Can we all agree that wearing a mask for 10 seconds to walk to your table in a restaurant is peak safety farce

I don’t seem to hate them as much as you. Maybe I’m just tougher?

interesting take wrote:

Fine, don't wear your mask - but don't forget to wear your diaper if you're going to act like a baby about it on a message board.

When, exactly, did liberals come to define anything that questions the legitimacy and utility of current dogma as “whining?”

There was a time (not so long ago!) when questioning the purpose and rationality of social conventions was a key feature of intellectual liberalism.

You guys are honestly no better than the Evangelicals at this point. Totally uninterested in self-reflection. When your best justification of a massive social and cultural change offering zero practical benefit to anyone that has been forced onto hundreds of millions of people against their will is “stop being a baby,” you know you’re just afraid to admit the truth, which is that you have descended into farce.

Stonesy wrote:

so super safe wrote:

The hostess is vaccinated so it doesn’t matter at all if she gets it or not, she’ll be fine.

We know a vaccinated person who may not get very sick still may contract and pass the virus to someone who may get quite sick.

It matters to that person.

So, you reduce the exposure she gets from a hundred or so different people that come in close contact to her each day.

I don’t even care if they do or don’t require a mask and realize we deal with risk every day.

But I can point out the advantages when you multiply 10 seconds times every person they encounter.

At what point will you consider the world “safe enough” to subject a hostess to your 10 seconds of exhalation again?

It isn't a social convention, it's public health recommendations. But go ahead and try to twist it.

The Ostrogoth wrote:

I think most of us can agree it's barely worth complaining about.

Haha! I thought it was all about following science? If that fails, it’s just shut up and stop complaining.

I love when science narrative doesn’t work, it comes down to not worth complaining.

interesting take wrote:

so super safe wrote:

When, exactly, did liberals come to define anything that questions the legitimacy and utility of current dogma as “whining?”

There was a time (not so long ago!) when questioning the purpose and rationality of social conventions was a key feature of intellectual liberalism.

You guys are honestly no better than the Evangelicals at this point. Totally uninterested in self-reflection. When your best justification of a massive social and cultural change offering zero practical benefit to anyone that has been forced onto hundreds of millions of people against their will is “stop being a baby,” you know you’re just afraid to admit the truth, which is that you have descended into farce.

It isn't a social convention, it's public health recommendations. But go ahead and try to twist it.

Public health isn’t a monolith. Plenty of epidemiologists have spoken out against perma-masking, safety theater, etc.

Plus, there’s far more to life than maximizing public health outcomes. You can listen to public health experts, understand them, accept their scientific validity, and still ignore them for reasons that are also entirely valid, such as: I’d rather live in a slightly riskier world than in one where I have to do silly performative safety exercises and wear a mask constantly. That’s simply not a world I want to live in, no matter how safe it is.

what science wrote:

The Ostrogoth wrote:

I think most of us can agree it's barely worth complaining about.

Haha! I thought it was all about following science? If that fails, it’s just shut up and stop complaining.

I love when science narrative doesn’t work, it comes down to not worth complaining.

Bingo. It’s not about science, it’s about political signaling and control.

so super safe wrote:

interesting take wrote:

It isn't a social convention, it's public health recommendations. But go ahead and try to twist it.

Public health isn’t a monolith. Plenty of epidemiologists have spoken out against perma-masking, safety theater, etc.

Plus, there’s far more to life than maximizing public health outcomes. You can listen to public health experts, understand them, accept their scientific validity, and still ignore them for reasons that are also entirely valid, such as: I’d rather live in a slightly riskier world than in one where I have to do silly performative safety exercises and wear a mask constantly. That’s simply not a world I want to live in, no matter how safe it is.

The problem is it's not just your world. You're willing to make the decision for that waitress who day in and day out has to wear a mask and seat people who complain about 10 seconds.

I think the science says that 10 seconds of mask wearing masks a difference, and I believe you're saying you think it's performative. I get that stance, but I wouldn't be willing to change public health recommendations on your hunch that it's performative when it doesn't hurt anybody (just their feelings) to try it.

