Press "Enter" to skip to content

Pete Ricketts’ clarification for why he will not subject a masks mandate

Pete Ricketts shouldn’t be one among them.

The Nebraska Republican governor has repeatedly resisted requires obligatory mask-wearing in his state — most lately at a press convention on Tuesday.

“I don’t think mask mandates are appropriate,” Ricketts informed reporters. “I think they create resistance. Masks are just a tool, not the only tool, (and) they are not a panacea to solve all the problems.”

Let’s keep in mind what we find out about mask-wearing: That is is our single finest instrument in the mean time to gradual the unfold of a virus that has killed greater than 250,000 Americans.

“We are not defenseless against COVID-19,” stated US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Robert Redfield means again in July. “Cloth face coverings are one of the most powerful weapons we have to slow and stop the spread of the virus — particularly when used universally within a community setting. All Americans have a responsibility to protect themselves, their families, and their communities.”

Ricketts’ argument seems to be that mandating mask-wearing would imply that individuals would not comply. (“They create resistance.”) But the entire cause we’re on this mess of a 3rd surge of the virus is BECAUSE folks do not put on masks when they need to. That’s the entire level!

So is Ricketts arguing that if he points a masks mandate much more folks wouldn’t put on masks? That appears, uh, unlikely? Since, in spite of everything, for those who had been already carrying a masks when applicable, it appears bizarre that you’d immediately cease doing it as a result of Ricketts points a masks mandate? And for those who weren’t carrying a masks earlier than, perhaps you would not put one on after a mandate? But some folks assuredly would — for concern of being penalized for not doing so, proper?

In brief: The “resistance” is already there in the case of mask-wearing. (That reality is at the least partly attributable to President Donald Trump turning mask-wearing right into a political subject quite than solely a public well being necessity.) The concept that extra folks wouldn’t put on a masks if Ricketts (or every other governor) stated they needed to is solely not borne out by information (or logic.)

Speaking of mask-wearing — or not — Ricketts is mired in his personal controversy relating to a video posted by an worker at an Omaha sports activities bar earlier this week wherein the governor is proven mask-less. (The worker, Karina Montanez, was subsequently fired for breaking the corporate’s social media insurance policies.)
A spokesperson for Ricketts informed a neighborhood Fox affiliate that “the Governor was wearing a mask when entered and exited the establishment,” including: “The Governor removes his mask temporarily for pictures and did so that evening. The Governor also removed his mask when sitting down at the establishment. The state does not require people to wear masks when seated in bars or restaurants.”
The level right here is that politicians lead by instance — whether or not they imply to or not. Modeling finest practices — carrying a masks! — is what leaders ought to do, whether or not or not they’re technically adhering to the present guidelines of their respective states. (See: Newsom, Gavin.)

And extra broadly, Ricketts’ logic as to why he’s immune to a masks mandate is totally illogical. At a second of disaster like this one, politics (and the need to be in step with previous positions) must exit the window. This is, fairly actually, about life and dying. Politicians like Ricketts must get that.

Be First to Comment

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    %d bloggers like this: