4 ms·

That's very weak reasoning, and I felt it was more musing than anything else. What evidence do we have for it not to be true? Why do we think consistency with p

That's very weak reasoning, and I felt it was more musing than anything else. What evidence do we have for it not to be true? Why do we think consistency with previous advice trumps scientific evidence here? It feels like a cop-out to rule out a cost-benefit analysis simply because this advice mirrors advice in the past.

Noumenon72 7y ago
It's actually the strongest form of logical reasoning, a formally valid argument. This argument is true no matter what you substitute for A and B: * You said X did A only because of situation B. * But X does A even in situation not-B. * Therefore, situation B is not a necessary condition to cause A. The only way to rescue "mask shortage" as causing the WHO's advice is if you can show that whatever caused the advice last time was missing this time, so the WHO was primed to reverse the advice until "mask shortage" brought it back to do the same advice again.
- Karrot_Kream 7y ago
  > It's actually the strongest form of logical reasoning, a formally valid argument Garbage In, Garbage Out. You are making several assumptions in order to apply this "logical" (which logic? This isn't FOL, since FOL has no concept of time, so I'm guessing you're invoking some Temporal Logic) argument, you need to assume that the CDC is a static, homogeneous organization that, for the purposes of this statement, continues to be a valid X between the past and the present. This seems naive to me; the CDC has changed in funding, priorities, membership, and leadership over time, and it's unclear to me how you can use past behavior as an indicator of future communication.
breischl 7y ago
You, earlier: >I think the CDC did actually perform a cross-benefit analysis on masks during the initial segment of the outbreak. Given the not-incontrovertible, yet positive, efficacy of masks, combined with the implications of a PPE shortage for healthcare workers meant that there probably was a calculated decision made to not recommend masks. (emphasis added) You postulated that the CDC not recommending masks was due to a recent cost-benefit analysis taking into account a circumstance (mask shortage) that has only been true for a few months. The article and link shows that the recommendation predated that by 10 years. Ergo the mask shortage could not be the cause of that recommendation. There's no reason to even think that the CDC considered recommending masks - surely the default position is to leave pre-existing recommendations (don't wear masks) in place. You speculated that they did an analysis, which is not in evidence, and made a conclusion based on factors that may or may not have been important even had the analysis happened. That seems pretty weak to me.
- Karrot_Kream 7y ago
  > There's no reason to even think that the CDC considered recommending masks - surely the default position is to leave pre-existing recommendations (don't wear masks) in place. You speculated that they did an analysis, which is not in evidence, and made a conclusion based on factors that may or may not have been important even had the analysis happened. That seems pretty weak to me. You're right, there is a hidden assumption I have here that I did not document. I believe the CDC is, within human limits, a capable organization of experts. I assumed that it was more likely for an organization of experts to perform a cost-benefit analysis than simply reiterate advice given in the past under similar situations. If you disagree with this assumption, then that's where we disagree.
  - breischl 7y ago
    They did an effectiveness analysis at some point in the past. If the situation had not changed from that point in a way that would indicate masks should be used, why would they reevaluate the whole thing? No organization, no matter how capable or expert, has infinite time or resources to reevaluate every past policy every day. You seem to think they looked at it, found evidence that masks were effective, but then decided not to tell anyone due to the shortage. But then, a few months later, while that mask shortage was still in effect they decided to reverse that decision. Which is completely irrational. I'd say I'm assuming it's an organization like any other. You're assuming it's populated by maliciously irrational people who are out to get you.
    - Karrot_Kream 7y ago
      > If the situation had not changed from that point in a way that would indicate masks should be used, why would they reevaluate the whole thing? Changed from what? During previous coronavirus epidemics, the CDC did not recommend wearing masks, and during the earlier stages of the pandemic they did not either. > why would they reevaluate the whole thing? No organization, no matter how capable or expert, has infinite time or resources to reevaluate every past policy every day What... else would they be doing? The CDC's entire mission is to steward American public health. If they can't reevaluate in the face of a new threat, well, what good are they really? > You seem to think they looked at it, found evidence that masks were effective Yes, I do think the CDC is capable of performing a literature survey on masks. There have been several papers on masks, N95 or not, during previous epidemics. You can find several papers related to masks dating from the original SARS epidemic. Some of these papers were funded by the CDC themselves, so it makes absolute sense to look back at one's own publications. > but then decided not to tell anyone due to the shortage. I believe the CDC made a calculated decision based on an American population would hoard resources. In hindsight, some of this is occurring. Despite no actual shortages in production of toilet paper, flour, and yeast, there are shortages in supermarkets throughout the US, and I've heard anecdotes from friends' parents who decided to hoard masks, flour, and yest because they "were worried". > But then, a few months later, while that mask shortage was still in effect they decided to reverse that decision. Which is completely irrational. Guidance changes. Factors that go into updating your risk cost-benefit analysis (better understanding of transmission rates, political pressure, etc.) change over time, and an effective leader does not double down on previous decisions in the face of new information. There's nothing irrational about changing your position.