If it has a 10% chance of working and 90% chance of not working, it's still a good idea to give the waitress that 10%. These are pure hypothetical numbers obviously, maybe we're giving the waitress even better odds of not contracting covid by wearing a mask, especially after he/she has seated many people per day. If I were in her shoes I would rather seat the masked patrons even if it's overkill, just in case. Look, nobody likes wearing masks, liberal or conservative. But transmitting Covid is worse. We are in a pandemic and a little bit of personal sacrifice ain't that bad, if you can even call wearing a mask sacrifice.

what science wrote:

The Ostrogoth wrote:

I think most of us can agree it's barely worth complaining about.

Haha! I thought it was all about following science? If that fails, it’s just shut up and stop complaining.

I love when science narrative doesn’t work, it comes down to not worth complaining.

Science works fine. You are just trying to convince yourself of some global conspiracy to make you wear masks in restaurants because, you know, like control and stuff.

The Ostrogoth wrote:

what science wrote:

Haha! I thought it was all about following science? If that fails, it’s just shut up and stop complaining.

I love when science narrative doesn’t work, it comes down to not worth complaining.

Science works fine. You are just trying to convince yourself of some global conspiracy to make you wear masks in restaurants because, you know, like control and stuff.

What? That’s the conclusion you came up with from this?

so super safe wrote:

Dinner theater all night, every night.

Depends on where your table is and how crowded the place is. But you'd have to be a total snowflake to complain. If it is a problem for you stay home and try to cook.

what science wrote:

The Ostrogoth wrote:

Science works fine. You are just trying to convince yourself of some global conspiracy to make you wear masks in restaurants because, you know, like control and stuff.

What? That’s the conclusion you came up with from this?

The science works fine. Follow the science.

And quit complaining too. It's weak and pansy-like. You got to gut it out to succeed in this world, Clarence.

so super safe wrote:

Stonesy wrote:

We know a vaccinated person who may not get very sick still may contract and pass the virus to someone who may get quite sick.

It matters to that person.

So, you reduce the exposure she gets from a hundred or so different people that come in close contact to her each day.

I don’t even care if they do or don’t require a mask and realize we deal with risk every day.

But I can point out the advantages when you multiply 10 seconds times every person they encounter.

At what point will you consider the world “safe enough” to subject a hostess to your 10 seconds of exhalation again?

I too would like an answer to this question.

Yawn^10 wrote:

so super safe wrote:

At what point will you consider the world “safe enough” to subject a hostess to your 10 seconds of exhalation again?

I too would like an answer to this question.

Not yet, but feel free to check back in another two hours.

The Ostrogoth wrote:

I think most of us can agree it's barely worth complaining about.

The equivalent of saying "Yes, master" is acceptable to you?

Bad Wigins wrote:

The Ostrogoth wrote:

I think most of us can agree it's barely worth complaining about.

The equivalent of saying "Yes, master" is acceptable to you?

Nobody is forcing you to go to the restaraunt. If you don't like the inconvenience, simply don't go.

Easy peasy.

If you do choose to go, you need to take the prescribed measures to protect the staff and the other patrons.

Or don't go.

Not sure where the concept of slavery enters into that understanding. On the contrary, it seems to be more a matter of common courtesy, consideration, and reasonable saftey precautions. And quite minor at that.

antivaxxers killing democracy wrote:

Mods, why do you blatantly favor antivaxxer/antimasker bullsh!t over threads that point/support the efficacy and benefit of these measures? 100's of threads a week started by right winger snowflake bozos whining about masks or spreading BS about them, or making sh!t up about the vaccine, yet one thread posting IMPORTANT facts about hospitalization rates among unvaccinated and vaccinated youth, or a state health department withholding data supporting the efficacy of masks, and you feel the need to delete those.

This is peak farce, not the OP's BS premise.

Antivaxxers killing Democrats!!! Waaaaaaa

Antimaskers killing Democrats!!! Waaaaaaa

Snowflakes stay home devastated.