Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Mask Theater
Today I had to cancel a scheduled medical procedure because I would not wear a mask.
I had no interest in causing a scene in the office (or in driving an hour to the office only to be turned away) so I called in advance and told them I would not be wearing a mask. The receptionist was polite and checked with my primary care provider, who is a Nurse Practitioner and was going to perform the procedure in the office. It was a minor procedure (removing a small cyst on my head that has been there for over ten years, which has not ever grown). The receptionist reported that the NP said I didn’t have to wear a mask in the office with her while she did the procedure, but that I would have to wear a mask in the waiting room and the hallways. So I cancelled the appointment.
I told the receptionist that if the NP thought the procedure was urgent — which was not my impression from the last time I had spoken to her — that she would have to grant me a medical exception to wearing a mask. The exception being, I’m not going to wear a mask. So if she wants me to have the procedure, then it’s medically necessary for me to not wear a mask in the office.
The backdrop of this is that I had my annual checkup with her a month ago and did not wear a mask, despite a sign on the front door that stated masks were required. No one asked me to wear a mask — not any of the receptionists, the lower-level nurses, or my NP herself. During the check up, she checked my cyst, saw that it hadn’t grown, but said if I wanted that she could remove it, so I said sure.
However, since then, the governor of New Hampshire, the ironically dubbed “Live Free or Die” state, issued an emergency order for a mask mandate for any place, public or private, where more than 100 people are at the same time. I thought maybe that the doctor’s office, between staff and patients, might meet the threshold. The governor’s order includes fines for everyone involved and also authorizes law enforcement to “enter private property…including without the consent of the owners” to enforce his dictates. Gov. Chris Sununu is reportedly a Republican, and I may even have voted for him twice, but only because his opponents were insane Leftists. I’m beginning to wonder what the differences are between him and a Democrat, though.
Meanwhile there are currently 12 people hospitalized in our entire state (population 1.3 million) with symptoms of COVID-19, and we have the 5th lowest infection rate (518 per 100,000 population) of all the states. This with no state mask mandate of any kind until the aforementioned order last week. To be clear, I see lots of people wearing masks in stores. That is, lots of people wearing masks incorrectly — under their nose, pulling them down to talk, over giant beards, etc. I saw one women pull into the parking lot at the grocery store, get out, open her trunk, and grab a mask from the floor of her trunk, and put it on. Presumably she takes her trash to the dump in the trunk of her car, as well. (For those of you who are city dwellers — those of us who live in the country take our own trash to the dump.)
So anyway, that’s how I came to have an appointment today and why I called in advance instead of just showing up again. I tried to be as calm and firm as possible. The receptionist told me that the mask was to protect the other patients. I told her I wasn’t interested in debating the issue and that I don’t care about the other patients. This of course is something you’re not supposed to say, but it has the benefit of being true. I have no responsibility for the health of people that I have never met.
So I cancelled the appointment. In the end, mask theater is more important than medical procedures.
Published in General
So the question then becomes: what exactly changed between the end of February and now that makes them effective – even partially effective?
I wish there was some gigantic public relations campaign to force them to explain the efficacy.
It would be hilarious to watch them try to legislate it.
All I’m asking for is ordinary, expected political leadership instead of just shoving it down our throats unilaterally.
As I said, even people pushing masks know it is ridiculous: In California, they come right out and say it. “it is still important to wear masks to stop the spread of covid, but masks will not protect you against smoke from the wildfires, so stay indoors!”
That is abject nonsense, and I think everyone knows it is abject nonsense. Masks are pushed either by desperate and hopeful people, who believe that we have to just do something! or they are pushed by people who believe in magical thinking and refuse to engage in even a small amount of critical thinking.
They are also extremely short sighted thinking. Suppose they actually did “slow the spread.” What then? Will they eradicate covid? We get hung up on this idea that, well, you can keep one person from getting sick… but … can you? If it goes away, it only goes away after working its way through a population. What purpose does it serve any of us to “slow the spread?” It doesn’t – but that isn’t what people are thinking. They are thinking that the mask is a shield, it protects them from this outside force. Do they think about how long they’ll need it? Because following the logic, the only real answer is indefinitely.
I was taking all of the required assumptions in order, and granting some for the sake of argument. If someone is contagious, it certainly makes more sense that some sort of PPE would be helpful. But if you go into a hospital, you don’t see doctors running around in these stupid cloth masks that we’re seeing everywhere else. I don’t believe that those things have any impact even if a person is actively symptomatic and contagious.
