ResCon1

Intellectual Intolerance and the Abandonment of Classically Liberal Values Threaten to Destroy America

Intellectual Intolerance and the Abandonment of Classically Liberal Values Threaten to Destroy America

By John R Guardiano on June 6, 2020

The New York Times’ apology for publishing Sen. Tom Cotton’s Op-Ed, and the NFL’s repudiation of Drew Brees’ commitment to honoring the American flag, are inflection points that do not bode well for the United States.

We have observed that groupthink is a serious problem in America today: that it distorts our public dialogue and debate on issues ranging from the coronavirus to law enforcement and public safety, race relations, and other matters of public policy.

Intertwined with groupthink is intellectual intolerance, closed-mindedness, and an unwillingness to allow for the legitimacy of different points of view that may not accord with our own.

Groupthink prevents people from thinking outside of the proverbial box, while intellectual intolerance and closed-mindedness punish them for even thinking about doing so.

This is, obviously, dangerous because it stifles fresh thinking, creativity and innovation. It also is completely contrary to everything that the United States of America was founded upon.

Ours is a classically liberal republic that was founded upon classically liberal values such as freedom of thought, the right to private property, and free enterprise.

The First Amendment prevents the government from abridging our freedom of speech. However, the values that underlie the First Amendment—intellectual tolerance, open-mindedness, robust and vigorous debate, et al.—have long suffused American institutions and American society more generally, especially at the elite level.

Not anymore. Increasingly, it seems, the American elite are abandoning classically liberal values for more contemporary illiberal and authoritarian values.

Thus freedom of thought no longer is seen as an unalloyed good with inherent and intrinsic worth. Instead, speech is judged by how it makes us feel—or, more importantly, how it makes politically important groups and constituencies feel.

Is the speech or thought dangerous or politically incorrect? Does it hurt or harm people? Does it promote hate? Does it violate our communal norms and sense of propriety and justice? Does it threaten our “safe space” and ability to contribute and function to the commonweal?

If so, then, I’m sorry, but your “freedom of speech” ends because it is in contradistinction to the “public good.”

Censorship. Of course, the illiberal authoritarians never admit that they are censors. They correctly note that the First Amendment applies to government, not to institutions and individuals. While this is technically true from a strictly legal perspective, it also misses the point:

The freedom that we Americans enjoy has never depended solely or even mainly on what the government does or does not do. Instead, our freedom has depended on what institutions do—especially our elite, private sector institutions in business, academia, and the media.

Indeed, these institutions serve as our cultural arbiters. They set the tone for what is and is not permissible.

And, for most of American history, they championed classically liberal values. That they increasingly refuse to do so is highly disconcerting and worrisome. Consider, for instance, two big news items that illustrate this troubling trend:

Item One. The New York Times this week published an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) arguing that, in accordance with the Insurrection Act, President Trump should deploy the active duty military or National Guard to cities and states plagued with violent rioting.

The purpose of such a deployment, the Senator explained, would be to restore domestic peace and tranquility and ensure that peaceful protesters can exercise their First Amendment rights without fear of bodily harm or injury.

Agree or disagree, this is a perfectly fair, reasonable, and legitimate argument—especially given that people have been shot, killed, beaten, and run over by violent rioters in the past week.

Yet, Cotton’s op-ed has provoked howls of outrage on social media from dozens of New York Times reporters who ludicrously assert (reportedly with a straight face) that Cotton’s argument endorses military occupation and state violence, promotes hate, and puts black Times reporters in danger.

This is absurd and nonsensical. Yet, as a result of this hullabaloo, the Times has gone to extraordinary lengths to explain and justify its decision to publish Cotton’s op-ed, while giving undue deference to its illiberal authoritarian critics and employees.

Group Think. And now, amazingly, after more than 800 of the paper’s staffers signed a letter protesting the op-ed’s publication, the Times has issued a statement saying the essay fell short of the newspaper’s standards and should not have been published.

“We’ve examined the piece and the process leading up to its publication,” Eileen Murphy, a Times spokeswoman, said in a statement.

“This review made clear that a rushed editorial process led to the publication of an op-ed that did not meet our standards. As a result, we’re planning to examine both short-term and long-term changes, to include expanding our fact-checking operation and reducing the number of op-eds we publish.”

In other words: the mob has spoken and we get it. We will appease the mob and aspire never to repeat this “mistake” by publishing “dangerous” and “wrongheaded” op-eds.

