Masks do work. Sure, they're hot and inconvenient and uncomfortable, but they do work. They are a damn sight better than nothing.

Fun fact: lip-reading is said to be between 30-40% accurate at the best of times.

Accman, your questions about gigging virtually are legitimate enough I suppose. But what about getting help from your wife to set up video? Or asking other blind people here if they have any experience with this sort of setup? Ditto things like Paypal and whatnot. You haven't even tried, to my knowledge, investigating any of this. While I understand that it's frustrating as hell not to have business as usual, you aren't alone in this, and just because you're frustrated doesn't give you or anyone the right to toss everyone under the bus. I don't 'know what sort of home setup you have, but if you're a gigging musician, you likely have the means to record, correct? Why not record at home and sell your music digitally? I mean, there may be valid reasons why some of this stuff won't work, but when you came back with reasons as to why you can't work virtually or whatever, most of them boiled down to "well I don't know but...". Sure, okay, that's understandable, but you've had months to find out. If you're really so frustrated by your lack of work, have you made the attempt? Have you been told and had it confirmed that nothing's going to work? Paypal and other money services are pretty common. Online streaming is very possible. I don't personally have all your answers, but they're out there.

Also, let's be clear. When I said that I understand your frustration, that doesn't mean I agree with the conclusions you're drawing. Sure, okay, it's annoying that you're out of work and that life has been disrupted. It feels like fear-mongering, all this mask and Covid stuff. But that doesn't change all the people who have sickened and died either as a direct result of this disease, or due to complications from the damage done. It doesn't change that masks are effective...not perfectly so, but definitely effective. And no, they are not just for the sick, either. Obviously you are not going to change your mind until someone close to you gets sick, but I just wanted to be clear that sympathy does not mean tacit agreement.

See, I'm not ignoring your source, Accman. Not entirely, at least. It's out there, so I did look at it. What I read made me start asking a lot of questions, since if the article could be taken on its own, at face value, then it makes a strong case for what you've been saying all along.
I noticed some troubling issues with the article; for instance, mention of confederate monuments and a tieback to more positive tests raising positive numbers. This article definitely has a right-wing slant on it. That doesn't by default make it a lie, and it doesn't mean it's worthless, but it doubled my desire to start looking into the matter more.
So off I went, and right away I found this article:
https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/09/who … -covid-19/
This particular piece put into greater context the entire issue, suggesting that truly asymptomatic spread is very rare, but pre-symptomatic spread might account for up to half of overall viral transmission. It did not completely invalidate your own news source, but it immediately raised a lot of questions about its validity. Interestingly, Statnews did not appear to cite politics in so doing; they did not criticize Trump, America or anything else, merely presented facts. Again, this doesn't make them right by default, but it suggests that they wanted to stick to the facts, instead of an interpretation thereof.
So I kept digging, and I found this news article:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/who-covi … -1.5604353
It seems to largely echo the first one I found, but is critical of the WHO for making inaccurate claims. I cite this article in particular because it feeds into your own narrative about inaccurate or untrustworthy information. It appears that Maria van Kerkhove tried and failed to explain this situation clearly, and faced almost immediate backlash, the brunt of which implies that data about this issue is simply not clear enough to be making such claims. In response, the WHO walked that claim back. I ought to mention here that this sort of thing does happen, and it alone is not an indicator that a source cannot be trusted, unless the behaviour becomes so common that it dominates the organization's narrative. That hasn't appeared to happen here. It's also important to note that given van Kerkhove's familiarity with the situation overall, her particular choice of words in relation to her expertise, she may have been misunderstood to some extent. That doesn't mean she's off the hook - she's not, and I do feel that health experts need to be very careful when the public is going to be this hyper-dependent upon them for guidance - but it does mean that even a small miscommunication can have large consequences. That appears to be the case here. Yet again, CBC cited facts, and did not make this a political issue. They did not overly criticize anyone who was not involved or who did not deserve it. They cited sources, their quotes were on point, and there is no good reason to doubt what they had to say.

