Americans reject governors' edicts on mask mandates

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Sure. Governor Abbot of Texas attempted to stop local communities from passing mask mandates. Fortunately, the State Supreme Court slapped him down on that attempt. He also tried to stop locally-elected school boards from protecting teachers and children by requiring masks. Fortunately, school boards are able to decide on dress codes, and that permitted them to stop that power grab as well.

Ron DeSantis, in Florida,tried the same things, but there, it seems that in many locales, the people are just ignoring his commands and doing what they need to do anyway.

Governor Greg Governor Abbot of Texas has tested positive for COVID-19. As you noted, the Texas Supreme Court ruled against him. In Texas yet!

Governor Ron DeSantis is a fool. He is indirectly responsible for many COVID-19 deaths.

In case you're not aware, that's only two governors out of 50. There are always exceptions to the rule. In this case, you're wrong to choose two governors to prove your universal hypothesis.
 
Upvote 0

LeafByNiggle

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2021
928
630
75
Minneapolis
✟174,258.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The rub comes when people are forced to have their children in masks, and claims they have science and data on their side. Yet, there really isn't any. There are countries - not third world either - that don't have the mask mandates for their school children. They claim science and data too. Many of those places were hit with the Delta variant hard before we did. Yet, they still don't mask their kids in school with a mandate.
That is not proof that masks don't work. That just shows that some countries, for whatever reason, don't have mask mandates.

I think people need to see this science and data that both sides claim is true, and let the marbles fall where they may.
It cannot be true that masks both work and don't work - unless you mean they work to an extent, but are not perfect. That much is true. But the statement that masks don't help at all is scientifically wrong. No two ways about that. Now the political and societal policy question that cannot be answered by just science is whether mandating masks provides enough protection to justify the trouble they involve - not being able to speak as clearly, or sing in music class, or glasses fogging up, or educating the public on the proper way to wear a mask and how to make sure it fits properly. These are all valid questions that can be weighed against the benefit they provide to society. And it has to be weighed in societal terms rather than individual terms because wearing a mask protects others in the society. This benefit cannot be discounted. In fact it is the biggest single benefit - bigger even than the amount of protection it affords the one who wears it. There was a time before the delta variant when public health officials decided that masks no longer had to be mandated. But new data on the delta variant plus the data on the slow pace of vaccination has revised that calculation.
 
Upvote 0

HannahT

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 9, 2013
6,027
2,422
✟458,831.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That is not proof that masks don't work. That just shows that some countries, for whatever reason, don't have mask mandates.

I didn't say masks didn't work - or did work. Not sure where you got that from.

You have to wonder WHY some countries - for whatever reason - don't have mask mandates. Remember its the government that is claiming the science, and if they can't back up it? Then you allow choice, and not mandates.

Science and data need to show a clear benefit from the masks. Why they can't I don't know. They don't at this point, although some media will swear up and down it does. Then they give you a poll - not science and data. If you just want to go by societal/political terms - which are fluid - then wear your mask. No one is stopping you from getting your benefit that isn't discounted at that point.

All I'm saying is there are places in this world that aren't considered third world, and are UP THERE with us in terms of science, medicine, etc. that don't agree with our current societal/political approaches. There is nothing wrong with looking at their prospective - and science/data - to see how they landed there. Is there something wrong with that? No. Why then are people so opposed to that then? It makes no sense.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,917
11,303
76
✟363,229.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
You wrote, "... trying to usurp the powers of local governments". What on Earth are you talking about?

For example, in Florida and in Texas, governors are trying to force school districts to do things that locally-elected school board members are supposed to decide. It's a power grab to take away local control of schools and concentrate it in the state government.

That's how tyranny gets started. "We are the government, and we know what's best for you."
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,917
11,303
76
✟363,229.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I'm not sure this debate is worded correctly.

I know some on the right would rather it not be "worded" so as to expose the power grab by government over local control of health departments and public schools.

Rather, they want us to think of the rights of governors (who presume to know what's best for us) to tell us what to do, even if our locally-elected officials don't agree with their indifference to the lives and health of our children.

Not buying it.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,917
11,303
76
✟363,229.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
One side thinks the government should place mandate behind the mask wearing, and the other side wants it to be choice.

