Masking The Real Problem

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 sides, 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 believes 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.