Mask Madness in Unfriendly Skies
This article is intended for those who have already researched the science regrading mask wearing and concluded that the weight of it runs counter to the conclusion that the public should wear masks as protection from COVID-19. (A wide array of scientific information indicating that universal mask wearing is unnecessary, and that any potential benefits from it are outweighed by its potential risks, has already been cited ad nauseam by other authors recently and will not be repeated here.) In other words, this article is intended for those who support the public’s right to live unmasked.
The purpose of this article is to issue a warning to them about flying, based upon my recent air travel experience. A second purpose is to discuss an important reason that consumers should withdraw their support from businesses that strictly apply government mask dictates, who are essentially acting as an enforcement arm of the state—namely to discourage the businesses from acting as enforcers of an even more oppressive health-related measure likely headed our way, government proof of vaccination dictates.
Airlines aren’t consistently applying mask requirements and the public is walking into a crapshoot from which they can’t extract themselves upon boarding an airplane.
Before discussing my recent flight experience, it’s worthwhile to review my experience with non-airline businesses since governments began recommending or requiring masks. I live in a jurisdiction with a mask order in effect and I’ve observed that most local businesses leave customers alone who wear masks covering only their mouths with their noses exposed, or wear masks resting only on their chins. Many also leave the completely unmasked alone. (There is no need to waste the readers’ time by reviewing the obvious right of private businesses to require masks if they wish to do so. No reasonable person believes that any significant percentage of the businesses that began requiring masks in 2020 did so of their own volition or would have done so in the absence of government pressure or force.)
Businesses face obvious challenges in trying to navigate both government mask dictates and the economic need to maintain customer satisfaction. In many parts of the country, flat out defiance of a mask order by a business will result in certain closure by the government. Some businesses are enforcing mask orders strictly, going about the task “with bells on” (“robust enforcers”). Others are navigating these tricky waters by only partially or superficially complying (“lax enforcers”).
Of course, regardless of the practices set by a business’s management (“robust enforcer” or “lax enforcer”), government mask dictates can make employees, who aren’t always within the presence of management, feel personally deputized to control their fellow human beings’ breathing. Hence, whenever mask dictates are in effect, patrons of businesses, including those medically unable to wear a mask, can potentially encounter problems from employees zealously “policing” mask wearing.
Most businesses are readily escapable by patrons. However, not all are and, based upon my recent air travel experience, my first since mask tyranny hit the US, I’ve decided that I’ll never again enter a business from which I can’t quickly escape while government mask dictates are in effect, including that I won’t board an airplane.
My recent roundtrip flight was over two hours long, on the same airline for both the outbound and returning flights, and I sat in an aisle seat during both flights.
During my first flight, I kept my nose outside of my mask in order to fully breathe and the attendants left me alone, as well as others with their noses exposed, who were plentiful from my view. However, my return flight was staffed with different attendants and I was subjected to very different behavior from them.
Throughout the second flight, the attendants repeatedly whacked my shoulder when passing and sternly told me to put my mask over my nose. I repeatedly did so, but simply couldn’t fully breathe with it over my nose, non-stop, for over two hours, and felt that I couldn’t continually leave it there. I have low blood pressure and another medical condition. I don’t know if these conditions played a role in what I was experiencing. If either condition did play a role, I’m certainly in good company, as personal stories abound in society by those stating that they have medical conditions that have been triggered, worsened and/or exacerbated by mask wearing, and that mask wearing is difficult or unbearable for them.
The flight attendants’ shoulder whacks and demands didn’t indicate that they were contemplating whether I had a medical condition that impacted my mask wearing ability. Furthermore, their whacks indicated a lack of belief that I might be harboring a dangerous infectious disease, as they repeatedly chose to touch me. Of course, airlines seating passengers three to a row, which often causes complete strangers to have touching body parts for hours, also screams of a lack of belief that passengers are exposed to significant infectious disease risks from each other. (During both my outbound and return flight, I was seated in a full row and did experience arm contact, at times, with the middle seat passenger.)
