[seankimdesign]

Here's a quote from Robert Redfield, the director of CDC.

> We are not defenseless against COVID-19. Cloth face coverings are one of the most powerful weapons we have to slow and stop the spread of the virus -- particularly when used universally within a community setting. All Americans have a responsibility to protect themselves, their families, and their communities.

I trust his expertise and judgment. What's the basis for ignoring his advice and not wearing a mask?

[Thiez]

Here in the Netherlands Jaap van Dissel (who holds a similar position to your Robert Redfield) remains unconvinced of the effectiveness of non-medical masks and argues they may do more harm than good. But admitting to trusting his expertise and judgement will probably get you downvoted around here.

[Animats]

The effectiveness of non-medical masks is not all that great. Bandannas, near zero. N95, quite good.[1] Cloth masks are all over the place depending on material, weave, etc. CDC: "During a pandemic, cloth masks may be the only option available; however, they should be used as a last resort when medical masks and respirators are not available".

Ordinary medical masks are easy to get now. N95 masks are still hard to get in the US. The trick that makes N95 masks work is that they have a middle layer that's an electret with tiny holes, with a semi-permanent static charge. That will capture solid particles smaller than the holes by electrostatic attraction. So it can actually stop an aerosol. Cloth masks and the lower tiers of medical masks don't have that.

It's pathetic that, nine months into the epidemic, the US doesn't have N95 masks in volume production. Prices on eBay are 10x normal. Normal price is under $20 for a box of 20. Where's the "free market"?

[1] https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-0948_article

[bleepblorp]

The free market is right there, refusing to address shortages and price gouging you for essential supplies. A few people are getting rich and many people are being put at risk, but the free market is fine with this.

Meanwhile, in South Korea, the government adopted a non-free-market solution and has been making KN95 masks available to its population through a combination of rationing and subsidies. Everyone has access to two masks a week, and the overwhelming majority of people wear them.

South Korea has one of the lowest rates of infection in the world and is one of the few economies expected to grow in 2020.

[gruez]

>The free market is right there, refusing to address shortages and price gouging you for essential supplies

It's hardly a free market when there's anti price gouging laws.

[chillwaves]

So if we let them take more advantage of the situation then it will improve?

[gruez]

Yes. If factories can hike prices, then they can recoup their investments faster. Right now there's little incentive for them to invest into expanding capacity, because the demand eventually dies down, and they never see a return on the sums they invested.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22789340

>The common theme is that during an outbreak like this, everybody wants to be his customer. But as soon as an outbreak subsides, his customers dump him and run back to China. The reason? His masks may cost a dime each, but a made-in-China mask might go for two cents.

>“Last time he geared up and went three shifts a day working his tail off,” the mayor recalled. “As soon as the issue died, he didn’t have any sales. He had to pay unemployment for all these people, and he had to gear down.”

[erik_seaberg]

Who’s going to invest anything in solving this problem, knowing we will indignantly refuse to compensate them? There would be stockpiles and reserve factory capacity if only we allowed them to be worth keeping.

[foogazi]

For those that say the president has no power: This is were the federal government can step up and use its emergency powers to mandate N95 mask production

[jasonlaramburu]

This is probably the single biggest failure of the outgoing administration. They forced industry to produce tens of thousands of ventilators that proved unnecessary. They should have ensured every American had access to free (or cheap) N95 masks.

[sagarm]

To be fair, at the time ventilators were being rationed.

Of course the need for ventilators was predicted well before the rationing was occuring, so if the administration had acted sooner rationing may have been avoided.

Instead ventilators were no longer and issue by the time they were being produced.

[roywiggins]

KN95s are easy to get and probably work a bit better than cloth masks (though probably worse than proper N95s).

[dragonwriter]

> KN95s are easy to get and probably work a bit better than cloth masks (though probably worse than proper N95s).

ISTR recently seeing that 90% of "KN95" masks independently tested do not meet the published requirements for the rating, so, I'd hope that is worse than N95 (the requirements are slightly different, but substantively similar), though still probably better than cloth masks.

[anoonmoose]

The basis most people provide is either an inaccurate or incomplete understanding of the rights given to US citizens by the Constitution of the United States, unfortunately.

[anonfornoreason]

And your statement shows you do not understand the constitution, or more specifically the bill of rights. You are not given them, they are recognized as natural rights not government granted rights, and the bill of rights merely recognizes them.

