| It is in good faith. But the burden of proof lies on the argument that the vaccine won’t work for this. Not the other way around. In the US, in theory, it’s supposed to be “innocent until proven guilty”. For the past century, it’s been assumed “survive infection, you should be good until proven otherwise.” It’s never been quarantine the healthy. In the past century+, cloth masks haven’t been shown to help do anything and in Asia, they are typically used by the people who are feeling off or actually have a cold, etc. For proof on masks, see Fauci’s emails or the plethora of studies and CDC materials prior to 2020. There is a difference between doing smart and reasonable things, and imposing draconian measures globally with unproven actions. Lastly, only the rich countries are able to lock down and print funny paper while this lasts. The rest of the world has to face starvation and go to work to provide the rich countries with goods. |
1) there is adequate and persuasive evidence that adding a barrier across the nose and mouth will impede particulate spray during speech and normal bodily functions like coughing or sneezing. It will not act as a micron level filter. To say that cloth masks "haven't been shown to help do anything" is demonstrably false, but trying to treat masks as a full respirator is equally misleading.
2) Using a mask when you have or suspect you have a cold shouldn't be stigmatized, as you are literally helping to make sure that you are minimizing other people's exposure to whatever is making you ill
3) Social distancing is not the same as quarantine. Asking you to stay home as much as possible during a pandemic is a measure to help slow transmission rates. Stopping all travel into our out of a designated area is quarantine. If you're staying home after travel and unable to leave your home, that's quarantine. If you're avoiding restaurants, that's social distancing.
4) the burden of proof test is a legal test in determining who is responsible for providing evidence to back their claim, and the innocent until proven guilty standard is limited to criminal trials. To conflate that with assuming someone is healthy during a pandemic until they show symptoms shows a gross misunderstanding of how communicable disease transmission works. In many viruses, this included, the incubation period comes without symptoms and is fully communicable. You can be actively infecting other people without symptoms. Surely you can understand the reasonable difference between the two.
5) your claim that the standard in the last century has been "survive infection, you should be good until proven otherwise" is also false. This is true for some diseases but not others. Again, flu comes to mind as an example.
I want to address your last point separately. It is well acknowledged and understood that resource, income, healthcare, and access disparity have played a large role in how this pandemic was handled and mis-handled. We have much to learn from our experience here. That said, you cannot simply hand-wave "funny paper" and say that public health doesn't matter. Sure, the society that we live in is heavily reliant on exploitation. Yes, that's a problem, and not a simple one. Yes, because of that people have to work, and people have to take those risks when it shouldn't be necessary. That's all the more reason to place caution over pride and comfort. They are forced to bear undue risk, why should anyone have the privilege to add to that burden of risk when much of it is easily mitigated by limiting how much time we spend in public spaces and by wearing a face covering?