The SF Anti-Mask League of 1919

https://twitter.com/timkmak/status/1251936242834563073

by 9nGQluzmnq3M • 6 years ago

281 198 6 years ago

mturmon2• 6 years ago

See also this article from the LA Times, comparing the LA vs. SF reactions to the 1918-1919 pandemic: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-19/coronavi...

refurb2• 6 years ago

This is a great example of "there is nothing new under the sun".

People may feel we live in unique times, but yet again, not much has changed since 1919.

jackyinger• 6 years ago

Haha, well... we’re still just a bunch of Homo Sapiens.

This is a great reminder of the inevitable tragedy of knowledge lost across generations. Could we as a species do better?

kevin_thibedeau• 6 years ago

not much has changed since 1919.

The 1919 SF Chronicle was easier to read.

refurb2• 6 years ago

Since they didn't have Reddit as a source, they actually had to put some effort into stories!

mturmon2• 6 years ago

True. All this has made me want to read a book-length treatment of the 1918-1919 pandemic. The lived experience of a fast moving global pandemic had completely receded from our own understanding until this came along.

seppin• 6 years ago

I'm half way through "The Great Influenza - The Epic Story of the Deadliest Plague in History" it's excellent.

icelancer2• 6 years ago

Comparing the SF health officer from 1918-1919 to Dr. Fauci is a bit rough since Dr. Fauci was anti-mask and also said the risk of coronavirus was miniscule in mid-February.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/02/17/nih-di...

9nGQluzmnq3M3• 6 years ago

From the same article: If that testing shows the virus has slipped into the country in places federal officials don't know about, "we've got a problem," Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told USA TODAY's Editorial Board Monday.

So when the situation changed, his view also changed.

icelancer2• 6 years ago

He was also anti-mask, as I pointed out, as was the CDC/WHO despite a decade's worth of use by Asian countries who didn't wait on RCTs.

javagram3• 6 years ago

Short of that, Fauci says skip the masks unless you are contagious,

I think since February we’ve learned more and more that people without symptoms are contagious. The only way to follow Fauci’s advice in that case is to wear a mask because we don’t know if we have the virus or not.

See this email from a government doctor on Feb 23: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/11/us/politics/coronavirus-r...

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/04/11/us/politics/11dc-...

throwaway41920• 6 years ago

I think since February we’ve learned more and more that people without symptoms are contagious.

Here's an article from January[1]:

"There's no doubt after reading this paper that asymptomatic transmission is occurring," said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases. "This study lays the question to rest."

I've noticed a lot of excuses for poor decisions, as well as rewriting of history that's only a couple of months old. I doubt we're going to see much accountability for the way the pandemic was mishandled.

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/31/health/coronavirus-asymptomat...

ipsum2• 6 years ago

Agreed - South Korea was wearing masks long before the CDC's announcement that masks could be useful in stopping the spread.

Also, from the post it says that masks were useful in stopping the Spanish Flu. It's amazing that we didn't learn that in 100 years.

grey-area5• 6 years ago

Japan and Singapore also have prevalent mask wearing, but are seeing a resurgence in cases.

hef198983• 6 years ago

And since February, we all learned a tremedous amount about Covid-19. I'll take advice from experts who change their opinion when data and information changes over any expert who never changes his opinion by virtue of having been right once early on. because the latter part is usually as much "luck" as anything else.

smileypete• 6 years ago

Many of the experts in Asia with first hand experience of dealing with SARS (eg professors Gabriel Leung, Yuen Kwok Yung etc [0][1]) were calling for masks to be worn in late January, or earlier even. Their simple advice has been right on the money and is basically unchanged since than.

Whereas the advice from the WHO and their dependents has been muddled, illogical, and inconsistent, with increasing amounts of 'wriggle room'

Also the hospitals where there are zero cases of staff infection and care homes free of infection spread are using PPE levels well above what the WHO recommends.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcbJdRb6mds [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv7trxYtMzY

mindslight2• 6 years ago

The restless extrovert's outlook is super bizarro. I'm personally looking forward to wearing a mask long after this pandemic has passed, to defend my privacy against ubiquitous facial recognition.

I want to live in a world where these things aren't legally mandated, but everyone does them because they're good ideas. Apparently that world is impossible.

It's similar to the people that don't wear their seatbelt to somehow stick it to the government. Apparently their driving is so lame that they've never appreciated the seatbelt while cornering? Sigh.

