A curious thing happened this week after a federal judge struck down the Biden Administration’s mask mandate for airplanes and mass transportation: nothing. In such high-profile litigation, the Justice Department will often announce an emergency appeal to stay the order of the lower court pending an appellate review. Instead, the Administration said it was studying the opinion but that the mandate was no longer in effect.
When U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle in Tampa ruled that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention exceeded its authority to ordering masks for mass transportation, many of us expected an immediate announcement of an appeal. Instead, there were crickets from the CDC and cheers from passengers.
It was a telling moment. The hesitancy of the Administration at that moment may have had more to do with scenes on airlines of passengers celebrating the decision. One pilot came out to tell the passengers: “Ladies and gentlemen, this is your pilot speaking. This is the most important announcement I’ve ever made. The federal mask mandate is over. Take off your mask if you choose.” Whole planes erupted in spontaneous celebrations at 40,000 feet.
The problem is that these scenes had the feeling of a “ding dong, the Witch is dead” party. It is far easier to ban than stop a party. The Administration will now fight to tell those same passengers to say that the witch is very much alive so re-mask.
The decision by Mizelle came at a time when airlines and experts are questioning the scientific or medical basis for the CDC rule. A group of 21 states last month sued to challenge the mask mandate.
Many in the public were also confused why they could go maskless at movie theaters, restaurants, sporting events, but not airlines or trains. Moreover, many have asked why the common surgical paper masks used on airplanes are required when even experts on networks like CNN call them “little more than facial decorations.” The CDC was enforcing the wearing of masks declared “useless” by experts.
Judge Mizelle accepted that masks can limit the transmission of Covid-19, but said that the question was the authority of the CDC to make such a decision unilaterally. The Court asked why the Administration did not want to allow the public to be heard on “a regulation that would constrain their choices and actions via threats of civil and criminal penalties.”
According to Mizelle, the answer from the CDC was basically “trust us we’re the government.” Mizelle noted that the Biden Administration did not offer anything of substance when pressed on why the public and transportation companies should not be heard in a “notice and comment” process. Instead, Mizelle said that the Administration shrugged off such requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act as “commonsense.”
The court insisted that the Constitution requires more than a shrug to prevent an agency like the CDC from becoming a government unto itself.
We have an Administration that insisted that public health demands the continued enforcement of the mask mandate, but now seems remarkably equivocal on the response to the rule. Last week, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki chastised Fox’s Peter Doocy that he “is no doctor” when asked about the continuation of the mandate. However, she declined to say that the rule should continue to be enforced and said it was now “recommended” pending a decision on appeal.
What is most interesting about the conspicuous delay is that the CDC is afforded great deference in interpreting terms like “sanitation” under the regulations. However, the CDC has previously lost cases over national mandates or moratoriums. Last year, the CDC reissued a moratorium on evictions that some of us viewed as clearly unlawful. Yet, the CDC issued the order at the request of President Joe Biden (and the support of Harvard Professor Lawrence Tribe) only to have it struck down.
The Administration is going to have a hard time making this cat walks backwards. The cheering of passengers and pilots seemed as much as a communication to the Administration as it was a celebration. A large number of airlines immediately declared the mandate to be dead and unenforceable. It is like throwing a retirement party for an employee before they have decided to go. It is a tad awkward to express doubts when someone is showing you the door.
That is why those cheering videos could have a greater impact on the White House than any CDC or DOJ recommendation. The Biden Administration could still appeal as it has in past such cases. There will certainly be many DOJ lawyers asserting that they could win on appeal on the basis of agency deference. The question is who would tell the public. They may have to wait for the “ding, dong” parties to end.
Here is the opinion: mask-mandate-order
In this nation individual liberty is supposed to be in the national interest (and the government’s).
Judge Mizelle refused to defer to the federal government’s interpretation of the statute under the Chevron doctrine, holding, not very persuasively, that the statute was not ambiguous.
Even without that, the result would still have been the same, on the judge’s alternate, and very persuasive, grounds, that the government failed to observe the notice-and-comment requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act without good grounds.
Nevertheless, even though higher courts can affirm Judge Mizelle’s judgment on the APA ground, I suspect the Supreme Court will use this case as its opportunity to strike down the Chevron precedent. Mask requirements are so unpopular, and scientifically indefensible, that this is a perfect opportunity. And many of the justices are known to oppose Chevron.
This matter also illustrates the importance of notice and comment. Comments would have provided the opportunity for pointing out how there was no scientific support for requiring masks. And the government would have been obliged to respond to such comments.
I believe the judge went on to argue that even if the statutory language was ambiguous, it would still fail to delegate the authority because it was not clear and specific under the major questions doctrine.
The CDC has now asked the DOJ to appeal so we’ll see what appellate courts make of the judge’s reasoning.
On a different point, there is speculation that Biden will reinstate Title 42, now set to terminate May 23. Since the CDC and surgeon general have concluded it is no longer warranted for health reasons, and since that is the only basis on which it can apply and the decision is the surgeon general’s, how exactly could this be done lawfully?
It is interesting that the WH and left want to get rid of one Covid measure – Title 42 and preserve another.
This is all politics.
Title 42 is just a tool – the real issue is letting CBP do its job.
Chevron is dead or dying – good ridance.
Laws are passed by congress. The courts owe congress some deference on the meaning of the law.
The executive has no more legititimate constitutional voice on the meaning of a law then the courts do – frankly less.
The most fundimental reason for defering to the executive is to avoid politicizing the courts.
But the principle that the interpretation of the law is the role of the courts is one of the earliest supreme court decisions.
Marbury I beleive.
This is not a perfect answer – it increase the politicization of the courts.
But Chevron deference is worse.
The most fundimental next thing that must be addressed is putting teeth into the rules for statutory interpretation.
Judges that find the politically beneficial meaning rather than the plain meaning of a law need to be disciplined.
Marbarry claims to be the final arbiter. But in reality, Congress has ceded the power. Congress has far more power. States, even more power. Kelo is a horrendous bit of constitutional law, but I think over 30 states passed laws protecting private property from emanate domain. Heller and Casey reafirm individual rights to keep and bear arms, but states and local govt continue to severely restrict gun possession.
Our elected representatives in DC have willing ceded their power. Because it shifts responsibility away from them, and they never have to be judged on their votes.
Thankfully States are coming to realize they have way more power than the feds, and are starting to flex that muscle.
We no longer teach civics. Hence people don’t know all power starts and ends at the People.
The final authority is ALWAYS the citizenry.
Through the vote when that is trustworthy,
Through force of arms when it is not.
One of the things the War in Ukraine MIGHT highlight to left wing nuts – is that ultimately people will fight, kill, and die for liberty.
J6 was not an insurrection – but if there is a next time, if we can not trust elections, if we continue to have our liberty abudsed by the institutions that are supposed to protect it,
there will be violence.
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,”
“INTERPRETATION”
NOT!
_____
“Interpretation” is not necessary and interpretation is not constitutional.
You do realize that you just nullified the Constitution, amended the Constitution, and confiscated the legislative power from the legislative branch and gave it to the judicial branch by employing the word “interpretation.”
Please cite the Constitution wherein the judicial branch is provided any power to amend the Constitution, legislate, modify legislation, or legislate by “interpretation.”
The echoes of verbal meanderings in the ethereal realm of “interpretation” related to the Constitution do not constitute the literal, verbatim, English words of the “manifest tenor” of the United States Constitution.
“Interpretation” is corruption, and an invitation to corrupt.
The Constitution holds dominion and that dominion cannot be modified by “interpretation” by the judicial branch.
You have no power to imagine and deliver power to the judicial branch that it is distinctly not provided by the Constitution.
The sole charge of the judicial branch is to assure that actions comport with statutory and fundamental law.
The judicial branch has no power to modify any statutory or fundamental law in any of its findings or decisions.
The judicial branch is not the legislative branch, and the judicial branch is not an ancillary legislative branch.
Period.
I would note that if the statute was ambiguous as you claim then it is void for vagueness.
Congress is obligated to create clear laws.
The law making power in the US belongs to congress – not the executive, and not the courts.
The courts are their to protect individual rights from government overreach and to kill unconstitutional or vague laws.
Congress can rewrite new laws. The country did fine before each and every law that has ever been passed,
Striking one is never the end of the world.
But infringing on liberty with vauge statues is.
So what is it Lysias – if the statute is as you say – unclear – then it is unconstitutionally vague.
Understanding that the Constitution provides rights and freedoms to individuals and severely limits and restricts government, someone please cite the Constitution wherein government is provided any power to compel individuals to cover their faces with masks, and wherein the freedom of clothing or appurtenance (9th Amendment) is denied to individuals.
Please cite the Constitution wherein any rendition of “emergency powers” is delegated to Congress or reserved to the States, or to the people, other than Article 1, Section 9, which allows for the suspension of habeas corpus in a condition of rebellion or invasion.
“Accepted that masks can limit transmission?” Accepted this on what basis? Because the CDC’s Mengele Brigade said so? It’s irrelevant anyway, and not because CDC failed to allow public comment? Public comment is a pointless, perfunctory exercise, the summarized collective viewpoint of which can be wholly dumped in the trash by the tyrannical federal regulator 30 days later! What’s relevant is that mask orders violate American’s inalienable natural rights to speech, assembly, and the fundamental right to pursue happiness. These rights supersede the Constitution, not to mention silly legislation, executive orders, or Deep State fatwas. “Oh, but air transportation is a privilege, not a right.” All you docile sheep with your 9-digit eartags better start rethinking that maxim! Who is to serve whom!
I’m not sure Turley is right that the Judge found that masks can limit transmission. I did not see that finding in the opinion, and it was not necessary for her to address herself to that one way or the other for purposes of her analysis.
@Tom SteChatte
P100 respirators can limit transmission.
N95 masks too. Provided, you’re wearing them properly, and you dispose them after use. (They are disposable.)
Other than that… when you consider that its not vapor(droplets) but aerosol … no the masks do nothing.
This is why those who are not sheeple will not vote for a Democrat unless the GOP candidate is worse.
New Jersey first grade curriculum. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/dge2a30qi05brxw/AADZE5YRB-DViEZ-eiLQ1yoYa/By%20the%20end%20of%20Grade%202?dl=0&preview=3Rs-NJ_PinkBluePurple.pdf&subfolder_nav_tracking=1
Since when do unelected bureaucrats determine the laws we have to live by?
Unfortunately this is a growing concern. Not only unelected government regulators but big money flowing into the political process. For example, Mark Zuckerberg’s 2020 400+ million dollar (strings attached) infusion into swing voting districts. George Soros entities spending millions in local and state elections that were once lower budget campaigns. Big Tech and corporations doing the bidding of politicians, bypassing the legislature and representation of the citizens, so as to gain political favor. The list goes on.
This is a problem that should concern the Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike. A microscopic subset of radicals are attempting to destabilize our nation and our way of life.
If you think about some of the most significant domestic policy areas you will see that we are no longer governed by law. In each of these areas the laws haven’t changed but government policy has changed 180 degrees:
1. Climate: promote fossil fuel development/stop fossil fuel development;
2. Affirmative Action: oppose it/require it;
3. Illegal Immigration: secure the border/open the border; and
4. Covid Mandates: oppose them/impose them.
When the executive branch and agencies have this much discretion, how can it be said that we live under the rule of law? In some cases the courts have begun to say no to this, but there is a long way to go.
It is not the money that was spent that is the problem.
It is that this money was spent to get Government to change laws, policies and procedures to favor one political party.
It was essentially a publicly delivered bribe to buy politically favorable application of government power.
Voltaire was prescient
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”
― Voltaire
California is the new Shanghai
###
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2098
California: AB-2098 Physicians and surgeons: unprofessional conduct.(2021-2022)
An act to add Section 2270 to the Business and Professions Code, relating to healing arts.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST
AB 2098, as introduced, Low. Physicians and surgeons: unprofessional conduct.
Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation of physicians and surgeons by the Medical Board of California and the Osteopathic Medical Board of California. Existing law requires the applicable board to take action against any licensed physician and surgeon who is charged with unprofessional conduct, as provided.
This bill would designate the dissemination or promotion of misinformation or disinformation related to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, or “COVID-19,” as unprofessional conduct. The bill would require the board to consider specified factors prior to bringing a disciplinary action against a physician and surgeon. The bill would also make findings and declarations in this regard.
Translation: parrot the talking points
Estovar, you were not complete in your conclusion. A more accurate conclusion should be “repeat the talking points or else.” They have veys of dealing with those who step out of line.
Let California self destruct.
It’s a fine line between a “ding dong party” and a “Ding Dong Party”, a.k.a. Democratic Party.
Another tragic story of Woke Religion grooming our children. As a parent we need to purge our government influencers and public schools of this perversion of grooming kids….now
That is an excellent video Rodriguez that any parent or grandparent should listen to. Our children are in jeopardy from the left, who, because of PC and leftism, push kids to solve normal growing problems with drugs, surgery and the like. Teachers have been promoting things of this nature and causing harm to our young. Those on the left that push these types of things in schools are engaged in child abuse.
Kids aren’t being “groomed” by a “Woke Religion.”
They are. If, however, you are part of that “Woke Religion” you wouldn’t know any better.