Now, I could keep going, but at this point, I don't need to. Here are the conclusions i've drawn:

1. Over a month ago, when talk of reopening while wearing masks was not quite as charged as it seems to be now, the WHO, in the personage of Maria van Kerkhove, miscommunicated details about asymptomatic spread.
2. This miscommunication - partially the fault of the WHO, partially the fault of those who leapt to conclusions - caused considerable backlash.
3. The WHO corrected these statements and attempted, with limited success, to clarify the intended message.
4. Because data is not clear - again, multiple sources agree that this is the problem in the first place - taking precautions makes sense. Even if that assertion eventually proves correct in precisely the way your original news source implies. Right now, that certainty is beyond us. If and when we reach a point where we know that your likelihood of hurting someone is infinitessimally small unless you're showing a lot of symptoms, we will know that masks may have been an overreaction. At this stage, however, we simply don't have the data to assume that, so it is better to be safe than sorry.
5. Most damning of all: you and others read the first news source, the one you cited, and immediately jumped on board with it. For you, it represents the gospel truth, because it immediately aligns with your own personal beliefs. It doesn't help that it also furnishes some other nuggets of context which politicize the issue. Put bluntly, Accman, it told you what you wanted to hear with a slant that you trust, so you swallowed it whole. I, on the other hand, took the claim seriously, but not the entire article, and went digging. What you see above took me less than ninety seconds to find, read and process. I didn't even have to target especially left-leaning sources to get the info I suspected I would find. I went into your article expecting some truth and some misinterpretation, and that's precisely what I got. You went in, saw what you wanted to see, and decided the conversation was over. That, right there, is the difference between you and me, and it's why I've been so hell-bent on arguing with you.

I swear to god, people need to be taught how to process media sources. It is far, far too easy to read something which aligns with your own viewpoint and gulp it down without tasting it first. That's a great way to get poisoned with fake news, kids. And yes, I do mean everybody here. Believe me, I know of some very left-leaning sources that are all too eager to crucify people on scant grounds, and I tend to stay far, far away from them. I take my news from sources that stick to the facts as much as possible. If I come to you saying that Donald Trump did a specific thing, it is me, and not my news sources, that put a spin on it. I can think for myself. If I come to you and say that we don't have enough data to be certain of everyone's safety, that's because I've read it from dozens of news sources that I trust. If there ever is data which invalidates that interpretation, I'll incorporate it into my understanding of this pandemic. Flip it around, though, and this is where the problem lies. I doubt like hell that anything I tell you will actually influence your mindset. Thus, to my way of seeing it, this isn't even really an argument, because you're convinced that you're correct, and you expect one politically charged news source to validate your entire worldview on this subject.

You go do whatever you're gonna do, but I'm not going to forget the facts. As righteously frustrated as you are to be out of work and to have lost your livelihood, two very realistic concerns, the rest of your stance is unadulterated lunacy. It's really this simple. You don't want to wear a mask, so any source which comforts you by feeding into the delusion that you can't hurt people will help you sleep better. Just remember that the data you're relying on was a month out of date, misrepresented, and presented by a right-aligned news source all too eager to cackle with glee at the WHO's proclamation because it conveniently absolves them - and you, of course - of responsibility.
You're still tacitly okay with people dying, as long as it isn't you.
You're still deciding that your comfort, and your ability to smell freely, matters more than someone else's life.
You still deserve plenty of sympathy, understanding and help with your personal situation (your lack of work and the like), but absolutely none of those things for your personal beliefs, which are ignorant, harmful and self-serving. I am so, so glad you aren't working a front-line job right now, and facing down an army of people just like you who refuse to wear masks to keep you safe. Because even if the average person goes out and sees only a few people, the average worker may see dozens, even hundreds, during a shift, depending on their job. Every person who refuses to help protect them is part of the problem.
Don't like it? Well if the mask fits, wear it.

I'd like to point out that I did try and verify the political source that Accman gave, but I think I used the wrong query -- I only got news sources I didn't trust, sadly.

Also, someone who's going through chemo or radiation is in no fit state to fight off that virus in any meaningful way. As stated, hospitals are not great places to be unless you absolutely must go there.

