Anti-mask mania...yes it is!

Really, its a question? Mask UP!

During the first few months of the COVID Pandemic lockdown, politicians, health officials, and hospitals agonized over the lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) for front line health care workers. It was headline news.


PPE consists of masks, face shields, gowns and gloves - all disposable, and all essential in protecting doctors, nurses, orderlies, etc. from infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID19. 

Think about that, the PPE protects the healthcare worker and is essential for them to do their job. That was clearly understood by virtually everyone at the start. At the same time, the general population was told by experts and idiot politicians that masks are ineffective and should not be used and anyway masks do not protect you, they protect others from you. Of course, that contradicts the “personal” part of PPE. Worse still, the idiot politicians supported that or in the American case denied what seemed obvious, and the issue of masks became a political football.
 Eventually the idiot politicians and public health officials changed their collective little minds and suggested that masks be worn to protect “others.” That ‘suggestion’ became a legal requirement in many jurisdictions locally and regionally, ordered by governments and backed by public health officials around the world.

So apparently front line healthcare workers and public health officials almost everywhere are convinced that masks provide some degree of protection if used properly. Sure, there are a few exceptions, and I choose to ignore them, because the front line workers are the real experts. They wear masks and there is nothing theoretical about it. 

Is there any evidence that wearing masks can reduce virus transmission in the general population? Fortunately there is. Hong Kong has experienced several epidemic outbreaks over the years because of its location. There, its a cultural norm to wear masks in public. During an outbreak its almost universal as this quote suggests:

 

“Not wearing masks in Hong Kong is like not wearing pants nowadays,” Alex Lam, a Hong Kong lawyer, told the Wall Street Journal in April.”

 

This article makes the point of comparing Hong Kong to New York City:
 “New York City, with a population of about 8.4 million, has had over 28,000 coronavirus deaths as of May 18. Meanwhile, Hong Kong has officially recorded only four Covid-19 deaths, despite having 7.5 million residents.”

Masks are just part of Hong Kong’s story, but there is little doubt they play a role. 

I am, of course opposed to the official mandates that require masks to be worn. Certainly property owners and businesses have the right to demand masks be worn inside their building. Why would anyone refuse? (Only CovIDIOTS would) My view is simple, if wearing a mask can protect against virus transmission, even partially, then everyone should, as a matter of courtesy and self defence.


But of course courtesy is not a universally accepted trait and I’m constantly reminded of the number of stupid people that somehow exist. An anti-mask backlash ensued in social media, on the street, and in the news. Much of it was against mandates, I get that. But a good chunk of the online protests were just against the very idea of wearing masks. People trotted out “experts,” “peer-reviewed studies,” wacky YouTube videos, all sorts protestations exhorting people not to wear masks. I was frankly dismayed and annoyed. What motive could these people have? Why are they so determined to deny what reality seems to confirm every time a health care worker steps into a room with a COVID patient?

 

Its common for libertarian thinkers to be contrarian, so I’m not totally surprised at the social media reaction to masks. I just have trouble with their motive.

Maybe the official science does not totally support masks, but neither does it totally deny their effectiveness. The practice of wearing masks seems to have an effect. If nothing else it reminds people to take care. Enough people have died to prove this is a nasty, nasty and unpredictable bug. For me ALL LIVES MATTER! 

 

We’re going to have a second wave of COVID soon, I expect it to be worse, maybe far worse than the first. Most professional healthcare workers and virologists believe droplet and aerosol transmission is the main method the virus is transmitted. If wearing masks in any way lessens the impact of a second wave, then why not mask up? 

 

 

The new McCarthyism

In early July of 2020, in the midst of the COVID19 Pandemic, a letter appeared in Harper’s Magazine dealing with what was called “Justice and Open Debate.” Over 150 people signed the letter, most with ties to the literary world, writers, editors, commentators etc. Without mentioning the term, it complained about the creeping “cancel culture” in the press and media. Something I have written about before. I’m happy to see others consider it a danger too.

 

Later on in July, Bari Weiss, a writer, editor and former columnist for the New York Times, resigned with this letter to her employer. Both letters dealt with the “chill” that writers face when they write something that strays from the common consensus. This quote from the Weiss letter:

“..... standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the “new McCarthyism” that has taken root at the paper of record.” BW 

What is this new McCarthyism, this cancel culture?

According to Dictionary.com, “Cancel culture refers to the popular practice of withdrawing support for (cancelling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive. [It's] generally discussed as being performed on social media in the form of group shaming.” Similar terms are “doxxing” and “deplatforming” Deplatforming conservative and right wing speakers at universities have been a common occurrence for a number of years now. One just has to listen and look at the drivel that comes out of most universities to understand why.

 

Of course it goes beyond just shaming for those shamed and one does not need to be famous to be affected. It damages careers, jobs, and ultimately its character assassination often unjustly and inappropriately delivered.

