" assault Rape survivors say they are being stigmatised for not wearing masks"

@no1marauder said
When are you going to "rationally debate it" here?

Why is "protection against the ostracism of the medically and psychologically vulnerable" an equal countervailing consideration to the public health i.e. avoiding as many people as possible from catching and spreading a deadly, highly contagious disease which will kill over a million people worldwide this year?

“ Why is "protection against the ostracism of the medically and psychologically vulnerable" an equal countervailing consideration to the public health i”

Why isn’t it? You talk as if your point has to be disproven rather than proven. Maybe I should have added ‘in a civilised society’ .

“ avoiding as many people as possible from catching and spreading a deadly, highly contagious disease which will kill over a million people worldwide this year?”
Not if the vast majority wear masks though. We can break the chain of infection without 100% :- adherence to mask wearing, herd immunity, or Vaccination. I’m fairly confident that’s what most epidemiologist’s would say and that’s what I mean by ‘rational debate’ rather than a politicised one.

@kevcvs57 said
“ Why is "protection against the ostracism of the medically and psychologically vulnerable" an equal countervailing consideration to the public health i”

Why isn’t it? You talk as if your point has to be disproven rather than proven. Maybe I should have added ‘in a civilised society’ .

“ avoiding as many people as possible from catching and spreading a deadly, highly c ...[text shortened]... pidemiologist’s would say and that’s what I mean by ‘rational debate’ rather than a politicised one.

What kind of game are you playing? Merely stomping your feet and claiming something repeatedly isn't "debate". Nor is insisting someone else refute a point that you failed to establish any basis for. It should be and is fairly obvious that mere possible "ostracism" (and what the article in the OP mostly describes is people who are abiding by the reasonable mandatory public health measures questioning why someone else isn't) of some individuals isn't an equal harm to the sickness and death that will be caused by those individuals being allowed to ignore the necessary precautions strongly recommended by public health officials. Surely a "civilized society" does not hold Person A's possible emotional discomfort (no matter how deeply that may be felt) as equal to Person B,C,D etc.'s health and very life.

So please now answer my original question with something besides your vacuous "why isn't it".

@philokalia said
For reference, this was the context I originally used ChiCom:

(1) Taiwan is that, yes, but wouldn't it be important for you to kindly include it in the domain of China? The ChiComs regularly do this with documents and even forbid international bodies to mention it or treat it as if it is a government at all.

I am not referring to everyday Chinese as ...[text shortened]... makers who [i]must be distinguished from regular Chinese for the benefit of the regular Chinese.

Yeah but you haven’t explained the need for the phrase when ‘Chinese Government or Regime would do thus targeting your critique more accurately rather than at those who just live in China or even those communists who just live in China.

@kevcvs57 said
It kinda does work like that if you see it as a compromise though, and the lesser of two evils. I wear a mask and have done for a while but It’s like herd immunity, you don’t need or realistically expect 100% immunity it’s a numbers game. As long as the vast majority wear a mask I think we can get away with not imprisoning vulnerable people in their homes.
Vaccines and mask ...[text shortened]... ut 100% of people being vaccinated and a 100% of people should not be expected to wear masks either.

You can't compromise like that😀

If someone says "I want to burn down your house" and you say "Nah, i don't want you to do that" the compromise isn't "i will just set it on fire a little bit not a lot"

"I wear a mask and have done for a while but It’s like herd immunity, you don’t need or realistically expect 100% immunity it’s a numbers game."
Herd immunity means just that: someone passes the disease to someone immune and it stops there. There is no immunity to covid. We have no proof someone can't get infected a second time. One person without a mask can infect an entire supermarket and then each of those people go home and infect vulnerable people who are staying home because yes, 100% mask usage is not going to happen.

We lower risks as much as we can to lower the danger of contracting the disease.

"As long as the vast majority wear a mask I think we can get away with not imprisoning vulnerable people in their homes."
Medical experts have a different opinion. They didn't say "wear a mask unless it;'s like really hard or inconvenient then you can just forget about it and go to whatever crowded place you want".

"Vaccines and masks are used to break the chain of infection it’s never about 100% of people being vaccinated and a 100% of people should not be expected to wear masks either."
First of all, 100% of people aren't expected to wear masks. You are free to not wear a mask. But others are free not to be infected by you. So you can't go into a supermarket or a workplace without a mask.
Second of all, vaccination breaks the chain. Masks do not. Masks attempt to stop the chain from starting, but one person without a mask can and will start it and then you will continue it by catching it and spreading it around when you aren't wearing a mask (when you go visit your grandparents).

@kevcvs57 said
“ Why is "protection against the ostracism of the medically and psychologically vulnerable" an equal countervailing consideration to the public health i”

Why isn’t it? You talk as if your point has to be disproven rather than proven. Maybe I should have added ‘in a civilised society’ .

“ avoiding as many people as possible from catching and spreading a deadly, highly c ...[text shortened]... pidemiologist’s would say and that’s what I mean by ‘rational debate’ rather than a politicised one.

"herd immunity"
there is no herd immunity to covid, stop saying that.

@no1marauder said
What kind of game are you playing? Merely stomping your feet and claiming something repeatedly isn't "debate". Nor is insisting someone else refute a point that you failed to establish any basis for. It should be and is fairly obvious that mere possible "ostracism" (and what the article in the OP mostly describes is people who are abiding by the reasonable mandatory publi ...[text shortened]... e.

So please now answer my original question with something besides your vacuous "why isn't it".

