Popular National Acquisition - Covid

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I am fine personally with most smoking bans. If you need to smoke, don't do it around other people.

I get it, its nasty, but it should be up to the owners to decide. What's next, not serving regular soda due to diabetes? They tried!

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

I get it, its nasty, but it should be up to the owners to decide. What's next, not serving regular soda due to diabetes? They tried!

This is such a great counterargument. If public health is so important, why aren't all unhealthy things outlawed?

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

This is such a great counterargument. If public health is so important, why aren't all unhealthy things outlawed?

No money in the cure!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

I get it, its nasty, but it should be up to the owners to decide. What's next, not serving regular soda due to diabetes? They tried!

Slippery slope argument. I don't buy it. The reason for smoking bans is to protect others, not to save people from themselves.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

That's not on the employer when the federal government implements penalties for companies who don't comply with their restrictions, forcing companies to comply.

If you're not going to have a legitimate discussion, why comment?

Even in such a situation, employees have the choice to go get another job.

Just as you call Fauci an "expert" (rather than an expert) because you don't like what you hear from him, contributions to the discussion which are not to your liking are "illegitimate"?

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Convenient that every celebrity/figurehead hasn't died from COVID despite being in the at risk population and ignoring their own words a majority of the time.

I am not really sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying no celebrities have died of Covid?

If you are saying that, are you saying that there is some type conspiracy theory sparing celebrities?

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Slippery slope argument. I don't buy it. The reason for smoking bans is to protect others, not to save people from themselves.

I think you've highlighted the basis of anger for the anti-mask/mandate argument. Pretty slippery slope, and hypocritical, no?

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Even in such a situation, employees have the choice to go get another job.

Just as you call Fauci an "expert" (rather than an expert) because you don't like what you hear from him, contributions to the discussion which are not to your liking are "illegitimate"?

So you're in favor of the upheaval of the lives of individuals based on how government sees for?

I call Fauci an "expert" because he botched AIDS, is connected to the Wuhan Lab, and has flip flopped more than a pancake, all the whole collecting the largest taxpayer funded paycheck in our government.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

I am not really sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying no celebrities have died of Covid?

If you are saying that, are you saying that there is some type conspiracy theory sparing celebrities?

Name one celebrity that died legitimately from COVID (not an underlying health condition).

How are celebrities/figureheads surviving such a deadly virus, all the while continuing to make movies, party, make music, etc.? I'm not saying they're necessarily "spared" but rather the fallacy of COVID being so deadly, warranting such a drastic response.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think you could at least make an argument masks protect others from contagious people, not just protect the wearer.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think you could at least make an argument masks protect others from contagious people, not just protect the wearer.

I think N95 masks have this effect, and if a contagious person wants to wear one, they can. Why not mandate that contagious person stay home, basically on house arrest?

It should be noted that the majority of pro mask people don't argue specifically on N95 masks.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Name one celebrity that died legitimately from COVID (not an underlying health condition).

How are celebrities/figureheads surviving such a deadly virus, all the while continuing to make movies, party, make music, etc.? I'm not saying they're necessarily "spared" but rather the fallacy of COVID being so deadly, warranting such a drastic response.

Here are some celebrities that died of Covid:https://people.com/health/celebrity-coronavirus-deaths/

I guess you probably believe that the million plus people who are reported to have died from covid in the U.S. did not actually die of covid?

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

So you're in favor of the upheaval of the lives of individuals based on how government sees for?

I assume you meant "sees fit"... the "upheaval" in that case would be entirely the decision of the employee. They have the freedom to escape such "tyranny" by going to work wherever they want, including private businesses owned and operated by people who won't require masks or vaccinations.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

I assume you meant "sees fit"... the "upheaval" in that case would be entirely the decision of the employee. They have the freedom to escape such "tyranny" by going to work wherever they want, including private businesses owned and operated by people who won't require masks or vaccinations.

Right, cause it's that easy.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Right, cause it's that easy.

Isn't it? We've been hearing for years now how "nobody wants to work" anymore...

