and mouth with your bare hand. This is one of the ways flu and coronaviruses are spread. You touch a contaminated surface and then touch your mouth or nose, this is why something as simple as vigorous hand-washing with soap is recommended. If Covid-19 is airborne which seem likely the bandana would be less effective against that but still a barrier from you touching your mouth and nose. Pandemics are a numbers game and the more doors you close for stoping new cases the better we'll be able to tackling this problem.

That’s not true either! Covid doesn’t stay on surfaces very long. Christ, CNN really is fake news.

[John Dule]

Here is a compromise, if you don’t wear a mask, you will be prioritized last for medical treatment.
Since Covid isn’t that deadly, DTT surely supports this compromise, right?

Nah, death panels aren't ok. However, if you refuse to wear a mask, your health care provider should be able to jack up your monthly rate by about 5000%. #LivebythemarketDiebythemarket

[John Dule]

Here is a compromise, if you don’t wear a mask, you will be prioritized last for medical treatment.
Since Covid isn’t that deadly, DTT surely supports this compromise, right?

If you’re overweight and continue to eat McDonald’s....follow your own logic, which seems to also be dumb.

I 100% agree. People who treat their bodies like s**t, eat crap, never exercise, smoke, and drink to excess should expect to pay far more for medical treatment than someone who takes care of themselves. I mean, what would be the alternative? Treating everybody the same way, regardless of their life decisions? IDK bruh, sounds like socialism to me.

[John Dule]

Here is a compromise, if you don’t wear a mask, you will be prioritized last for medical treatment.
Since Covid isn’t that deadly, DTT surely supports this compromise, right?

If you’re overweight and continue to eat McDonald’s....follow your own logic, which seems to also be dumb.

I 100% agree. People who treat their bodies like s**t, eat crap, never exercise, smoke, and drink to excess should expect to pay far more for medical treatment than someone who takes care of themselves. I mean, what would be the alternative? Treating everybody the same way, regardless of their life decisions? IDK bruh, sounds like socialism to me.

That's our job as health professionals. But I can't say that I don't side-eye when someone comes in whose BMI is over 30, blood pressure 150/90, fasting blood sugar over 136, and he/she claims it's "all genetic".  

To be clear, I'm not saying that a doctor should violate the Hippocratic Oath. Insurance providers, on the other hand, have no obligation to keep rates low for people who mistreat their bodies. That would be like a car insurance company ignoring someone who gets in a fender-bender every month.

[John Dule]

But how do you enforce that standard, and who decides whether a person is making too many bad health decisions versus bad genetics?  Also, it's not an accident that poor people and especially people who live in food deserts are, on average, fatter and less healthy than wealthies, and that fresh produce and non-crap food are a great deal more expensive than the crap food.

I have hopes that online delivery of food will begin to take off in the near future, to the point that grocery stores will start to move online and food deserts will become a thing of the past. Also, tearing up zoning restrictions to allow for taller and denser housing could put more people in closer proximity to existing grocery stores, and would make new stores more financially viable by increasing the number of residents within walking distance. Still, fixing the innumerable problems caused by city zoning ordinances can't be done overnight.

As for health decisions, it really depends. Obviously someone who is addicted to opiates-- as a direct result of the drugs they were prescribed by their health care provider-- shouldn't see their rates go up. However, the vast majority of people are not incapable of losing weight, and smoking/drinking to excess are clearly individual choices. It's incredibly unfair for a person to gorge themselves on crap food and then pass the bill for their inevitable triple bypass on to the taxpayer. I'd also like to see insurance providers cover gym memberships, provided that the person continually uses the facility.

[John Dule]

It's not just a matter of distance, it's affordability.  That problem can't be fixed overnight either, of course (this has been attributed to subsidies, but advertising also has an impact), but it doesn't matter how many Whole Foods you build if poors need to stretch their dollars each month.

Distance and affordability are correlated. A supermarket in a wealthy area has to charge more for its food than a supermarket in a poor one, because the real estate in the wealthy area is much more costly. Now, this would all be well and good... so long as there are also supermarkets in poor areas. Sadly, things like the recent riots are not very encouraging for businesses to put branches in ghettos, because they have to factor in the non-zero possibility that the local government will just throw up its hands in defeat while vandals loot their entire inventory. Nonetheless, I agree that location is only half the problem here. But I think we disagree entirely with regards to how we solve the other half.

But irrespective of whether it's "fair" that we subsidize unhealthy lifestyles, there is no objective way of determining who's in bad shape because their genetics suck and who's just a glutton.  Doctors won't incriminate their patients, and requiring them to report that information about each patient (which is the only way I can imagine how you would enforce such a standard) would only discourage people from seeing their doctor in the first place.

There are very few people on this planet who are legitimately genetically incapable of maintaining their body weight at a relatively healthy level.

