This mentality is just foreign to me. If you're that scared stay locked down, no one is forcing you to go out. There's a weird authoritarianism to wanting to control other people from going back to regular life.
The biggest battle is public schools, which are about as intrinsically authoritarian as can be. When schools reopen, then barring drastic measures (which by definition most people won't take), people are forced to send their kids back.
I think there is a subset of people who need to feel that something else is fully in control of their lives, be it government, health standards, or whatever. It’s almost like they want to give up independence and self-governing to something greater.
Is this not different than religion? There's certainly comfort in placing your life in someone else's hands. It takes that pressure away and you can just throw your hands in the air exclaiming you can't do a thing about it. I understand the allure... but what really bothers me is that those same people try to to the force their cultish/religious behaviors onto everyone else.
I believe that many people _do_ want to give up independence and self-governing because it also means eschewing responsibility and accountability. It's easier to always throw blame on something else and demand someone else to fix it, than to accept that we all have our own flaws and weaknesses and that we often have to work to get where we want to.
> Hetherington found that the very liberal participants in his survey tended to be the most neurotic.
I would expect that measurement to rise on both extremes. If you think that there is something very wrong with the status quo it is quite natural that you will be more stressed, have more anxiety, and tend to be more neurotic. Not that there aren't very stable, serene, salt of the earth types on all sides, just that the worriers will be more common the further their preferred reality diverges from the actual one.
I tend to agree with the down thread sentiment that to some greater or lesser degree both masking and non-masking are political sentiments as much as anything.
What I wonder about is how that came to be - and how that outcome can be avoided in the future.
I can see why this happens if there's a policy that helps some and hurts others to greater and lesser degrees; so people might support or oppose it.
Other policies have a snowball like quality about them - where once some amount of support or opposition arises they attract more of the same because of coalition logic. I support X and Z because I care about them. I support Y because the supporters and Y also care about X and Z.
The first case is reasonable enough but the second one is toxic; not just because people will go against their interests (not in the sense of things that are good for them but things that they do not support) but because no one will ever admit to others and generally not to themselves about just why they support a policy.
Something of a misframing here? The issue is not masking/non-masking but mandatory masking or not (I don't believe I've ever heard of advocates for banning masking by those so inclined). And I don't see how person A telling person B what they must wear can be anything but political, see North Korea's "permitted haircuts for men" for example.
Social identity is a big one, and insofar as social media dispenses with the subtle social cues that we rely on to communicate and emote, I think we're stuck with this if we're going to rely heavily on public communication devoid of facial expression.
Also it's somewhat obvious that a certain side of the political spectrum has an obsession with literal enumeration. I'd be interested to see if there's a conservative parallel to the growing list that so many feel obligated to put forth: pronouns, vaccination status, race, political identity, gender, sex, romance orientation, mask-affinity, mental health identity, astrological sign, etc.
As a qualifier, I say this as a gay guy who's often in queer social circles and it seems to me not only pathological but cognitively dissonant: in a sphere that claims that labels and normativity are bad, they then go on making an ever-growing list of definitions of existence. None of this is pleasurable - it's robotic and authoritative. There is an obsession with definition instead of just living their lives and embracing the ineffable and infinitely complex nature of life.
Wearing a mask is a common sense mitigation for respiratory diseases. The politicization occurred due to political hacks capitalizing on the burden of changing conditions/consensus to preach a message of conspiracy and irresponsibility.
Freedom relies on distributed intelligence and responsibility. Without that, we either get authoritarianism or a failed society. Politically, I want to live in a society without mask mandates because everybody wears one in their own self interest. Apparently we need a lot more critical thinking to be at that point, and so authoritarianism steps in.
Furthermore, a lot of the authoritarianism hasn't been actual mandates - for instance, there have been no "lockdowns" apart from CA early on. The same lack of critical thinking causes people to perceive government recommendations as mandatory, ultimately resolving the ambiguity in a productive manner.
