The Editor:
Re. “Not wearing a mask should be the new smoking come September” (Delta Optimist, June 12)
Please define 'mask', please. To what degree or specification must the mask meet to be considered a mask? Is a face shield a 'mask'? Is a scarf a mask? Are breathers masks? Is a cloth facial covering a mask? What's a mask?
And, what about goggles or other forms of eye coverings other than simple glasses people wear for sight? One of the most vulnerable part of your face for grabbing the coronavirus-laden droplets is one's eyes. Eyes have zero natural protection against such things. Check it out if you don't believe me. So shouldn't everyone be required to wear a form of goggles or complex eye coverings using your logic and argument?
If you have followed any of the science regarding 'masks' and their use against the COVID droplets, particularly the simple cloth ones and the lessor involved and complex forms of masks that are now commonly worn, you'll learn that coughing whilst wearing the 'mask' makes little to no difference to the spreading of the droplets. They go right on through.
You want to make 'masks' compulsory? I suggest that you take the next step and suggest that proper fitting breathers be required supported with eye coverings such as goggles, as a minimum. Let's go 'whole hog' then, eh?
And what about those persons who sport a beard, a full beard even. Masks are then essentially useless. Shall we full-bearded persons then be required to become clean shaven? Oh yes, even the fellows who sport facial hair of any measurable length needs cleaning up then.
So, you are making an argument that essentially has little to no weight or value. And, I don't for a minute suggest that you can equate smoking with COVID-19. It's my view that it's a baseless argument and position to assert. Perhaps a bit more subject-matter research on your part will assist with your next opinion piece.
Michael Sonntag, Port Coquitlam