Item Two: New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees was asked by Yahoo Finance about the “take-a-knee” protests by some players in the National Football league.

These players refuse to stand for the playing of the national anthem. Instead, they take a knee, ostensibly to protest “systemic racism” and police brutality in law enforcement.

Brees’ response:

Well, that’s not an easy question to answer… God created us all equal. We all have a responsibility to love each other and to respect other. I try to live my life by two basic Christian fundamentals:

Love your Lord with all your heart, mind and soul; and love your neighbor as yourself. And I think that we accomplish greater things as a community, as a society, and as a country when we do it together…

These are trying times for our country… I think we all recognize the changes that need to take place…

We need to find ways to work together to provide opportunities for one another: to continue to move our country forward to a bigger and better place.

Brees then was a follow-up question about the “take-a-knee” protest.

“Now it’s coming back to the fore,” said Dan Roberts,

and a lot of people expect that we will see players kneeling again when the NFL season starts. I’m curious: how you think the NFL will and should respond to that… And what is your responsibility as a leader in times like this…?

Brees’ response:

Well, I will never agree with anybody disrespecting the flag of the United States of America or our country.

Let me just tell you what I feel when the national anthem is played and when I look at the flag of the United States.

I envision my two grandfathers, who fought for this country during World War II, one in the Army and one in the Marine Corps: both risking their lives to protect our country and to try and make our country and this world a better place.

So every time [that] I stand with my hand over my heart looking at that flag and singing the national anthem, that’s what I think about.

And, in many cases, it brings me to tears, thinking about all that has been sacrificed—not just [by] those in the military, but for that matter, [by] those throughout the civil rights movement of the 1960’s, and all that has been endured by so many people up until this point [emphasis added].

And is everything right about our country right now? No, it’s not. We still have a long way to go.

But I think what you do by standing there and showing respect for the flag with your hand over your heart is it shows unity. It shows that we are all in this together.

We can all do better. And that we are all part of the solution.

This is a perfectly reasonable and fair-minded point of view shared by millions of Americans and military veterans, black and white, who believe that the American flag and national anthem are and ought to be unifying symbols for Americans of all hues, colors, and ethnicities.

Intellectual Intolerance. Yet, Brees’ response has provoked howls of outrage—as if he had just pledged his allegiance to the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan rather than extol the example of the Civil Rights movement, which ended Jim Crow and ensured black voting rights, as well as the example of his two grandfathers who enlisted in the U.S. military to help fight World War II.

Hall of Fame tight end Shanon Sharpe, for instance, could barely contain his contempt for Brees. Sharpe issued a long filibuster-like rant on the Fox News television show Undisputed in which he called Brees’ remarks “insulting,” and said that Brees’ attitude is what has made “the black fight [for equality] so hard” or difficult.

Brees, Sharpe added, should retire from football because he no longer can command the respect of his black teammates.

Retired Pro Bowl safety and ESPN analyst Ryan Clark declared that Brees showed he “doesn’t care that black people are being killed without justice being served… I’m not surprised,” he said. “I already knew who he was.”

“He just doesn’t care,” agreed All-Pro nose tackle Damon Harrison Sr.

Brees’ teammate, Malcolm Jenkins, told him that:

People who share your sentiments, who express those, and [who] push them throughout the world, the airwaves, are the problem. And it’s unfortunate, because I considered you a friend.

I looked up to you. You’re somebody who I had a great deal of respect for. But sometimes, you should shut the f— up.

Dissent. Of course, it defies all reason and understanding to conclude from Brees’ comments that he “just doesn’t care” about the difficulties and obstacles that confront African Americans. But what’s noteworthy about the reaction from many of Brees’ peers is their rank intolerance for contrary points of view.

You either agree with them about taking a knee during the national anthem (ostensibly to protest “systemic racism” and allegedly widespread “police brutality”), or you are indifferent to, or opposed to, fairness, justice, and racial equality.

They will brook no dissent. Different perspectives are not just mistaken or misguided; they are morally repugnant and utterly beyond the pale.

Maoist-Like Recantation. Sadly, Brees has since apologized and recanted, and is now obediently reciting the left-wing, “progressive” creed—to wit: “WE ARE THE PROBLEM,” his wife dutifully wrote on Instagram, as if she had just come out of a Maoist struggle session. “We are not doing enough. I am sorry. We are sorry.”

