FOR ONE THING, THE PRESS IS CONSTANTLY ENCOURAGING IT: Why Masked, Unmasked Have Disdain for Each Other.
Among the many unbridgeable divides between Americans is a completely antithetical view of mask wearing.
On one side are those who wear masks almost everywhere outside their homes and who demand that others do so, including young children in class and on outdoor playgrounds, and 2-year-olds on airplanes. On the other side are those who only wear a mask where they are punished for not doing so (most obviously, airplanes). They regard masks as essentially pacifiers for adults.
Generally speaking, these two groups have disdain for each other.
Why the pro-mask half of America holds the anti-mask half in contempt needs little explanation. They believe anti-mask Americans are putting others in grave danger. Pro-maskers believe that even children who do not wear masks put their own lives and the lives of other children and teachers at risk.
Consequently, pro-mask Americans regard those who do not wear masks, let alone those who actively oppose mask wearing, as selfish, anti-science potential killers.
What may be less obvious is why anti-maskers hold pro-maskers in equal contempt. So, this needs explaining in greater detail. After all, anti-maskers don’t believe that maskers are putting people in hospitals. First, anti-maskers regard the charges made against them by pro-maskers as baseless. Therefore, as odd as it sounds, anti-maskers have contempt for the pro-maskers’ contempt.
To wrongly charge people with causing mass death is, to understate the case, immoral. And if this charge is demonstrably wrong, the people who level it are the ones who are anti-science.
Since each side regards the other as “anti-science,” what is the science? Nearly all public health authorities claim that masks are absolutely necessary to save lives. But they have virtually no science to back up the claim.
Anthony Fauci says mask, and as he informed us recently, he is science. He was also science, I suppose, back when he told us not to mask. So, really, both sides in this debate can claim to have science on their side. Or at least to have had it on their side at some point.