![]() The present pandemic is not the first time Americans have disagreed about the enforcement of face coverings to curb infectious disease. Why have people made mask mandates their primary foe while facing a deadly disease? Is the mask really just another word for a muzzle? Being an expert in nineteenth-century rabies history ( seriously), I feel obliged to venture some answers. However disingenuous the analogy between face masks and muzzles may seem to many, it has exercised demonstrable sway over people’s perceptions and behavior. But the time and lives lost to partisan neglect of health officials’ guidance raise pressing concerns. In response, Tulsa Mayor GT Bynum (who, despite Dart’s data-driven advice, declined to halt the rally) established a face mask ordinance on July 15. Bruce Dart, who warned beforehand that a rally would likely exacerbate regional spread, now reports that his grim forecast is being confirmed. In Tulsa, Oklahoma, the city I call home, where the president held his kickoff 2020 campaign rally on June 20, cases of COVID-19 have spiked dramatically. After months of shrugging off their importance, the president has at last admitted face masks are “good.” Even so, he remains opposed to the idea of a nationwide mandate, the logic being that such a move would be an affront to freedom. Nevertheless, as disputes over mandates carry on, this complaint that face masks are muzzles, guilty of violating free speech, has become a fixture of American political debate over coronavirus response. Bared teeth notwithstanding, commissioners voted to approve the ordinance on July 1. Lucie County Commission in Florida, held to discuss a proposal for a face mask mandate. On June 26, a video began circulating of a man growling “I will not be muzzled like a mad dog” at a special meeting of the St. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |