Now do seatbelts.

@CookieMonster I oppose seatbelt laws. I oppose helmet laws. People can take the risks - but they own the consequences too. I don't wear seatbelts unless riding in someone else's vehicle and they ask me to. Their space, their rules.

I am fine with people wearing masks, or seatbelts, or helmets. Just don't make ME do it.

And yes, I consider all laws to be an infringement upon my liberties/rights. I accept laws I disagree with because I accept the necessity of laws to have a civil society.

@CookieMonster I grew up rolling around in the back of station wagons, seats down, and the back of pickups, even sitting on the side rails!!!! So did my kids, all five of them, and guess what, we all survived!!
I just put 150 miles on mt motorcycle this afternoon, with my wife, guess what no helmets, and here I am!!!

PS, I started riding motorcycles in 1962!!!!

@Serg97

Well done sample of 1 but saftey regs are there for a reason.

@Serg97, @Header

Oh I expected push back, real opinions rather than virtue signalling flatulence will do that.

@tracycoyle

People are poor judges of risk thats why saftey rules exist. I remember optional seatbelt laws, plenty of work for plastic surgeons

@CookieMonster I would suggest my opinion was without a foundation - I just didn't like being told what to do - until I read the following:

That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any
member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to
others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.
He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be
better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the
opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good
reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading
him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with
any evil in case he do otherwise.

From On Liberty. Your point suggests that you (the generic form of you implying people with similar beliefs) know what is better for another and therefore have just cause to impose your belief upon them....for their own good.

No greater tyranny exists because it knows no bounds, no limits.

@tracycoyle

Oh I agree so much with JS Mill, there is also the distinction between liberal and libertarian, ie self harm. Were masks are conerned it is in a large part of preventing the wearer spreading it on to others, ie causing harm to others.

There is also the issue of consensual harm like BDSM for example.

Your argument is on solid ground vis seatbelts, although the problem here is nobody left or right will quote a saftey threshold or how informed of the risks and consequeces people are. It isn't when it comes to mask though, which comes under the definition of none consenting harm to others..

@CookieMonster The problem is that by the scientific benchmark used to support masks, the use of masks should be, irrespective of covid, ALWAYS in use given the lethality of the annual flu and the risks to those with respiratory conditions.

However, I don't trust the numbers on covid and consider it no worse than an annual flu - and given the population actually impacted, I'd consider it LESS dangerous.

So. While people with higher risks might use the masks - and I consider it reasonable to do so - making EVERYONE wash their hands all the time, or not be allowed out if they have even a sniffle, attempting to eliminate risk (which is what you/they are trying to do) is a fools errand.

@CookieMonster Ya, maybe we can all live in a plastic bubble, then no personal contact with the world or anyone in it!!!!!!!!
Then we would all be SAFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@tracycoyle

i have no idea what sources you are using but Covid is way worse than the flu. Take the UK, over the last 5 years one peak year resulted in 17K deaths with an average of 8K.

So far this year with the lock down the number is 45,752 in 5 months with a lockdown, this is heading for a number 20 times worse than flu. when you also take into account the excess unexplained deathhs above the seasonal average you are looking at a number over 60,000. this Doesn't include those who have longterm health problems, lung damage etc.

[worldometers.info]

@CookieMonster That might be so in the UK, in the US, the excess deaths is statistically negligible.

Covid was a 'new' bug, so there was no identification protocol, no treatment protocol and politically, an early treatment was dismissed despite promising results. In THIS country, we can not trust the 'cases' or the 'deaths' because we can't trust the numbers as being reported.

Given we STILL do not know what the realistic infection rate was - determinations as to how virulent it has been is A GUESS at best.

Finally, given the population most impacted, the danger to the general population was/is considerably LESS than the hysteria warranted.

@tracycoyle

None of what you posted is true, you haven't even bothered to check your facts.

The CDC estinate for flu deaths this season is 24-64,000 and this flu season has a bad case load i beleive.
[cdc.gov]

For the 5 months to now roughly you have 150,448 deaths, again this is about 20 times higher spread over a year, this number shows up across all countries.

The infection rate you allude to, the r number, is not a set number but varies due to behaviour and type of cointact spread, ie masks will reduce this number.