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

I think N95 masks have this effect, and if a contagious person wants to wear one, they can. Why not mandate that contagious person stay home, basically on house arrest?

It should be noted that the majority of pro mask people don't argue specifically on N95 masks.

I agree most of the discussion of masks at all levels has been undifferentiated and has failed to distinguish between masks that are little more than virtue signaling and masks that likely have a protective effect.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Here are some celebrities that died of Covid:https://people.com/health/celebrity-coronavirus-deaths/

I guess you probably believe that the million plus people who are reported to have died from covid in the U.S. did not actually die of covid?

I've never fully understood people who make this differentiation. If you have lung disease and C19 pushes it into a fatal place, why is that somehow less meaningful than dying of "only" C19? The not so subtle message seems to be we should care less about people who have allowed themselves to have chronic health conditions.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I've never fully understood people who make this differentiation. If you have lung disease and C19 pushes it into a fatal place, why is that somehow less meaningful than dying of "only" C19? The not so subtle message seems to be we should care less about people who have allowed themselves to have chronic health conditions.

And If these conditions are due to bad life choices, I should bear the brunt to protect them NOW? Christ they could have died that week due to old age, how can it be quantified?





Odd trump and Biden both best covid in a weekend. They must have the really good medication, or maybe some extra vaccines. I seriously wonder how good the flu shot is/was. I never heard it reduced the symptoms of the flu, again I only took it once or twice in my life as I am ot high risk. Nobody wants to get sick, but we do, and sometimes we die from it, or something else.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Should I have the right to smoke in a restaurant?

To be consistent, you should be asking if people should have the right to smoke at home, or in the privacy of their own car.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Who bears the additional healthcare costs from the incremental accident injuries due to not wearing them?

Again, to be consistent, who bears the additional healthcare costs from smoking related diseases, due to individuals privately smoking?

It sounds like you support seat belt and motorcycle helmet laws, which protect the individual but impact nobody else. Would you also then support a ban on people smoking while in private, by the same logic? Or, how do you reconcile the difference?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

To be consistent, you should be asking if people should have the right to smoke at home, or in the privacy of their own car.



Again, to be consistent, who bears the additional healthcare costs from smoking related diseases, due to individuals privately smoking?

It sounds like you support seat belt and motorcycle helmet laws, which protect the individual but impact nobody else. Would you also then support a ban on people smoking while in private, by the same logic? Or, how do you reconcile the difference?

No question the economic costs of people smoking privately are huge. I don't know how to address that consistent with my views of individual rights, it is a dilemma for sure. Same could be said, as was pointed out, for people essentially eating their way to diabetes and other diseases. Or drinking too much.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I've never fully understood people who make this differentiation. If you have lung disease and C19 pushes it into a fatal place, why is that somehow less meaningful than dying of "only" C19? The not so subtle message seems to be we should care less about people who have allowed themselves to have chronic health conditions.

It's not about caring less. It's about not casting a broad net of measures, affecting the lives of the majority, to protect the minority who could easily protect themselves through the same measures.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I agree most of the discussion of masks at all levels has been undifferentiated and has failed to distinguish between masks that are little more than virtue signaling and masks that likely have a protective effect.

So the masks become a symbol, not a piece of PPE. My point exactly.

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Here are some celebrities that died of Covid:https://people.com/health/celebrity-coronavirus-deaths/

I guess you probably believe that the million plus people who are reported to have died from covid in the U.S. did not actually die of covid?

Those are celebrities?

The majority of deaths were found to have multiple underlying health issues before COVID, no? I'm not saying they didn't die of COVID, but the common cold is a threat to these people as well. The Rep from Texas in the list you sent had lung cancer previously; did we shut society down to help prevent him from catching pneumonia or any other respiratory virus?

Could mistreatment (ventilators) once these people caught COVID have been a factor in the deaths? How about how NY handled the nursing homes?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Many people have downplayed the virus and one of the things we always hear is that deaths are exaggerated due to preexisting conditions. And in many cases it hasn't been a big jump from that to blaming the victims.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

No question the economic costs of people smoking privately are huge. I don't know how to address that consistent with my views of individual rights, it is a dilemma for sure. Same could be said, as was pointed out, for people essentially eating their way to diabetes and other diseases. Or drinking too much.

