The wearing of masks to prevent respiratory infections may occasionally give rise to legitimate disagreements among rational persons, but authorizing parties typically insist on the ad hoc nature of such regulations. Nobody thinks wearing a face mask should always be required, the editorial board of the Toronto Star stated in March. In ten years, nobody will care about these inconsequential inconveniences, so the discussion starts, and we’ll be pleased to make the situation less lethal and more bearable.
The issue always has a whiff of urgency about it since few people believe the masking should be permanent. But Globe and Mail columnist Martha Lederman at least succeeded in crossing the Rubicon this week. She hasn’t explicitly stated that she supports the mask law in the long run. We need to standardize mask wearing, which is customary in some parts of Asia, she added.
“We usually observe an upsurge in respiratory viruses, including COVID, at this time of year, which was historically known as cold and flu season, and masks need to be brought back into our life every year,” Lederman added.
Annual requirements are quite unlikely, and this is true for more reasons than merely the fact that anti-mask zealots like Lederman frequently contradict themselves. She implies in the opening of her column that people who disagree with her are “sociopaths,” which is a terrific way to end a debate quickly. Speak to those folks who must engage in combat for a living, and you’ll quickly learn that there are some very good arguments against masks (even from some people who are happy to live with the rage).
I believe that politicians and health officials are aware of the fact that they must always take into account the tolerance of the whole populace, not just us internet warriors. But even they have frequently failed to convincingly argue for their pandemic position.