As for “contagious without knowing it,” yes, if that was true, and it was also true that masks meaningfully reduce transmission, then it would logically follow that having everyone wear masks would reduce the spread a little bit… but that was the point of my comment. It’s a hell of a lot of “ifs,” don’t you think? And even if you get all the way to the end of that logic-chain, you are still left with the question: “what do we hope to accomplish by ‘slowing the spread?'” Early on, the answer to that was “to stop hospitals from being overwhelmed.” But they weren’t. So what is the answer to that question now?
They have no idea how much masks reduce the r0. If they do they should be forced to talk about it.
The only thing we should be doing is protecting the medical system and the vulnerable.
I swear what we are doing in Minnesota is going to make COVID-19 peak with the flu season while we destroy all kinds of human and financial capital.
Do you notice they never talk about how many people are likely infected at any given time? Is it four out of 100? One out of 100?
The main issue is if you are keeping the use of medical resources under control. I don’t see masks making a big difference beyond what we are already doing.
I think the main thing is keeping bars closed. Stuff like that.
You’re right that it’s a lot of “if’s”, but not all “ifs” are created equal. Some of those “ifs” seem fairly likely.
I do think there is value in slowing the spread. I personally know 2 people, both under 50 and relatively healthy, who have had the disease who did not get over it easily. Both were hospitalized and both continued to struggle with it for weeks. It has caused all kinds of practical problems for them – for their jobs and their various other responsibilities. Most people can’t handle that kind of hardship in their lives without major problems, and certainly the fewer people out there with those problems, the better it is for all of us. I realize that is anecdotal, but I think it is obvious that there is a bit of an underdiscussed middle ground between agonizing death (which it apparently is) and infection without symptoms.
If you slow the spread, you reduce the amount of this hardship affecting society at once. There is value in that.
Not to mention the possibility that better treatments being developed could improve outcomes for those who get infected later in time. So slowing the spread means more people getting better treatment and perhaps more people surviving.
This has to be balanced against all of the other destruction and havoc you are causing. I don’t think they think about it at all.
Unless, of course, the treatment is too inexpensive or considered politically incorrect because Trump mentioned it once.
If it was mostly about people surviving, any drug that showed any positive effect would be immediately available. Ask yourself, why isn’t it?
https://news.yahoo.com/renowned-epidemiologist-sees-massive-disinformation-005033779.html?ocid=uxbndlbing
Here are some apparently not engaging in critical thinking: the CDC (note the references to studies in the Lancet, NE Journal of Medicine, etc.. : https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html
Mayo Clinic (they know a thing or two about medicine, or so I’m told): https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449
Johns Hopkins: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-face-masks-what-you-need-to-know
The latest one, and I have to make it clear I don’t fully understand it, the CDC said something about masks and contact tracing that was unfavorable for masks.
The other harms have been considered all along. This is why Congress passed the CARES act, to mitigate the economic damage. This is why governors largely began rolling back the mandates back in May and June. This is why the mask mandates seem like such a small thing to ask. If it makes a bit of a difference, it’s not much of a burden.
And anyway, if you completely removed these mandates, a lot of people are still going to be worried about getting the disease and are going to act accordingly – especially if they regularly have contact with people who are particularly vulnerable, which is a huge number of people. So, a lot of this destruction and havoc you mention is going to happen no matter what – and you will have a lot more of it if the virus is rampaging.
I carry no water for anyone knowingly blocking good treatment for political reasons. To the extent that is happening, it doesn’t affect the points I’ve made above.
I completely disagree. There are all kinds of net worth and human capital that is getting wiped out. Time can’t repair it.
This country has way too much debt and fixed payments to meet. Nobody thought ahead on any human needs.
That’s the part that The Science can’t answer for us. From the beginning there were obvious value judgments, priorities, and competing truths that got overwhelmed by politics. Those competing truths and priorities still exist.
Rufus,
If they started laying off government workers (half of them never needed to be hired in the first place) would you expect the Democracks to be playing a different tune on mask mania?
Regards,
Jim
I don’t disagree that there has been a lot of economic damage. But when a brand new contagious, serious disease lands on your country like a bomb, you can’t avoid it. Again, even without mandates, huge numbers of people would have locked down in some form or another – restaurants, movie theaters, travel – all those sectors of the economy were going to take a hit no matter what until the spread of the virus is under control — that is ultimately what will help the economy. If you don’t like the government telling you to wear a mask, I’m sure you won’t like the government forcing you to go to the movies in order to save the economy.