“We must stop talking about the flag and shift our attention to the real issues of system racial injustice, economic oppression, police brutality, and judicial and prison reform,” Brees dutifully wrote.

NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell, meanwhile, issued a video statement in which he felt compelled to state that the league “condemns racism and the systematic oppression of black people.

We, the National Football League, admit we were wrong for not listening to NFL players earlier and encourage all to speak out and peacefully protest.

We, the National Football League, believe Black Lives Matter.

I personally protest with you and want to be a part of the much needed change in this country.

Without black players there would be no National Football League. And the protests around the country are emblematic of the centuries of silence, inequality, and oppression of black players, coaches, fans, and staff…

The irony is that center-left elites say we need to have “an honest dialogue” about race in America, only they don’t really mean that. Because the minute the “dialogue” doesn’t proceed according to how they’ve scripted it, they browbeat the dissenters into submission.

Thus we don’t have an “honest dialogue.” Instead, we have a dishonest monologue, with the dissenters staying quiet because they don’t wish to be libeled as racists and bigots.

Shannon Sharpe, though, is right about one thing: the American flag is supposed to stand for something. It’s supposed to stand for the classically liberal values—including, notably, freedom of thought—upon which our country was founded.

Unfortunately, those values are now under assault by illiberal authoritarians who refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of points of view that differ from their own.

And when highly influential institutions such as the New York Times and National Football League abandon these values because of a zealous commitment to what they perceive to be a greater good—in this case, racial equality—they endanger not just that allegedly greater good, but the entire American experiment in (classically liberal) self-government.

A republic if you can keep it, warned Benjamin Franklin. America has survived many trials and tribulations to be sure; but increasingly, it looks like Franklin’s warning was prophetic, and not because of anything Trump or the government did or did not do.

Instead, the fault lies with us, the citizenry, and especially our elite, who are rapidly abandoning their commitment to the classically liberal, foundational values that have been our guideposts for more than two centuries.

Most republics have ended up on the ash heap of history because they rotted from within. There is no guarantee that the American republic will be any different.

Feature photo credit: CBS News (Sen. Tom Cotton) and Black Sports Online (Drew Brees).

George Floyd’s Murder Is Not About ‘Systemic Racism’ and It’s Not Emblematic of a Larger-Scale Problem

George Floyd’s Murder Is Not About ‘Systemic Racism’ and It’s Not Emblematic of a Larger-Scale Problem

By John R Guardiano on June 3, 2020

The facts and the data tell a far different story than what the media is feeding us.

As I’ve explained here at ResCon1, groupthink is a real problem in contemporary America. We’ve seen it with the cult-like following behind mask-wearing allegedly to stop the spread of the coronavirus.

And now we see it with the universal declaration, trumpeted throughout the media and in the popular culture, that the murder of George Floyd is an obvious instance of racism—and emblematic of the “systemic racism” that supposedly pervades U.S. law enforcement and American society more generally.

In truth, racism is less of a problem today in American than in all of human history. No country in the history of the world, moreover, has done more for blacks and other minorities than the United States of America.

And, despite the best efforts of left-wing, “progressive” journalists to show otherwise, there simply is no data to support the notion that there is “systemic racism” in law enforcement.

Quite the opposite: as Jason Riley reports in the Wall Street Journal :

In 2016, [Harvard economist Roland] Fryer released a study of racial differences in police use of deadly force.

To the surprise of the author, as well as many in the media and on the left who take racist law enforcement as a given, he found no evidence of bias in police shootings.

His conclusions have been echoed by researchers at the University of Maryland and Michigan State University, who in a paper released last year wrote:

“We didn’t find evidence for anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparity in police use of force across all shootings, and, if anything, found anti-White disparities when controlling for race-specific crime.

Adds talk radio host Larry Elder in an interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity (June 2, 2020):

According to the CDC, in the last 45 years, killings of black by the police has declined [by] 75 percent.

Last year there were nine unarmed black people killed; 19 unarmed white people. Name the unarmed white people who were killed.

You can’t because the media gives you the impression that this is something that happens all the time [and only to black people].

Obama said this ought not be normal. Mr. former President, it’s not normal; it is rare. Cops rarely kill anybody, let alone an unarmed black person.

And the idea that this happens all the time is why some of these young people are out there in the streets. And it is simply false. Isn’t that good news? It’s not true!

What most left-wing “progressives” gloss over or refuse to forthrightly acknowledge is that, as Riley explains, “racial disparities in police shootings [stem] primary from racial disparities in criminal behavior.”

