COVID masks culture war — N95s for the vulnerable — is the longer term view

© 2020 Peter Free

 

19 June 2020

 

 

Might those allegedly brainless no-mask folks be right in the long run?

 

As a disclaimer, I take an ecological view toward organismic assemblages of any kind.

 

That means that fringe critters and abhorrent philosophies have their places. Even air-headed Trumpists and idiot Democrats.

 

Let's apply this scientific perspective to American COVID's "mask versus no-mask" culture war.

 

 

SARS-CoV-2's long run is the ultimate issue

 

If this pandemic plays out, epidemiologically, as I suspect it will, the — no-masks-for-most-people — perspective balances best in Freedom's favor.

 

That's obvious.

 

Let's consider why we are so heated about mask wearing, right now.

 

Is our hostility accurately aimed?

 

 

Reason this through

 

Given the coronavirus family's characteristics, safe and permanently effective vaccines seem statistically unlikely to arrive any time soon.

 

"Soon" here meaning a decade or more for durably wide-spread protection.

 

This probability shoots down the hope that masks can go away in about a year.

 

Coronavirus vaccine, like influenza's, will probably not be effective for long periods.

 

And if this coronavirus mutates — as it assuredly will — vaccine effectiveness, even in the short term, will probably also vary (like flu vaccines) from year to year.

 

These probable COVID vaccine characteristics mean that — if SARS-CoV-2 maintains its deadliness among a noticeable proportion of the population — "survival of the fittest" is going to keep weeding some of us out.

 

This (probably unavoidable) genetic thinning process, raises the issue of whether the proportionately huge rest of the not-so-affected public should keep suffering — just to benefit a proportionally much smaller and vulnerable fringe.

 

 

Recall (in this analysis) that . . .

 

. . . the current mask issue rose solely because the US stupidly had almost no virally effective N95 masks on hand, when COVID arrived. Even after months of forewarning.

 

The specific mask issue being argued right now, concerns instead, virally ineffective cloth and surgical masks.

 

Our mask culture war is defined by the continuing lack of supply of virus-stopping face masks, rather than anything actually fundamental.

 

 

Two competing logics — both determined by short supply

 

As it stands now, my cloth mask is supposed to protect you. And yours, me.

 

That logic turns itself around, when we are talking about appropriately virus-protecting face coverings.

 

With regard to N95 masks — generally considered the affordable virus-stopping standard — mine (perhaps combined with a face shield) would passably protect me.

 

And you would not have to wear (or do) anything at all.

 

 

We're getting heated about exactly the wrong issue

 

The issue is supply.

 

Not forced mask-wearing.

 

American Government and the US Plutocracy are exclusively to blame for this viral mask shortage.

 

Let's start yelling at the right people.

 

 

Consider this . . .

 

What happens when virally effective N95 mask supply finally catches up with demand?

 

Let's assume that, sooner or later, these "exceptional" United States finally get off their pudgy, disgustingly soft and unprepared industrial asses.

 

Let's presume — in that happy event — that we begin producing easily affordable N95 masks in suitable numbers.

 

Would not the current bidirectional mask discussion shift toward a more polar one?

 

One where it is "your" responsibility to protect yourself from falling ill — by wearing an N95 mask and maybe a face shield — rather than mine to protect you?

 

 

I am intentionally end-running the "flattening the curve" argument

 

From my perspective, flattening the curve has always been based on two near-nonsensical premises:

 

 

Namely, that society owes Medicine the duty not to overwork it.

 

And second, that the necessity of gaining herd immunity can magically be avoided — if we dither long enough.

 

 

Both premises are more than questionable:

 

 

Medical workers can always say "no" to treating more patients. They do that already by pricing millions of Americans entirely out of healthcare.

 

And herd immunity is going to have to occur, sooner or later, and probably with roughly the same number of total deaths, whenever it is achieved.

 

 

The moral? — As usual, American leadership has not considered COVID's long-run likelihoods

 

The currently swirling mask culture war can go away, when Americans begin acting like we used to:

 

 

Solving problems, instead of creating them.

 

 

The real mask issue — regardless of any potentially arriving vaccines — is successfully bringing affordable N95 mask and face-shield production back to the Homeland.

 

This should be done as a subsidized national security and humanitarian measure.

 

Once Americans have cheap and equitable access to virus-stopping masks and droplet-sparing shields, the medically vulnerable — and susceptible-feeling — among us can (for the most part) protect ourselves.

 

The rest of the population can go back to doing what free people do.

 

Despite the obviousness of this analysis, I have yet to hear one prominent American leader say anything about it.

 

As for the American public — by continually acting like easily distracted flocking fur-bearers — and always yelling at the wrong people — and perennially about the wrong issues — we Americans are steadily losing the planet's cultural fitness battle.

 

Aggressive moron-i-tude is not a survival trait.