Well like the other comment mentioned, this lumps all the things together (masking and quarantining, when maybe it was only one of the variables). Probably quarantining is most effective; it was said sanitation did more to prevent disease spreading than vaccines ever did (which would be a kind of isolation of contaminating things from people, like quarantine). So, by this logic, why not advocate for people who like masks to just straight up be more remote and quarantining all the time? Why “risk” the “danger” of going in to public with a mask unnecessarily? Really, this is probably a more effective tactic people wouldn’t debate on either side. And we’ve seen some of the benefits of remote work. Is this something both sides can agree on then, more of a “remote” society is better?
Understood, although we probably feel the same way about posts from wapo, cnn, msnbc, etc.
though the topic of articles could still probably be discussed
Masking and other precautions killed a strain of the flu. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-12/covid-killed-yamagata-type-b-flu-a-second-strain-might-be-up-for-elimination
Imagine, if there weren’t so many anti maskers and vaccine deniers we possibly could have killed covid as well.
Well like the other comment mentioned, this lumps all the things together (masking and quarantining, when maybe it was only one of the variables). Probably quarantining is most effective; it was said sanitation did more to prevent disease spreading than vaccines ever did (which would be a kind of isolation of contaminating things from people, like quarantine). So, by this logic, why not advocate for people who like masks to just straight up be more remote and quarantining all the time? Why “risk” the “danger” of going in to public with a mask unnecessarily? Really, this is probably a more effective tactic people wouldn’t debate on either side. And we’ve seen some of the benefits of remote work. Is this something both sides can agree on then, more of a “remote” society is better?