Why this Gweilo doesn’t have a facemask (or gun)

If we were to apply the logic used against gun rights in the US to facemasks, the world would be a safer place.

“If you wear a face mask, you’re theoretically using a mask that could have been used by a healthcare worker who has closer contact with people who are sick. I used to be a healthcare worker. Former colleagues are risking their lives and dying amid shortages of masks and other protection… [But] if I’m going on a grocery run, I’ll wear one...because I’m scared that Hong Kong People might target me verbally and it might become violent.”

This is what a friend told me when we were discussing the latest in a stream of articles about self-centered expats (often referred to as gweilo, or ghosts) not wearing face masks in Hong Kong. As part of this demographic (i.e. a certified gweilo, living in Hong Kong, no face mask), I’m struck by the often narrow-minded discourse on this issue where the stigmatizing of individuals or, in this case, a group of people is cloaked by words like “community”, “responsibility” and “courtesy”.

The American writer Shirley Jackson wrote: “Fear is the relinquishment of logic, the willing relinquishing of reasonable patterns. We yield to it or we fight it, but we cannot meet it halfway. So let’s talk logically - about guns.

Don’t we all love to argue against Americans who support gun rights? We’ve all heard their arguments in favor of this freedom that is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the US Constitution: (I) Guns do not kill; people do, (II) citizens have the right to defend themselves and others, and (III) personal possession of firearms asserts the sovereignty of the people over potential government tyranny.

Fear is the relinquishment of logic, the willing relinquishing of reasonable patterns.

While most of us may disagree with the right to bear arms, there are valid points to be made in favor of the pro-gun argument. In an ideal world, where all gun owners are well trained, rational, and ethical all the time, owning guns should not be an issue. A place where highly skilled angelic gun owners defend themselves and others would be a safer place than the world we live in today. And indeed, if the government were to turn on its people, there would be more of a resistance if everyone had guns.

The counter argument, of course, is that the ideal world of responsible gun use doesn’t exist and can never come to be. While limiting gun ownership to law enforcement and the military might leave some people at higher risk, statistics show that such restrictions are for the greater good. Even though there have been instances of soldiers going on mass shootings and policemen gunning down unarmed citizens, highly trained individuals are more likely to use these weapons properly and responsibly in defense of civilians. Consider the accidental gun deaths in the US.

Let's imagine for a moment that there is a shortage of guns (ridiculous, I know) and there was anarchy on the streets. If you had a gun - and you were not a lethal Special Forces operative  - wouldn’t it be logical for you to give your weapon to those on the front line who are taking the biggest risk but also know what they are doing? 

Now, apply this same logic to facemasks.

A facemask is a tool that (depending on the model) regulates what particles a user can emit into and absorb from the air. In Hong Kong, there are three common arguments in favor of wearing them: (I) It is better to be safe than sorry, (II) they will protect wearers and their family member from infection, and (III) it is a social courtesy that encourages others to trust you when you are out in public or are in an enclosed space.

If I’m going to go for a grocery run I’ll wear one...because I’m scared that they might target me verbally and it might become violent.

There are valid points to support this line of argument. (I) When worn properly, facemasks can stop the user from emitting droplets carrying the corona virus into the air. Moreover, droplets from infected people cannot land directly on the area around your eyes, nose and mouth. (II) This lowers the risk of infection and logically makes it a safer environment for your friends and family (whether you live together or not). Finally, (III) by wearing a face mask, you are decreasing the chances of spreading the infection and showing that you are mindful of those around you.

There is a striking resemblance between the arguments for the right to own a gun and the need to wear a facemask. Both objects are tools that do not endanger people unless they are improperly and irresponsibly used. A used mask has absorbed inside and out potentially dangerous contaminated particles. It is essentially “loaded” and could harm people if not handled properly.

Numerous times, I have seen people around Hong Kong touching the front and inside of their masks, folding them, playing with them, putting them below their mouths or under their chin, laying them down on tables or next to food, re-using them, not fitting them properly, and the list of mask transgressions goes on. Are you guilty of any of these no-nos?

A used mask has absorbed inside and out potentially dangerous contaminated particles. It is essentially “loaded” and could harm people if not handled properly.

According to my medical sources, it isn’t scientifically proven that wearing facemasks make a substantial difference in curbing infections. They confirmed, however, that categorically, once a facemask is taken off, it should be discarded immediately and properly. The general rule is that you touch the earloops of a mask only twice - when you put it on and when you take it off.

In an ideal world where everyone uses facemasks correctly and their supply is abundant everywhere, the whole world including Hong Kong will be more safe. But, based on my experience, most people are not well trained to use facemasks. And even if masks are now easily available in Hong Kong, there may be severe shortages elsewhere.

Let’s imagine for a moment that there is a shortage of facemasks around the world and anarchy is hitting the streets. If you had a facemask - and you weren’t a trained clinician - would it not be logical to pass them on to those (in Hong Kong or wherever) who are risking their lives to protect people like us, their families and friends, and who know what they are doing?

It is my communal responsibility and social courtesy to do everything in my power to ensure that these heroes have the gear they need to stay safe.

One day, I might contract Covid-19 and could be wheeled into an ICU. A clinician with protective gear will stand over me and hook me up to a respirator to save my life. It is my communal responsibility and social courtesy to do everything in my power to ensure that these heroes have the gear they need to stay safe.

That is why this gweilo washes his hands, sneezes in his armpit, socially distances, and does not wear a facemask. If this broader view of social responsibility upsets those who profess to practice it (but are really just looking out for themselves) or those who criticize individuals or groups of people for not showing solidarity with and courtesy to their fellows, so be it.

The opinion expressed in this article is mine alone and does not necessarily represent the view  of my employer.