Melting_Harps4• 6 years ago

I want to live in a world where none of these things are legally mandated, but everyone does them because they're good ideas. Apparently that world is impossible.

Helmet laws in the several US states are a good example, I grew up in SoCal, where its mandated for bikes/motorcycles, but more importantly spent a lot of time in 4 wheel motorsports and saw their efficacy on more occasions than I can count. I used to be the only one to wear one during canyon carving as well as track events.

I didn't ride a motorcycle until I got to CO, where helmets are optional, and despite that I would never swing a leg over a bike without one. The only people I ever see ignore helmets are harley riding guys with bare skin exposed all over, often way older, as most of the sport bike community understand that gear is everything in even a low speed, low side if they've been in one.

After a lowside myself with cheap gear, except my helmet as that was a $700 write off, due to a negligent driver and inexperience on my part (specifically: how not to panic towards that as it frequently occurs on the street) I learned the hard way how important 'dressing for the crash' really is and not just a helmet only priority.

The only time I ever rode without a helmet was riding my motorcycle from one end of the parking lot to my storage unit (maybe 1/2 mile, if that) during my first incoming snap frost/blizzard and it felt so incredibly stupid at 10MPH in 1st gear feathering the throttle I'd never do it again.

I'm not sure what serious lack of self preservation you must have to ever willingly ride at speed without one, but perhaps its not so bad to weed that out of the gene pool and not having it expedites the process?

Melting_Harps4• 6 years ago

As I was reading OP's article, another article (pay walled) showed up in the side feed detailing how my town back in SoCal is having, what apparently is becoming ubiquitous in the country, anti-quarantine protests today:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHmDeqdRdLk

I'm so glad I moved out for good this time, its sadly a pro military and Trump part of Southern Orange County that happens to have some of the most beautiful coast lines and best surfing on the mainland... I just looked into to it and it seems its also happening in Colorado Springs, which is also deeply pro Military and is dependent on its economy.

Which is odd, because in the Northern part we have people calling the police to tell them about the influx of out of state plates that been seen recently.

bobmaxup3• 6 years ago

Is there anything else that you want to "weed out of the gene pool"?

hinoki• 6 years ago

Helmets should be optional so long as you are an organ donor. You could have a different coloured license plate.

Maybe that would get the point across?

ravenstine• 6 years ago

I'm personally looking forward to wearing a mask long after this pandemic has passed, to defend my privacy against ubiquitous facial recognition.

I'm not sure I would "look forward" to that, if you mean that in the colloquial sense.

petre• 6 years ago

Chinese on camera facial recognition is able to identify peolke even when wearing a mask.

I think if you combine it with a cycling cap/baseball hat it's more effective, since cameras are usually placed higher than one's eyes.

mike_d• 6 years ago

A more readable version: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1251936242834563073.html

TACIXAT• 6 years ago

Thanks! I wanted to share this with my dad and with the difficulty I had finding the "show thread" button on the Twitter mobile site I knew he would only see the first tweet then bounce.

Kiro• 6 years ago

Twitter UI is a disaster.

masonic• 6 years ago

  starting in Sept 2018 San Francisco suffered from Spanish Flu pandemic

Was this ever corrected in the original?

josephg• 6 years ago

Its impossible to edit a tweet to correct a typo. The author acknowledged the typo in a reply at the bottom of the thread.

mzs2• 6 years ago

There's nice article courtesy UMich as well: https://www.influenzaarchive.org/cities/city-sanfrancisco.ht...

tgsovlerkhgsel• 6 years ago

So what was the problem with the masks? The thread calls it "The dollar sign is exalted above the health sign" but why was this a money tradeoff? Due to the cost of the masks?

javagram3• 6 years ago

Business leaders were opposed to the mask ordinance because they thought it would reduce the people shopping in the stores.

Wearing the masks was seen as uncomfortable and so people didn’t want to do it.

SpicyLemonZest3• 6 years ago

Although I think it's worth noting that this blunts the analogy; they thought it would reduce the people shopping in the stores, because the stores were open and not shut by mandate.

agumonkey3• 6 years ago

It's funny how logic operates. Dead customers come a lot less in stores. Masking is a little discomfort for prolonged "benefits" (morality quotes). Business type persons should know better about long term investment..

dnautics3• 6 years ago

It feels like the lesson here is that enforcement with arrests is going to provoke a backlash, whereas convincing people it's good for them is a better strategy.

