1y ago

Hollywood studio Lionsgate brings back mask mandate amid Covid spike

www.theguardian.com Hollywood studio Lionsgate brings back mask mandate amid Covid spike

The studio behind John Wick and The Hunger Games has reinstated the use of masks after several employees tested positive for Covid-19

You're viewing a single thread.

44 comments

I hope that these decisions don't become more widespread.
Edit: For the sake of clarity, I, of course, respect the fact that a private business is free to make such decisions, and I do understand that the likely reason for this decision was to, as was mentioned, reduce profit loss by keeping employees healthy, but I still do not wish for mask mandates to make a widespread return; their all-too-recent existence is not a memory that I think too fondly of.
- Why? Does it personally affect you?
  
  If it were to, once again, become more widespread, then, yes, it would begin to personally affect me, just as it already has.
  
  Oh no something that is good for protecting your health is happening. Quickly, throw ice on all stairs and remove all car brakes!
  
  I have no desire for someone to force something on me "for my own good". If something is truly beneficial, then the public will freely adopt it; people generally won't willingly endanger themselves. What the conversation should be about is if you are endangering the life of another.
  Side note, your argument for throwing ice on stairs is lacking scope. If it was one's personal stairs then by all means; however, an area that is to be expected to be used by the public cannot willfully endanger them; If not a criminal charge, then it is certainly a lawsuit waiting to happen. As for removing car brakes, again that depends on exactly what you mean. If the car is not in such a state that would recklessly endanger the life of another, then why would it matter?
  All in all, one should look at things in such a way as to balance public safety, and individual liberty. It is always a trade off. I personally would err on the side of liberty, but this is not without its realistic restrictions.
  
  If something is truly beneficial, then the public will freely adopt it
  Sort of like how the public freely adopted using seat belts and speed limits, right?
  
  Speed limits, and seat belts are not equivelant examples. A speed limit is a restriction on risk to others, and property, a seatbelt is a reduction on the risk to only oneself, unless one has passengers, but even that has its logical limits. I can perhaps see the parallel you are drawing with speed limits, but I'm not entirely sure that it is necessarily an accurate comparison to make. To speed requires willful intent to endanger. As such, I could see it being argued that it is a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. Not wearing a mask, however, is really only willful intent to endanger anothor if one is knowingly ill, and willfully spreads it to others (and, if so, it should be punished accordingly); however, if one is not knowingly ill, then there is no aggression.
  
  If one is not knowingly speeding, then they shouldn't be pulled over, right?
  
  Hm, that is a fair point. Perhaps it should come down to reasonably articulable suspicion of public endangerment. You are quite right that ignorance of one's wrongdoing is no excuse. So perhaps I should restate what I had originally said to instead be that one should only be held accountable if they are spreading a communicable disease to others if they could, on reasonable grounds, be aware of their illness prior to spreading it.
  
  If something is truly beneficial, then the public will freely adopt it
  Hah. Look up how some people fought seat belt laws. Just like masks and vaccines they're not actually doing much most of the time, but you'll be glad to have them when it matters, or rather you will be missing them when it matters.
  
  People fought against drunk driving laws lol, with pretty much the same "personal freedom" arguments.
  
  COMMUNISM!!!
  
  Look up how some people fought seat belt laws.
  Seat belt laws are not an equivalent example. Unless one has fellow passengers, not wearing a seat-belt is of no risk to anyone but oneself.
  Just like masks and vaccines they’re not actually doing much most of the time
  Then why enforce rules when there is no risk to anyone? To enforce a rule is to say that there is an aggression that is being controlled.
  
  You completely misread what I wrote.
  
  Would you mind pointing out what I misunderstood?
  