It's perfectly all right to do as one wishes, so long as one does not endanger others thereby. You can drive drunk if it's on your private road on your property. Otherwise your freedom to drink and drive is limited to protect others on public roads. There's precedent for this, with regard to pandemics:

In a public health emergency, can state or local governments require the general public to wear face coverings? More than a century has passed since face mask ordinances proliferated in U.S. towns and cities during the 1918-1919 pandemic flu. Face mask ordinances, where they existed, could be enforced with citations and fines, with municipal judges holding what journalists referred to as “influenza court” in which a citizen could contest the citation and hope to avoid paying a fine. Few reported court decisions (and none from federal courts) emerged from that era. But as a general rule, judges deferred to state and local elected officials on face-mask ordinances, as well as the decision to close businesses and schools and prevent public gatherings.


In the face of that devastating pandemic, the judicial branch seemed to adopt a non-justiciable, political question-type approach to local health measures in an emergency. Typical is the Supreme Court of Arizona’s pronouncement, “Necessity is the law of time and place, and the emergency calls into life the necessity … to exercise the power to protect the public health.” In 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court had called for just such deference in Jacobson v. Massachusetts. In the midst of a small-pox outbreak, local authorities could mandate vaccination on penalty of a fine for refusal: “Upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members.”

Face-Covering Requirements and the Constitution | ACS

So it's on solid legal grounds.
 
Upvote 0

LeafByNiggle

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2021
928
630
75
Minneapolis
✟174,258.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
You have to wonder WHY some countries - for whatever reason - don't have mask mandates.
And if your wondering does not produce an obvious answer, what do you do then? Start making assumptions about the science itself? Human decision making, especially in politics, is often impossible to analyze.

Remember its the government that is claiming the science...
No, it is the scientists that are claiming the science. And I include medical professionals as scientists.

And if they can't back up it?
Sometimes "backing it up" involves presenting evidence to people who are either unwilling or unable to understand the science. In that case it is not fault of scientists if their explanations are not accepted.

Science and data need to show a clear benefit from the masks.
To whom? To people who have made up their mind already? That may not be possible.

Why they can't I don't know.
I just gave two reasons above.

If you just want to go by societal/political terms - which are fluid - then wear your mask. No one is stopping you from getting your benefit....
Yes they are. Because my benefit comes mostly from other people wearing their mask and only partly from me wearing my mask.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,917
11,303
76
✟363,229.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Science and data need to show a clear benefit from the masks.

Repeatedly verified:
mSphere: 2020 Oct 21;5(5):e00637-20.
Effectiveness of Face Masks in Preventing Airborne Transmission of SARS-CoV-2
Abstract:

...We found that cotton masks, surgical masks, and N95 masks all have a protective effect with respect to the transmission of infective droplets/aerosols of SARS-CoV-2 and that the protective efficiency was higher when masks were worn by a virus spreader. Importantly, medical masks (surgical masks and even N95 masks) were not able to completely block the transmission of virus droplets/aerosols even when completely sealed. Our data will help medical workers understand the proper use and performance of masks and determine whether they need additional equipment to protect themselves from infected patients.IMPORTANCE Airborne simulation experiments showed that cotton masks, surgical masks, and N95 masks provide some protection from the transmission of infective SARS-CoV-2 droplets/aerosols; however, medical masks (surgical masks and even N95 masks) could not completely block the transmission of virus droplets/aerosols even when sealed.


Proc Nat Acad Sci USA
2021 Jan 26;118(4)

An evidence review of face masks against COVID-19
Abstract

...The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles in both laboratory and clinical contexts. Public mask wearing is most effective at reducing spread of the virus when compliance is high. Given the current shortages of medical masks, we recommend the adoption of public cloth mask wearing, as an effective form of source control, in conjunction with existing hygiene, distancing, and contact tracing strategies.


Meta-Analysis

Jul-Aug 2020;36

Efficacy of face mask in preventing respiratory virus transmission: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract

Results: A total of 21 studies met our inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses suggest that mask use provided a significant protective effect (OR = 0.35 and 95% CI = 0.24-0.51). Use of masks by healthcare workers (HCWs) and non-healthcare workers (Non-HCWs) can reduce the risk of respiratory virus infection by 80% (OR = 0.20, 95% CI = 0.11-0.37) and 47% (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.36-0.79). The protective effect of wearing masks in Asia (OR = 0.31) appeared to be higher than that of Western countries (OR = 0.45). Masks had a protective effect against influenza viruses (OR = 0.55), SARS (OR = 0.26), and SARS-CoV-2 (OR = 0.04). In the subgroups based on different study designs, protective effects of wearing mask were significant in cluster randomized trials and observational studies.


