Eight Reasons Mask Bans Are Beyond Stupid

By Lambert Strether of Corrente.

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’ll conclude — unsurprisingly to NC readers — that mask bans are stupid, lethal, and wrong.

(1) Masks Exist on a Spectrum that Includes “Health Masks”

Masks exist on a spectrum from (a) cloth masks, to (b) surgical masks (“Baggy Blues”), (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) – (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:

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’s 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.

As we shall consider in thesis (8), “Mask Bans Are Motivated by Animus Against Protesters and Protest.”

I will call the range (b) – (e) “health masks,” as distinct from masks generally. If we make this distinction, we could regulate health masks differently from other masks (neatly solving the “KKK hood” 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 “masks,” I mean the range (a) – (e). Now, it may be that some activists disagree with the distinctions implied by this range, but I think it’s 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.)

(2) Health Masks Work to Protect Against Respiratory Particles like Viruses. See the literature: “Effectiveness of face masks for reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2: a rapid systematic review” (2023), and Greenhalgh et alia’s magisterial “Masks and respirators for prevention of respiratory infections: a state of the science review.” (Masks also protect against the fine particles in smoke, and in occupational settings.)

(3) Health Masks Do Not Work to Conceal Identity

First, health masks are less effective than sunglasses, which are not banned (see Nature, “Face masks are less effective than sunglasses in masking face identity“; the study used surgical masks).

Second, health masks do not conceal the eyes[2], hence do not conceal one person’s identity from another person (“The human eye contains an extremely large number of individual characteristics 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”). Note the “person” to “person” qualifier; I’m 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.

Third, gait recognition may work, whether the target is masked or not (See Nature, “Biometric recognition through gait analysis” (2022). One proof of concept showed an accuracy of 88%.)

Fourth, there are cameras everywhere anyhow. From NBC:

Dawn Blagrove, executive director of the criminal justice organization Emancipate North Carolina… 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.

“It’s asinine,” she said, adding: “We live in a society where we are all being tracked all the time.”

Fifth and finally, China has an enormous system of mass surveillance: “As of 2019, it is estimated that 200 million monitoring CCTV cameras of the ‘Skynet’system have been put to use in mainland China.” Does anybody really believe that Xi Jinping blinded that system by imposing a mask mandate, as he did?

(4) Transmission Can Take Place In Seconds When a Health Mask Is Removed

Let’s 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:

Peak viral exposure happens within five seconds of a personal encounter. In other words, there’s no point during a conversation when you’re safe. You’re in danger the instant someone opens their mouth and starts talking. That’s 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.

In consequence–

(5) Health Mask Bans Mandate Infection

From the Pandemic Accountability Index:

[T]hose who have done their best to refuse infection with N95 respirators and other mitigations are now essentially being told… that no, you’re not allowed to protect yourself from COVID-19, a disease that has already killed & disabled millions of Americans.

(6) Police Discretion for Enforcing Mask Bans Is Discriminatory

From the Washington Post, “Masks are going from mandated to criminalized in some states“:

“I don’t understand when there’s 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,” said Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst at the American Civil Liberties Union who has written about the issue. “It really sets up a situation where we are likely to see selective enforcement against protesters that the authorities don’t like.”

I don’t understand how the authorities will do this under any circumstance, not just political protests. Though I can guess:

How police will enforce a mask ban with a "health exception" pic.twitter.com/nMIUHum14T

— Dr. Lucky Tran (@luckytran) July 12, 2024

Just like pretextual traffic stops (“broken tail light”) for example.

(7) Mask Bans Do Not Consider Health Masking for Occupational Purposes

From Teen Vogue:

Mask bans are a labor issue, as well. A resident of New York City, who asked to remain anonymous to protect their privacy, says, “I 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.… The criminalization of masks is a criminalization of workers protecting ourselves….”

(8) Mask Bans Are Motivated by Animus Against Protesters and Protest

From Reckon, “How mask bans became the new front in the war on protest“:

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 ‘black-clad antifa members,’ what the ACLU called a ‘flood’ of anti-protest bills made their way into legislatures across the country, and into Congress.

Among these bills was one in Missouri that created the crime of ‘concealing a person’s identity…by means of a robe, mask, or other disguise’ if they’re protesting. Congress dropped the mask, metaphorically speaking, on their version of a mask ban by calling it the ‘Unmasking Antifa Act of 2018.’

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’s a new boogeyman: pro-Palestine protestors. This year’s North Carolina bill, the Associated Press said straightforwardly, ‘was brought forth in part as a response to campus protests on the war in Gaza.’

Despite the governor’s 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 — at the exact same time the Unmasking Antifa Act of 2018 was reintroduced in Congress.

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 — a well-founded fear, as so-called ‘doxxing trucks’ were frequent visitors to protest sites.

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’m shoplifting in the store, or robbing the bank, or stealing pens off the chains at the Post Office. In other words, “criming while masked” should be “criming while masked,” tans there’s no reason for it to be more.

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: “But the hateful protesters will all wear health masks and not [other identity markers]!!” To which I would answer: “Good. Fewer deaths from infection. And if they commit crimes, arrest them for that!”[3]

Conclusion

In the meantime, until we manage to stop this stupidity, there are a few measures we can take.

I don’t know if a screen printer could do this, but the American Council on Science and Health suggests:

And there are solutions: how about a medical (half-face) mask that contains a photo of the wearer’s 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’s licenses. Living in society requires tradeoffs: public safety (crime prevention) v. public health v. individual rights.

I don’t know if I’d call this a solution — more a hack or a kludge — but if it works, do it!

Here is a letter (I would laminate it) to wave at the cops or the property owners:

We just hit 1 million daily COVID infections in the U.S., per wastewater surveillance data.

If you are in a region that recently enacted a #MaskBan, consider using this letter to #MaskUp under any of the exemption options. Get a local letter too.https://t.co/rXjMGN2kQt pic.twitter.com/ATRTiOMY0p

— Mike Hoerger, PhD MSCR MBA (@michael_hoerger) August 6, 2024

And finally, there is organizing. Here is a letter writing campaign, and a toolkit. The World Health Network also runs phone banks on the individual legislative efforts.

Here ends part one. Stay tuned for part two!

NOTES

[1] S.2738, the “Freedom to Breathe Act,” sponsored by Senator Vance, would prohibit Federal funds from being used to mandate masks on air carriers.

[2] This is why I so vehemently resist the term “face coverings,” much beloved by our organs of state security. Health masks do not cover the eyes, hence do not cover the face. The odd focus on a requirement to show the mouth (“Let me see your smile!”), and to equate its visibility with identity, is an odd aspect of American culture I don’t understand.

[3] Much of thesis (3) applies to the organs of state security, hence to various technical means of identification. Normal citizens won’t have that. The thought occurs, then, that many normal citizens want mask bans not to assist law enforcement, but for acts of vigilantism and private retribution.