By Lambert Strether of Corrente.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n Thanks to Federalism, what I intended to be a single post became a bit sprawling, because mask ban legislation is being passed in multiple local and state jurisdictions[1]. So I will split what was supposed to be one post into two, and print part two over the coming weekend. Today, I will present eight theses to sort the various claims swirling around the debates for each legislative effort. In part two, I will look at the individual jurisdictions where mask bans have passed (North Carolina, Nassau County, NY), and where they have been proposed or mentioned (New York State, Chicago IL, Los Angeles, CA). I\u2019ll conclude \u2014 unsurprisingly to NC readers \u2014 that mask bans are stupid, lethal, and wrong.<\/p>\n (1) Masks Exist on a Spectrum that Includes \u201cHealth Masks\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n Masks exist on a spectrum from (a) cloth masks, to (b) surgical masks (\u201cBaggy Blues\u201d), (c) respirators (KN94s, N95s), (d) elastomerics, (e) full-on Darth Vader masks, and (f) various head-dresses like gaiters, keffiyeh, hijabs, ski masks, Venetian carnival masks (and even KKK hoods). It would surely be possible for regulators to distinguish the range (b) \u2013 (e), which are both clearly recognizable and manufactured for health purposes, from the others, which are not; but this seems never to be done. Indeed, I would go so far as to regard failure to make this distinction, whether in regulation or polemic, as a sign of bad faith. From the American Council on Science and Health<\/a>:<\/p>\n Banning total face coverings such as KKK hoods or burqas is understandable, and laws around the world prohibit this, even as the obligation to cover one\u2019s mouth and nose in public spaces aroused immense and loud controversy. However, there is a distinction between all and nothing, confirming that this controversy has nothing to do with public safety or public health.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n As we shall consider in thesis (8), \u201cMask Bans Are Motivated by Animus Against Protesters and Protest.\u201d<\/p>\n I will call the range (b) \u2013 (e) \u201chealth masks,\u201d as distinct from masks generally. If we make this distinction, we could regulate health masks differently from other masks (neatly solving the \u201cKKK hood\u201d ski masked robber problems). We might, for example, give nobody the right to demand that health masks be removed or even lifted. (When I say \u201cmasks,\u201d I mean the range (a) \u2013 (e). Now, it may be that some activists disagree with the distinctions implied by this range, but I think it\u2019s there in the engineering and should be recognized. My purpose here is to protect people who wish to protect themselves against hazardous air, and none other.)<\/p>\n (2) Health Masks Work to Protect Against Respiratory Particles like Viruses<\/strong>. See the literature: \u201cEffectiveness of face masks for reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2: a rapid systematic review<\/a>\u201d (2023), and Greenhalgh et alia\u2019s magisterial \u201cMasks and respirators for prevention of respiratory infections: a state of the science review.<\/a>\u201d (Masks also protect against the fine particles in smoke<\/a>, and in occupational settings<\/a>.)<\/p>\n (3) Health Masks Do Not Work to Conceal Identity<\/strong><\/p>\n First, health masks are less effective than sunglasses, which are not<\/em> banned (see Nature, \u201cFace masks are less effective than sunglasses in masking face identity<\/a>\u201c; the study used surgical masks).<\/p>\n Second, health masks do not conceal the eyes[2], hence do not conceal one person\u2019s identity from another person (\u201cThe human eye contains an extremely large number of individual characteristics <\/a>that make it particularly suitable for the process of identifying a person. Today, the eye is considered to be one of the most reliable body parts for human identification\u201d). Note the \u201cperson\u201d to \u201cperson\u201d qualifier; I\u2019m not talking about machine recognition via blood vessels in the retina or whatever, although the claim has been made that machine recognition works for health masks too<\/a>.<\/p>\n Third, gait recognition may work, whether the target is masked or not (See Nature, \u201cBiometric recognition through gait analysi<\/a>s\u201d (2022). One proof of concept showed an accuracy of 88%.)