Right. If you want to be consistent, having come out in favor of mandatory seat belts and helmets for motorcyclists, you end up going further down the nanny state road.

To address your previous comment:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think it illustrates what I was saying, that some people's takes seem to be driven by agenda instead of or in addition to data. It's pretty clear there is a strong correlation in general between people's views on vaccines, masks, etc. and their political leanings. In both directions, that's not aimed at anyone in particular. In other words, before any of this started, you could have predicted where most people would be.

It isn't a matter of: My daddy was a member of a certain political party, and his daddy, and so am I, and the agenda of my party is to (support/oppose something) so that's the side I'm on.

What it is, is this, pure and simple. Some people value and respect their individual freedoms and liberties more than others, while some people feel more secure being regulated, believing the regulators are doing so "for their own good."

Some regulation is clearly necessary, but on that scale, people who are mostly on the freedom side will more consistently oppose big government, while people on the regulate side will be more likely to support big government and the nanny state. The tedious gun thread is Exhibit A.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Many people have downplayed the virus and one of the things we always hear is that deaths are exaggerated due to preexisting conditions. And in many cases it hasn't been a big jump from that to blaming the victims.

What about accountability for controllable actions that led to pre-existing health conditions. Is that acceptable?

Or is accountability no longer a thing in society, like Big Pharma not being responsible for any negative side effects of their "vaccines"?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

What about accountability for controllable actions that led to pre-existing health conditions. Is that acceptable?

Or is accountability no longer a thing in society, like Big Pharma not being responsible for any negative side effects of their drugs?

I don't know. For each individual, do you take a case history to decide what is their "fault"? Who makes the judgment after you take the case history? And suppose you decide it is the person's own "fault," then what? Say sorry we aren't paying for anything, tough luck? Do we take care only of the virtuous?

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Mark17

What it is, is this, pure and simple. Some people value and respect their individual freedoms and liberties more than others, while some people feel more secure being regulated, believing the regulators are doing so "for their own good."

Reminds me of something I read once:

Originally Posted by Mark17

Yes it's annoying, but we need to protect ourselves and our kids, even when inconvenient.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't know. For each individual, do you take a case history to decide what is their "fault"? Who makes the judgment after you take the case history? And suppose you decide it is the person's own "fault," then what? Say sorry we aren't paying for anything, tough luck? Do we take care only of the virtuous?

Choosing to eat like crap, not exercise, smoke, etc. - those are easily identified as controllable actions.

Letting people die and not implementing life-altering mandates are two entirely separate issues.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Choosing to eat like crap, not exercise, smoke, etc. - those are easily identified as controllable actions.

Letting people die and not implementing life-altering mandates are two entirely separate issues.

You are young and idealistic, I think. For many people, unhealthy habits are a way to cope with significant and even severe life stress. It's easy to be judgmental, but better to be compassionate.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You are young and idealistic, I think. For many people, unhealthy habits are a way to cope with significant and even severe life stress. It's easy to be judgmental, but better to be compassionate.

So closing parks, gyms, social gatherings, etc., and creating economic issues is a solution?

Also, who are you to say I'm not compassionate, or others that share a similar point of view as me?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Reminds me of something I read once:

The strawman, that people who value personal freedom want ZERO laws and regulations, is really old. You're smarter than to say or imply that.

Had you continued to read the rest of my post you quoted from, you would've also seen this:

Originally Posted by Mark17

Some regulation is clearly necessary, but on that scale, people who are mostly on the freedom side will more consistently oppose big government, while people on the regulate side will be more likely to support big government and the nanny state. The tedious gun thread is Exhibit A.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

So closing parks, gyms, social gatherings, etc., and creating economic issues is a solution?

Also, who are you to say I'm not compassionate?

