You’re absolutely right. Six months ago I would have said something like that (and indeed many months before even when the CDC was spewing the bullshit that started all this anti mask stuff). I probably wouldn’t have hassled someone I didn’t know, just avoided them altogether.

However, the difference is, by wearing a mask where it might not strictly be necessary, I am choosing to inconvenience myself in a way that does not harm another person in any way. Choosing not to wear a mask where it is necessary puts other people in danger, and risks the overall epidemiological health of the society around you (and in my jurisdiction was also illegal). That’s quite a big difference in my opinion.

It's a trolley problem. Someone gets hurt if you put the mask on, someone gets hurt if you don't put the mask on. You're assuming that there is an objectively good decision here.

nobody gets hurt if you put the mask on.

Lets wait to see what the economic impacts of this fear culture brings, before announcing there are no casualties.

Equating basic precautionary measures with fear culture doesn't sound right. There's absolutely nothing inherently wrong with an individual deciding to wear a mask. I do agree that the tribalism that surrounds masks is ugly and harmful to society as a whole, but I'm fundamentally opposed to throwing away smart, simple solutions just because they're stained by politics.

What would wearing a mask in relatively safe conditions add to the collective trauma of the past year?

If you don't watch tv , you wouldn't have any trauma. Save for the odd people appearing in your neighborhood, who cover their face.

"Culture of fear" is Fox News raison d'etre for existing.

The idea that wearing a mask is at the forefront of this issue is laughable.

That may be. Yet, you see it.

You're being downvoted, but it's abundantly clear that at least some view masking as a moral or intellectual signal, and this "othering" is certain to have some impact, either personally or socially.

Furthermore, just as many warned in the early days of the lockdowns that extended lockdown may induce unhealthy behavior—which is evidenced in significantly higher suicide, mental illness, drug abuse, and so on—there are certain to be some undesirable side-effects of vaccinated mask wearing. What those would amount to is not known, but certainly deserves to be explored and expressed.

Why it has been left to the fringe skeptics to dive into these n-th order consequences—some real; some imagined—in the presence of the greatest minds of our times is, quite frankly, deeply disturbing.

It seems the world has transformed everyone into reactionaries, while it should be patently obvious that we should all strive to be rational in these complicated times.

This speaks very poorly for what we've built over millennia, and leaves the lessons of history to floresce in the corners while everyone goes to war with their chosen side.

> which is evidenced in significantly higher suicide,

Most places haven't yet seen increased suicide rates, and certainly not "significantly higher suicide".

Wonderful comment. Thank you.

Who gets hurt if I wear a mask?

Nobody, directly.

Who gets hurt if social structure is affected by the apparent identity of masking? There are plenty of instances of catastrophic social division due to physical differences.

I think your choice should be your own, and based on health and other reasons. But it's pretty myopic to ignore the history of superficial social striations.

> But it's pretty myopic to ignore the history of superficial social striations.

I'm having difficulty understanding what this comment is implying. Should other peoples' opinions and reactions to wearing a mask (or not wearing a mask) be a factor in one's own individual decision making?

I can't reasonably assert that one should or shouldn't.

I just answered parent's apparently rhetorical question, "Who gets hurt if I wear a mask?" Their assumption is, "Nobody," but the truth aligns more closely to, "Maybe somebody."

This isn't a calculus I've thought through in depth, but the answer is almost certainly not "nobody."

Edit: Please keep in mind this comment is made during a particularly divisive time in world history, so my answer reflects that context. I'm not being so pedantic as to suggest, "well every action may hurt somebody." Rather, the effects of the choice is uniquely amplified due to our current social strife.

> This isn't a calculus I've thought through in depth, but the answer is almost certainly not "nobody."

That's fair; I don't doubt that there are isolated, contemporary examples where un-masking would have led to a better situational outcomes.

As far as if "public reaction" should factor into individual choice, my stance is more based in principle than practicality; bending to the will of popular opinion is a strategy that is highly stifling, due to the fickle and stochastic nature of group opinions. I think it's dangerous to suggest that there are any societal circumstances where everyone should just "side with the crowd." Superseding reason with groupthink rarely yields anything but disastrous outcomes, so I believe that if one can tolerate the ridicule and aggression, then they should stand by their principles.

To me I read it as a physical representation of what is going on online. People assuming other peoples beliefs based on if they are wearing a mask. The striation would be people's biases towards people wearing mask and not wearing mask. Despite the actual health risk now/ in the future.

> There are plenty of instances of catastrophic social division due to physical differences.

Sure but the fault lies with society, not the individual with the differences (chosen, like masks, or not, like a physical characteristic).

I read something about this in The Atlantic titled "The Liberals Who Can’t Quit Lockdown." Some people's identities have become tied up in this, so giving up their mask could feel like supporting Trump, sending the message that they don't care, or give up part of who they are.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/05/liberal...

6 months ago there wasn’t a vaccine.

That's GP's point. 6 months ago it made sense for everyone to wear masks. Today it doesn't. If someone today insists that everyone should still wear masks everywhere, then they're doing so for political reasons rather than scientific ones.

It's okay to do harmless things for political reasons, and bad to do harmful things for political reasons.

It's ridiculous to try to turn that into a claim of hypocrisy and that everything is just politics.

Continuing to wear a mask yourself is harmless, but trying to make everyone else continue wearing masks is harmful.

Oh, I see what you're saying. Yes, that's true at this point in time, but I don't think that's what anthonygd was arguing. They were complaining about the act of personally wearing a mask without a scientific basis.

It's probably late for you to see this but here's an attempt to clarify... my complaint is with wearing a mask as a statement _while_ complaining about the other side being overly aggressive in making their statement.

Essentially 6 months ago you somewhat had the moral high ground because science was on your side, but now it's just personal preference.

If you feel safer with a mask, that's fine (it might do some miniscule good). If you wear a mask to show everyone where you fall on the political spectrum, than just own up to the fact that you're being divisive.

You can call it "divisive", but the two actions are not equivalent.

In terms of merely making a statement, then the anti-mask option would be something like wearing a shirt or mask with a message about how this whole mask thing is stupid.

The objection to people going maskless 6 months ago is not that they were making a statement, it's that they were endangering people in aggregate.

When you say "Was it lip-service and posturing 6 months ago or is it now? Do you value science or not?", that would only be justified if the science was specifically saying not to wear a mask right now. But that isn't true and has never been true. Wearing an unnecessary mask has always been fine.

> trying to make everyone else continue wearing masks is harmful.

Who's doing that?

I don't think that necessarily follows. Someone who still thinks we should remain masked for a while longer might believe that we should continue to err on the side of caution, because we've seen infection spikes when restrictions are eased or lifted too quickly. The CDC's initial mask recommendation came later than it should have, so why is it so hard to believe that lifting that recommendation is coming too early?

Remember that, while the CDC is advised and informed by scientists, they are ultimately a public policy agency. The science matters, to be sure, but what matters most is that the best outcome is achieved, based on people's behavior.

I think they're recommending dropping mask requirements now not because it's the best science, but because vaccine demand has been dropping, and they believe that giving people real-world, day-to-day incentives to vaccinate will convince some of the people hesitant to get vaccinated. And I agree with them on that, and I think it's the right move, even if it carries some risk.