Mask mutiny

I have yet to find conclusive evidence that shows when asymptomatic people cover their faces, infection rates go down. I am all for vulnerable populations wearing real medical grade masks and N-95 masks, and face shields to protect themselves. Mandating 2 year olds and up, everywhere, to wear masks without the data and evidence of their efficacy is bizarre, and in my opinion, a violation of one's body. Here in Oregon, the more common face coverings have become, the higher our infection rate has gone up. I don't know that there is a correlation, but clearly, if they are effective, it is hard to see.

The other concern is, if the government and courts can force us to wear something over our faces for the "common good", what else will they require? The judge's words are concerning if they are applied to mandated vaccinations: "Constitutional rights and the ideals of limited government do not absolve a citizen from the real-world consequences of their individual choices or otherwise allow them to wholly skirt their social obligation to their fellow Americans or to society as a whole,” Judge John Kastrenakes wrote. “This is particularly true when one’s individual choices can result in drastic, costly, and sometimes deadly consequences to others.”

So, should the government force us to do other things that they see as a "social obligation"? This is concerning. There is zero evidence that if I walk by a person at the park (or grocery store) without a mask on that I will kill them with a respiratory virus of any kind. That is ludicrous, but that is where we are at right now with the mask debate.

"Constitutional rights and the ideals of limited government do not absolve a citizen from the real-world consequences of their individual choices or otherwise allow them to wholly skirt their social obligation to their fellow Americans or to society as a whole,” Judge John Kastrenakes wrote. “This is particularly true when one’s individual choices can result in drastic, costly, and sometimes deadly consequences to others.”

At some point the two principles Judge Kastrenakes invokes are going to collide.  The entire eugenics movement was, and is, about building a society free of "inferior races," physical defects and "imbeciles," as Oliver Wendell Holmes referred to those with mental disabilities.  Forced sterilizations are illegal, but there's still a push for mothers to voluntarily abort their babies if they don't measure up.    

The "individual choice" to abort obviously results in "drastic, costly and [always] deadly consequences" to another human being.  As society becomes more and more depraved, even if government doesn't actively mandate such choices, for the sake of utopia, the societal pressure to do so will eventually be too intense to withstand for some.

It's curious to me that we have begun to  equate mask wearing with love for others.  What about the elderly individual who can't hear well?  What about the infant learning to read facial expressions?  What about the grandparent who hasn't seen thier children or grandchildren's faces in months?  I am thankful that people are starting to speak honestly and truthfuly about what it really means to wear a mask all the time.  I appreciate that there's an open acknowledgement that it can hurt people simply by poorly communicating.  I appreciate my medical friends who acknowedge their exhaustion, joint pain and headaches after wearing medical grade masks for 12+ hours.  For those who are strong mask advocates, I would encourage listening with the same love you equate with wearing your mask.  Talk to those who can't hear about what it's like to try to communicate every day without seeing.  Talk to medical providers about what it's like to wear a mask all day while trying to communicate and work.  Talk to someone with lung disease about what it's like to wear a mask for hours. Be willing to listen and recognize it's not actually easy or simple.   There is a reason body builders wear masks when they work out.