Counter to a lot of the sentiment in this thread, I think it's pretty obvious that a different set of ethical beliefs would result in advocating for a totally different set of policies and that's how it should be. If even a single covid death is unacceptable to you (something I've heard expressed by a couple folks on the far left), then it's pretty obvious that advocating for continued caution is the right answer.
That said, obviously economic distress, depression and other factors are taking years off of people's lives too, any reasonable viewpoint must accept some level of tradeoff here.
One factoid that was shared with me at the beginning of this mess is:
Humans are REALLY bad at responding to highly unlikely events.
We see this in the pandemic: Someone MIGHT die -> respond out of fear
I will CERTAINLY not die -> push for "freedom"
We saw this with past calamities: twin towers -> hunt down the terrorists
Great Recession (and Great Depression). Even personal trauma has an impact (personal job loss or a friend with cancer).
I, personally, advocate for COMPASSION as I see people on both sides of the pandemic get buffeted back and forth by their emotions. Acknowledge that they are in a hard spot; they are gripped by fear, guilt, loneliness. People from every background are getting ripped up because of the uncertainty of how to respond to the pandemic.
So I ask all of HN: The next time you see someone with a "crazy" opinion of the pandemic, be patient and show them love. Their life is probably hard enough, and they might need a friend.
I have long suspected that masking is a political identity symbol, especially when it's seen so frequently in situations where it doesn't make sense: Driving alone in one's car, walking in an area where one wouldn't encounter others, while swimming [1], etc.
Sometimes it's just easier to keep the mask on when walking between places. Personally, I have longish hair so it's kind of a pain to don/doff if I'm out and about. So I'll wear it in the car sometimes.
Seems like a lot of folks assume intent in people's actions, maybe because it's easier to make fun of others or push a certain narrative. No, I don't think Covid is going to get me in my car or when I'm walking outside away from people—I'd just rather keep my mask on because it's annoying to fiddle with.
There are reasons why I would mask in a vehicle: expecting passengers, returning from shared spaces and want to prevent hand-face contact.
I've puzzled about outdoor use, but I'm not getting off my bike to ask anybody. Best guess is they're subject to early (mis-)information about virus spread or they're at risk and taking all precautions. They may have allergies and are just avoiding pollen. What should I do about it? I did some extra research and confirmed wearing a mask outdoors probably isn't beneficial to myself or others so I don't. There is no harm from them choosing to wear one.
It's a practical tool to prevent spread of a respiratory virus. Trying to ascribe political motivations to every non-sensical example of mask wearing probably says more about your concerns than whatever motivated them to wear a mask.
When I go for a walk outside I wear a mask, because I have seasonal allergies and tree pollen is high here in Massachusetts.
I've been vaccinated, (just got my second shot, so two weeks to go...), but I'll be wearing a mask indoors for probably the next year or so. Unless we start doing things like verifying vaccination or tests for entry to indoor public venues, it's the only thing that makes sense to keep my family safe.
I hate that wearing a mask became politicized. My own opinion is that the reason it did was that the government knowingly decided to lie about the efficacy of wearing a mask in the early days of the pandemic in the U.S. The reason for the lie was because there was insufficient supply of masks, and they didn't trust the public not to buy them off the shelves (which happened anyway), or panic (people got angry and polarized instead).
The CDC and the government agencies communicating policy were not in the business of getting the truth out so people could take sensible precautions. They focused on control and tactical preservation of opinion and the election couldn't have come at a worse time. That focus on control became obvious and they lost the public trust. Everything else spun out on social media with people taking sides instead of talking evidence.
Edit: between this and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27038206 and the rest of your recent account history, it's clear that you're using the site primarily for political/ideological battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of what politics/ideology you're battling for, because it destroys this place for its intended use. I've therefore banned the account.
