Opinion: County Council Quick Rejection of Mask Ordinance Shortsighted

Greg Wilson/Anderson Observer

Anderson County Council, which has generally exhibited strong leadership over the past decade, missed an opportunity on Tuesday when they voted 4-2 against a countywide ordinance requiring masks in unincorporated areas of the county. 

Our county has lagged the rest of the state in COVID-19 testing, yet remains a hot spot for both positive cases and virus-related deaths in South Carolina. 

County leadership, including both the administrator and assistant administrator, have suffered through serious cases of the virus, exhibiting how serious the current situation is here.

To date, Anderson County has reported 2,852 positive cases and 90 deaths from COVID-19, and most of these numbers were posted since July. 

Councilwoman Gracie Floyd introduced the resolution, calling for “all persons entering any Commercial or Public building open within the unincorporated areas of Anderson County with the exceptions noted … must wear a face covering and maintain social distancing where possible while inside the building,”  

“I don’t want you to take chances with your life,” Floyd said. “We have nothing to lose. Not wearing one puts us all in danger.” 

She’s right. 

Councilman Craig Wooten, who also supported the resolution added that it’s unclear why the issue seems to have been politicized given that local and national leaders in both parties have advocated masks ordinances. 

“I represent the area that covers AnMed, and our medical professors they said we’d be better off if we would wear a mask,” said Wooten. “I think we should listen to them.” 

Talk to doctors and nurses working in our local hospitals and health care facilities and listen to their stories. 

The four other council members, Ray Graham was absent Tuesday, voted down the resolution, with only Councilwoman Cindy Wilson offering comments on why she chose to vote not. 

Wilson suggested that the proposed regulation was extreme and would require masks in all situations, which it did not. She also suggested that research was mixed on the efficacy of masks, which runs counter to the latest scientific data on the issue. 

The proposed resolution offered a number of exemptions, including child care facilities; schools; and churches or gymnasiums where social distancing policies are in place; patrons that are actively consuming food and beverages inside a restaurant and/or bar; persons receiving medical treatment; persons actively swimming in an indoor swimming pool. 

The quick dismissal of such requirements indicates either a lack of thorough understanding of the issue or is rooted in the political polarization surrounding face coverings. 

Or perhaps they are listening to those who have suggested such  requirements infringe upon their personal freedom, a defense that rings hollow. 

Where is the outcry over seatbelt laws? Speed limits on roads? Weight limits for vehicles on some bridges? Laws which prohibit smoking?

Greenville and Spartanburg have passed similar ordinances in place, making arguments about enforcement a little disingenuous.  

The reason for such laws is that people don’t always behave in a way that is in their best interest and the best interest of others.

To suggest otherwise, that our individual opinions and options carry more weight that scientific study, is shorted sighted.

The City of Anderson initially declined to join most of the state’s other sizable cities in implementing a requirement to wear a protective mask in at lease some public locations, only to return two weeks later to pass a citywide ordinance which is almost identical to the one council was presented on Tuesday.

Seventeen of South Carolina’s 20 largest cities now require masks in many public places. Many other small towns also have approved similar laws, with most issuing a $25 civil fine for non-compliance. (the county resolution called for escalating fees for multiple infractions, starting at $25 for first offense, $50 for second offense, and $100 for third offense.)

Why is most of the rest of the state passing such laws? It’s because iur friends and neighbors, especially senior citizens and those with health issues are in danger.

There are two main reasons to wear masks. While there is evidence of protection for the wearer, the stronger evidence is that masks protect others from catching an infection from the person wearing the mask.  

Infected people can spread the virus just by talking, and those who are in places where singing is part of the meeting, especially churches and other places with choirs, spread the virus in even more profound ways. 

The longer the exposure the more likely the virus will spread. 

Countries and states which have presented the strictest mask laws have more quickly reduced positive cases of the virus and the resulting deaths.

In China, which already had a culture accustomed to wearing masks, the  study found that in households where all wore face masks indoors as a precaution before they knew anyone who lived there was sick, the risk of transmission was cut by 79 percent. 

Scotland, which has a slightly larger population than South Carolina and is bordered by England, one of the hottest virus spots in the world, with mask requirements and a strong public leadership by First Minister Nicola Spurgeon, who has consistently reminded citizens of the efficacy of social distancing and masks, has reduced positive cases to single digits per day and reported no deaths in almost six weeks. 

The Center for Disease Control has strongly recommended the wearing of masks since the beginning of the pandemic.   

The rhetoric on masks and temperature checks have featured accusations of "trampling constitutional rights" and mask burnings in protest. Some question the science, often referencing some individual doctor, nurse or other “expert” who challenges the bulk of scientific evidence. Others have even suggested masks are dangerous to one's health, a conclusion not supported by research. 

U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams suggested recently the wearing of masks is akin to the effectiveness of any vaccine.  

“Ultimately it is a choice we make, and I hope it’s made based on the best available/current science, and a desire to do all we can to help others and ourselves/our communities,” Adams wrote. “Like vaccines, the more who participate, the greater the impact.”

He’s right, and it would be in the best interest of everyone in Anderson County for local governments to work together on a comprehensive ordinance requiring masks, at least in critical places such as grocery stores and pharmacies across the county.  

Anderson County Council was wrong to outright dismiss such a resolution, especially so quickly and without any suggestion of further consideration (something which has been a hallmark of this council). 

Let’s hope they reconsider joining the rest of the state in efforts to keep our citizens safe and protect the safety of the citizens across Anderson County.