I am replying to Jack Lewis van den Berg’s reply ("Look at both sides of mask argument," Jan. 27 Gazette) to my letter ("COVID-19 and masks," Dec. 23 Gazette).
First of all, based on science, wearing a mask greatly diminishes the spread of the virus. This means that schools and small and large businesses could reopen sooner. Our economy could recover sooner and there would be fewer deaths. It is a win-win situation. If everybody wore masks, we might not be in our present predicament.
Speaking of freedom of religion, since when does freedom of religion involve harming others? Is driving through a school zone at 100 km/h instead of 30 km/h permissible because you feel it interferes with someone’s freedom? Is breaking into someone’s home OK because it interferes with someone’s freedom? Is driving drunk or buzzed on drugs be allowable because it interferes with someone’s freedom? I am sure the Canadian soldiers who fought for freedom in the Second World War where they had to go against one-metre-thick bunkers where the Germans were armed with machine guns and seeing their friends killed right and left would have gladly traded their situation for a mask. The church I attend follows the rules laid out by the province.
Do you not think that disease control specialists would not go for herd immunity if they thought it was better? By the way, did not Sweden and Briton quickly reversed course when they were trying herd immunity and saw it was starting to be a total disaster. Are people not attending schools, churches and pubs in New Zealand because they quickly put in restrictions to combat COVID-19? How is it that the U.S. has four per cent of the world population but 20 per cent of COVID-19?
Freedom is not harming others, and people who spit or beat up on others who are just trying to do their jobs are selfish bullies.
Emil Guzik, Sturgeon County
