The masked truth....

[Stevicus]

Cancer is probabilistic....like dying from drunk driving.
But that's only one smoking related malady.
There are also....
26 Health Effects of Smoking on Your Body

I think there's so many different factors in play, it's hard to tell. I've known people who smoke like a fish, drink like a chimney, and eat junk food incessantly with little to no health problems, while there are others who are health food nuts and avoid all the unhealthy stuff, yet they're still constantly sick.

It's just like with COVID. Some people are gonna get it, some people won't.

 

[Stevicus]

What you call "disease", I call human nature.
We can make improvements where we can,
but the human remains. So striving for
"better" is more useful than "perfect".

I think "human nature" is only limited to that part of humans which they have in common with animals, although even animals can be trained. When it comes to the human mind, our thoughts and emotions, that may be more a matter of environment and social conditioning - which can be altered and modified.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think there's so many different factors in play, it's hard to tell. I've known people who smoke like a fish, drink like a chimney, and eat junk food incessantly with little to no health problems, while there are others who are health food nuts and avoid all the unhealthy stuff, yet they're still constantly sick.

It's just like with COVID. Some people are gonna get it, some people won't.

I guess nothing is dangerous if we judge by carefully chosen anecdotes.
I've known guys who drove drunk & lived to tell about it.
That must be safe too.
Hells bells....leave handguns out for the kids to play with too.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think "human nature" is only limited to that part of humans which they have in common with animals, although even animals can be trained. When it comes to the human mind, our thoughts and emotions, that may be more a matter of environment and social conditioning - which can be altered and modified.

So says you....you're part of the problem (he says).

 

[Stevicus]

I guess nothing is dangerous if we judge by carefully chosen anecdotes.
I've known guys who drove drunk & lived to tell about it.
That must be safe too.
Hells bells....leave handguns out for the kids to play with too.

That last suggestion is probably taking the analogy a bit too far. It's not necessarily anecdotal, since there might very well be circumstances or other identifiable factors which make it less risky for some people than it is for others. In some cases, it might be genetics, if some people are able to sustain more damage to their bodies than others.

As for those who drive drunk, I guess some might be able to hold their liquor better than others. I remember an inventive defense used by airline pilots who were charged with heavy drinking prior to a flight. They said that they were such raging alcoholics that their tolerance was so high that it didn't really affect their flying abilities.

However, you wouldn't want to leave handguns out for the kids, unless there are some extraordinary and extreme circumstances, such as a zombie apocalypse.

 

[Stevicus]

So says you....you're part of the problem (he says).

Yes, but there may yet be a solution.

 

[Mock Turtle]

NOT if they are wearing their masks and the mask argument has any validity...thanks for the softball.

Not so - only medical masks (and other precautions) are likely to protect one almost completely from getting infected, which is why medical staff use such, but the various masks used by the public tend to lower the risk in varying amounts. Which is why if we all use them, as consideration for others, we are lowering the risk to all - since many can be asymptomatic but still be spreaders. Those not wearing masks are likely to be the 'super-spreaders' in comparison.

 

[Mock Turtle]

That would be interesting. One day George goes to sleep and everything is fine. He wakes up 24 hours later when everyone is wearing masks. The same George didn't have the disease before he rested. Now he's a ticking time bomb 24 hours later. People accuse George of not wearing a mask 24 hours later even when he isn't in an environment where he can be affected within such a short time period. So, it becomes ridiculous to say people will affect other people when not wearing a mask since it was already existed way before we even thought about masks to begin with.

He might appear to be fine but be infected and asymptomatic, and hence he will be the one more likely to spread infection rather than all those wearing masks.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

For many people, restriction is necessary because of their lack of responsibility.

That needs to be our mindset when it comes to drunk drivers. (To use an example related to that idea, and why that aline is needed)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

He might appear to be fine but be infected and asymptomatic, and hence he will be the one more likely to spread infection rather than all those wearing masks.

Which is my point. In a 24 hour period?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Which is my point. In a 24 hour period?

I don't think time has much to do with it. Unless we have had a reliable indicator (such as a proper test) we can't consider ourselves virus-free, and such will only last until our next contact that might infect us.

 

[Revoltingest]

That last suggestion is probably taking the analogy a bit too far.

Why? As a kid, I had access to long guns
& handguns without restriction.
And we had no wrongful shootings at all.

If the criterion of someone not being harmed
justifies smoking, then it can be applied to
drunk driving & careless gun storage.

It's not necessarily anecdotal, since there might very well be circumstances or other identifiable factors which make it less risky for some people than it is for others. In some cases, it might be genetics, if some people are able to sustain more damage to their bodies than others.

Those factors would apply to smoking & lax gun storage too.
For example, gun storage safety is less necessary when no one
suffers from depression, which could be strongly linked to genes.

As for those who drive drunk, I guess some might be able to hold their liquor better than others. I remember an inventive defense used by airline pilots who were charged with heavy drinking prior to a flight. They said that they were such raging alcoholics that their tolerance was so high that it didn't really affect their flying abilities.

However, you wouldn't want to leave handguns out for the kids, unless there are some extraordinary and extreme circumstances, such as a zombie apocalypse.

So leave the cigarettes & booze out for the kids, but not the guns....what's the difference, so long as some aren't harmed?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't think time has much to do with it. Unless we have had a reliable indicator (such as a proper test) we can't consider ourselves virus-free, and such will only last until our next contact that might infect us.

