Posted on 08/18/2021 3:48:56 AM PDT by Kaslin
Like many Americans, I do not like wearing a face mask that hurts my ears, steams up my glasses and makes my bearded face itch. And while I think businesses should be free to require face coverings as a safeguard against COVID-19, I am skeptical of government-imposed mask mandates, especially in K-12 schools.
At the same time, I recognize that my personal peeves and policy preferences are logically distinct from the empirical question of how effective masks are at preventing virus transmission. From the beginning, however, the great American mask debate has been strongly influenced by partisan and ideological commitments, with one side exaggerating the evidence in favor of this precaution and the other side ignoring or downplaying it.
Last September, Robert Redfield, then the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, described masks as "the most important, powerful public health tool we have," going so far as to say they provided more protection than vaccines would. In a 2020 New York Times op-ed piece, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer asserted that "wearing a mask has been proven to reduce the chance of spreading COVID-19 by about 70%" – a claim that even the CDC said was not scientifically justified.
The CDC invited skepticism about the value of general mask wearing by dismissing it until April 2020, when the agency suddenly began recommending the practice as an important weapon against the pandemic. Although that memorable reversal supposedly was justified by evolving science, the main concern that the CDC cited – asymptomatic transmission – was a danger that had been recognized for months.
When the CDC changed its advice, research on the effectiveness of face masks in preventing virus transmission was surprisingly sparse and equivocal. Although laboratory experiments supported the commonsensical assumption that almost any barrier to respiratory droplets, including DIY cloth coverings, was better than nothing, randomized controlled trials generally had not confirmed that intuition.
A January 2021 review of the evidence in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal found "no RCT for the impact of masks on community transmission of any respiratory infection in a pandemic." The article, which also looked at observational studies, said "direct evidence of the efficacy of mask use is supportive, but inconclusive."
The authors then considered "a wider body of evidence," including epidemiological analyses, laboratory studies and information about COVID-19's transmission characteristics. "The preponderance of evidence," they concluded, "indicates that mask wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles in both laboratory and clinical contexts."
In a "science brief" last updated on May 7, the CDC said "experimental and epidemiological data support community masking to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2." But it acknowledges that "further research is needed to expand the evidence base for the protective effect of cloth masks."
Where does that leave Americans who are unpersuaded by the existing evidence? Banned from major social media platforms, if they are not careful.
YouTube recently suspended Sen. Rand Paul's account because of a video in which the Kentucky Republican said "most of the masks that you get over the counter don't work." This statement ran afoul of YouTube's ban on "claims that masks do not play a role in preventing the contraction or transmission of COVID-19," which is similar to policies adopted by Facebook and Twitter.
While conceding that "private companies have the right to ban me if they want to," Paul said he was troubled by the fact that the leading social media platforms, partly in response to government pressure, seem to be insisting that users toe the official line on COVID-19. He has a point.
Paul's criticism of cloth masks was stronger than the science warrants, reflecting a broader tendency on the right to dismiss them as mere talismans without seriously addressing the evidence in their favor. But rational discourse entails rebutting arguments by citing contrary evidence instead of treating them as too dangerous for people to consider.
The CDC invited skepticism about the value of general mask wearing by dismissing it until April 2020, when the agency suddenly began recommending the practice as an important weapon against the pandemic. Although that memorable reversal supposedly was justified by evolving science, the main concern that the CDC cited -- asymptomatic transmission -- was a danger that had been recognized for months.
This is absolutely, verifiably false. The reversal wasn't justified by "evolving science" at all. The U.S. government has openly admitted that they originally dismissed the use of facemasks as a preventive measure because they didn't want the public to stockpile them and make it difficult for health care workers to get them.
In other words, the CDC, Anthony Fauci (I don't even call him "Doctor" anymore) and the U.S. Surgeon General all lied about the effectiveness of masks.
Perhaps the author should consider the possibility that all this "skepticism" he sees is nothing more than a natural reaction of Americans who no longer have any reason to pay attention to what their government leaders tell them.
They’re not masks.
They’re muzzles.
In other words, the science didn't justify masks, so they waved their hands in the air and made their pronouncement based on feelings and assumptions.