“Why are the Minneapolis police in black neighborhoods?” asks Heather Mac Donald.

Because that’s where violent crime is happening, including shootings of two-year-olds and lethal beatings of 75-year-olds.

Just as during the Obama years, the discussion of the allegedly oppressive police is being conducted in the complete absence of any recognition of street crime and the breakdown of the black family that drives it.

The murder of George Floyd was an abomination, but it is not a racial or racist abomination. Instead, it is a rare law enforcement problem that affects a small number of police officers, white and black.

It was only last year, after all, in Minneapolis of all places, that a black Somalian-American police officer, Mohamed Noor, was convicted of third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter for wrongly killing an unarmed white woman while on patrol in 2017.

Acording to the New York Times, the woman “was unarmed, wearing pajamas, and holding nothing but a glittery cellphone.” Yet she was killed by this black police officer. However, nowhere in this Times article on the case does the word “racism” appear.

Racism? So why is racism being seized upon now in the murder of George Floyd?

In part because all Americans of goodwill are understandably sensitive to the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, and racial discrimination, and how that legacy might have ramifications even today.

But there are less benign reasons as well.

Anti-American anarchists and far-left extremists seek to use the cudgel of race and racism, real and imagined, to attack and destroy America.

These are the people affiliated with Antifa and foreign intelligence services who have hijacked otherwise peaceful protests and used them as vehicles for arson, looting, rioting, and lawlessness.

Politics. There also are nonviolent “progressives” eager to exploit Floyd’s murder for rank political reasons. They see in his death an opportunity to push for sweeping legislative changes that will “fundamentally transform” America along statist lines.

The racist narrative, albeit false, is politically useful to these left-wing activists; so they push it with unrestrained gusto.

We the people, however, should not be fooled. While racism certainly exists and should be called out and acted against whenever it rears its ugly head, it is a far cry from the most significant problem that we face today.

And it is far cry from the most significant problem that blacks and other minorities face today.

What’s worse? Subpar schools and a lack of educational choice and opportunity in too many poor black neighborhoods. The breakdown of the family and the absence of fathers in too many homes, black and white.

Black-on-black crime that results in the senseless death of too many young black men and innocent children. And a relative lack of jobs and economic opportunity in too many of our nation’s disadvantaged communities.

But all of this has very little to do with racism and a lot do with economics, sociology, and public policy.

In truth, we Americans should take pride in what our nation has done for blacks and other minorities. And we should be grateful for our police, of all hues, colors and ethnicities, who put their lives on the line every day to protect us from the barbarians at the proverbial gate.

The thin blue line, remember, is neither black nor white. It’s blue, and it includes Americans of every race, color and creed.

Feature photo credit: LAist.com.

Officer Chauvin May Not Have Killed George Floyd, But He Is Still Legally Culpable for Gross Wrongdoing

Officer Chauvin May Not Have Killed George Floyd, But He Is Still Legally Culpable for Gross Wrongdoing

By John R Guardiano on June 1, 2020

The autopsy has some surprising results. However, it doesn’t negate what we already know about guilt and innocence in this case.

Maybe new evidence will emerge that helps to explain or exonerate the actions of the Minneapolis police officers who apparently murdered George Floyd last week, but I very much doubt it. The video that we’ve all seen is utterly compelling, straightforward, and clear-cut.

For more than eight long and fatal minutes, Officer Derek Chauvin dug his knee into Floyd’s neck while Floyd lay prostrate on the ground. Three other Minneapolis police officers, meanwhile, either joined in, or watched and did nothing to stop Chauvin. Floyd then died.

The autopsy reportedly found that Floyd died “from a combination of heart disease and ‘potential intoxicants in his system’ that were exacerbated” by the unrelenting police pressure on the carotid artery in Floyd’s neck.

Thus, according to the autopsy, Floyd did not die from asphyxiation or strangulation caused by the police.

From a medical standpoint, that may be significant; but in terms of law and public policy, it is largely irrelevant, and for two reasons:

What Chauvin and his fellow officers did was obviously and manifestly wrong. Floyd was handcuffed and subdued. Thus there was no reason to risk killing him through unrelenting pressure on his carotid artery.

Any properly trained police officer (or military veteran for that matter) knows that unrelenting pressure on the carotid artery is a surefire way to kill someone because it cuts off the supply of blood to the brain.

