In order to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings, the current reality requires each author who writes on the topic of Covid to have an explanatory statement (a disclaimer, if you will) about his own attitude towards this problem. So, I acknowledge Covid-19 disease, the existence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, its contagion and its dangers. However, this does not mean that I automatically support every single government order to fight the pandemic.
From today, according to the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers, masks must be worn again on public transport.
In this regard, a small excerpt from Viktor Suvorov's book "Fiasco" (Облом): "Khrushchev suddenly appeared in front of the general. He studied the underwear-clad general for a long time, and then pointed strictly at the white stool. "Sit down." It was something in between an invitation and a command. Any boss, be it a commander of a crew of three, or a Supreme Commander to whom millions are subject, is forced to assess the situation before giving an order: will the subordinates do it? If there is the slightest risk of disobedience, it is better to refrain from giving the order.
If they are sure to obey - give the command.
Not sure - shut up. Take your time, invent ruses, look for other methods of influencing, because there is no situation more pathetic than subjects ignoring the commander's order."
Suvorov writes about the situation in Khrushchev's time in the party/army hierarchy and in the modern civil administration, such unconditional obedience to the orders of the leadership is no longer relevant, even more so - it makes cold sweat run down one’s back, but the principles do not change. Failure to comply with the orders of any senior management undermines the authority of that management. Whether it is a government, a work unit or a kindergarten group.
From this point of view, the government's order to wear masks is a relatively risky decision, as there is no guarantee that this requirement will be met. On the other hand, the government does not aim at general support. It is aiming at the section of society that is loyal to it, and by issuing an order that another section of society may not comply with, as if reducing its responsibility for the future developments.
If the pandemic continues to rampage, it will be possible to play innocent and blame the mystical covid-deniers, the non-maskers and other disloyal citizens. We already warned you, but if people do not 100% follow all our recommendations, then, well...? All you can do is shrug. On the other hand, if the pandemic subsides for some reason, then again it will be possible to talk about the correctly chosen strategy. In all cases, the authorities win. Not to mention the economic component of controlling the pandemic, in which many have already found an inexhaustible goldmine.
It is difficult to deny that the correlation between the prevalence of Covid and the wearing or non-wearing of masks is, to say the least, inconclusive. The example of Latvia, where almost no one wore masks, but the level of infections was record low until recently, is an undeniable argument that urges if not to flat-out deny the point of wearing these masks, then at least question it.
Looking at what is happening around the public space, it must be stated that the society is already divided into camps - for and against wearing masks. People tend not to listen to the arguments of the opposite side. This division correlates quite closely with loyalty to the authorities. Whatever is the position of authorities, so is mine. Of course, this division is not absolute, but the connections are obvious. Therefore, it is not worth even starting a discussion about how many of the public use these masks according to the recommendations of medical institutions (after each use it is replaced with a new one) and how many use this mask only for the looks (stuffing it in the pocket after each use until next time). Discussions on whether the mask is a significant factor limiting the pandemic, or whether it is like trying to stop flies using a wire fence are meaningless because everyone only hears what they want to hear. But it's worth talking about something else.
This wearing of masks has gradually evolved from a medically epidemiological issue into a peculiar socio-political phenomenon. The mask becomes a kind of attribute of belonging. Almost like a tie was in the first half of the 20th century. If you go out on the street with a tie (mask), as you can see in the old photos, then in the public hierarchy you seem to stand higher than if you put on a plaid shirt with rolled up sleeves (without a mask).
This new trend was evident during the visit of President of France Emmanuel Macron, when all the "select people", who together with Macron laid flowers at the Freedom Monument and walked the streets of Riga, had modern, even stylish "mouthguards", but "ordinary people" behind the fence was without these "new aristocracy" accessories. It is no wonder that the exclusive mouthguards of popular designers have already appeared, the price of which is comparable to the price of a good dress. Because if you want to be stylish, order a modern mouthguard. It is surprising that Stockmann has not yet given them a 20% discount during "Crazy Days" sales.