Entry 2074, on 2020-09-07 at 13:10:35 (Rating 4, Comments)
I recently had reason to make some short flights around the country. They were less than an hour each, and there were four of them (two there, two back) so it wasn't like I was flying for vast periods of time, but I wanted to relay some of my experiences anyway, especially given the changes due to COVID.
The flight to my destination was great. The first part (Dunedin to Wellington) was on an Airbus A320, so it was fairly fast and comfortable, especially since there was an empty seat next to me because of social distancing. The second part was on an ATR72, so it was a bit slower and less smooth, but the view between Wellington and Nelson over the Marlborough Sounds makes up for that. Also, I had a free seat next to me again.
Having a lot less passengers on the aircraft is great: you have a lot of extra space, it's less noisy and claustrophobic, and getting on and off is much faster. Of course, I understand the economics of flying, so I know why we will have to go back to crowded flights once the COVID scare is over, but it's nice while it lasts.
So the flight to Nelson was good, as I said, but the flight back wasn't quite so enjoyable. First, it was through Christchurch so it was on a Q300 followed buy another ATR, making it quite a bit slower; but also because the airline had decided in the interim to force passengers to wear face masks to help stop the spread of the coronavirus.
This decision was probably forced on the airline by the government, who have decided to make it compulsory, punishable by moderate sized fines. Superficially, wearing masks in confined spaces seems like a good idea, but - as you might have guessed by the title of this post - I'm not so sure.
I have two objections to compulsory use of masks: first, I'm not sure they are as effective as they are claimed, and might even be counter-productive in some cases; and second, I just object to having inconvenient rules and regulations inflicted on me by a government which seems increasingly enthusiastic about having more control over the population.
I found wearing the mask really uncomfortable and annoying, even after only a few minutes. I am assured by experts that mask use does not result in build-up of CO2 or lack of oxygen, so I guess it must primarily be a psychological rather than a physical effect, but it exists either way. Other people I spoke to gave similar accounts of discomfort.
At this point I should admit that I didn't really wear the mask except when the flight crew walked past checking. In fact I found a way to have it folded so that it looked like it was in use, but it would have been quite ineffective. And before discovering that technique, I was constantly fiddling with it and trying to create better air flow. So forcing me to wear this hideous thing achieved absolutely nothing, and might easily have made any potential transmission worse.
And, of course, no one on that flight had COVID anyway, because there has been none in the South Island of New Zealand for months. I do admit that what I just said isn't completely true, because the virus has a habit of sneaking into communities from areas which are affected, but I still think the chances of anyone on that flight being infected were close to zero.
A case could be made to say that wearing a mask for an hour or two on a flight is a small price to pay for improving the chances of preventing spread of the disease, but where does it end? We are already advised to wash our hands constantly, cough into our elbows, and use the tracing app. Now we have to wear masks, so what's next?
I have had a hand washing routine going for a couple of years now so that was no problem for me. The elbow coughing thing is just common sense, and involves no extra effort, so I'm on-board with that too. And the tracing app is a small inconvenience I initially resisted but have started using more recently, so that's also OK. But I'm drawing the line at masks. I'll make the most superficial effort to use one when I have no choice, but I'm not really participating in that edict from on high.
While the new rules came from the government, they were based on recommendations from health professionals, and I respect science, so you might ask why am I so resistant? Well, here's why: because health is only one aspect of this issue, and the advice of health professionals is generally based on theoretical rather than practical knowledge, and on a very restricted view from their narrow area of expertise.
So in a perfect world, where everyone had a good mask which fitted properly, and they were trained on how to use them, and they didn't constantly fiddle with them, I would agree that they are very effective. But this isn't a perfect world, and the effectiveness is likely to be far lower than what would be predicted in theory. They might still be better than nothing, but maybe not by much.
It's a little bit like the difference between the advice of traditional economists and those who follow the more modern version: behavioural economics, which tries to devise theories and make recommendations based on how people actually act rather than how they are supposed to act in theory.
I agree that the recommendations of health professionals should be taken seriously, but there should be other opinions used to help form the final policies as well. For example psychologists might give a better insight into how people will really act, economists (the ones I prefer to listen to) might give some input into the economic consequences, and philosophers might contribute towards the ethics and personal freedom aspects of the issue.
I don't see any sign that a more holistic view like this has been taken. In fact, all I see from this government is one panicked, arbitrary, and poorly thought out response after another as each part of the crisis unfolds. And yes, I know how much this government's response has been praised, but I call that "fake news"! I think the response has been mediocre at best, and any apparent success has been more a result of the fact that we are a small, isolated country which was affected well after most others, along with a lot of luck!
Being a leftist government run by a very socialist-inclined prime minister, we should be careful about too many controls being put on our lives. The natural response of this sort of leadership is to impose draconian controls. There are times when this can be effective, but we need to remain vigilant about excessive use of this approach.
Finally, let me throw in the old "thin end of the wedge" argument. In general, masks should reduce the spread of the virus, but what else could do this? Look at all the restrictions which have been used in the past and you will get a list: no travel; no social outings or events; being locked in our homes; no sport; no visting cafes, pubs, or restaurants. Which of these are reasonable and which aren't? It's a completely arbitrary matter of opinion, so why should I respect any of these restrictions over another?
