EDITORIAL: ‘Permanent’ mask rule not necessary

Published 2:15 pm Wednesday, January 26, 2022

Oregon health officials have a communication problem when it comes to the current mask “mandate” for indoor public spaces.

(Mandate in this case deserves to be enclosed in quotation marks given how many people, including in Baker County, are ignoring it despite the potential benefits of masks in slowing the spread of the highly infectious omicron variant.)

The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) has proposed to replace the temporary mandate, which expires Feb. 8, with a “permanent” rule.

More quotation marks.

“Permanent” is a particularly poor adjective in this context. Permanent implies, well, permanence, which is to say, forever. Unfortunately, permanent is the word state law uses to distinguish the type of rule the OHA is proposing from the temporary rule that expires Feb. 8. It’s not reasonable to believe that OHA officials truly intend to require, at least on paper, that people are still wearing masks in indoor public spaces in this state in 2050, or 2070. The reason for a “permanent” rule, officials say, is that such a rule doesn’t have a specified duration, unlike temporary rules such as the current mask mandate, which is limited to 180 days.

But here’s the thing: Although OHA can’t legally extend the current temporary rule beyond Feb. 8, the agency can replace it with a new, slightly different, rule that’s also limited to 180 days. This is not a choice between either a “permanent” mask rule or no rule at all after Feb. 8.

Although concerns about a decades-long mask mandate are not logical, OHA is fueling legitimate concern about the duration of the indoor mask rule by refusing to give Oregonians specific criteria, such as the rate of new COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations and deaths, that would trigger the cancellation of a “permanent” rule. State officials should be able to come up with thresholds that would render the mask mandate unnecessary.

The simplest solution, though, is a new temporary rule. That would have the same effect as a permanent rule, but with the benefit that, because it has a finite duration, it ensures that OHA would at least have to review the situation with the pandemic in a reasonable period.

The agency should be doing so regardless of whether the mask rule is permanent or temporary. Given projections that the omicron surge will peak soon — if it hasn’t already — and then recede rapidly, the current indoor mask rule might be unnecessary relatively soon.

— Jayson Jacoby, Baker City Herald editor