A little over a month ago, the people in the know laughed at the fools who thought masks would save them.
“Seriously people — STOP BUYING MASKS!” the surgeon general, Jerome M. Adams, said in a tweet on Saturday morning. “They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if health care providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!”
The second part, that health care providers’ need for the scarce resource of masks took priority over the general public was entirely understandable, but the Surgeon General understood that for the altruism that gushed from people’s fingertips, they weren’t going to die for the cause. And so the first part — the masks are “NOT effective” — had to be included, for without that, the cause was lost.
Both masks help prevent the spread of droplets from a person’s cough or sneeze, but medical specialists have said that for average members of the public, they are generally not effective.
As reality now flips on a dime, it has since been acknowledged that this was false, a lie perpetrated for the greater good of the moment which has become an acceptable and ubiquitous modus operandi. For the handful who fail to appreciate the inherent value of lying for the cause, get over it.
As states and feds are now spinning the world again in recognition that people are bristling at remaining in lockdown, need to earn a living as the stimulus plan is panning out as poorly as conceived and recognizing that there will be no “plan” that will enable us to return to work, to life, with relative safety and security in the next year or two, until we have a treatment and vaccine, politicians of all stripes are trying to smooth over the details as best they can.
On the fed side, Trump began holding conference calls with industry “leaders” who neither knew nor agreed to be part of his show, and have nothing to contribute beyond their own self-interest, if they can even get into the conference call. It’s hard to blame anyone for this ill-conceived and executed game, as it was cobbled together from nothing with the same finely-tuned planning as other schemes that pop into the president’s head and make for potentially good sound bites.
But on the state level, there’s no better plan.
Masks, bandannas, scarves will now be the rule du jour, and most people will comply despite Cuomo’s claim that it won’t be enforced by police or punitive measures.
“All people in public must have a mask or nose covering, mouth and nose covering, and they must wear it in a situation where you cannot or are not maintaining social distancing,” Mr. Cuomo said.
The governor said a mask was not necessary if, for example, a person was walking down an empty street. But, he said, “You’re now at an intersection and there are people at the intersection and you’re going to be in proximity to other people? Put the mask on.”
The state won’t be handing out the best available masks, because there are none. While surgical masks are inadequate, they’re better than bandannas and scarves, which are more for appearances than any substantive purpose. But none of this is serious. It’s just a palliative measure designed to create the appearance of safety.
He added, “You don’t have a right to infect me.”
Fair enough, but does he have the authority to infect the rest of us? There is talk of testing and tracing, but we lack the capacity to do it and, even if it could be done, it’s an unserious solution that fails to accomplish more than telling people to get back into quarantine after they’ve already spread whatever made it through their bandanna where they will either survive the infection or not.
People respond with the flip side question, “so you’re saying we should stay in lockdown forever?” On the contrary, this is not to suggest any course of action per se, but rather to make decisions based on reality rather than whatever fantasy serves our purpose. If we leave our homes and return to whatever normalcy will look like for the foreseeable future, we should do so realizing that there will be infection and reinfection (there remains no evidence of “herd immunity,” despite the words being used promiscuously, and an odd forgetfulness of our capacity to get the regular flu over and over). And with infection will come permanent damage and death.
Are we prepared to lose more people to COVID-19? Many are, particularly when they don’t perceive themselves to be at particular risk, but only the old and infirm. If may be another 10,000 or 1,000,000, but nobody can say at the moment and models projecting outcomes haven’t served us well because there are too many variables, too many unknowns. What you, Trump or Cuomo believe isn’t going to change what the virus will do to people.
The arguments cut both ways, with sound reasons to remain sheltered and with sound reasons to end the quarantine and return to life. They may be valid, while simultaneously flawed and inadequate, constraining us to choose whether to suffer from one or the other, but either way there will be suffering.
Which direction is chosen remains to be seen. We are fickle when it comes to the amount of risk we’re willing to assume, usually shifting its acceptability based on whether the grim reaper is coming for us or our loved ones. Other people, not so much. There’s nothing new here, so the choice will largely be based on public spin and personal fear. But at least we can be honest with ourselves about what the choices, and their respective risks, are before we decide. Masking the problem in palliative malarkey isn’t going to save grandma from the grave. Or you.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Scott,
IANADr, and certainly not an epidemiologist or infectious disease expert, but I fear you may be doing your readers a disservice in dismissing masks/ bandannas as being ineffective in reducing the spread of this virus. I heard a woman, infectious disease expert, on the BBC w/ in the past day or two describing how these can reduce the spread of Covid-19. She said something to the effect that if 80% of the population were to wear masks while out in public, and the masks were 50% effective in stopping droplets (spittle) that would be enough, w/o any other interventions, to flatten the curve.
So, certainly not a panacea, but effective enough that wearing masks makes sense.
Best,
Hal
Wearing masks is better than not wearing masks, Hal. That’s not the same as wearing masks will save us.
Further, cloth masks can’t assist in preventing infection if they’re not washed regularly. Wearing them is just the beginning. . .
