[2006alum]

Even if you think he's right, this is an irresponsible thing to say, because it will make his followers think not wearing a mask is a way to signal support for him, against nearly (now) universal public health recommendations to the contrary. He simply should not be second-guessing this the way he is, let alone politicizing it.

Can we please finally put to rest that he isn't a major part of the problem here?

I have no problem agreeing that he is a major part of the problem, but I have this question.  Wouldn't you also agree that a major part of the problem is the following?  

For several weeks, folks were told that large gatherings of people to express certain viewpoints -- or, indeed, just to socialize -- was horrible and irresponsible and people who did it were evil.  Then, for about 2 weeks just recently, those folks watched as massive crowds gathered to protest [which protests sometimes provided the occasion for resulting riots] with no social distancing at all and mask-wearing that was spotty at best, yet those crowds met with virtually no condemnation at all for their behavior [and, indeed, were often praised by the media and others, including various "public health officials" on the grounds that taking the risk to express that viewpoint was good, right, and courageous].  Now, however, with those protests generally [although not entirely] decreasing, those folks are being told once again that, if you don't wear a mask, you're evil and irresponsible.  And, besides, those folks are routinely criticized as being the "political" devils, not the "public health" angels.

I would hope you could understand that one doesn't have to be "Trump follower" at all to see this position as hypocritical, political, and just as problematic as Trump's position.  Otherwise put, why did the "nearly [now] universal public health recommendations to the contrary" appear to go completely silent for one group but not the other?  And, understand, I'm not arguing over whether one group's cause is better or worse than the other's -- that is not a relevant "public health" point when it comes to face masks and social distancing...unless, of course, you believe that those actions are political in nature.  Which, as I understand it, you don't.

Yes - there was definitely hypocrisy there, at least among certain people and certain kinds of protesting. I think some have the view that BLM is a cause that significantly outweighs taking every possible social distancing precaution, whereas protesting social distancing precautions does not outweigh social distancing. YMMV as to whether that's persuasive - I'll decline to weigh in with my personal views as I interpret that to be running afoul of the Terry Rule, which is why I've generally kept quiet on that stuff around these parts.

The problem for me is that when everything is already highly charged and political, we need leadership that tries to unite rather than divide. At the national level, everything from hydroxychloroquine to mask wearing is purposefully mobilized by Trump for fairly blatant political ends. He's certainly not the only one, but among my set of elected leaders (London Breed, Gavin Newsom, and Trump), he's by far the worst.

And I've criticized Newsom too (I think he waived reopening in SoCal way too soon, especially for things like movie theaters(!!!)), and I thought Breed's order mandating mask-wearing even while exercising if under 30 feet from others was not only unenforceable, but counterproductive.

Nevertheless, I think Breed and Newsom are acting in good faith. Not so the orange one.

My two cents. Now back to your regularly scheduling mask-order-hair-splitting.

[2006alum]

Even if you think he's right, this is an irresponsible thing to say, because it will make his followers think not wearing a mask is a way to signal support for him, against nearly (now) universal public health recommendations to the contrary. He simply should not be second-guessing this the way he is, let alone politicizing it.

Can we please finally put to rest that he isn't a major part of the problem here?

I have no problem agreeing that he is a major part of the problem, but I have this question.  Wouldn't you also agree that a major part of the problem is the following?  

For several weeks, folks were told that large gatherings of people to express certain viewpoints -- or, indeed, just to socialize -- was horrible and irresponsible and people who did it were evil.  Then, for about 2 weeks just recently, those folks watched as massive crowds gathered to protest [which protests sometimes provided the occasion for resulting riots] with no social distancing at all and mask-wearing that was spotty at best, yet those crowds met with virtually no condemnation at all for their behavior [and, indeed, were often praised by the media and others, including various "public health officials" on the grounds that taking the risk to express that viewpoint was good, right, and courageous].  Now, however, with those protests generally [although not entirely] decreasing, those folks are being told once again that, if you don't wear a mask, you're evil and irresponsible.  And, besides, those folks are routinely criticized as being the "political" devils, not the "public health" angels.

I would hope you could understand that one doesn't have to be "Trump follower" at all to see this position as hypocritical, political, and just as problematic as Trump's position.  Otherwise put, why did the "nearly [now] universal public health recommendations to the contrary" appear to go completely silent for one group but not the other?  And, understand, I'm not arguing over whether one group's cause is better or worse than the other's -- that is not a relevant "public health" point when it comes to face masks and social distancing...unless, of course, you believe that those actions are political in nature.  Which, as I understand it, you don't.

Yes - there was definitely hypocrisy there, at least among certain people and certain kinds of protesting. I think some have the view that BLM is a cause that significantly outweighs taking every possible social distancing precaution, whereas protesting social distancing precautions does not outweigh social distancing. YMMV as to whether that's persuasive - I'll decline to weigh in with my personal views as I interpret that to be running afoul of the Terry Rule, which is why I've generally kept quiet on that stuff around these parts.

The problem for me is that when everything is already highly charged and political, we need leadership that tries to unite rather than divide. At the national level, everything from hydroxychloroquine to mask wearing is purposefully mobilized by Trump for fairly blatant political ends. He's certainly not the only one, but among my set of elected leaders (London Breed, Gavin Newsom, and Trump), he's by far the worst.

And I've criticized Newsom too (I think he waived reopening in SoCal way too soon, especially for things like movie theaters(!!!)), and I thought Breed's order mandating mask-wearing even while exercising if under 30 feet from others was not only unenforceable, but counterproductive.

Nevertheless, I think Breed and Newsom are acting in good faith. Not so the orange one.

My two cents. Now back to your regularly scheduling mask-order-hair-splitting.