As long as the risk is limited to downvotes, shadowbans and similar virtual punishments the actual risk is zero - which makes me wonder why there is so little dissent in cases where seems to be a clear need.

Dissent against well-evidenced public health measures really isn’t a virtue.

We are lucky we live in such a society. We are not lucky that so many people use their right to dissent for such idiotic ends.

Just because you have the right to do something doesn’t doing it is automatically praiseworthy.

I live in Sweden where nobody wears masks. We have not been locked down in any real sense. Primary schools have not been closed, some high schools were but this was mostly left to the schools themselves. Those who want to be vaccinated can get vaccinated, most adults are (myself included). Most children are not vaccinated, they go to school, catch SARS2 and... nothing happens. Not a single teacher was infected in either of my daughter's schools during the whole time. Why can we live mostly normal lives while you seem to be unable to do so? What is the difference between Sweden and wherever it is you live?

Also, what happened to personal choice and personal responsibility? By now it is clear that the vaccines do not seem to prevent you from infecting others so the argument for getting vaccinated so as not to infect others has been made moot. This leaves masks - which have been proven (yes, proven) not to work unless N95 or better types are used and crowding avoidance. In other words, get vaccinated to avoid personal risk of a severe infection. If you decide not to get vaccinated for whatever reason you'll have to accept the possibility of a more severe infection. Keep your distance from others if you want, do not force yourself upon others who have not made clear to be OK with it. All of these are personal choices which you'll just have to accept if you want to continue living in a free society. It sounds like you are willing to give up those freedoms for a misplaced sense of protection?

In 1775 Benjamin Franklin had the following to say: ‘They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.’. He seems to have said it in the context of some people considering a compromise with the Crown over the stationing of British troops in the colonies. His stance was that giving in to these demands would mean the end of any real hope of freedom.

Be interested to see that there mask proof.

And the vaccines do seem to cut do prevent spread, by preventing a large number of infections. Not sure where you get that from either.

Why does it sound like I’m willing to give up freedoms? I explicitly said it’s great to have freedoms but that you shouldn’t always use them.

It seems like you completely ignored the point of my post.

On the efficacy of surgical (i.e. non-N95/KN95) masks a Danish randomised control study covering 6000 participants, half of whom got 50 disposable surgical masks each and were told to change them after 8 hours of use did not show a significant difference in infection rate (between-group difference was −0.3 percentage point (95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38), 95% CIs compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection). There is a long discussion on CIDRAP [2] triggered by Michael Osterholm's statements on the gap between the perceived and actual efficacy and the downsides of an over-reliance on their protective effect.

On the efficacy of vaccination as a means to slow the infection rate there are several sources, once of which [3] was discussed on this site [4] recently. With regard to the "delta"/"Indian" variant the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine offers 43% protection against infection while the Moderna "Spikevax" mRNA vaccine offers 76% protection [5].

Maybe I am wrong about your willingness to give up freedom, this is the impression I get from your approach to those who dare to dissent. When it comes to freedom of speech it is exactly the type of speech which goes against the common narrative (while staying within the bounds of legality) which should be protected [6].

[1] https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

[2] https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/07/commenta...

[3] https://www.science.org/news/2021/08/grim-warning-israel-vac...

[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28395776

[5] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707v...

[6] ...which does not mean you need to agree, not even that you need to listen.

Interesting on the masks, the research I had seen on different materials showed that while some materials (fleece) could actually increase spread of exhaled droplets, others could decrease the spread. Particularly three-layers of cloth, one of cotton and two of either silk of chiffon, could create both a physical and electrostatic barrier and be on a par with N95 masks. It does look like mask are over-relied upon, yes, and they do seem to get clung to like some sort of talisman by various governments. That said, it also looks like your research really just rules out the medical style masks from having much effect, which is hardly surprising having worn them - they don't give much of a seal or seem to filter much.

> the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine offers 43% protection against infection while the Moderna "Spikevax" mRNA vaccine offers 76% protection

So while the vaccines may not cut transmission among people who get infected while vaccinated, they still massively cut the spread by cutting down on the number of those infections that happen in the first place, even with the delta variant. So vaccination is still a public health measure and not merely a personal choice.

> Maybe I am wrong about your willingness to give up freedom, this is the impression I get from your approach to those who dare to dissent.

My approach that I explicitly said was great we have the right to dissent, but should choose where when to use it? The same damned approach you espouse when you say things like - "do not force yourself upon others who have not made clear to be OK with it" ?

Yes, free speech should be protected, that doesn't mean I can call my mum a the C word and be free from her being offended, because muh freedom of speech. Free speech and freedom to dissent doesn't mean that dissent on covid vaccination is a virtue. It means that that speech doesn't get punished. You can be on the right side of the law and still be doing the absolute wrong thing. Dissent for its own sake is childish, especially where it causes harm, not something to praise. Which is what I was replying to - the assertion that dissent is a virtue.

Not in all circumstances it isn't. Not purely as a kneejerk.

> My approach that I explicitly said was great we have the right to dissent, but should choose where when to use it?

Yes...

> Yes, free speech should be protected, that doesn't mean I can call my mum a the C word and be free from her being offended,

...but the government is not your mum. Also...

> because muh freedom of speech.

...most of the dissent I see does not come from people who speak like that - this is not a dispute between "uneducated rubes" and "enlightened followers of The Science™", nor is it clear which of the positions leads to the best overall results. From what I gather comparing the outcomes in places with severe restrictions - The UK, New Jersey, New York and California come to mind - with those where the approach is more based on personal responsibility - Sweden and Florida are two examples - there is no clear "winner" [1,2]: the UK has a higher death rate than Sweden, New Jersey has the highest death rate in the USA, Florida and California are comparable while Florida has a much older population and as such would be expected to rank higher.

The core of the dispute is whether people can be trusted to look after themselves or whether they need some authority figure to tell them how to behave. Given access to means of protection - vaccines, behavioural changes, PPE - the results seem to show that there is no significant difference in disease-related outcomes between the former and the latter while the former retain a larger amount of freedom compared to the latter. As to whether this larger sense of freedom translates in a higher trust in authorities is unclear, at least here in Sweden where the rather soft-handed approach is often portrayed as being due to incompetence and lack of direction. Something which is clear is that places which are or have been under severe lockdown will suffer in other ways with children who have not seen their friends for months, small businesses which have been forced into bankruptcy while behemoths like Amazon thrive, social cohesion taking a hit due to the fact that people are starting to see others as sources of infection first, people second, substance abuse increasing, lack of exercise due to restrictions leading to worse health which directly increases the severity of any SARS2-infection, etcetera - the list is far longer than can be discussed here.

Suffice to say that - when regarding liberal western societies - I see the authoritarian approach as the wrong approach which will end up doing more damage to society while not significantly reducing the impact of SARS2.

[1] https://c19.se/global - sort the table on deaths per million

[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covi...

I’m just going to leave you to it. You have some weird ideas about vaccines and I’m not sure who you’re arguing about authoritarianism with, but it’s not with me.

But you go for it, you beat the shit out of that straw man.

Not just yet. May I ask which country you reside in to get an idea of your frame of reference? Is it a country which is in the process of making vaccination mandatory, either directly or through a vaccine passport which will be needed to participate in society?

Also, what are those weird ideas about vaccines I am supposed to have? I see nothing weird in what I described in the previous posts, just a summation of data from what I assume to be reputable sources. Wherein lies the weirdness?