There is absolutely no chance that Trump listened to Rudy or anyone else on this point. Guiliani might have told him what he wanted to hear, but that's about it.

Exactly.

Doesn't change much of my thinking on all of this, but I am interested in reading/seeing more - can you provide a link?

I had homes in both AZ and Vancouver at the start of this pandemic, having just moved from Edmonton. I chose to stick it out in Vancouver despite Vancouver being the worst hit place in Canada during that first wave and AZ being relative not hit.

I absolutely believe Vancouver's quick adoption of masks amongst almost everyone out in the public and that continuing is why Vancouver tamed it and why this Province has been one of the best examples of a relatively big city handling it and staying mostly open.

People really need to think of masks as nothing more than a form of social distancing. If social distancing works, so to then masks by the exact same mechanism.

SUre, i guess if we want to posit an argument that if people given masks then do more risky stuff that it might be problematic, but we really did not see that occur here.

I doubt the "I will take this risk because I have a mask" number is anything meaningful. In the end the various restrictions and guidelines were the foundation with masks being a component.

If someone really has the thought of - I will take a risk because I am wearing a mask the odds are that person is really just someone who would not wear a mask anyways, and would take the very same "risks."

Maybe masks will eventually not prove to be the be all and end all to prevention in and by themselves, but they were part of an approach that did work, and if the Trumpderp style muh freedom anti vaxx crowd wants to rationalize away masks and anything else - well, they were going to do that anyways since that behavior is the foundation of their existence.

Could be or it could be that the very quick adoption of masks corrolated with taking it more seriously than mnost places. Or something else.

Put another way, it's just about imposible to image a place that treated the pandemic very seriously and didn't adopt masks quickly.

Yes. It shoud be 'dont do it unless you would have to anyway' but if you do have to then wear a mask. The problem is that is not close to the message that many seem to have got.

Okay that's why I say it's anacdotal because in London i most definitely saw it a lot. And the pressure to join in 'it's ok we're all wearing masks' was considerable. We even had a government funded campaign to get people to stop socially distancing 'eat out to help out' - I very much that happens without masks and a large number of people died as a consequence. This definitely happened so your case has to be that the government would have been so ****ing stupid anyway.

I understand we are all just speculating based on 'what if' scenarios and my example too is anecdotal.

I just fall far more in the Monteroy camp and think we need to be clear in not confusing the efficacy of masks (they do work) with an argument that 'people will wear them incorrectly', 'people will wear the wrong type', 'people may engage in more risky behaviours offsetting the benefits' as a counter to the efficacy of masks.

Almost every argument i see for why masks DON'T work in the BFI is based on those type of arguments. We have people defining in the conditions of failure ("if you do not wear them properly") as if that is a default assumption and then using that as 'proof' 'masks don't work'.

I will point out here, as I do there, that absolutely nothing works then under those conditions. Cars do not work if you do not use them properly and put in gas. Thus cars do not work.

I am not saying that is what you guys are doing here but we are treading close to the type of flawed rationale and thus why I want to draw a distinction line.

Where I live I don't think the mask mandates helped in the slightest. We had an arc of infections for the second wave that started in the fall, then a mask mandate was implemented, and the wave of infections continued on exactly the same arc.

That said, where I think they did help was in the sort of sense of community in bringing everyone together and realizing that it was a community effort that was going to get the virus under control. That's why I think the vaccination numbers have been so good, not just so people could protect themselves and their families, but also so this whole terrible ordeal can be behind us and we can go back to normal life. And that especially includes dumping the stupid masks.

I agree totally with all of that except for the monteroy camp bit which based just on my experience could only be wishful thinking.


I think the flawed reasoning boot is more on the other foot and you actually explain precisely why. It's because you're addressing what you call the 'BFI type' argument. They may well be the majprity of arguements you need to address but that tend to lead to a political answer rather than the more complicated one.

I dont quarrel at all with mask mandates btw. It's reducing lockdown (voluntarilyy and via policy) because afaics, in part, 'masks!' was a total disaster.

I am honestly not able to figure out what either of your points are here.

I think maybe you are saying it is 'folly' for me to assume i am in the Monteroy camp or share his view due to his view(s) typically being hard to define???

And I am even more lost on your second point. What should be "on the other foot"?

Are you suggesting the 'Car's don't work', caveated with 'proof is my car with no gas does not work' type arguments that define IN an aspect of failure to then say that is a 'proof' of their argument, ...are the valid ones and my position is the one that needs to be proved out instead?

The point is that it's flawed reasoning to address common politcal positions at the expense of the actual argument.

Right, but not sure anyone was arguing against that or if you were suggesting my position does?

I maintain that arguments such as 'people might engage in more risky behaviours if they wear masks' need to be carefully differentiated from any argument that 'masks don't work'.

Masks DO work, and it is also possible 'people may engage in more risky behaviours' offsetting the overall efficacy of masks. We did not see that correlation in Vancouver but that alone is not refutation of that potential. What we would need is strong evidence of the latter, which again, I am in the Monteroy camp of not really believing without seeing such.

On which we agree

And on this.

No. What we needed was: 'Dont do anything you wouldn't do without a mask but when you do it wear a mask wherever possible'. Unfortunately it's not as simple as the 'masks work' message which too many, including politicians confused with 'masks (plus a few other bits) means safe'

Evidence of how bad the behavoral/policy problem was will be argued about forever and will be interesting to follow. It's never going to prove, for example, that the uk government wouldn't have been so ****ing stupid if masks didn't exist so it's always going to be of somewhat limited value.

