By JOHN RICHARD SCHROCK
New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern was just re-elected with landslide approval. This was in part the public’s endorsement of her government’s efforts to stamp out the coronavirus. Ardern’s daily televised briefings during the pandemic were clear, science-based and spoken with true concern for fellow citizens. New Zealand entered a severe lockdown with the very first cases, essentially eliminating infections. They then had to return to the same measures to handle a brief import of new cases. But at no time did she use or inspire “fear” in her messaging.
On Sept. 9, President Trump explained why he lied in the early days of the pandemic, stating the novel coronavirus was no more dangerous than the flu while the Woodward tapes revealed that he knew it was “deadly stuff.” He told reporters, “I don’t want people to be frightened. I don’t want to create panic, as you say. And certainly, I’m not going to drive this country or the world into a frenzy.”
Prime Minister Ardern had absolutely no problem communicating the whole truth to her population from Day One. She understood her scientists. And her citizens understood her. It was never about “fear.”
But “fear” is considerably different from justified concern. Health workers, especially those assigned to care for patients in COVID-19 wards, are very aware of their increased risk of getting a serious or deadly infection. They could also carry it home to their family. And although rare, even young children can suffer the devastating multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C). While such professionals may say “I am ‘afraid’ of carrying it home,” what they actually mean is that they have justified concerns. This is not the frenzy of fear that our President and the anti-mask crowd sees in mask-wearers.
One example I can provide comes from my three years at an international school in Hong Kong. The multi-story school was built on a mountainside and the playground at the top of the school was level with the mountain behind it. Green bamboo vipers would sometimes wash down onto that rooftop playground. While eating breakfast, I would sometimes get a call from the groundskeeper who was unlocking the school each morning, that there was a viper on the playground. I would fetch my snake hook and snake bag and go remove it before the children arrived.
Many people are afraid of snakes. But as a field biologist, I knew how to pin it without harming it, grasp it behind the head and safely place it in the snake bag. There is no fear involved, but great care from experience. Our concern was for the safety of the children that would soon arrive. I also had great respect for the viper as a venomous snake.
Many in the anti-mask crowd in the United States confuse our concern for others and our respect for a potentially dangerous-to-fatal virus as a symbol we are living in fear. They are wrong. I would be stupid if I tried to pick up a bamboo viper with my bare hands, just as they are stupid for hanging around crowded groups of strangers while wearing no mask.
But remember that I needed to remove the viper in order to protect the children who would soon arrive. Likewise, we need to wear masks not just to protect ourselves, but also to protect others because each of us could be a carrier without symptoms. That makes anti-mask folks selfish and self-centered.
Masks are effective. As a hazmat trainee for over a decade, I was trained to fit the N-95 mask correctly. This mask for healthcare and other special workers was invented by Peter Tsai, originally from Taiwan, and patented in 1995. And if worn properly, it does filter out 95 percent of small particles.
The other masks we see daily vary widely in material and how they fit and filter, making strict research difficult. Researchers have looked at 200 countries and their mask policies. Mongolia, directly north of China, adopted a mask policy in January and had no deaths from COVID-19 through the end of the study in May. A study at the University of Hong Kong placed healthy and infected hamsters in adjoining cages. Some lacked a barrier and two-thirds got sick. Others were separated by surgical-mask partitions and only one-fourth got sick but with milder symptoms, suggesting the virus load was reduced. Because limits on gatherings and distancing vary, it is very difficult to measure the effectiveness of the wide varieties of masks. But an examination of cases under different state-government mandates for mask use in April and May provides an estimate that mask mandates could already have prevented as many as 450,000 cases in the U.S.
. . .
John Richard Schrock has trained biology teachers for more than 30 years in Kansas. He also has lectured at 27 universities in 20 trips to China. He holds the distinction of “Faculty Emeritus” at Emporia State University.