<\/p>\n Fourth, there are cameras everywhere anyhow. From NBC<\/a>:<\/p>\n Dawn Blagrove, executive director of the criminal justice organization Emancipate North Carolina\u2026 expressed doubts that the North Carolina law is truly about safety, especially considering the advances in facial recognition software and how often people can be tracked via street cameras and on social media.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s asinine,\u201d she said, adding: \u201cWe live in a society where we are all being tracked all the time.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Fifth and finally, China has an enormous system of mass surveillance<\/a>: \u201cAs of 2019, it is estimated that 200 million monitoring CCTV cameras of the \u2018Skynet\u2019system have been put to use in mainland China.\u201d Does anybody really believe that Xi Jinping blinded that system by imposing a mask mandate, as he did<\/a>?<\/p>\n (4) Transmission Can Take Place In Seconds When a Health Mask Is Removed<\/strong><\/p>\n Let\u2019s assume that a mask ban has a clause that allows a cop or a property owner to demand that you lift or remove your health mask. Via OK Doomer<\/a>:<\/p>\n Peak viral exposure happens within five seconds<\/a> of a personal encounter. In other words, there\u2019s no point during a conversation when you\u2019re safe. You\u2019re in danger the instant someone opens their mouth and starts talking. That\u2019s why anyone who cares about their health wants to keep their mask on. It has nothing to do with hiding their identity. Making someone remove their mask, even for a few seconds, is sentencing them to chronic illness or death.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n In consequence\u2013<\/p>\n (5) Health Mask Bans Mandate Infection<\/strong><\/p>\n From the Pandemic Accountability Index<\/a>:<\/p>\n [T]hose who have done their best to refuse infection with N95 respirators and other mitigations are now essentially being told\u2026 that no, you\u2019re not allowed to protect yourself from COVID-19, a disease that has already killed & disabled millions of Americans.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n (6) Police Discretion for Enforcing Mask Bans Is Discriminatory<\/strong><\/p>\n From the Washington Post, \u201cMasks are going from mandated to criminalized in some states<\/a>\u201c:<\/p>\n \u201cI don\u2019t understand when there\u2019s a political protest exactly how the authorities plan to sort out those who are wearing masks for health purposes versus those who are wearing masks to protect their identity,\u201d said Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst at the American Civil Liberties Union who has written about the issue. \u201cIt really sets up a situation where we are likely to see selective enforcement against protesters that the authorities don\u2019t like.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n I don\u2019t understand how the authorities will do this under any<\/em> circumstance, not just political protests. Though I can guess:<\/p>\n How police will enforce a mask ban with a “health exception” pic.twitter.com\/nMIUHum14T<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Dr. Lucky Tran (@luckytran) July 12, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n <\/center><\/p>\n Just like pretextual traffic stops<\/a> (\u201cbroken tail light\u201d) for example.<\/p>\n (7) Mask Bans Do Not Consider Health Masking for Occupational Purposes<\/strong><\/p>\n From Teen Vogue<\/a>:<\/p>\n Mask bans are a labor issue, as well. A resident of New York City, who asked to remain anonymous to protect their privacy, says, \u201cI wear a mask and encourage others to do so because, prior to COVID, masks were a common form of PPE for indoor and outdoor airborne hazards at work.\u2026 The criminalization of masks is a criminalization of workers protecting ourselves\u2026.\u201d <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n (8) Mask Bans Are Motivated by Animus Against Protesters and Protest<\/strong><\/p>\n From Reckon, \u201cHow mask bans became the new front in the war on protest<\/a>\u201c:<\/p>\n Mask bans have long been a segment of these anti-protest laws, even before the pandemic. This current wave begins with protests against the North Dakota Access pipeline at Standing Rock. The protests began in the spring of 2016 and continued until February 2017. As a direct result of these protests, the election of Donald Trump to the presidency, and a flood of alarmist press reports about \u2018black-clad antifa members,\u2019 what the ACLU called a \u2018flood\u2019 of anti-protest bills made their way into legislatures across the country, and into Congress.