Accman, the only relevant piece of your latest post that I'm going to focus on - because the rest is a waste of my time and yours - is this.
You say that I should do what makes me safe, and you'll do what makes you safe.
That's not right. I'll do what makes me safe. You'll do what validates your political opinion and makes you feel good. We've already demonstrated over and over that masks are better than nothing, by a good margin, when it comes to the stop of transmission. This means that by refusing to wear them, you are increasing your own risk of being infected, and increasing the odds that you pass the infection to someone else, whether you realize you've done it or not. After all, your news source, which is dubious enough as it is, doesn't actually say that people without symptoms can't pass the virus. Learn the difference between asymptomatic and presymptomatic; there's a reason this whole field of study actually contains experts instead of armchair warriors.
In other words, cut the crap. You aren't increasing your safety at all. Your self-righteousness, maybe, or your peace of mind, sure, but not your safety. That ship sailed the moment you put your foot down about not wearing a mask.
As I said, if the mask fits, just fucking wear it already.

Game. Set. Match.

Ph, and Jade, you're no authority on my safety or that of anyone else either. so, no I will not "cut the crap". When I see that the number of COVID-19 deaths matches the number of unborn that we have murdered, over 70,000,000, since that became legal, then I'll start hearing you about doing any regulation you like. Until then, and there won't be a then with this virus I am sure, I will not have governments, or anyone else, telling me about what I need to do to be safe. I know how to keep myself safe, and how to keep others safe. As I said before, this is going to spread, but the death-rate will be no where near what people think. Will more get sick? I'm sure that will be the case, but that's how viruses work. Even with your mask and all of its vaunted protection, that virus is very small. It will get through the pores in the material of your mask. Unless that thing is air-tight, you're still going to get it, and there are doctors, real doctors, that would validate what I've said there. Let's go back to school, let's go back to work, and let's catch this thing and get it over with so we'll have an established immunity to it. Let's have science run its natural course and deal with it like we've always done with other viruses.

Jade, do you hear yourself? You're talking about 1918, and while that was terrible, I'm talking about 2020. I am well aware of what happened in 1918, more so than what they teach our kids about it in schools now since many textbooks don't really mention much about it which is why it is commonly known as the forgotten pandemic. Oh, and while I may hold a right-wing position, I don't value corporation. In fact, I value small businesses over most corporations. However, that's not what we're talking about just now.
I am not ignoring science either. I might be ignoring your version of it, but I am not ignoring science, and am, in fact, basing all decisions that I make on science.and, no one else puts there lives on hold for me, I don't want them to do so either as I have no right to expect that. Thus, I won't put my life on hold for the rest of society based on a small number of deaths in terms of its percentage. You say I don't argue the facts, and you hold to that like its a lifeline for you. Truth is that I do base my every decision on facts, and you know what, I and those around me are still alive. I am choosing to use my right of thinking for myself. I know how to stay safe, and I know how to keep other safe while I am at it. If someone gets this virus, there are literally hundreds of thousands of others who could have given it to that person.
I am, at this very moment, listening to an interview with a woman who is in a nursing home, is not sickly at all, and has not been permitted to go out since March. Nursing homes like this won't even let family visitors, masked though they would be, visit their loved ones. This lady wants to go visit her daughter, but is also told that she would have to stay there until this is all over, when ever that is. Afterwords, she could come back. Her husband also lives there, and this would mean she would be apart from him. They are, in essence, making her choose between her husband and her daughter over this virus that you, and so many others, are worried about. She is, like many others out there, a prisoner in all senses of the word. Physically, she is fine. However, she, like so many of the other residents in places like this, have no activities, no visitors except through a glass window, and no idea of when things are going to end because the owners follow the rules of the state governments. This is why I am telling you, in truth, that this thing is going to result in deaths that will be way more tragic than the COVID-19 deaths. That is the reality of it. So, in the name of a virus that doesn't pose a major threat scientifically speaking, you're welcoming in a prison state with no idea of when it might end. So, yes I do know what I am talking about. You don't agree with it, and I get that.

@Jayde, A little off-topic, but that CBC link you provided reminded me of when I was a young boy watching Canadian cartoons like Bo on the Go, Arthur, and I think it was called DoodleBops. Gosh the animation styles were difinately something different.

Back on point. So I listened to Accman's link, and I've never heard anything more politically motivated ever. Its like the guy took every single consperacy theory and clumped it all into 1 giant ideal. And anyone who tells you that consuming silver is dumb.
Cherry picking now, and Accman, the guy did say that he believes that the WHO are lying, and he actually believes that A-Semptimatic people can spread it, so you're disproved by your own source.

