The Politics of Masks: Virtuous Bloodletting for the Virus Du Jour

 "Dr. Sangrado Curing John Bull of Repletion." 1803 political cartoon by James Gillray

An old adage by parents to their children: "If all your friends jumped off a bridge, then would you too?"

What are face masks supposed to protect against? We say COVID-19 (corona virus "COV," identified "IDed," in 2019 "19"). But viruses mutate. In 2021, do we still have the same virus as we had in 2019? If so, this would contradict what we've traditionally considered the flu, and only one flu shot would be needed (like for Measles), instead of a new one annually. The flu is never one static virus. Thus, I'll be giving the phenomenon we see a more-aptly amorphous name: the virus du jour, as NBC reported "[a]ccording to the CDC, flu numbers are down 98%" on January 2, 2021 [*1] while, as ABC paraphrased from a Michigan flu expert, it "essentially muscled aside flu and other bugs that are more common in the fall and winter [*2]."

I'm not sure if corona viruses are like the classic film, Highlander, where immortals vanquish each other and take their power, as "[t]here can only be one."



But the media suggests they operate that way. And, like movie series and television programs where a new pool of villains and balance of power always emerges, labeling this the virus du jour seems more appropriate, since we need room for as many sequels as possible.

As we've now celebrated our first anniversary of, as it was called in America, "two weeks to slow the spread" and are crossing into our first anniversary of masking it up for this never-ending "pandemic," where the goal post for return to freely breathing oxygen in public is ever on the move, why are we continuing to wear masks in public? 

The short answer: because we are told to, specifically by the World Health Organization (WHO) [*3] and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in America [*4]. Other authorities around the world parrot their advice without independent examination, creating the illusion of a consensus. But why are the prime authorities pushing the masks? Why did they recommend against masks in February and March of 2020 and suddenly change their position to recommending them around April 2020 [*5]? What changed in the "science" to justify this position?

The Masquerade
Most knowledge comes from reliance on the word of authority as opposed to foundational examination. An authority says something is true. We don't have the time or knowledge base to discover that truth for ourselves. If we trust an authority, then we trust the information it gives us by proxy. Authorities do the same with other authorities, who, in turn, do the same with other authorities. People then obey from the illusion of grand consensus from a snowballing effect of authorities copying each other.

It's not that we believe mass masking serves a public health purpose but, instead, that we believe an authority wouldn't lie to us and is more likely right than wrong. If an authority wouldn't lie to us and is probably correct, it is probably telling the truth. Therefore, whatever that authority tells us to do should be complied with, especially if multiple authorities (and, let's be honest, the journos on our televisions) are all saying the same thing. This is flawed reasoning, but almost all of our decisions are based on flawed reasons, since there aren't the hours in the day to foundationally examine everything we "know."

A surgeon wears a mask not to prevent giving the flu to his patient but to prevent bodily fluids from falling from his mouth into open cavities of his patient as he cuts him open. The notion that a hospital worker or member of the general public with no flu-like symptoms should wear a mask to prevent spreading sickness is not rooted in science, as even the WHO admitted at the onset of the virus du jour in January 2020 [*6].



Nonetheless, the current argument from our authorities for masking it up (including the WHO, who without evidence changed their view), if pressed to give one, is as such. We could have the virus du jour without feeling symptoms. We could also spread the virus du jour without feeling symptoms. Particles coming from our nose and mouth (like spit, boogers, and exhaled air) might contain the virus du jour and spread to others that way. Therefore, if we cover our nose and mouth with a piece of cloth, we are less likely to transmit the virus du jour to others. This is the "asymptomatic spreader" hypothesis. Is it empirically true?

A November 2020 meta-study available on the U.S. National Library of Medicine casts serious doubt upon both the asymptomatic spreader and masks-stopping-the-spread hypotheses [*7]:

Clinical scientific evidence challenges further the efficacy of facemasks to block human-to-human transmission or infectivity. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 246 participants [123 (50%) symptomatic)] who were allocated to either wearing or not wearing surgical facemask, assessing viruses transmission including coronavirus [26]. The results of this study showed that among symptomatic individuals (those with fever, cough, sore throat, runny nose ect…) there was no difference between wearing and not wearing facemask for coronavirus droplets transmission of particles of >5 µm. Among asymptomatic individuals, there was no droplets or aerosols coronavirus detected from any participant with or without the mask, suggesting that asymptomatic individuals do not transmit or infect other people [26]. This was further supported by a study on infectivity where 445 asymptomatic individuals were exposed to asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carrier (been positive for SARS-CoV-2) using close contact (shared quarantine space) for a median of 4 to 5 days. The study found that none of the 445 individuals was infected with SARS-CoV-2 confirmed by real-time reverse transcription polymerase [27].

