It’s Election2020 season, in fact it is coming down to the last couple of laps of the races. There are plenty of issues and crises but mostly there is little of significance that is presented, discussed or apparently that matters in American elections that is of consequence. Yes, yet again our politicians and political parties are engaged in the “contest of ideologies”; not ‘ideas’ but their partisan political perspectives. Yes, these ideologies are types of ideas but not of substance; rather they are mostly hypothetical wish-lists for how they want things to be, even though the concepts bear little relationship to reality or even rationality. To add to the disappointments, we have the usual election fare of fear, anger, distortion and lies being offered buffet-style. All the usual divisive behaviors are ramped up to detriment of the nation’s interests and benefit. Even something as highly critical to the nation’s and public’s interest as the COVID-19 crisis, is being played out under partisan political party campaign strategies and themes.
The observation offered above regarding our politics and
political environment is to point out that our society is highly dependent upon
an “informed” public; and to be ‘informed’ there needs to be a number of conditions
meet within our society. A significant condition is that information must be
given to the public about what is happening that affects them, that they need
to know in order to make appropriate decisions, that the information can be
trusted, and that our government isn’t hiding, editing or misinforming the public
for reasons that are not in the public’s interests. This last condition: the
government providing the public with the necessary and proper information about
situations that the public has a “need” to know and a “right” to know.
Take an important public policy issue as simple and normally
as apolitical as one would have thought, and the 2020 Election has transformed
it into a choice between our political parties. That public policy is: Wearing
A Mask. Fundamentally this is a public health issue and not a political one.
However, because of a personality and cognitive deficit situation, wearing or
not wearing a mask has been elevated to a political litmus test. Normally this
would just be another in a long line of inane positions that corrodes and
corrupts our government, political system and society which is the typical and very
essence of our political parties’ rigid adherence to their self-delusional
ideologies. The Corona virus unfortunately is indifferent to ideologies, it
does not differentiate between political parties and the consequences of the
virus’ reach beyond the scope that misguided politicians are generally able to
use to harm the nation and public. So, the Wearing A Mask issue warrants extricating
it from the failure of our government, our politicians, our healthcare entities,
and our news media. What is needed is for the Wear A Mask issue to be handled
competently. Thus those normal entities seem to have demonstrated their competency
in such a matter. Now, given that all of entities have failed to put the issue
into a context that would ‘inform’ the public there is a need to proceed
differently. This is necessary despite the politicians’ using masks as some issue
having to do with some nebulous distractions completely unconnected with the
public’s welfare and their duty to serve the nation’s interests.
Our government agencies have failed to set policies which
are or would be effective due to the interference of political appointees and
their self-interests. Additionally, while being world-class experts in the
medical and healthcare arenas, our agency professionals lack the skills and
abilities to manage their political ‘superiors’ effectively and thus
unfortunately fail to fulfil their own responsibilities. This upward-facing
management skill is not something that the vast majority of individuals possess,
or are adept at, so this causal factor should not be viewed as a professional abnormality.
As to the news media, their contribution to this civic negligence
that the wearing a mask issue has become is an example of their ‘state of the
art’ journalist profession. The news media is highly engaged in reporting on
the dynamics surrounding the issue and in providing the ‘balanced’ views of
politicians and government officials on what the public policy is or isn’t or
why it varies depending on to whomever you are talking. The news does interview
healthcare experts with the standard questions about whether wearing a mask
would be the right policy and receive the almost unanimous consensus that
wearing a mask if one of the most useful things that the public should do. But
the news media doesn’t seem equipped or able to ask substantive and informative
questions of the politicians, the healthcare professionals, or even of the
public about wearing a mask.
Consider just the following questions, and consider if you
have ever heard a politician, a healthcare professional, or a news journalist
deal with them.
1.
What legal authority does a Federal, State or
Local elected official have regarding public healthcare policies?
2.
What cases taken to the Supreme Court have
demonstrated their authority and jurisdiction?
3.
Is there any established precedent for which
governmental entity has authoritative precedence over another? E.g., does Federal override State which
overrides Local; or some other jurisdictional layering?
4.
When the Federal, State or Local government
changes some public policy, regulation or requirement as the COVID-19 epidemic
plays out across the nation, what was the forecasted cases or other measurement
of the virus expected to be before the change and what is projected because of
the change? What data / change in outcomes will constitute a success of the policy
or a failure to achieve the expected results?
5.
Why haven’t government healthcare or other entities
proposed policies to businesses, private and public entities for dealing with Wear-A-Mask
policies? What examples are there of governmental options suggested?
6.
In declaring that “essential workers” cannot sue
an employer for COVID-19 health consequences are there any Constitutional
rights being violated? After all, the government telling citizens that they cannot
do something isn’t the same as them not having the right to do so.
While all this illustrates why America’s public policies
around COVID-19 including the Mask-Wearing policy(ies) are confusing, inconsistent
and problematic; it doesn’t explain the reasoning goes into should it be a
public policy or just a recommendation/guidance from officials. If COVID is a
threat to the US, and both parties actually agree that it is; then there ought to
be a policy that addresses it. If the nation needs to have the virus controlled
and eliminated, then there should be a policy for doing so.
Leadership on guiding the nation through this crisis is a type of intelligence
test. Passing the test would have some pretty simple conditions. What you do
either reduces new infections (passes) or it does not (fails). Changes in
policies or transitions from one phase to another produce the forecasted
changes (passes) or the situation related to the change gets worse beyond what
was forecast (fail). If the policy change is based upon a “we hope” decision,
it’s still a failure if it doesn’t deliver what you “hoped” was going to
happen.
What this comes down to is that for our political and healthcare leaders, you
pass the intelligence test if you can validate your reasoning and decisions from
a forecast presented before the fact and the data from the facts that actually happened.
For individuals or businesses or companies the intelligence
test comes with X dimensions. First, if you violate the ‘public policy’ then
you are to be held accountable. If the policy is to “Wear A Mask” then you are
to be receive the appropriate penalties. If you believe your right(s) are being
violated then you can sue but until a judgement is made by a court with
applicable jurisdiction you are not exempt from the policy. You fail the test.
Second, exercising your choice to be ‘civilly disobedient’
and not wearing a mask doesn’t exempt your from being counter-sued for any
number of possible legal violations. For example, there is no personal right to
‘not wear a mask’ and thereby create a risk to the rights of other individuals
in violation of an standing public policy, nor do you have a right that
overrides a business’s own policy or a private or public entity which chooses
to require one. You do have the right to not engage with anyone or a business but
that does means you do not engage with them. Trying to apply your ‘right’ above
that of others is to fail the test.
Third, having opinions about whether the COVID-19 virus is a risk to you or not
doesn’t have any weight in whether you are still required to adhere to public
policy. Even if you were an expert in virology, the medical degree does not
override official public policy. The requirement that a court decision to
vacate/void the policy is still required. Not wearing a mask because you don’t
think you are at risk is failing the test.
Fourth, where someone is permitted to not wear a mask in
accordance with the established public policy or a business’ policy (which
doesn’t violate governmental policy) does not confer upon an individual the
right to now wear a mask unless they also meet the conditions under which the
established policy defines the allowance. You can remove a mask to eat your
meal at your table in a restaurant for example. This does not allow you to not
wear a mask when entering or leaving. Because someone physically-distanced from
others is speaking at an event doesn’t mean that anyone else in attendance is
free to not wear a mask if the applicable public policy(ies) do not allow. Doing
otherwise fails the test.
Fifth, it doesn’t matter what your rationale is for not
wearing a mask, there is no getting around a public policy where requires it and
that has not been declared illegal and upheld by the courts. Not wearing a mask
fails the test.
Lastly, nothing about abiding by the established public
policy regarding wearing a mask in required conditions requires any notable
level of intelligence. The policy can be followed by those that may not be
fully capable of understanding why it is required from a medical perspective,
for a healthcare perspective or from a social perspective. It is why even very
young children can be taught to wear them. Similarly, there is an expectation
that our elected officials, our healthcare professionals, and our governmental
agencies will create public policies that are appropriate and necessary to
safeguard the public when threatened by risks like the Corona virus. The
presumption is that as a collective group they are applying the best knowledge,
evidence, expertise, and judgement that is available to them. In other words,
they are doing what would constitute the intelligent thing to do. To do
contrary would logically be unintelligent, and yes you would fail the test.
The above reasoning would seem to adequately explain why the
US has not performed well with regard to its reactions and efforts around the
Corona virus. It would seem that as a nation, in aggregate we may well be
failing the intelligence test.