  You just left out the rest of the sentence when you quoted "... but you'll be glad to have them when it matters, or rather you will be missing them when it matters."
  And the point is most people don't get in daily car accidents, and putting on your mask doesn't necessarily mean you will be exposed to a disease that day. They are a type of safety precaution you sometimes use in situations where they don't do anything, and that doesn't mean that they were useless, it means no dangerous stuff happened.
  That kind of danger, the kind that only gets you 1/10 times, is the kind people are famously bad at understanding. Our instincts say if someone survived doing something unharmed that it is safe, but sometimes riding in a car is safe and sometimes it isn't. We get too easily comfortable with things we shouldn't have because their consequences are delayed or inconsistent, and it happens everywhere.
  Eta: I find it odd that the masks bother you more than the spreading disease that they are a "symptom" of. Personally, for over a decade now, I had hoped that sick people around here would start wearing medical masks on their own prerogative, like many other places/cultures already do. It feels on par with washing your hands to me. But then it became a political issue...
  
  You just left out the rest of the sentence when you quoted “… but you’ll be glad to have them when it matters, or rather you will be missing them when it matters.”
  Why would one "be missing them"? I would assume that whatever one needs to reduce risk would generally be available should they have need.
  And the point is most people don’t get in daily car accidents, and putting on your mask doesn’t necessarily mean you will be exposed to a disease that day. They are a type of safety precaution you sometimes use in situations where they don’t do anything, and that doesn’t mean that they were useless, it means no dangerous stuff happened.
  Again, though, why should the government force people to do what is wise for their own personal health, and saftety? A person can assess their own risk, and act accordingly.
  I find it odd that the masks bother you more than the spreading disease that they are a “symptom” of.
  I have no qualm with the use of masks -- in actuality, I would encourage it. What I take issue with is the enforcement of their use.
  
  Quick question. I just need a yes or no answer. Would you wear a mask if you weren't being forced to?
  
  That question is a little more complicated than one that can be answered by a simple "yes", or "no". The simplest answer that I can give is that I'm not opposed to wearing a mask; however, whether or not I would choose to wear one is highly dependent on circumstance.
  
  Your mask isn't there for your own good. Wearing a mask may reduce the viral load you may receive if you're exposed, improving the odds your immune system can stamp out any nascent infection, but that's just a bonus.
  The purpose of a mask in a mask mandate is to protect others from you in the event you're infected but in the window between becoming infectious and becoming symptomatic and therefore aware (and possibly beyond if you're the kind of person that knowingly mixes with others and coughs openly when sick). Because it's for people who don't know they're sick, it only works if everyone does it. So it's mandated for the good of the whole.
  This was particularly important with the original strain of SARS-COV-2 because it had a particularly long incubation period.
  The more aggressive variants since, along with more sensitive immune responses in most people due to vaccination, exposure, or both have shrunk that window significantly, but it hasn't disappeared.
  General, society wide, mandates aren't imo necessary under the prevailing conditions, but that doesn't mean there won't be situations (close knit group with a spike in cases for example) where reintroducing such rules make sense.
  