Chauvin either was grossly stupid and ignorant, or he was malicious and sadistic. Either way, he is legally culpable for wrongdoing—whether or not it resulted in Floyd’s death.

From the standing of public policy: within our judicial system, the police have a limited and prescribed role. The police are tasked with subduing a dangerous suspect, handcuffing him, and taking him into custody.

That’s it. The police are not tasked with meting out justice, real or imagined, outside the confines of the judicial system.

If a dangerous suspect cannot be subdued, then the use of deadly force is prescribed. This typically happens when a suspect is free and on the loose, and the deadly force most often employed involves a firearm or weapon.

But Floyd was not free and on the loose. Quite the opposite: he already was subdued and handcuffed! So there was absolutely no need to employ deadly force against him.

In short, Chauvin may not have intended to kill Floyd (thus he was charged with manslaughter and third-degree murder as opposed to first- or second-degree murder); but neither did he intend to do his job in the manner that he surely had been trained and prescribed by the Minneapolis Police Department.

And Chauvin’s fellow officers who stood by and joined in, or who did nothing to stop him, are equally culpable and disgraceful.

Justice. In the United States of America, no one is above the law, not even the police.

In fact, police officers in the United States are rightly held to a higher standard of conduct than ordinary Americans precisely because they are entrusted with the use of deadly force to protect the weak, the vulnerable, and the innocent.

Officer Chauvin and his fellow officers will be represented by counsel and they will have their day in court. They will be forced to explain themselves and justice will be served, American-style. Thank God for that.

In the meantime, our hearts grieve for Floyd’s family and we weep for the stain of shame inscribed on the thin blue line.

We Americans know better and we Americans deserve better. So, too, did George Floyd. RIP.

Feature photo credit: New York Daily News.

Why Do Some People Embrace Mask Wearing to Stop the Coronavirus?

Why Do Some People Embrace Mask Wearing to Stop the Coronavirus?

By John R Guardiano on May 31, 2020

Hint: it has nothing to do with science and reason and everything to do with politics and feelings.

I noted here at ResCon1 that there is no compelling scientific evidence that wearing a mask stops the spread of the coronavirus.

And in fact, masks can be positively counterproductive because they give people a false sense of security, “thereby leading them to take fewer precautionary measures that actually do help stop or prevent the virus’s spread.”

Yet, masks are all the rage, with some states, like Virginia, now requiring that masks be worn in all public places, including restaurants and retail stores. Why is this?

Again, it has nothing to do with science because the science is clear: As Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) emergencies program explained at a media briefing in March:

There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit. In fact, there’s some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly.

According to the WHO today, “If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19.”

Association. Still, some people have argued that because masks are commonplace in certain countries or jurisdictions that have done a relatively good job of containing the spread of the coronavirus, masks must, therefore, be effective. But this is silly. Association, obviously, is not causation.

In these same places where masks are commonplace and the coronavirus is relatively contained, people may eat healthy and hearty breakfasts and refrain from drinking alcoholic beverages. Does this mean that healthy and hearty breakfasts and the absence of alcoholic beverages stop the spread of the coronavirus and thus should be mandatory?

In truth, there are too many other potential explanatory factors at work to explain why some countries and regions have been better able to avert or avoid the coronavirus.

Mask wearing populations may be more fastidious and disciplined about social distancing, which is effective at stopping the spread of the coronavirus. Or they may suffer fewer medical complications and co-morbidities. Maybe they’re a younger demographic.

This matters because the victims of COVID-19 are overwhelmingly the elderly and those with with underlying medical ailments and chronic diseases.

Feelings. But despite the utter lack of scientific and empirical evidence to support mask wearing, masks have a cult-like following, and for several reasons, I think.

First, there is the understandable belief that they might do some good and, therefore, are worth the annoyance and imposition.

A member of my own family expressed this sentiment well. “If stuck in a room for 12 hours with a person who has COVID-19,” he writes, “wouldn’t you feel better if that person had a mask on?”

That’s a fair and legitimate question, and I suppose the answer is: Yes, I would. But our feelings can be deceptive. They can give rise to a false sense of hope.

That’s why public policy should not be based on feelings. Public policy should be based on facts, logic and empirical evidence.

Masks are like chicken soup. They may make us feel better; but neither a mask nor chicken soup is effective at stopping or combating a virus.

If your sore throat feels better by eating chicken soup, then by all means do so. But please don’t think that chicken soup will heal your sore throat or free you of a viral infection, because it won’t.

