Type to search


NYT uses Biden as example to promote a literal double-down on masks

President-elect Joe Biden has promised to make a minimum wage of $15 an hour one of his first priorities – to an eruption of cheers from robots looking for entry-level jobs and the employers who will kick actual living, breathing human beings to the curb in order to cut HR costs.

The standard, appropriately sarcastic response from conservatives is to simply ask: Why stop there? Emulating an auctioneer, those on the right question, why not $20? $25? $50? Why not a UBI of $100,000 a year? After all, if we’re just going to print money a la 1930s Germany, then the sky’s literally the limit.

Well, oddly, this same thinking is now being applied to masks.

Biden wants a mask mandate, even if he blathers about how he cannot do it. He’s gonna make you wear one in a federal building, and if given his druthers, you’d wear one in your car, your home, in the shower, anywhere you’re actually in danger of breathing.

Well, this week The New York Times, citing Biden and septuagenarian “science-savvy senators” – translation: Democrats and those Republicans who agree with them – noted that all the hip kids are now sporting two masks. It’s both health-conscious and stylish.

“Double-masking isn’t necessary for everyone,” the Times observed. “But for people with thin or flimsy face coverings, ‘if you combine multiple layers, you start achieving pretty high efficiencies’ of blocking viruses from exiting and entering the airway, said Linsey Marr, an expert in virus transmission at Virginia Tech.”

To support Marr’s contention, the Times noted one study that found “known Covid cases waxed and waned in near-lockstep” – interesting choice of words there for the paper that undoubtedly would back a national mask mandate – “with mask-wearing rules.” Yes, but just forget that California, which has had draconian lockdown and masking mandates for months now, is among the worst places on the globe for new COVID-19 cases.

The Times also recommended “a study in Beijing found that face masks were 79 percent effective at blocking transmission from infected people to their close contacts.” Well, let’s do it, then. Obviously, we won’t find a more transparent or trustworthy source than the communists who afflicted the world with this virus.

As with the minimum, wage, it’s tempting to ask: If two masks are better, why not three? Why not five? Why not a diver’s bell helmet? Or go full-on hazmat suit? All government issued, since money will no longer be an object, or worth anything, once Biden and the Democrats run the show.

But, alas, the Times recognized a slight problem with all this overkill: “Of course, there’s a trade-off: At some point, ‘we run the risk of making it too hard to breathe,’” Marr told the paper.

Well so does the coronavirus – the Fauciistas obvious rejoinder to Marr’s Calamity Jane routine.

Back in May 2016, long before we knew what COVID-19 was, Dr. Shane Neilson – an actual medical doctor, not an educational bounder like “Dr.” Jill Biden – penned an article for the Canadian Medical Association Journal suggesting surgical masks were “a bad fit for risk reduction.”

Noting histories of pandemics past, Neilson opined, “As represented by our cinema and other media, Western society expects too much of masks.”

“In the 1919 influenza pandemic, masks were available and were dispensed to populations, but they had no impact on the epidemic curve,” he wrote. “At the time, it was unknown that the influenza organism is nanoscopic and can theoretically penetrate the surgical mask barrier. As recently as 2010, the US National Academy of Sciences declared that, in the community setting, ‘face masks are not designed or certified to protect the wearer from exposure to respiratory hazards.’”

Neilson added, “Wearing a mask reinforces fear. … This fear surfaces in public policy. … (I)f the evidence of popular cinema can be believed. Western society has already emerged into a present reality in which citizens are conditioned to want masks on the basis of media representations of pandemics.” He could have added the “representations” of presidents-elect and “science-savvy senators.”

Ultimately, Neilson wrote, “The problem of affect in political terms is a contagious one: fear spreads among the public, leading to intensification of risk management — the classic example being 9/11 and the war on terrorism.” And we know what that did for civil liberties and curbing government power.

Biden undoubtedly believes if one mask is good, two is better. Surely, he’ll stop before he suffocates us all. Won’t he?

Subscribe To Our Newsletter
There are a million ways to get your news.
We want to be your one in a million.
Stay Updated
Give it a try, you can unsubscribe anytime.
Send this to a friend