Quite a year and a half.

 Well, Why driver's licenses? 

Between 1905 (New Hampshire) and 1947 (Texas, where else?) every state in the union enacted laws requiring people who drove self-propelled vehicles to have a driver's license.  For most states, this required a relatively simple test of knowledge of local laws, and an on-the-road test of driving ability.  I got my license at age 16 in Michigan 32 years after its law was adopted in 1919.  (Truth in reporting:  I failed the first driving test, but passed the second time around) I was now deemed a safe enough driver not to endanger other, hapless drivers or pedestrians.  To my knowledge, no one in 2020 questions the need for drivers to have driver's licenses, to protect themselves and others.  The right to drive can lead to some tough results:  Vermont has a lot of drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked, due to DIU (driving under the influence) offenses.  But, most of Vermont is rural, and with no license, residents are effectively homebound.  Yet, no mass protests marches in Montpelier, the capital.  No parade of cars with signs saying, "I'll give up driving when you pry my steering wheel out of my cold, dead hands."  No men armed with M-15s wearing khaki camouflage outfits threatening enforcers of the laws.  People kind of recognize that being able to drive sensibly is important in protecting themselves and others, so we have to  demonstrate ability. 

Now we are caught in the worst pandemic in perhaps a hundred years, and it is generally accepted by experts--not to mention shared experiences--that to protect ourselves and others, it is necessary to wear face coverings when anyone else is within range, indoors or out.  Even with protective gear, people still get infected with the Covid-19, and even previously healthy people die from it.  Others recover, but only partially:  reported consequences include everything that can happen to a person:  lung, heart, and nervous system damage.  Loss of sense of taste and smell.  Difficulty with stamina and balance.  The list seems endless.  So, mandating protective gear, such as masks, seems to be a no-brainer, right?  Something that everyone can do with minimal equipment and minimal interruption of activities.   However, for reasons that seem to defy logic and rationality, mask wearing has become a symbol of--dare we say it--government tyranny, at least to a sizable minority.   Telling folks to avoid crowds, weddings, bar-mitzvas, funerals, concerts, political rallies as a way of avoiding contagion is seen as unconstitutional, though it could save the person's life.  We read of defiance everywhere: demonstrations against masks, huge mask-less gatherings, even fights when people are asked to comply with mask-wearing regulations. Pronouncements ranging from the conclusion that masks don't help avoid infection (or even can spread it), that scientific conclusions are a crock, that there are dark plots to enslave Americans hatched by mask-wearing, cannabilistic pedophiles (sic), etc. 

I am suggesting that mask-wearing, at least until there is an effective therapeutic and a widely distributed vaccine, should be as mandates and accepted as having to have a driver's license--and for the same reason.  As I wouldn't want to be mowed down by an unlicensed driver, I don't want to be infected by an un-masked person.   So, although there is no federal law governing driver's licenses, there ought to be universal state laws about wearing masks, with guidelines that are similar to those for driving:  when, where, and by whom.  Let's hope that this blog is soon obsolete!