I could understand the anti-lockdown protests. People couldn't go to work, people were basically holed up in their houses, and some places had "shelter in place" orders where one could face charges for going out for "non essential reasons". Honestly, I agreed wholeheartedly with the protesters that the last one was a complete violation of civil liberties. But why the fuck are people so insistent on not wearing a mask? You could wear a mask literally anywhere. It doesn't restrict your movements. So, I don't see it as impinging on people's freedom at all honestly. Plus, if everyone wore a mask, all this would be under control in two months according to the CDC.
All this "But wearing a mask impinges on my freedom" makes no sense to me. The freedom to do what exactly? It isn't as if getting coronavirus could possibly have any sort of benefit. At worst, you could end up getting sick enough that you need to be hospitalized (or worse), or you could spread it to a friend/family member who develops a life-threatening case of it. Yes, in a sense, the case fatality rate is likely "inflated" due to large numbers of unrecorded mild and asymptomatic cases. If you look at the data from places where everyone was getting tested (e.g. the Diamond Princess cruise ship comes to mind here), it becomes clear that the actual mortality rate is not that high.
On the Diamond Princess cruise, around 50 people in their 80s were infected. Out of these individuals, only around half showed symptoms. And one died. Among people in their 70s, 95 had a symptomatic case and around 135 were asymptomatic. There were six deaths in this age group. Among people in their 60s, 76 had symptoms and 101 did not. One person in this age range died as a result of the virus. No one in their 50s or younger died, but the number of passengers in these age groups was much lower.
I also read about an antibody study done in Spain that appeared to have similar results. Among people under 65, the risk of dying from coronavirus on an individual level is less than the risk of being in a car accident. Among people in their 60s and 70s, 94% of people who had it did not need to be hospitalized. Even the study looked at people in their 90s, only 1 in 4 needed to be hospitalized. However, even still, it is worse than the flu. By a lot. For people under eighteen, coronavirus is much less dangerous than the flu. For adults, it's a very different story.
For people who are 20 to 64, an individual's chances of death from the virus (if they become infected) is two to four times more than the flu. For people who are over 80, it's around 1.7 times as deadly as the flu (even the flu is extremely dangerous to people who are elderly with medical problems). So, yes it is true to a certain extent that the media is fear-mongering and being sensationalist. That's what they always do, and I would not expect any different from them. That is simply what they do. Being angry or shocked by that at this point is no different than waking up and being surprised to see that the sky is blue. It isn't right or fair, but it's unfortunately just the way things are.
So, yes it is true that the virus probably will not kill you. Though, no one is entirely safe from it either. Saying that fewer people die in car accidents than from the virus does not necessarily mean a whole heck of a lot. Over a million people die in car accidents every single year. It simply is not talked about much because it's not a new problem, and it's not something that one can do a whole heck of a lot about either other than following the speed limits, driving carefully, etc. But around 1% of the whole country dies in a car accident every year. So, saying that coronavirus is less likely to kill you is not saying a whole heck of a lot. The median age of coronavirus deaths in the United States is actually 48.
There actually are a lot of people in their 20s, 30s, and 40s who die of coronavirus. So, essentially it looks like while older people have a significantly higher level of risk than younger individuals, people of any age (though much less so for those under 18) could potentially be at risk. Though, it is also far from a death sentence, and most people do recover (including people who are older). And yes, as some have said, people in long-term care/nursing home facilities make up more than 50% of coronavirus-related deaths in some areas.
Older people in these settings face mortality rates from this virus of 25-50%+, and it often results in hospitalization and long-term complications even among survivors in this demographic. And yes, the flu is actually dangerous to people in this demographic as well. However, coronavirus has an even higher mortality rate among this demographic. What makes this especially dangerous is that it spreads very readily if people do not wear masks and/or practice social distancing. It spreads far faster than the flu does. Even though it's true that people in nursing homes make up a highly disproportionate share of Covid-19 fatalities, their lives matter just as much as anyone else's.
An average person with the flu infects around 1.4 other people on average, but that figure can be as high as 3 or more with little precautions. It can be as high as 2-3 even with some social distancing in place. It's very contagious. Keep in mind that severe flu seasons can place a strong burden on hospitals, and despite its comparatively lower mortality rate
and reduced contagiousness compared to coronavirus, the flu causes up to 60,000 deaths per year. Most people who get this will not end up in the hospital. However, unchecked it spreads incredibly fast, and it has a higher mortality and hospitalization rate than the flu. So, the influx of patients has the potential to overwhelm hospitals if it's left unchecked.
Thus, if you did have the misfortune of having a severe case of coronavirus, you would get a reduced quality of care that would make it more likely that you'd die. Anyone could end up having a severe case (with the possible exception of people who've had it already in the past and recovered). Plus, if you were to need treatment in a hospital for something like a car accident, your quality of care would be greatly reduced. Thus, you would be at an increased risk of death, regardless of what it was that brought you to the hospital in the first place. Wearing a mask is actually incredibly and surprisingly effective at preventing the spread, which could get things under control very fast.
If an infected person interacts with a non-infected person but both parties are wearing masks, the risk of transmission is a mere 1.5% of what it would be otherwise. Yes, one and a half percent. Effectively, universal masks would nearly stop transmission of the virus entirely. Furthermore, even in cases where someone did contract the virus, they'd be exposed to fewer viral particles. Thus, their viral load would be reduced, and the case would be much less likely to become severe enough to result in death or hospitalization. Two things can be true at the same time. Yes, the virus probably will not kill you, and yes the media has sensationalized it (of course, what else would anyone expect).
However, that doesn't mean that wearing a mask is unnecessary or that this pandemic is a hoax. It's still potentially a very serious situation, but if people together and simply wear a mask, this will be brought under control and fast. Personally, I am not panicking about this. I'm not living in a state of fear, but I do put a mask on every time that I go out in public. Because that's the best tool that we have to get this situation under control. I would not be one to refuse to do such a small thing that helps to keep myself and those around me safe, and I honestly cannot understand why anyone wouldn't. As far as government intrusions on our freedom, there are plenty of them, but mask requirements are not one of them.
The so called "war on drugs" is absolutely a government intrusion on our rights as human beings. If they're used responsibly and under the right circumstances, drugs (including scheduled ones) can at least potentially benefit the user more than it harms them, and obviously the experience of being high can be fucking great
. However, the only possible effect of not wearing a mask is getting sick, which is all risk and zero reward. Being sick fucking sucks, as everyone knows. And the only trip that anybody could possible take from not wearing a mask is a trip to the hospital.
So, I don't get how not wearing a mask is "freedom". Freedom to do what? The freedom to get sick, die, and/or spread a disease to people around you? That isn't freedom, it's just stupid, pointless, and irresponsible. Though, there is a serious constitutional rights, which is the fact that there apparently is a fucking
secret police of sorts in the US. People have been arrested by agents of the federal government who carry no badges or identification, are arresting people, and taking them to undisclosed locations in unmarked vehicles.
That is a serious problem. This is what's done in dictatorships. People are arrested by unmarked, unidentified government agents, held without trial, and sometimes even killed. That absolutely is a violation of constitutional rights, and I would be just as outraged if the protesters being arrested had a cause that's opposite to my beliefs. Even if it was an anti-mask protest. Hell, even if it was something truly and utterly repugnant and evil like a white supremacist rally or something, I still would be outraged at this. Because it blatantly defies the constitution.
And once we head down that slippery slope, there's no telling what's going to happen. As years and decades pass, we could end up living in a country that's just as corrupt and oppressive as China. Where is the outrage about this though? People get all up in arms about regulations that infringe on their "freedom" to expose themselves to a virus and get sick, and the mask requirements are completely constitutionally valid. And they have a precedent. Such requirements were enacted during the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic, and they've been implemented during other outbreaks of disease. However, there is
no precedent for secret police in the USA that I am aware of.
