I don’t actually see where Martin said masks are “just like” seat belts. Drawing an analogy to argue from the position of partial similarities isn’t creating an equal sign between the two.
On Aug 29, 2021, at 11:30 PM, James Fleming <james_fleming@sfu.ca> wrote:
Hi Martin--you claim that masks are just like seatbelts. Now the latter were mandated permanently. No big deal. Would the same go for the former? JDF
From: Martin Hahn <mhahn@sfu.ca>
Sent: August 29, 2021 2:54:27 PM
To: James Fleming; academic-discussion@sfu.ca
Cc: SFUFA Office
Subject: Re: Risks and benefits (re: Covid protocol update)
James says there has been no science on the downside of long-term masking. I am sure he is right and, as he says, absent science, we have to resort to ordinary judgment, But then he proceeds to apply "ordinary judgment" not to that issue,
but to the question of the epidemiology of Covid-19. And there we do have some science: even before it was known that asymptomatic vaccinated people can infect others because of the high virus load in their throats, epidemiologists have been saying that we
need to get 90% of the population (not of the people over 12) vaccinated because of Delta. We won't get to safety through vaccines until next year at the earliest. And by safety I don't mean Covid-zero, I mean getting the disease to the point where sudden
exponential growth is not a constant threat. The rosy "common sense" story simply does not fit with what we now know.
No one has studied the down-side of mask-wearing (except for the ridiculous claim that they give you CO2 poisoning) for two good reasons: we have more serious things to study , and "ordinary judgment" tells us wearing mask is no big deal
(That, and all those thriving surgeons and dentists) OK, I don't like wearing masks either, but invoking the possibility of long-term trauma reminds me of the seatbelt debate decades ago: people will be trapped in their cars and burn to death (debunked like
the CO2 stuff), people will have psychological damage from being tied down, people will be dissuaded from driving, or distracted by the seatbelts, or over-confident about their survival in accidents and hence reckless, and what about people with shoulder injuries...
Half a century later we are still owed a serious set of studies on the horrible long term effects of wearing seatbelts. While we wait, thousands of lives have been saved. It's a no-brainer even though seatbelt laws are purely paternalistic, while masking
laws tell us that our freedom ends where we put others at risk.
Dai is right, of course, about vaccine effectiveness and how to calculate the odds. What we don't know is what percentage of the SFU population is likely to be infected. It is unlikely to be 100%, but beyond that we have little idea.
And, given the BC policy of not testing asymptomatic people, we will never know. We do know that, unless we take serious steps, the only upper limit is the theoretical one of 100%.
Which brings me to my favourite line of the anti-alarmists: the survival rate is 99%. Let's say 10% of SFU's population gets Covid. That would be 5000 people (if there really are 50,000 people here). Oh, now
I get the argument! It's perfectly fine if 50 people die of a preventable disease. OK, surely there won't be 5000 cases! Well, let's say only 1% of SFU's population gets infected. Which five people is it alright to sacrifice on the altar of personal freedom?
I am really not sure why we get so worked up. Covid-19 has same case survival rate as localized breast cancer, the survival rate for prostate cancer at all stages averages to 98%, polio before vaccines had a survival rate of somewhere
in the range of 99.85% And don't get me started on the survival rate in car accidents. Why bother trying to prevent these minor glitches?
M
On 8/28/2021 10:04 AM, James Fleming wrote:
I am disappointed by the recent statement from SFUFA.
The Provincial Health Officer has abruptly re-imposed a very strict indoor mask mandate, among other requirements. In response, the SFUFA executive has
done little more than call for yet further restrictions on its own members. Driving these positions, seemingly, is a powerful risk-benefit analysis.
Benefit: movement toward Covid-zero. Risk: What risk? It's just a piece of cloth, etc. What's the down side?
It seems to me that the only honest answer to that last question is: "We don't know."
We don't have values for the downsides of this supposedly clear and decisive risk-benefit equation. Do we?
Focussing for the moment solely on the issue of mandatory, extended, and long-term social masking: Do we know its effect on
public health? On mental health? On suicide rates? On relationships? On pedagogy? On cognitive, social, and moral development, especially in young people? Has any of this been measured?
If the answer is "no," then the supposedly no-brainer, "it's the science" analysis is revealed as no such thing.
Instead it's a matter for ordinary judgment. Here's mine:
Next week, we will return to campus facing a virus which, even though
very scary, and even in some new ways, still seems to have an approximately 99% survival rate. Against that virus, we can expect the
vast majority of the university (including me) to be fully and effectively vaccinated. Not 100% immunity, to be sure; but (as far as I understand), between 75% and 95%, iow, pretty darned good. As we get closer to full vaccination
of the population, there will, perforce, be more and more cases among the vaccinated (just because that starts to approximate to almost everybody). However, it seems that we can expect these cases to be, in general, mild
(if not asymptomatic). Demographically, the age of the main university population (our students) constitutes a further protection. Other minimally-disruptive
measures may easily be anticipated: including vaccine boosters, continued social distancing, sanitizing, and ventilation. Finally, anybody who wants to protect themselves
yet further by wearing a mask, including while teaching, is more than free to do so.
And yet we are accepting, even embracing, a picture of our future in which vaccinated professors are required to teach vaccinated students only from behind a multiplex screen of masks, panoptic
documents, and other coercions.
I find that picture both irrational and disturbing.
James Dougal Fleming
Professor, Department of English
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby/Vancouver,
British Columbia,
Canada.
A grateful mind / By owing owes not
|