Yes, experts can disagree on things. And health experts did a disservice at the beginning of the outbreak by being negative on the public wearing masks, because they thought the public would take away needed masks for health care providers. That was never necessary to do.

But regardless if there is any contra evidence to wearing masks--and I'm not sure that there is--or even it's contended just that the scientific evidence is not that strong as to the efficacy of wearing masks, we can use our basic common sense:

(1) This is primarily a respiratory virus that infects by going through the nose or mouth. There is no doubt that masks block some particles. So it sort of makes logical sense that they would work, no? Forgot scientific proof that it reduces infections...just logically it makes sense that a mask helps. As for the counter-argument that someone might get the virus by touching their mask, or their nose or mouth or the mask will touch their mouth and nose...that is not as logical. Droplets come in a stream...rubbing your nose is not
the same thing.

(2) Asian countries and Czechoslovakia--countries where mask wearing was prevalent early on-have done well. Coincidence? Actually, there is a study out there finding that countries with mask wearing norms do better than those that dont. There is another study out there finding a staristically significant drop in cases due to mandatory mask restrictions. (I know, I know...dont get all scientific.)

(3) The US has done particularly badly at handling the virus and there has been widespread resistance to wearing a mask. Just a coincidence?

(4) Wearing a mask--particularly for customers in a store--is a minor inconvenience. Even if we were uncertain about the effectiveness of masks--and I think the evidence is largely in favor of them--why wouldnt we require them if there was a reasonable supposition they might work?

(5) Regarding the low rate in Walla Walla...that's what everyone says. Until it hits.

bbauska

The use of masks is under debate

Not really. If masks didn't provide protection hospital staff wouldn't wear them Instead they are mandated.
The debate is around cloth masks, and the debate centres around how much protection they offer. The research I linked you to indicates that it stops an infected person from infecting others extremely well. It stops one from from being affected by others somewhat. (this doesn't disagree with the equivocating stance of the CDC.)
The reason most jurisdictions are mandating masks now is that they help. Maybe an awful lot... And doing something is better than nothing..
The reason somebody wouldn't wear a mask?
Well, "freedom of choice" isn't a reason. When you have the potential to harm another your "freedom" is encroaching on other peoples freedom. And that's where freedom ends.

I believe in the ethic of reciprocity. I believe you profess this too Bbauska.
How does your attitude towards wearing of masks fit into the Golden Rule?

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
In my view, I want others to be considerate and wear masks in order to protect me from their virus shedding. So I do the same for them.

Let's look at the way that others offend people like me, and force them to do what they want:

Mandate abortive services in insurance
Cannot preach politically from the pulpit
All must have insurance or face fines
School children must be taught "sexual diversity" in schools (quite often not allowed to be missed!)
Netflix produces a show depicting Christ as gay. This is offensive to Christians. However, because a flower shop chooses to not provide flowers for something that they do not agree with, they are censured, forced out of business and sued by the state.

Where is the equality in treatment? It seems that it is OK for everyone to offend Christians and Conservatives.

Now because I choose to not wear a mask in public, I am castigated. I don't even have to go in a shop that does not want my business. I would not go in a business that does not want someone with my opinion to shop there. I believe they have that right to refuse service to me.

Now here is the dichotomy...

You say it is ok for a business to refuse service to me because of my belief concerning masks
You say it is not ok for a business to refuse service to someone for their beliefs regarding gay marriage.

You do NOT CARE about my beliefs. You want to use your perceived image of my walk with Christ that you have ZERO understanding of, and try to use that to guilt me into a position that is against my desire.

That is crass.

Freeman,
What law am I violating in Washington State by not wearing a cloth mask? I have not seen any RCW, and the emergency powers set forth by Grand Poobah Inslee have been exceeded after 30 days.

You are a lawyer, Freeman. What law? Not what edict from the Emperor..., not a recommendation...

What law?

bbauska

You say it is ok for a business to refuse service to me because of my belief concerning masks

The business has decided that they want to protect their employees from the virus you may be spreading. Because whether or not you "believe" that cloth masks are effective - medical research has shown that they offer a level of protection... and the businesses prefer lowering the risk to their employees (and other patrons).

A person not wearing a mask demonstrates that they are unwilling to make the effort to protect others..

bbauska

You say it is not ok for a business to refuse service to someone for their beliefs regarding gay marriage.

First; the issue is in no way equivalent. Wearing masks is a matter of public health. Physical health risk is increased when people aren't wearing masks right now.

Second: I always wonder why people think they are being discriminated against when they are being told to stop discriminating against other people. Religious freedom is about having the freedom to worship as one wishes ... Its not about using one's religious beliefs to skirt laws and regulations or , in this case, to discriminate against a minority group engaged in a legal activity.

bbauska

What law am I violating in Washington State by not wearing a cloth mask?

Are you not ignoring the ethic of reciprocity?

I have stated I AM NOT going in businesses that don't want my business because of mask wearing.

PLEASE HEAR THAT!!! I am not endangering employees/fellow customers.

Reciprocity would be people not going in a business that doesn't want them.

You seem to be conflating ethics and laws...

Poor ethics is forcing a business to serve you against their wishes.




How about the Mozilla executive fired because he donated to Prop 8. He did nothing wrong, but was fired just the same. You can be fired if you disagree with the left, but not if you disagree with the right.

I am fine with being able to fire someone because I disagree with them. But in the current form the cancel culture is one-sided...

I am not really understanding your argument here, Brad. The scientific consensus is that wearing masks protects others (and maybe yourself). Therefore, you shouldnt even need a law to tell you to wear a mask around others in a shop. It's simple human decency. And yes you are endangering others when you refuse to wear a mask when you go inside a business. It would take a certain level of hubris to decide, well, I know better about the efficacy of masks. Based on what? You might have one study out there that I guess was retracted? A gut feeling?