That is pretty much exactly what is occuring.
Citizens Must Obey by Order of the Over Lords
Judge Mizelle’s Ruling Raises More Questions Than Answers.
1) Can Federal Judges anywhere chip away at Federal powers?
If so, political stooges in Federal robes could issue rulings to paralyze the government amid national emergencies And 20 years from now they could be far-left Judges. They might undermine a centrist government. Or undermine our war effort at a crucial juncture.
2) Should individual liberty trump public health?
If so, any fool or drunk could challenge health officials while mindlessly spreading
contagious diseases. Any conspiracy monger could flaunt health restrictions. It could be a nutty religious group. Or a prostitute spreading STD’s.
To say public health officials have no right to infringe on individual liberty is ceding ground to common mischief makers.
3) Can government respond to the next pandemic?
Those old enough to remember the AID’s epidemic understand diseases can come out of nowhere to baffle modern medicine. Doctors and scientists then need time to research. That can take a year or three. For most of the 1980’s AIDs was like a death sentence.
One must note the gay community was slow to recognize AIDs as a major crisis. There was denial when bathhouses were closed; a public health decision that seems like a no-brainer in retrospect. But individual liberties were cited as reason to challenge. AIDs became a full-blown epidemic ‘because’ of deniers.
*****
The Federal Government has to have the authority to mount a rapid response in the event of pandemics, disasters and war. If individual liberty trumps national interest then we, as a nation, will fail the next crisis.
Have you been living under a rock ?
Judges – both conservative and progressive have been striking down executive actions in their jurisdictions with nationwide effect for a long time.
Yes, there is a problem here, but there is nothing new.
“Should individual liberty trump public health ?”
You have mis-framed the question.
The correct question is when can government powers infringe on individual liberty.
The answer is:
When the exercise of power PROVABLY has a net positive benefit.
When it is implemented in the least liberty infringing way.
When it is NECESSARY,
When it is within the domain of government.
You must meet all those criteria.
It is extremely rare that those conditions can be met.
The federal mask mandate does not even come close.
There is no evidence of a provable benefit – there have been 13 RCT’s since 2000 – none have found a statistically significant benefit of masking – and that is against diseases that are far less contageous than Omicron.
Masks are NOT the least infringing solution. One example – consistent with centuries of law is that you can infringe on the liberty of those who are actually infected – i.e. quarantine. But you can not infringe on the liberty of the healthy.
No public health policy to deal with Covid has worked – that is obvious to anyone who has done comparisons between different countries and states. Something that does not work is not necessary.
Nowhere in the constitution is health a power granted the federal government.
@John B Say
You wrote:
“Should individual liberty trump public health ?”
You have mis-framed the question.
The correct question is when can government powers infringe on individual liberty.
-=-
Actually its his question and he did frame it properly.
What you miss is how to answer it…
The answer is yes, individual liberty does trump public health, until you have a situation where you can demonstrate that the acts of individuals do harm individuals.
We can see this w smoking bans.
You can smoke outdoors however you cannot smoke indoors unless its a dedicated smoking room w proper filtration.
You can smoke in your own personal home, but in apartments and hotels you can be restricted by the property owners.
To your point…
The mask mandate is a mitigation defense against COVID where the masks outside of N95 and P100 respirators are shown to have no real benefit. Even more so in that the virus is spread via aerosol and not just water vapor/droplets.
The transmission has shown to be via human respiration and not from surface contact, although the virus can live on surfaces for a short period of time. (So wash your hands and don’t touch your face)
What has been shown to be more effective is having excellent HVAC and airflow and air treatment for indoor spaces. (High filtering (FPR 12)) UV light treatment of the air being recirculated.
The other issue with masks is that they must be worn properly and are disposable. (P100 respirator filters are disposable after a time, the mask isn’t but should be cleaned)
The other issue is risk of hospitalization and death from COVID.
The latest strain has mutated to the point that the outcome is similar to the flu.
So the risks are not high enough to justify the wearing of masks. Meaning that calls for wearing masks in the name of public health are not justified to trump individual liberty.
And that’s the thing.
If someone wants to wear a mask… that’s their prerogative.
In Chicago, I walk around… I see individuals still wearing masks. Even outdoors. Some due to public transportation rules which just expired. Others… well… they’ve been indoctrinated.
But hey! Its their choice and I can see the virtue signaling and know that they are good Social Democrats.
HTH
-G
Can government respond to the next pandemic ?
Obviously not. There is no historical example of a successful government response to a pandemic.
Governments have tried plenty of things – few if any have worked at all.
You noted aides. Government was ineffective against aides. Ultimately aides was dealt and continues to be by drug companies – not government.
Overall government is a substantial negative impediment – especially to rapidly moving health problems.
@John B Say
Governments can respond to the next pandemic.
Can you say Trump’s Warp Speed?
Can you say bringing back the manufacturing of PPC into the US?
There’s more, but you get the idea.
And yes… Government responses… not the best track record… but without their assistance. Things could have been worse.
With a 2% mortality rate of COVID (pre-omicron) you’re talking 6M dead in the US alone. (based on population of 300M)
Sorry, but the antivaxxers got it wrong… when it came to vaccinations of the most at risk people.
Vaccinating kids? That was wrong. The risks outweighed the benefits.
And to your point… lockdowns and drastic draconian measures… ineffective.
You seem to think that Aides was going to be contained ?
You also seem to think that some government somewhere in the world has effectively dealt with Covid.
That is self evidently false.
Slowly people are coming to the realization – that many new all along, that NOTHING – or more accurately nothing manditory was the correct response.
You do not seem to understand that government does not have control over everything – all problem can not be fixed by government, some can not at all.
Regardless, there is nothing in the constitution granting the federal government power over health.
Even if there was a justification for government action – which there is not, the responsibility lies with the states.
There is also no federal power regarding disasters in the constitution and for nearly half of US existance the federal government did nothing about disasters. There is no evidence that anything has gone better since Government started interfering.
War conversely IS the domain of govenrment.
One of the things that has become obvious from Covid is that the left, and democrats are anxious by nature.
Mankind survived for almost 150K years when less than 1 in three survived until 20.
And you are scared $hitless by a disease that almost exclusively kills old people.
Further Omicron has replaced all other forms of Covid arround the world.
Nothing in existance is as contageous. It is not stopable, but it is no worse than the flu.
No one gets out of this world alive.
For two years we have traded false promises of safey for actually living our lives – at the behest of the nervous nellies out there.
Some of us would like to live some more before we die.
The neurotic left is the impediment to that.
If national interest trumps individual liberty we as a nation of freedom is doomed and not worth saving.
Great questions, to generate discussion.
Definitions are the boogey man
Federal govt limited enumerate powers vs State powers . Differentiate between legislative power and administrative power.
Emergency powers. Mandates enacted 26 months ago, are no longer “emergency”. The executive could go to the legislature and get wide buy in with expiration dates.
You bring up the AIDS virus. At that time Local, State, or federal govts refused to shut down the gay bath houses. But this time courts supported the closing of churches.
As far as Judges powers. Leftist judges invented the National stays on executive orders. The Hawaiian judge cancelling President Trumps Visa restrictions, for the whole nation, instead of providing relief in just their jurisdiction, Even though they were exactly like Obama’s EO
“Those old enough to remember the AID’s epidemic understand diseases can come out of nowhere to baffle modern medicine. Doctors and scientists then need time to research. That can take a year or three. For most of the 1980’s AIDs was like a death sentence.”
If you remember, the AID’s epidemic was spread by the left.
No, AIDS was not “spread by the left.” Viruses like HIV are spread by people regardless of their political views.
It is not surprising that you missed the point. Leftist policies were responsible for its rapid spread.
And people have ideologies and behavioral patterns that sometimes impede or advance the spread.
And sometimes bad patterns are strongly correlated to politics.
“Those old enough to remember the AID’s epidemic . . .”
So government should compel the afflicted (everyone?) to wear a “mask” on their “member?” And to undergo weekly testing? And be compelled to take the relevant medicines? Or maybe a sex “lockdown” and “shutdown” — forced abstinence, all in the name of “public health.”
“The Federal Government has to have the authority to mount a rapid response in the event of pandemics . . .”
That’s one of those statements that seems reasonable, until you specify the context.
A rational government does not usurp the rights of the *healthy*. It does assume everyone sick, then makes them “prove” that they’re healthy. It does not compel individuals to undergo a medical procedure. It does not use “science” to petrify an entire population into submission. And its “cure” does not include child abuse and killing the economy.
This is silly. Did you read the opinion? It concluded:
1. The power in the relevant provision of the applicable public health law to order “sanitation” measures does not include the power to order people to wear masks, as the word “sanitation” was generally understood when the law was passed. Moreover, the section in which the power appears is devoted to measures involving property and animals, not people; people are dealt with in other sections. Chevron deference does not apply because there is no ambiguity. Moreover, if there were ambiguity, the “major question” doctrine would preclude the measure because it upset federal/state allocations of power and so must be clear and specific.
2. There was no “good cause” to deny a comment period under the APA before adoption; and
3. The CDC failed to explain the exceptions to its rule, as well as other aspects of it, as required by the APA and so the mandate was arbitrary and capricious.
The reasoning was in many ways similar to the other recent instances in which the Biden administration has exceeded its power. The opinion was clearly written and logical. If appealed, it could perhaps be overturned, but I doubt it.
Would you have an agency order us to do anything it wants?
@Daniel: Thank you for inserting facts into the discussion. I’m sure the Idiot Brigade of Unhinged Leftisit Posters (but I repeat myself) will not engage with you to refute any of these facts. However, that does not preclude them from ad hominems, deflections, non sequiturs, or any of their usual rhetoric nonsense.
Where were you during the Trump presidency?
Here’s one of the clowns: Derrick Kahala Watson
Like the boy who cried wolf, this hand was way overplayed.
What we now face is a healthcare, financial, educational and mental health crisis that will take years to amend, if ever. Patient’s delaying primary healthcare, governments banning elective surgeries have created a healthcare tsunami of epic proportions that will be far greater than COVID itself.
Meanwhile small businesses struggle to survive from the tyranny of politicians and regulators, many of whom have never run a business or met a payroll, who otherwise are clueless about business.
If a person feels uncomfortable then by all means they should continue to wear a mask and get all the boosters. That is their right and obligation to themselves and their family. If they come down with COVID by all means quarantine until asymptomatic.
What we saw in many instances is excessive regulations not founded on any more than the SWAG method. Now the growing number of immunologists, virologists, epidemiologists Public Health physicians who were silenced by social media in the early part of the pandemic are proving to have been correct in their right to question the ongoing narrative.
How many states have relinquished their emergency powers? Once they are drunk with this level of power it is difficult for them to actually face “We the People.’
Sorry, Fauci. Black Robes Matter.
Ahhh hahaha! Perfection!
The market can respond instantly. The airlines could have signified specific flights as mask only. Responding to market demands.
We are 24 hours into this ruling, and not a single airline as stepped in to fill the need of huge amount of people demanding safe flights.
@Iowan2 — Oh, you poor thing. How hard it must be for you to get out of bed knowing that utopia is not yet within your grasp, and that other people think differently than you. You have my deepest condolences.
Just about as strange as gas prices falling. The midterms are coming, the midterms are coming! Follow the yellow brick road! When midterms are over the mandates will be back, gas prices will go back up, and the wicked witch of the west will be magically resurrected until 2024. It’s not strange, it’s just distasteful.
Also transmission modes. SARS-CoV-2 and its [unPlanned] Posterity are spread through fecal transmission a la HIV.
That said, don’t forget the goggles. The eyes are a window to social and viral contagion.
Not true. HIV is blood borne only. SARS may well be spread through blood contact, but the main transmission route is aerial. Secondarily, through surface contact. As for the eyes, you’re correct about that one. It’s why the original advice before the CDC went political — wash your hands, cover your cough — was spot on. Colds and flu are spread through the air, and there’s no more effective way to get those than through the eyes. It’s why anyone who’s apprehensive about infections should wash their hands thoroughly with hot water and soap for as long as it takes to sing “Happy Birthday.”
Before covid, I had already been doing that for a decade. Before I got religion about handwashing, I’d get a few colds a year. That turned into a cold every three or four years. Masks offer some protection against spreading viruses, but no more than covering your cough. The crap of the past two years was overkill to the max, and deeply unscientific.
HIV is blood borne, ideally transmitted in feces. SARS-CoV-2 is known to survive and transmit in fecal matter.
HIV is blood borne only
HIV is transmitted via bodily fluids that come into contact with mucous membranes: Vaginal secretions, breast milk, semen, pre-seminal fluid (precum), rectal fluids and blood.
SARS may well be spread through blood contact, but the main transmission route is aerial. Secondarily, through surface contact
Viruses disintegrate quickly on surfaces. RNA viruses are highly labile. Unlike some bacteria, viruses are not immortal. AFAIK there are no documented cases of bloodborne or sexual transmission
Use pubmed to answer your questions, doubts, concerns like:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32941052/
HIV is present in those secretions, but it is transmitted only if they come into contact with blood. Viruses can last a very long time, or not, depending on the specifics. SARS is respiratory, and is most commonly transmitted through the air. But if it’s on a surface, including your hands, and you rub your eyes or your nose, you can get it. This is why hand washing is a very good idea, the common cold also being a coronavirus.
HIV is present in those secretions, but it is transmitted only if they come into contact with blood.
Incorrect. Upon sexual intercourse and hence trauma to vaginal, penile or rectal tissues, the virus, present in these tissues in infected person, jumps to the victim via the traumatized tissues mentioned. Once there it attaches to dendritic cells and CD4 T cells, as stated, all located in mucosal tissues. It does not need blood to travel. Dendritic cells (DCs) are also know as professional Antigen Presenting Cells (APCs). The virus can travel within DCs since the DC is an APC, which will present its cargo to the CD4 T cell. The sole purpose of DCs is to bridge between the innate immune system and the adaptive immune system. The virus has several antiviral mechanisms to evade its eradication by the immune system, so as to use the APCs to its benefit, like a cargo carrier. This is all for the expressed reason to target CD4 T cells. HIV has tropism for CD4 T cells. Once there, it fuses with CD4 T cell membrane via 2 co-receptors, injects its double stranded RNA, which undergoes reverse transcription and replicates.
As for your other claims, I already addressed them elsewhere here.
See:
The molecular basis of HIV entry
Per Johan Klasse
Cell Microbiol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: Cell Microbiol. 2012 Aug; 14(8): 1183–1192. Published online 2012 Jun 5. doi: 10.1111/j.1462-5822.2012.01812.x
PMCID: PMC3417324
Like all other viruses, the human immunodeficiency virus, HIV, must enter a susceptible cell in order to replicate. Blocking its replication is of immense medical interest: every year 2–3 million people become HIV-infected. Transmission is usually sexual: virus in semen or mucosal fluids encounters susceptible cells to enter, such as T lymphocytes and dendritic cells, within the genital epithelia or through rifts in the mucosal lining. Once the virus has entered a cell, replication can progress to the production of progeny virus. If replication starts cascading from local lymphoid tissue to regional lymph nodes, and further to the gut-associated lymphoid tissue and blood, systemic infection of the host will ensue
Only 20-40% of colds are corona viruses.
Washing hands is effective against SOME viruses – and completely ineffective against others.
It is debateable whether it HAD any effect on Covid – without a doubt its effect on Omicron is negligable to zero, you can not have the transmission rates omicron has without having nearly entirely areosole spread.
Further you can not have those transmission rates is masks have any consequential effect at all.
I would note that while there are many types of masks – nearly all that people are wearing have zero to actually negative effectiveness.
Those pounding the table over masking would be far more credible if they were not deliberately ignoring what nearly everyone knows:
Cloth masks are on net likely NEGATIVE – and yet those seeking to force masks on us – know this and therefore do not really care about “the science”.
I would further note that even the effectiveness of the best masks – is not sufficient. A mask that is 77% effective in the laboratory for a single exposes is only 27% effective in protecting against 5 exposures. That is called math. It also presumes that laboratory perfection and real world use are the same.
Nearly all our covid public policies fail for very simple reasons – MATH.
To stop something as contageous as original Covid was – we need 97% effective overall sustained for atleast 6months.
Not 97%/exposure. The vaccine purportedly has a 97% effectiveness after the 2nd dose. But it also has a half life of 4-6 months – that means it is NOT 97% effective for 6 months and it will not work. It may slow things down but that is all it will accomplish.
Delta was twice as contageous, anmd Omicron is purportedly 30 times as contageous.
Outside of living in a hermetically sealed bubble for 6 months there is no public policy that is going to work.
It is called MATH
Postoperative wound infections and surgical face masks: a controlled study
The physics is equally damning. A progressive effect with diversity, time, and behavior.
GMAB, How can you compare bacterial wound infections to infections by airborne viruses. A bacterial infections in wounds can very well be caused by bacteria on the persons skin, on the nurses gloves, on sutures, etc, etc. Type in google “studies on spread of viruses by different type of masks”. Yes, these studies have been done.
According to Mizelle, the answer from the CDC was basically “trust us we’re the government.”
The Biden Administration handling of all things COVID is very similar to how the US Public Health Service (USPHS) treated blacks during their infamous Tuskegee Syphilis Study. In fact, Biden has replicated the distrust blacks came to have for the government health system Biden’s Admin knew there existed no scientific data to support their policies but they inflicted grave, even lethal harm to Americans, anyways, including lacking the consent of Americans just like in Tuskegee. Just as the USPHS mocked and denigrated blacks, Biden has mocked and denigrated Americans who questioned his policies. As Federal Courts have overturned Biden’s Federal agencies vis a vis bureaucratic decisions, and still lacking evidenced based data, they have refused to remove the harsh abuse they have imposed on Americans, much like the USPHS refused to provide treatment to blacks who had syphilis. Biden’s COVID policies = Tuskegee Syphilis Study.
Under Biden, the Feds have squandered the public trust and like with blacks, few Americans will trust the CDC / FDA / NIH anytime soon.
Of note is the following from Dr John Ioannides, world renown physician scientist and epidemiologist at Stanford, writing for the World Health Organization:
The Infection Fatality Rate of COVID-19 for people under age 70, was found to be 0.05%.
Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data
Conclusion: The infection fatality rate of COVID-19 can vary substantially across different locations and this may reflect differences in population age structure and case-mix of infected and deceased patients and other factors. The inferred infection fatality rates tended to be much lower than estimates made earlier in the pandemic.
Bulletin World Health Organization
2021 Jan 1;99(1):19-33F. doi: 10.2471/BLT.20.265892
The U.S Public Health Service (USPHS) Syphilis Study at Tuskegee was a clinical study conducted between 1932 and 1972. The study was intended to observe the natural history of untreated syphilis. As part of the study, researchers did not collect informed consent from participants and they did not offer treatment, even after it was widely available.
https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/index.html
Turley: you are becoming such a joke. The “judge” who issued this order, which will result in unnecessary human suffering because there is a new, more-virulent strain of COVID that is spreading fast, was appointed by the election cheater…AND, this “Order” came from Florida, a state run by another fat ignoramus who panders to the lowest common denominator of our society. So the Trump judge was worried about mask-wearing “constraining choices”: how about those who get sick due to unnecessary spread of disease? What about their “choices”? Which is more important: protecting the public from the unnecessary spread of an infectious disease, or protecting individual choices that unnecessarily result in the spread of a contagious disease? That is the purpose of having a system of public health in the first place: preventing unnecessary death.