Eitherways, have a good night folks.

Guys, I have a solution to this.

Ignore Accman, totally and completely. Don't offer help or advice. Don't offer further criticism. Don't offer support if things go badly. He's made his bed, so let's let him lie in it now.

He's convinced himself that since masks aren't perfect, they aren't worthwhile.
He's convinced himself that being made to do something is some sort of mortal sin even though he presumably is fine with most laws against things like killing and stealing, since those laws help people.
He's convinced himself that there is science to suggest that not wearing a mask is mathematically comparable with wearing one.
He's convinced himself that we just need to let a disease that kills people run its course instead of taking steps to limit its spread. Aren't you glad he's not a virologist? I know I am.

At the end of the day, there is no arguing with this. People will do stupid things if they're bound and determined, and in essence, we've been doing little but reinforce. I'm sorry for that. I get wrapped up in trying to help people see that they're being foolish, and I sometimes fail to realize that I'm actually reinforcing their dangerous behaviour. So logic won't work. I'm done. Because when Accman's behaviour hurts somebody, I don't want to later be told that it was my insistence that made him stick to his guns. Accman, for your sake, I hope you see reason before you and yours get sick, or before you do direct and measurable harm to someone. I also hope you learn the meaning of common courtesy. I'm also glad you don't own one of those small businesses you claim to want to be in support of.

But yeah. My recommendation is simple. We know we're right. Let's stop arguing with the conspiracy theorist. Let's stop granting him indirect legitimacy by engaging with his ideas. It takes two or more people to argue, so let's end the argument on our own terms. Speaking personally, that's what I intend to do going forward.

you're right about this being a pointless project, but before I go, let me give you guys a basic American civics lesson that some people seem to forget.

You are given vast rights in America. However, your rights end where the rights of others stop. By using "free speech" or whatever to not wear a mask, you are potentially infringing on others' right to life in the danger that potentially causes. Unlike "Free Speech" which can be restored after emergency restrictions, right to life cannot be restored after someone has died.

When you talk of rights, keep that in mind.

Impressive Jade. Everything you said in that last post is completely wrong. I can't believe you actually used that conspiracy theorist cop-out again. That is a mighty convenient way to dodge the notion that you could be mistaken, and one that the left favors implicitly. As for my family and I getting sick, it's already happened this year. It might have been COVID-19, and it may not have been. It's hard to say because it shares so many symptoms with other common ailments, but the point is that we dealt with it, we stayed home until it was over, and we all recovered perfectly. By the way, you keep bringing up the pandemic of 1918 and how bad it was. You know as well as I do that sanitation back then was nothing like we have now, and I don't remember hearing about the great shut-down of 1918. The same goes with the flu pandemic of 1968. Where was the great shut-down of 1968? Oh that's right, it never happened even though a million people or more died from the flu. I could be wrong, but I think that a million died in the U.S. alone. I am not sure how it affected other nations. Either way, there was no shut-down of all businesses either. We have more cases each new day, but the rate of deaths per day is dropping steadily, and that's good news because we're starting to develop immunity to this. Am I saying that we're out of the woods yet? Hell no, that's not what I am saying at all. However, when you have the CDC even saying that this virus is getting to the point where it will loose it epidemic status here in the United States I think it can be said that we're getting somewhere. I also don't appreciate very much your assertions that it would, or could, be my fault when someone who comes in contact with me gets this virus. How do you know that's how they'd get it? What makes you think they didn't have it already? Statements like that are built on fear and speculation, nothing more. In short, there is nothing to be gained by continuing this. At least I can rest in the knowledge that I never actually tried to force you to do what you didn't think was best for yourself. I've repeatedly stated that if you want to follow the regulations in the name of personally feeling safe that you ought to do it if that works for you. You, on the other hand, have gone out of the way to accuse me of being selfish when I haven't even forced anything upon you. All I have tried to do is inform, but it was seen as selfishness. Again, as I said before, I'd look in that proverbial mirror a bit more closely and see who is actually being selfish here.
This argument is done, I have no problem agreeing with that. However, if it is done, then do as I would like to do and stop trying to force me to follow a regulation I don't feel is necessary by guilt-tripping me, or implying that I am selfish. If I see more of that, I am not going to be silent about it. Just do what you're going to do, and leave it at that. One size does not fit all. That's true with education, and it is especially true with how we deal with this virus. Remember that.

