Governor Evers “Resists” Mask Mandate

Why is our media having such a hard time with this?

MADISON — Racine and Green Bay joined Madison and Milwaukee as Wisconsin cities that passed mandates requiring people to wear masks in certain public settings, though Gov. Tony Evers has resisted issuing a statewide order like those in place in many nearby states.

More than half of states have statewide mask mandates, including Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota, which announced its on Wednesday, July 22.

[…]

Even as more local governments enact their own mask ordinances, creating a patchwork of mask requirements across the state, Evers has not issued a statewide mandate. The first-term Democrat said earlier this month he was unlikely to enact such a mandate because the Conservative-controlled Wisconsin Supreme Court struck down his “safer at home” order in May. That did not include a mask requirement, but the court said Evers overstepped his authority by requiring most non-essential businesses to close during the start of the outbreak.

As Evers said, HE DOES NOT HAVE TO POWER TO ISSUE A MASK MANDATE. What he can do, if he chose to, is advocate for a statewide mask mandate and work with the legislature to pass a law mandating masks. That is constitutional. I would oppose it, but that is how it should happen, if at all. So what the reporters should be asking Evers, if they are so fired up to mandate masks, is “why aren’t you working with the legislature to pass a mask mandate?” Or, “would you sign a bill mandating masks if the legislature passed it?”

The reporter’s insistence that Evers can just issue a mandate from his office is either offensive or stupid – depending on whether you think the reporter actually understands how a representative republic works.

28 Responses to Governor Evers “Resists” Mask Mandate

  1. Pat says:

    The reporter should be hounding the people with all the power. And that ain’t Evers.

  2. Jason says:

    >And that ain’t Evers.

    He sure found that out the hard way huh?  Must have been a bit embarassing!

  3. jjf says:

    Pick a possibility:

    Because the WisGOP don’t care – yet.  Will they, when it hits closer to home?

    Because the WisGOP wants a bunch of unrelated hand-outs and concessions in exchange for a mask mandate?

     

  4. Owen Owen says:

    Or, like me, because they simply disagree that a mask mandate is necessary, prudent, or the role of state government. People can just disagree, can’t they?

  5. Jason says:

    >People can just disagree, can’t they?

    The weak minded don’t understand that nuance Owen.

     

  6. jjf says:

    Considering that the senate health committee hasn’t met at all during the pandemic, I think they don’t really care.

  7. Owen Owen says:

    Because meeting = caring? Whatever.

  8. Merlin says:

    No, no, no. You must be seen caring. The efficacy of that caring is irrelevant.

  9. MjM says:

    Health officials around the world, and in Wisconsin, have pointed to wearing masks as one of the most effective ways to slow the spread of the virus.

    Odd.  Just a few months ago they all said the opposite.  Even the revered Dr. Fraudski.

    Yes, pull that lung-moistened snot-drenched warped Walmart “medical” rag that you’ve had in your pocket for two days and snap it on your face before you go.  Then reach for the door/gas pump/grocery cart handle.

    You’ll be protecting the masses, for sure.

    This is hilarious:

    (g) Any individual actually engaged in: exercising in a gym or other similar indoor facility, so long as physical separation of not less than six (6) feet is maintained and the individual wears a face covering at all times when not actually engaged in exercising.   – Green Bay Mask Mandate Exemption

    You can sweat yer arse off and breath like a fire spitting dragon all over the place while on your go-nowhere bike but as soon as you stop pedaling you must immediately mask up because THAT is only when the CCPvirus will escape your oropharynx.

    Science.

  10. dad29 says:

    Is there someone more expert than “health officials around the world,” whoever they might be?

    How about the authors of New England Journal of Medicine article who actually sign their names?

    We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.

    –May 21, 2020

    See:  https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372

  11. jjf says:

    Looks like the word “care” set you off.  Too much like admitting that wearing a mask protects others, and that we can’t talk about that lest we seem weak?

    How would you like to phrase it differently?  During this pandemic they couldn’t think of anything to meet about.  But let’s talk about how the WisGOP really wants to work with Evers, or that if Evers wants a path to new ideas, he has to work with the WisGOP.

    MjM, not “science.”  Politics.  How far do you think we’d have to dig in order to find whose personal interest in a health club was addressed by that clause?

  12. Jason says:

    See Owen, the weak minded just keep plugging along with no idea what everyone else is talking about.

  13. jjf says:

    And Dad29, if you follow the “Correspondence” link at right, you’ll find those same authors say:

    We understand that some people are citing our Perspective article (published on April 1 at NEJM.org)1 as support for discrediting widespread masking. In truth, the intent of our article was to push for more masking, not less. It is apparent that many people with SARS-CoV-2 infection are asymptomatic or presymptomatic yet highly contagious and that these people account for a substantial fraction of all transmissions. Universal masking helps to prevent such people from spreading virus-laden secretions, whether they recognize that they are infected or not.

    And more…

    We therefore strongly support the calls of public health agencies for all people to wear masks when circumstances compel them to be within 6 ft of others for sustained periods.

  14. Jason says:

    >asymptomatic or presymptomatic yet highly contagious and that these people account for a substantial fraction of all transmissions

    And where is that proven?  I remember WHO having a kerfuffle because someone used real talk and not PC talk about how asymptomitic transmission is “rare”.   Maybe they actually used “extremely rare”?  I can’t remember anymore, things change daily.

  15. Jason says:

    Hell Foust, I went looking for myself, thanks Leroy for being lazy and telling me instead to do my own work.

     

    https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/09/who-comments-asymptomatic-spread-covid-19/

     

    >‘We don’t actually have that answer yet’: WHO clarifies comments on asymptomatic spread of Covid-19

    So, Johnny, you might want to call the WHO and let them know that they have indeed found the answer on asymptomatic spread.  You might get some of that award.  Congrats.

  16. Jason says:

    Oh and for further clarity, I just checked, your statement was published June 3rd, mine Published June 9th.   Looks like you missed your chance and the WHO doesn’t actually know just how contagious asymptomatic carriers are.  See, it’s clear as shit, we might as well shut down everything and wear plastic bags over ourselves… right?

  17. jjf says:

    Two minutes and then four minutes, Le Roi.  He held back his urges! And the independent researching kept coming.  Google for what you want to find!

  18. Jason says:

    So you can’t answer.  Just like always.  Troll away.

  19. Jason says:

    >Google for what you want to find!

    John Foust is wrong more than he’s right, it’s trending!

  20. Le Roi du Nord says:

    jjf:

    No self control.  None.

  21. Jason says:

    Troll 2 has entered the chat.

  22. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    the liberal media seems to be crying…

  23. jjf says:

    I guess it depends on which dictionary you’re using when you type “crying.”

  24. dad29 says:

    Just one little problem:  the essay from which I quoted was dated 5/21/20–meaning that it was NOT published on 4/1/20.

  25. Le Roi du Nord says:

    “This article was published on April 1, 2020, at NEJM.org.”

  26. jjf says:

    Le Roi, I think his “one little problem” is that he pointed to a pro-mask article.  I hope he’s taken to wearing a mask when he’s out and about at the range!

  27. Jason says:

    My scientists disagree with your scientists. Neither troll can answer that one, only parse timestamps like little bitches.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.