Conclusions: This study adds additional evidence of the enhanced protective value of masks, we stress that the use masks serve as an adjunctive method regarding the COVID-19 outbreak.
 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,161
1,223
71
Sebring, FL
✟657,505.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Lol, I love the "tyranny" which seeks to circumvent the globalists' fait accompli (vaccine passports). Tyrannize me, freedom-loving Governors!


What does globalism have to do with disease, vaccines, or masks, let alone vaccine passports?
Globalism as an economic theory is the belief that capital should move freely across national borders and likewise that workers should be able to move freely across national borders.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,917
11,303
76
✟363,229.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Lol, I love the "tyranny"

When it's the power of the the state doing it, statists do. But when it comes to locally-elected school boards and city governments, they don't like that. Too close to the people, I suppose. And everyone knows that governors know what's best for us, and we should obey like good little sheep.

But that's not working very well for the governors, is it?

352564_e42310e67466579c92783a188e7a6143.png

Axios_COVID-19_W51.jpg
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,917
11,303
76
✟363,229.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
What does globalism have to do with disease, vaccines, or masks, let alone vaccine passports?

Nothing, actually. They have been just twisted into scare words to convince us that the government in the statehouse knows what's best for us, and our locally-elected officials have no right to decide what's best for our communities.
 
Upvote 0

d taylor

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2018
10,550
4,684
59
Mississippi
✟247,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
What should have been in the first place is the government lay out (honestly) what they believe should be a persons way to protect themselves (the wearing of mask, staying away from crowds for a person, etc) and have left it at that. None of these mask mandates, lock downs or curfews that were forced upon people.
 
Upvote 0

GOD Shines Forth!

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 6, 2019
2,615
2,061
United States
✟355,297.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
When it's the power of the the state doing it, statists do. But when it comes to locally-elected school boards and city governments, they don't like that. Too close to the people, I suppose. And everyone knows that governors know what's best for us, and we should obey like good little sheep.

But that's not working very well for the governors, is it?

352564_e42310e67466579c92783a188e7a6143.png

Axios_COVID-19_W51.jpg

Tiresome, hackneyed misquoting. What I said was:

"Lol, I love the "tyranny" which seeks to circumvent the globalists' fait accompli (vaccine passports). Tyrannize me, freedom-loving Governors!"

(Let the reader understand)
 
Upvote 0

Ceallaigh

Veritas Vos Liberabit
Supporter
Oct 2, 2020
18,750
9,860
The Keep
✟571,287.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I suggest that you pay attention to the people who have refused the vaccine and died horrible deaths because of their ignorance. I have read a number of stories about people begging for the vaccine after they have been admitted to the ICU, shortly before they (needlessly) died.

I hope and pray that you don't become one of those people.

BTW, why are you so afraid of a -> piece of cloth <- and/or -> a simple injection <- ?

I got vaccinated and I wear a mask. But I take the horror stories with a grain of salt.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,917
11,303
76
✟363,229.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
"Lol, I love the "tyranny" which seeks to circumvent the globalists' fait accompli (vaccine passports). Tyrannize me, freedom-loving Governors!"

We get that you prefer that Governors control locally-elected governments and school boards. But most states put limits on central governments. Like all officials, state governors would like to rule as they wish. But state constitutions put a limit on that kind of tyranny, assuring that the voters in each community have control of their own governmental functions.

And while you may prefer the "we're the government, we know what's best for you" concept. It remains true that local governments most accurately follow the wishes of the governed.

It upsets statists when local officials buck the system, but that's a process as old as America. It's a healthy check on tyranny. Notice that in Florida and Texas, where the central government is trying reign in the freedoms of citizens to rule themselves, people are starting to simply rebel and refuse to go along with it. Which is also healthy.

Sorry you disagree.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,917
11,303
76
✟363,229.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I got vaccinated and I wear a mask. But I take the horror stories with a grain of salt.

That's because you don't have to see it. But the ER and ICU people have to see it daily. And yes, it affects them.
 
