Are anti-maskers, covid deniers etc. like suicide bombers?

Post Reply New Topic

They seem similar, as how they don't care for not only their own health, but those around them as well. A matter of degrees, then... one gradual, the other immediate...

No ... they're more like drunk drivers than suicide bombers.

Suicide bombers have a mission to kill people; drunk drivers don't care if they kill anyone or not.

Didn't the World Health Organization originally come out with "Masks are Not Necessary".

On 31 March 2020, WHO stands by recommendation to not wear masks if you are not sick or not caring for someone who is sick

So if that was the yardstick that you are using to measure good and evil, then the World Health Organization might be compared to a suicide bomber!

Many Aspies have black and white thinking. But this question really has a spectrum answer.

Face mask can help to keep individuals who are infected from passing on the infection to others. So by 6 June, the WHO changed its guidance to "face mask can help to stop the spread of the coronavirus". And then many people began wearing face masks in the U.S.

When the primary world health experts, change their guidance as easily as a person changes their clothes, then it spawns confusion and promotes skepticism. People realize that the expert guidance isn't really expert.

But in my humble opinion [IMHO], the WHO advice is still erroneous. There are different types of face mask. Who is recommending cloth mask be used by the general public in infected regions; surgical mask be used by medical personnel and caregivers. There is all kinds of shades of gray in their expert advise.

For example, the threat of the coronavirus is very high in indoor settings and very low in the outdoors. The wind and breezes reduce the viral load and the sunlight quickly kills the coronavirus. So face mask should be worn in indoor settings like restaurants and movie theaters but make no sense outdoors. So curtailing outdoor activities is a minimal risk and generally speaking do not require people to wear masks. [Unless there is really close physical contact, such as Frat parties.]

But the main problem that I have with the WHO guidance is that "mask must be worn to protect the other guy". This is dead wrong. Some mask such as N95 mask will protect YOU. So if you want to protect yourself (which is your right), then you need to wear an N95 when you are in high risk environments (such as riding on a subway train). The WHO advises against this (probably because there are shortages of this type of mask). But they are dead wrong on this point.

I think there was a study done basically saying masks are pretty much useless because they're not protective enough as virus particles are much smaller than the materials of the masks.

Like if it was actually protective you wouldn't be able to smell anything through it. If you want a mask that actually does something then go buy an industrial full face one.

I think you have a good analogy there. Yes, they are hurting other people by not covering their faces. It's very selfish not to wear a mask. It's very inconsiderate.

I'd say they're more like typhoid Mary than drunk drivers.

Well, agree.. they think they go against the system but actually the go against themselves and the people they care about..

Both are fair comparisons.

People who drive drunk understand the potential consequences and have been warned repeatedly but do it anyways and usually doing whatever it takes to get away with it over and over.

TM was warned repeatedly that she was infecting people but continued to work in the same field over and over again, doing whatever it took to keep getting cooking jobs long after she understood what she was causing to happen.

Merely denying that Covid is real or serious does not harm anyone; it's just a thought. So no, "covid deniers" are not like suicide bombers.

Viruses are often contained in droplets and those droplets ARE large enough to be caught in many masks.

I'm an anti-masker. And I'm nothing like a suicide bomber. A suicide bomber has a high likelihood of killing people, and that is their intent. "Coronavirus" kills only around 2 percent of those infected. Most of these are the critically ill or terminally ill, whose chances are slim as it is. Or the very elderly, who are past their life expectancy and living on borrowed time, and also very likely critically ill. For 98 percent of the population, or more, it's just an annoyance. If it were some kind of "weapon" as the suicide bomber analogy implies, then it is a lousy weapon. Most of us do not intend to kill anyone, we just feel that protection from anything should be a choice, when it involves our bodies. If a suicide bomber went out strapped with some kind of device that has a 2 percent chance of killing them and anyone they come into contact with when detonated, then the analogy would be accurate. Statistically speaking, I likely have more than a 2 percent chance of killing myself and others every time I get behind the wheel of a car. So are all drivers like suicide bombers? Show me a widespread pandemic with a death rate of 20 or 30 percent. Then I MIGHT reconsider my position.

I don't really see why one would ignore the potentially terminal consequences of this "annoyance", simply not exploding into shrapnel is a pretty low bar to clear; some people who are merely annoyed could still be systemically affected by the virus for the rest of their lives.

I don't think it's a helpful comparison. To a degree it's a rights issue, I do think stores should have every right to refuse people entry who don't have one on, it's one of those places where you see two virtues colliding - liberty and consideration for others.

Then maybe we should also ban motor vehicles, boats, and anything else that has a slim chance of killing someone. There are quite a few on this list. And the top killer is heart disease. Yet fatty foods have not been banned. According to the New York Times, we have a one in 103 chance of being killed in a motor vehicle accident:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/14/us/o ... in%20seven).

This list doesn't include the chances of INJURING yourself or others with cars or other activities. Therefore possible lifetime consequences, blah, blah, blah.
For me, the odds of my not wearing a mask actually killing someone are low enough that I feel justified. Just like I'm not going to stop driving my car out of the slim chance I might kill myself or others. But I'm sure the goodie-two-shoes on here will find reasons to disagree. It won't change my beliefs or actions, though.
I've never liked having other humans within 6 feet of me anyway. It makes me very uncomfortable. I really prefer them to stay further away than that. If I'm in a store or other public place and someone comes close to me, I immediately move away. So, I wouldn't be likely to spread the virus to anyone anyway because I don't let them get close enough.

Last edited by AspiePrincess611 on 22 Oct 2020, 8:02 am, edited 2 times in total.

They can't legally refuse you entry though if you have a medical exemption.

That's a reasonable caveat.