My traveling companion, who sat several rows ahead of me in a window seat on the second flight, reported to me postflight that she wore her mask below her nose for the latter half of the flight and that no flight attendant addressed her about this. Surely, if the attendants believed that all noses had to be covered to prevent a true health risk, they would have vigorously applied their mask “policing” powers to passengers in all columns of seats.
During my flight, I didn’t complain about the flight attendants’ repeated swats to my shoulder. Surely, had I complained about this, I would have been reminded about the terms regarding masks that I’d agreed to when purchasing my ticket, and complaining may have earned me grief from “the authorities” upon deplaning.
One attempting to make logical sense of the scenario on my return flight (i.e., a mask required to be continually worn over the nose by me, in an aisle seat, but not my friend in a window seat, while passengers were seated so close that some were touching and flight attendants repeatedly opted to touch my shoulder) will likely experience cognitive dissonance and confusion. None of this makes sense from a health standpoint. At this juncture, Americans have been subjected to so many illogical COVID-19 related requirements, pushed by government and the businesses adhering to them, that they’ve lost count. One non-airline example of this is the rule in many jurisdictions that restaurant patrons must wear masks while walking to their tables, but can immediately remove them upon being seated. Life under COVID-19 rule feels eerie and surreal, as if logic and reason are slipping further and further away, into the ether, and most of us are politely pretending not to notice.
It should also be noted that the airline I flew upon only exempts those under two years old from its mask requirement and, unfortunately, I had to witness the heartbreaking effect of this upon a child. For about ten minutes as we sat on the runway prior to take-off, the boy, who appeared to be about four years old, had an emotional exchange with his mother about his mask. He sobbed throughout it and repeatedly begged to remove the mask and she kept barking back, “You keep that mask on!” The scene was a sickening reminder that mask requirements are having devastating impacts upon the young.
By withdrawing our patronage from businesses that act as “robust enforcers” of government mask dictates, we’ll discourage them from also agreeing to act as the state’s enforcement arm for impending proof of vaccination dictates.
As I sat on my return flight, pondering my predicament, I concluded that the only power I have with respect to airline mask requirements is to abandon air travel altogether until they end, and that I’ll do so.
Vocally withdrawing my business from airlines due to mask requirements may serve a purpose greater than simply sparing me hours of compromised breathing on flights. If enough customers have “had enough” with businesses who act as “robust enforcers” of government mask dictates, and loudly withdraw their patronage en masse from them for this reason, this may forestall even worse medical dictates heading our way. It may cause the businesses to think twice before agreeing to act as enforcers of proof of vaccination requirements which are likely imminent.
Many medical freedom advocates believe that the US government, acting in concert with its Big Pharma cronies, will push vaccination requirements upon the entire population, both children and adults, in the near future and that this will be accomplished not through outright federal mandates, but rather primarily through government proof of vaccination “recommendations” applied by businesses (i.e., proof of vaccination required to enter businesses or to use the services of businesses, as well as to be employed by them). Many consider the widespread business mask requirements in 2020, which were largely prompted by government recommendations, to be the dry run for this. One discussion of this view can be found in video of Patrick Wood’s October 17, 2020 interview of Dr. Sherri Tenpenny for the Ohio Chapter for the Citizens for Free Speech, beginning at approximately 48 minutes.
Members of the public who want to head off a future in which proof of vaccination is required to engage in life in any meaningful way outside of their homes should let businesses know, as strongly as possible, two things: 1.) that, whenever possible, they won’t patronize businesses that are cooperating with the government mask dictates; and 2.) that, if out of necessity they must use a business which “officially” requires masks, they will choose a “lax enforcer” over a “robust enforcer” whenever possible.
Resources: Website with articles and/or videos discussing scientific findings related to masks
●The website of author/journalist Jeremy R. Hammond
●The website of author/journalist Bretigne Shaffer
(TLB) republished this article with permission from Ron Paul and our sincere gratitude to Dr. Paul for making it available to our (TLB) Family.
We recommend other great articles from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.
Stay tuned to …
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.