Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
WTF? Many people are selfish and self-centered, including restauranteurs, and don't wish to be inconvenienced for the benefit of other people. But the reason to wear a mask is to protect other people from the person wearing the mask.
|
A policy of requiring masks while walking but not while seated (as if the virus doesn't transmit while one is non-ambulatory) protects no one. You might as well not have anyone wearing masks.
And currently, given omicron's low kill/hospitalization rate, which is almost laser-like focused on the uniquely vulnerable and unvaccinated (the first of which which I estimate at roughly 5% of the population), 95% of people could sit around in a restaurant w/o masks without any problems. (Screw the intentionally unvaccinated. No one should change behavior to suit them.)
Society makes decisions based on balancing of interests. The interests of 95% of people, including restaurateurs, must be balanced against those of the others.
I think you've highlighted a point of friction that's remained from the start of Covid. One view is that is there's any chance of harming others, all people must behave in a manner that ensures against that harm, no matter how small it is. A competing view, more broadly accepted, is that the amount of vigilance required/observed should be related to the amount of possible aggregate harm.
The latter sounds selfish. But it's not, really. It's the accepted cost/benefit analysis of most of the things society does.
We could build skyscrapers in a manner that absolutely guaranteed no worker deaths, but we don't because it would be cost prohibitive and slow things down to an unacceptable extent. Instead, we factor a few into cost. We could build all cars with alcohol monitoring systems to eradicate drunk driving, but we don't because this is a cost that would drive up car prices and infringe on individual rights. We could force everyone to wear masks on airplanes or public transportation all the time, as vulnerable people are harmed by the flu and common colds, not just covid, but we haven't do so to date.
The former view I cited seems to be that any number of deaths that can be prevented are too many, and all precautions to avoid them, whatever the impact of such precautions on broader society, must be accepted by broader society. That's a very idealistic approach that alienates people and is counterproductive to its own aims, as evidence by how is has been received throughout Covid. The officious, scolding, and extreme have seen their political futures pretty well screwed (Newsome), while the reasonable have navigated Covid pretty well (DeWine, a conservative Republican in Ohio, is a good example of a gov who balanced the need to protect with the needs of broader society).
Threaded Mode