So yeah, Cindy; you can stick ya mask where the sun don't shine. I'll pretend to follow your poorly considered and arbitrary rules when I have no choice, but I think you're wrong, and like all laws I think are wrong, I won't feel bad as I'm breaking them.
Comment 1 (5394) by Anonymous on 2020-09-07 at 13:56:54:
So you are saying National would do a better job if they were in government?
Comment 2 (5396) by OJB on 2020-09-07 at 14:32:54:
Well that's a completely different issue from what I was discussing in this post. But to answer your question, I think in some ways they might have done better, and in others worse. As I said above: I think any successes we have seen here were primarily due to luck, and the fact that we are a small, isolated country, where COVID arrived after many other countries so that we had existing actions to base ours on.
Comment 3 (5397) by Anonymous on 2020-09-08 at 09:34:34:
LOL. OJB has gone full-on conspiracy theory this time!
Comment 4 (5398) by OJB on 2020-09-08 at 12:22:33:
No, I don't think there is anything conspiratorial about this. There is nothing hidden or deceptive. I just disagree with the policy decision, mainly because I think there is an imbalance in the source of advice, and a lack of any rational, consistent conclusions as a result.
Comment 5 (5399) by OJB on 2020-09-08 at 12:25:26:
I also admit that my opinion could easily be wrong about this. Maybe the compromise necessary to use masks is justified in the greater context of the pandemic. It's about balancing competing rights and actions, so there's no right answer. I just like offering opinions which are contrary to the normally accepted ones.
Comment 6 (5403) by Anonymous on 2020-09-11 at 13:09:07:
Ahhh, where to start.
Look, I'm tired of people asserting that they have rights and their individual rights override the right of society to safety. Your mild discomfort while travelling on short flights is utterly unimportant when compared to the *potential* to spread coronavirus more than it has already. How do you KNOW that plane did not contain he virus? Did you personally test passengers, surfaces, and crew? I don't think so. You should at least be partially grateful to live in a country where movement is still relatively unrestricted - thanks in no small part to people thinking of others' safety. Sounds like you don't have the same regard for your follow citizens. Still, at least your flight was comfortable. Good on you for making a point!
Your theory of a government that want's to increasingly control its population is unambitious in its scope. If I was a government interested in controlling people, I would surely pick something more interesting and far reaching than forcing people to wear masks when on public transportation during a global pandemic. I know, I'll use compulsory vaccination as a delivery mechanism for mind controlling substances and personal trackers.
Comment 7 (5405) by Anonymous on 2020-09-11 at 14:48:38:
Hmmm your text: "Being a leftist government run by a very socialist-inclined prime minister, we should be careful about too many controls being put on our lives. The natural response of this sort of leadership is to impose draconian controls. There are times when this can be effective, but we need to remain vigilant about excessive use of this approach."
Classic Trump technique: surround what seems perfectly reasonable ( "There are times when this can be effective, but we need to remain vigilant about excessive use of this approach" ) with unsubstantiated hyperbole. Have you been reading from his playbook?
Comment 8 (5406) by OJB on 2020-09-11 at 20:02:15:
It's a matter of balance. On one side we have rules imposed by a government for various reasons. On the other we have our right to individual freedom, to make our own decisions, and to maximise our own happiness. I realise that one should never override the other, but there has to be some balance. As I said, I go along with many of the anti-COVID measures, but I draw the line at masks. That's just my personal opinion.
I already admitted that I didn't know for sure there was no coronavirus on that flight, but the chances were very low, and that's more or less the same thing. We have to take some chances, and escape this prison we have created some time.
I agree the government control thing is unambitious. I'm not claiming they are aiming at total control or anything. They probably have good motives, but leftist governments do prioritise control over freedom, even if it is at just a moderate level.
I don't think being aware of the possibility of excessive government control is hyperbolic at all. It is during times of crisis, like this, that government's often go too far. I'm just saying we need to watch how far they are going.
Comment 9 (5410) by Anonymous on 2020-09-14 at 09:58:17:
Yes, give me the freedom not only to infect myself, but also others and possibly kill them. Never mind that in society no one has total freedom anyway. When you get up in the morning and put clothes on even if it is 30 degrees outside you do it because there is a rule and even formal laws and society demands it. But masks, that is just a step too far.
Comment 10 (5411) by OJB on 2020-09-14 at 10:19:20:
It's all about evaluating the risk versus the disruption to my enjoyment of life. If I thought I had COVID I would definitely wear the mask. If I thought there was a 10% chance I had it, I would probably also wear it. I think there is a close to 0% chance I have it, so I don't want to wear it.
Comment 11 (5412) by Anonymous on 2020-09-14 at 12:39:15:
Firstly, your enjoyment of life takes second place when it comes up against the safety of others, especially when large numbers are involved That's the price to pay for living in a civilised society stocked with relatively rational people who can combine self-interest with the communal good - which has a direct influence on your personal "enjoyment" .And secondly, I didnt know you are a medical expert who can exactly calculate your health risk factor and your personal percentage chance of having contracted the virus. Would even your family trust your judgment (without wanting to be too personal)?