<\/p>\n Among these bills was one in Missouri that created the crime of \u2018concealing a person\u2019s identity\u2026by means of a robe, mask, or other disguise\u2019 if they\u2019re protesting. Congress dropped the mask, metaphorically speaking, on their version of a mask ban by calling it the \u2018Unmasking Antifa Act of 2018.\u2019<\/p>\n These masking bills are, minus some pandemic-era language about health exceptions, more or less identical to the ones being put forward now. Except instead of black-clad antifa members or people locking themselves to drilling equipment, there\u2019s a new boogeyman: pro-Palestine protestors. This year\u2019s North Carolina bill, the Associated Press said straightforwardly, \u2018was brought forth in part as a response to campus protests on the war in Gaza.\u2019<\/p>\n Despite the governor\u2019s comments, efforts to ban masks in New York have absolutely nothing to do with the June subway incident. They had started a month before in early May, when two different anti-mask bills were introduced in the state legislature \u2014 at the exact same time the Unmasking Antifa Act of 2018 was reintroduced in Congress.<\/p>\n What was happening then? Campus protests and encampments. Masking was common in those spaces, for health reasons and because many protestors were scared of getting doxxed \u2014 a well-founded fear, as so-called \u2018doxxing trucks\u2019 were frequent visitors to protest sites.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n If health masks were a social norm, none of this would be an issue, but here we are. Personally, I think that if I want to go to the store, or the bank, or the Post Office wearing my rubber Nixon mask, I should be free to do so. And if the organs of state security want me to unmask, then they can do so do when I\u2019m shoplifting in the store, or robbing the bank, or stealing pens off the chains at the Post Office. In other words, \u201ccriming while masked\u201d should be \u201ccriming However, as I have indicated above, I also think that health masks can potentially be regulated differently (default: no unmasking) from masks generally, so to me thesis (8) is severable from the others. To which some might instantly respond: \u201cBut the hateful protesters will all wear health masks and not [other identity markers]!!\u201d To which I would answer: \u201cGood. Fewer deaths from infection. And if they commit crimes, arrest them for that<\/em>!\u201d[3]<\/p>\n Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n In the meantime, until we manage to stop this stupidity, there are a few measures we can take.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t know if a screen printer could do this, but the American Council on Science and Health<\/a> suggests:<\/p>\n And there are solutions: how about a medical (half-face) mask that contains a photo of the wearer\u2019s lower face? That would prevent the spread and protect the wearer from undue harassment by over-zealous law enforcement. For those arguing that requiring a photo mask is too much of a burden, we impose unmasking for passports and driver\u2019s licenses. Living in society requires tradeoffs: public safety (crime prevention) v. public health v. individual rights.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n I don\u2019t know if I\u2019d call this a solution<\/em> \u2014 more a hack or a kludge \u2014 but if it works, do it!<\/p>\n Here is a letter (I would laminate it) to wave at the cops or the property owners:<\/p>\n We just hit 1 million daily COVID infections in the U.S., per wastewater surveillance data. <\/p>\n If you are in a region that recently enacted a #MaskBan<\/a>, consider using this letter to #MaskUp<\/a> under any of the exemption options. Get a local letter too.https:\/\/t.co\/rXjMGN2kQt<\/a> pic.twitter.com\/ATRTiOMY0p<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Mike Hoerger, PhD MSCR MBA (@michael_hoerger) August 6, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n <\/center><\/p>\n And finally, there is organizing. Here is a letter writing campaign<\/a>, and a toolkit<\/a>. The World Health Network<\/a> also runs phone banks on the individual legislative efforts.<\/p>\n Here ends part one. Stay tuned for part two!<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
while masked<\/del>,\u201d tans there\u2019s no reason for it to be more.<\/p>\n\n
\n
![\"Print](\"https:\/\/cdn.printfriendly.com\/buttons\/print-button-gray.png\")
<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n