@luckytran I'd have thought a better legislative approach would be to consider masking an aggravating factor in the commission of a crime, but not a crime in and of itself.
Indeed. The 'mid-1900s' work was a direct consequence of the 1918 pandemic. From 1890s to 1918, viruses seat as an unpersuaded discovery. Just like penicillin did, between 1928 and WWII.
Masks should be protected by the First Amendment. Face coverings are in the Bible, literally mandated by Yahweh to manage the spread of communicable disease.
@luckytran If they want 1845 laws, they can make do with 1845 medicine. No antibiotics, surgery done without antiseptics, no anesthesia, human waste in the water supply, no blood transfusions, no germ theory, very few vaccines, and a high mortality rate. But they won't have to wear masks.
@luckytran look, i get where you're coming from. but consider this: how will our narcomilitaristic police state train their facial recognition softwares if we mask? it's a national security issue! /s
@luckytran@scunning come on, they’re not anti-science, not like masks have feelings. They’ve just got dramatically less efficacy than is perpetuated, but really among mouth breathers they help a lot. For more than diminishing viral airborne issues but keeping their breathing to themselves!