By Brian Voigt
You should be embarrassed. You should be ashamed. You should be planning a special meeting to overturn your ill-formed decision regarding a mask requirement in Waitsfield. You should certainly (re)consider patting yourself on the back for claiming to support the local economy when instead what you’ve done is further burden business owners (and their employees) with policing responsibilities, taking away valuable time and energy from their efforts to continually adapt to an uncertain future. A community (or valleywide) standard could easily have alleviated them of this responsibility. You disregard the advice of the CDC and our town health officer and then claim concern that your decision might drive away consumers/tourists from local businesses/The Valley. What about the consumers that evaluate personal safety/risk based on local guidelines only to see that Waitsfield is not taking this pandemic seriously?
I “virtually” attended Monday’s (July 13) select board meeting and came away less than impressed (again). Comparing the passage of a resolution requiring masks to a path towards communism clearly illustrates (again) that our select board chair is not fit to occupy his position. Voicing a no vote without a hint of justification. Please explain yourself, Mr. Forrest. Hemming and hawing while repeatedly asking questions that have little bearing on the decision at hand. I’d be happy to share a list of resources for you to read, Ms. Mazer, if you’re having a difficult time deciding (based on actual science and not the “science” of public opinion) if a mask requirement would be beneficial for our community.
SO-CALLED DELIBERATION
Every single question asked during that so-called deliberation was the wrong one. Every. Single. One. You want to focus on numbers, let’s do that. Take a look at the southern U.S. They chose not to “believe” in science and instead (and again) placed the value of their economy before that of human life. How are they doing today? Should we emulate their behavior(s)? It’s one thing not to know/understand, and something altogether different when you (we) refuse to learn from our mistakes. I can’t tell from the meeting if the group of you think you have a choice about believing in science, but I can tell you it’s abundantly clear that you do not understand the science of this epidemic. I don’t think you’re qualified to make this decision and appeal to my fellow town residents (visitors and second-home owners) to contact the select board to let them know the error of their ways. Do I want to wear a mask? No, but I do. Do I want life to go back to normal? Sure, but it won’t be just because we want to pretend the virus is behind us. The greatest generation was called to war to defend democracy around the globe. We’re being asked to stay home and on the occasions where we (need to) go out, to wear a mask. Is that really too heavy a lift? Are we so perilously close to communism in our pursuit of public health goals that a mask requirement really is a bridge too far?
There was also significant handwringing about the available data during the select board meeting. Data formatting and interpretation were the primary issues. Did it occur to no one that if you have a question about a dataset that a good place to start would be by contacting the data generator (in this case the Vermont Department of Health) to ask for clarification? Why not invite a subject matter expert (from the state or local medical community) who would focus on the science in support of decision-making versus the emotions that posture as informed insight? You might not like the way the data is presented (when there are fewer than five cases in a town), but it’s not really that complicated, and, for reasons of medical privacy, it really should be presented this way. For what it’s worth, the state Department of Taxes conceals data regarding the Meals and rooms tax expenditures within a town if there are less than 10 reporting entities (e.g., lodging establishments, restaurants). Doesn’t it make sense then that similar or stronger controls are necessary for matters of medical privacy? I’m a quantitative geographer with a PhD and two-plus decades of experience in statistical analysis and computer modeling (don’t worry, it doesn’t impress me either). I don’t believe a casual observer of data (or facts or social media posts) is capable of or qualified to differentiate risk based on one versus three cases in town (for example). In fact, although I have some ideas about how I’d approach that risk analysis with some fancy math and frantic gesticulation, I’m not sure I’d bet my life on the results. It’s more important to know whether the virus is present in the community (it is), and to never assume that just because there aren’t recorded cases in town (or The Valley) that we can pretend to be done with this nuisance and let our guard down.
Fayston and Warren have implemented mask requirements. The CDC and the VT Department of Health have issued guidance encouraging masks. Who should you trust? Hint: Not the select board, none of whom possess a medical background. Waitsfield would be standing alone in its refusal to require masks if it were not for the dedication of our town health officer Fred Messer. Everyone (in town and throughout The Valley) owes Fred a big thank you for taking his charge (our health) seriously and for standing up for what’s right over the objections of the select board. We must remain vigilant in our efforts to combat the spread of the virus. We must insist that our local elected leaders base their decisions on the best available science, not on stale political ideologies and tired excuses about chasing away visitors and damaging the local economy. In short, we need our Waitsfield Select Board to meet this challenge head on with the seriousness it requires and the long-term vision necessary to see us through to the other side.
Voigt lives in Waitsfield.
