President Trump Tests Positive For COVID-19

Sorry but this is not a study….

Just like you should build a fence around your roof to help prevent an accidental death, please wear a mask. Yes, a short fence will not guarantee everyone’s safety but it helps. So too masks and social distancing helps.

We are a religion of rational people, follow the overwhelming medical consensus. Please don’t dogmatically cling to an opposition to masks with a religious zeal. We already have a religion and it tells us to protect ourselves and others.

Dan, you have always been a big proponent of masks even when it was against the “science” back in March and April when the CDC and Fauci were saying not to wear mask. (And I was rooting for you, it seemed very reasonable even at the time to wear one).
But you can’t blame people for not following the “science” now that it happens to confirm your priors and not theirs. You would do the same thing (and did) if the “science” was the other way around.
We can hardly blame people for not trusting the powers that be at this point. We can have a civil debate about how to best handle this crisis but the preaching and the shaming is not helping the cause.

What makes matters worse is that there are now people convinced that the whole pandemic could’ve been avoided if we only we were better about masks (see some other comments in this thread). That is pure lunacy which hurts the pro-mask cause as it turns sensible people off. I hope at least you will agree will that.

Thanks for all you do!

None of those sources are actual clinical trials. The Mayo article even says that no surgical mask has been approved by the fda for coronavirus protection.

Control based clinical trials are the gold standard. Nobody has done a trial yet that shows masks do anything with regards to coronaviruses. That is why there are so many arguments in the medical community.

Lockdowns don’t work either.

https://t.co/rO9LbXJY9t?amp=1

Israel hospitals are not full. That’s complete BS. Google it.

Eli, so Israel is on it’s second lockdown because they think it is fun? Lets have a fact based conversation.

Israel wants to show the world how advanced they are. There is a lot of hubris involved in their decisions. They were so excited to show the world that they were covid free a couple of months ago.
There is definitely politics at play as well.
The only thing that is guaranteed to work is a complete lockdown with everyone staying home.

I’m not sure what the political benefit might be. However thelockdown exist only in politics, I live in Israel and I still havn’t seen any sign of a lockdown.

There’s a logical case to be made that younger people shouldn’t need to be uncomfortable to protect older vulnerable people taking risks by going to public places. Do you also support lowering highway speed limits to 40 mph to protect the older drivers with slower reflexes from getting into a car accident?
If grandma wants to drive, it’s a risk she’s taking and others shouldn’t be inconvenienced to protect her.

That’s not a logical response. Please explain to me the difference. Lowering the highway speed limit to 40mph will no doubt save thousands of lives a year. Do we have a moral obligation to do so?

Just to throw in another take. I think masks are proven to be very effective and while most find them uncomfortable it is usually still low costs \ high benefit.

its good to keep in mind there is a minority of people that the mask is more difficult or harmful for. I have fainted from a mask and do have a condition with breathing issues and I now have a medical mask exemption. I still believe masks is safest way and important and its on people like me who can’t wear masks to be responsible and not risk others. I stay away from crowds. I go to public places only for very short times when mask won’t harm me. And at work I’ve had to arrange to be more isolated and use less effective things like face shields when needing to be around ppl to work out these issues.
We should be responsible even if mask is difficult and also be sensitive if mask is only mildly uncomfortable that for some it’s more extreme and a much greater sacrifice.

Yes, well stated. At some point the crushing economic costs of this virus will make the carelessness and heedlessness of those resisting wearing masks, social distancing, and other virus control measures, unbearable. Not wearing a mask should be seen as being unacceptable as dui or even second hand smoke has become. It is really much worse, it is mindless too given the info available.

I don’t want to get personal. I have alot of hakaras hatov for all the amazing work you do. I feel like you’re using passion and not logic. Sure I would drive slow if I were right next to my own bubby. And sure I would use a mask when I’m visiting my bubby. I’m just questioning the moral obligation to keep the vulnerable people who venture out in public safe. And I don’t see any logical difference between masks my driving analogy. Forget speed limits. Why don’t we ban cars altogether to save close to 100,000 people a year who die in car accidents??

Well said! I understand your point to be that there deserves to be more sacrifice for covid because it’s deadlier. The question is, where do you draw the line?
And how about my point of banning cars with does kill 1.35 million people a year globally?https://www.cdc.gov/injury/features/global-road-safety/index.html#:~:text=Each%20year%2C%201.35%20million%20people,on%20roadways%20around%20the%20world.&text=Every%20day%2C%20almost%203%2C700%20people,pedestrians%2C%20motorcyclists%2C%20and%20cyclists.

