This Republican governor's explanation for why he won't issue a mask mandate is, uh, something else

Soos Covid-19-gevalle, hospitalizations and deaths surge across the Midwest and Plains, many Republican governors who had previously opposed a statewide mask mandate have reversed course as they seek to mitigate the rapid spread of the virus.

Pete Ricketts is not one of them.
The Nebraska Republican governor has repeatedly resisted calls for mandatory mask-wearing in his statemost recently at a press conference on Tuesday.
I don’t think mask mandates are appropriate,” Ricketts told reporters. “I think they create resistance. Masks are just a tool, not the only tool, (en) they are not a panacea to solve all the problems.
    Is, wat?
    Let’s remember what we know about mask-wearing: That is is our single best tool at the moment to slow the spread of a virus that has killed more than 250,000 Amerikaners.
    We are not defenseless against COVID-19,said US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Robert Redfield way back in July. “Doekgesigsbedekkings is een van die kragtigste wapens om die verspreiding van die virus te vertraag en te stop — veral as dit algemeen binne 'n gemeenskapsomgewing gebruik word. Alle Amerikaners het die verantwoordelikheid om hulself te beskerm, hul gesinne, en hul gemeenskappe.”
    Rickettsargument appears to be that mandating mask-wearing would mean that people wouldn’t comply. (“They create resistance.”) But the whole reason we are in this mess of a third surge of the virus is BECAUSE people don’t wear masks when they should. That’s the whole point!

    So is Ricketts arguing that if he issues a mask mandate even more people would not wear masks? That seems, uh, unlikely? Sedert, na alles, if you were already wearing a mask when appropriate, it seems weird that you would suddenly stop doing it because Ricketts issues a mask mandate? And if you weren’t wearing a mask before, maybe you wouldn’t put one on after a mandate? But some people assuredly wouldfor fear of being penalized for not doing so, reg?
    Kortom: Die “weerstand” is already there when it comes to mask-wearing. (That fact is at least partly attributable to President Donald Trump turning mask-wearing into a political issue rather than solely a public health necessity.) The idea that meer people would not wear a mask if Ricketts (or any other governor) said they had to is simply not borne out by facts (or logic.)
    Speaking of mask-wearing — of nie — Ricketts is mired in his own controversy regarding a video posted by an employee at an Omaha sports bar earlier this week in which the governor is shown mask-less. (The employee, Karina Montanez, was subsequently fired for breaking the company’s social media policies.)
    A spokesperson for Ricketts told a local Fox affiliate daardie “the Governor was wearing a mask when entered and exited the establishment,” toevoeging: “The Governor removes his mask temporarily for pictures and did so that evening. The Governor also removed his mask when sitting down at the establishment. The state does not require people to wear masks when seated in bars or restaurants.
      The point here is that politicians lead by examplewhether they mean to or not. Modeling best practices — dra 'n masker! — is what leaders should do, whether or not they are technically adhering to the current rules in their respective states. (Sien: Newsom, Gavin.)
      And more broadly, Rickettslogic as to why he is resistant to a mask mandate is entirely illogical. At a moment of crisis like this one, politiek (and the desire to be consistent with past positions) needs to go out the window. Dit is, heel letterlik, about life and death. Politicians like Ricketts need to get that.

      Laat 'n antwoord

      U e-posadres sal nie gepubliseer word nie. Vereiste velde is gemerk *