King Leary said:

---

Utah actually has the youngest median age of any state (31.2).

Regardless of restrictions, lockdowns, mask wearing.... all that really matters is the youth and health of the population. Young healthy people, and states, are just fine.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/median-age-by-state

---

packgrad said:

---

So here's some data about coronavirus.
USA
328 million people
30 million cases
549000 deaths attributed to virus
40 million people in my age bracket in US
Can't find cases in my age bracket
15400 deaths in my age bracket
I'm fully vaccinated. Not my vaccine, but a similar vaccine 90% protection against virus. 94% against serious illness for all age brackets. One would have to assume it's even better for my age bracket.

For the last year plus I've worked in facilities with coronavirus cases. For the last year plus I've been in box stores and other breeding grounds for coronavirus every work day. Since restaurants have been open I've been out to eat at least once a week. Most weeks more than that.

Data shows I was quite safe without the vaccination. With the vaccination, even more so. That is why I don't feel the need to wear a mask in places it is not required. That is why I feel safe. That is why I don't fear the virus. I don't want it, but if I get it, the odds are very much in my favor I'll be just fine. I drive a truck everyday. That's something much more dangerous to me than the coronavirus.

---

Mormad said:

---

wilmwolf80 said:

---

No, I get it, but you did include vaccination status as a potential variable in your scenario, so that was the basis of my response. I think a person who doesn't think masks work, and who has been vaccinated, is probably going to roll with that in your scenario. I don't think they are guaranteed to get religion on masks is placed in your terrorist box. But that's really just a guess. I don't personally know anyone who doesn't wear a mask, regardless of what their feelings may be on their effectiveness. I'm sure there are hard liners out there, and if they are that convinced that they don't work, IMO that wouldn't change in your scenario.

---

That's exactly what I'm trying to figure out. When push comes to shove, do the anti maskers really truly believe masks make absolutely no difference in your risk if you are actually exposed to an infectious individual?

---

Mormad said:

---

packgrad said:

---

How can you be an "anti masker" but wear a mask to work everyday? The need for people to not just do as directed but also to BELIEVE is mind blowing. This is where it gets to religion.

---

Arguing against what one feels is misinformation ("masks don't work") does not imply a "need" for anything. If i argue with a Carolina fan who writes on the internet that "all you cow college grads are red necks who couldn't get into Carolina" i don't "need" that flatulant fool to BELIEVE anything, but I'll argue against him spreading what i feel is misinformation. The simple fact is that, when it comes to health care, if people BELIEVE in the management option they are much more likely to be compliant and "do as directed." If a person believes me when i say they should stop smoking and it'll reduce their risk of dying of lung cancer, it'll help them have the motivation to stop if they BELIEVE that cigs might kill them. And if smokers who don't believe smoking has any correlation with lung cancer start typing "stopping smoking doesn't work," I'm likely to argue with them that they are wrong, or at least devise an unlikely scenario forcing them to explain the logic behind their feelings lol. Because people who are on the fence about stopping smoking and are wondering if smoking really could lead to lung cancer could be influenced by the misinformed tweets and arguments of the smokers who not only do not believe but also don't do as directed.

---

Mormad said:

---

They're very good. But nobody's writing these articles about individuals like you. Statements regarding public health have to include all comers, and so recommendations have to consider the fact that a 10% risk of a 5% chance of a poor outcome among 330 million people is still a big number and could slow our assent to normal?

---

PackPA2015 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Mormad said:

---

packgrad said:

---

How can you be an "anti masker" but wear a mask to work everyday? The need for people to not just do as directed but also to BELIEVE is mind blowing. This is where it gets to religion.

---

Arguing against what one feels is misinformation ("masks don't work") does not imply a "need" for anything. If i argue with a Carolina fan who writes on the internet that "all you cow college grads are red necks who couldn't get into Carolina" i don't "need" that flatulant fool to BELIEVE anything, but I'll argue against him spreading what i feel is misinformation. The simple fact is that, when it comes to health care, if people BELIEVE in the management option they are much more likely to be compliant and "do as directed." If a person believes me when i say they should stop smoking and it'll reduce their risk of dying of lung cancer, it'll help them have the motivation to stop if they BELIEVE that cigs might kill them. And if smokers who don't believe smoking has any correlation with lung cancer start typing "stopping smoking doesn't work," I'm likely to argue with them that they are wrong, or at least devise an unlikely scenario forcing them to explain the logic behind their feelings lol. Because people who are on the fence about stopping smoking and are wondering if smoking really could lead to lung cancer could be influenced by the misinformed tweets and arguments of the smokers who not only do not believe but also don't do as directed.

---

So you're arguing against something no one is arguing for. Who is saying masks don't work? I think strong arguments can be made for how well they work, but who is arguing they don't provide any benefit?