Comment 12 (5413) by Anonymous on 2020-09-14 at 14:12:15:
Enjoyment of life is important - sure. I wonder about the rest of your life when a 40 minute flight that requires you to wear a partial face mask has such a profound impact on the quality of that life.
You really have got a chip on your shoulder about this one. Fact of life, with freedoms come responsibilities. You, like the rest of us, are required to help prevent the spread of COVID. What if you were asymptomatic?
Seems to me that everything has to be put into perspective and your outrage at being required to wear a mask needs to take a back seat.
It's a common conspiracy theory tactic to say "this is just be beginning", or "This is the thin end of the wedge - watch what they'll do next". In realty, this is code for "I can't debate the actual issue in front of me, so I'll transform it into something that doesn't exist". Sure, we need to keep an eye on potential erosion of civil liberties - but I thought we were talking about you being asked to wear a mask for about an hour.
Comment 13 (5415) by OJB on 2020-09-14 at 16:47:00:
I think everyone has to draw their own conclusions, including which experts they listen to. As I said in the post, there are numerous experts who all advocate for solutions based on their area of interest, and on their personal opinions, as well as data. I take the precautions I think are appropriate, and in the end everyone is acting based on their opinions, even if that opinion is that the government's response can be trusted.
I have got a "chip on my shoulder" a bit, I agree. As well as the practical aspects of this issue, there are the more philosophical points too, and as a person leaning towards libertarianism, I am naturally suspicious of government mandated restrictions. I know we have to accept restrictions to live together as a society, but this is just about where those restrictions should begin and end.
I realise the "slippery slope" argument can often be classified as an informal logical fallacy, but it is also a real thing, and I think it is fair to be extra critical of the government when they have granted themselves extra powers during an "emergency".
Comment 14 (5416) by Anonymous on 2020-09-14 at 16:52:13:
I think you have a right to criticise when they exercise those "extraordinary" powers without justification. That hasn't happened yet.
Comment 15 (5417) by OJB on 2020-09-14 at 20:56:11:
I think the level of criticism should match the degree to which the government has transgressed from my idea of reasonable behaviour. Apart from the rhetorical statements in my post ("stick it", etc) I don't think I have severely criticised the government. But sure, I will definitely criticise when/if they go too far!
Comment 16 (5915) by adnicaj on 2020-12-08 at 15:48:17:
I approached reading one of your blogs with some curiosity.
BUT what a long issue, wading through vast amounts of text. I found my interest waning as I hoped to reach a critical point.
Would it perhaps be better if it was presented like a scientific article in a journal. First start with an abstract/summary. Then if it seems worthwhile, continue to read the full article.
This blog started with your flying around the country. Hardly gripping and I found myself wondering if I really wished to continue. I didn't.
Comment 17 (5916) by OJB on 2020-12-08 at 22:04:48:
OK, that's a fair comment, even if somewhat harsh! I have had some feedback from other readers that the posts are too long, and a summary might be useful. I will consider that in future, although it doesn't really suit my style.
Comment 18 (5919) by OJB on 2020-12-09 at 08:37:57:
BTW, I see what you did with your name there!
Comment 19 (5921) by adnical on 2020-12-09 at 13:35:50:
Sorry about not suiting your style. Maybe consider the Grey Power audience.
Ever considered progressing out of the dark ages and becoming a trendy?
Indeed have you thought of going paperless?
"BTW Could not resist the name"...... My favourite person, as you may know.
Comment 20 (5922) by OJB on 2020-12-09 at 14:40:10:
I guess it wouldn't matter what style I used: some people would still complain! I have had two very positive comments recently, and only one negative (yours), so maybe the current style is OK.
I always thought that older people didn't mind spending a bit of extra time reading material, and that it was the younger generation who wanted 30 second, superficial stuff. Maybe that isn't true.
Also, remember this is a blog - that means a "web log" - so it is a place to present and discuss personal opinions, and is not a scientific paper or other formal material. I do like to spend a bit of time introducing the subject and setting the scene. I guess that doesn't suit everyone.
Comment 21 (5923) by OJB on 2020-12-09 at 14:43:58:
Anyway, here's a brief summary of this post: is mask wearing during pandemics a good idea? How important is personal choice? How likely does infection with a virus have to be before we take action? Is a mask worn incorrectly worse than none? Should we always listen to politicians and experts? Where is line between civil disobedience and irresponsibility? This post attempts to answer all of these questions!
Comment 22 (5934) by Anonymous on 2020-12-11 at 14:25:23:
Classic - civil disobedience. You're not Rosa Parks you know.
Comment 23 (5938) by OJB on 2020-12-11 at 16:31:14:
It's not so much civil disobedience, because I don't take the laws seriously enough to worry about being against them. I simply ignore laws and do what I think is right. That usually coincides with the law, but not always.
Thanks for reading this blog post. Please leave a message below.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add. Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry. The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
BLOG PAGE