Déjà flu all over again
What year is it?
Ah, 2023—or is it? A quick browse through your newsfeeds, you would be forgiven for thinking we were back in the less halcyon days of 2020. In the past week alone, COVID-19 cases in the Philippines have surged by a whopping 42 percent, with an average of 637 daily cases from April 24 to 30. To little surprise, mask mandates, once a staple of the early pandemic, are back on the negotiation table.
With the rising number of COVID cases, and the reconsideration of mask mandates, our modern sensibilities have been thrust into a time machine, only to emerge amidst the chaos of yesteryear. Remember, the Philippines holds the dubious honor of having had the longest lockdown. We not only imposed a mask mandate, but also a face shield requirement of questionable efficacy. Ah, the memories.
Given COVID’s influenza-like symptoms, to borrow from Yogi Berra: “It’s like déjà flu all over again.”
From the perspective of libertarianism, mask mandates is where ethics face off. Opponents of mandatory mask policies often cite two main reasons for their recalcitrance: first, a lack of (or inconsistent) evidence of their benefits and, second, an infringement of individual liberties. Today, that first argument has been sufficiently dispelled by science. To state the obvious: Data shows that masks save lives. Yet, the debate lumbers on, stubbornly fixated on the second question. A question of liberty.
I recently posed this question to my legal theory class at the University of the Philippines College of Law. It was a thought experiment on the role of the government. I asked: If the government imposes a mask mandate, should it do so to (i) prevent individuals from spreading COVID or (ii) protect individuals from catching it?
On its face, each rationale may sound like opposite sides of the same coin. To an extent, that may be true. But the ethical nuances and, down the line, constitutional implications vary greatly.
Libertarianism generally dictates that government interference should be minimized, save for one crucial exception: the harm principle. Essentially, individuals are free to do as they please, provided they don’t infringe upon the rights of others. You are free to flail your hands as you like, so long as you do not strike another. So to speak: The reach of my arm ends where your nose begins.
Applying this principle to mask mandates, a libertarian would argue that the government has no business imposing such measures for our own protection. Paternalism, after all, is not the government’s function. So what if I want to live life on the edge? My life, my rules. As long as I do not harm another, then my harm to self is none of anyone’s business.
Notice, however, how a mandate to protect others from harm would be libertarianally permissible. Here, what is contemplated is not the paternalist state but the police state. A mask mandate that seeks to protect one from another fits the traditional functions of government.
Some libertarians might, of course, counter that the risk of transmission only exists if an individual is already a COVID carrier. While this is technically true, a mask mandate may still represent the most minimal, and therefore acceptable, form of government intervention.
Recently, Health officer in charge Maria Rosario Vergeire was asked whether it’s time to reinstate mandatory mask policies. She responded that while the Department of Health (DOH) still supports masking, we must move forward and avoid constantly flipping back and forth between policies. Instead, masks will continue to be “highly encouraged.”
While I agree with the conclusion, I can’t say I agree with the rationale. Consistencies for consistency’s sake does not exactly inspire confidence. If necessity calls it, and the science supports it, by all means reinstate the policy. Reassessment is one thing when deliberate and methodological. Flippantry is another.
But in the end, the government’s conclusion—to strongly recommend rather than mandate masks—seems apt. After all, can mask mandates be truly characterized as “necessary” when they are already worn voluntarily? A recent Social Weather Stations survey found that a large majority of adult Filipinos support voluntary masking, but most still choose to wear masks themselves.
The resurgence of COVID cases, however, serves as a stark reminder that we cannot afford to be complacent. Though we have left behind the days of community lockdowns, confusing alert levels, and midnight presidential press releases, COVID-19 is not a thing of the past. We remain in its age. It’s thus disheartening that three years on, we are still grappling with these issues on a superficial level—and all this without a DOH secretary at the helm.
We truly need someone to guide us through these uncertain times and ensure that our response to COVID is both informed and decisive. After all, it’s 2023, not 2020. It’s about time we started acting like it.
—————-
For more news about the novel coronavirus click here.
What you need to know about Coronavirus.
For more information on COVID-19, call the DOH Hotline: (02) 86517800 local 1149/1150.
The Inquirer Foundation supports our healthcare frontliners and is still accepting cash donations to be deposited at Banco de Oro (BDO) current account #007960018860 or donate through PayMaya using this link.