So you ask, why masks in airports and not theaters: because in an airport, you could come into contact with people from all over the world, which is far less likely in a local restaurant. Masks are still required in some parts of the world, and are being re-instated in others. So, a mere 21 states challenged the mask mandate which Turley cites as some sort of proof that this order wasn’t wrong? That means that 29 states, the District of Columbia and US territories did NOT, which is the majority. AND, importantly, there are a substantial number of Americans who DO want to wearing of masks to be mandatory because they don’t fall for the Trumpian lie about masks doing nothing to prevent the spread of COVID. COVID is spread via droplets, and all kinds of masks stop droplets. Even this Trump judge acknowledged that masks prevent transmission, a point that Turley tries to claim isn’t true. One reason why the Biden administration is mulling over the decision about proceeding is because the mandate was scheduled to expire in 2 weeks anyway, but Turley doesn’t let this fact or logic get in the way of an opportunity to attack the Biden Administration or the CDC, per his marching orders from Fox. The implication of today’s little piece of excrement is to imply that the mask mandate was always wrong because some dumb Trump-appointed judge in the State of Florida so ruled. Most infectious disease experts, not just in the USA but around the world, beg to differ.
I guess you’ll just have to wear a mask, Karen. At least when you’re not crying them bitter “progressive” tears, you laughably arrogant, smug, obnoxious, self-righteous twit. See ya in November, loser.
Personally, I like natacha better in her face diaper. I used to like veils on women in church, too. So go figure.
Natacha
Typical lefty spewing bile at your betters.
Turley is a far better blogger than you will ever be.
The judge has had a far richer legal career than you.
Have you ever said anything nice on this blog?
AND, this “Order” came from Florida, a state run by another fat ignoramus who panders
The intellectual elite partake in virulent name calling. Nobody is surprised. Lacking any factual standing to engage in a conversation, name calling and ad hominem attacks are all that is left.
As far as the Judge. Exactly what in the ruling contradicts the law or the Constitution.
It’s done. Over. Even if they try no one is going to comply. Might as well get used to the fact.
We already know what you are told to think. it has been debunked, now go run along with the rest of the Stockholm Syndrome and Dunning-Kruger afflicted NPCs.
Natacha asks: “Which is more important: protecting the public from the unnecessary spread of an infectious disease, or protecting individual choices that unnecessarily result in the spread of a contagious disease?”
Protecting individuals from tyrannical government overreach is the obvious answer. If you do not know which is the correct answer, move to China, you’ll fit right in.
As for mask-wearing by asymptomatic people (aka healthy people) and 2 year old toddlers doing anything to prevent spread of a contagious disease? Prove it — using “the science” and show us the data that says masking HEALTHY people does anything other than cause harm to healthy people.
Forcing two year olds to wear face masks for hours on end, is child abuse. It is child abuse. It is child abuse. It is abusive. PERIOD. There is NOTHING BENEFICIAL to public health or otherwise, from mandating masks to be worn on toddlers for hours on end in schools, on airplanes, etc.
Yet policies like this is what the sickos in the Democrat party, Fauci and CDC nutjobs have insisted on. It is child abuse, plain as day.
Mask up Nat….none of us care.
Not only has Fauci’s mask mandates been child abuse, have you seen adults walking alone, in nature, wearing two face masks? Have you seen people driving alone in their car wearing one, sometimes two face masks?
This is insane. It is not healthy, nor is it normal behavior.
These mask mandates have inflicted untold psychological harm on children and adults. The psychological damage done to people is the direct result of sociopaths like Dr. Anthony Fauci being given the power to inflict his untold damage. The man is a pychopath who truly belongs behind bars.
Have you seen neurotic double-maskers wear their masks to walk into a restaurant and over to their table, only to sit down and remove their masks to eat and drink and have conversation? Up, down, on, off, back on! Take it Off, pull them up, down, UP again to walk to restroom! Take it Off back at table to eat, drink. laugh, talk, Up again between bites, down, up, on, off to sip. Then out we go with our Double mask to walk out of restaurant! Why? Because Fauci and the CDC told us it keeps us all safe!
THIS IS INSANE PYCHOTIC BEHAVIOUR. IT IS NOT NORMAL. PEOPLE WHO DO THIS ARE PSYCHOLOGICALLY DAMAGED. FAUCI DID THIS. INTENTIONALLY. WHICH MAKES HIM A SOCIOPATH.
East Asians, Hong Kongers, Koreans and Taiwanese have been wearing face masks against colds and influenza for years. In Australia in a normal year nearly a thousand die from flu but in the last 2 years of the plague the flu deaths have been less than 300. Masks work. No mask gives a 100% protection but if it gives any protection at all its worth having as to the extent that a less than 100% effective mask supreses OVID it also supresses deaths from COVID, hospitalization from COVID and hours of work lost due to COVID.
You Americans puzzle me
Math
Trade-offs
Two things you need to consider.
Some masks are better than others, P2, N95 and KN95 are far better than the common surgical mask. The washable masks are not very effective. Masks are not total protection for the wearer as COVID can enter through the eyes which is why many medical staff wear face shields as well. Glasses with big lenses also lower the risk for the eyes.
The human head contains 7 holes 2 ears, 2 eyes, 2 nostrils and the mouth. Covid can enter through 5 of them and escape through. The virus has also been found in ear passages but since airflow in the ears is very little it is unlikely to have ever entered or exited through them.
One thing that bugs me when I venture out is the number of people wearing masks to less than maximum effectiveness. Many do not cover their noses and unless they are exclusively mouth breathers are getting no protection and since coughs and sneezes involve the nose giving others no protection from them if infected.
Masks do two things best considered separately. For the wearer they give modest protection, it is modest but well worth having since COVID is always inconvenient but sometimes dangerous. Properly worn masks give much more protection to others if the wearer is infected and the wearer can be shedding virus before getting symptoms.
The heavy duty N95, KN95 and P2 masks come in several fittings for different face shapes and before buying them one needs to be fitted by the vendor or at a hospital or health clinic so that in future one can buy the correct type.
You are a neurotic, psychologically damaged double-masker, aren’t you?
None of what you wrote re: masks is true. None of it. You likely havent read any scientific studies on this subject, or else you would not have posted the above comment, so I am reposting the following:
https://www.cochrane.org/CD006207/ARI_do-physical-measures-such-hand-washing-or-wearing-masks-stop-or-slow-down-spread-respiratory-viruses
Do physical measures such as hand-washing or wearing masks stop or slow down the spread of respiratory viruses?
Medical or surgical masks
Seven studies took place in the community, and two studies in healthcare workers. Compared with wearing no mask, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness (9 studies; 3507 people); and probably makes no difference in how many people have flu confirmed by a laboratory test (6 studies; 3005 people). Unwanted effects were rarely reported, but included discomfort.