I’m guessing that your response will be that a mask is much less of an inconvenience than not driving. The philosophical question then should be how do we set the moral obligation for inconvenience per lives saved? I don’t think anyone can answer that.

Logoc, find the studies saying people are dying from wearing mask because it is not hard to see over 200k Americans have died from Covid. Dan already pointed out Doctors wear them for hours on end. Stop hiding behind an analogy or trying to modify the analogy when Covid keeps killing people. Help to slow the spread and save lives.

Slowing doesn’t mean eliminating. Just kicking the bucket down the road.
FYI – my bubbe told me she survived Mengele she can survive a virus. Just my personal anecdote regarding the asking the bubbe comment. BH she got better after 2 weeks. Was on hydroxy – should add her case to the studies. 92 years young.
Thank you Hashem.

Over 200 thousand people have died in the USA alone. Steve, it sounds like you are saying those deaths are good because we otherwise we are just “Just kicking the bucket down the road.”

How about we limit the the number of people who get sick by wearing mask and work on a vaccine.

Every time you delay this sickness you have a chance of better treatment modalities with far better outcome. The future will likely have a vaccine.

No I am not hiding behind an analogy. I have made a strong philosophical argument as to why it perhaps shouldn’t be viewed as a moral obligation to restrict your rights to spare lives. Every norm in today’s society has a cost in lives like flying an airplane etc. I point out that we still drive cars despite the cost of 1.35 million lives globally each year. Yes there are definitely different levels of discomfort and restricting cars isn’t as drastic as requiring masks. The question just is where do you draw the line. If society has to always take cost of lives into account, why aren’t cars banned? And if society doesn’t, why should I even be obligated to wear a mask at my discomfort. This is a question that this thread hasn’t tackled logically. Of course if you are riding on passion you will have a hard time with this interesting question.

JJ, you made that point earlier and I thought I addressed it. It’s true that speed limits were put in place to save lives. But it’s also true that an even lower speed limit, or the banning of cars altogether would save even more lives. Where to we draw the line. The current speed limit still cost 35,000 lives a year (thanks for the correction). A higher one would cost more. A lower one would cost less. A total ban on driving would save all 35,000. Who decided that the convenience of driving at 65 mph is worthwhile at a cost of 35,000 lives but a lower one which would save thousands more is not worth giving up the convenience of quicker driving? Yes I think anyone unbiased would find this argument compelling. Certain conveniences that we all enjoy cost lives and we aren’t banning them.

So you’re proving the obligation for masks from the state legislators that decided what speed limits are where. What is THEIR guiding principle? That’s like proving that abortion is morally correct from the fact that it’s legal. They have the magic wand to tell them how many lives are worth a certain convenience in society?! I’m not for abolishing speed limits (although in Europe there are Highways without speed limits). I’m just making a point that we really don’t have a clear line on this and neither do those who set the speed limits.

Ok, JJ! Thanks for your time. Have a great Yom tov!

Over 200 thousand people in the USA alone has died of Covid.
“restrict your rights”, next you are going to tell me you should be able to walk around without clothes. How is wearing something that helps to save lives all out restricting rights?

Don’t believe in the benefits of masks? Then wear it because it makes other people comfortable and you want to be a mench.

I absolutely agree with you that you should wear a mask to be a mentch and not get others nervous. I’m not an anti masker at all. I was just exploring the question if society as a whole has a moral obligation to do something uncomfortable for the sake of saving lives of lives and I point to cars as an obvious example of a convenience that noone is banning even though it costs 1.35 million lives a year globally.

Oh my!

I think there’s something to add here…because of the possibility of asymptomatic people around in public vulnerable people are putting themselves at risk by going out at all so if they decide to go out anyways…

1. As you said, Bibi saying so is not necessarily accurate. We don’t know the true numbers.
2. We are now focused on that and need to continue to focus on that, but not necessarily at the expense of everyone else. The only thing that can be done is have the elderly wear N95s when they go out, otherwise quarantine. (although the ones I’ve spoken to said they would rather take their chances and if they had to quarantine again for months they would rather be dead)
3. I hope it works but I will definitely not be waiting on line for the first round or the 10th round. Personally would want at least a few years of usage before taking it.
4. It hasn’t been a year yet so there is time to mutate. Furthermore, major mutations may not be necessary for the vaccine not to work.

Agree with your points, Steve, but not many others will!