A meta-analysis among health care workers found that compared to no masks, surgical mask and N95 respirators were not effective against transmission of viral infections or influenza-like illness based on six RCTs [28]. Using separate analysis of 23 observational studies, this meta-analysis found no protective effect of medical mask or N95 respirators against SARS virus [28]. A recent systematic review of 39 studies including 33,867 participants in community settings (self-report illness), found no difference between N95 respirators versus surgical masks and surgical mask versus no masks in the risk for developing influenza or influenza-like illness, suggesting their ineffectiveness of blocking viral transmissions in community settings [29]. ...

The data suggests that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such as SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of face masks.

Certainly, some states and cities were more effective at "masking it up" than others. It follows that we'd see a statistically-significant difference between case counts of the virus du jour between more-strictly enforced mask mandates versus not. Good lucking find one, as it seems frequency of testing is what drives the case counts. Perhaps it'd be unfair to correlate enforcing rules to punish for not masking using fines or jail time with case counts of our virus, since mask mandates are mostly enforced privately. Finding a sample area where people are explicitly not masking is difficult.

Even in states where controls are looser or repealed, large corporations owning public areas for leisure, business, and shopping are enforcing mask policies. Understandably so, for organizations dealing with large numbers of the public, and with deep pockets, are prone to litigation. Can you imagine a jury, in the current media environment of constant fear, where, regarding our virus du jour, “[n]inety one percent of stories by US major media outlets are negative in tone versus fifty four percent for non-U.S. major sources and sixty five percent for scientific journals,” [*8] slapping a verdict dollar-figure on "pain and suffering" from contracting the virus du jour, proximately bootstrapped to the business's failure to have a mask policy?

Imagine a world in which any time you got sick you could sue each business you went to for not having hand sanitizer available, not having plastic screens at customer-service stations, and/or not enforcing face-mask policies? Considering the virus du jour has "muscled aside" almost all other forms of ailment we might call "the common cold," that is effectively the world we live in.

The real reason, if confronted with the aforementioned contradictory evidence, we are told to wear masks by our prime authorities is rooted in the old political standby when a government wants us to do something but has arguably insufficient "science" to support what it wants done: the "precautionary principle." Even if the evidence to support a hypothesis is insufficient, if the hypothesis is true, harm can be avoided by acting on that assumption. Thus, it is argued, because it might be too late if we wait until there is sufficient evidence, we should act now.

Failure to sacrifice virgins could cause a drought and subsequent crop failure. Crop failure causes starvation. Maybe there would be a drought regardless of a sacrifice, but we should sacrifice a virgin just in case this sacrifice stops an impending drought. Right?

Our reasonable obedience to the "precautionary principle" is proportional to how likely the hypothesis asserted is true versus how harmful failure to act could be, but also, as is commonly forgotten, what the cost of acting is. By modern standards, perhaps sacrificing a virgin, as was done in some civilizations of antiquity, is too great a cost to help prevent crop failures. But, maybe not. What is the life of one virgin versus the starvation of thousands or millions?

Counting the Cost
Controls imposed by government to manage a pandemic should be justified as proportional to how deadly or harmful a pathogen is with how infectious it is. If a virus instantly kills people and is easily spread, perhaps, draconian measures are justified to ensure survival of the human race. But, if less-harmful viruses, like an iteration of the common cold, which still kills 290,000 to 600,000 people around the world every year (with "3 to 5 million cases of severe illness") according to the WHO [*9], justify draconian measures, then, perhaps, freedom of subjects was never historically valid. The freedoms that every regime around the world historically allowed, such as breathing oxygen freely in public, were, then, immoral, and people's freedom should always have been a privilege conditional upon proof of safety. History's prior regimes must be looked back upon as reckless, allowing the deaths of millions or billions over the centuries by not appropriately restricting freedom. In the centuries-long reign of the Roman empire, imagine how many could've been saved if emperors simply mandated face-togas in public.

I've written a prior piece on the dubious nature of death reporting and infection rates for the virus du jour you can view here [*10]. Clearly, governments are chalking deaths up arbitrarily, and often conflating any death with the virus du jour so long as there is some connection, no matter how absurd (e.g., a suicide committed out of despair over the lockdowns "necessitated" by the virus, as a client once informed me). But, here, I'm more concerned with the cost of mitigation efforts, particularly surrounding the notion we've been conditioned to accept that any appearances outside one's own home should encompass a mask around the nose and mouth.

