2351
() ⚠ NSFCucks ⚠
posted ago by rawr_im_a_lion ago by rawr_im_a_lion +2351 / -0
Comments (186)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
-84
bubadmt -84 points ago +16 / -100

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.

61
ehsubs 61 points ago +68 / -7

Then wear your placebo.

-12
bubadmt -12 points ago +16 / -28

Well unfortunately I have no choice right now.

-4
billlybillybillerson -4 points ago +7 / -11

Real sad to see this downvoted. What is becoming of this place..

4
intamin 4 points ago +4 / -0

Two comments up the same user was being a bit brash...it happens.

23
HughGRection 23 points ago +25 / -2

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.

-9
AlphaOmaga -9 points ago +4 / -13

It won’t stop you from getting it. It could stop you from passing it on.

18
Zordly 18 points ago +19 / -1

If you are sick you should stay home.

2
AlphaOmaga 2 points ago +2 / -0

If you know you are sick. Yep.

8
Scroon 8 points ago +9 / -1

It could stop you from passing it on.

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:

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

1
AlphaOmaga 1 point ago +1 / -0

I don’t disagree. Just saying it does not do much to stop you from getting it. Not just inhalation but your eyes and other mucus membranes.

Best things to do is wash your hands and not cough/sneeze on people. Common sense shit. After that. Don’t talk or yell or sing n shit. Not joking lol. Which is fine with me.

Serially. If you go out And you aren’t coughing and sneezing and keep your mouth shut. You're way better off at stopping the spread than pretending your doing the best thing ever by just wearing a non medical mask.

1
Itype99 1 point ago +1 / -0

The critical part everyone's missing is the donning and doffing procedures they use in the healthcare settings. It totally negates the effectiveness of the mask when spread the concentrated virus all over the place once you take it off. That's why it's effective in clinical settings, but not when everyone else uses them. If you want to adhere to those procedures, then that's fine, but most won't and there's no need to bitch at people for recognizing that reality. 99

-14
bubadmt -14 points ago +3 / -17

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.

8
HughGRection 8 points ago +8 / -0

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.

1
bubadmt 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah I agree with that. It's way overblown.

1
meatthesoyboi 1 point ago +1 / -0

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.

14
zhalias 14 points ago +14 / -0

it's a Governor's official, legal order

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.

5
bubadmt 5 points ago +5 / -0

I sure hope you're right

11
WhitePowerRanger 11 points ago +13 / -2

Move.

10
deleted 10 points ago +11 / -1
1
bubadmt 1 point ago +4 / -3

You know, there's really no perfect solution to this. Whichever way it goes, some people are gonna be fucked over.

7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
1
bubadmt 1 point ago +1 / -0

Not at all, that's really sad to hear actually. I guess it was just a response on a whim, but I understand your points. There are no winners among us when it comes to the way this whole situation has panned out.