Right.

so while I am not really disagreeing with your final point as valid from YOUR perspective, if you have the Monteroy camp perspective, which I believe to be the more valid one, of:

- I doubt the "I will take this risk because I have a mask" number is anything meaningful. ...

- If someone really has the thought of - I will take a risk because I am wearing a mask the odds are that person is really just someone who would not wear a mask anyways, and would take the very same "risks."...

... then you can understand how from OUR perspective we can both accept your perspective but see it as relatively meaningless.


I am open to data showing that masks promote more risky behaviour and thus offset the advantage (not sure it can be gathered though) but without such I am not inclined to believe it is meaningful.

But I respect your right to hold a differing view on that.

Yes which is back where we were a few posts ago.

It is of course likely that our anocdotal experiences are very different but the idea that few have done things with masks they wouldn't have done without masks is beyond unlikely.

Right, the point i would agree to disagree with based on the fact i am more on Monty side and reasoning here, yes, based on my (our different) anecdotal experience.

There was more of a pervading "we're in this together" mentality in the U.S. during the pandemic than any time I can ever remember except perhaps for a brief period after 9/11. The problem is there's a nonnonimal and vocal minority who view such behavior with inherent skepticism and liken it to being a sheep or government pawn, which is a a shame. Notice I said shame, not surprise, as after seeing the simultaneous post-election protests by Trumpers in Georgia saying stop counting ballots and in Arizona saying keep counting ballots, I'm not sure anything will ever surprise me again with respect to this faction of Americans.

That point of disagreement isn't anocdotal. The extent of it is anacdotal and I dont know where the balance is - I doubt we will ever know. The extra activity with masks is big but wether it's big enough to outweight the reduced risk of necessary activity with masks is a tough question. What isn't tough is to know it would be safer if people didn't do extra stuff because they have masks.

Of course there are also cases where reduced risk may mean some activities become worth the risk. More obvious perhaps with vaccines where I and many other will be doing far more even though there's still more risk than if we didn't.

A quick search shows plenty of studies on the issue and it's already established that wearing seat belts increases risky driving, wearing condoms....

Just skimmed a few of the studies and couldn't find anything conclusive to support my earlier hunch of a net negative, with plenty denying it and with an underlying theme being that risk takers took risks and the risk-averse avoided taking them But other studies show mixed or inconclusive results depending on circumstantial/environmental variables. But again, it was just a quick pass so maybe there are more robust and conclusive studies I missed.

It's not close to just about risky behavior in the bad driving sense either. Of all the people I know, I've been by far the most careful - for over a year I went into precisely one building other than my home. That was to the post office and it was important but I wouldn't have gone without a mask. In ten weeks since my first vaccine shot I've done two things, neither of which I would have done without a mask. Literally everyone else I know has done far more and it's nearly always about the mask. A few are idiots and they are the only ones for whom it wasn't about the mask.

Right chez but i repeat since we seem to be talklng in circles here...

- I doubt the "I will take this risk because I have a mask" number is anything meaningful. ...

- If someone really has the thought of - I will take a risk because I am wearing a mask the odds are that person is really just someone who would not wear a mask anyways, and would take the very same "risks."...

... then you can understand how from OUR perspective we can both accept your perspective but see it as relatively meaningless.

Yes except it's too obviously a meaningful effect.

It may or may not be enough to outweight the benefits of masks in reducing risk in any given situation. then there's the much tougher question of whether better communication of the reality would have helped or confused. There is much merit to simplicity even when it's somewhat misleading.

Right so you simply (refuse to) accept to agree to disagree over that as I have been saying, and thinking you are not accepting and instead trying to assert why ours is wrong.

So if we do not agree to disagree and I will say then you are just wrong that is meaningful.

If we are asserting our opinions as more than opinions to agree to disagree over, then yours is the wrong one.

I disagree. Or possible agree. It's tough to tell but either way I'm sure I do it fervently.

but any opinion that says a meaningful effect can be dismissed by default until proof either way is a very poor one. The sort of thinking that has plagued this plague.

Um, wait, what?

In the first few weeks, BC had a higher case per capita count at the end of March than AB or ON, but well behind QC. That's when we were talking very small numbers - 1081 total cases in the entire province through the end of March. At some point in April, AB and ON skyrocketed past BC. The first wave is actually the point in this pandemic at which BC was by far the least hit among the larger provinces. Spring break timing likely had a lot to do with this - ours was a little later than in QC and ON, and BC stopped travel just a couple days before spring break began.

The pattern in AZ was very similar - a little behind BC per capita in March, and then flying past in April.

It may have been a factor, but it should be pointed out that BC was quite slow to impose mask mandates - that didn't happen until late November. Even recommendations to wear them didn't come until the first wave was pretty much over. Were we quicker to wear masks here without a recommendation or mandate? Perhaps. It's a difficult thing to measure, unfortunately.

Mask wearing has its place, for sure. I just wouldn't want to see it become one of the main solutions anywhere.

I edited in two words to better clarify what I meant.

But since we are not agreeing to disagree over this matter of opinion and asserting our positions as the correct ones, I again say you are just wrong here if you think those are meaningful. Monty and I have the only correct view.