In order to not wear a mask when you go in a shop you would have to believe that the mask is more harmful to you than protective of yourself and others. I dont think there is any support for that belief. Remember this is a slight, brief inconvenience.

As for Christians being put upon, no one is forcing them to get an abortion, or be gay, or be trangender or whatever. Christians have freedom of religion but clearly all religions have to abide by the rules of society when they go into the public space. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's clearly indicates an understanding that Christians have to make accomodations with civil society. And yes that does not mean agreeing to have fundamental beliefs violated but it's a real stretch to say that baking a cake for a gay wedding is some kind of real infringement on core religious beliefs. Or that having taxes taken out to pay for abortions, as well. Now if a Christian doctor was forced to do an abortion that would be different. That would be a significant infringement on a core belief.

Otherwise, Christians are free to engage politically and try to get rules that might infringe slightly or incidentally on them changed. And they do so. But, frankly, human beliefs have evolved quite a bit in the past 2,000 years for the better regarding the essential equality of human beings, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc and that there should be tolerance and acceptance for those who dont fit nicely within binary notions of gender and sexuality. And our society is better for that because when people are judged negatively for who they are, they do not tend to contribute to society as much as they otherwise would. They get depressed, abuse alcohol and drugs. They commit suicide. I think our tolerance is a great strength. When you value each person equally that gives an advantage over societies that don't.

Freeman,
Perhaps you missed the bold letters in my post to RickyP.

I have stated I AM NOT going in businesses that don't want my business because of mask wearing.

PLEASE HEAR THAT!!! I am not endangering employees/fellow customers.

I AM NOT GOING IN BUSINESS THAT DO NOT WANT TO SERVE ME!!! That would be rude.

You are asking Christians to be tolerant of other beliefs. Does that road go both ways?

Perhaps you would like to address the medical profession being forced to assist in abortions...
https://www.modernhealthcare.com/law-regulation/hhs-accuses-vermont-hospital-forcing-nurse-assist-abortion
https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/arizona-health-care-providers-challenge-law-forcing-them-to-lie-to-patients

Still did not hear what RCW is being violated...

https://www.prochoiceamerica.org/issue/abortion-refusal-laws/

Does NARAL agree with you, Freeman? You say a doctor/nurse has the right to refuse. They do not.

Your position that a business does not have the right to refuse service in the case of a religious issue, but can refuse service in mask wearing is the exact conflict I have a problem with.

I will not enter a business that does not want me there w/o a mask. They have my support in their position. You are not willing to give another business the same courtesy.

I believe it was RickyP that brought of the ethics of reciprocity. I do expect others to treat me as I wish to be treated.

What about employees of the businessses that dont have a say in the store's policy? What about other customers in the business? Also, a business might prefer that you wear a mask but might for business reasons not insist on it because they dont want to deter customers who wont wear a mask even though it endangers others.

Not everyone in the business consents to your not wearing a mask...just because the owner has not prohibited it. You certainly dont know who in the store has consented when you walk in the store. Consent is the more appropriate ethical value here...not reciprocity. Are all of the people in the store consenting to the unnecessary risk you are causing them? It's like second-smoke. Maybe a smoker doesnt mind second-half smoke...but non-smokers generally do. The smoker could say they have a right to make you inhale their second-half smoke because they are willing to breathe others' second-hand smoke. After all, it's reciprocal...

The other employees CHOOSE to work there
The other customers CHOOSE to shop there
The business owner CHOOSES to have the rules in place

I was at a restaurant many years ago, and a person started smoking in the next booth. (Yes, this was a few years ago...). I did not yell at the owner, or the other customer. I decided to leave and told the manager that I left because of the smoke. The CHOICE was mine. If the owner decided to change the policy, it would be a CHOICE they would make. If smoking is not allowed, it would be the CHOICE of the smoker as to be there.

Pro-choice is a wonderful thing that can be implemented either way.

Please note that I will be getting my groceries delivered curbside. I am after all a person who follows the law.

Anyone want to compare South Dakota shutdown techniques and New York or California?

South Dakota has 7700 cases and 116 deaths. (.00013 of the population)
New York has 410,000 cases and 32000 deaths. (.0016 of the population)
California has 370,000 cases and 7523 deaths. (.00018 of the population)

New York has 12 times the cases as South Dakota. The shutdown was instituted on NY much more stringently that South Dakota. Actually South Dakota NEVER shut down. Governor Noem was praised by some, vilified by others.

Proof is in the numbers.

No one lives in South Dakota. The virus has to take a taxi to find a person to infect...

Funny joke. Not true, but funny.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... in-us.html

The trend line in South Dakota is steeply rising.
In a week or two the numbers you report won't be glowing..

I generally agree with individual choice. (That's how I came about my feelings on a woman's right to choose.)
Choice is a remarkable thing if one really has a choice. In a market with abundant employment opportunities the ability to move jobs is real.
In one where you lose your health insurance when you move - temporarily or permanently- choice becomes difficult. (Especially in a pandemic.)
In a place or time where employment opportunities are limited, choice becomes extremely difficult.
The reason employment protection laws came into being, in many jurisdictions, was the very unequal power dynamic between employer and employee. I understand "right to work" states cement that power imbalance.

When an employer relies upon only his or her employee for protection, - in the case of mask wearing by staff and patrons - they may be asked to assume risks that are daunting. Government stepping in to ensure that employees aren't faced with this dilemma is important. Because the right to protection from disease spread shouldn't be up to the benevolence of each employer...

Nor should societies general well being be dependent on enlightened action by everyone.... Some people just don't see the light. They need to be coerced into doing the right thing when everyone's well being depends on the general well being of the community.
(As examples I offer seat belt laws, helmet laws, etc)