Suggesting accountability for problems resulting from poor lifestyle choices does not strike me as very compassionate. "Eating like crap" sounds very judgmental.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Suggesting accountability for problems resulting from poor lifestyle choices does not strike me as very compassionate. "Eating like crap" sounds very judgmental.

"Eating like crap" refers to the known health risks associated with certain foods.

Accountability for problems resulting from poor lifestyle choices is simply accepting facts.

Suggesting better lifestyle choices because I want to see people thrive would be pretty caring/compassionate, no?

Not wanting to see the lives of hundreds of millions effected by mandates is pretty caring/compassionate, no?

Caring about the development of our youth is pretty compassionate, no?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Suggesting accountability for problems resulting from poor lifestyle choices does not strike me as very compassionate. "Eating like crap" sounds very judgmental.

If a person is in a car accident and is killed from being expelled from the car because she wasn't wearing a seatbelt, is it "judgmental" and "not compassionate" to point that out?

It seems to me, pointing out such fatalities is exactly what you and others do, to base your support for mandatory seatbelt laws.

Is that person accountable for their own decision? If not, who?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

"Eating like crap" refers to the known health risks associated with certain foods.

Accountability for problems resulting from poor lifestyle choices is simply accepting facts.

Suggesting better lifestyle choices because I want to see people thrive would be pretty caring/compassionate, no?

Not wanting to see the lives of hundreds of millions effected by mandates is pretty caring/compassionate, no?

Caring about the development of our youth is pretty compassionate, no?

No you're not simply accepting facts, you are passing judgment.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Mark17

The strawman, that people who value personal freedom want ZERO laws and regulations, is really old. You're smarter than to say or imply that.

Had you continued to read the rest of my post you quoted from, you would've also seen this:

I read the whole post. What you said about installing metal detectors and armed guards in every school sounds to me like a logical argument in favor of getting vaccinated and wearing a facemask. Why is it that those who "value and respect their individual freedoms and liberties more than others" are willing to tolerate infringements in some cases but not others? Those school safety measures are no more guaranteed to save lives than wearing a mask. Why is one an acceptable "inconvenience" and not the other?

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

No you're not simply accepting facts, you are passing judgment.

So someone can do whatever they want, and you'll bend over backwards to bail them out?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

So someone can do whatever they want, and you'll bend over backwards to bail them out?

Straw man argument, I never said that, but taking it on its terms better that than imposing your definition of virtue as a requirement to be helped.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

I read the whole post. What you said about installing metal detectors and armed guards in every school sounds to me like a logical argument in favor of getting vaccinated and wearing a facemask. Why is it that those who "value and respect their individual freedoms and liberties more than others" are willing to tolerate infringements in some cases but not others? Those school safety measures are no more guaranteed to save lives than wearing a mask. Why is one an acceptable "inconvenience" and not the other?

Because it isn't a simpleton question of zero laws, zero regulation, or North Korea-style total enslavement.

It is a spectrum. Almost nobody is at either extreme. You can understand that, can't you?

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Better that than imposing your definition of virtue as a requirement to be helped.

Imposing my definition of virtue?

You mean suggesting healthier lifestyles and help people become the best version of themselves is frowned upon?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Imposing my definition of virtue?

You mean suggesting healthier lifestyles and help people become the best version of themselves is frowned upon?

Helping them by cutting them off if they don't comply? Anyhow sounds pretty paternalistic from someone who was just discoursing on individual freedom.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Because it isn't a simpleton question of zero laws, zero regulation, or North Korea-style total enslavement.

It is a spectrum. Almost nobody is at either extreme. You can understand that, can't you?

I'd like to hear more about the "spectrum" idea. I'm not sure what North Korea style enslavement has to do with the discussion, though. I know of no Americans who want to turn the country into North Korea.

Edit: OK, I think I understand what you mean now. I'd be interested to hear your ideas about say, a few example viewpoints on specific issues from across the spectrum that you are proposing. (Those that you believe do exist among those who are not at the "extremes")

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Helping them by cutting them off if they don't comply?