DSingularity• 6 years ago

Only if you assume people never change. I’m willing to bet people would respond differently today - in times where a record will severely impact your career potential.

scollet4• 6 years ago

This is not okay considering non-violent offense is heavily prosecuted, especially among minority communities. Please consider a more nuanced argument.

otterley• 6 years ago

It’s not being charged as a felony.

azernik2• 6 years ago

To me it seems the opposite - persuasion didn't get people to wear masks, and enforcement did.

dnautics3• 6 years ago

yes, that's because you're reading it the way the author wants you to. There are other ways to read the same set of facts.

renewiltord• 6 years ago

It looks like a pretty good strategy is to allow people who believe this to go out and kill themselves. On the other hand, what if they’re right and no ones going to die over this? You could require that they pay into a hazard bond that pays out back to them if they don’t get sick.

fred_is_fred2• 6 years ago

This isn't like riding a motorcycle without a helmet. I personally don't care if they want to go kill themselves, but these people are also at the grocery store, or walking in neighborhoods, or at the gas station -- infecting and possibly killing others.

sherincall• 6 years ago

Even riding a motorcycle without a helmet has externalities - more severe injuries from accidents could raise insurance rates across the board, and these people take from the ER/ICU capacity that others could use.

I guess you could have a policy of just letting them die if they get into an accident without a helmet, but that its own host of problems.

dgritsko• 6 years ago

It doesn't just affect them. People who would otherwise not have been infected will likely contract the virus (and possibly due) due to increased community spread from those who do not respect public health guidelines.

bsder• 6 years ago

They unfortunately wind up taking up hospital beds from people who weren't stupid.

logicchains2• 6 years ago

There are many many stupid/dangerous things that people do that can land them in hospital (extreme sports being maybe the biggest example), but for better or worse these aren't banned.

agumonkey3• 6 years ago

someone on reddit found some disturbing astroturfing

https://old.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/g3sw2l/the_user_udr...

lots of new facebook groups like pages asking for reopening, then retweeted by the president

crowds are so weird

SpicyLemonZest3• 6 years ago

I worry that the modern definition of "astroturfing" is so broad that it can be applied to any kind of large-scale organizing. It shouldn't be surprising to discover that the anti-shutdown movements in various states have ties with each other and with anti-shutdown politicians.

baxtr• 6 years ago

This and that they literally started over night. Since the lockdown is new I find this reasonable.

takeda• 6 years ago

Astroturfing is actually appropriate. The movement pretends to be grassroots. This looks like it was organized in multiple states (possibly even countries) by the same organization, that's not grassroots.

ashtonkem5• 6 years ago

There is a distinction between “having ties” and “all the domains were registered in very short order, and the signs have similar typography”

notacoward4• 6 years ago

"Ties to each other" is one thing. The same person registering all the domains within minutes of one another, and populating them with cut-and-pasted content, is quite another.

mzs2• 6 years ago

Journalists found ties* on Friday too »

While protesters in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and other states claim to speak for ordinary citizens, many are also supported by street-fighting rightwing groups like the Proud Boys, conservative armed militia groups, religious fundamentalists, anti-vaccination groups and other elements of the radical right.

…

It was organized by the Michigan Conservative Coalition, which Michigan state corporate filings show has also operated under the name of Michigan Trump Republicans. It was also heavily promoted by the Michigan Freedom Fund, a group linked to the Trump cabinet member Betsy DeVos.

…

In fact the man is Phil Robinson, the prime mover in a group called the Michigan Liberty Militia, whose Facebook page features pictures of firearms, warnings of civil war, celebrations of Norse paganism and memes ultimately sourced from white nationalist groups like Patriot Front.

…

The protest has been heavily promoted by the Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF), which counts among its donors “dark money” funds linked to the Koch brothers such as Donors Capital Fund, and Castle Rock, a foundation seeded with part of the fortune of Adolph Coors, the rightwing beer magnate.

…

The event is also being promoted on a website dedicated to attacking Little for his response to Covid-19. That website was set up by the Idaho businessman, pastor and one-time Republican state senate candidate, Diego Rodriguez.

Rodriguez launched the website at an Easter service held in defiance of the governor’s orders on Easter Sunday, which was also addressed by Ammon Bundy, the leader of the militia occupation of the Malheur national wildlife refuge in 2016 that become a rallying point for the anti-government right in the US.