 

There is nothing wrong with publicly castigating the comments and the commentator for something said or written. But harmful comments need to be evaluated on their harm and degree of offence. Some comments do not rise to the level of public shaming, some do. Some are not offensive at all, but simply innocuous opinions that don’t really require a response. Of course there are evil people with evil and dangerous intent that need to be outed and ultimately marginalized. That makes it important to discover intent. Trying to be objective when evaluating speech and written work is all-important. But in many cases intent is ignored and the response of the evaluators is excessively harsh. Why?

 

In late July, while being grilled at a ridiculous anti-trust hearing, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, (Bezos testimony - this is great) commented that social media is a 'nuance-destruction machine' when asked about his views on 'cancel culture.' In other words, comments on Facebook, Twitter and the like, can be easily misinterpreted. Nuance disappears in the new world of triggering and micro-aggression. 

 

That’s part of the problem and the rest almost entirely involves identity politics. With that, civil discourse is stifled on all sides of the spectrum and that further polarizes individuals and groups.

 

Here is a troubling example. A former colleague and friend, who worked as a teacher for the largest school board in Canada, made what I consider an innocent post on Facebook. He commented that there was a “distinction between peaceful protestors in a just cause and violent rioters who undermine that cause.” This was related to the violent anti-racism protests occurring in the States at the time. After reading this, some irate and unknown to him, social justice warriors lodged a formal complaint against my friend to his employer. The employer instantly suspended him for possible “human rights violations,” banned him from school property, accused him of “discrediting the teaching profession,” put a formal reprimand on his record, and even threatened further investigation including possible termination of his contract. Naturally he was pissed to say the least, and fortunate to be close to retirement. And that’s exactly what he did, thankful to distance himself from those idiots.

I have studied and taught biology for over 40 years and have never encountered such low level life forms as those bits of slime that forced a career to end so undeservedly. Of course the idiot Board admins were no shining example of fairness and good judgment. These are the folks responsible for the education of our children and grandchildren, and that is what is most distressing.

This video puts forth a libertarian view of cancel culture:

 This is also a good link: https://www.persuasion.community/p/the-cancel-culture-checklist-c63

Political Party Package Deals & Principles

Casting a ballot during an election is often a problem for libertarians and classical liberals. They would be the first to say its rare to find acceptable candidates advocating for the right mix of socially tolerant ideas as well as fiscal responsibility in government. Unless there is the rare appearance of a true Libertarian or libertarian-like candidate, the aforementioned voters would have to mark their ballots while holding their collective noses or abstain from voting entirely. It's a dilemma.

This problem is almost always because political parties offer package deals. What are “package deals?” They’re party platforms that are often a hodgepodge of inconsistent positions. Rarely do political parties hold principles consistent with strict social tolerance and fiscal responsibility, both important to libertarians. Parties cater to groups of people that have been influenced by prevailing social and cultural norms and popular economic beliefs. They also get labelled as being right-wing conservative or left-wing liberal in modern parlance.

As an aside I would challenge the common meaning of these terms “right-wing and left-wing.” For example, its common in the mainstream media to call communists and socialists left-wing, and fascists right-wing. But fascism is as authoritarian as communism in practice. Recall that the NAZI Party, the prototypical fascist party, were national socialists! How is that different from regular socialists? Really, its not.

So my preference, for the North American situation, is to define left-wing as authoritarian with huge government interference in all matters, and right-wing as the opposite, classically liberal and with little government interference in all matters.

But that’s not how it works in real politics. For example, many so-called right-wing conservative parties claim to be fiscally responsible (and rarely are), and advocate rights, but also would deny women access to abortion, and deny everyone access to recreational drugs. At the same time so-called left-wing liberal parties would tax and spend to support dubious social programs yet allow women the freedom to choose and also not penalize the recreational use of drugs. Of course libertarians and classical liberals share traits that tend to straddle both these supposed left and right positions as well as other issues. How does a libertarian choose?

Thats why it’s important to support libertarian parties, candidates and ideas. It's the ideas that eventually change the culture, and voicing the ideas in an election campaign and giving people the option to vote for them is often the only way people are exposed to them. Like this from the USLP:

USLP Presidential Candidate 2020

In Canada many ideas that had origins in Libertarian Party platforms and thought have already been adopted, even though Libertarians rarely make a dent in election results. Ideas like allowing Sunday shopping, equal rights for gay relationships, allowing beer to be sold in supermarkets, and legalizing the recreational use of marijuana, have all been part of past Libertarian platforms, and now in Ontario, and much of Canada they are par-for-the-course.

Yes, its true that in practice these ideas are not precisely in line with libertarian preferences, but thats the way politics works. Good libertarian ideas start off as a whisper that gets louder as the culture changes. Eventually the ideas are ripe enough for implementation when the time is right and then some unprincipled mainstream party runs with them and wins. This gradual shift in political discussion is the concept of the Overton Window, which I have used to create policy for the Ontario Libertarian Party.