N95/P2 respirators
Four studies were in healthcare workers, and one small study was in the community. Compared with wearing medical or surgical masks, wearing N95/P2 respirators probably makes little to no difference in how many people have confirmed flu (5 studies; 8407 people); and may make little to no difference in how many people catch a flu-like illness (5 studies; 8407 people) or respiratory illness (3 studies; 7799 people). Unwanted effects were not well reported; discomfort was mentioned.
Anything with marginal effect on the Flu – R0 of 1.47 is going to be useless against Wuhan Covid – R0 2.4 Delta R0 6, or Omicron R0 30+ ?
Early laboratory masks studies found N95 masks 77% effective against Covid.
That is for a single exposure. That is not enough.
It was very quickly evident that if the R0 of Covid was correct, absent rapidly developing a vaccine with 97% or greater effectiveness and a half life of several years – nothing we could do was going to stop Covid.
The best we could hope for is protecting the most vulnerable.
Our public policy response was a FAILURE.
At the very best it protracted the pain, and cause even more unintended side effects.
There was a tremendous ignorance of MATH from the start.
John, since you are an architect and a lover of math, you might find the following link of interest. It is very nerdy so beware
https://accessmedicine.mhmedical.com/content.aspx?bookid=1551§ionid=94108850#1114735763
When it comes to size and mass, Coronavirus family of RNA viruses are larger and have more mass than Influenza, which belongs to RNA virus family, Orthomyxoviridae. In fact, Coronavirus is the second largest family of all RNA viruses. I’ll let you do the math. IOW, if Cochrane concluded, after evaluating the many studies involving masks, that the masks were not efficiently filtering the Influenza virus, since they had no studies involving COVID virus, we can reasonably conclude the masks will fail to efficiently filter the larger, heavier Coronavirus.
As for recent studies on this topic, I found over 120+ on pubmed thus far. One can beat this topic to a pulp. OTOH, intelligent folks will take a step back, consider the low IFR of SARS-CoV-2, for people under age 70, at 0.05%, and stop making a big deal out of a virus that does little to most humans. For those at high risks, they should be proactive. For the rest of us, be fruitful and multiply
Cheers
I would note that R0 of 2.4 is not slightly more contageous than the flu – it is much more.
Thwarting the spread requires sustainably reducing the tranmission rate below 1.0 for a long period – the lower the transmission rate is reduced the shorter the period needed.
Reducing 1.47 to 1.0 requires measures that are 30% effective. Reducing 2.4 requires measures that are 70% effective – sustainably.
And that just gets much worse at R0 of 6 or 30+
It would not have mattered if had washing or masks or … had some effect – there is no possibility the effect would be great enough – not even combined.
Carlyle, I think you missed my point.
If a 1X event has a benefit of 5%, what will a 2X event have? A 100X event?
One should choose for themselves what type of risk they wish to bare.
Trade-off: Exceptionally low risk compared to the dangers to a four-year-old wearing a mask.
SM.
Sorry for the late reply I had some internet problems yesterday.
To tell the truth I did not understand the mathematical basis of your question so just added stuff hopefully to clarify my earlier post.
Carlyle, you remarked about a 5% benefit. Let’s accept that number. Now let us get to the math. If a person wears that mask and is in contact with one person with Covid, he has a 5% less chance of getting Covid than if he didn’t wear it. Let’s assume that to be correct. Each time he puts on a brand new mask, he has that 5% benefit. But if one person wears that 5% mask for one exposure, is he a) more likely, b) less likely c) an equal likelihood of getting Covid than the person that had 100 exposures wearing a new mask each time?
I chose the figure of 5% to indicate the protection of a mask that gives very low protection is still worth having. If one goes a day wearing no mask one has a for example 40% chance of catching COVID then spending the same day wearing a mask the chance of getting infected would drop by 5% of 40% to 38%. It is a low drop in probability but still worth having as COVID is at least inconvenient and for some people very nasty (long COVID) or deadly.
Carlyle, you are not doing the math. Above I asked a specific question.
“if one person wears that 5% mask for one exposure, is he a) more likely, b) less likely c) an equal likelihood of getting Covid than the person that had 100 exposures wearing a new mask each time?”
That is the math I was talking about. Can you choose the right answer?
Again the effectiveness of masks is per exposure.
A 5% effective mask is 0.2% effective for 2 exposures.
Unless you are going out only once in the next two years even a 77% effective masks will ultimately offer ZERO benefit.
It will change how long coivd hangs arround, it might take longer for you to get it.
But it will not change whether you get it.
We are using masks here – but this is true of EVERTHING that is per exposure.
Even the vaccines – are just not good enough. 97% effective 2 weeks after the 2nd dose with a half life of 4-6 months is just not good enough.
SM.
The point is that wearing a mask gives some protection but after a while masks get damaged and the protection they give decreases. When you take a mask off inspect it for any damage and if there are holes or tears throw it a away and put on a new one. In Australia surgical masks cost $AU 1.00 each so for someone in the middle class that is not expensive.
I am not talking about the mask. I am talking about the math. See my prior response.
SM and also JS.
I really don’t understand your math.
Here is my math.
Suppose an UNmasked person is in a place A for a time interval T and the probability of contracting COVID is P% then a MASKED person in the same situation with a mask that gives the wearer only 5% protection would have a probability 0.95P of contracting COVID. This is a small decrease but in my view worth having. I am pretty sure that most masks would give better than 5% protection. Assume the mast gives 40% protection then probability of getting COVID would be (100-40)*P i.e 0.6P.
One wears masks in places where you think COVID is a risk. You do not need to wear a mask if there are no other people around eg if you are at home alone. The more people actually around the greater the benefit of a mask. When I walk in a park I do not expect that the probability of getting COVID from another person 10 metres away to be high, never the less I still wear a mask. COVID is at least inconvenient and at most dangerous for some people. Wearing a mask is no great burden for me although it can be for people who have lung problems but people with lung problems have more reason to fear COVID and I would advise anyone with asthma or other lung related disease to wear masks despite the discomfort because LUNG_PROBLEMS + COVID = VERY_BAD.
One point, masks do 2 separate things. They protect the wearer with a probability decrease PW and they protect other people from an infected wearer with a probability decrease PO. I believe that the protection of others is the more important effect that is PO > PW.
Carlyle, I asked a question for a reason. It was an easy question with an easy answer. If you try to answer the question, you will better understand the math. I think you are trying to prove something instead of recognizing the existing problem.
“if one person wears that 5% mask for one exposure, is he a) more likely, b) less likely c) an equal likelihood of getting Covid than the person that had 100 exposures wearing a new mask each time?”
If you answer the question, you don’t have to look for long explanations that don’t apply, and you can still wear the mask.
Even if masks are not damaged or are constantly replaced the protection is per exposure and is not going to be sufficient against a highly transmissible respiratory virus.