If someone doesn’t want to wear a mask that is their choice. Your choice is to avoid situations where you might be in contact with people who don’t wear masks. It’s not to force everyone into your beliefs.

I personally believe in wearing masks, though primarily feel the value in the typical cloth or surgical masks are keeping you from touching your face.

[RonaldRaygun]

> If someone doesn’t want to wear a mask that is their choice. Your choice is to avoid situations where you might be in contact with people who don’t wear masks.

Do you also believe this about laws prohibiting drunk driving, or regulating seatbelt wearing and the side of the road you're allowed to drive on? OSHA rules around workplace safety, hardhats, fall protection? I'll wait to see if the anti-mask crowd crusades against the infringement of their "right" to drive intoxicated. Otherwise, I'll continue to see it for what it is: Political virtue signaling and contrarianism sans empathy.

It should be (and is) perfectly possible to legally avoid wearing a mask in places with mask regulations. You may do this by avoiding public places.

> It’s not to force everyone into your beliefs.

Strange how selectively this idea is applied by some in this country.

[zoolily]

Since most states have had public nudity laws on the books for many decades that haven't been struck down as unconstitutional, I don't see how regulations requiring masks in a time of pandemic would be a problem.

Natural rights are a social fiction and have as much or as little power as we believe they have. You appear to have a strong belief in them, but their power is limited by how much you can convince others to believe.

[mason55]

I'm curious, which natural right does a temporary mask mandate violate?

[paradox242]

One might be tempted to agree if the converse were observed, those who believe in their right to not wear masks should observe the rights of those who ask that all who enter or interact with their staff wear masks. If you choose not to wear a mask, you choose not to enter that store or engage that employee. The problem is we have people who want people around them wearing masks, yet those people are refusing to stay away and in a number of instances assaulted and even murdered people who tried to restrict their movement into private property with a mask requirement.

I hear your line of reasoning from these same crazed individuals so I am lead to believe that this is the extreme end of that set of beliefs without also observing the corollary that I mention above..

[alasdair_]

> If someone doesn’t want to wear a mask that is their choice. Your choice is to avoid situations where you might be in contact with people who don’t wear masks. It’s not to force everyone into your beliefs.

Would the same principal apply if the other person had ebola?

What about someone like Typhoid Mary - should her right to do what she wanted be placed higher than the rights of others not to be infected?

[chillwaves]

And it's the choice of private businesses or public government services to require face masks.

No different than requiring you to wear shirts and shoes.

[dragonwriter]

> You are not given them, they are recognized as natural rights not government granted rights

They are, in fact, government granted whether or not the theory of granting them is that the government was obligated to because of preexisting moral rights, and its quite likely that there was not universal consensus on the underlying theory among everyone involved in drafting, proposing, and ratifying them.

But more importantly, "the right to not be mandated to wear covering over some part of the body to protect either public health or public morality" is not explicitly, or given the history of such mandates and their survival against challenge, on the evidence of legal precedent implicitly a right in the Constitution. You are arguing for a novel right that goes against the well-settled understanding of the rights in the Constitution (whether Amendments 1-10 or otherwise); which is fine, most people would agree things like Loving or Brown were good decisions despite the fact that the rights involved had not previously been recognized in the form those decisions found them. But to argue for such a novel interpretation of Constitutional rights, you need more than vague handwaving at the Constitution in general, you need an argument about how the explicit text in the Constitution supports your novel interpretation.

> If someone doesn’t want to wear a mask that is their choice.

Yes, but it is not a choice that, either morally or Constitutionally, needs to be free of consequences, including restricting the scope of available activities one may engage in.

If someone chooses not to wear covering over their genitals, that's their choice, but its fairly uncontroversial that the law may restrict them from being in public places when they make that choice.

> Your choice is to avoid situations where you might be in contact with people who don’t wear masks. It’s not to force everyone into your beliefs.

I have yet to see a mask mandate that concerns itself with mandate beliefs, only actions in cases where one is exposed to other people (and, invariably in those I've seen, people who live outside of the subject's household.)

> I personally believe in wearing masks, though primarily feel the value in the typical cloth or surgical masks are keeping you from touching your face.

The value of cloth or surgical masks is in reducing the distance (and quantity at any given distance) of droplet spready from exhalation, sneezes, and coughing. They aren't as good as better masks, or social distancing, but the general recommendation (and, in many case, mandate) is for them to be worn in situations where essential activities make the recommended social distancing impossible to maintain/guarantee.