I went to a protest in my town and there wasn't an unmasked person in sight. I think that if you showed up without one, you would get called out and asked to leave.

Serious question from non-US person - isn't one of the main reasons to also get some anonymity? As IT guy I know damn well how good face recognition software works these days, en masse. With all the biometric data US govt has on everybody, pairing would not be that hard for many.

You might look up what happened to ferguson protest organizers: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/puzzling-number-men-tie...

I’m not going to claim that these were all retributive, but I can certainly understand the paranoia—legal protections only exist on paper.

The (peaceful) protests aren't illegal so anonymity isn't a major concern. Police might be violent towards protestors in the moment, but there's zero risk of the government tracking down and punishing protesters after the fact.

> there's zero risk of the government tracking down and punishing protesters after the fact.

ehhh I wouldn't be so sure about that.

As a matter of policy I would be pretty sure about it. If you weren’t looting or setting fires there will be no organized attempt to find you. Individuals within the government may take on personal vendettas from this but the risk of that to the average protest attendee is so low due to sheer numbers.

That's very good sarcasm right there. Perhaps the many years in the corporate world have made me too cynical, but I'd expect all and every protestor to be captured on cameras, identified later with face recognition software (remember that Amazon's FaceRekognition had contracts with PDs?), matched with photos on driver licenses and over the next few months they would be quietly, but mercilessly punished for the dissent. The only real question is whether the FR software work when face is mostly covered with a mask and sunglasses? It technically can, because ears, hair, head shape and shoulders shape is a unique enough combination.

The current consensus on face masks is they might/probably help when used in addition to social distancing. There haven't been enough good studies, second-order effects (like a sense of invulnerability, induced demand) aren't studied, and materials and construction vary too much. I have no idea how to feel about not seeing them, and I've seen enough common sense turn out to be wrong that I won't fall back on it.

masks, when worn by the general (or asymptomatic) population have not been proven to reduce the spread of SARS-COV-2 - no seriously there is no evidence to support mask usage - the belief that mask do anything is nothing more than a superstition - the virus take the form of an an aerosol that is not stopped by a little cotton thing in front of your nose

do you honestly believe that a little rag in front of your mouth will reduce the spread in big crowd everyone screaming at the same time?

the protest might just prove false all the scaremongering, this is what I see very as a likely outcome

and that the disease does not propagate outdoors, that the disease does not propage by touch etc.

The studies that show that masks reduce the R0 of COVID-19 are many and broad. https://www.livescience.com/face-masks-eye-protection-covid-... The latest ones that I have read indicate an 85% reduction of transmission and infection between two people wearing masks, a double 85% reduction.

Where is an instance of a study that indicates the opposite? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I find it interesting that the paper suggests that contracting COVID through your eyes is twice as prevalent compared to breathing it in. See 3% rate for non-mask vs 6% for non-eye-protection. Why are we not all wearing eye protection too?

From your link:

> the authors note that the findings on face masks and eye protection are based on limited evidence

You also have to consider second-order effects like a sense of invulnerability from the mask and added social interactions because people feel safer. Those haven't been studied.

if they’re outside and elbow-to-elbow, then it means they’re likely not continuously spitting in each others’ faces. it’s marginally better if they stood a little farther apart but that risk shouldn’t scare you. worry about real risks, like police with riot gear.

Somehow I don’t have your confidence—I haven’t even gone inside the bars.

Anyway I’m not worried for myself, I’m gonna be fine in all likelihood—it’s my at-risk friends and family.

too many people are beholden to irrational fear with this pandemic, rather than understanding. going into a bar is not a problem for your at-risk friends or family. it's what you do inside that matters.

having a physically distant beer with a friend (assuming an uncrowded bar, as is required in most places) is quite low risk. geting hammered and carrying on with a bunch of in-your-face strangers is not.

just avoid exchanging spit with strangers. being outside is the easiest and best method, and maintaining a little distance is a close second. wear a mask indoors if you can't maintain distance. it's easy.

then you can set the fear aside and move on with your life.