CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
If we wear masks and stay home, the pandemic will END in 10 days.
Fact is, the virus can't live outside our body for long periods of time, and they don't travel very far in the air. Therefore, if there's nobody close to you, the virus will DIE, and it'll be all over.
Fact is, the virus can't live outside our body for long periods of time
That can't be a fact because you have not even stipulated what you mean by a "long" period of time. Furthermore, your post assumes (incorrectly) that the only method of transmission is aerobic. Ignoring the fact that it is impossible in our present way of life for everybody to stay indoors all of the time, then the virus can live on surfaces for up to 3 days.
Your theory that people just need to stay at home for 10 days and then everything goes back to normal is directly refuted by the facts. It will slow the spread and eventually turn the tide in our favour, but it isn't as simple as you are pretending. The way society is structured is what makes this situation so dangerous. We all shop at the same supermarkets. We all use the same gas stations. We all draw cash out from the same ATM machines. We all use the same trains and planes to get to our destinations.
The situation you describe is entirely ideal, completely removed from reality. Humans live in groups which could stagger a particular household by up to 2 weeks per member. Humans have needs that require supply chains to fulfill, presenting the risk of contamination. Humans don't all conform (as we've seen from the politicians especially that advocate these rules).
Studies on mask show virtually no benefit to protecting the individual (viral particles are just too small to filter), a small effect on reducing spread to others (thus the benefit to a group in short encounters), and a negative effect for non-surgical masks (cloth) especialy when reused, where germs are cultivated in the hot, wet environment.
The situation you describe is entirely ideal, completely removed from reality. Humans live in groups which could stagger a particular household by up to 2 weeks per member. Humans have needs that require supply chains to fulfill, presenting the risk of contamination. Humans don't all conform (as we've seen from the politicians especially that advocate these rules).
So, again. Let me get this straight. You are saying that because of the above, we should stop attempts to slow and/or contain the spread of the virus and instead move on to ways to get it out there faster? I'm struggling to comprehend what your point could possibly be here. Were you also campaigning to ban condoms when AIDS hit?
Studies on mask show virtually no benefit to protecting the individual
What a total load of rubbish. If this were my debate I would ban you for misinformation.
To be clear, the science supports using masks, with recent studies suggesting that they could save lives in different ways: research shows that they cut down the chances of both transmitting and catching the coronavirus, and some studies hint that masks might reduce the severity of infection if people do contract the disease.
The results, reported in the journal BMJ Open, show that most of the fabrics commonly used for non-clinical face masks are effective at filtering ultrafine particles. N95 masks were highly effective, although a reusable HEPA vacuum bag actually exceeded the N95 performance in some respects.
The situation is ideal and unrealistic, the virus wouldn't disappear in 10 days. That's all my point is on this reply.
From the study your source cites:
The average filtration efficiency of single layer fabrics and of layered combination was found to be 35% and 45%, respectively.
So that's the vast majority of virus particles getting through, and it potentially only takes one to cause a covid case. Why do you think the virus is spreading despite mass adoption of mask wearing even without symptoms? The third hand source of the study they cite is creating a false equivalency between any reduction in particle filtration and preventing/reducing spread.
What's more, I've seen multiple corroborated studies presenting findings of filtration in cloth masks to be as low as 3%. The gap between threads is just too wide to stop a microscopic virus particle from going through, and the air currents guide the particles through. If you wanted a filter capable of preventing spread, you'd need mechanical power far greater than your lungs could provide to force the air through it. I have personal experience helping design a mechanical seperator for particles in a fluid and it's very difficult, we ended up using a hydrocyclone over a filter because using a filter that's small enough to actually seperate out the particles is just too damn slow, it would either needs an incredible amount of head (power), or a massive cross-section, neither of which would be possible to breath with. So short of some novel technology, I knew this was impossible before even checking the damn studies. But hey, here you go, here are some of the studies (real studies, not third hand accoutns) that support what I originally said, I trust you'll read them as I did yours:
What situation you blustering nincompoop? You aren't even making sense. Are you telling me that reality is unrealistic?
From the study your source cites:
The average filtration efficiency of single layer fabrics and of layered combination was found to be 35% and 45%, respectively.
Yes, and then it goes on to say:-
Conclusions: The current coronavirus pandemic has left many communities without access to N95 face masks. Our findings suggest that face masks made from layered common fabric can help filter ultrafine particles and provide some protection for the wearer when commercial face masks are unavailable.