[John Dule]

It's not just a matter of distance, it's affordability.  That problem can't be fixed overnight either, of course (this has been attributed to subsidies, but advertising also has an impact), but it doesn't matter how many Whole Foods you build if poors need to stretch their dollars each month.

Distance and affordability are correlated. A supermarket in a wealthy area has to charge more for its food than a supermarket in a poor one, because the real estate in the wealthy area is much more costly. Now, this would all be well and good... so long as there are also supermarkets in poor areas. Sadly, things like the recent riots are not very encouraging for businesses to put branches in ghettos, because they have to factor in the non-zero possibility that the local government will just throw up its hands in defeat while vandals loot their entire inventory. Nonetheless, I agree that location is only half the problem here. But I think we disagree entirely with regards to how we solve the other half.

I mean, we can't all be rich white suburban kids whose mommy and daddy shower praise on us all the time.  People in those "ghettos" need to eat too.

But irrespective of whether it's "fair" that we subsidize unhealthy lifestyles, there is no objective way of determining who's in bad shape because their genetics suck and who's just a glutton.  Doctors won't incriminate their patients, and requiring them to report that information about each patient (which is the only way I can imagine how you would enforce such a standard) would only discourage people from seeing their doctor in the first place.

There are very few people on this planet who are legitimately genetically incapable of maintaining their body weight at a relatively healthy level.

You're not a doctor.

I really don't know what I said there that warranted such a dismissive response.

[John Dule]

Your casual dismissal of food deserts as violent "ghettos" and eagerness to pivot the discussion to something totally unrelated shows you either don't know or don't care about the issues those cities are dealing with and why they exist.  We have inequality in cities and neighborhoods literally by design.  Neighborhoods that weren't victimized by redlining and intentionally racist policies were invested in and allowed to flourish.  Others were not, and that's why we have the problems that exist today.

Poverty is a little more complicated than lazy fat people and rioting thugs, or anyone else you see as undeserving.

Uh... excuse me? I was just talking about the need to rewrite zoning laws, and that includes encouraging investment in poor neighborhoods. If you want businesses to establish locations in these areas, you need to consider all of the reasons why they don't currently see them as viable opportunities, and yes, that includes thinking about the likelihood of crime and vandalism. Trust me, you don't need to explain to me that FDR's Federal Housing Administration was the cause of a lot of these problems due to its racist redlining policies. That is a great example of how big government can harm minority communities. The question now is how we go about picking up the pieces left behind by those policies, which requires examining the issue from multiple angles.

I did not reduce the issue to "ghettos" or "lazy fat people." You do not have a monopoly on empathy for the poor.

[John Dule]

Your casual dismissal of food deserts as violent "ghettos" and eagerness to pivot the discussion to something totally unrelated shows you either don't know or don't care about the issues those cities are dealing with and why they exist.  We have inequality in cities and neighborhoods literally by design.  Neighborhoods that weren't victimized by redlining and intentionally racist policies were invested in and allowed to flourish.  Others were not, and that's why we have the problems that exist today.

Poverty is a little more complicated than lazy fat people and rioting thugs, or anyone else you see as undeserving.

Uh... excuse me? I was just talking about the need to rewrite zoning laws, and that includes encouraging investment in poor neighborhoods. If you want businesses to establish locations in these areas, you need to consider all of the reasons why they don't currently see them as viable opportunities, and yes, that includes thinking about the likelihood of crime and vandalism. Trust me, you don't need to explain to me that FDR's Federal Housing Administration was the cause of a lot of these problems due to its racist redlining policies. That is a great example of how big government can harm minority communities. The question now is how we go about picking up the pieces left behind by those policies, which requires examining the issue from multiple angles.

I did not reduce the issue to "ghettos" or "lazy fat people." You do not have a monopoly on empathy for the poor.

It is not "big government's" fault (you are oversimplifying the problem yet again) any more than it is the fault of the early developers like William Levitt who created the cities and suburbs as they are today.  And you can't separate that from urban crime just as you can't separate the brutal and corrupt practices of the police from their reputation in those same neighborhoods.  I never claimed to have a monopoly on empathy for the poor but I'm willing to bet I probably know a little more about both poverty and violent crime having experienced both.  None of this changes the fact that people are products of their environment and social factors much as they are their independent agency.  That affects the cost of food, that affects the cost of living, and that affects the public health.

You are again putting words in my mouth. I did not say "It's all big government's fault," I said "This is an example of how big government can harm minority communities." Again, there are other factors at play here, but that is one of them. The fact that I acknowledged one variable in this equation does not mean that I am blaming that variable alone.

In any case, you don't actually know anything about me or my life, and I do not care to turn a debate on important social issues into a contest to see who has experienced more crime, poverty, and general suffering in their life. The idea that this would make you more qualified to comment on the subject is also questionable. I am still confused about why you took my initial remarks so personally, but I am willing to move on and forget that this weird exchange ever happened.