By the same token, if wearing a mask makes you feel better or safer—or if it gives you the sense that you’re doing something helpful in this pandemic—then by all means, wear a mask. But please don’t think that your mask will do anything to stop the spread of the coronavirus, because it won’t.

Symbolism. Another reason public health officials push masks is because they see them as a powerful symbol to remind people that we are still in a pandemic and thus need to be extra careful.

In this view, it really doesn’t matter whether the mask actually stops the spread of the coronavirus. What matters is that it gives people pause, causes them to think, and induces them to act appropriately.

This is the position of Dr. Anthony Fauci, who heads up the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease. Back in March, Fauci admitted that people should not be wearing a mask.

“There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask,” Fauci told 60 Minutes.

When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better, and might even block a droplet. But it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think it is.

And often, there are unintended consequences. People keep fiddling with the mask, and they keep touching their face.

Fauci has since changed his position and says he now thinks people should wear a mask. However, his reason or rationale for changing his position is telling. It’s not that the science behind wearing a mask has changed, because it hasn’t.

Instead, Fauci says, the masks are a powerful “symbol” to prod people to do the kinds of things that they should be doing—mainly social distancing—that will protect people and the public health.

Politics. Some people, moreover, are smitten with masks because they view masks as public rebuke to President Trump, who has declined to wear a mask.

Worse yet, in the view of these anti-Trump political partisans, the president even castigated one reporter for trying to be “politically correct” when that reporter refused to remove his mask while asking Trump a question in the White House rose garden.

In this view, wearing a mask is a way to thumb your nose at Trump.

This, in fact, is why Biden has conspicuously taken to wearing a mask: It’s a way for him to identify with and bond with his left-wing supporters. And forcing all Americans to wear a mask is a way to isolate Trump and have the citizenry en mass thumb them their collective noses at him.

“What could be more delicious!” think Biden’s “progressive” partisans.

A similar and sometimes overlapping group of anti-Trump “progressives,” meanwhile, supports mandatory mask wearing as a means of keeping the citizenry fearful and the country in lockdown.

These “progressives” understand that when Americans are fearful and America is in crisis, it is much easier to impose sweeping statist measures that will “fundamentally transform” America along socialist and redistributionist lines.

Indeed, for the left, the mask is a convenient political tool that will help them to impose their statist agenda on an otherwise resistant citizenry.

The bottom line: there are several reasons, ranging from the benign to the malevolent, that people support mandatory mask wearing despite the lack of scientific evidence that masks stop the spread of the coronavirus.

But regardless of the reason or rationale, the groupthink that now dominates our politics, our media, and our culture—to wit: that wearing a mask is a self-evident good that will protect us and the public health—is counterproductive and untrue.

And no matter what you think, we all should agree: truth, science and reason should trump feelings, sentiment and wishful thinking.

Feature photo credit: New York Post.

Social Distancing, Yes; Mask Wearing, No.

Social Distancing, Yes; Mask Wearing, No.

By John R Guardiano on May 25, 2020

“The debate over whether Americans should wear face masks to control coronavirus transmission has been settled,” declares the New York Times‘ Knvul Sheikh. “Governments and businesses now require or at least recommend them in many public settings.”

Sheikh is right about the requirement or recommendation to wear masks in many public settings, but wrong about how the debate has been settled.

In truth, the masks do little or nothing to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, and actually cause real harm: by giving some people a false sense of security, thereby leading them to take fewer precautionary measures that actually do help stop or prevent the virus’s spread.

Social distancing, for instance, makes good public health sense. Yet, how many times have we seen people donned up in full mask-covering mode standing just inches away from a friend or colleague who is talking, gesticulating, or jointly texting on their phone?

I’ve seen this image many times. These people no doubt think they’re safe and doing the right thing because they are wearing a mask, but nothing could be further from the truth.

The mask, of course, does not protect the mask wearer. Instead, the mask theoretically protects other people from being the infected by the mask wearer if the mask wearer is an unknown or asymptomatic carrier of the coronavirus.

(A known or symptomatic carrier of the coronavirus would presumably be self-quarantined and not out and about in a public setting.)

I say theoretically because the logic or rationale behind the requirement to wear a mask depends on dubious assumptions that don’t stand up to practical, everyday scrutiny.