Lest anyone wonder if I'm only interested in troubles abroad, I'm not.
The premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, is someone whose policies I have generally disagreed with. He's center-right on the left-right axis, and used to be referred to as Mini Trump. He was never quite so self-deluded as the American president, but he definitely had some of the same rhetoric. I'll give him some credit, however: since the pandemic started, he has been deferring to health officials, being transparent and being straightforward. A lot of the stuff that's had people mad at him - and for extremely good reason, I might add - has been put aside for the moment because we've all got bigger fish to fry. We're going to be feeling the impact of this pandemic for years...though personally, I'd rather see that impact than the hundreds of thousands of extra deaths that would have resulted from a lack of shutdowns, physical distancing, and the mandatory wearing of masks in public places. The way I see it, we may never have done a shutdown on this level before, but the lower death tolls and better response curve is going to speak for itself. If we'd had the forethought to try this sort of thing in previous pandemics, we would have seen even smaller impact than what we ultimately ran into. Math and stats don't lie.
So okay, I wasn't sold on Ford, and will never vote for the man, because I haven't forgotten what he's been doing, but I was (and am) willing to give credit where it's due.
Well, imagine my surprise *read: lack of surprise) when he tries to walk back a bill that was passed in March protecting tenants from quick evictions due to nonpayment of rent. This bill essentially protects folks who can't pay rent due to Covid-related complications from being put on the street; Ford's latest action here wants to get rid of those protections, and after doing some research into the proposition, I've got to say it looks pretty grim for him. It's also doubly sneaky because now he appears to have won the public trust. I'm definitely going to make a point of making sure that folks in Ontario (since that's where this will come into effect) know about this. I'd hate to see it slip into law because nobody knew and nobody responded with enough force before it happens.
To me, this is just proof that Ford really does not care about citizens. He cares about people who have more money, and cares more about making sure people pay rent than making sure they, y'know, stay alive and safe. One of the toxicities of the right, IMO. I think it's affected me as much as it has because I saw some good signs from this man throughout the past few months; as I said, I was never going to align with him, but I can admit when even someone I don't like or agree with does something right, and he did. So this feels a bit like being shot in the back by someone trying to earn your trust. I'll say this for a majority of leftists, at least: they're not going to backshoot you. If anything, they're going to be obnoxiously loud and in your face about exactly what they plan to do, and how they plan to do it. I prefer honesty over deceit, pretty much every time.

Also just wanted to tack something onto the end of my post, since a friend shared this and I think it's absolutely fucking brilliant.

What kind of backward do you have to be to endorse a world in which wearing a mask is a violation of rights, but controlling a woman's uterus is a proper function of government?

He hasn't entirely turned on us and the bill is not law yet. It's got three weeks yet before that happens, and it's entirely possible we end up having it destroyed because we've done that before. Ford has tried stupid shit before and has found himself stopped when there's enough public outcry. The premier is powerful, but he's only a provincial leader. This is something our country's leader would never do, IMO, so while it definitely looks bad, it's nowhere near as nasty as you might think.
And hey. The way I figure it, we've got a premier in Ontario who was arguing for far too long with teachers, who definitely has interest in real estate over individuals, and who generally represents a center-right agenda. But we don't have someone in charge who will gas peaceful protestors. We don't have someone in charge who cares more about ratings than lives. We don't have someone in charge who has suggested drinking antiseptic to help cure Covid-19. We don't have someone in charge who ignores the good advice of health experts. In a side-by-side comparison of Ford vs. Trump, neither is much good, but we've got an enormous upper hand there. If I had to choose between the two, it's Ford every time. No question. Thankfully, we're not always stuck with only bad candidates, and we missed an NDP government in Ontario by a fairly small margin in 2018. I went out and made sure my vote counted for something. For those of you not in the know, NDP stands for New Democratic Party; they're relatively leftist, and we definitely have pretty big NDP support in large parts of Ontario. It's enough that Ford's conservatives do not hold a majority, so they can't just ram laws down our throat.