So, you’re saying it’s not a panacea?
It’s not even half a panacea. In fact, it could be dangerously deceiving, as people believe they’re safe and engage in foolishly risky behavior because they don’t know better and the masks make them feel as if they’re well-protected.
Masks are effective. The issue arises with touching them.
Immediately after removing your mask you should wash your hands and the mask, That’s not going to happen if your raising it every intersection.
A bigger issue than masks is testing. Any plan maintaining a low incidence of disease in a re-awakened economy would depend on abundent testing. I can imagine a rule that, yes, office workers can come back to work if they have a negative test, or that customer-facing employees have to have a test at least once a week.
I’m fascinated with people who utter “testing,” or testing and tracing, as if it’s a cure all. Putting aside that we have no capacity to do any of this as yet, nobody seems to ponder the mechanics of how it would work. Using your office worker example, person tests neg and goes back to work. Cool, right? Next day he buys food, gets infected, is asymptomatic for a week, infects half the people in the office, who infect their families, friends and the guy at the supermarket, who infects customers he meets and every tomato he touches. They’re all tested, but it doesn’t change enough to eliminate the problems.
Part of the problem with the “lockdown” is 80% of the people have been living hand to mouth, with nothing put back for hard times. That necessarily limits the time the economy can be shut down.
It’s entirely understandable why people can’t sustain the lockdown, but that doesn’t answer the question of what to do about coming out of it without restarting the same problems as before (which, I note, haven’t yet gone away, but are at best flat for the time being).
Well, maybe the government will come up with something viable, or maybe everybody will be exposed and live or die. Given the stellar management of the pandemic thus far, I am not highly optimistic.
“But at least we can be honest with ourselves about what the choices, and their respective risks, are before we decide.”
Or we can chose the Noble Lie and eventually learn the the moral of the story of the boy who cried wolf does not turn on whether he had good intentions.
Governments’ ignorant misinformation is a real problem. Usually, information on an epidemic comes from the CDC, which informs on what is known, not known and being done. Not so here–information comes from federal and state administrations, who don’t know; won’t say they don’t know; and don’t understand why things are done.
So they make happy shit up. They speak of stuff they don’t understand–“We’re flattening the curve,” they say, and they create commissions to decide how to lessen the restrictions on people. They talk of “herd immunity,” but by the use of the term it’s clear they have no idea how it works. They say this happy shit and people believe salvation is near. They say it because that’s what politicians do. Media runs with the happy shit because they have no other information. People hear the media-amplified happy shit and want their lives back-like Right Now. Who can blame them?
But the medicine is not happy. Everyone will be exposed to the bug over time. The best estimate is it will kill .5% the first time through the population. That’s a seemingly small percentage, but a big number in a country of 330 million. Epidemiologists recognize bugs commonly lose lethality through slow replication, and for whatever reason. Through that process, and when 50-70% of the population has been infected, bugs tend to stop transmitting because of some kind of immunity. The percentage can only be known through blood testing for antibodies to the bug. If someone had the bug, there will be antibodies. The blood test doesn’t exist. When it does, well, you can guess the numbers to be tested. But the immunity has to be studied. Is it complete in the sense that reinfection won’t occur? Is it partial?
In the meantime, it’s gloves, masks and stay away from each other. That time obviously isn’t measured in single-digit months, or maybe even months at all. If people are let out of their caves early, infection, reinfection and deaths will rise and people will be ordered to reenter their caves.
There are pretty simple rules to not transmit the bug: stay far enough away from each other and don’t touch your face with unwashed hands. It’s really that simple. If people could be trusted to follow those rules and wear a clean mask when staying apart isn’t possible, like on SHG’s subway, we can all come out of our caves.
But how can people be trusted when the politicians spew happy shit?
Pretty much. Testing for infection isn’t going to answer enough to protect anyone. Testing for antibodies, which isn’t as yet viable as even the effective tests done in labs remain at low 90% false positive, are estimated to show 5-15%, meaning 85-95% remain at risk. Real masks, gloves, distancing, not touching, etc., would work, but we don’t have them and how many will comply?
Lost of bullshit, mystery and aspirational wishes at the moment. Later today, the president will roll out his plan. Who won’t trust their life to Trump’s feelz?
This relatively recent tendency of public figures (Juncker, Clapper, Trump, now Adams) to openly and unapologetically lie to the public is a good thing. It is eroding the long-held but ridiculous belief that public figures can be trusted and that the things they say are likely to be true.
Sit down. I have something to tell you and it’s going to make you sad.
You beat me to it.
Masks? … anyone remember hand sanitizer and ventilators?
Remember millions of beautiful drive-thru tests for infection?
In the history of presidents, there hasn’t been one less qualified to deal with a real national crisis. The vilified Hoover, who was probably right about the Depression (welcome back), was no match for this dope.
Straight talk is required, but he can’t manage a straight sentence. Or phrase. But the other party does no better. Can it be true there’s no one among us that can speak simply and directly? Mel Brooks, if force-fed magic mushrooms, couldn’t conjure this.