Althouse: If you read the previous post without thinking of the mask mandate...

November 15, 2021

If you read the previous post without thinking of the mask mandate...

... explain yourself.

41 comments:

tim maguire said...: I read this first--because that's how your posts appear on blogger. But still, I can say for certain that I would not have thought of the mask mandate for 2 reasons--1) I'm not always thinking about the mask mandate; and 2) the connection is tenuous enough that even actively looking for the mandate connection, it was hard to see. Both are federal edicts--one from the Supreme Court, one from the White House, neither from congress--that lots of people don't like. But the list of federal things lots of people don't like is too long for me to think of all of them every time one of them is brought up.; 11/15/21, 10:03 AM
Enigma said...: I didn't think much of it.

Roe v. Wade has long been entrenched dogma and on the front lines of the culture war. The pro- and anti- arguments are now well-trod and go nowhere.

The mask mandate reeks of overcompensation by panicky career politicians trying to cover for their early rejections of COVID as Trump-fueled anti-Asian propaganda. Witness many efforts to encourage dining in Chinatowns and going out to each to stick it to Trump in early 2020. Nancy? Nancy? Nancy?

The mask mandates and more reflect knee-jerk fear and anxiety rather than complex thought. They stand to be discredited and ridiculed by future generations. The New McCarthyism. The New Watergate Scandal. This era will become an object lesson in ineffective government.

Abortion will continue as a moral versus pragmatic calculation between those who value life and those who prioritize economics and an "undo" button. It continues similar debates dating back many thousands of years with infanticide, leaving unwanted children in known locations for others to adopt (child in the reeds), etc.; 11/15/21, 10:11 AM
Dave Begley said...: Don't you mean the OSHA vax mandate?

The federal government shouldn't be able to force people to have drugs injected into themselves. Kind of the same deal with abortion. But I could be wrong.; 11/15/21, 10:11 AM
mezzrow said...: The mask mandate is also bait.

The fish are those who quit jobs rather than comply, and the boat gets driven by the employers who get to see them go. Those who who are swept out of a job by this will turn to the courts for redress, but employers will have long dismissed them by then. Furthermore, these employers are delighted to be able to do so, because these employees represent people they've been trying to get rid of for years. They prefer more compliant workers. You don't have to believe as long as you will comply. This gets past all kinds of worker protection measures that would otherwise protect these people and surgically cuts out a very specific type of worker, with all sorts of implications for class, race, and degree of religious belief.

This insight was delivered to me by a Peter Zeihan YouTube update titled "Wither the Workforce". Zeihan is also delighted by the prospect, which is understandable from his standpoint epistemology. It is illuminating.; 11/15/21, 10:32 AM
tim d said...: I couldn't even get through that last post, so I don't think I'm allowed (or required?) to explain.; 11/15/21, 10:33 AM
Joe T. said...: I've thought from the beginning that the mask mandate would be temporary and would likely be challenged. For that reason, I didn't think of it when reading about Hewitt's column. Administrations do disagreeable things during extraordinary times--suspending habeas corpus during times of war, for instance. I'm not sure the virus is at that level of threat anymore, but governments should expect challenges to that kind of exercise of power regardless.; 11/15/21, 10:45 AM
Wince said...: Abortion laws typically involve regulation of providers, what is legal for a third party economic actor to perform medically and commercially.

A vaccine mandate tells people what they must have injected in their bodies.; 11/15/21, 10:49 AM
Achilles said...: Looking through the constitution for the presidents power to force everyone to wear a mask...

Couldn't find that either.

Kthnx.; 11/15/21, 10:55 AM
gilbar said...: i thought of the Covid tenant protection ruling
that said that you Couldn't suck a tenant out of their dwelling, and throw them in the garbage... Just because You CHOOSE to; 11/15/21, 10:57 AM
Wa St Blogger said...: If I understand this correctly, you are asking if there is a inconsistency among those who argue for personal autonomy with regard to vax or mask but deny it in regards to abortion (or vice versa)?

If a person who gets pregnant has no agency in regards to getting pregnant, than I can see how one would argue they have some valid claim for personal bodily autonomy in regards to abortion. but if the person has autonomy in the getting pregnant, then they are too late to argue autonomy.

If a person knows that they carry a disease and refuse to take steps to protect others, then they hold responsibility for the impact they have on others.

If a person is concerned about catching a disease, they carry the responsibility for protecting themselves. They are welcome to get a vaccine, wear a mask, put on a hazmat suit, or isolate themselves. It violates no one else's rights to take these actions.

