A Christian Response to Masking

    

    In his inaugural address, President John F. Kennedy begged the American people to “think not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” He was harkening back to a different time in American history when rights were balanced by duty. To talk about duty now is likely to get someone accused of Marxism or socialism, but it used to be a beloved American virtue. George Washington mentioned it in his farewell address; Abraham Lincoln brought it up multiple times; and General Patton used it to inspire the American troops on D-Day. Historically, freedom has been a guard on duty, so it does not become socialism and duty a limit on freedom, so it does not become anarchy. Yet today, much of the mask conversation has focused on freedom without any mention of the concept of duty.

          A more simplistic understanding of this duet is the balance between life and liberty. In a strictly libertarian society, everyone has the liberty to do what they want unless their liberty bumps up against someone else’s life. At that point, the right to life triumphs over liberty. For example, in a libertarian society, a hunter would have the right to have one or many guns, but his liberty to do what he wants with those guns ends when he wishes to finish another human’s life with one. An adult has the right to drink as much alcohol as they wish, but they do not have the right to drive after a certain amount because that threats other people’s right to life. Generally, the right to life extends to any bodily harm, so that my liberty does not allow me to assault or kidnap you either.

          America is not a strictly libertarian society and duty extends beyond not threatening another life though that remains the heart of it. For example, I never benefited from the public school system as a child nor do I have children who will; however, I still pay property, local, state, and federal taxes to support public schools because the United States believe that all Americans have a duty to the next generation. We pay for Social Security and Medicare because of the American value of duty towards the elderly. Military personnel and law enforcement officers serve out of a sense of duty towards country that is so great they may sacrifice their right to life in fulfilling it.

          People wear masks out of duty to our fellow humankind and to protect the right to life of those around them. In the early days of the pandemic, most research was focused on people wearing masks to protect themselves. Masks are not that effective at this since, unless it is a properly fitted N-95 respirator, droplets and airborne particules in the air can get around the edges of the mask and we breath them in (it reduces them slightly, but not enough that officials were recommending universal masking). When scientists flipped the question and asked about using masks to protect others, they uncovered a different answer. When the particles first come out of my mouth, they are much more concentrated and generally headed straight out. Many (not all) of these particles will get caught on a surgical or cloth mask preventing them from being released into the air and potentially reaching another person. This puts my safety squarely on your shoulders and your safety squarely on mine.

Public health interventions are not immovable rocks--- they are like layering swiss cheese. Therefore, anytime an expert talks about them they use language like “reducing risk” and “mitigating exposure,” not “do this and you definitely won’t get sick.” A person staying home when they are actively sick is one layer of protection. Since somewhere between 20-50% of people who pick up COVID-19 never show symptoms and they are more likely to transmit it than asymptomatic carriers of other common respiratory diseases, there are holes in layer of swiss cheese. Social distancing of at least 6 feet among apparently healthy individuals is another layer, but since there are some activities that this distance is not possible and some means of transmission such as singing and yelling that can go beyond 6 feet, there are holes in this layer too. Rapid, accurate, and available testing is a third layer that identifies symptomatic and asymptomatic carries and isolates them from the population. But like the other two this may miss people such as the nurse who tests at 11 am but is infected at 1 pm. As these interventions start layering, they start to cover the holes in one another forming a strong, though not impenetrable, wall.

The CDC director Robert Redfield argued before a Congressional Hearing that masks may be one of the most important layers and are shown to be more effective than the first generation of vaccines are likely to be at preventing spread. A COVID-19 vaccine needs only be 70% effective to pass FDA approval, but the combination of universal masking and social distancing reduces transmission by 80%. In other words, if my chances of getting COVID-19 from a sick person at the movie theater was 10% without masking and social distancing, doing these two things cuts that down to 2%. A 70% effective vaccine would only cut it down to 3%.

The key word here is “universal.” A mask mandate is only as effective as how well people follow it. Countries like China and Italy who have made failing to wear a mask a punishable crime (mostly fines)  have gotten their epidemics under control much faster than a country or region that has made a non-enforceable mandate--- which is really just a strongly worded suggestion. However, countries with strong senses of national and familial duty such as South Korea and Japan have barely needed to institute such laws because people chose to wear masks willingly out of their duty to their elders and to their fellow citizens. Nations can be rated on a “communalism” to “individualism” scale. The United States is typically found on the far end of individualism without much balance of duty to those around me (community). Our response to masking--- an action I take solely for the benefit of those around me--- has drawn this lack of balance in stark relief.

          Long before Europeans found North America, the Apostle Paul balances these two concepts for Christians. In I Corinthians 10, he uses an “interlocker” --- a fictious person he gives a statement from and then response to it. “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. No one should seek their own good, but the good of others.” Paul is not concerned with the duty and freedom that Americans enjoy; he is talking about the responsibility Christians who have been set free in Christ have to use that freedom for the good of others. Christianity is not a journey of what we can get away with, but of all the opportunities that Christ’s love must manifest in us as we draw nearer to him. As Julian of Norwich remarked, “Any time we look at our Maker with love, our importance in our own eyes diminishes, and we are filled with awe and humility and love for others.” Love for our fellow humanity really should be the only motive that Christians need to happily put on a mask to protect the most vulnerable around us.