Makeshift Cloth Masks. First, the studies and analyses that say masks can prevent the spread of the coronavirus involve surgical masks. But most people aren’t wearing surgical masks. Instead, they’re wearing makeshift cloth masks, which are inherently subpar and leaky.

“Fabric masks also allow air in around the sides, but lack non-woven, moisture-repelling layers. They impede only about two percent of airflow in,” said May Chu, a clinical professor in epidemiology at the Colorado School of Public Health in an interview with LIveScience.

N95 surgical masks, reports Live Science, “effectively prevent viral spread [by filtering] out 95 percent of particles .03 microns or larger.”

However, because N95 surgical masks are in short supply, even for the medical professionals who most need them, and because they are difficult to properly wear or fit, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) “does not recommend them for general use.”

As for airflow outward through a mask, whether surgical or nonsurgical, studies report marginal benefits at best.

“The evidence for the efficacy of surgical or homemade masks is limited, and masks aren’t the most important protection against the coronavirus,” LiveScience notes.

“To me, it’s not harmful to wear these masks, but it doesn’t look from this study, [April 3, 2020, in the journal Nature Medicine], like there is a whole lot of benefit,” said Rachel Jones, an associative professor of family and preventative medicine at the University of Utah…

The recommendations that everyone wear masks are because “any kind of impediment is better than nothing,” Chu said. But fabric masks are not expected to be as protective as surgical masks, she said…

“There’s been enough research done to be able to confidently say that masks wouldn’t be able to stop the spread of infection, that they would only have a small effect on transmission,” added Ben Cowling, head of the Divison of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the Hong Kong University.

“We shouldn’t be relying on masks to help us get back to normal.”

“Another April study, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine,” writes Mark Siegel, a clinical professor of medicine at NYU Langone Health, “revealed that the force of sick patients’ coughs propelled droplets through both surgical masks as well as cloth masks.”

The CDC,” Siegel explains,

based its revised mask recommendation on studies that found asymptomatic spread was far more common than had been thought. But there have been no studies on masks’ effectiveness in preventing it [emphasis added].

Although the coronavirus is highly contagious, it is much less so than, say, measles, which can linger in the air for two hours after a cough. a sneeze or even speech.

By contrast, the Covid-19 virus has not been proved to be aerosolized. Coronaviruses often enter the body through the eyes, and frequent hand and face washing and social distancing is much more effective than masks at preventing that.

Moreover, as Sheikh acknowledges:

“Many people also wear masks incorrectly, letting them dangle off the tips of their noses, or concealing just their mouths.

People also tend to readjust face masks frequently, or remove them to communicate with others, which increases their risk of being exposed or infecting others, he said.

He is Dr. Eli Perencevich, an infectious disease physician at the University of Iowa and the Iowa City Veterans Affairs Health Care System. Dr. Perencevich recognizes the problems inherent with masks, which is why, as Sheikh reports, he advocates the use of face shields instead.

Face shields, unlike masks,

protect the entire face, including the eyes, and prevent people from touching their faces or inadvertently exposing themselves to the coronavirus.

Face shields may be easier to wear than masks, he said, comparing them with wearing glasses or a hat. They wrap around a small portion of a person’s forehead rather than covering more than half their face with material that can create the urge to itch.

Importantly, face shields are far more sanitary than masks, which are supposed to be disposed of or regularly washed, but often aren’t. Indeed, mucus and germs can and do accumulate on the mask, thus putting the wearer at risk of other viral infections.

“The nice thing about face shields,” by contrast, “is that they can be resterilized and cleaned by the user, so they’re reusable indefinitely until some component breaks or cracks,” Dr. Yu said. A simple alcohol wipe or rinse with soap and hot water is all it takes for the shields to be contaminant-free again.

Dr. Yu, Sheikh notes, is a dermatology resident affiliated with Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Siegel agrees: face shields make a lot more sense than masks. “When I worked on a coronavirus ward, I felt much safer because I also wore a plastic face shield, which blocks viral particles from even reaching the mask,” he writes.

Science Says. But my point here is not to argue for face shields instead of masks. My point is that people who (often self-righteously) insist we wear masks do so not because the science impels them to. They do so because it makes them feel good.

In truth, the science behind mask wearing is weak and lacking. The science behind social distancing, hand washing, and good hygienic practice, by contrast, is strong and compelling.

Which is why I avoid wearing a mask whenever I can while still practicing social distancing. The latter makes individual and public health sense; the former does not.

Feature photo credit: The Catholic Weekly.