So, on the one hand we have a person who controls whether they get pregnant then arguing autonomy after they get pregnant and want to deny rights and liberty to the human being they were responsible for creating.

On the other hand we have people who want to deny autonomy to people because they want to protect someone else from the possibility of an illness that has a low rate of fatality.

Masks are not the issue. A mask mandate is mostly dumb but also mostly harmless. A vaccine mandate has risks.

I see no inconsistency arguing against both abortion and mask/vax mandates.; 11/15/21, 11:03 AM
gilbar said...: In iowa, if there is a blizzard, and someone shows up on your farmhouse porch;
begging protection from the elements... You Can NOT refuse them admission
You Absolutely, can NOT force someone out into the cold... Where they will DIE
It Sucks, but; you have to wait until they would be able to survive being out there
This is true, even if they have no business on your property

anyone see what i'm getting at here? Its Pretty Straightforward; 11/15/21, 11:05 AM
TreeJoe said...: A few things on mask and vax mandates:

1. Those mandates are fundamentally a failure of the health policy establishment to show - using data and trust - the value of the prophylactic health measures of masking and vaccinations. This is because of some questionable data (masks) and because of constantly evolving stances (masks + vaccines).

2. The vaccines - mainly mRNA vaccines - had incredibly strong clinical data upon initial EUA approval. Far stronger than what was expected/required for approval. Many states and countries quickly established >70% vaccination rates - rates early on said to be the line in the sand at which, combined with strong efficacy data of the vaccines - the R-Naught rate would decline below 1.0 and the pandemic would essentially peter out in those regions. That hasn't happened. In fact, many such areas have continued to see new waves.

...

In the face of that, many politicians and health policy leaders have doubled down and said our stances have worked and the reasons they have not worked well enough is adoption and compliance. Therefore we must threaten and browbeat. But that is a failure of their leadership.

...

Last point: When has our country - America - EVER responded well to mandates restricting personal freedom in some major or minor way? In all cases I'm aware of, a powerful constituency begins resisting and eventually overturns the restriction or modifies it to become fairly neutralized.; 11/15/21, 11:10 AM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: I didn't, but I'm inexplicable.

If I had to connect them, I'd go with federal overreach: one by the administration, and one by the court.; 11/15/21, 11:14 AM
Mark said...: Let's see -- you are trying to draw an equivalence between prohibiting the KILLING an innocent human life and an infringement of liberty that does not kill?

Let's try another specious comparison -- explain yourself if you don't think of a mask mandate when someone says we should prohibit people from suffocating grandma with a pillow over the face.; 11/15/21, 11:15 AM
Joe Smith said...: When I am president I am going to mandate that ugly people must wear a mask until they die.

I might have to wear one myself, but it will spare millions of people a lot of grief.; 11/15/21, 11:17 AM
MikeR said...: I would never have thought of the mask mandate. We had lockdowns and similar stuff early on in COVID, and most of us went along with them without too much complaint; then it seemed reasonable under the circumstances. By now it's pretty obvious that there are some officials who always err on the side of pushing the rest of us around for no good reason. https://brownstone.org/articles/why-was-the-us-canada-land-border-closed-for-so-long/
This isn't a philosophical debate on the proper limits of powers of the federal government. It's a debate on how the rest of us can defend ourselves from officious idiots.; 11/15/21, 11:23 AM
Wa St Blogger said...: Let me draw a different parallel.

In the Rittenhouse trial, the prosecutor seems to be hinging their case on the idea of provocation. In that argument, since Rittenhouse caused the problem, he is then responsible for the deaths that resulted. Why is it then that women who become pregnant are not considered to have caused the problem and thus responsible for the deaths that result?; 11/15/21, 11:27 AM
n.n said...: Postoperative wound infections and surgical face masks: a controlled study

Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses; 11/15/21, 11:36 AM
Left Bank of the Charles said...: I think Althouse is talking about the federal cases concerning state and local mask mandates. If the federal courts can overturn those on individual rights grounds, why can’t they can’t they overturn state abortion restrictions?; 11/15/21, 11:40 AM
jaydub said...: I didn't read it and think about the mask mandate, I thought about international norms for abortion, particularly in the Western world. In point of fact, almost all the 47 European countries, including autonomous regions of over 1 million population within those countries, restrict abortion to the first first 15 weeks, another five restrict it to the first 14 weeks, abortion on demand is generally restricted to the first 12 weeks except for cases of rape or incest which carry a limit of 24 weeks. Beyond that, some type of restriction is placed on abortion, and late term abortions are generally banned. In fact the Mississippi law would be completely mainstream and expected in Europe. That's what I thought about.

