Repealing mask bylaw would be unwise
By Letter to the Editor on June 18, 2021.
Editor:
The proposal that the City of Lethbridge, or any other municipality for that matter, should repeal its temporary mask bylaw simply because the province reaches its defined vaccination threshold and repeals its masking requirement, would be a bad public policy decision. Such a decision must not take place in a geographically uniformed vacuum; it must take account of local circumstances. The application of some basic geographic reasoning shows why this is the case.
To explain, Alberta is Canada’s fourth largest province geographically, with a total area (land and freshwater) of 661,848 km2.
That’s a large area, larger in fact than the Maritimes and Newfoundland and Labrador combined. And with that large size there comes a great deal of regional variability.
Consequently, just because the province as whole reaches a defined threshold with respect to, say, vaccination rates, it does not mean that all parts of the province will have reached that level.
The measures that the Province has deemed important relative to moving from Stage 2 to Stage 3, will not be the same in all parts of the province.
To get a handle on things, and to make decisions defined in terms of local conditions, we need to map various types of data to reveal spatial patterns and spatial variability. When we look at the numbers through that most basic of geographic tools – the map – we will almost certainly find that some parts of the province will have exceeded various targets, maybe even by large margins, but we will also see that some areas are lagging for various reasons.
Public-health measures such as masking and social distancing requirements have been effective, so it would be unwise to prematurely lift such measures in lagging regions simply because the Province in total has reached some level. Doing so would involve ignoring a most fundamental geographic concept, namely, spatial variability.
The province has all kinds of information related to COVID-19, as it should. Indeed, a good deal of that data, much of it geographically referenced, is also publicly available. There is no reason for public officials at any level of government to be unacquainted with this data, or fail to use it thoughtfully when making critically important policy decisions. Thinking geographically and recognizing that provincial-scale trends may not be mirrored at the local level, adds an additional layer of nuance to that assessment.
Tom Johnston, PhD
Associate Professor
Department of Geography and Environment
University of Lethbridge
-1
And yet you do not acknowledge that the public is wearing a useless mask against COVID? The little fibre blue mask that you see everyone wear has no ability to stop a person from getting COVID. So it seems strange to me, a “Associate Professor” in the esteemed halls of higher learning would not be calling for better masks for the public if you want the bylaw to remain? Would you put on, a little Blue one time use, fiber mask and walk into a COVID ward Dr Johnston? So why is it alright for the rest of us?
Just in case you are not aware, that little blue mask was determined to be 2% efficient, when properly fitted on a stationary dummy. Whereas the N95 is 95% efficient. Add to this that no one really knows how to wear the mask or handle it and you have a “less than 2% chance of protection from the virus” and yet here you are applauding the bylaw?
The policy decision by the Gov and the Gurus within the health community is to let people wear ineffective masks (to act as a security blanket)…..you never addressed that? You do know that COVID is airborne and the smaller particles in the air can go right through, or around, the ill fitting 2% mask….. Not important?
You also never mentioned the “Gov” is obviously supporting the little blue mask because they are offered free at the entrance of most stores as “a defense against COVID”? Not heard anything from the “Gov” on that. Lastly, I have seen tube socks and neck scarves used as masks and no one is stopping those people either? So please remind us again why this law serves any purpose in its present form?