Doctors first said not to wear masks, then do wear them. Now they say it should be mandated? According to the state situation website, there aren’t enough data points to see a clear upward trend. If insufficient science and math were used, then it smells of pontificating paternalism.
If PCR tests are now used solely, do they detect only active viruses? Or do they also detect inactive viruses, such as when the host immune system is winning? Are we certain case increases haven’t been in part the latter, pointing maybe to growing herd immunity rather than a second wave? Past and present cases certainly didn’t come from consistent origins. Also, deaths seem to still be trending downward.
So, what is the deal with mandating a mask only if social distancing can not be maintained, and not trusting us to maintain social distancing elsewhere? Was a reasonable observation and analysis made or was it just the council sitting around letting Groupthink run the show?
Minnesota has already shown overreach of emergency powers to protect us from the virus, but refused to protect us from the threat of direct physical harm from looting, burning, shooting, rioting and other violence. And even to side with the criminal element based solely on the media narrative, not real data. Is such influence involved here?
Mandating wearing masks without transparency of rationale and substantive data to back it up is simply overreaching, partially unnecessary, apparently Groupthink arbitrary, and thus unconstitutional.
Mark Graybill, Rochester