Now, my math is a bit rusty I'll grant you, but I'm pretty sure that a 45 percent chance of blocking a deadly disease is significantly better than a 0 percent chance of blocking a deadly disease. I'm also pretty sure that this is a study of basic cloth masks, and that standard issue medical masks have a much higher rate of effectiveness. Hence, your claim that masks are ineffective at preventing transmission continues to be COMPLETELY FALSE.
The situation required to achieve the results presented by the OP, the person I actually replied to.
I didn't say they were ineffective, I said they only slow and do not necessarily prevent cases.
You've also missed the point about false equivalency between partial filtration and transmission: A case isn't prevented by having 10 particles instead of 20.
Yes, the medical masks are much better and some can even be reused without issue. The (multiple) studies I saw placed them at ~44% filtration rate, with cloth at 3%. But most people aren't using medical masks in public are they? Nor are they using the multi-fabric layer masks that the 45% you cited comes from. You're clearly stretching this.
The situation required to achieve the results presented by the OP, the person I actually replied to.
Listen you stubborn idiot, I don't care who you were replying to. Your claim was factually incorrect. It's that simple.
Why on Earth do you think governments are advising people to wear masks if masks are ineffective? What would the purpose of that be, exactly? Just for jollies?
The same applies to lockdown. If it isn't beneficial then why are scientists and doctors advising us to do it? A lockdown buys researchers the time required to manufacture a cheap, effective vaccine, before the virus can really take a grip.
I find your abuse of reason to be in extremely bad taste.
Why on Earth do you think governments are advising people to wear masks if masks are ineffective? What would the purpose of that be, exactly? Just for jollies?
A good question. Initially they advised against it, including the WHO. Now they advocate them. Strange indeed. Perhaps there's an agenda, for example they just want to be seen to be doing something, or they want to quell people by giving them something to do. Perhaps they simply do work after all and all my studies are wrong. Regardless of why they're doing it, the fact that they're doing it isn't a solid ground alone for believing they are effective at saving lives.
The same applies to lockdown. If it isn't beneficial then why are scientists and doctors advising us to do it?
I'd pose the same argument as before, but would also like to add that the WHO still recommends against lockdowns:
For masks I think it's debatable. But I would think it's obvious that the harm outweighs the good as far as lockdowns are concerned. If the survival rate and death rate were inverted then lockdowns would make sense, but you wouldn't have to mandate it, people would use their own sense to stay at home at that point. As it is covid presents a similar risk to most people as with other diseases. And that is why I say the government response is insanity.
A good question. Initially they advised against it, including the WHO.
Oh, I see. I think I understand. You're saying that because the scale and impact of the pandemic were initially underestimated, therefore it must mean there is a conspiracy to make you wear a face mask for no legitimate reason? 😆
You are not even representing the situation truthfully in the first place, are you? Why would any health organisation, especially the WHO, advise against wearing a face mask? Are you saying wearing face masks is harmful? Are you saying the WHO thinks wearing face masks is harmful?
You are not being truthful. I don't like people who are not truthful.
You're saying that because the scale and impact of the pandemic were initially underestimated I'm absolutely not saying that, what does the scale of the pandemic have to do with the effectiveness of masks?
Why would any health organisation, especially the WHO, advise against wearing a face mask?
Perhaps you should ask them. I don't know why, just that they did.
"There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit. In fact, there's some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly"
And this is corroborated by what I found in the research I looked through today.
Lockdown in the current context is insanity. Lockdowns, masks, etc do not miraculously save people's lives, it slows the spread. Not prevent, slow. If you can prevent the virus from spreading beyond a single location in the first place then it can make sense, and this is called quarantine. People will get sick eventually regardless. The disease is too virile, it's endemic, even a vaccine is unlinkely to get rid of it now.
Then there's the cost. Economic collaplse, mass forced unemployment, and the resultant rising poverty. Suicide. Increase in depression from lonliness. Increase in deaths from other health conditions that could be prevented if they could see a 'non-essential' specialist doctor. There may even be more life lost to lockdowns than to covid.
Then there's principal. Force people to stay indoors? Force people not to work? Force people to be poor? This is illiberal. Even if lockdown did work as advertised, it should not be done. Weren't we all happy that we didn't live in China back in February when they locked their citizens up, gassed the streets, and abducted people? What the hell changed? When did we give up on liberty and decide to become authoritarians?
I can sympathise with leaders early on when so much was uncertain, but what has happened since is untenable.
I didn't say masks, I said lockdowns, and if so, yes. Because the lockdowns have a significant cost, and a marginal benefit. All to combat a disease that is not very deadly at all. A below 0.02% chance of death for those aged 0-49 (CDC). It is insanity because we are cutting off our arm to stop the bleeding from a papercut. And not doing lockdowns isn't 'expediting' the spread. But if we're talking masks, the study I read showed no benefit to the individual, a reduced spread to others, and a negative effect for the individual for cloth masks, particularly when reused.
