The best explanation I've heard is that mask resistance is more of a political statement against economic shutdowns. Which is understandable, but ultimately a red herring that detracts from a productive political movement forming around the real issue of the rent treadmill. eg Restaurateurs don't actually want to be open for indoor dining right now, they're just forced to by an economy which has been warped to prioritize "growth" metrics above human concerns. But the political machine has gone to work telling them the pandemic is a hoax, and with that assumption it must be the response that is to blame. Somehow herds of people always end up running in the wrong direction.

As for general questioning, yes in the abstract everything should be questioned. But when most of the people raising questions seem to be acting in bad faith, then eventually the questions they're asking are going to be reflexively rejected. That creates an irrational blind spot for sure, but that's still a smaller rationality disruption than letting the bad faith questioners continue to destroy the discourse. Given the way herds work, I definitely agree that there could be something wrong with the specifics of the mask consensus. But my general prioritization heuristic asks why that would be someone's focus when there are significantly more pressing issues. And so any argument has a very high bar to clear, probably to the level of conclusive studies showing mask wearing is actively harmful, and not just simple conjecture on the mechanics from first principles.

> As for police state tactics, I don’t think they’d be considered if people were just smart and took precautions. They’re on the table because too many people insist on refusing to do simple things.

This is the real pisser. Being a libertarian myself, it galls me how much damage has been done to freedom, supposedly in the name of freedom. Allowing a pandemic to spread unchecked, meaning I need to treat everyone I come into contact with as potentially infected (including wearing a mask in my own house as I've got healthcare visiting), has been a grave damage to my freedom. I can only conclude the covidiots see "freedom" as the ability to behave like spoiled children, rather than the opportunity to make responsible choices.

It sounds like you’re not really a libertarian then. Fwiw, this consequentialist (rather than deontological) view of libertarianism that you’re espousing is what turns libertarians into either liberals or conservatives.

I wouldn't say I made a consequentialist statement at all, besides the obvious truism that actions have consequences. In the presence of force majeure, natural rights inevitably take a back seat. Ergo if we care about natural rights, then we should be interested in heading off catastrophes that diminish them, ideally by making responsible individual choices.

Public figureheads preaching harmful nonsense that leads herds of people to harming themselves and their communities is about as far from the enlightened-individual libertarian ideal as possible.

It is an interesting thought experiment. If caloric restriction and sleep hygiene increased more quality life years than masks, would you support the police raiding people's refrigerators and monitoring bedroom activity?

Failure to do those things may shorten your life, but it does not risk mine. Failure to wear a mask increases viral R factor and endangers others. The moral case for enforcing pandemic control measures is a lot stronger than the case for mandating seatbelts.

What do you mean by resistance? Does a simple question qualify as resistance? I'd settle for a reasonable answer from my local health authority on how something like a non-medical cloth mask, or a dentist's earloop mask is supposed to do anything if it also can't keep out saw or grinder dust.

I distrust magic, and I dislike the cognitive dissonance that comes with trying to do as I'm told while being denied basic information about the value of that behavior.

"Effectiveness of Cloth Masks for Protection Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus"

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-0948_article

Thank you for this article.

I have read the article. It's mostly a comparison between medical and non-medical cloth masks, in addition to reviewing basic properties and measures of effectiveness for masks in-general.

Until a cloth mask design is proven to be equally effective as a medical or N95 mask, wearing cloth masks should not be mandated for healthcare workers. In community settings, however, cloth masks may be used to prevent community spread of infections by sick or asymptomatically infected persons, and the public should be educated about their correct use.

This may well be true. The basis for such a distinction would be a deep point and counter-intuitive. I'm not sure it's present here, though. There is very little on the absolute benefits or effectiveness of non-medical masks. Here's what I could find:

Participants made masks from different materials, and all masks tested showed some ability to block the microbial aerosol challenges although less than that of medical masks (11). Another study found that homemade cloth masks may also reduce aerosol exposure although less so than medical masks and respirators (12).

and

Cloth masks can be made in large quantities in a short time. They can be reused after being decontaminated by various techniques, ideally washing in hot water with soap. Other methods or products include using bleach, isopropyl alcohol, or hydrogen peroxide; autoclaving or microwaving; and application of ultraviolet radiation or dry heat (16).

Also from this article, which are relevant to claims that mask-mandates have zero cost:

The general public should be educated about mask use because cloth masks may give users a false sense of protection because of their limited protection against acquiring infection (16). Correctly putting on and taking off cloth masks improves protection (Table). Taking a mask off is a high-risk process (34) because pathogens may be present on the outer surface of the mask and may result in self-contamination during removal (31).

>As for police state tactics, I don’t think they’d be considered if people were just smart and took precautions. They’re on the table because too many people insist on refusing to do simple things.

What an absurdly twisted bit of authoritarian reasoning. The very point of a free society is that you should be able to refuse certain things without being forced into them for the act of refusing.

Death counts don’t tell you much. If the main effect of the virus is ultimately to advance a bunch of older people’s deaths by a year or two, then it’s not a big deal. People live and people die, that’s life.

"We estimated roughly 1.2 million YLLs due to COVID-19 deaths." ("for the period 1 February 2020 through 11 July 2020.")

https://academic.oup.com/jpubhealth/article/42/4/717/5901977

"Deaths among adults 65 and older accounted for 80% of excess YLL in April but only 36% of excess YLL in June. Since April, working age adults 20-64 have accounted for 47% of excess YLL, and males 20 to 64 have contributed 34%."

https://healthcostinstitute.org/hcci-research/the-impact-of-...

YLL is an interesting metric but deceptive. As the article says, about 80% of deaths have been in the 65 and above bracket.

Wouldn't YLL be a better measure between pandemics? Lets say pandemic A kills 100 humans at 25% of life consumed versus pandemic B that kills 200h at 75% of life consumed. If only lives are counted then B is 100% worse. But if the human-years are measured then pandemic A is 50% worse. Given a zero-sum trolley car dilemma, is plain lives or YLL a better measure of utility?

For example, if a person dies at age 50, and life expectancy at age 50 is more 25 years, then the YLL is 25. In contrast, if a person dies at age 80 and life expectancy at 80 is 2 more years, then YLL is 2.

https://healthcostinstitute.org/hcci-research/the-impact-of-...

Stipulation: if the baseline life-length is 80 years and a ninety year old dies, then the YLL is 0 and not -10.

> Stipulation: if the baseline life-length is 80 years and a ninety year old dies, then the YLL is 0 and not -10.

No, of course it isn't.

A 90-year old isn't expected to instantly die. They have some remaining live expectancy, maybe two or three years, even if they have passed median live expectancy.