We wear shirts to keep warm, for protection from the Sun's radiation, and for modesty in public. Wearing shirts in most public buildings is an enforceable requirement. But could wearing a shirt mitigate millions of deaths, effectively end the common cold (as the virus du jour has "muscled aside") [*11]? Compare the community benefit of shirts to the community benefit of masks.

If masks prevent transmission of a virus, why weren't we always wearing masks? Our common sense orients our answer. If breathing is needed to survive, and breathing involves exhaling, we assume we breathe in helpful stuff and exhale what is either not needed or, perhaps, harmful to the body. Otherwise, we wouldn't be exhaling, since such an action would be superfluous and inefficient. We also know tying a bag over our heads will probably kill us, because our bodies can't continuously recycle the same air over and over.

Thus, we innately understand how covering our face and nose interferes with breathing. We rebreathe some of the same air that is trapped in the mask. We breathe in air for oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. Thus, with a mask trapping some exhaled air and blocking some incoming air, we rebreathe some carbon dioxide and breathe in less oxygen. How many parts per million of carbon dioxide do we rebreathe with a mask on? One test showed 10,000 parts per million (ppm) by sticking a meter inside [*12], but maybe, as our fact checkers say, that's a flawed and invalid way to measure. Okay. Is it half that? A quarter? How much greater than the 600 ppm in fresh air?

One study showed 2,500 ppm of carbon dioxide, circulated with indoor air, for 2.5 hours caused a 44-94% decrease in scores for a Strategic Management Simulation (SMS) test of "seven of nine scales of decision-making performance (basic activity, applied activity, task orientation, imitative, information usage, breadth approach, and basic strategy)" compared with regular carbon dioxide ppm of 600 [*13].

What were the two activities with no decrease? "Information search," thus maskers could inferably find a "fact check" that says "yes, masks are harmless and effective," and ignore me, even if they are less likely to understand what they're reading. The other, "focused activity," showed an improvement, just as drunk people score better at in SMS tests.

[A]n inverse pattern was seen for “focused activity,” with the highest level of focus obtained at 2,500 ppm and the lowest at 600 ppm. Thus, most decision-making variables showed a decline with higher concentrations of CO2, but measures of focused activity improved. Focused activity is important for overall productivity, but high levels of focus under nonemergency conditions may indicate “overconcentration.” Prior research with the SMS has shown repeatedly that individuals who experience difficulty in functioning [e.g., persons with mild-to-moderate head injuries (Satish et al. 2008), persons under the influence of alcohol (Streufert et al. 1993), and persons suffering from allergic rhinitis (Satish et al. 2004)] tend to become highly focused on smaller details at the expense of the big picture. 

We can assume the test subjects were not regularly exposed to 2,500 ppm carbon dioxide every day for a year. Imagine what the effects are for a service worker who wears a mask continuously for a four-hour shift (assuming he takes off the mask at break), speaking to customers and co-workers. Are there long-term effects for workers that leave the mask on eight or more hours per day, constantly speaking into it, for over a year?

A study on speaking into masks, fancily referred to as respiratory protective devices (RPDs) showed a significant increase in carbon dioxide intake during speech and low work rates [*14].



Another effect of the increasing carbon dioxide intake is fear. One study in mice revealed [*15]:

We found that inhaled CO2 reduced brain pH and evoked fear behavior in mice. Eliminating or inhibiting ASIC1a markedly impaired this activity, and localized ASIC1a expression in the amygdala rescued the CO2-induced fear deficit of ASIC1a null animals. Buffering pH attenuated fear behavior, whereas directly reducing pH with amygdala microinjections reproduced the effect of CO2. These data identify the amygdala as an important chemosensor that detects hypercarbia and acidosis and initiates behavioral responses. They also give a molecular explanation for how rising CO2 concentrations elicit intense fear and provide a foundation for dissecting the bases of anxiety and panic disorders.

We don't know the long-term effects of wearing a mask every day for a year, because no one has yet to conduct such an ethically-dubious study (or what would've been ethically dubious prior to bureaucratic decrees post April 2020). As I've written before, results in 39 out of 100 psychology studies in an audit could not be reproduced [*16], which casts doubt upon reliance of science as a tool of public policy, but, the prior-referenced meta-study published in the U.S. National Library of Medicine [*17] casts serious aspersions upon the morality of mandating masking, particularly related to reduction in oxygen and excess levels of carbon dioxide in the bloodstream.



