It's been a while since I've read Leviticus in detail, but certainly there what we would today term isolation and social distancing guidelines.
But the attire (including any possible facial coverings) mandated for "lepers" in Leviticus was primarily to serve as a warning to the rest of the Israelite community to stay away, and thus mitiga…
It's been a while since I've read Leviticus in detail, but certainly there what we would today term isolation and social distancing guidelines.
But the attire (including any possible facial coverings) mandated for "lepers" in Leviticus was primarily to serve as a warning to the rest of the Israelite community to stay away, and thus mitigate the threat of contagion by isolation and social distancing.
Still, what is remarkable about the guidelines for identifying "leprosy" (which, as you noted, was back then any one of a number of conditions producing sores and rashes on the skin) was that there were specific criteria stated for the priest to use, including monitoring over a week's period to see if the condition resolved itself. While crude and perhaps of questionable accuracy, they are nevertheless a depiction of diagnostic criteria several centuries before either Hippocrates or Galen.
Much as the attire was used to serve as a warning (signal) to stay away, the face mask was/is used as a signal. The media hysterics were not enough to keep the public in a panic state. Everyone needed to mask as a signal that everyone else was taking this thing seriously, and that it was not just on the nightly news, it was everywhere at any time. A constant reminder that what they were saying was true, and that everyone believed it. It is also used as a gauge of obedience by the decision makers.
The key distinction, of course, is that the ones isolated under Mosaic Law were the demonstrably infected (and if the infection should resolve himself the previously infected could be present himself to the priests, be acknowledged as free from infection, and rejoin the community). Under the mask mandates, the ones being isolated are literally everybody.
Would we have had the same controversy over face masks if the requirement had been to mask while symptomatic? Even though the extant research suggests that such would have not made a difference in COVID spread, would the narrower tailoring of the rule made it more palatable to the broader public?
Good question. I think the “asymptomatic spread” was a key factor in achieving the desired outcome, which was to prop the gov agencies up as the source for truth and shift more control out of the hands of citizens and into the hands of unelected bureaucrats.
It's been a while since I've read Leviticus in detail, but certainly there what we would today term isolation and social distancing guidelines.
But the attire (including any possible facial coverings) mandated for "lepers" in Leviticus was primarily to serve as a warning to the rest of the Israelite community to stay away, and thus mitigate the threat of contagion by isolation and social distancing.
Still, what is remarkable about the guidelines for identifying "leprosy" (which, as you noted, was back then any one of a number of conditions producing sores and rashes on the skin) was that there were specific criteria stated for the priest to use, including monitoring over a week's period to see if the condition resolved itself. While crude and perhaps of questionable accuracy, they are nevertheless a depiction of diagnostic criteria several centuries before either Hippocrates or Galen.
Much as the attire was used to serve as a warning (signal) to stay away, the face mask was/is used as a signal. The media hysterics were not enough to keep the public in a panic state. Everyone needed to mask as a signal that everyone else was taking this thing seriously, and that it was not just on the nightly news, it was everywhere at any time. A constant reminder that what they were saying was true, and that everyone believed it. It is also used as a gauge of obedience by the decision makers.
The key distinction, of course, is that the ones isolated under Mosaic Law were the demonstrably infected (and if the infection should resolve himself the previously infected could be present himself to the priests, be acknowledged as free from infection, and rejoin the community). Under the mask mandates, the ones being isolated are literally everybody.
Would we have had the same controversy over face masks if the requirement had been to mask while symptomatic? Even though the extant research suggests that such would have not made a difference in COVID spread, would the narrower tailoring of the rule made it more palatable to the broader public?
Good question. I think the “asymptomatic spread” was a key factor in achieving the desired outcome, which was to prop the gov agencies up as the source for truth and shift more control out of the hands of citizens and into the hands of unelected bureaucrats.