For your Wuhan virus pleasure today, here is Glenn Logan’s Comment of the Day on the post, “These Are The ‘Experts’ Your Present And Future Masters Rely Upon”:
Jack said: “I’m not going to wear a mask inside my home, nor in my car, nor outside while playing with my dog, and I’m going to regard anyone who follows this edict with a “please” attached as an enemy of my future liberty as an American.“
As a person who has taken college classes in both epidemiology and virology as part of my course of study, I can tell you that yours is a sane response. I don’t style myself any kind of an expert, but I do know plenty about both subjects. The SARS-CoV-2 virus appears to require a minimum viral load to produce symptomatic disease, and that load is nearly impossible to achieve outside without being in crowded close quarters due to natural air currents.This is one likely explanation why there are so many asymptomatic infections. Viruses producing the common cold display this same characteristic, and coronavidae is one of the cold-producing families of virus. As far as wearing a mask in a car, this is unnecessary unless you have high-risk potentially exposed people other than you moving in and out of it all the time, and don’t follow basic sanitation rules. Even then, the risk of dangerous viral concentrations in a single-person car are very small.
Wearing a mask in a home is medically defensible if you have more than one person in it and at least one is exposed to high-risk situations — close quarters indoors with poor air movement where proximity to others is problematic. Otherwise, it is just a very low shared-risk situation.All this assumes that masks are at least marginally effective. Obviously, that is currently very much in question. In any case, if an individual can no longer make a personal choice involving his own safety, we have truly placed safety above freedom, and Ben Franklin’s famous quote “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” would seem to apply. Eugene Volokh, placing that in context, gives us this:
“So to sum up: All the logical work (if not all the rhetorical work) in “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” is being done by the decision about what aspects of liberty are essential, and how much safety is at stake. The slogan might work as a reminder not to make foolish tradeoffs, but the real difficulty is in deciding which tradeoffs are wise and which are foolish. Once we figure that out, we don’t need the slogan to remind us; before we figure it out, the slogan doesn’t really help us.”
I deem this wise. Consider your tradeoff carefully — Is it all about “virtue signaling,” or is it more fundamental, personal, and essential? For the most part, we have to make that decision. No President or government can make it for us unless we allow them to.
And in that vein, also ask: What is government’s objective with any mask mandate? Is it to actually reduce infections, or to assert control over the masses? Informing this question is the apparent position of our betters that people are too stupid, pigheaded, careless, or their judgment too suspect to police their own hygiene practices and therefor must be ordered to do things on pain of punishment. Even embracing the healing power of “and” on the above, are we okay with allowing government to use it’s authority in this way?
Finally, I am constrained to point out that if we are to ever place this health problem in the rear-view mirror, we must all a) be infected or b) be vaccinated. There is simply no other solution. It’s true that heard immunity will occur at lower percentages of population infection/vaccination and control the spread, but anyone who has neither a) nor b) will be vulnerable to this disease until they have one or the other.