…

Included in that number are members of the 3% of Washington, a group which has held a series of open-carry rallies in Seattle, featuring speeches from the far-right protest leader, Joey Gibson.

* https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/17/far-right-coro...

yumario• 6 years ago

Can we stop posting twitter treats?

notacoward4• 6 years ago

No. I'm not a fan of the format either, but if that's the way that someone chooses to disseminate informative content then style concerns are insufficient reason to forego it. The bikeshed doesn't have to be blue.

bcoates3• 6 years ago

Is there any reason to believe that gauze masks are even slightly effective against influenza?

The flu can stay viable in air for hours, and the individual exhaled airborne particles are vastly smaller than the holes in gauze -- it's "breathable" (allows moisture droplets to pass)

I suspect the mechanism of action is inconveniencing people into not leaving home at all, a no-pants order would probably have worked as well or better

lliamander2• 6 years ago

I don't know about the flu. Covid-19 is supposed to be spread mainly through respiratory droplets which settle on surfaces fairly quickly and which can be blocked by masks.

woofie112• 6 years ago

Well, I'd argue Covid-19 isn't supposed to infect us at all. I certainly didn't consent to Covid-19 coming into my body.

And handwashing frequently is supposed to stop Covid-19 dead in its tracks. That's what our leaders told us.

I think it's reasonable to say we don't understand Covid-19 completely, and that the information we do receive is often filtered. So for now, I am taking basic precautions against all-of-the-above, until we have hard data to the contrary: contact, large droplets, and aerosol.

kitotik• 6 years ago

According to this post, the data showed that it was effective.

Placebo or coincidence?

Mr_P2• 6 years ago

Masks are effective at stopping people from unintentionally infecting others.

See: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/well/live/coronavirus-fac...

"Even a simple mask is very effective at trapping droplets from your coughs and sneezes. A recent study published in Nature from the University of Hong Kong and the University of Maryland asked 111 people, infected with various viral illnesses (influenza, rhinovirus and a more-mild coronavirus), to exhale into a giant funnel. Sometimes their noses and mouths weren’t covered; other times they used a simple, not-particularly-well-fitted mask.

Without the masks, the infected people exhaled contagious droplets and aerosols, tiny particles that linger in the air, about 30 percent of the time they were tested. When the infected patients wore a mask, it blocked nearly 100 percent of viral droplets and some of the aerosol particles."

partiallypro3• 6 years ago

The person you are replying to is talking specifically about Influenza which isn't spread as widely through droplets, while COVID-19 is spread this way almost exclusively.

DanBC3• 6 years ago

But see this research, which found masks didn't help prevent covid-19 from leaving infected people.

https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2764367/effectiveness-sur...

If people are going to wear masks we need to make sure that they don't touch the mask or their face, or that they wash their hands immediately after doing so.

bcoates3• 6 years ago

But in 1918 they were using specifically gauze, presumably because it's easier to breathe through, or maybe just because it seems medical-y.

The study in the NYT article is using non-woven paper masks, which act a decent barrier to ballistic particles. Gauze would be way less effective than even loose woven fabric at stoping the 5um particles they're measuring. Like the paper masks, it would be completely ineffective at stopping the influenza-carrying aerosols.

"nearly 100%" is a pretty big misstatement of the study as well, while it showed a statistically significant difference between the groups, so much of the no-mask control group recorded 0 virus load from droplets that the size of the effect can't be meaningfully quantified

partiallypro3• 6 years ago

Yeah, I read the thread earlier today, and it seemed like there was some causality fallacy. At one point in the thread he says the cases dropped the weak masks were reinstated...but that doesn't really make sense, because viruses have incubation lags. That's not to say it had -no- effect or that it wouldn't have a larger effect in COVID19, but the evidence in the thread seemed pretty weak to me outside of pure anecdote and headline/timeline cherry picking.

wolco• 6 years ago

Cases will start showing up after a few days so by the end of the week one would expect cases to go down a bit.

jtbayly• 6 years ago

Actually, it’s worse than you remember.

“On Jan 17, the day the masking ordinance went into effect, the # of new cases/deaths declined, the first decline in quite some time. This continued until the epidemic faded, a signal that the mask ordinance had helped wipe out the Spanish Flu in San Francisco”

Why on earth would anybody believe it was the masks that helped when reading the “evidence” in the first paragraph? The cases dropped the very same day the law was passed! So I’m supposed to believe that in just a few hours, the law had a measurable effect?! I don’t think so.