When did I EVER suggest cutting them off if they don't comply?

Which is ironic by the way, cause that's EXACTLY what the pro-mask/COVID fear crowd does to the unvaxxed/unmasked crowd.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

When did I EVER suggest cutting them off if they don't comply?

Which is ironic by the way, cause that's EXACTLY what the pro-mask/COVID fear crowd does to the unvaxxed/unmasked crowd.

So when you say people who make bad lifestyle choices should be accountable, and you surely said that, what do you mean?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

I'd like to hear more about the "spectrum" idea. I'm not sure what North Korea style enslavement has to do with the discussion, though. I know of no Americans who want to turn the country into North Korea.

And I know of no Americans who oppose all laws and regulations.

I will try to explain the "spectrum" concept, which is basic, if you will try to comprehend.

One extreme position would be to oppose all laws and regulations of all kinds, in the name of absolute personal freedom. No Americans I've ever heard of (besides Manson, maybe) favor this.

The opposite extreme position would be for government to completely own us, like North Korea, where we would have no real personal freedom.

With me so far?

Okay, with those as the endpoints, all of us are in between. That is the "spectrum" we are on. Some of us are closer to one end or the other.

So, a person who favors seat belt and helmet requirements, and vaccination requirements, and facemask requirements, is also more likely to favor increased gun control laws. That doesn't mean they necessarily favor ALL laws, regulations, mandates, but their thinking generally leads them to support such measures.

A person who pushes back on government mandates, whether it be seatbelt or helmet laws, vaccinations, masks, unreasonable or nonsensical gun laws, or things that infringe on individual rights guaranteed under the Constitution, will tend to be on that side of issues.

Tend to be, but not always. For example, I think school infrastructure could include metal detectors to filter out weapons, like knives and guns. I would oppose strip-searching every student on a daily basis. This isn't being inconsistent because it isn't an all-or-nothing scenario. It's my personal opinion that some measures are reasonable while others cross the line. Others will of course disagree, as their view may come from being elsewhere on that "spectrum."

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So when you say people who make bad lifestyle choices should be accountable, and you surely said that, what do you mean?

Actions have consequences. My life, along with millions of other lives, shouldn't be negatively affected by that individual's choice(s) in life. They should still receive care, but society shouldn't shutdown.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Actions have consequences. My life, along with millions of other lives, shouldn't be negatively affected by that individual's choice(s) in life. They should still receive care, but society shouldn't shutdown.

That seems different from holding them "accountable" which you said repeatedly.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That seems different from holding them "accountable" which you said repeatedly.

I never said hold them accountable, insinuating let them die. I said having accountability, meaning not expecting others to bend over backwards or pay for one's decision(s).

That doesn't mean not care for them. It simply means not ruining lives of others in the process.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Mark17

And I know of no Americans who oppose all laws and regulations.

I will try to explain the "spectrum" concept, which is basic, if you will try to comprehend.

One extreme position would be to oppose all laws and regulations of all kinds, in the name of absolute personal freedom. No Americans I've ever heard of (besides Manson, maybe) favor this.

The opposite extreme position would be for government to completely own us, like North Korea, where we would have no real personal freedom.

With me so far?

Okay, with those as the endpoints, all of us are in between. That is the "spectrum" we are on. Some of us are closer to one end or the other.

So, a person who favors seat belt and helmet requirements, and vaccination requirements, and facemask requirements, is also more likely to favor increased gun control laws. That doesn't mean they necessarily favor ALL laws, regulations, mandates, but their thinking generally leads them to support such measures.

A person who pushes back on government mandates, whether it be seatbelt or helmet laws, vaccinations, masks, unreasonable or nonsensical gun laws, or things that infringe on individual rights guaranteed under the Constitution, will tend to be on that side of issues.

Tend to be, but not always. For example, I think school infrastructure could include metal detectors to filter out weapons, like knives and guns. I would oppose strip-searching every student on a daily basis. This isn't being inconsistent because it isn't an all-or-nothing scenario. It's my personal opinion that some measures are reasonable while others cross the line. Others will of course disagree, as their view may come from being elsewhere on that "spectrum."

