Masks are dumb. Here’s why.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Anotha fool. This guy unplugged his dial-up connection for an hour to post that.

[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.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

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.

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.

[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.

[Horus]

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.

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.

While I sympathize, exercise is free.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Your idol now claims to love masks. I guess that makes you a traitor.

[indietraveler]

The fact that masks has been such a big deal in this country proves why we're screwed until there's a vaccine.

Should stop signs and traffic lights be optional? It's really infringing on my rights. It's fine if other people want to use them but you can't make me!!!!!!

[T'Chenka]

How many times has Faucci been wrong and flip flopped? Masks is one.

I don’t listen to that clown. He’s lost all credibility.

You obviously don't understand how science or scientists operate.

Medical / science professionals make the best recommendations they can AT THE TIME based on the data they have AT THE TIME. If Fauci gave one recommendation and then three weeks later had different advice, it's because there was new data and new revelations from it within those three weeks.

Would you prefer he ignore new info that shows he may have been wrong, just so he can look good personally by appearing as if he's never wrong? Politicians do that, not scientists.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

With regard to obesity, you have to take into account as well the changes to everyday life for the average American that transcend individual to become societal choices —the move away from work that requires regular sustained physical activity, for instance. Covering gym memberships isn't inherently a bad idea, but money isn't the only factor that makes going to the gym practically difficult for some people. Ultimately I'm very suspicious of any model that proposes a single standard that claims to separate the deserving from the unfortunate. (Maybe that's why I'm not a right-libertarian. )

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

[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.

[lfromnj]

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.

Plenty of health insurance  companies do cover gym memberships atleast partially.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

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.

[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.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

[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.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

"Big government" makes for a nice slogan but that's about it, because aside from that it has no meaning in the realm of politics, and you cannot separate the political body from the people who make it for what it is.  But fine, fair enough.

[Former President tack50]

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

 Idk how the US are handling the rule but here only actual masks count. Wearing a bandana means you still get fined or not allowed into the bus

[Woody]

[Pericles]

It's a reflection of the deep selfishness and individualistic culture of US society that people are missing the primary point of masks. That is to stop the wearer of the mask from spreading Covid to others, often it is not the mask wearer who is in danger but the vulnerable people they could infect. That requires a bit of humility, which is also surely lacking-given the incubation period and asymptomatic transmission being common you don't really know at any given moment whether you have Covid and whether you can spread it to others. So you should take that risk into account, and in a small easy way reduce the risk that others will be infected. If everybody comes together collectively and does their bit, then the spread will be a lot less than if you just keep thinking that "I'll be fine" and ignoring the potential damage you are doing to people around you and your wider community.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Researchers at Florida Atlantic University, in a study published in the journal Physics of Fluids on Tuesday, found that bandanas reduced the average distance that coughs traveled from 8 feet to 3.6 feet. A folded handkerchief took that distance down to 1.25 feet. Commercial cone masks reduced the distance to 8 inches, and a two-layer, stitched mask to 2.5 inches.

Pointing to a 2017 picture of researchers wearing positive pressure suits while studying various viruses in no way disproves or casts doubt on how masks and face coverings can help the average person prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/02/politics/donald-trump-jr-masks-meme-facebook-fact-check/index.html

I know who I'm replying to, but please, don't use this pandemic as an excuse to spread more misinformation.

[hurricanehink]

People are dumb who can’t wear a mask right. Cover the nose and mouth, it’s not hard.

[Badger]

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.

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.

While I sympathize, exercise is free.

 

Leisure time is not.

[Torie]

One wears a mask to help protect folks like me from a potentially horrible death. Masks are worn primarily to protect others, not yourself. If anyone gets too near me without a mask, particularly if it is indoors, I snarl like a vicious caged beast.  Our local hospital got lax about requiring masks in order to enter. A couple wandered into the hallway outside the waiting room of the surgery department (I refused to sit in the waiting room because it was too crowded, so I was loitering in the hallway), and were about to open the door to the waiting room, at which time I barked at them, "you could kill someone, put on a mask immediately or get the hell out!" They did, but were so terrified, that they cancelled their appointment and fled the premises.  Anyway, that will not happen again in that hospital any time soon. I told the management to put the guards back, or I would work their big donor list, which I happen to have on my laptop.

Next time I had an appointment, I was called in advance about the mask rule. I told the lady that while she may think that she initiated the call, actually the reverse was the case.

And there you have it!

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Louis Quatre's Ship Ghibellines_Represent Jr. Member ★★★ Posts: 1,150

Soap is dumb. Here's why. « on: July 27, 1347, 2:32:41 pm »So if anything can be used to wash your hands, including water, then how effective is this ‘rule’ anyway? And witches are exempt? I really do not understand. The Plague has been unmasked. #SecurityTheater The Plague isn’t that deadly, and it’s barely harmful. Peasants are dumb.

KING!