My guess is that people had already seen the cases and deaths rising again in newspaper reports and had stopped going out as much again. Perhaps they had even started wearing masks again.

I’m not trying to say masks are pointless. I’m trying to say that this narrative is absurd.

bobmaxup3• 6 years ago

https://cen.acs.org/biological-chemistry/infectious-disease/...

bobmaxup3• 6 years ago

https://academic.oup.com/view-large/figure/2074913/annhygmeq...

https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/54/7/789/202744

adrianN• 6 years ago

There is evidence that homemade masks are slightly effective: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2440799/

sevencolors• 6 years ago

One aspect of why any sort of mask is encouraged is that it helps prevent the unconscious face touching. I scratch at the side of my chin/beard when i'm thinking. With the mask on i sense it's present and causes me to stop the urge.

DanBC3• 6 years ago

Masks need constant rearrangement.

People wearing masks constantly touch the mask, often without washing their hands afterwards.

heleninboodler• 6 years ago

Is there any reason to believe that coughing into the crook of your elbow is effective? Yes. Neither is N95 certified, but they are both physical impediments to particles directly flying out of your mouth/nose onto other people. Why is this hard to believe?

CaptArmchair• 6 years ago

That's where social sciences come in.

Because people associate wearing a mask with disease, restrictions, illness and so on. A mask taps into beliefs and deep-seated fears about society, the wider world, uncertainty, personal freedom, body autonomy and public health. As such, in Western culture, wearing masks carries widespread stigma:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/04/america...

https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/wearing-a-mask-while-a...

Wearing a mask is a stark wake up call whereas many people simply want to go to business-as-usual as before. During the 1918 pandemic, SF ordered people to wear masks several times. At one point, some people were fed up and started an "anti-mask league".

Today, washing your hands is not questioned, and social norms dictate that one washes their hands at various times. It's something you get taught to do from a young age. That wasn't always the case, as washing hands was heavily opposed in the 19th century when it was first suggested by Ignaz Semmelweiss and Florence Nightingale.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

It took time, campaigning and a lot of education across several generations to get to this point.

ashtonkem5• 6 years ago

One of the mistakes in considering mask usage is falling into an all or nothing trap.

A hypothetical mask that reduces the chance of someone else catching a disease from you by 30% would provide a significant drag on the R0 of the disease, hastening the end of the epidemic.

Also, infection rates of several types of viruses, including flu and enterovirus, dropped significantly in southeast asian countries that moved to universal mask wearing during this pandemic. Since most people weren’t wearing N95 PPE, that implies that even surgical masks are effective at slowing the spread of several types of viruses.

Also, you know, there is a reason why surgeons wear them.

mariodiana3• 6 years ago

Here's the thing. These masks are meant to be used and then disposed of. In a hospital, under normal conditions, there is a protocol to follow in their use. But the overwhelming majority of people are not going to be using them properly. Instead, they're going to end up wearing their very own little petri dishes on their face.

Originally, we were told masks wouldn't help. Now, we're told they will. Obviously, the science here isn't settled. Mask use is more political than anything.

Here's an article: "Cloth masks – dangerous to your health?"

https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/health/cloth-masks-–-dange...

And then there's this:

"Sweeping mask recommendations—as many have proposed—will not reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission, as evidenced by the widespread practice of wearing such masks in Hubei province, China, before and during its mass COVID-19 transmission experience earlier this year."

And, further on down:

"[An experimental study] seeking a reason for the failure of cloth masks required for the public in stopping the 1918 influenza pandemic, found that the number of cloth layers needed to achieve acceptable efficiency made them difficult to breathe through and caused leakage around the mask."

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commenta...

treis• 6 years ago

Here's an article: "Cloth masks – dangerous to your health?"
https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/health/cloth-masks-–-dange....

Jesus, how do people get away with articles and studies like this. The control they used was:

‘standard practice’, which comprised mask use in a high proportion of participants.