No need for the patronizing tone, but I genuinely appreciate your reply. This stuff is very interesting to me.

The only part of this that still doesn't make sense to me is the "government to completely own us, like North Korea, where we would have no real personal freedom". I understand that you are proposing it as essentially a hypothetical, but, in your mind, what would that actually look like? Under your theory, one who self-selects as the former of the two examples is seemingly choosing to land in a place on the spectrum that is closer to that "North Korea" example, but I wonder if anyone would actually do that. Fleshing out the "North Korea" extreme would be one way of looking closer at that.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by bnorth

The main thing he is.

“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.” George Carlin sure got that correct.

He sure did. He was, dare I say, iconic.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

And If these conditions are due to bad life choices, I should bear the brunt to protect them NOW? Christ they could have died that week due to old age, how can it be quantified?

Ted, read up on "excess deaths". it may help clarify.

Your point is as meaningless as saying we can't count the victims of 9-11 because some of them could have died that day anyway.

Insurance companies charge higher rates (or deny coverage) for smokers, obesity, heart disease and other factors. I say anyone who refuses to get vaccinated or take recommended actions to protect others in society pays for their treatment. (Same goes for no helmet or seatbelt. BILLIONS of cost passed on to the rest of us yearly). Or should the 'accountability for their actions' not apply?

[jethrod3]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

It is not a casual link. https://www.verywellmind.com/cdc-sui...h-data-5209227

Although we don’t know exactly what has led to the overall reported declines and increases in suicide rates, experts believe the COVID-19 pandemic may have played a part.

“It’s been clear throughout the pandemic that the overall impact on the population’s mental health has been significant,” says Christine Moutier, MD, Chief Medical Officer at the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP).

I've talked to many people in the mental health and teaching professions. The developmental decline because of "expert" mandates is scary, and the increase in mental health issues is even worse.

How did Biden just get COVID multiple times in the span of a couple of weeks? Did he not wear a mask? Was he not vaxxed? Oh wait. Don't blame non-mask wearers for medical professionals committing suicide. That's despicable, and exactly why there is so much judgement on the pro-mask crowd. The shame they cast on people who won't comply is disgusting.

Decisions have consequences. The mental health and economic consequences are going to prove to be more detrimental to society than COVID itself. The main at-risk population for COVID deaths were also at risk with the common cold. "Experts" and politicians hid behind these people to enact overreaching government policies that saved very few, if any, lives. Businesses were shutdown, mental health crisis spiked, lives were completely altered. The anger lies with the "experts"/politicians.

Again, until someone can explain why healthier lifestyles/eating habits weren't/aren't promoted, any pro-mask/COVID fear mongering argument is worthless.

It's not a casual or causal link. And as for your defense, the actual link you posted was NOT to a peer-reviewed journal. Again, you cite no evidence of anything conclusive from a viable source that supports your claim about a link to masks.

And you also say you've spoken with mental health workers and teaching professionals. Well, I actually work with mental health workers and doctors who teach in a medical school so they are health professionals as well as educators. I have colleagues there that had committed suicide during the pandemic. I have colleagues there that got burned out after many of them dealt with tons of patients, several of whom recanted their stupidity about being anti-vax and anti-mask on their deathbeds. I will tell you that my burned-out colleagues NEVER cited mask-wearing or CO2 levels as the issue. My colleague that committed suicide did not do so over having to actually wear a mask. One last thing....I'm personally not offended by you calling a mask a "face diaper." Calling it that says more about you than about me, but hey, you seem to prefer to read into things and form your own opinions, so you keep being you. But they are masks, and they meant to keep from spreading germs, rather than doing what diapers are supposed to do. And if you are so concerned about CO2, then kindly allow your next surgical team to perform surgery on you with a mask. Some of my colleagues work long shifts in the ER, so maybe you should have a nice talk with them and allow them to eliminate an unproven or incredibly small risk of approaching "harmful" CO2 levels as they operate on you.