It would make far more sense for the elderly and those with health complications (where the chance of death can be as ... 'high' as 5%, to shelter by themselves while everyone else works to support them.
Oh please, spare me the rhetoric. Vaccines provide immunity. An immunity that we already know doesn't last long, as people have already been known to be reinfected, or'relapse'. It also doesn't work if the virus mutates beyond recognition of what the vaccine emulates. There are dozens of strains of covid already. Furthermore, a critical amount of people (in practice ~95%) need to take it, it works on the same principle of herd immunity that hasn't worked either.
Lockdown in the current context is insanity. Lockdowns, masks, etc do not miraculously save people's lives
And you said it here:-
Studies on mask show virtually no benefit to protecting the individual
Is this debate to you? Where you write something and then immediately deny what you wrote because someone else has pointed out how stupid and/or false it is?
I said lockdowns in the current context are insanity. Then I said lockdowns, masks, etc only slow the spread, they do not prevent people dying. I didn't say using masks, or that slowing the spread was insanity, you misrepresented me.
I said lockdowns in the current context are insanity.
You also said that masks don't save lives and denied their effectiveness at repelling microscopic airborn particles. If you can't even be honest enough to admit what you wrote ten minutes previously then why the hell should anybody take anything you say seriously?
I said that because that's what I believe to be true. Because:
Studies I've looked at show they're not very effective.
I've simulated it (only basic excel exponential numbers games) and it can save some lives (maybe 5%, totally theoretical) by reducing infection rate and reduce 'inertia' during the peak and tail end of an outbreak, but the vast majority of people will still be infected, just over a longer timespan.
If you remember back when lockdowns were announced, it was 'flatten the curve'. They projected the same number of infected (and deaths), but spread out over a longer duration.
I said that because that's what I believe to be true.
No, I've just shown you that it isn't true. I provided you two pertinent pieces of research to illustrate that it isn't true. Hence, you are shit out of reasons to be sat there arguing with me.
I've simulated it (only basic excel exponential numbers games) and it can save some lives (maybe 5%, totally theoretical)
Ahahahahahaha!! Look idiot, I've just explained that researchers need to buy time to produce a vaccine. Masks and lockdowns buy us that time. If that is inconvenient for your stock investments then tough titty.
I provided you two pertinent pieces of research to illustrate that it isn't true.
I addressed them. If you refuse to address my counters then I can only assume it's because you can't.
I don't have stock investments. I'm one of the students that will be working my whole life to undo the damage done this year, and not done by the virus but by our own authoritarian government's overblown response. But this is exactly the problem; your cure is worse than the disease. You have no idea how many people you are condeming to death and poverty by crippling the economy, and you seemingly don't care how many of the poor are sacrificed to protect your ass from a virus you're more than likely to survive, again, 99.98% aged 0-49 CDC. As I said before, it's cutting off your arm to treat a paper cut.
What does that even mean? Are you saying the research is wrong?
If you refuse to address my counters
You can't "counter" being wrong. The research says you are wrong.
Both surgical masks and unvented KN95 respirators, even without fit-testing, reduce the outward particle emission rates by 90% and 74% on average during speaking and coughing, respectively, compared to wearing no mask, corroborating their effectiveness at reducing outward emission.
No they don't, you pitiful liar. Address the chronology honestly instead of posting early research and pretending you are ignorant about the direction in which time travels.
And yes I presented a reason (twice) as to why I think the conclusions of the ones you cite might be wrong.
😆 So when presented with scientific evidence (published in a highly accredited scientific journal) that you are wrong, your first reaction is that you cannot possibly be wrong, so therefore the expert is wrong?
Address the chronology honestly instead of posting early research
So because they are from last decade they are wrong and you refuse to even read them?
Were it a new technology or had something changed you might be on to something, but cloth masks have been commonly used in Asia since at least th 1950s, and they have not changed. Don't you find it strange that the research suddenly changes to support their use only AFTER their adoption in the west? As if the right decision is whatever decision is made at the time.
when presented with scientific evidence (published in a highly accredited scientific journal) that you are wrong, your first reaction is that you cannot possibly be wrong.
I addressed them with sources of my own. My sources are also published in scientific journals. And they contradict those that you presented. I don't know which of them are wrong.
The reason I presented for why I think the conclusion is erroneous was that viral particle transmission is being conflated with transmission and case rates. A case is still a case whether their initial load is 100 virus particles or 200. I think all of this is a bit of a red herring.