Masks are psychologically beneficial, everybody

In which Brian highlights an inconsequential op-ed for crossing the public health authoritarianism rubicon.

Beyond Satire

As the sub-title indicates, this is not going to be some devastating work of satire that dissects the entire public health research to lockdown pipeline in exquisite detail. I’m just here to serve my readers some high-grade, concentrated stupid, and then get back to my SARS-CoV-2 evolutionary analysis project.

The article:¹

nbcnews.com

The hardly surprising argument:

Mask mandates not only stem the spread of diseases but also have helpful psychological benefits. It’s difficult for people to get adequate, high-quality information about risk and apply it in a society that has returned to pre-pandemic norms. Promoting mask-wearing through official messaging (ideally supported by free provision of high-quality masks like N95s) removes the onus on individuals to figure out “what is safe.” 

And there you have it: Deciding things might make some people confused, distressed even! It is therefore beneficial that all people cannot decide things. Besides which, it can be just-plain difficult to do things that are not forced, such as “apply high-quality adequate risk information in society.”

Governments, after deciding what “applying high-quality adequate risk information in society” means, should then just immediately tell people what to do — problem solved! I know, it’s crazy that no one has ever thought of this solution before (but that’s our trio of fancy writing and research credentials for you)!

Government: Hey, you there! Apply this high-quality adequate risk information in society, right now, or you’re going to jail!

Citizen: Thanks. :)

Now, I purposefully left in the third sentence, even though it complicates the apparent argument. Sentence two clearly links (the alleviation of) confusion to the alleged psychological benefit of everybody obscuring the part of their body the brain needs to see to stave off a daily ratchet of existential alienation (“I am no one to anybody and no one is anyone to me, nor have they the potential to be; but at least I am not confused about transportation dress codes!”) by mandate; sentence three ambiguously suggests that the same can be achieved with “official messaging.”

I don’t want to make any big fuss over this contradiction. The authors are simply speaking to two audiences at once; field-testing their new twist to pro-mask propaganda on behalf of imagined elite benefactors, while simultaneously reminding said benefactors of the importance of consulting credential-havers like the authors for any and all mask messaging needs.

This is just something that America has decided (by compliance) that, going forward, it will allow the public health industry to do: Lobby in the media for the state to wield its monopoly on violence against non-expert citizens so that, in the process, the state will maybe hopefully give the industry more money.² It is no different than arms companies goading states toward violence against random foreign peoples; except at least they usually have the dignity not to sign their name to the op-ed.

If you derived value from this post, please drop a few coins in your fact-barista’s tip jar.

click button or visit https://ko-fi.com/unglossed

1. Shihipar, Abdullah. Goedel, William. Cartus, Abigail. “It’s not just Covid. Flu and RSV mean masks need to come back.” (2022, November 27.) nbcnews.com

2. Naturally, this is only the post-Pandemic™ iteration of the not-much-less odious practice of public health officials prostituting in op-eds for generic government preparation against pandemics, which extends at least back to the 70’s. As mask-mandates are crucial to the groundwork for emergency theatre, the industry likely fears a contraction in their absence. The firehose is going dry.