Beck writes of the “symptoms and symbols of risks” that combine in populations to create a “cosmetics of risk.” He suggests that people living in the present moment conceive of risk in terms of the physical tools used to mitigate risk while still “maintaining the source of the filth.” Beck critiques the cosmetics of risk as measures that are not preventive but rather act as a “symbolic industry and policy of eliminating the increase in risks.” I propose that the surgical mask is a symbol that protects from the perception of risk by offering nonprotection to the public while causing behaviours that project risk into the future.
…The birth of the mask came from the realization that surgical wounds need protection from the droplets released in the breath of surgeons.
In the 1919 influenza pandemic, masks were available and weredispensed to populations, but they had no impact on the epidemic curve.3At the time, it was unknown that the influenza organism is nanoscopic and can theoretically penetrate the surgical mask barrier. As recently as 2010, the US National Academy of Sciences declared that, in the community setting, “face masks are not designed or certified to protect the wearer from exposure to respiratory hazards.”
…A number of studies have shown the inefficacy of the surgical mask in household settings to prevent transmission of the influenza virus
…Thus we have the means for a self-perpetuating system: the mask symbolically protects against infection just as it represents fear of that infection.
…We act out our collective anxiety about pandemics by wearing masks even when there isn’t a pandemic,1but wearing masks reinforces the idea of a possible future of pandemic. The problem of affect in political terms is a contagious one: fear spreads among the public, leading to intensification of risk management.
circa 2016