“ What kind of game are you playing? Merely stomping your feet and claiming something repeatedly isn't "debate". Nor is insisting someone else refute a point that you failed to establish any basis for. ”
Well I suggest you stop doing it then.
Where have I stomped my feet? I’m not even mildly emotional on the subject. It’s just common sense that ultimately in a liberal democracy you don’t put vulnerable people under effective house arrest for not wearing a mask.
What’s your game? Could it be trying to paint anyone who doesn’t agree with your dogmatic partisan stance on mask wearing as being emotionally unstable?
I wear a mask, I think anyone who can wear a mask should be spot fined and refused service for not doing so.
I don’t think the medically vulnerable who cannot wear a mask because a diagnosed condition should be shut up in their houses and neither do I believe that this small minority will present a big enough public health risk to justify the draconian infringement on their liberty that your advocating.
BTW you do not get to decide what constitutes a debate.
I state my opinion and you state yours, that’s a debate and I’ve given more than enough reasons to justify my stance you just choose to ignore them.
You keep ignoring the fact that I’m talking about people who cannot wear a mask for medical reasons and not people who are choosing to flout any laws regarding the wearing of them for philosophical or partisan reasons.
You are calling for the ostracism of vulnerable people by making them stay in their homes and thus literally ostracised from society. I would have thought that the onus is on the proponents of such an imposition to prove that this minority pose a significant threat to public health.

@zahlanzi said
"herd immunity"
there is no herd immunity to covid, stop saying that.

Read it again carefully. I never stated that there was herd immunity, I was highlighting the epidemiological fact that mask wearing, like herd immunity and vaccination does not require 100% compliance in order for it break the chain of infection.

@zahlanzi said
You can't compromise like that😀

If someone says "I want to burn down your house" and you say "Nah, i don't want you to do that" the compromise isn't "i will just set it on fire a little bit not a lot"

"I wear a mask and have done for a while but It’s like herd immunity, you don’t need or realistically expect 100% immunity it’s a numbers game."
Herd immunity means jus ...[text shortened]... ing it and spreading it around when you aren't wearing a mask (when you go visit your grandparents).

“ @zahlanzi said
You can't compromise like that😀”
Maybe you can’t but I certainly can.

“ If someone says "I want to burn down your house" and you say "Nah, i don't want you to do that" the compromise isn't "i will just set it on fire a little bit not a lot"
Could that analogy be any less relevant.

“ Herd immunity means just that: someone passes the disease to someone immune and it stops there. There is no immunity to covid. We have no proof someone can't get infected a second time. One person without a mask can infect an entire supermarket and then each of those people go home and infect vulnerable people who are staying home because yes, 100% mask usage is not going to happen. ”
Yes I know what herd immunity is, it means if enough members of the herd have immunity it effectively protects the whole herd but 100% of the herd are not required to have immunity, that’s the point of herd immunity.

“ We lower risks as much as we can to lower the danger of contracting the disease”
Yes agreed but then we’d be much safer if we developed a fool proof test and then just shoot and burn the bodies of the infected, how far are you prepared to go to create a risk free world.
Again like No1 you seem to be under the illusion that I’m talking about people who choose to not wear a mask rather than people who cannot to wear a mask.
Your proposing to effectively lock up medically vulnerable people because they cannot wear a mask. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

@kevcvs57 said
“ @zahlanzi said
You can't compromise like that😀”
Maybe you can’t but I certainly can.

“ If someone says "I want to burn down your house" and you say "Nah, i don't want you to do that" the compromise isn't "i will just set it on fire a little bit not a lot"
Could that analogy be any less relevant.

“ Herd immunity means just that: someone passes the disease ...[text shortened]... p medically vulnerable people because they cannot wear a mask. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

"Yes I know what herd immunity is, it means if enough members of the herd have immunity it effectively protects the whole herd but 100% of the herd are not required to have immunity, that’s the point of herd immunity."
And it doesn't apply to covid.


"“ If someone says "I want to burn down your house" and you say "Nah, i don't want you to do that" the compromise isn't "i will just set it on fire a little bit not a lot"
Could that analogy be any less relevant.
"
It illustrates the point that a valid compromise between two people is not always the middle.


"Yes agreed but then we’d be much safer if we developed a fool proof test and then just shoot and burn the bodies of the infected, how far are you prepared to go to create a risk free world."
Asking someone to stay home to not endanger people is a bit off from shooting the infected, wouldn't you say?

"Again like No1 you seem to be under the illusion that I’m talking about people who choose to not wear a mask rather than people who cannot to wear a mask."
Nope. I understood you fine. You don't understand that sometimes one must sacrifice one's liberties to protect others including for something that's not their fault. Like i said to someone else in this thread, having homicidal urges is a mental disease, 100% not that someone's fault and we absolutely are entitled to deprive that person of their freedom to keep everyone safe. We aren't shooting the mentally ill, we are however committing them. There can be a middle ground before shooting someone and letting them endanger whoever they want, wouldn't you say?

"Your proposing to effectively lock up medically vulnerable people because they cannot wear a mask."
Nope, they can still go out. Have a walk. Meet with a friend who trusts them not to infect them somewhere to pickup the groceries that friend bought for them.
That friend makes a choice to meet up with them without a mask. The people who shop at that supermarket didn't make that choice. They aren't to blame or be put at risk.

@kevcvs57 said
“ What kind of game are you playing? Merely stomping your feet and claiming something repeatedly isn't "debate". Nor is insisting someone else refute a point that you failed to establish any basis for. ”
Well I suggest you stop doing it then.
Where have I stomped my feet? I’m not even mildly emotional on the subject. It’s just common sense that ultimately in a liberal demo ...[text shortened]... onents of such an imposition to prove that this minority pose a significant threat to public health.

"Could it be trying to paint anyone who doesn’t agree with your dogmatic partisan stance on mask wearing"
It's a "dogmatic partisan stance" a recommendation from most medical experts? Or are you calling it dogmatic partisan stance because it doesn't coincide with your feelings? You did say "i feel like most wearing masks is good enough" citing no actual medical arguments.