 |
| Which is worse--mandating the wearing of a disposable mask over and over and over, day after day, and improperly to boot-----or allowing this improper wear to "meet" the standard of an ill-conceived, non-enforceable ordinance? (or both?) |
We find ourselves in the midst of a battle of wills over the wearing of masks here locally.
The city went headlong into this issue by "mandating" all citizens wear masks indoors. So did the city of Milton----and then Milton's City Council promptly and resoundingly walked their mandate back. Actually it got yanked back and thrown in the garbage can.
Santa Rosa County has no mandate for mask wearing either.
But Pensacola has a mandate, brought forward by the mayor initially. Then the city council doubled down and made it an ordinance with teeth with financial penalties for citizens that don't wear masks--because the city's ordinance requires citizens to wear masks!
Well, wait a minute. Just most citizens in most places. With some exceptions.
Well, realistically--with a lot of exceptions. For instance, now we are told that students who come back to classes in buildings and schools within the city limits will not be wearing masks. At least they won't be mandated to do it. Apparently, the city's got an exception for that.
And those who attend churches in the city limits don't have to wear masks. There's an exception for that, too.
And outdoors--well, outdoors in socially distanced settings masks are not required. There's an exception for that.
Demonstrators that gather in numbers, not wearing masks and not socially distancing--is there an exception for this? Not sure--but regardless--it's happening, people are congregating and exercising their freedom of assembly and not wearing masks while not socially distancing-- and it is not being enforced. Perhaps there is a tacit "exception" for that, too?
And surely the virus knows these exceptions and will ensure transmission is ceased during periods of time and under these circumstances when the city's ordinance provides exceptions, right?
Sure.
What about at a restaurant in the city? Indoors, the ordinance says wear a mask. But when the food comes--or when the drinks come--everyone at the table can "unmask" to eat and drink--there is an exception for that. So half the people--eating and drinking together in small groups and large groups will be masked, and the other half will be unmasked. Or, should diners and drinkers keep their masks on, and cut holes in their disposable surgical masks that they wear over and over--and put a straw through the hole and drink their beverages, wines, and bottled beverages through the straws whilst keeping the masks in place? That'd be a weird look, like a scene out of the original 1977 Star Wars
Cantina Band scene.... Same thing for food. Keep the masks on and pull them to the side, quickly, and spoon feed without spilling it all over the inside of the mask. That could get messy.....And if you cant do this--then take the masks off between bites and gulps. I'm sure the airborne viruses and germs know the difference and politely and obediently do not disburse while citizens in the city limits eat and drink, right? The microbes wait till the masks go back on. Sure thing. You bet.
So yes, technically, there is an ordinance in the city mandating that citizens wear masks. Most of the time. With some exceptions--I mean, LOTS of exceptions. And with little enforcement. And with no standards. Right. Check.
Well what about the masks and how they are worn? Surely there must be standards in the ordinance the city wants us to adopt, right?
Answer: Nah, just have a "face-covering" of any variety. Yeah--just something, anything, just a