Both recent administrations patted themselves on the back for the stimulus checks, which were smaller and arrived later than they should have. I don't think you have to worry about people depending on them long-term. And even if they did, so what?
And I dunno what your last sentence is supposed to be if not a vague gesture at some conspiracy theory. Yeah, another pandemic might happen in the future. Do you have actual evidence that shows the US government is purposefully facilitating that?
Duty is a bit strong. I think maximizing vaccination is the best course for our situation, but it is still an optional individual action that each person has to weigh and decide themselves. Unfortunately the table has been set, and it looks like enough people have been swayed not to attend.
If Covid were Polio then we would have 140% of people getting the vaccine. Some people would get 5 shots. But Covid isn't' Polio. It mostly effects older fat people. Yes anyone can die, but that's with any virus.
Equating polio and covid is ridiculous. Also its amazing you trust the efficacy and safety of vaccines made with such haste.
The number of armchair virulogists that spawned in the last year makes my head spin.
Folks who didn't know the difference between a virus and a bacteria are now pushing covid vaccine wokeness while a big bunch of them still think that hepatitis B is a bloody vitamin.
[+] [-] CountDrewku|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mindslight|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] underseacables|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CountDrewku|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] silicon2401|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hirundo|4 years ago|reply
I would expect that measurement to rise on both extremes. If you think that there is something very wrong with the status quo it is quite natural that you will be more stressed, have more anxiety, and tend to be more neurotic. Not that there aren't very stable, serene, salt of the earth types on all sides, just that the worriers will be more common the further their preferred reality diverges from the actual one.
[+] [-] snicker7|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CountDrewku|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hackeraccount|4 years ago|reply
What I wonder about is how that came to be - and how that outcome can be avoided in the future.
I can see why this happens if there's a policy that helps some and hurts others to greater and lesser degrees; so people might support or oppose it.
Other policies have a snowball like quality about them - where once some amount of support or opposition arises they attract more of the same because of coalition logic. I support X and Z because I care about them. I support Y because the supporters and Y also care about X and Z.
The first case is reasonable enough but the second one is toxic; not just because people will go against their interests (not in the sense of things that are good for them but things that they do not support) but because no one will ever admit to others and generally not to themselves about just why they support a policy.
[+] [-] jjgreen|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xxxxxxx12|4 years ago|reply
Social identity is a big one, and insofar as social media dispenses with the subtle social cues that we rely on to communicate and emote, I think we're stuck with this if we're going to rely heavily on public communication devoid of facial expression.
Also it's somewhat obvious that a certain side of the political spectrum has an obsession with literal enumeration. I'd be interested to see if there's a conservative parallel to the growing list that so many feel obligated to put forth: pronouns, vaccination status, race, political identity, gender, sex, romance orientation, mask-affinity, mental health identity, astrological sign, etc.
As a qualifier, I say this as a gay guy who's often in queer social circles and it seems to me not only pathological but cognitively dissonant: in a sphere that claims that labels and normativity are bad, they then go on making an ever-growing list of definitions of existence. None of this is pleasurable - it's robotic and authoritative. There is an obsession with definition instead of just living their lives and embracing the ineffable and infinitely complex nature of life.
[+] [-] mindslight|4 years ago|reply
Freedom relies on distributed intelligence and responsibility. Without that, we either get authoritarianism or a failed society. Politically, I want to live in a society without mask mandates because everybody wears one in their own self interest. Apparently we need a lot more critical thinking to be at that point, and so authoritarianism steps in.
Furthermore, a lot of the authoritarianism hasn't been actual mandates - for instance, there have been no "lockdowns" apart from CA early on. The same lack of critical thinking causes people to perceive government recommendations as mandatory, ultimately resolving the ambiguity in a productive manner.
[+] [-] electriccello|4 years ago|reply
That said, obviously economic distress, depression and other factors are taking years off of people's lives too, any reasonable viewpoint must accept some level of tradeoff here.
[+] [-] geoduck14|4 years ago|reply
Humans are REALLY bad at responding to highly unlikely events.
We see this in the pandemic: Someone MIGHT die -> respond out of fear
I will CERTAINLY not die -> push for "freedom"
We saw this with past calamities: twin towers -> hunt down the terrorists
Great Recession (and Great Depression). Even personal trauma has an impact (personal job loss or a friend with cancer).
I, personally, advocate for COMPASSION as I see people on both sides of the pandemic get buffeted back and forth by their emotions. Acknowledge that they are in a hard spot; they are gripped by fear, guilt, loneliness. People from every background are getting ripped up because of the uncertainty of how to respond to the pandemic.
So I ask all of HN: The next time you see someone with a "crazy" opinion of the pandemic, be patient and show them love. Their life is probably hard enough, and they might need a friend.
[+] [-] slumdev|4 years ago|reply
1. https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1382601023441793026
[+] [-] lashloch|4 years ago|reply
Seems like a lot of folks assume intent in people's actions, maybe because it's easier to make fun of others or push a certain narrative. No, I don't think Covid is going to get me in my car or when I'm walking outside away from people—I'd just rather keep my mask on because it's annoying to fiddle with.
[+] [-] epakai|4 years ago|reply
I've puzzled about outdoor use, but I'm not getting off my bike to ask anybody. Best guess is they're subject to early (mis-)information about virus spread or they're at risk and taking all precautions. They may have allergies and are just avoiding pollen. What should I do about it? I did some extra research and confirmed wearing a mask outdoors probably isn't beneficial to myself or others so I don't. There is no harm from them choosing to wear one.
It's a practical tool to prevent spread of a respiratory virus. Trying to ascribe political motivations to every non-sensical example of mask wearing probably says more about your concerns than whatever motivated them to wear a mask.
[+] [-] yellow01|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pogorniy|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slowmovintarget|4 years ago|reply
I've been vaccinated, (just got my second shot, so two weeks to go...), but I'll be wearing a mask indoors for probably the next year or so. Unless we start doing things like verifying vaccination or tests for entry to indoor public venues, it's the only thing that makes sense to keep my family safe.
I hate that wearing a mask became politicized. My own opinion is that the reason it did was that the government knowingly decided to lie about the efficacy of wearing a mask in the early days of the pandemic in the U.S. The reason for the lie was because there was insufficient supply of masks, and they didn't trust the public not to buy them off the shelves (which happened anyway), or panic (people got angry and polarized instead).
The CDC and the government agencies communicating policy were not in the business of getting the truth out so people could take sensible precautions. They focused on control and tactical preservation of opinion and the election couldn't have come at a worse time. That focus on control became obvious and they lost the public trust. Everything else spun out on social media with people taking sides instead of talking evidence.
It was truly depressing to watch.
[+] [-] himinlomax|4 years ago|reply
What do you mean, people fancy looking like a surgeon?
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] metalliqaz|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] throwawaymanbot|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] virmundi|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] whydoibother|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] virmundi|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] virmundi|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dang|4 years ago|reply
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27038051.
Edit: between this and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27038206 and the rest of your recent account history, it's clear that you're using the site primarily for political/ideological battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of what politics/ideology you're battling for, because it destroys this place for its intended use. I've therefore banned the account.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
[+] [-] lashloch|4 years ago|reply
And I dunno what your last sentence is supposed to be if not a vague gesture at some conspiracy theory. Yeah, another pandemic might happen in the future. Do you have actual evidence that shows the US government is purposefully facilitating that?
[+] [-] virmundi|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dang|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] twmiller|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mikewarot|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] epakai|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dham|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ceod|4 years ago|reply
The number of armchair virulogists that spawned in the last year makes my head spin. Folks who didn't know the difference between a virus and a bacteria are now pushing covid vaccine wokeness while a big bunch of them still think that hepatitis B is a bloody vitamin.
Good luck mate.