I am fairly libertarian in most regards however with masks I do not disagree to the point of contention. I rather wear a mask to avoid the social confrontations of those who are fearful and not medically inclined. However, I can agree that masks can reduce transmission from droplets and still contend that they are redundant to social distancing and with asymptomatic persons.
Pretty much my feeling. I do not at all support government-mandated masking, but rather than continuing to be "that guy" as I have most of my life, the wiser me of today just puts a mask on when I go into the store. I wear them all day anyway at work. Another 20 minutes isn't going to hurt me in any way, and if it reduces the anxiety of others a little and lessens the chance of some type of confrontation, then I'll play along.
Rather than address the critics of my previous posts point-by-point, I'll just reiterate my position:
There are three potential ways this thing ends:
1) The virus mutates into a form which is far less contagious or far less deadly
2) We achieve population immunity as a result of widespread vaccination
3) We achieve population immunity
Any of those are possibilities, but can we
count on an effective, safe, affordable vaccine being developed anytime soon? The answer to that is clearly no. Can we
count on the virus mutating itself into harmlessness? Also no. Is herd immunity a perfect solution? Of course not. On balance, what other option is there? They say that with an R0 of 2-3, we need about 60% of the population to develop antibodies in order to see a very significant, natural slowing of the spread. Many estimate that about 25% of the population has been exposed already. How else does this thing end?
What about the vulnerable? There's no reason why we shouldn't focus our efforts on protecting them. That's what I've been saying all along. Multigenerational households? Old folks needing to go grocery shopping? We put a man on the moon using technology developed in the 1950's; I think we can figure it out. Families, neighbors, churches, community organizations, local governments can do it all. Many grocery stores voluntarily open earlier for vulnerable people. Maybe some could require masks of everyone and dramatically increase cleaning in order to help the elderly feel safer and attract their business. Grocery delivery services and ride-sharing services have instituted steep discounts for elderly folks. There's a lot more that we can think of, too. We can allow healthy people in their 20s, 30's, and 40's to go to work and have a drink at the bar with their friends. Maybe the obese diabetics should exercise some personal responsibility and choose not to join them for beers?
Does the social distancing even help? I mean, yeah, you lock the whole population in their house for months under threat of criminal penalty, and you'll see transmission slow. I don't think that's the real question, though. How much of this is really necessary? Why do bars that serve food get to open but bars that don't serve food had to fire all their employees? Why are church services and outdoor concerts and sporting events banned, but public political protests advocating left-wing positions are encouraged? Why do surfers on isolated beaches with no one around, or people jogging on the beach or boardwalk or people sitting in their cars with the windows rolled up at the drive-in Easter church service need to be fined? Why are remote state parks and national forests closed? I think we know the real reason, and it has little or nothing to do with slowing the spread of the virus.
Masks? It's pretty indisputable that in the types of controlled environments that are conducive to study, the wearing of clean, properly constructed masks can slow the spread of respiratory droplets and prevent aerosolization of them to a significant degree. If you are intubating someone, or spending hours in close quarters with a patient caring for them, or sharing a cab or crowded elevator or helicopter cabin with others, there's probably some real value there. But how pertinent is that really to people walking past each other in the grocery store? Is a significant benefit not conferred on the wearer alone, regardless of whether others have them on? Does the cleanliness or construction of the mask matter at all?
The negative effects of economic downturn on public health, quality of life, and mortality rate are practically ignored. We know that in recessions, rates of alcoholism and abuse of other drugs, depression, anxiety, suicide, child and elder abuse, hunger, homelessness, and overall mortality rates increase. Why are we pretending that isn't true? Why are we just automatically assuming that whatever benefit is conferred from restrictions is definitely worth it? Doesn't seem very scientific to me.
What about the political costs of government officials overplaying their hand in general, often hypocritically? Public animosity towards these interventions and the officials who issue the diktats and then (in some very high profile cases) exempt themselves or their cronies does not bode well for compliance with similar orders in the future, perhaps during a much worse epidemic. You can't tell people "the sky is falling" too many times before they just stop listening.
IF you are of the camp that slowing transmission is undesirable because it "delays herd immunity," then how exactly do you propose to achieve the optimal prevalence rate and hold it there? For herd immunity, can you state: target seroprevalence results that indicate community immunity, current seroprevalence rates, and duration of immunity?
Why are those who promote the idea that allowing the virus to mostly spread naturally (aside from providing vigorous protections from those whose health status or age makes them more vulnerable than the general population) expected to have an answer to every question but those who promote the "close everything down and make everyone wear masks" approach don't have to provide even a general idea on what the goal really is and how we should expect this thing to end, OR to justify the countless societal costs exacted by that approach? Seems a little one-sided and hypocritical.