Where are the post-lockdown analyses showing heavily masked areas fared better than non-masked ones?
Is there ay proof that heavy masked areas fear better? I don’t think they do.
Face diapers do more harm than good.
I don’t think they do, either, but we have perfect empirical evidence from last year and early this one. The fact that there are no published studies tells me that the evidence contradicts the established CDC position.
18 Aug: Youtube: 2m18s: Australian Police Beating Up Children Over Masks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXPbjJuvpak
“While conceding that “private companies have the right to ban me if they want to,””
And so right here is THE PROBLEM. It is now admitted that these companies collude with the government to take care of censorship of conservatives. But this Ann Rand type thinks that is JUST FINE as long as it’s the companies, which now have as much power as government, taking orders from government, not government workers.
A close co-worker got covid early on and he always wore a mask. No body else in the office got it and his case was relatively mild. He’s nearly 60 and over weight. I’ve know a couple of other mask wearers who also got sick.
This exactly the approach the Federal Government is taking with vaccines.
The Federal Government will not mandate vaccinations. Why? Likely because the KNOW it is unconstitutional and would be challenged and defeated.
So, this administration has openly said they are leaving “vaccine mandates” to private industry.
What this means is that any constitutional challenges are going to be numerous, small, weak, and disjointed.
Individual law suits against companies will be ineffective since people will both run out of money and time, or those that are decided in their favor will by decided in a very narrow fashion (deliberately)
Interestingly, the current administration has also said they are partnering with private companies like Google to obtain information and data on US Citizens, in a clear attempt to bypass legal lawful and constitutional protections that protect us as Americans from the predations and spying of our own government.
These people are evil.
This nonsense was resolved over a year ago to anybody who pays attention. Masks are not worth it. They make virtually no difference whatsoever yet they cause severe problems both culturally and physically. I’ve traveled all over the country since this thing started and I’ve had a mask on my face probably a total of 90 minutes. Sure I get hassles from people and, truth be told, it’s easier to wear a mask than not wear one. But is our second president said people have to be willing to sacrifice their comforts to keep this country free.
And that is exactly what I’m doing.
It would be fine if they really let private companies run them as they wished, but we all know they don’t.
GOVERNMENT: “It is their business to discriminate based on things like this, communicable diseases, but if a homosexual wants to force them to bake a cake...well, they better bake that cake.”
BUSINESS: “How about a terrible, contagious pathogen that is spread among the homosexual community, something like AIDS that can be spread through the air or contact as well. Can I keep those homosexuals out of my business until they get vaccinated?”
GOVERNMENT: “No.”
There is actually a word for a situation where the government and big business work hand and glove. The word is fascism.
I’ve been at Costco member since 1988. After this virus hit, they would literally track me down in an aisle where I was the only customer there and tell me I needed to wear a mask. My solution? I became a Sam’s club member. Sam’s club never once forced me to wear a mask.
...and I guess by Rand’s reasoning, Bayer, the executives at the company that knowingly manufactured the Zyklon gas pallets used to kill 6 million Jews should also be given a pass, since they were just ‘filling orders’...not their responsibility to at all, nope not at all. Right.
I have never, ever willingly worn masks outside. It is the height of stupidity to do so, so...I won't. Period. Late last autumn, my wife and I passed through Provincetown, MA, that side of the infamous "breakthrough contagion" where we walked around. There were hard, permanent metal signs every 30 feet or so as you can see in this picture I took:
I was the only one in the entire town not wearing a mask that I saw. And they spent all this money on these idiotic signs for a measure that does only three things:
I remarked later that they would have to arrest me and throw me in jail (something the cops who passed me seemed studiously uninterested in doing) and the person I was conversing with said..."Er...ahem...you might not want to be thrown into jail in a town as notorious for homosexuality as Provincetown..." I had to admit that hadn't crossed my mind.
I wouldn’t get fixated on Rand in this. I have read her work, and she was not an advocate of unfettered private business. She was neither a fascist nor an anarchist.
In my opinion, I think you are framing the point erroneously. She believed in a framework of government with rules (after all, “Galt’s Gulch” had some very stringent rules that had to be followed)
They are virtue signals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.