Anytime things go from widely disputed to sudden, virtually-overnight national “scientific consensus,” it’s probably a good idea to be a wee bit skeptical. So it goes with the forced universal masking issue. We’ve obviously run quite the gamut on this, from being told not to wear them at all while the pandemic was at its peak -- and everyone and their neighbor was crowding and swapping moisture particles in Lowe’s and Walmart aisles across America -- to the now almost cultlike, lockstep message from politicians, the media and every leftist still too frightened to come out of their basement that not wearing masks in every possible setting is pretty much the equivalent to stabbing grandma in the heart.
It’s all a farce, of course -- absurd theater forced upon us by people who would have probably believed in witches a few centuries ago. Now that the Karen-caucus has managed to browbeat most Republican lawmakers and even President Trump into some degree of at least verbal submission, they apparently expect the rest of us rubes to take their word for it and follow along. They think if they condescendingly say the words “I wear the mask to protect you and you wear the mask to protect me” enough, everyone will mindlessly obey. And if you don’t, they want to use the force of law to punish you severely.I have to repeat that if I do not have the virus, then who am I protecting, and from what am I protecting whoever it is? The same thing goes for the other guy. If he doesn't have the virus, how is he protecting me? In any case, Morefield then goes on to outline the pros and cons of mask wearing, coming down mostly on the side of not wearing a mask if one is not sick in the first place. Oh, and if you are sick, you really should be quarantining yourself until you are well. But Morefield promised us a powerful argument, and here it is;
However, what most advocates ignore is one key observation that makes forced universal masking an insane and unnecessary policy choice in most situations, and that is this: even if masking worked, wasn’t dangerous at all and was not seen by millions as a pernicious tool of social control, I see no valid reason why we would want to stop the spread of the virus at this point.
There, I said it. The most powerful argument against universal masking is that it could in fact work to slow the spread of coronavirus. Please stay with me. I’m not saying we shouldn’t protect those who are vulnerable to the virus. Had we properly protected those in nursing homes, for example, we could have saved half the people who actually have died from this thing. Nevertheless, the facts are these: the virus is spreading at a rapid rate, but deaths have not spiked and have even decreased. The average age of those who are getting it is significantly younger than it was two months ago. And we’re not sure about this yet, but it also seems to have mutated into a weaker version that is more transmissible but less lethal than the version we saw in April.We don't really want to slow the spread. The numbers are somewhat variable, but between 30% and 40% of the population needs to contract the virus, and have recovered. to establish herd immunity. The idea of a vaccine is nice, but the truth is that there may never be a vaccine. After all, the common cold is a coronavirus, and nobody has succeeded yet in discovering a cure. Indeed, it is an old joke that the man who did discover such a cure would be wealthy beyond his wildest dreams. Herd immunity is our best hope. And the sooner we achieve it, the fewer lives will be lost to this new coronavirus.
Please go read the whole article. It is definitely worth it..
No comments:
Post a Comment