So ultimately they're comparing cloth masks to surgical masks and, no shit, surgical masks are better. How they draw the conclusion that cloth masks are dangerous is beyond me.

accountinhn• 6 years ago

If anyone is interested here is report published in 2007 by St.louis Federal Reserve about the 1918 Flu pandemic.

https://www.stlouisfed.org/~/media/files/pdfs/community-deve...

trhway• 6 years ago

On Jan 17, the day the masking ordinance went into effect, the # of new cases/deaths declined, the first decline in quite some time. This continued until the epidemic faded.

same-day effect, especially on the number of deaths, of the masks? To me it sounds like it peaked and started to decline before any effects from the masks as the masks effect on the death number would take a few days at least. I mean i'm not against the masks, i do think they have positive effect, it is just in that case it seems that the mask ordinance came too late. It was already something like 2 months of the raging second wave.

hilbertseries• 6 years ago

Sounds like the ordinance was announced before hand and then was going to be required on that day. So people likely began wearing them more before that day.

marcell• 6 years ago

Early 1900's were also the heyday of eugenics.

The author above says civil libertarians were worried about a slippery slope, where mask laws could lead to forced vaccines "or any experiment or indignity." I think anti-mask concern is more interesting in that context.

nitwit005• 6 years ago

I find the conclusion that the masks helped a little puzzling. I'm sure it indeed slowed the rate of infection, but what they ultimately wanted to happen was fewer total people getting sick. With constant travel through SF, slowing the infection doesn't seem like it should produce that result, just spread it out over more time.

strategarius• 6 years ago

We have huge fines here in South-East Asia, if you leave home without a mask. Even if probability of decrease transmitting 10%, on 1 million cases it's 100 thousand people.

scollet4• 6 years ago

Are the fines more of a signal (i.e. fines for jaywalking) or are they more cut in stone and expecting recuperation?

teekert• 6 years ago

Pretty confusing that the first tweet starts with 2018, should be 1918 I guess. Man I hate platforms that don't allow editing ones sentences, like Whatsapp. So often I find mistake, very often the last word that was autocorrected between the time I typed it and hit enter and couldn't stop my finger from going down on that send key anymore.

js8• 6 years ago

Can somebody please explain this expression: "I'm not kidding I went HAM researching this"

oblio2• 6 years ago

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/go_ham

Stranger439• 6 years ago

The problem here is that when you start passing laws and fines on people not for causing damage to other but "for their own good" that are essentially violating core principles of modern democracy(as in the right to assembly, or conduct commerce), the state are taking on the persona of an "benevolent dictatorship" which are bound to drive some people towards contrarianism.

The measures taken might be completely right from an medical science perspective but we have moved away from a system where an enlightened monarch or central committee makes decisions on behaf of the ignorant people because history have shown that such systems always devolve into conspiracies against the many by the powerful few, so we cannot respond to every minor crisis by having the government adopt the tactics and language of an benevolent dictatorship and must govern by consent, ie it's the scientists job to make the public understand the risks/benefits not dictate solutions.

toyg• 6 years ago

Democracy is wonderful and all but it's simply too slow to use it for absolutely everything. Plus, I would argue that, when it comes to highly-specialized fields like virology, the "ignorant public" does still exist - Boris Johnson just demonstrated that even the best-educated in the world can be incredibly ignorant in this or that area of science.

tom-thistime3• 6 years ago

We have democracy. The OP seems to be arguing against governments and laws irrespective of democracy.

notacoward4• 6 years ago

Where do you get the idea that masks are only about the person's own good, and not to prevent damage to others?

Stranger439• 6 years ago

From the enlightened central committee, who have yet to pass an law making it illegal to unknowingly walk the streets while being infected with an virus(and even the common cold is deadly to the vulnerable).

At what point will it ever be legal again to break isolation, and where were the constitutional process that allowed the government to restrict fundamental rights no simple parliamentary majority can interfere with?

This is the problem you have an government making decree's it never had the authority to do because of an "crisis" with no clear star/end condition, which basic sociology predicts will lead to people getting contrarian views and reactions especially if the response to criticism is an "call to authority" no matter how deserved that call is.

dtech• 6 years ago

This is more than individual protections. Just as you aren't allowed to drive drunk because you will damage others in addition to yourself.

EGreg2• 6 years ago

These laws are not “for their own good”. That is the massive mistake that caused Mike Pence and health officials to urge everyone as late as March 2nd not to buy masks, while the virus was spreading.

The masks are not to protect you - it’s to protect others from you!

Let me put it this way: every infected person who wears a mask reduces R0. The outbreaks and pandemic can be stopped. The quarantines and economic damage won’t be needed.

