First Reaction: The Family Defense Edition

Yeah, but you've also complained about compulsory masks, so I'm not sure I believe you.

Spreaders

"Being human is not about individual survival or escape. It’s a team sport. Whatever future humans have, it will be together." - Douglas Rushkoff

I've been kind of avoiding Facebook. Not, like, abstaining or anything like that It's just that I've been finding myself getting more and more exasperated by what I'm seeing, and I know that if I get too involved, I'm not going to be able to sleep. These are not the normal disagreements over politics and policy. This is life and death. Frankly, I'm appalled by the half dozen or so friends I have who, through what I can only see as willful ignorance, are arguing for death on a massive scale.

I was explaining this to Gaby last night. He asked me, "Do you really need those friends?" If they're causing me so much frustration, why do I keep them? I reminded him that for me there are only two reasons for unfriending someone: a) they're boring, meaning they never post anything, and b) they're no longer important to me. Both have to be true. So I'll put up with fascism, conspiracy theories, and hyper-partisanship so long as you post frequently and you're someone I care about. 

But I do have opinions. I probably won't tell you what that opinion is (at least directly) unless you ask, especially if I doubt your motives. But if you ask an answerable question, I might give an answer. Or not. I frequently see people ask what they think is supposed to be a rhetorical "gotcha" question, but wind up instead asking a question that actually has an answer. For instance, one post recently questioned why, if masks are so effective, did they release "millions of prisoners instead of just giving them masks?" Skipping over the hyperbolic use of the word "millions" and its other implications, that question actually has an answer: Masks are most effective when used in combinations with other preventive measures, such as social distancing -- which is impossible or improbable in crowded indoor situations such as bars, schools, churches, political rallies, aircraft carriers, and, yes... prisons. Anybody with access to Google -- or, frankly, anyone who has been paying attention --  could have found this out for themselves. I didn't comment on the post because the person who posted it wasn't interested in knowing the answer. She just wanted to look clever.

So... my reason for writing.

One of those friends posted this: 

So much to unpack in this. I didn't respond, partly because I didn't want to get into it, and partly because he has friends who are pro-public health and safety and pro-civil and human rights who are willing to argue with him. But the thing that caught my eye and stuck with me was the "real science" remark. I don't what he means by that. I'm similarly disturbed when I see admonitions to "do your [own] research," which in context usually means "trudge through the same conspiracy theory websites as me so you can gain my secret knowledge." It reminds me of when Mormon

missionaries would come to my door and tell me to investigate their claims, and I would do that (because I just like looking stuff up) but I'd invariably come to different conclusions than the ones they were hoping I'd find. 

I'm no medical professional, and I don't have the time or money to do what could reasonably be called "research" by any measure. But I do know how to look up information if I have a question about something. Frankly, it's just not that hard. And I shouldn't have to do it for you. But we all have those Facebook friends who believe that some rando who works at some hospital somewhere is a voice of authority because her particular hospital is not experiencing the problems of hospitals around the globe, and that this prooooves (emphasis on the ooooves) that the whole thing is a hoax. And this counts as "research."

Yeah, I see this kind of thing a lot. A lot.

Meanwhile, thousands of scientists and medical professionals around the globe are actually studying the virus, studying prevention measures, and looking for a vaccine. In other words, doing actual research:

A study published in June in the journal BMJ Global Health confirmed that the highest risk of transmission of the virus occurs before the subject develops symptoms, but found that the transmission rate was reduced by 79% if the infected person is wearing a mask.

In The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, Professor Trisha Greenhalgh writes that if 60% of the public wore masks that were 60% effective, the transmission rate would drop to less than one per person, and the virus would die out. (This is a very informative article, covering a lot of related topics, with links to 88 scientific studies.)

A German study published in the IZA Institute of Labor Economics found a dramatic drop in Covid-19 cases just 10 days after Germany made masks compulsory. Their conclusion was that face masks reduced the daily growth rate of reported infections by 40%.

A study from Texas A&M, published in the journal PNAS,  found that mask usage reduced the transmission rate by 78,000 in Italy and 66,000 in New York City over a one month period, confirming that the air an infected person exhales is the dominant route for the spread of Covid-19, and that masks and social distancing are currently the most effective (and cheapest) method for combating the virus.

Those are just four of hundreds. 

The nature of science is that knowledge increases. We know more today than we did yesterday, but we'll know more tomorrow than we do today. Still, a lot of what we know about the effectiveness of masks is knowledge we've had for years, and the Japanese people have worn them for decades.

I read my friend's post last night before sitting down to watch an episode of The West Wing ( "The Women of Qumar," season 3, episode 9) on Netflix. It was the one about seat belts and mad cow, and I found that a lot of the discussion was pertinent to what was on my mind. Sam argued with several people about the necessity for a national seat belt law, giving the statistic that currently (November, 2001) 68% of people in the country wore their seat belt, and that if that number increased to 90%, 5000 lives could be saved. Later, President Bartlett pointed out to him that cars today, with their seat belts, air bags, and crumple zones, etc. are safer than they've ever been. If someone dies in an a car accident today, it's just because of personal behavior and bad luck.

In a debate about whether it should be announced that a cow in Nebraska was being tested for Mad Cow Disease, CJ made three strong points. She said that the public will not forgive a president that withheld information that would have helped them or save lives (remember, this was about 19 years ago); that in a crisis, people need to feel like soldiers, not victims; and that information breeds confidence while silence breeds fear.

That second point stood out.

Previously, my friend had posted a meme which consisted of two photos. The top one depicted a herd of sheep wearing masks, while the bottom showed lions, maskless, approaching the viewer menacingly. The implication, of course, was that people wear masks because they are afraid, and they're obediently following... i don't know, the "gub'mint"? the liberal media? while the lions (without their masks) are brave, standing up to the authorities that want to take away their freedoms.

But that's wrong.

In a crisis, people need to feel like soldiers, not victims.

And in this crisis, a mask is the soldier's most effective weapon.