Upvote 0

HannahT

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 9, 2013
6,027
2,422
✟458,831.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I know some on the right would rather it not be "worded" so as to expose the power grab by government over local control of health departments and public schools.

Rather, they want us to think of the rights of governors (who presume to know what's best for us) to tell us what to do, even if our locally-elected officials don't agree with their indifference to the lives and health of our children.

Not buying it.

I realize you love your hatred of the other side to even notice it isn't just the 'right' that are questioning this approach. There are plenty of the other side of the aisle that wonder as well. Did you ever bother to notice? It's not a right/left issue.

Its also other parts of the globe that are questioning this. Seems a bit larger than your opinion about indifference towards the health of children. Or are you saying other first world countries are indifferent to their lives and health of their children?
 
Upvote 0

HannahT

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 9, 2013
6,027
2,422
✟458,831.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It's perfectly all right to do as one wishes, so long as one does not endanger others thereby. You can drive drunk if it's on your private road on your property. Otherwise your freedom to drink and drive is limited to protect others on public roads. There's precedent for this, with regard to pandemics:

In a public health emergency, can state or local governments require the general public to wear face coverings? More than a century has passed since face mask ordinances proliferated in U.S. towns and cities during the 1918-1919 pandemic flu. Face mask ordinances, where they existed, could be enforced with citations and fines, with municipal judges holding what journalists referred to as “influenza court” in which a citizen could contest the citation and hope to avoid paying a fine. Few reported court decisions (and none from federal courts) emerged from that era. But as a general rule, judges deferred to state and local elected officials on face-mask ordinances, as well as the decision to close businesses and schools and prevent public gatherings.


In the face of that devastating pandemic, the judicial branch seemed to adopt a non-justiciable, political question-type approach to local health measures in an emergency. Typical is the Supreme Court of Arizona’s pronouncement, “Necessity is the law of time and place, and the emergency calls into life the necessity … to exercise the power to protect the public health.” In 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court had called for just such deference in Jacobson v. Massachusetts. In the midst of a small-pox outbreak, local authorities could mandate vaccination on penalty of a fine for refusal: “Upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members.”

Face-Covering Requirements and the Constitution | ACS

So it's on solid legal grounds.

So, what you are saying is you are to afraid to look to other places on the globe that seem to approach this different? You are to invested in being right, and deciding that others that might have a different POV should be compared to drunk drivers.

Okay then.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,917
11,303
76
✟363,229.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
So, what you are saying is you are to afraid to look to other places on the globe that seem to approach this different?

I guess New Zealand's "shut it all down" worked better than our system did, but remember Trump dithered and denied and delayed action that killed well over a hundred thousand people. So there is that.

And many other countries did much better at masking than we did, and yes the results were much better. But you have to deal with the situation here, not in those cultures where community responsibility is a much stronger value than it is here.

You're not just too invested in being right, you're not considering why we didn't do as well as countries like that. You have to consider the culture, and the diversity of things here. And of course, we had more international traffic, which complicated things.

deciding that others that might have a different POV should be compared to drunk drivers.

Just those who are, like drunk drivers, fine with putting others in danger to do what they want. Those who don't mask up and/or refuse vaccination, but avoid public places where they could infect others, are not being irresponsible.

POV is no excuse for denying reality.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,917
11,303
76
✟363,229.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I realize you love your hatred of the other side to even notice it isn't just the 'right' that are questioning this approach.

You should never hate anyone. It really hurts you more than it hurts anyone else. Once you realize that no one sets out to be a bad guy, it's easier for you to be more calm and yes, compassionate. You don't have to put up with aggressive or dishonest people. Just don't hate them.

There are plenty of the other side of the aisle that wonder as well. Did you ever bother to notice? It's not a right/left issue.

Of course. It's a statist/libertarian issue. Locally-elected officials are more responsive to people, and they should be able to make those decisions and face the voters on those decisions, not the central government The farther from the community, the less interest in and care for, the individuals in those communities.. And yes, there are leftists who are just as inclined to worship government as any Trump supporter.

Seems a bit larger than your opinion about indifference towards the health of children.

I'm just looking at behavior. As the number of kids becoming ill in Florida increases and the pediatric ICUs fill up, the governor there acts completely indifferent to their suffering. He doesn't care so long as he can get a political advantage out of it. This is why local governments and school districts are now defying his edicts and doing what they must to protect their people.
 
Upvote 0