The meta-study states:

Long-term practice of wearing facemasks has strong potential for devastating health consequences. Prolonged hypoxic-hypercapnic [reduced oxygen to the brain/increased carbon dioxide in the bloodstream] state compromises normal physiological and psychological balance, deteriorating health and promotes the developing and progression of existing chronic diseases [23], [38], [39], [43], [47], [48], [57], [11], [12], [13]. For instance, ischemic heart disease caused by hypoxic damage to the myocardium is the most common form of cardiovascular disease and is a number one cause of death worldwide (44% of all non-communicable diseases) with 17.9 million deaths occurred in 2016 [57]. Hypoxia [reduced oxygen] also playing an important role in cancer burden [58]. Cellular hypoxia has strong mechanistic feature in promoting cancer initiation, progression, metastasis, predicting clinical outcomes and usually presents a poorer survival in patients with cancer. Most solid tumors present some degree of hypoxia, which is independent predictor of more aggressive disease, resistance to cancer therapies and poorer clinical outcomes [59], [60]. Worth note, cancer is one of the leading causes of death worldwide, with an estimate of more than 18 million new diagnosed cases and 9.6 million cancer-related deaths occurred in 2018 [61].

With respect to mental health, global estimates showing that COVID-19 will cause a catastrophe due to collateral psychological damage such as quarantine, lockdowns, unemployment, economic collapse, social isolation, violence and suicides [62], [63], [64]. Chronic stress along with hypoxic and hypercapnic conditions knocks the body out of balance, and can cause headaches, fatigue, stomach issues, muscle tension, mood disturbances, insomnia and accelerated aging [47], [48], [65], [66], [67]. This state suppressing the immune system to protect the body from viruses and bacteria, decreasing cognitive function, promoting the developing and exacerbating the major health issues including hypertension, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer disease, rising anxiety and depression states, causes social isolation and loneliness and increasing the risk for prematurely mortality [47], [48], [51], [56], [66].

Common sense tells us there is a cost to wearing a face mask for prolonged periods of time. Medical science strongly suggests reduced oxygen and increased carbon dioxide in our bloodstream, like we would infer from prolonged mask use, aren't healthy. Science strongly suggests there are, at the very least, short-term consequences to cognitive function from increased carbon dioxide intake (like we'd inferably get from long-term mask use). Whether mandatory masking is designed to "dumb us down" so we can be more-easily controlled or is a good-intentioned application of the "precautionary principle," where cost wasn't adequately considered, is speculation beyond my scope here. Maybe there's another explanation beyond the binary I've presented. My dear readers can come to their own conclusions.

Virtuous Bloodletting and the Politics of Masks
A medical practice we call "bloodletting," originated by the ancient Greeks, involved bleeding bad elements out of a patient to cure him, carried into the renaissance, and industrial age, and even the modern day for limited applications [*18].


taken from: https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/6873804_f520.jpg


18th century European painting of bloodletting, taken from: http://folklorethursday.com/folklife/bloodletting-and-bleeding-the-history-and-legends-of-this-health-cure/

We look back upon bloodletting as useless medically (in most of its historical applications) at best and barbaric and at-times deadly at worst. George Washington arguably died of the practice, as perhaps as much as 40% of his blood was drained in an effort to "cure" him at his deathbed [*19].

But, in ancient times, bloodletting was not, to my knowledge, an activity of virtue, like we see in the mask debates. Households weren't proudly promoting the practice, while others protested it, as politicians debated its efficacy with mandates on its practice and believers in one political faction enjoyed imposing the practice on their enemies.

Representative democracy is (or, more aptly, was [*20]), a modern practice, not as common during the times of bloodletting. It often settles in a binary with two sides that must take two different positions on any number of issues. Once masks became political, as David Stewart eloquently opined, reason exited the debate and a friend/enemy distinction emerged [*21].

In America, once the Democratic party began promoting mask use over protests among elements of the right wing of the Republican party, masks became a symbol of leftist virtue to fill their void of justice. Justice is paying what we owe and making others pay what they owe. Leftists gladly wear the mask to pay what they believe they owe and support imposing mask mandates to make their enemies pay what they owe. The satisfaction one gains from seeing others pay what they owe is an innate human need, a core element in what we call happiness [*22].

It doesn't matter whether masks "stop the spread" or not; half of the world that identifies with the more-leftist political party(ies) in their countries will preach its virtues. You not wanting to wear the mask while disagreeing with their politics is what drives them to more strongly impose it on you. And their enjoyment of imposing it on you is what makes you not to want to wear it.

Of course, I'm going to be biased against wearing masks. What if I'm wrong and am a victim of confirmation bias in my suggestion against the efficacy of wearing them?  The evidence and common sense strongly suggests I am right, and there will be long-term damage to people in the service sector who've been masking it up for multiple hours at a time for over a year.