We don’t know who’s infected, so everyone has to wear masks and washing hands when entering a building. People should be fined by private businesses and buildings for violating this.

And on a public level, this is like getting a DUI.

tom-thistime3• 6 years ago

Spreading a deadly virus causes damage to others.

I'm gonna suggest that normal functioning of our normal system of government might be something we all just have to live with for now. If folks want to argue that we live in a monarchy, I think the place to start is to bring a little bit of civics to the table and explain why they think that idea is plausible.

mrfusion• 6 years ago

You’re absolutely right. It’s important to remember that we’re in a panic right now and we won’t necessarily make the best decisions. I just read a book about the Salem witch trials and the Spanish Inquisition (poor timing I guess) but I feel extra scared right now.

gen220• 6 years ago

Just so you know, this is an old problem in American democracy, which has risen to the Supreme Court over a hundred years ago, and been settled in favor of public health.

It is not a slippery slope to authoritarianism, it is an extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures (i.e. wartime, smallpox). As a nation, we’ve long ago decided and upheld the idea that public health is more valuable than individual liberty, in times like these.

If you’re curious, the case is Jacobson v Massachusetts. Excerpted from Wikipedia:

Harlan ruled that Massachusetts was justified in mandating vaccination: "there are manifold restraints to which each person is necessarily subject for the common good". While Harlan supported such restraints, he also warned that if the state targeted specific individuals or populations to unnecessary restrictions, the court might have to step in to protect them.
That was a few years after Wong Wai v. Williamson in which a federal circuit court injunction in San Francisco was overturned. It required all Chinese residents of San Francisco to get a dangerous bubonic plague inoculation if they wished to leave the city, which Judge William Morrow ruled was "boldly directed against the Asiatic or Mongolian race as a class".

Stranger439• 6 years ago

The us constitution is also a fairly week document that don't even protect things as basic as "free speech" if you read rulings like the infamous Brandenburg ruling, that contract to it's rhetoric did not involve anyone "yelling fire in an crowded theater" but someone advocating people being drafted the army dong WWI to challenge the legality of the draft, and refuse to report as instructed to the muster stations.

This might be the one time the crisis is real and not invented but how do we make sure that all of the emergency measures including all new surveillance tech deployed is mothballed under seal. the second it's no longer an emergency and that an correct review happens afterwards.

The us supreme court have an long tradition of reading the us constitution with an very open mind to the needs of the state itself, especially in rulings that predate the US signing the UN Charter of Human rights.

JoeAltmaier2• 6 years ago

Jesus its an epidemic emergency. Get over yourself - every restriction for public health doesn't have to be campaigned against as a critical attack on your freedom.

You want to know who the snowflakes are now - its the angry crowds that can't spend time at home with their own thoughts, without working themselves into a froth.

Stranger439• 6 years ago

The angry mobs is also 110% predictable and it's an clear indictment against the competency of the state that it so far have not been prepared to deal with what is an normal reaction to emergency powers being imposed with little warning/debate. ] My argument is not that the measures are wrong but that the messaging is indicative of an state that have lost it's willingness/ability to seek consensus, which can develop into a problem that can make the corona pandemic hitting the semi-affluent retiree communities look like an minor event in an interesting decade.

While the measures might be fully correct(mostly i agree with them) "the shut up and listen to your betters" mentality/rhetoric is only going to make the group of people fed up with the way they have been ignored for decades go even more rogue as they gather more and more "evidence" that their rights are being actively trampled on and become more willing to "fight the power!!" regardless of the "collateral damage" for doing so.

EGreg2• 6 years ago

Masks could have prevented the quarantines, and will be needed again when they end. The quarantines are a last resort, after the failure of public policy and non-medical-interventions to contain the virus.

I made a video which shows that masks are the answer, there is no shortage, and that our government leaders were wrong in telling us not to wear them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppiPaYI-x4E

woofie112• 6 years ago

You should consider making a short article instead. No one will watch 30 minutes.

alex_young• 6 years ago

This is not a civil rights thing. This is a public health thing.

Being opposed to keeping crowds off of beaches and people from infecting one another in restaurants is akin to advocating against vaccinations or seatbelt use.

Right now we are in the middle of a flaming inferno and there is a vital role for our democratically elected government to play in mandating mask use and other measures. This is very much a war like moment and we should unify in our resolve to defeat our shared enemy.

The SF Anti-Mask League of 1919

Related Stories