Having said all that, the only way to influence people in our system, especially voters, unfortunately, is to get involved in politics and help construct those package deals.

Why am I wearing a mask, and why you should?

When I posted that picture on my Facebook, most of the reaction was the simple Facebook ‘like.” One fellow sarcastically commented “Libertarian, lol.” Of course what he meant was that libertarians don’t wear masks. Wearing a mask implies submitting to government edict in his mind, and libertarians are contrarian by nature according to popular myth.
That guy did not seem to remember that governments here and around the world eschewed mask wearing at first; in fact most government officials claimed masks were somehow dangerous. Maybe if that idiotic advice had stuck, wearing a mask would have been the contrarian and therefore the correct libertarian thing to do.
 But as it happens government officials changed their collective minds, mostly.

In late February and early March 2020, when I realized SARS-CoV-2 was a respiratory virus likely spread by close contact, and inhaling virus, I began searching for masks online and in local stores. They were no longer in the stores or very hard to find, and online they had very high prices and far off delivery dates. My brother ordered some masks for me in early March (like the one I'm wearing) as a birthday present. They finally arrived May 26th.

 

Masks plus distance = very effective.


I’ve always known that masks were not completely effective but were worn to protect others as well as yourself. Better than nothing in my opinion. Medical professionals have used face masks for over 120 years, so when SARS-CoV-2 came to Ontario, I knew a face mask would afford me some protection, and I would need it.

Both the meme on the right and the video below from this site, illustrates that masks are at least partially effective. Together with adequate distancing (~2 m) they are very useful in preventing spread in enclosed spaces, and in my personal case, I really needed it.

My situation has made me extremely vulnerable to the worst effects of the virus. I have Multiple Myeloma, a blood cancer of the frontline cells of my immune system, the ones that produce antibodies that would fight an infection. I can produce antibodies, and in large quantities, but they are useless and so I’m an easy target for any type of infection. For me and others like me COVID19 has a case fatality rate of between 39 and 54%. I’m in my 70’s, male with type "A" blood, three more knocks. So needless to say I’ve been avoiding people including family since mid-March 2020.

So if wearing a mask or having those around me wearing a mask is even slightly effective, then why not? Of course I believe that wearing a mask should be strictly a voluntary choice, I also believe that it's a good choice, and a considerate choice. Since "do no harm" is the number one rule of libertarianism, then wearing a mask is the obvious choice. Most sensible libertarians will agree, and you can see the evidence here, and here. But, more and more governments are mandating the use of masks. While I don't agree with that, I certainly understand it. Private businesses and government have the right to require individuals to wear masks when entering their establishments. No mask, no admission, thats what I believe. Your freedom to be irresponsible ends when you step into someone's property. That is simply a property rights issue, whether you believe masks are useful or not.

More and more people and organizations are understanding that droplet transmission (and possibly aerosol transmission) is the primary method of spread of SARS-CoV-2. The early instructions in Ontario were to wash hands and stay home. Not a word about masks. Clearly we have learned that information was just plain inadequate. Listen to this physician speaking on "This Week in Virology" (TWIV) saying that masks work (@ 26 minutes, 28 seconds) and should be used in closed spaces. Listen to the entire podcast if you're wondering about that. In fact listen to TWIV if you're interested in viruses/pandemics/science etc. and want to understand from a reputable source whats really going on right now.

Even Trump wears a mask with the POTUS seal!

Several of my 'friends' on social media (Facebook etc.) insist on downplaying the effectiveness of masks sighting scientific studies that prove(?) masks are ineffective. Some even post lengthy exhortations about how useless masks are, how innocuous the virus is, and how we should not be that concerned. Frankly I don't understand their motivation. It makes no sense to refuse to abide by the simple precautionary principle which is just reasonable when unknowns abound. They will argue that they are against mandating masks and forcing people to stay home and on and on. Certainly governments have overreacted by shutting down the economy and possibly creating much more harm than the Pandemic. I understand and I agree. But there is also the idea of personal responsibility, respect for your neighbours, common courtesy, and the chance that you might help protect susceptible people (like me). It boggles my mind but I guess these folks don't really care that all lives matter, else why argue? 

Many of these folks point to the observation (and their own conclusion) that the pandemic seems to be over, the emergency has ended, so why are masks being mandated now? Thats a reasonable question, but the fact is that a second wave is very likely when the weather turns cooler. Masks could mitigate a second wave until an effective vaccine is found and distributed. Masks could allow semi-normal interactions which would help the economy and get people back to work. The second wave may be far worse than the Pandemic has been so far, especially in Canada because of our relatively low infection rate. Just look at infection rates in the US now in July 2020. There, politics has so contaminated good information from physicians and public health authorities, that Americans have not respected the serious implications of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the ease of its transmission. Americans may be inadvertently heading for herd immunity, what Sweden has been doing on purpose. Both countries may (emphasis on MAY), have a milder second wave compared to places  like Canada. Wearing masks in Canada will have to be the next normal for the foreseeable future.