This sounds exactly like you’re continuing to say that we should consider permanently forcing children to mask, so I’m confused why it’s not a good example.
I think we are talking past each other. Consider: (1) we should do X. (2) we should gather more information to decide if we should do X. I’m claiming (2).
I interpreted your writing “Even a LessWrong commenter of mine explicitly endorsed the idea that asks were worth having in school to prevent other diseases, and not letting kids breathe or see faces should be normalized permanently. ” as saying I support (1). If I support (1) than I need to have a lot of information about the costs and benefits of X which I don’t have so my supporting (1) would imply that I’m foolish. You are right that I think we should “consider” permanently forcing children to mask, as this is consistent with (2).
I acknowledge you are ‘simply asking questions’ and want to do the math calculation. What I’m saying is that a live example of seriously claiming (2) is sufficient to show that we have to worry about an attempt to actually implement it. If Public Health people start considering the ‘costs and benefits’ of an intervention—especially one that could be framed as a default right now—that makes lives worse in exchange for less disease, you’ve already lost, and the idea that costs of mask wearing are sufficiently low that we need to be doing math is the road to that conclusion.
Whereas if you’d asked this question in 2019 and treated it as a serious possibility that the math could come out either way, I’d have been pretty baffled.
I am extremely sympathetic to the thing you’re saying in this comment. (I’m not sure I straight-up believe it, but then I basically don’t hang out with kids and don’t remember what it was like to be one.)
But...
What I’m saying is that a live example of seriously claiming (2) is sufficient to show that we have to worry about an attempt to actually implement it.
I kind of want to note here that this is not what you’ve been saying so far, at least not in this part of the conversation. It might be what you’ve been meaning. But what you said, from my read of the conversation, was...
In the post, that James (or at least someone) said (1).
Then in your reply to James, that James was continuing to say (2). And that you were confused why James saying “I said (2), not (1)” made James a bad example (of unspecified; by inference, of him saying (1)).
If Public Health people start considering the ‘costs and benefits’ of an intervention—especially one that could be framed as a default right now—that makes lives worse in exchange for less disease,
To be fair, he didn’t ask for Public Health people to consider it.
This sounds exactly like you’re continuing to say that we should consider permanently forcing children to mask, so I’m confused why it’s not a good example.
I think we are talking past each other. Consider: (1) we should do X. (2) we should gather more information to decide if we should do X. I’m claiming (2).
I interpreted your writing “Even a LessWrong commenter of mine explicitly endorsed the idea that asks were worth having in school to prevent other diseases, and not letting kids breathe or see faces should be normalized permanently. ” as saying I support (1). If I support (1) than I need to have a lot of information about the costs and benefits of X which I don’t have so my supporting (1) would imply that I’m foolish. You are right that I think we should “consider” permanently forcing children to mask, as this is consistent with (2).
I acknowledge you are ‘simply asking questions’ and want to do the math calculation. What I’m saying is that a live example of seriously claiming (2) is sufficient to show that we have to worry about an attempt to actually implement it. If Public Health people start considering the ‘costs and benefits’ of an intervention—especially one that could be framed as a default right now—that makes lives worse in exchange for less disease, you’ve already lost, and the idea that costs of mask wearing are sufficiently low that we need to be doing math is the road to that conclusion.
Whereas if you’d asked this question in 2019 and treated it as a serious possibility that the math could come out either way, I’d have been pretty baffled.
I am extremely sympathetic to the thing you’re saying in this comment. (I’m not sure I straight-up believe it, but then I basically don’t hang out with kids and don’t remember what it was like to be one.)
But...
I kind of want to note here that this is not what you’ve been saying so far, at least not in this part of the conversation. It might be what you’ve been meaning. But what you said, from my read of the conversation, was...
In the post, that James (or at least someone) said (1).
Then in your reply to James, that James was continuing to say (2). And that you were confused why James saying “I said (2), not (1)” made James a bad example (of unspecified; by inference, of him saying (1)).
To be fair, he didn’t ask for Public Health people to consider it.
Why masks though? Are they that good at stopping pathogens?
Consider a burka. Wouldn’t it be more convenient while offering equivalent or better protective value?