Pro mask or anti mask?
I'm not sure the science supports the effectiveness of the masks.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
33person · 26-30, M
The mask slows down the rate of droplets leaving your mouth as you speak, etc. This increases the likelihood of these droplets falling nearer you than they otherwise would. Thus, it can decrease somewhat decrease transmission of the virus, if one has it. That said, of course you can still transmit the virus with a mask on. The issue is whether it decreases the overall transmission of the virus.
The same is true, though to a different degree, of the vaccine. Statistics have shown, however, that even though the proportion of breakthrough cases is enormous, vaccinated people who contract the virus are much less often severely ill, hospitalized, or die from the virus. Of course, there are some people who are vaccinated and still become severely ill, hospitalized, or die from the virus. It's just a smaller proportion of them than unvaccinated people who contract the virus.
Statistics establish correlation, not causation. If one accepts that the vaccines were developed to protect against the virus (in exchange for profit, of course), then one may admit that the science supports getting vaccinated as a means of protection against the virus. If one does not accept that the vaccine was developed with the intent of protecting against the virus, then I cannot argue in favor of getting vaccinated from that premise.
Whether your premise is that the vaccine was developed with the true intent of protecting against the virus or not, you should have come to that premise by looking at the evidence. Be equally skeptical of the mainstream narrative and of counter-narratives, both of which may be motivated by something other than the evidence.
The same is true, though to a different degree, of the vaccine. Statistics have shown, however, that even though the proportion of breakthrough cases is enormous, vaccinated people who contract the virus are much less often severely ill, hospitalized, or die from the virus. Of course, there are some people who are vaccinated and still become severely ill, hospitalized, or die from the virus. It's just a smaller proportion of them than unvaccinated people who contract the virus.
Statistics establish correlation, not causation. If one accepts that the vaccines were developed to protect against the virus (in exchange for profit, of course), then one may admit that the science supports getting vaccinated as a means of protection against the virus. If one does not accept that the vaccine was developed with the intent of protecting against the virus, then I cannot argue in favor of getting vaccinated from that premise.
Whether your premise is that the vaccine was developed with the true intent of protecting against the virus or not, you should have come to that premise by looking at the evidence. Be equally skeptical of the mainstream narrative and of counter-narratives, both of which may be motivated by something other than the evidence.