This is the fundimental problem with all our Covid policies – even if you can prove high effectiveness in a laboratory – most measures are per exposure effectiveness and those are just not good enough.
Increasingly it appears that the vaccine offers almost no protection from Omicron – but it does appear to mitigate symptoms.
But even if it was effective – a starting effectiveness of 97% and a half live of 4-6 months is just not good enough.
Math is not political. Either you reduce R0 below one – or all you are doing is buying time.
The absolute worst problem with Covid is that you are contageous for atleast a day before you are symptomating and aparently many people are either never symptomatic or have so mild a symptoms they barely know they have it.
Regardless, this radically reduces Quarantine as a measure. This is probably the reason that so many people are getting Covid.
With most diseases most people stay home when they are sick (and contageous).
Your remarks regarding the types and effctiveness of masks are pretty good.
So much so that it is troubling that you support government mandates.
NEarly all masks in use are cloth and used incorrectly – mandating those is worse than useless.
Yet government has not mandated an N95 mask worn correctly – which MIGHT not be negative in effect.
People are not arrested or turned away from government buildings or airports for wearing cloth masks or wearing masks improperly.
Put simply it is clear that mask mandates are NOT imposed for public health reasons – or they would be mandated properly.
They have been mandated in the least – and possibly negative effective means possible.
You can not wrap yourself in Science – when you are not following the science.
And you can not blame others for following laws and regulations as you imposed them.
But addressing the actual science of the best of masks and PPE.
In the early part of the pandemic – while the R0 rate of Covid was still arround 3 instead of Omicrons unheard of 30+.
Hospital nurses from Covid wings wearing Full protective gear – better than just N95 masks by a long shot – were tested for Covid antibodies and after 2 weeks in full gear on Covid floors 97% tested positive for antibodies.
The best of the best or the best worn by those most likely to do so correctly is not effective enough to stop Covid.
BTW this was to be expected. 97% effective is not good enough if you are exposed daily.
97% effective PPE combined with ONCE daily exposure means a 60% chance of getting covid after 30 days.
An N97 mask is 77% effective in a laboratory for a single exposure.
In early 2020 it was known that viral shedding of Covid was 1000 times greater than seen with SARS, and that it started before symptoms appeared.
Masks were not going to work. Nothing short of a complete and total global lockdown for atleast 14days was going to work.
Given that is not possible – the rest was inevitable.
I would note we did not even come CLOSE to thwarting Covid.
At best combined ant-covid policies were OVERALL about 60% effective – that is not sufficient against a disease with an R0 of 3.
It is certainly not going to work against Omicron which is 30 times as contageous.
There is a reason that math education is far more important than CRT, or gender studies or …
The combination of strategies that Australia used definitely worked, how much was was due to masks as opposed to lock downs, social distancing and quarantine of the infected and contacts may be the subject of argument. I assume masks work. They only work however if worn properly many people do not cover their noses and unless they are exclusive mouth breathers are getting no protection at all for themselves and since sneezing and coughing are likely to involve both mouth and nose the mask is giving no protection to others if the wearer is infected.
Properly worn masks give modest protection to the wearer but it is worth having however they give much more protection to others if the wearer is infected.
With the common surgical mask maximum effect is obtained by placing it as high on the bony part of the nose as possible without getting in the way of the eyes or lower eye lashes and using the wire stiffening strip to fit it around the nose (convex) and against the cheek bones (concave). In this case it will seal pretty well and there will not be enough leakage of moist air behind ones glasses (if warn) to cause the glasses to mist up. For men letting a beard grow to thick will cause leakage.
There are times when one has to take the mask off as when eating, drinking, smoking, vaping, swimming or engaging in vigorous outdoor exercise.
Some people find the elastic not strong enough and loop the elastic around the ears but in my opinion this pulls the top of the mask down and the bottom up and creates a bulge in the middle of the sides where air may pass. If one needs to tighten the elastic tie a not behind the ears.
Washable masks made out of textile material are less effective especially if the material is non-hydroscopic plastic but I do not know whether anyone makes masks out of such material.
Ad the most important bit of math to consider – 94% of Covid deaths were people with 1 or more co-morbidities. Which means that about 30,000 deaths per year are otherwise healthy people. Meanwhile there are approx. 40,000 deaths per year in auto accidents. For a healthy person, you’re more likely to die in an auto accident. Shouldn’t Covid extremists stay in permanent lockdown forever, if it’s about fear of death.
When one does the math, we see you are reasonably correct. The flu can kill as many younger people or more as we saw from Covid.
Covid guidelines have been an exercise in control, and it is still going on. There were simple solutions from the beginning, though most solutions would have likely led to approximately the same number of deaths but a much healthier country.
Fauci himself said that masks are nothing more than a ‘symbol’ that we are ‘in this together.’
CDC scientists had more than two years to study masks and show us “the science” yet to this day, they have been unable to provide any “scientific evidence” that masking “works.”
You are brainwashed.
The science doesn’t support your claims, but you’re a “progressive,” and it’s all about your neuroses.
“East Asians, Hong Kongers, Koreans and Taiwanese have been wearing face masks against colds and influenza for years.”
And Muslim women have been wearing them for centuries. It’s called a niqab — also worn because the Authorities decree it, and for the same reason: Control, and to wipe out individual identity.
“What about their “choices”?”
If they choose to wear a mask, nobody will stop them. (After all, masks work — right?)
What I find interesting is that in interpreting section 264(a) of the Public Health Service Act courts in general seem to be saying that the broad language and authority in the first sentence is limited by the narrower purposes described in the second sentence. Wheras in interperting the second amendment, the Supreme Court in general seems to be saying that the limited purpose described in the introductory clause does not limit the broad language that appears later on in the amendment.
The 2nd was written in a style common before then, but not seen in the others. The language is somewhat archaic, but the background is clear. A “well regulated militia” meant one that is in good working order; it had nothing whatsoever to do with modern government regulation. The “militia” consisted (and still does) of the entire adult population; then it was just males, but now it’s everyone. The idea was that everyone has the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of the militia being in good working order.
As interpreted in the Heller decision, individuals have the right to keep and bear arms to defend themselves, either individually or collectively.
Heller was wrongly decided. The first clause should have been interpreted as purposive, indicating that the amendment was intended to prevent the federal government from disarming the states’ militias. That was the specific context in which the amendment was adopted.
You can’t reinvent the English Language to support your end desire.
Daniel:
This was all hashed out years ago. Heller was spot on the history and the law. You’d know that if your read it. So the Left will have to wait another generation -at least-to try and defeat an unarmed population. Until then they can cower in their covens and bash the Constitution. Glorious ain’t it?
Daniel is a “progressive,” and reads very little.