  Your mask isn’t there for your own good. Wearing a mask may reduce the viral load you may receive if you’re exposed, improving the odds your immune system can stamp out any nascent infection, but that’s just a bonus. The purpose of a mask in a mask mandate is to protect others from you in the event you’re infected but in the window between becoming infectious and becoming symptomatic and therefore aware (and possibly beyond if you’re the kind of person that knowingly mixes with others and coughs openly when sick). Because it’s for people who don’t know they’re sick, it only works if everyone does it.
  This is, indeed, a critical issue to note. When thinking about such types of policy (I'm referring to policy on the government level), I try to follow the "non-aggression principle". What one must then ask is: "Does not wearing a mask violate the NAP?". If one is aware of their transmissable ilness and is knowingly spreading it to others by not wearing a mask, then this certainly would be a violation of the NAP. In such cases, one would be required to wear a mask. Now if we are talking about a case where an individual isn't ill, yet their bodily autonomy is still being infringed upon by being forced to wear a mask, then this would also be a violation of the NAP. That being said, things become a bit more grey if we are talking about the situation where one could transmit an ilness asymptomatically. I'm inclined to say that, in this transition point, it would be best to rely on people's own precautionary measures like getting vaccinated, and self-masking; however, I agree that I am biased into this line of thought. (Some extra discussion if you are interested)
  This was particularly important with the original strain of SARS-COV-2 because it had a particularly long incubation period.
  Please forgive me if I am incorrect -- epidemiology is certainly not my strong suit -- but isn't this statement contradictory? I have the understanding that "incubation period" means that one is asymptomatic while the virus replicates within themself.
  Incubation period (also known as the latent period or latency period) is the time elapsed between exposure to a pathogenic organism, a chemical, or radiation, and when symptoms and signs are first apparent. -- Wikipedia:
  If one is asymptomatic (no coughing, no runny nose, no sneezing, etc.) then wouldn't they not be transmitting the virus? The only thing that I can think of is that one may be sluffing off virus through physical contact, but, if so, there are a few issues: the first issue would be that masking would then become pointless, and the other would be that one could simply wash their hands after contact, unless, of course, we are talking about a virus that could hypothetically be absorbed through the skin.
  General, society wide, mandates aren’t imo necessary under the prevailing conditions, but that doesn’t mean there won’t be situations (close knit group with a spike in cases for example) where reintroducing such rules make sense.
  I have no issue with a closed group deciding to implement such restrictions amongst themselves; people are free to do as they wish so long as it does not infringe on the lives of others. I just, personally, hope that this doesn't become more widespread, yet again.
  
  Pandemics affect communities not individuals
  
  While the community suffers the aggragate, the individual is still not individually powerless.
- TSA mandates will be announced in about a week. It's already been leaked. Two weeks to slow the spread. Literally. Same playbook as last time. I expect them to stick around for much much longer.
  
  It's been a week, I'm still waiting on those TSA mandates. ... Hell, I'm still waiting on the National Guard's mass round-ups into those non-existent FEMA camps ....
  
  TSA mandates will be announced in about a week. It’s already been leaked.
  Do you have any source for that claim?
  
  It's all over the regular places that would report that kind of thing. There's a coordinated leak and media thing that seems to be going on. I've even seen it reported on YT in the last couple of days. They started with the new strain new booster news a couple days ago in mass media, which was another thing leaked 2 weeks ago.
  
  It’s all over the regular places that would report that kind of thing.
  I remind you, this is not a source. The entire point of citing a source is so that the reader is not required to assume the information's origin, nor to place trust in its purveyor.
  
  Just like reddit, giving a specific source turns the discussion to the source. Go use your preferred search engine. I told you there's fish in that spot. I'm not going to hand you the fish because you don't like fishing.
  
  Just like reddit, giving a specific source turns the discussion to the source.
  I'm sorry, what? This statement makes little sense. Are you saying that you are opposed to citing sources because you think that someone will claim that your source is non-trustworthy? That is litterally the entire point of citing a source.
  Ironically, if one does look into your claim, they may come across this article. A nice excerpt from it is as follows:
  CLAIM: Transportation Security Administration managers were told on Aug. 15 that by mid-September they, along with airport employees, will again be required to wear face masks and by mid-October the policy will apply to travelers as well. Further, the managers were told that COVID-19 lockdowns will return by December.
  AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. No such announcement was made to TSA managers, an agency spokesperson told The Associated Press. A spokesperson for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which issued a now-expired travel mask mandate in 2021, confirmed that such rumors are “utterly false.”
  THE FACTS: With COVID-19 hospitalizations steadily inching up in the U.S. since early July, some on social media are falsely claiming that federal employees were told that mask requirements and other pandemic-era restrictions will start returning this fall.
  The claim originated on the Aug. 18 episode of “The Alex Jones Show,” where its namesake host said an anonymous “high-level manager in the TSA” and an unnamed “Border Patrol-connected” source told him about the alleged announcement. Jones is known for spreading conspiracy theories.

44 comments