I never dreamed it would be this thoughtless and political. I don’t think public health people add much value, either. The decisions in New York City are mind boggling.
You are more positive about the decisions being made than I am.
You prove my point. The CDC, prior to the exertion of extreme political pressure, recommended against universal masking. It referenced actual studies that were done following the 2009 swine-flu scare, and which actually did show that universal masking was not beneficial. Prior to just few months ago, the CDC linked to these studies in its recommendation.
Literally all of the “recent studies” that you now see (lancet, etc…) are not studies at all, but are papers that were written based on modeling. Modeling, of course, requires the input of facts and assumptions and… yes, you guessed it … those facts and assumptions are the very things that were previously studied and found lacking. So, basically “here’s a paper that says what would happen if the facts were different from what was found in many, many studies going back to 2009.” But hey, they run with it anyway, because this is a very non-scientific, social and political movement.
The mayo clinic and john’s hopkins links you pasted above are nothing more than the sorts of pamphlets that I see pasted up, everywhere. Again, they aren’t science, they are propaganda.
There have been no actual studies showing that masks are effective. But, if you repeat something often enough, people start to believe it… especially when it comes from otherwise respectable publications like Johns Hopkins and Mayo (maybe we need to think twice about whether they deserve that respect).
Unfortunately, my governor (Gov Wuhan of New Mexico) hasn’t. She was starting to loosen her boot on our throat in early July but clamped it back down and threw the mandatory talisman wearing on at some point as well. Here in New Mexico the mask mandate is one more restriction with no end in sight.
I’m old enough to remember when they told us NOT to buy or wear masks:
Masks keep selling out, CDC keeps pleading with public not to buy them
U.S. health officials say Americans shouldn’t wear face masks to prevent coronavirus — here are 3 other reasons not to wear them
Bottom line here is that our ‘experts’ have shown us that they don’t agree, even with themselves!
Here is a video I watched a month ago, and the moderator asks about Masks effectiveness.
The two top epidemiologists (hope I spelled it correct), basically said on masks. ‘I dont know.’
So, I’ve got a medical/scientific question – and you’re saying I should ignore the CDC, the Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins, my own doctor, other doctors I know, the doctors on Ricochet, and instead go with the opinions of other folks who have read some other random articles on the internet, quoting the occasional Yale professor or doctor here and there, to be sure, but still a bit on the fringes. I’m sure you and the others railing against masks mean well and are arguing in good faith, but I’m not doing that.
This discussion follows similar arguments to the vaccine/ anti vax discussion.
Pro: Everyone must get vaccinated or else they leave the rest of us at risk! It’s science!
Con: But if you have been vaccinated, you aren’t at risk any more!
Pro: But some people can’t get vax due to valid reasons.
Con: Isn’t “I don’t want that stuff injected in my body” a valid reason?
Pro: You want to endanger people.
Pro: Everyone must wear masks or else they leave the rest of us at risk! It’s science!
Con: But if you wear a mask, you aren’t at risk any more!
Pro: But some people have valid reasons they can’t wear a mask, or might get sick even if they do.
Con: Isn’t “I am uncomfortable and have trouble breathing when I wear a mask” a valid reason?
Pro: You want to endanger people.
Individual freedom is hard. Sometimes, people just won’t do as they are told!
All I’m saying is these politicians that are forcing this under emergency powers instead of legislation need to be forced to talk about it. I want them to put in the work.
Hey remember when all the talking heads and experts told us that Saddam totally had weapons of mass destruction and we had to invade a foreign country and kill thousands of people and cost the blood and treasure of the country, and it all turned to be baloney.
And we totally still have to be stuck there years later, because we cant admit that we were ever wrong?
All the pro mask people remind of Bill Kristol.
That’s a great point. I was ok with emergency powers at the start. Not so much anymore. Kind of like authorizing military force there’s a short leash I favor after which we had better start following constitutional and lawful channels. State of emergency isn’t forever. The numbers we’ve seen, as bad as they are, are not emergency level IMO.
A lot, but not all. And as time passes and people still aren’t falling over dead in the street, fewer and fewer will worry and begin to get back to their lives. That’s the difference between mandating a behavior and letting people make their own choices – the destruction and havoc is not nearly as widespread and eventually begins to shrink when people are allowed to make their own choices.
Back then, the CDC cited to actual studies. Now they don’t. So which is the lie? Seems pretty obvious to me. Public opinion, politics, saving face… None of that existed back in March.