It's kinda ridiculous to wake up all of the sudden asymptomatic. I don't even know of any illness or virus like that to where if I fall to sleep tonight, tomorrow I can be asymptomatic. That's silly. Many people run to the doctors and they haven't been near anyone who had the virus, never traveled, and don't have any symptoms that would mimic a "severe" reason to go to the doctors, as opposed if when we didn't know about the virus (yet still around), we would throw it off as allergies or common cold-and rightly so in most cases.

There's a lot of could bes. That would be pretty really rare to be asymptomatic in a 24 hour period without any other factors that would bring one at risk (and have that short of an incubation period at that).

 

[Revoltingest]

That needs to be our mindset when it comes to drunk drivers. (To use an example related to that idea, and why that aline is needed)

I was nearly killed by a drunk driver once.
I'd like to avoid being done in by a virus.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It's kinda ridiculous to wake up all of the sudden asymptomatic. I don't even know of any illness or virus like that to where if I fall to sleep tonight, tomorrow I can be asymptomatic. That's silly. Many people run to the doctors and they haven't been near anyone who had the virus, never traveled, and don't have any symptoms that would mimic a "severe" reason to go to the doctors, as opposed if when we didn't know about the virus (yet still around), we would throw it off as allergies or common cold-and rightly so in most cases.

There's a lot of could bes. That would be pretty really rare to be asymptomatic in a 24 hour period without any other factors that would bring one at risk (and have that short of an incubation period at that).

But apparently unless one is tested one might not know one has the virus but still be infectious. Surely, in the current circumstances, it is safer to assume one has the virus rather than the opposite?

 

[Stevicus]

Why? As a kid, I had access to long guns
& handguns without restriction.
And we had no wrongful shootings at all.

If the criterion of someone not being harmed
justifies smoking, then it can be applied to
drunk driving & careless gun storage.

Actually, it's probably closer to driving itself. Some people get into accidents, and some people don't. But just because some people get into accidents, that doesn't mean we ban driving altogether. There's a risk, but it's considered an acceptable risk.

Those factors would apply to smoking & lax gun storage too.
For example, gun storage safety is less necessary when no one
suffers from depression, which could be strongly linked to genes.

Exactly the point. When you said "anecdotal," it implies some sort of fluke or unexplainable exception to the rule, but if you look closely enough, there probably is an explanation in each of these cases.

So leave the cigarettes & booze out for the kids, but not the guns....what's the difference, so long as some aren't harmed?

Because a kid might sample cigarettes and booze and still be alive afterwards. With a gun, it's a completely different story. A person can smoke and drink a lot before the harmful effects start to show up. But one can only shoot oneself so many times before it's going to take a toll on one's health. Why, I've heard of some people who have died after only taking a single bullet, but you never hear that about smoking or drinking.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually, it's probably closer to driving itself. Some people get into accidents, and some people don't. But just because some people get into accidents, that doesn't mean we ban driving altogether. There's a risk, but it's considered an acceptable risk.

It seems we're not addressing the same idea.

But using your analogy, we place restrictions on driving, eg,
age, training, sobriety, speed, licensing, vehicle condition.
These restrictions enhance safety.
The same approach is useful for a plague, eg, masks, social
distancing.

Exactly the point. When you said "anecdotal," it implies some sort of fluke or unexplainable exception to the rule, but if you look closely enough, there probably is an explanation in each of these cases.

Because a kid might sample cigarettes and booze and still be alive afterwards. With a gun, it's a completely different story. A person can smoke and drink a lot before the harmful effects start to show up. But one can only shoot oneself so many times before it's going to take a toll on one's health. Why, I've heard of some people who have died after only taking a single bullet, but you never hear that about smoking or drinking.

This is not an argument to eliminate restrictions on things which
pose a great danger, even if that danger lets some escape unharmed.

 

[Stevicus]

It seems we're not addressing the same idea.

But using your analogy, we place restrictions on driving, eg,
age, training, sobriety, speed, licensing, vehicle condition.
These restrictions enhance safety.
The same approach is useful for a plague, eg, masks, social
distancing.

Yes. It appears we're on the same page here.

This is not an argument to eliminate restrictions on things which
pose a great danger, even if that danger lets some escape unharmed.

I wasn't directly addressing the issue of eliminating restrictions, just evaluating the comparative risk caused by various activities. Some activities are an immediate danger and could cause immediate death, while others are more of a slower, long-term danger which might take years or decades to come to pass, if at all.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes. It appears we're on the same page here.



I wasn't directly addressing the issue of eliminating restrictions, just evaluating the comparative risk caused by various activities. Some activities are an immediate danger and could cause immediate death, while others are more of a slower, long-term danger which might take years or decades to come to pass, if at all.

OK.

 

[BSM1]

Not so - only medical masks (and other precautions) are likely to protect one almost completely from getting infected, which is why medical staff use such, but the various masks used by the public tend to lower the risk in varying amounts. Which is why if we all use them, as consideration for others, we are lowering the risk to all - since many can be asymptomatic but still be spreaders. Those not wearing masks are likely to be the 'super-spreaders' in comparison.

Again, you are making my point about those folks wearing a substandard mask...they're worthless.