[AndrewUnmuted]

> There is zero doubt at this point that mask-wearing and reducing the number of people one comes in contact with do have a positive effect.

Then why are we locking down a second or third time, with reportedly complete futility?

> wear masks in public, closing spaces where people do convene and not wear masks, and expecting people to relate to others virtually or from a distance

I live in NYC. This is not what is happening. We are being told to not travel. We are being told to not leave our homes without an essential reason. We are being told that we must completely alter our lives, leading to hardship and lost employment all throughout the city.

[GavinMcG]

> Then why are we locking down a second or third time

Most places didn't lock down a first time. You live in NYC, so you got the brunt of the first wave and did actually lock down. I lived in Arizona when it was the next hotspot, and it effectively didn't. The lock down order there basically applied to indoor dining, gyms, salons, and strip clubs. Everything else was open, and 25-50% still weren't wearing masks.

We're still taking measures because we (as a country) didn't do them right the first time. The fact that your community did do things right the first time still left it exposed to the rest of the country. It's not fair, and you've got every right to be angry, and yet it doesn't change anything about how the virus spreads or what it does to people.

There are a number of countries that proved it doesn't have to be futile - it's just futile if people don't do right by each other.

[AndrewUnmuted]

> We're doing things still because we (as a country) didn't do them right the first time.

We in the USA are at 84% compliance with mask mandates. [0] Reconcile.

> There are a number of countries that proved it doesn't have to be futile - it's just futile if people don't do right by each other.

No, there aren't.

There is not a single place on planet Earth where any of the COVID statistics showed any improvement after enacting a mask mandate or a lockdown.

That's because neither masks nor lockdowns work.

Everyone wore masks during the BLM/Antifa direct action that took place all throughout NYC in April and May. It led to a notable increase in infections. We can't have it both ways - we can't say the masks work AND that protesting during the pandemic was safe. If protesting during the pandemic WAS safe, then we don't need lockdowns or mask mandates. Sorry to burst your bubble. Just like the GOP partisans in 2002/2003 who yelled "support the troops" because they had their Republican identity tied to supporting a terrible war, you have fallen into the "follow the science" camp and appear to be doing everything you can to defend your chosen political identity in the face of overwhelming contrary facts.

Just remember: you've got to be a pretty intelligent person. People will be coming to you for greater understanding about these complex times, and you could be a source of immense truth-telling and could help restore a lot of happiness in peoples' lives. Right now, you're filling them with dread - and it's totally unnecessary. I impore you to consider re-examining your understanding of these issues. Watch & read all the banned materials that tear these notions apart.

[0] https://www.mediaite.com/news/whopping-84-percent-of-america...

[GavinMcG]

You live in a place where the COVID statistics improved after a lockdown and mask mandate. New York went from having eight to ten thousand new cases per day to having seven or eight hundred per day throughout the summer. And what bubble? I've never said that protesting during the pandemic was safe, and it's absurd that people think so. They might think it's important enough, but it's not safe.

Speaking of a greater understanding: 84% of respondents to that poll said they "have worn a face mask in public." That's not the same thing as compliance with mandates, and it's not even a statement that they frequently or always wear a mask in public.

Even if it were, how many of those people answer yes but also dine out at a restaurant, or otherwise remove their mask in higher-risk situations?

The good news is that with more up to date knowledge we can likely get a significant reduction in a more targeted way, rather than an across-the-board lockdown [0].

[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2923-3

[AndrewUnmuted]

> You live in a place where the COVID statistics improved after a lockdown and mask mandate.

That place is now locking down again. Reconcile that for us.

There is no evidence that implementing & enforcing these two actions led to any change in COVID statistics. You will have a terribly difficult time even proving correlative relationships between the COVID data and enforcement of these ridiculous policies.

> That's not the same thing as compliance with mandates

Yes, it is. This shows me that you have not even read the mask mandates. Compliance with the NYC mandate [0] for instance is as simple as wearing one, and only when you cannot "socially distance" from others.

Surely, you are aware that our constitutionally-limited federated republic provides no legal route for these mandates to be anything more than toothless.

> Even if it were, how many of those people answer yes but also dine out at a restaurant, or otherwise remove their mask in higher-risk situations?

See how easy it is for the lockdown policies to enter the mask mandate discussion without any rhyme or reason whatsoever?

The mask mandates were employed so that we could stop being locked down. If the only way for the masks to work is if we also are locked down, you are already admitting that this policy is not only worthless but also misleading in its intent and goals.

Citation needed on the claim that going out to dinner is a "higher-risk situation."

[0] https://regs.health.ny.gov/volume-1a-title-10/content/sectio...