I think it’s really funny that he didn’t get tested for the virus nor has he had an antibody test yet, but he is so sure that he had it.

But (and I hate to say this), there are these two quoted ideas from him in the article that strike me as logically sound:

1. if someone had a confirmed positive virus test and later a confirmed positive antibody test, they are not a risk for at least 8-10 months (as far as we know, in a literal sense), so it is nearly pointless to ask those people to do (or abstain from) things for the sole purpose of risk aversion, with the only possible exceptions being role-modeling purposes or to avoid the hassle of creating a legally-enforced antibody passport system
2. if we are taking certain measures for the protection of life, we should take as many measures as possible, including closures of gyms, bars, clubs, and churches, which I agree should all be closed, even with a mask

I already know #1 isn’t logistically feasible to act on because of the comparatively weak antibody tests, the sheer number of unreported cases, the unimaginable man hours it would take to police such a system, and more than anything else, the dbags who would lie in order to get a mask exemption, so while logically sound, it could never happen.

And #2 is literally the opposite of what this dude and his group wants, and when he suggests such a thing it is being suggested uncharitably and somehow to suggest that defeatist attitude of “if we can’t get a 100% solution, we must give up on any and all solutions,” which sucks.

I guess I just had to plot it out verbally. But as it stands, preventing droplet and airborne virus spray and reducing droplet and airborne virus inhalation are the two most successful things we have in prevention goals, and masks are the cheapest and easiest methodology to those ends (more so than a million plexiglas shields or moving everything 12 feet away and out-of-doors. Fact is that we are going to be in masks for another 12-18 months.