Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I suspect we all agree that there is not just a necessary but an inevitable and unavoidable balancing act. We're lawyers, we're comfortable with balancing acts.
What I can't figure out is why wearing masks is some awful imposition rather than a petty annoyance. Sure, I don't like wearing masks, but you know what, I wore a tie to work for years for absolutely no good reason and that was a bigger imposition, but I never screamed "FREEEEEEDUUUUUMMMMBBB!!" I mean, simmer down children, clues are free.
|
I like wearing masks. It cuts down on small talk and allows one to hide tells during contentious interactions. It also allows one to avoid interacting with annoying people ("I didn't know that was you in that mask...")
My critique is of the performative act of wearing masks in restaurants, or anywhere else, where large numbers of people will not be wearing masks. The way I see it, which seems the scientifically accurate assessment, is if one is vulnerable, there is no safe restaurant. People have to take off masks to eat, and drink, and if even only 1/5 of the people are doing that in a tight indoor setting, all people might as well be doing it.
A vulnerable person, or a person who aggressively seeks to avoid acquiring a variant, simply ought to avoid restaurants, bars, concerts, and anywhere else people are tightly packed or eating/drinking.
The futile performative acts of vigilance/compliance, such as requiring masks on the first floor of a courthouse, but not the floors above (yes, that's common), or forcing masking while walking but not while seated or eating, don't make sense, and are clearly designed merely to pay lip service to virus concerns, and in so doing also provide a false sense of security for some.
I guess it's understandable. The owners of establishments don't want the CDC saying, "If you're concerned or vulnerable, stay out of restaurants and concerts." But that's the truth.
