rather than moralizing angrily ('fucks'), why not try to hone in on what you're worried about exactly? were you really in danger?
if you'd have focused more on the lack of distancing indoors, that might have been a legitimate concern. but masks are for show in most places, at most times, and your focus on them indicates a retreat to symbolism rather than effect. the primary appeal of masks is for quelling fear and anxiety, not preventing spread.
the one common place they would help, the private social gathering, is where they're donned the very least, because masks have strong connotations of mistrust, which is antithetical to socializing. so masks won't save us, no matter how much force is put behind them. even in countries commonly cited for high mask usage, other more primary mitigative measures are what led to propagation control, not masks. masks are marginal.
walking through a lobby/store or sitting at a table in a restaurant with your family isn't a significant risk, no matter what the other patrons are doing, as long as there's a little distance between (no, the virus is not floating around in significant concentrations to probabalistically infect you from across the room; it falls to the ground and dies quickly). the only other person you should worry about there is your server, who, out of at least "corporate necessity", will likely be wearing a mask, a decent use of masking as someone who interacts closely with lots of strangers (rather than, say, outside, where they're wasted).
this kind of moralizing is not out of a cohesive worry for others, but a divisive fear (anger is a primal reaction to fear). so why are we so fearful and anxious? deconstructing that would be a more fruitful discussion than dwelling so much on the anxiety itself.
> the primary appeal of masks is for quelling fear and anxiety, not preventing spread.
The appeal of masks for me is definitely to lower spread. Yes there is signaling, but also because masks reduce amount of possibly covid-infected droplets expelled from the mouth and nose while breathing and speaking.
It is not possible to have a 6 foot bubble around everybody at all times. It is possible to always wear a mask.
that's rationalization, not science. feel free to wear a mask everywhere if it makes you feel better and aligns with your mediosocial affiliations, but the breadth of science show that masks are effective in specific, marginal situations, not everywhere, and that its population-level effects are drowned out by other, better mitigations.
Maybe we’ve been reading very different breadths of science. Saying masks only work in a small number of situations sounds more like rationalization for not wearing one when we know aerosols are a major source of spread, and that masks significantly reduce aerosol transmission.
1) I don't think its consensus that aerosols are a MAJOR source of spread.
2) Masks are much less effective for aerosols than for droplet transmission. I think the consensus is they at least somewhat reduce aerosol transmission. Only n95 w/o exhale vents that are properly worn are believed to be good at reducing aerosol transmission.
The fact that your glasses fog up shows that surgical masks certainly are very leaky.
aerosols are not a significant source of spread. otherwise, we'd have been inundated with specific stories and studies proving it. distancing overwhelms the effects of masks in nearly all common interaction cases.
I see this perspective a lot on social media and I think it just adds to the corona response culture shock. No one ever seems to understand each other better when this is brought up.
People seem to always assume/project the other party is controlled by high levels of anxiety around using masks when in reality I see most people know that distancing/masks are a risk mitigation technique (NOT a one-stop-fix, but a risk mitigation) used to bring virus spread rate down and flatten the curve. Instead of being an emotionally charged subject, I think most people see distancing/masks as a tool to reduce the spread of the virus so that we can go out more often as opposed to taking no mitigations and contributing to exponential rates of virus spread.
With this perspective, I think feeling violated by people avoiding masks is a healthy, normal response. It's not about feeling anxious for going outside, but that we have been violated by people spreading the virus to others causing us to have to extend the lockdown and keep our economy dead in order to not over-burden the hospitals.
distancing (indoors), yes. masks everywhere, not so much.
it’s important to dig into these nuances to dispel the anxiety and fear we have against each other (like feeling violated). and lockdowns (in the US at least) are political theater, accruing benefit to a few and wreaking discriminate havoc on the many. the mediopolitical apparatus deserves that blame, not the vilified ‘other’.
The whole “just be 6 feet away and it can’t get to you” is not reality, despite what the CDC or WHO says. Sure, keeping 6 feet apart helps reduce exposure compared to being 2 feet apart, but droplets containing the virus don’t all just magically hit the ground within that radius. Ventilation of fresh air is critical because of the buildup of aerosols that occurs indoors: https://english.elpais.com/society/2020-10-28/a-room-a-bar-a... I’ll be blunt. Restaurants are not a good idea right now; when people are eating and talking they are filling the air with spit, and you can’t wear a mask while eating. And even with masks, prolonged exposure indoors without any fresh air will expose many if one person in the room is contagious.
Masks are one additional piece—and truly one of the easiest measures—to reduce overall exposure. It’s been well established that even basic masks significantly reduce the amount of aerosols emitted as we talk, so when I’m in a grocery store surrounded by others, I do feel unsafe if people aren’t wearing masks, because it means far more of their airborne spit emitted when they breathe, talk, cough, or sneeze is reaching my eyes and lungs than if they would just wear a simple, cheap surgical mask. Medical personnel don’t wear masks for the hell of it; they wear them because it substantially reduces the amount of transmission, and does provide some small amount of protection to the wearer versus wearing nothing.
I don’t even blame people for coming to the conclusion that masks don’t need to be worn. The science has gotten much clearer over the past year and yet our governmental leaders have not only failed to accurately convey what we’ve learned, but have actually lost the trust they may have had. It’s no wonder people are confused about what works to reduce risk and what doesn’t, and how significant the risks are, when our leaders fist told us masks only protect doctors, then told us we could stop the spread with short, poorly enforced lockdowns that maximized economic harm without sufficiently quarantining the population, and now are telling everyone to wear a mask without properly acknowledging that aerosols are a major mechanism for superspreader events.
note that care workers interact intimately closely with others, and are a good example of the marginal case where masks are a primarily effective mitigation. most common interactions don’t fit this profile.
"...case-patients were more likely to have reported dining at a restaurant (aOR = 2.4, 95% CI = 1.5–3.8) in the 2 weeks before illness onset than were control-participants."
as an instance of seeing what we want to see in what is otherwise a random event (like flipping 6 heads in a row is not that uncommon over lots of flips).
the simpler, more likely explanation is that those were three different sets of transmissions that happened to be sitting next to each other in a restaurant at the same time, with a clever narrative tying it together. cleverness restrains our otherwise natural skepticism.
we'd likely have seen dozens of similar stories if this was a significant mode of transmission. and nyt is biased and partisan enough to have featured those stories prominently if they'd have been available.
if you'd have focused more on the lack of distancing indoors, that might have been a legitimate concern. but masks are for show in most places, at most times, and your focus on them indicates a retreat to symbolism rather than effect. the primary appeal of masks is for quelling fear and anxiety, not preventing spread.
the one common place they would help, the private social gathering, is where they're donned the very least, because masks have strong connotations of mistrust, which is antithetical to socializing. so masks won't save us, no matter how much force is put behind them. even in countries commonly cited for high mask usage, other more primary mitigative measures are what led to propagation control, not masks. masks are marginal.
walking through a lobby/store or sitting at a table in a restaurant with your family isn't a significant risk, no matter what the other patrons are doing, as long as there's a little distance between (no, the virus is not floating around in significant concentrations to probabalistically infect you from across the room; it falls to the ground and dies quickly). the only other person you should worry about there is your server, who, out of at least "corporate necessity", will likely be wearing a mask, a decent use of masking as someone who interacts closely with lots of strangers (rather than, say, outside, where they're wasted).
this kind of moralizing is not out of a cohesive worry for others, but a divisive fear (anger is a primal reaction to fear). so why are we so fearful and anxious? deconstructing that would be a more fruitful discussion than dwelling so much on the anxiety itself.