---

Have you not made this very argument in this thread already? I may be misreading or misunderstanding your points, but it seems that you have been saying this very thing.

---

PackPA2015 said:

---

10-4. Just seems when you were directly asked about masks in the specific situation around a COVID positive, that was about wearing a mask specifically and if it works or not, not the mask mandate, but I must have misunderstood.

---

Mormad said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Mormad said:

---

packgrad said:

---

How can you be an "anti masker" but wear a mask to work everyday? The need for people to not just do as directed but also to BELIEVE is mind blowing. This is where it gets to religion.

---

Arguing against what one feels is misinformation ("masks don't work") does not imply a "need" for anything. If i argue with a Carolina fan who writes on the internet that "all you cow college grads are red necks who couldn't get into Carolina" i don't "need" that flatulant fool to BELIEVE anything, but I'll argue against him spreading what i feel is misinformation. The simple fact is that, when it comes to health care, if people BELIEVE in the management option they are much more likely to be compliant and "do as directed." If a person believes me when i say they should stop smoking and it'll reduce their risk of dying of lung cancer, it'll help them have the motivation to stop if they BELIEVE that cigs might kill them. And if smokers who don't believe smoking has any correlation with lung cancer start typing "stopping smoking doesn't work," I'm likely to argue with them that they are wrong, or at least devise an unlikely scenario forcing them to explain the logic behind their feelings lol. Because people who are on the fence about stopping smoking and are wondering if smoking really could lead to lung cancer could be influenced by the misinformed tweets and arguments of the smokers who not only do not believe but also don't do as directed.

---

So you're arguing against something no one is arguing for. Who is saying masks don't work? I think strong arguments can be made for how well they work, but who is arguing they don't provide any benefit?

---

That's what i find so funny, my friend! You've never said they don't work, you've said you wear your mask for your own reasoning, so I'm not sure why you're carrying the flag for those whose beliefs I'm arguing against. I've certainly made a clear distinction between my feelings on mask wearing vs mask mandates. And I've read on this thread "masks don't work" and "masks have made no difference" more than i care to count. My posed question thru my scenario never really involved people who think like you, though i admit I've really appreciated your civil discussion and your thoughts because selfishly it's allowed me to share more of mine!! So, thanks!

---

packgrad said:

---

PackPA2015 said:

---

10-4. Just seems when you were directly asked about masks in the specific situation around a COVID positive, that was about wearing a mask specifically and if it works or not, not the mask mandate, but I must have misunderstood.

---

Yes and you extrapolate a specific situation into something else. I never said a mask doesn't work in that situation. I said I wouldn't feel the need to wear one in that specific situation that would never happen in real life.

---

wilmwolf80 said:

---

Do masks work in some way to slow the transmission of covid and similar? Yes. Undeniably.

Are mask mandates THE reason for the difference in cases between locales? Highly debatable. There may be correlation, but there are simply too many other variables involved to say with statistical certainty IMO.

Does that mean people shouldn't wear them? No.

Is it ok to question mask effectiveness, mask mandates, and the accompanying virtue signaling without being labeled a heathen, or devolving into political hogwash? Yes.

---

packgrad said:

---

All good points. I think you could even make arguments about masking and quarantine only for 65 and up and the immunocompromised. Let it burn through the rest of us that most likely will not have complications. Has the slow burn been better than a fast burn? I don't think the hospitals would be overfilled with the younger age groups without the media induced fear porn with the fast burn. I think all of it, and the effectiveness of what we've done, is up for discussion. There is no science or data that shows that anything we've done has been effective in slowing the virus except for the vaccines.

---

Mormad said:

---

packgrad said:

---

All good points. I think you could even make arguments about masking and quarantine only for 65 and up and the immunocompromised. Let it burn through the rest of us that most likely will not have complications. Has the slow burn been better than a fast burn? I don't think the hospitals would be overfilled with the younger age groups without the media induced fear porn with the fast burn. I think all of it, and the effectiveness of what we've done, is up for discussion. There is no science or data that shows that anything we've done has been effective in slowing the virus except for the vaccines.

---

Yep. I think these are great points. I would only suggest that i think the fact that we have remained well under early number predictions means that the measures taken have had some effect in reducing transmission and/or severity of dz, or the initial models were just terrible. I personally believe the former.

---

King Leary said:

---

If vaccinated people continue to wear masks then we will never get back to normal. The virtue signaling freaks will never stop.

EDIT: Removing second part of my comment

---

King Leary said:

---

Idk man. I keep seeing people talking about they'll wear masks permanently moving forward.

I'm fine with others wearing them I just don't think people should be forced to. And for the past year we've been forced to. I have a hard time believing that ends easily or quickly based on what I've seen over the past year. As long as there's one case of COVID people will say it's too much and that we need restrictions.

Just my opinion

---