To the editor: Eye-opening discussion over masking in Chester

Last Wednesday’s select board meeting with public discussion on the mask mandate was truly eye-opening! It’s difficult to listen to the same theme from so many people, “My personal freedom is more important than yours.” Whatever happened to taking care of your neighbor with regard to public health? Wearing a mask is such a simple thing to do – it keeps your germs from me, and mine from reaching you. It’s not perfect or forever – it’s just until the worst is over. It’s a simple sacrifice that apparently many in Chester seem unwilling to make.

Contradictions and Illogic:

An owner of a local grocery spoke out against a mask mandate because his clerks would have to enforce it. Yet, he has no problem with a sign on the doors to his establishment: “NO SHIRT, NO SHOES, NO SERVICE.” Who enforces that rule? Why not simply add “NO MASKS” to it?

A woman asked the Select Board to enforce the speed limit on North Street for people’s safety, yet was opposed to a mask mandate to keep people safe.

Many of the business owners who spoke seemed fearful of losing customers if they required them to wear a mask. For them it isn’t about public safety, it’s purely a business decision. We all have a choice and mine is that I will NOT shop in an establishment that does not require a mask so that I might feel safe. I don’t think I’m the only one who feels that way.

Can’t we get through this difficult time without jeopardizing the health of our friends and neighbors? Can we say: “Your health is as important as my personal freedom.

Stay safe, wear a mask – it won’t kill you. But COVID might!

Kathy Pellett


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Filed Under: CommentaryLetters to the Editor

About the Author:

RSSComments (7)

Leave a Reply | Trackback URL

  1. Don Dalton says:

    Refusing to wear a masks “makes no more sense than refusing to wear seat belts to protest the price of gasoline.”

    Not a great analogy. Here’s a better one:

    What if health authorities came out and said that everyone should take tranquilizers in the morning to keep society safe from violence? And what if many physicians and scientists argued against that, but those physicians and scientists were labelled as spreading “misinformation” and censored? There would be studies showing increased car accidents, etc., from tranquilizers but these studies would be labelled, again, as misinformation. FB would censor people who spoke out, as would Twitter and YouTube. You’d never hear about these studies on the nighty news.

    Would you take your tranquilizers “for the greater good”? Or would you protest what you knew was questionable science?

    My argument isn’t so much about masks. It’s about the right, even the necessity, to question the narrative. If the narrative is sound then it’ll be able to stand on its own. But if, like the narrative of “take your tranquilizers,” it’s not quite right, then with open debate we’d soon figure it out.

    Right now medical debate is being censored and we’re being told that those who disagree with the dominant narrative are spreading misinformation. They may be right. But, doctors are literally being fired for opening their mouths. Is this right? Open dialog is essential in any free society. We can handle it.

  2. Don Dalton says:

    Masks have everything to do with doctors practicing outside the mainstream if those doctors are the ones with the correct scientific ideas who are being actively suppressed and censored by the mainstream. And, they are.

    In that case, wearing a mask is like bringing a slingshot to a gunfight. Why not go with the real guns: early treatment of Covid-19 to prevent serious Covid? Two doctors in California did it and wrote a book, “Overcoming the Covid Darkness” (Tyson and Fareed.) Yet everywhere, this idea of early treatment is being brutally suppressed. Doctors– educated doctors, with real MD degrees– have to go to court to defend their right to practice medicine as they see fit. What’s up with that? When have we ever done that before on such a large scale?

    Some might refuse to wear a mask to defend their freedoms: not such a terrible idea. We should be tolerant of them and even celebrate that they’re being vigilant, so I applaud the Chester board on their moderation. After all, if your mask works, you’re OK, right? Others might refuse to support the dominant narrative which has very confused, even fraudulent, science to support it. For example, the published, peer-reviewed study in The Lancet maligning a certain early-treatment drug. Problem? The study was a complete fabrication and had to be retracted. It wasn’t that it was a bad study: the supposed trials never even existed. What? And peer-reviewed? Many more odd things like that, that you don’t hear about on the nightly news. We should be hearing of these things.

