ONE FOR THE ROAD
James Deakin
Yesterday, Presidential candidate, Mayor Isko Moreno Domagoso announced that the City of Manila would be the latest city, following Davao, Ormoc and Iloilo, to turn their back on the highly divisive face shield for public use.
Over a year after the IATF made them mandatory in malls, restaurants, buildings and/or crowded areas (all the while creating generations worth of discarded plastics into the oceans and landfills) it turns out that it was all just a recommendation lang pala. One that does not carry a penalty if not complied with. So in effect, it was simply a faith shield. Because that, it seems, was the only thing holding everything together.
I expect that by the time this column gets published, more cities would have either followed suit or seen the light and made an announcement that they will be making it optional soon. At least if they want to retain any ounce of credibility among their constituents. Now I can already read the comments section in my head as I type this. “Better to be safe than sorry! I will continue to wear my face shield until a proper doctor in a white coat says not to” Or my personal favorite, “I would never listen to a social media influencer when it comes to my health and will only trust health professionals.” Yet the irony is that they had to visit my Facebook page to type that on my wall to tell me that they don’t listen to me.
So let me just be clear about a couple of things. Firstly, I agree with them. I know nothing about health care. I would not recommend anyone to get their health advice from me, or people like me, either. But that’s the thing; at the risk of sounding condescending, someone unqualified like me fighting to make something like an unproven face shield optional doesn’t affect you either way. Optional means you are free to wear one if you feel safer or have reasons to. No judgement. To each his own. You don’t even need to explain those reasons to anyone, much less on social media. Stop campaigning for a right you already have.
But the same cannot be said in reverse for the other side, because making something as invasive as a face shield mandatory without public consultation and a lack of science behind it (Senator Sotto did ask Secretary Duque to present the studies that they based the implementation on while he was being questioned about face shields in the senate, and he couldn’t produce any) is something that needs to be publicly challenged and discussed logically by a wide range of voices that have no conflicts of interest in the outcome.
Opinions on this issue, no matter how decorated, cannot be monopolized by one department — in this case the DOH or IATF — because its an imposition on areas that affects many other fields outside their core competence, like, say, the devastating effects it will have on our environment and even the financial burden on those who have not been able to work and earn.
Dismissing any other opinion outside of a few as being unqualified and not allowing them to join the conversation is the height of hubris, especially when the data doesn’t match our reality. Case in point: only two countries have implemented mandatory face shields for their citizens, Peru and the Philippines. Neither have fared any better than the non-face shield republics. In fact, Peru’s health minister announced last month that they have the highest number of COVID-19 deaths per capita than any other country on the planet.
So thank you to the four mayors so far who have removed the blinders (yes, that’s a metaphor) and started allowing common sense to seep in. We have suffered long enough, and while we are still willing to sacrifice to get through this pandemic, none of us want to suffer in vain. We already have more to comply with than almost any other country.
Please be reasonable and logical with your demands. And to those who still don’t get it and insist on fighting for a right that they already have and say that any additional protection, no matter how small, is better than none at all, just know that everything has a net gain if you don’t factor in the consequences. And forcing everyone to endure this based solely on one desired result, whether it be a perceived level of safety or, heaven forbid, profit, is no different in principle and ethics to dynamite fishing.
So I’m glad that some cities are already pushing back and facing the real problem, not just face shielding it. Good job.
James Deakin
Yesterday, Presidential candidate, Mayor Isko Moreno Domagoso announced that the City of Manila would be the latest city, following Davao, Ormoc and Iloilo, to turn their back on the highly divisive face shield for public use.
Over a year after the IATF made them mandatory in malls, restaurants, buildings and/or crowded areas (all the while creating generations worth of discarded plastics into the oceans and landfills) it turns out that it was all just a recommendation lang pala. One that does not carry a penalty if not complied with. So in effect, it was simply a faith shield. Because that, it seems, was the only thing holding everything together.
I expect that by the time this column gets published, more cities would have either followed suit or seen the light and made an announcement that they will be making it optional soon. At least if they want to retain any ounce of credibility among their constituents. Now I can already read the comments section in my head as I type this. “Better to be safe than sorry! I will continue to wear my face shield until a proper doctor in a white coat says not to” Or my personal favorite, “I would never listen to a social media influencer when it comes to my health and will only trust health professionals.” Yet the irony is that they had to visit my Facebook page to type that on my wall to tell me that they don’t listen to me.
So let me just be clear about a couple of things. Firstly, I agree with them. I know nothing about health care. I would not recommend anyone to get their health advice from me, or people like me, either. But that’s the thing; at the risk of sounding condescending, someone unqualified like me fighting to make something like an unproven face shield optional doesn’t affect you either way. Optional means you are free to wear one if you feel safer or have reasons to. No judgement. To each his own. You don’t even need to explain those reasons to anyone, much less on social media. Stop campaigning for a right you already have.
But the same cannot be said in reverse for the other side, because making something as invasive as a face shield mandatory without public consultation and a lack of science behind it (Senator Sotto did ask Secretary Duque to present the studies that they based the implementation on while he was being questioned about face shields in the senate, and he couldn’t produce any) is something that needs to be publicly challenged and discussed logically by a wide range of voices that have no conflicts of interest in the outcome.
Opinions on this issue, no matter how decorated, cannot be monopolized by one department — in this case the DOH or IATF — because its an imposition on areas that affects many other fields outside their core competence, like, say, the devastating effects it will have on our environment and even the financial burden on those who have not been able to work and earn.
Dismissing any other opinion outside of a few as being unqualified and not allowing them to join the conversation is the height of hubris, especially when the data doesn’t match our reality. Case in point: only two countries have implemented mandatory face shields for their citizens, Peru and the Philippines. Neither have fared any better than the non-face shield republics. In fact, Peru’s health minister announced last month that they have the highest number of COVID-19 deaths per capita than any other country on the planet.
So thank you to the four mayors so far who have removed the blinders (yes, that’s a metaphor) and started allowing common sense to seep in. We have suffered long enough, and while we are still willing to sacrifice to get through this pandemic, none of us want to suffer in vain. We already have more to comply with than almost any other country.
Please be reasonable and logical with your demands. And to those who still don’t get it and insist on fighting for a right that they already have and say that any additional protection, no matter how small, is better than none at all, just know that everything has a net gain if you don’t factor in the consequences. And forcing everyone to endure this based solely on one desired result, whether it be a perceived level of safety or, heaven forbid, profit, is no different in principle and ethics to dynamite fishing.
So I’m glad that some cities are already pushing back and facing the real problem, not just face shielding it. Good job.