Notes on the Star Tribune editorial

Yesterday I offered 10 thoughts on the Star Tribune editorial decrying the court decision holding the federal mask mandate illegal (along with the Star Tribune editorial itself). The Star Tribune’s vacuous glop barely touches the decision. Rather, it disapproves of those of us who celebrated the end of the mandate (for the moment, anyway). Our friend Kevin Roche comments over at Healthy Skeptic (below the break):

* * * * *

The editorial screeches about how outrageous it is to ignore the public safety. One of the tipoffs to a writer knowing they have an incredibly weak argument is the use of really dumb and inapt analogies, and the editorial starts out with several of those. Where it might more profitably have started was by asking if there was any evidence that masks actually stop transmission, is there any evidence that transmission occurred on airplanes with or without masks, and whether other measures adopted by the airlines, such as the incredibly high rates of air turnover, might not be adequate. And if we are going to have a battle of dumb analogies–should we not just strap everyone in hazmat suit so no one ever has to worry about contracting any pathogen on a plane.

Now the truth, as readers of this blog know, is that there is no evidence that masks made one damn bit of difference in the epidemic and you know why–they can’t stop the virus, in fact they collect and nurture it for later distribution. Whichever editor wrote this piece of dreck goes on to resurrect the paper’s strong suit–spreading unwarranted fear–cases are rising, there are new variants, blah, blah, blah. Apparently doesn’t recognize that the fear response in humans becomes exhausted after too many fake stimulations.

There are a few more cases, from a very low level, almost none are serious. The vast majority of deaths and hospitalizations reported at this point are in the vaccinated and/or are incidental to Covid-19. But to the editorial writer this isn’t over, it can’t be over, the Strib has made too much money off the epidemic for it to end. This is basically lying about the risk and the data, and trying to score a cheap political shot, and it is the exact opposite of what the paper should be dedicated to–telling the public the truth, in a measured and rational manner.

I have news for the paper–no one cares anymore. People have realized that for most of them this is a cold, that nothing that we were told we had to do–but only for two weeks, mind you, till we flattened that curve–including masks, lockdowns, social distancing, testing every hour, contact tracing and yes, even vaccines, made the slightest difference in the end result–almost everyone got infected, many got reinfected, more got breakthrough infections, people are still getting infected, people are going to get infected.

Where did I come in on this epidemic, over two years ago–I think it was saying that you can’t stop a respiratory virus. The paper was shocked that “some” people celebrated the end of the mandate with “glee.” Uhhh, the vast majority of people celebrated it because, unlike the dunces at the Strib, they knew it was political theater and made no difference to their safety.

The writer of course encourages readers to do the right thing and mask up forever [Ed.: They deny that this is their advice, but the rationale of the editorial says otherwise]. So if you take the Strib’s advice, and think you simply must wear a mask, may I suggest that you fashion one out of the Strib’s editorial page–it will work as well as any other mask, and really that part of the paper has no better use…

* * * * *

Kevin adds: “[M]y advice is to do what almost all Americans have decided to do–live a normal life, make your own decisions about whether there really is any risk and what steps you might want to take to deal with that risk.” Whole thing here.

NOTE: I have deleted the reader comment that I originally posted above due to my failure to confirm its accuracy.