In my previous post, I basically said that wearing masks post vaccination is "living in fear". Some people responded by comparing wearing masks with safety belts in cars, applying sunscreen in the sun and wearing cycling helmets while cycling. I still stand by my statement; that wearing masks 24/7 post vaccination is not necessary and that most people still wear them out of fear.
Safety precaution is all about "proportionate response". The key word is "proportionate". "Sense of proportion". Look it up in the dictionary.
In Malaysia, on average, there are 7 deaths from road accidents daily. That is more than 2,500 deaths per year from road accidents. Do we ban cars? No. Because the benefit of cars and vehicular transportation far outweigh its potential danger. We set reasonable speed limits and safety precaution like safety belts. But here is the thing. You only have to wear safety belts ONLY when you are using/riding a car. If you do not like wearing safety belts, you can choose not to ride a car. You can ride a motor bike or public transport. Wearing safety belts has been proven to greatly save lives in an accident. The probability of survival in an accident is high when you wear safety belt. This is proven. Hence, safety belt is an acceptable "inconvenience" considering the high safety benefit compared against high probability of death when not wearing them.
Similar argument for cycling helmets. Although cycling helmets are designed for cycling athletes who has to cycle at top speed along rough terrain. If you are just cycling slowly for recreation and short distance travel, you do not have to wear them, in my opinion. Even if you fall at slow speed, I do not think you would break your head. You would be able to respond and break your fall. Again, it goes back to risks and benefit. Cost benefit analysis. Proportionate response. Snail pace cycling habit versus athletic speed.
As for sunscreen. Only white people need to wear them. Dark skinned people living in the tropics generally do not need them. Again, proportionate response. Nobody is forcing anyone to wear sunscreen when out in the sun. You decide based on your own circumstances and your own risk appetite. Your own cost benefit analysis and risk appetite.
However, mandating everyone to wear mask 24/7, especially post vaccination is a policy borne out of fear. In the beginning, when we do not have global data, wearing masks make sense. In the absence of complete data, we err on the side of caution. But now we do have global data. The virus only affects about 1% of the population. Even then, out of that 1%, not all will die. Most will have low to mild symptoms. Most will survive. Even those who die, mostly they die from secondary complication.
This is what I mean by proportionate response. Mandating masks for 100% of the people for something that only greatly affects less than 1% of the population is insane. Again, risk and benefit. Sense of proportion.
About 90% of Asians are lactose intolerant. Do we ban milk?
Less than 1% of the adult population worldwide is gluten intolerant. Do we ban wheat flour? Well, why not? The statistic is the same as the virus. Less than 1% is affected.
Less than 1% is affected by CoVid19 and we mandate masks, but yet we do not ban wheat flour even though also less than 1% is affected by gluten intolerant. About 90% of Asians is lactose intolerance and yet we still let milk and milk products flood the market. Why?
This is what I mean by proportionate response. When we response out of proportion to the danger, it is almost always, because of fear. People who jump and scream when encountering cockroaches, mice and small bugs. They are responding out of proportion to the actual "dangers" posed by cockroaches, mice and small bugs. They are reacting out of fear.
In my industry (oil, gas & petrochemical), we have a concept called ALARP. It means "as low as reasonably practicable". We eliminate and reduce hazards as low as reasonably practicable. The key word here is "reasonably practicable". What is reasonable? According to cost and benefit standards as agreed with the industry practitioners and regulators.
Everything has to be within reasonable risks, not zero risks. Otherwise you would be disabled, cannot do anything, cannot drive, cannot walk, cannot swim, cannot process chemicals, cannot anything.
It is the same with CoVid19. It cannot be zero CoVid19 cases or zero death.
Do you remember the original objective of the lockdown? It is not to achieve zero death. It is so that the number of cases are within the capacity of the healthcare facilities. This means some people would still fall sick and maybe die, but there are enough hospitals and doctors and nurses and medical equipment and morgues to handle the cases. They are not overwhelmed.
Well, the number of cases post vaccination suggest this is the case.
People who come into contact with positive people also do not necessarily need treatment. Nor do they need to be quarantined.
So, what is the proportionate response to post vaccinated world?
Back to normal.
The old normal.
No more masks. No more contact tracing. Otherwise you are just living in fear.
Salam.
