That's ridiculous and you know, stfu with your fake concern and shitty advice. Some people live in liberal shithole cities like Chicago where you have to wear it in any business, it's a Governor's official, legal order. An employer found with employees violating this can fire them on the spot. So get out of here with the "just quit" thing. It's not that simple. At the very least, the economy is not good now, it's not a two week process where you can get another job on a whim. Moreover, some people care for elder family members, and the risk of them getting sick is very real and may result in death. Until you're in that spot, you're in no position to comment on how easy it is.
They're tricking everyone by talking about possibilities of what might or might not happen instead of what actually occurs or has been shown to occur. But when you talk about vague possibilities instead of realities, then you can make and argument for anything.
Examples:
You feel OK,...but you might be sick, so you better assume that you are sick.
It's doubtful these masks are doing anything, and some actual studies indicate that they don't....but they could work, so just assume that they do.
You're a healthy adult with very low risk of dying...but you might die, so stay scared of dying.
And here's the argument turned on its head:
Masks could stop you from passing on the virus, but they also could increase your risk of a lung infection. So which "could" do you choose?
If you want to make an argument that you should do something, then you need to show that there's a real world benefit that arises.
This CDC articles references a study that shows widespread use of masks does not reduce the transmission of viral disease:
For the sake of debate, I think it would in fact qualify as a statistically significant difference (5% or more) but I don't know how that plays out realistically.
You probably could get a statistically significant result in a test, I would concede that. I was using the term in a much more general sense, though. I don't believe that the difference is enough to warrant people screaming bloody murder at people not wearing masks.
A statistically significant difference doesn't say anything about the magnitude of the difference. It means, statistically, we believe there to be a difference. Typically if we are 95% sure that there is a difference, then we say it is statistically significant.
For the sake of argument, if wearing a t-shirt over your face reduces your chances of getting the virus by .01%, but we were 99% sure that was true, it would be a statistically significant difference. If they reduced your chances of getting the virus by 10%, but you were only 80% sure, that would not be a significant difference.
I'm willing to bet there are gonna be plenty of lawsuits on this soon. Forcing someone to wear something they don't want to wear is the same as telling someone they aren't allowed to wear something they do want to wear. It is a violation of Freedom of Expression.
They are already starting to lose lawsuits on the church closings, I guarantee they will lose the mask issue in court. That is why almost every mask order is listed as "advisory" and not "mandatory", because the few that made them mandatory(like california) are going to lose in court.
LUL; They can quit. Like WE have been FORCED to do because WORK has been closed for the past four months.
That's ridiculous and you know, stfu with your fake concern and shitty advice. Some people live in liberal shithole cities like Chicago where you have to wear it in any business, it's a Governor's official, legal order. An employer found with employees violating this can fire them on the spot. So get out of here with the "just quit" thing. It's not that simple. At the very least, the economy is not good now, it's not a two week process where you can get another job on a whim. Moreover, some people care for elder family members, and the risk of them getting sick is very real and may result in death. Until you're in that spot, you're in no position to comment on how easy it is.
Then wear your placebo.
Well unfortunately I have no choice right now.
Real sad to see this downvoted. What is becoming of this place..
I fail to believe wearing a t-shirt over your face will significantly lower your chances of getting the virus, regardless of if others wear it or not.
It won’t stop you from getting it. It could stop you from passing it on.
If you are sick you should stay home.
They're tricking everyone by talking about possibilities of what might or might not happen instead of what actually occurs or has been shown to occur. But when you talk about vague possibilities instead of realities, then you can make and argument for anything.
Examples:
You feel OK,...but you might be sick, so you better assume that you are sick.
It's doubtful these masks are doing anything, and some actual studies indicate that they don't....but they could work, so just assume that they do.
You're a healthy adult with very low risk of dying...but you might die, so stay scared of dying.
And here's the argument turned on its head:
If you want to make an argument that you should do something, then you need to show that there's a real world benefit that arises.
This CDC articles references a study that shows widespread use of masks does not reduce the transmission of viral disease:
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
For the sake of debate, I think it would in fact qualify as a statistically significant difference (5% or more) but I don't know how that plays out realistically.
You probably could get a statistically significant result in a test, I would concede that. I was using the term in a much more general sense, though. I don't believe that the difference is enough to warrant people screaming bloody murder at people not wearing masks.
A statistically significant difference doesn't say anything about the magnitude of the difference. It means, statistically, we believe there to be a difference. Typically if we are 95% sure that there is a difference, then we say it is statistically significant.
For the sake of argument, if wearing a t-shirt over your face reduces your chances of getting the virus by .01%, but we were 99% sure that was true, it would be a statistically significant difference. If they reduced your chances of getting the virus by 10%, but you were only 80% sure, that would not be a significant difference.
I'm willing to bet there are gonna be plenty of lawsuits on this soon. Forcing someone to wear something they don't want to wear is the same as telling someone they aren't allowed to wear something they do want to wear. It is a violation of Freedom of Expression.
They are already starting to lose lawsuits on the church closings, I guarantee they will lose the mask issue in court. That is why almost every mask order is listed as "advisory" and not "mandatory", because the few that made them mandatory(like california) are going to lose in court.
I sure hope you're right
Move.
You know, there's really no perfect solution to this. Whichever way it goes, some people are gonna be fucked over.