    If we’d simply allow doctors to speak freely instead of muzzling them we’d go a long way toward getting out of Covid. Vaccines don’t seem to be helping: Israel has one of the highest vaccination rates and yet cases and deaths are soaring. I think it’s time we all started asking some hard questions and have an open dialog instead of censoring supposed “misinformation.” We’re all smart enough to sort things out for ourselves without the censors telling us what we can and can’t hear.

    So yes, I wear a mask when I have to and I try to be respectful of others. On the other hand, if I can get away without wearing one, I will. Why? It’s a protest: I absolutely do not go along with the dominant Covid treatment narrative because it’s a scientific shambles, and even the extremes of publishing fraudulent studies are being thrown out there to defend it.

  3. Raymond Makul says:

    Wearing of masks to reduce virus transmission has nothing to do with doctors practicing out of the mainstream.

    Makes no more sense than refusing to wear seat belts to protest the price of gasoline.

  4. Don Dalton says:

    My suggestion is that the people in Chester who go around without masks aren’t selfish and they aren’t blinded by “liberty.” What they know is that early treatment for Covid-19 is being suppressed: of this there’s absolutely no doubt. We’re told there’s no science behind early treatment yet there is; hundreds of doctors throughout our country are treating Covid patients early and with success, but they have to run from the media (which endlessly persecutes them), the medical boards, the pharmaceutical associations, and the hospitals. This is the most bizarre medical situation many of us have ever witnessed. A doctor in Maine, Meryl Nass, temporarily lost her license and has to undergo a psychiatric exam. Her crime? She dared to treat Covid early with drugs that have been used safely for decades.

    Never in medical history have we had the tools to treat a disease early yet refused to use them. Never before have we said: well, we could treat this infectious disease now, but let’s give it a week and see what happens.

    It’s not really about masks. It’s about the narrative. People who refuse to go along with the dominant narrative as expressed by Dr. Fauci know that something deeply disturbing is happening, and that this narrative makes no sense because the real solution is early treatment of Covid-19. The doctors who went to medical school and learned how to read medical papers and who treat patients and who use early treatment despite widespread and irrational opposition do this not because they’re crazy right-wing conspiracy theorists and not because they want to lose their jobs, but because they know this really is the right thing to do and the real way out of the pandemic. This is how we save lives.

    Two doctors in California treated 7,000 Covid patients with no deaths, and they did this with early treatment, and they wrote a book about it. They were hounded every step of the way by those who don’t want early treatment. The $64,000 question is, why not?

  5. Raymond Makul says:

    There is no evidence that “no mask” is more effective at impeding virus transmission than a properly worn mask. Nothing in this world is 100 percent effective. But it is a leap of logic to suggest that something less than 100 percent effective is the same as 0 percent effective, and therefore not worth doing at all.

    The objective is reducing rates of viral transmission.

  6. Stuart Lindberg says:

    It would be helpful if the “government tyranny” crowd would all do a deeper dig into the real science behind wearing face masks. A paper or cloth mask offers no protection against Covid 19.(Read Dr. Fauci’s emails.) An N 95 offers limited protection if it is professionally fitted and worn properly. These masks are one use only. They will accumulate and grow bacteria leading to another set of respiratory problems. If you want a gas mask that will stop Covid 19 and every nasty virus every created by man you can buy an Evolution 5000 gas mask with a 40mm Nato
    NBC filter and tactical bag for about 229 dollars.

  7. Raymond Makul says:

    Great letter, Kathy.

    The “personal freedom” crowd should all move to New Hampshire where they are “free” to drive without insurance or seat belts, and ride motorcycles without helmets. Chester seems to grow more dysfunctional, day by day.

    Some people don’t seem to get it that communicable disease is communicable, and I don’t want yours.