The editors of the Washington Post recommend a national mask mandate:
NO METHOD of blocking the spread of the coronavirus is perfect, but many of them are good. The use of cloth face masks is not a guarantee against broadcasting or receiving the virus, but when combined with other measures such as hand-washing and distancing, it can sharply reduce the spread. That’s why it is entirely wrongheaded for some Republican governors to resist the face mask mandates that President-elect Joe Biden has urged. Thirty-four states and the District have mandated face coverings in public; as the pandemic dangerously escalates, the others should join them.
I have no objections to state mask mandates given a few provisos:
- The mandate should be issued consistent with state law.
- Who should wear a mask, when, where, and the specific design of the mask required should be spelled out clearly and consistent with the present state of knowledge. Bandanas and face shields are not masks.
- Any mandate should be enforced. Failing to enforce a mandate sends the signal that it is not particularly important. Selective enforcement is a path to abuse.
- Any state mandating masks should also be issuing them to the needy.
Short of a declaration of martial law the president doesn’t have the authority to issue a national mask mandate and the Congress does not have the power to give him that power. It’s a state matter. As should be virtually needless to add, practically none of those provisos are being heeded in Illinois.
Why worry about such details in an emergency? An emergency is precisely when we should be most concerned about such details. That is what it means to have a rule of law.
There is some discussion on law blogs like Balkin’s and Volokh’s that a law mandating masks while traveling in interstate commerce would be Constitutional. I didn’t read through those; the notion that I might be required to wear a mask while driving on the interstate was depressing in the sort of “do something, even if its ineffective” category. But even then I think might really require state’s to pass corresponding laws in order for their to be real enforcement, and that would require money to the states to encourage them to pass them. It’s too late for anything but air travel and Amtrak which I assume already have mandates in place.
A national mandate won’t help where most people are getting infected — at home.
Look at this article with the data that Mass gathered from contact tracing. https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2020/10/30/massachusetts-covid-cluster-data
About 75% of infections they could identity occurred at home.
Which makes sense because that is where everyone puts their guard down — and actually at highest risk (indoor with poor ventilation, spending a lot of time in close proximity to people, not wearing masks, etc).
Optimization says that is where the most gains can come from.
I presume it would be constitutional but have no impact. Not to mention unenforceable.
Symbolic action is overwhelming pragmatism.
Several states already have quarantine requirements for any out-of-state visitors (or returning residents), so a federal mandate seems redundant and unenforceable. The states with quarantine requirements are not even able to enforce the quarantines as they exist.
“About 75% of infections they could identity occurred at home.”
The question is where and how are infections being brought into the home to spread? This is a question that official statistics don’t seem to have an answer to.
“The question is where and how are infections being brought into the home to spread”
The question both matters and it doesn’t matter. If one looks at infection chains as a graph, each link contributes to the spread as much as any other link. From a society perspective, if you break the chain so it doesn’t spread through a household is as good as keeping it from getting into the household.
The difference is a lot more can be done about household transmission because it hasn’t been a focus unlike public transmission which has been the focus for most of the year.
“The difference is a lot more can be done about household transmission because it hasn’t been a focus unlike public transmission which has been the focus for most of the year.”
True in theory, not sure how true in practice. Even leaving aside the social aspects of family life, the reality is that a household by definition has people spending significant amounts of time in close proximity in enclosed areas. Social distancing, in that case, is difficult to impossible. Mask wearing is much less effective.
On a possibly related side note my governor and state epidemiologist stated in a recent interview that the vast majority of new cases in Colorado over the past couple of months were people in their 20’s and 30’s. Those would be the ages of people more likely to be living with roommates and in smaller dwellings, plus they tend to be a lot more social generally.
Maybe what we need to do is ban Millenials or maybe just lock them up.
Not to mention that it’s practically unenforceable and impossible to issue a mandate that’s both fair and effective. There’s a lot of difference between four people sharing a 400 sqft apartment and four people sharing a 5,000 sqft McMansion..
I look at the test reporting everyday and its predominately adults btw/ 20 and 60. Not surprising, people over 60 are very likely taking more precautions, possibly somewhat better situated for self-isolation as long as they are not in a care facility, and people under 20 are less susceptible.
@CuriousOnlooker, may in part be an artifact that contact-tracing gets thin responses. People have to identify family and roommates, but how many other people does one come into close contact for 15 minutes a day at work, school, restaurants and bars?
I haven’t read anything about the Moderna announcement yet, but the headline solidifies my position as a hard-vaxxer. They should grant emergency use approval ASAP; I can’t read many of these articles about the “some” protection provided by masks when there is something that appears to be 90% plus effective.
PD, it is unlikely an artifact of contact tracing.
It is the same finding in South Korea — which is believed to have a thorough contact tracing program.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-1315_article
“Higher household than nonhousehold detection might partly reflect transmission during social distancing, when family members largely stayed home except to perform essential tasks, possibly creating spread within the household…… Given the high infection rate within families, personal protective measures should be used at home to reduce the risk for transmission”
Also second that at this point — the FDA should grant an EUA tomorrow, and the government distribute as much vaccine as they can as fast as they can.
“Symbolic action is overwhelming pragmatism.”
Of course. End of discussion.
Still think trying to implement mask wearing and social distancing at home is a waste of time. Put the effort into keeping it from getting into the home.
As to a mandate, it is too late. It has been too politicized. I would just have the new president and his spokespeople, hopefully some real doctors (not the Trump quacks) emphasize that they help. Maybe have some financial incentives? Areas that wear masks are eligible for more PPE? More test materials?
Steve
That would certainly be one strategy if the problem were that local officials aren’t responding but at least around here they’re responding good and hard, largely by punching people who can’t punch back and leaving those who can alone. The challenge is having the incentives apply to the right people and point in the right direction.
I really dont know what you mean with the punching stuff. Which incentives to promote mask wearing are working with your local officials? They only want to make people wear them who cant oppose wearing them? Everyone should wear them so if they are caving to those who resist the resisting people get to have more Covid. Besides, I am not overly interested in setting policy or responses based upon one group that do it poorly.
Steve
Locking down businesses that hire mostly the lowest paid workers punishes (punches) those workers. But for some reason Chicago isn’t punishing non-use of masks or social distancing among police officers, presumably because elected officials don’t want to antagonize the police officers’ union.
And the point I’m trying to make is that it’s individual people who need incentives not elected officials.
They wont punish police when they shoot an unarmed person lying on the ground and no threat to anyone, and you would even suggest punishing them for not wearing a mask?