351
Hollywood studio Lionsgate brings back mask mandate amid Covid spike
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2023
351 points (97.8% liked)
News
23376 readers
3341 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I have no desire for someone to force something on me "for my own good". If something is truly beneficial, then the public will freely adopt it; people generally won't willingly endanger themselves. What the conversation should be about is if you are endangering the life of another.
Side note, your argument for throwing ice on stairs is lacking scope. If it was one's personal stairs then by all means; however, an area that is to be expected to be used by the public cannot willfully endanger them; If not a criminal charge, then it is certainly a lawsuit waiting to happen. As for removing car brakes, again that depends on exactly what you mean. If the car is not in such a state that would recklessly endanger the life of another, then why would it matter?
All in all, one should look at things in such a way as to balance public safety, and individual liberty. It is always a trade off. I personally would err on the side of liberty, but this is not without its realistic restrictions.
Sort of like how the public freely adopted using seat belts and speed limits, right?
Speed limits, and seat belts are not equivelant examples. A speed limit is a restriction on risk to others, and property, a seatbelt is a reduction on the risk to only oneself, unless one has passengers, but even that has its logical limits. I can perhaps see the parallel you are drawing with speed limits, but I'm not entirely sure that it is necessarily an accurate comparison to make. To speed requires willful intent to endanger. As such, I could see it being argued that it is a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. Not wearing a mask, however, is really only willful intent to endanger anothor if one is knowingly ill, and willfully spreads it to others (and, if so, it should be punished accordingly); however, if one is not knowingly ill, then there is no aggression.
If one is not knowingly speeding, then they shouldn't be pulled over, right?
Hm, that is a fair point. Perhaps it should come down to reasonably articulable suspicion of public endangerment. You are quite right that ignorance of one's wrongdoing is no excuse. So perhaps I should restate what I had originally said to instead be that one should only be held accountable if they are spreading a communicable disease to others if they could, on reasonable grounds, be aware of their illness prior to spreading it.
Hah. Look up how some people fought seat belt laws. Just like masks and vaccines they're not actually doing much most of the time, but you'll be glad to have them when it matters, or rather you will be missing them when it matters.
People fought against drunk driving laws lol, with pretty much the same "personal freedom" arguments.
COMMUNISM!!!
Seat belt laws are not an equivalent example. Unless one has fellow passengers, not wearing a seat-belt is of no risk to anyone but oneself.
Then why enforce rules when there is no risk to anyone? To enforce a rule is to say that there is an aggression that is being controlled.
You completely misread what I wrote.
Would you mind pointing out what I misunderstood?
You just left out the rest of the sentence when you quoted "... but you'll be glad to have them when it matters, or rather you will be missing them when it matters."
And the point is most people don't get in daily car accidents, and putting on your mask doesn't necessarily mean you will be exposed to a disease that day. They are a type of safety precaution you sometimes use in situations where they don't do anything, and that doesn't mean that they were useless, it means no dangerous stuff happened.
That kind of danger, the kind that only gets you 1/10 times, is the kind people are famously bad at understanding. Our instincts say if someone survived doing something unharmed that it is safe, but sometimes riding in a car is safe and sometimes it isn't. We get too easily comfortable with things we shouldn't have because their consequences are delayed or inconsistent, and it happens everywhere.
Eta: I find it odd that the masks bother you more than the spreading disease that they are a "symptom" of. Personally, for over a decade now, I had hoped that sick people around here would start wearing medical masks on their own prerogative, like many other places/cultures already do. It feels on par with washing your hands to me. But then it became a political issue...
Quick question. I just need a yes or no answer. Would you wear a mask if you weren't being forced to?
That question is a little more complicated than one that can be answered by a simple "yes", or "no". The simplest answer that I can give is that I'm not opposed to wearing a mask; however, whether or not I would choose to wear one is highly dependent on circumstance.
Your mask isn't there for your own good. Wearing a mask may reduce the viral load you may receive if you're exposed, improving the odds your immune system can stamp out any nascent infection, but that's just a bonus.
The purpose of a mask in a mask mandate is to protect others from you in the event you're infected but in the window between becoming infectious and becoming symptomatic and therefore aware (and possibly beyond if you're the kind of person that knowingly mixes with others and coughs openly when sick). Because it's for people who don't know they're sick, it only works if everyone does it. So it's mandated for the good of the whole.
This was particularly important with the original strain of SARS-COV-2 because it had a particularly long incubation period.
The more aggressive variants since, along with more sensitive immune responses in most people due to vaccination, exposure, or both have shrunk that window significantly, but it hasn't disappeared.
General, society wide, mandates aren't imo necessary under the prevailing conditions, but that doesn't mean there won't be situations (close knit group with a spike in cases for example) where reintroducing such rules make sense.
This is, indeed, a critical issue to note. When thinking about such types of policy (I'm referring to policy on the government level), I try to follow the "non-aggression principle". What one must then ask is: "Does not wearing a mask violate the NAP?". If one is aware of their transmissable ilness and is knowingly spreading it to others by not wearing a mask, then this certainly would be a violation of the NAP. In such cases, one would be required to wear a mask. Now if we are talking about a case where an individual isn't ill, yet their bodily autonomy is still being infringed upon by being forced to wear a mask, then this would also be a violation of the NAP. That being said, things become a bit more grey if we are talking about the situation where one could transmit an ilness asymptomatically. I'm inclined to say that, in this transition point, it would be best to rely on people's own precautionary measures like getting vaccinated, and self-masking; however, I agree that I am biased into this line of thought. (Some extra discussion if you are interested)
Please forgive me if I am incorrect -- epidemiology is certainly not my strong suit -- but isn't this statement contradictory? I have the understanding that "incubation period" means that one is asymptomatic while the virus replicates within themself.
If one is asymptomatic (no coughing, no runny nose, no sneezing, etc.) then wouldn't they not be transmitting the virus? The only thing that I can think of is that one may be sluffing off virus through physical contact, but, if so, there are a few issues: the first issue would be that masking would then become pointless, and the other would be that one could simply wash their hands after contact, unless, of course, we are talking about a virus that could hypothetically be absorbed through the skin.
I have no issue with a closed group deciding to implement such restrictions amongst themselves; people are free to do as they wish so long as it does not infringe on the lives of others. I just, personally, hope that this doesn't become more widespread, yet again.
Pandemics affect communities not individuals
While the community suffers the aggragate, the individual is still not individually powerless.
You're extremely naive if you think that's true. Explain the thousands upon thousand of COVID death that were due to people not following the most vanilla guidelines to prevent that from happening in the first place.
I did say "generally". Also, in the general sense -- I'm not specifically talking about Covid -- if a person chooses to endanger themself, then that is not of my concern.