MANDATES: Enough of the hysteria

Discussions (or hysterical reactions devoid of reason) of mask mandates continue to routinely neglect the following county data (and all data, for that matter): 43 deaths. 3,646 confirmed cases. 43/3,646 = .01.

Where I come from, people call that 1%.

Opportunities abound! What other irrational, anti-science, anti-fact, fear-driven, society-altering, personal-liberty-violating schemes might be discussed and recommended to pretend to protect 1% of a given population?

Looks to me as if we know quite specifically what demographic is most vulnerable to this infection: NO ONE UNDER 60; TWO BETWEEN 60-69; THE BALANCE OVER 70. Rarely do problems present such a clear and narrow opportunity to focus resources on impacted groups — so far hysterics in the community seem to be derelict in taking advantage of this opportunity, but they have maintained focus on fashionable flights of fancy instead. Disappointing. Focus on people over 70. Provide them with services that lower their exposure. Anything else is absurd.

My favorite reason for masks and mask mandates so far? We’re a “laughing stock” without them.

Well, by all means, let’s avoid that. Who thought this was about mitigation or saving lives or the actual facts? It’s not. It’s about the approval of the rest of the nation; it is a virtue-signaling shriek. This is only about control and image, and the “laughing stock” comment clearly betrays what underlies the monomania. On a related note, in the context of a virus that we are attempting to manage, are we to take seriously references to “Star Trek?” I think it’s adorable that anyone would write such a thing without irony. Talk about “laughing stock.”

Perhaps they’re onto something; there’s as much legitimate science in mask mandates as in Star Trek.

May the farce be with you,

JOE ALLANMEYER

Coeur d’Alene