zlacker

> Unless the right masks are worn correctly 100% of the time, which lets be honest is not happening.

That argument doesn't make any sense. Why would masks have to be worn correctly 100% of the time, otherwise it's theater?

If a type of mask works well at 100% use, it probably also works pretty well at 85% use.

>>Dylan1+(OP)
agreed, the arbitrary requirement of 100% effectivensss seems like the nirvana fallacy to me

>>Dylan1+(OP)
Well if it’s not 100% we should carefully balance the actual benefits it provides vs the freedoms we are asking people to give up and the associated inconveniences.

And before you tell me “oh it’s just a minor inconvenience”, no it’s not. It may be for you, but I hate that I have to breathe my stale exhalation, hate that I can’t hear people wearing masks clearly, hate that I can’t see peoples facial expressions when they speak, hate that I get out of breath wearing them. Added to this sometimes is a self-righteous attitude from some mask wearers who can’t tell a virus from a bacteria. These are the questions that should be asked and answered, but asking such questions suddenly labels you as an anti-science moron which is very ironic.

Edit: oh and forgot to mention that I hate how much masks (reusable cloth masks are a placebo) add to an already horrible trash situation. Funny no one cares much about this.

>>rajup+NW
> Well if it’s not 100% we should carefully balance the actual benefits it provides vs the freedoms we are asking people to give up and the associated inconveniences.

...sure? We should balance that no matter what the effectiveness is.

>>Dylan1+qh1
Great, glad we agree. Do you see that happening right now?

>>rajup+wF1
I haven't been looking all that closely at how well we're balancing things, so I couldn't really say.

I just wanted to address the 100% thing. So have a nice day, I guess.