Even as the COVIDIOT panic continues to fades away into the nothingburgerness from whence it came, there are still plenty of fascists intent on flexing their Almighty State muscle. To wit:
The President of the Royal Society says that people who refuse to wear masks should be publicly shamed like drunk drivers, highlighting again how the entire issue has become another part of the ‘cancel culture war’.
“The message has not been clear enough, so perhaps people do not really understand the benefits or are not convinced of them,” writes Venki Ramakrishnan. “Whatever the reasons, we need to overcome our reservations and wear face coverings whenever we are around others in public.”
“It used to be quite normal to have quite a few drinks and drive home, and it also used to be normal to drive without seatbelts. Today, both of those would be considered antisocial, and not wearing face coverings in public should be regarded in the same way.”
Ramakrishnan’s demand follows two Royal Society reports that claim wearing masks significantly reduces the risk of COVID-19 transmission.
However, as Toby Young notes, the evidence cited by the reports is flimsy at best.
“I’ve had a look at the Royal Society paper that supposedly confirms the effectiveness of masks. It’s unimpressive. Note the threadbare evidence on which it bases its sweeping conclusion,” writes Young before quoting the report itself.
“We have found only two randomised control trials in the primary literature on the use of face masks to reduce onward transmission; one was underpowered, and the other showed significant reduction when adjusted for actual mask usage in a posthoc analysis.”
This all emphasizes once again how the issue of mask wearing has been amplified way beyond the entire coronavirus debate and has become a symbol of mass obedience.
Ummm, about those “benefits” and all:
The primary “benefit” of mask mandates is to the fascists exclusively: they get reassurance that We The Sheeple are all still firmly locked in their iron-fisted grip and under their control. But even if the Mask Of Submission DID provide anything like the protection people like Herr Ramakrishnan spuriously claim, one must ask oneself: is it really worth the price of relinquishing one’s precious liberty, one’s dignity, and one’s fundamental right to self-determination merely to reduce the risk of illness or death somewhat?
- Entries
I really can now understand those who fought seat belt laws. They protect you and no one else. A car should have them, but making it an offense not to use them is like making it an offense to kiss a girl. As we all know, you get enough germs to cause pneumonia when you kiss a girl.
I’ve mentioned it here several times over the years, Kenny, but I well remember back in the 70s when the push for helmet laws in NC began. The bikers-rights orgs all screamed, “Just wait; let them get away with this, and seat belt laws will be right behind.”
I also well remember the Charlotte Disturber (a/k/a the Pravda of the South to the old men who used to hang around at Mt Holly Farm Supply back in the day) running several op-eds pooh-poohing such a silly notion as that one, the gist of all of which was, “the American people would never, ever put up with such a blatantly unconstitutional encroachment on individual liberty as a seatbelt law.”
And, well, here we all are.
Face Diapers for everyone.
I do remember the “what’s wrong with making everyone wear a helmet, it’s for their own GOOD!”.
The Mommy Brigade. Next they’ll stop us drinkin’.