This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

I was talking with a good friend of mine the other day who, as we entered a room for a meeting, exclaimed – why do I have to wear this mask; it doesn’t work anyway?

I beg to differ.

And, in so doing, I cite a wealth of science indicating that masks save serious illness or even death as all of us deal with the third iteration of the coronavirus, Omicron.

Is there any guarantee?  No.  But science is on the side of wearing a mask.

Here is the way a Florida television explained the issue:

“Plenty has been said about putting on a mask since the COVID-19 pandemic began.  There is plenty of truth, but also no shortage of misinformation and disinformation.

“SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is spread by very small droplets from the mouth and nose.

“Every time you cough, every time you sneeze, or just exert yourself, you have a strong grunt, you might produce some of those very, very small droplets and that’s how the infection can spread from one person to the next.

“There was uncertainty in the beginning of the pandemic about how it was spread.  The unknown was one of the reasons why masks were not initially recommended to limit the spread.  In time, we learned a little bit more about the virus.  That’s when it made more sense to wear masks.”

Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker took the issue farther in a column she wrote that focused on the vaccine, not just masks.

“It’s abundantly clear,” Parker wrote, “that vaccines at the very least help reduce the intensity of covid-19.  The booster helps even more.  Most vaccinated people evade infection entirely, probably in part because they also take other precautions, such as distancing and masking. Those who’ve died of covid over the past several months were almost exclusively unvaccinated.”

At the same time, Parker says she understands, though doesn’t support, what she calls “the revulsion toward government mandates.”  

“We’re all a bit anti-establishment, aren’t we?  Americans didn’t become obstreperous just recently.  Our warring spirit and a predilection to oppose authority precedes our arrival to these shores.  We’re all rebels by virtue of most of us having crossed the pond, so to speak.  Saying no may not be wise in some circumstances, but as a countercultural posture, we customarily view dissent as a basic right.

“To the anti-vaccine contingent, a vaccine mandate is tantamount to a violation of one’s autonomy.  No one is entitled to enter my temple without my permission. Case closed.  And yet:  How can some people see the vaccine as a gift and others view it as a toxin contrived for dubious purposes? How do we bridge this gap?”

Parker has no answers.  Nor do I.

However, regarding the “revulsion to government mandates,” now being exhibited by so many, I ask these questions:

• Why reject scientific facts when your reason for rejecting rests on personal perception, or worse, on political intrigue?
• How many times a day do you observe government regulations as you drive your car in the proper lane, obey stop signs or wear your seatbelt?
• Why don’t you give government scientists room to learn about the virus as they may say one thing one week, then correct the record the next week when more information is available?

Parker opines that “convincing others to follow the majority’s lead (those who favor vaccines and masks) will require diplomacy and empathy, not finger-pointing and shaming.

“The challenge for 2022 is how to reconcile these two opposing views.  One requires a united front against a potentially deadly disease (which could be with us forever), the other demands respect for individual rights.”

For my part, I would add that success against the virus requires at least two things:

1. Setting aside political views and concentrating on finding authoritative information, not subject to innuendo or inaccurate discourse, and
2. Deciding that health and life is important than anything else, so vote for it by actions.