The Masquerade's Political Function
Obedience to the cultural conditioning of masks has been, in my view, successful. I've conducted an experiment since July 2020 on masks. A plastic screen sits upon my desk. When I sit behind my desk, my mask is off. What do people on the other side of my desk do? I've counted 728 individuals and couples (some I've seen twice). At present, 11% are no-maskers, meaning they enter without one. 89% have a mask on. But what happens when they sit down and see a plastic screen and me with no mask? Among maskers, 23% take the mask off and 13% leave their nose out. Thus, 35% of the 728 are what I call "weak maskers," 54% "hardcore maskers," and 11% no-maskers.

Perfect science? Assuredly not. But it is a good heuristic to get a general sense of how people feel about the masks. If science told them to wear ear muffs and goggles, I'm sure similar results would ensue for the reason I've stated before: people engage in most behavior not out of critical thinking or foundational knowledge but as a symbol of their trust in authority.

At some point, the mask mandates will end. But, it will be conditional upon something. What will that be? Likely a six-month or annual recurring-market model for seasonal flu vaccination will be imposed. Trillions of dollars are to be made as the entire world is either nudged (preferably) or mandated (if necessary) to comply. Your freedom to breathe oxygen freely in public again will likely be conditional upon your adherence to a seasonal vaccination program.

Whether seasonal flu vaccinations are healthful or harmful is beyond my scope here. Note that (1) the vaccination options for the present virus du jour were not tested to see if they stop human-to-human transmission (making them definitionally not vaccines) [*23], (2) the companies making these vaccines are legally immune from suit for any harmful effects [*24], and (3) European countries are pausing distribution of one virus-du-jour vaccine as a result of harmful effects (like blood clots) [*25]. But, as "fact check" websites proclaim, these "vaccines" might nevertheless stop human-to-human transmission anyway (even though they weren't tested to see) and they might be perfectly safe with no need for anyone to sue while the blood clot reports in Europe were overblown.

With a seasonal immunity program, you'll have to believe this about every future iteration of the "vaccine" as well, that there will never be any mistakes in mass-produced batches sent around the world. Will you take your chance with the vaccinations or with getting the flu (or, more precisely, our virus du jour that has "muscled aside" the flu)? When conditions are imposed on you for not getting the vaccine (e.g., not being allowed to fly, go to a concert, or perhaps get a driver's license), will you be getting the recurring vaccine to buy your seasonal health and safety or to buy your seasonal freedom? If getting a seasonal vaccine eventually allows you to breathe oxygen freely in public again, will you be getting the vaccination for health and safety or for the privilege of breathing?

The logical endgame for the virus du jour is seasonal vaccination enforced, if necessary, by passports for public travel. Maybe this is a wonderful idea that will effectively kill the common cold. I for one am dubious. What do you think?

---
FOOTNOTES
[*1] https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/u-s-flu-numbers-drop-dramatically-98705477766
[*2] https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/amid-covid-19-pandemic-flu-disappeared-us-76102895
[*3] https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks
[*4] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html
[*5] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-broken-thumb-heuristics-in-fall-of.html
[*6] https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/advice-on-the-use-of-masks-2019-ncov.pdf
[*7] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680614/
[*8] https://fee.org/articles/ivy-league-study-shows-how-us-media-created-a-climate-of-fear-over-covid-19/
[*9] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/influenza-(seasonal)
[*10] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-broken-thumb-heuristics-in-fall-of.html
[*11] https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/amid-covid-19-pandemic-flu-disappeared-us-76102895
[*12] https://www.winterwatch.net/2020/10/del-bigtree-tests-air-quality-of-breathing-while-wearing-a-mask-on-a-child-proving-masks-are-toxic/
[*13] https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/pdf/10.1289/ehp.1104789
[*14] https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1836&context=smhpapers
[*15] https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(09)01355-5.pdf
[*16] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2018/05/plato-and-rise-of-scientistry-and.html
[*17] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680614/
See also: https://www.pnmedical.com/breather-university/effects-of-wearing-face-mask/
and https://scihub.to/10.1080/00028899908984467
[*18] http://jlgh.org/Past-Issues/Volume-11---Issue-4/Brief-History-of-Bloodletting.aspx
[*19] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/bloodletting-blisters-solving-medical-mystery-george-washingtons-death
[*20] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/01/planning-for-post-democratic-divided.html
[*21] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMdxO56yx4o
[*22] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-malaise-of-justice-what-makes.html
[*23] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-transmission-idUSKBN29N1UH
[*24] https://www.swfinstitute.org/news/83759/covid-pfizer-moderna-and-other-vaccine-makers-get-legal-immunity-for-some-time
[*25] https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2021/03/16/germany-German-Spain-France-Italy-Portugal-halt-AstraZeneca-vaccine/6271615874948/