We lived in Europe from 2014 to 2019 and if the subject of abortion came up, which it seldom did, most of our European friends (primarily Germans, Slovenians, Spaniards, Swiss Brits and Italians) generally supported abortion rights, but thought US abortion laws were no less barbaric than those of China and North Korea who also permit abortion across the the full term of the pregnancy. American feminists, the left and federal courts have taken a position that is so extreme it will never be supported by the majority of US citizens, including those like me who would otherwise support abortion as practiced in the rest of the Western world. Consequently, this subject will always be extremely polarizing and morally repugnant to a large percentage of the US.

There is no comparison to mask mandates because, although proven to be useless, mask mandates are not fatal to any segment of the population. US abortion laws can be.; 11/15/21, 11:46 AM
daskol said...: The abortion issue relates to vax and mask mandates inasmuch as if abortion as a wedge issue were still working it’s electoral magic, it would not be so urgent to divide us into vaxxed and unvaxxed for to rule us.; 11/15/21, 12:01 PM
n.n said...: Pre-existing polymerase-specific T cells expand in abortive seronegative SARS-CoV-2
via: market-ticker.org

Then there are the non-sterilizing vaccine(s) that do not contribute to community immunity, which offer some personal protection that is neither durable nor robust, account for excess adverse events especially in children, and with symptom suppression and high viral titers are, in fact, sources of silent spread.

Then there is CDC Ruins The Mandate Push

It shows that for working age people -- those under 65 years old -- in no group does the IFR exceed 0.25%.

In those under 50 the IFR is no greater than 0.04%!

And in those under 18 it is 0.0009%. In other words, statistically zero.

Antihistamines and azithromycin as a treatment for COVID-19 on primary health care – A retrospective observational study in elderly patients

The mean age of our population was 85 and 48% were over 80 years old. No hospital admissions, deaths, nor adverse drug effects were reported in our patient population. By the end of June, 100% of the residents had positive serology for COVID-19.

Compare and contrast to planned parent/hood in NY, MI, NJ, etc, which was neither a good nor exclusive choice.; 11/15/21, 12:04 PM
Yancey Ward said...: I am nonplussed- shouldn't you have asked about the vaccine mandate instead- it is far closer in kind to abortion restrictions.; 11/15/21, 12:09 PM
n.n said...: almost all the 47 European countries, including autonomous regions of over 1 million population within those countries, restrict abortion to the first first 15 weeks, another five restrict it to the first 14 weeks, abortion on demand is generally restricted to the first 12 weeks except for cases of rape or incest which carry a limit of 24 weeks

The ethical apology for viability is anti-Choice. There is no plausible argument to restrict abortion of an unwanted, inconvenient, polluting, or profitable human life by a person with uterus (PWU).; 11/15/21, 12:23 PM
Václav Patrik Šulik said...: Not sure of your point - btw, when I posted, this wasn't up - but I did mention the vax mandate in my comment.

Nevertheless, as long as Roe/Casey is in effect, people have a legal right to decline vaccines and masks, right?

"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life"

Or are you saying that rights conforms to the ruling class's (the WaPo/NYT editorial board) opinions? This is why a written amendment like the 2nd is meaningless, while an unwritten clause - right to abortion - is paramount.; 11/15/21, 12:24 PM
David53 said...: A better question is why was Althouse thinking about mask mandates while blogging about abortion? My response mirrors Enigma's response, see above.

Regardless of how Roe plays out, you can still get a safe abortion through telemed. Not all states would ban abortion if Roe is overturned and everybody has online access through smart phones, right? Call the California abortion hotline from Texas, get your abortion drugs shipped to you in a non-descript package and Win-Win for big pharma and big tech.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30869829/; 11/15/21, 12:32 PM
n.n said...: Pregnancy, with the exception of rape... rape-rape?, is a choice. Masks are a sociopolitical mandate, a viable legal indemnity, without choice, science, or physical reason.; 11/15/21, 12:39 PM
Kevin said...: If the federal courts can overturn those on individual rights grounds, why can’t they can’t they overturn state abortion restrictions?

Because there is more than one "individual" involved and they both have rights?

These are rights, I should add, that many also demand be given to raccoons, birds, plants, fish, and bacteria.; 11/15/21, 12:59 PM
0_0 said...: Demanding explanations from your base? That's new.; 11/15/21, 2:32 PM
robother said...: Seriously?; 11/15/21, 2:52 PM
Howard said...: I don't do obsessive about the mask mandates. Life is better when you quit focusing on trivia. It's like the bad habit of scratching a mosquito bite until it bleeds then keep scratching off the scab. Fetishize something else.; 11/15/21, 3:32 PM
Dave said...: Vaccine mandate seems like a better comparison because the vaccine is more analogous to the privacy of the body: my body, my choice, whereas the mask mandate touches more on freedom of expression. I can't see a much more direct limit on expression than a mask, a straight up t up gag would be more limiting.

I will try to read this again, Ann, and see if I can figure out why you chose the mask mandate instead of the vaccine mandate. I think comparing the vaccine mandate with the legal right to an abortion is so similar, that I want to see both sides defend their position.; 11/15/21, 6:25 PM
Dave said...: I always thought that Hippaa was an extension of Roe V. Wade's endorsement of right to privacy of the body. I have always said that if I am approached by someone asking me for my vaccine status, I will ask them if they have any STDs or if they have had an abortion or have paid for one.

It seems almost directly analogous, as I said before. If someone could explain to me why in one case I have the right to my healthcare privacy and in the other case I do not, I would appreciate that. I want to hear from both sides.; 11/15/21, 6:29 PM
I'm Not Sure said...: "If someone could explain to me why in one case I have the right to my healthcare privacy and in the other case I do not, I would appreciate that."

Mommy & Daddy Government: "Because I said so."; 11/15/21, 8:07 PM
Bender said...: comparing the vaccine mandate with the legal right to an abortion is so similar

On the one hand, you have an unavoidable, artificial and forced medical treatment that is invasive of bodily integrity.

On the other hand, you have the continuation of a natural bodily process that in nearly all cases is the result of voluntary action and thus is avoidable by the person.; 11/15/21, 8:24 PM
effinayright said...: gilbar said...
In iowa, if there is a blizzard, and someone shows up on your farmhouse porch;
begging protection from the elements... You Can NOT refuse them admission
You Absolutely, can NOT force someone out into the cold... Where they will DIE
It Sucks, but; you have to wait until they would be able to survive being out there
This is true, even if they have no business on your property

anyone see what i'm getting at here? Its Pretty Straightforward
**************

Citation, please.....; 11/15/21, 8:46 PM
n.n said...: Pregnancy is a choice, and [elective] abortion is death.

Masks follow a mandate, and while they offer viable legal indemnity, on the science and physics of particle transmission offer no source control, limited personal protection when following strict protocol, and generally increase infections.

They could mandate N95 and better class respirators, which while they offer no source control, offer scientifically viable personal protection.

Roe, Roe, Roe your baby, violently down the river Styx.; 11/16/21, 2:07 AM
gadfly said...: As with all government mandates, they are common among our laws, right down to speed limits, traffic lights, seat belts and jaywalking. In the end, law enforcement combined with vehicle safety efforts dictate the effectiveness. In 1972, we had 56K traffic deaths - the most ever. Today, there are 229M drivers on our roads.

You would think that three-quarters of a million deaths from SARS-CoV-2 since the pandemic began might get more attention from our population than traffic safety, especially since vaccine sticks and mask wearing when virus activity is high, are far less bother and much cheaper than annual license tags, drivers license renewals, and vehicle safety inspections- but no one complains.

I think that we could solve the pandemic by simply cancelling driving privileges when pandemic mandates are ignored and vaccines are refused.; 11/16/21, 5:09 AM
Fernandinande said...: If you read the previous post [abortion] without thinking of the mask mandate...

The two subjects don't have much in common except that neither has any privacy issues, medical or otherwise.

A mask mandate is similar to "indecent exposure" laws, requiring people to wear pants, etc, in public. ("Privates, see?" ha ha)

Laws against abortion are like laws against murder.

"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life"

If government lawyers were serious about a silly statement like that, one could decide that one's concepts of existence and the mysteries of human life exclude the neighbor with the dog that barks all night, so it'd legal for one to kill him. As long as one does it privately.; 11/16/21, 6:52 AM
MadTownGuy said...: Forced vaccinations. Forced abortions. Both happen when too much power accrues to the State, because when the tipping poit is reached and all pretense is disposable, the true rationale is exposed. Neither action of the State was about what they said it was, whether public health or womens' choice. It was always about exercising power over the individual 'for the common good.'

C.S. Lewis' quote is apropos: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."; 11/16/21, 9:42 AM
JAORE said...: Mandatory condoms (if followed) would go a long way to leveling this field.; 11/16/21, 12:11 PM