Noumenon72 7y ago

It's actually the strongest form of logical reasoning, a formally valid argument. This argument is true no matter what you substitute for A and B: * You said X did A only because of situation B. * But X does A even in situation not-B. * Therefore, situation B is not a necessary condition to cause A. The only way to rescue "mask shortage" as causing the WHO's advice is if you can show that whatever caused the advice last time was missing this time, so the WHO was primed to reverse the advice until "mask shortage" brought it back to do the same advice again.

Karrot_Kream 7y ago
> It's actually the strongest form of logical reasoning, a formally valid argument Garbage In, Garbage Out. You are making several assumptions in order to apply this "logical" (which logic? This isn't FOL, since FOL has no concept of time, so I'm guessing you're invoking some Temporal Logic) argument, you need to assume that the CDC is a static, homogeneous organization that, for the purposes of this statement, continues to be a valid X between the past and the present. This seems naive to me; the CDC has changed in funding, priorities, membership, and leadership over time, and it's unclear to me how you can use past behavior as an indicator of future communication.

breischl 7y ago

You, earlier: >I think the CDC did actually perform a cross-benefit analysis on masks during the initial segment of the outbreak. Given the not-incontrovertible, yet positive, efficacy of masks, combined with the implications of a PPE shortage for healthcare workers meant that there probably was a calculated decision made to not recommend masks. (emphasis added) You postulated that the CDC not recommending masks was due to a recent cost-benefit analysis taking into account a circumstance (mask shortage) that has only been true for a few months. The article and link shows that the recommendation predated that by 10 years. Ergo the mask shortage could not be the cause of that recommendation. There's no reason to even think that the CDC considered recommending masks - surely the default position is to leave pre-existing recommendations (don't wear masks) in place. You speculated that they did an analysis, which is not in evidence, and made a conclusion based on factors that may or may not have been important even had the analysis happened. That seems pretty weak to me.

Karrot_Kream 7y ago
> There's no reason to even think that the CDC considered recommending masks - surely the default position is to leave pre-existing recommendations (don't wear masks) in place. You speculated that they did an analysis, which is not in evidence, and made a conclusion based on factors that may or may not have been important even had the analysis happened. That seems pretty weak to me. You're right, there is a hidden assumption I have here that I did not document. I believe the CDC is, within human limits, a capable organization of experts. I assumed that it was more likely for an organization of experts to perform a cost-benefit analysis than simply reiterate advice given in the past under similar situations. If you disagree with this assumption, then that's where we disagree.
- breischl 7y ago
  They did an effectiveness analysis at some point in the past. If the situation had not changed from that point in a way that would indicate masks should be used, why would they reevaluate the whole thing? No organization, no matter how capable or expert, has infinite time or resources to reevaluate every past policy every day. You seem to think they looked at it, found evidence that masks were effective, but then decided not to tell anyone due to the shortage. But then, a few months later, while that mask shortage was still in effect they decided to reverse that decision. Which is completely irrational. I'd say I'm assuming it's an organization like any other. You're assuming it's populated by maliciously irrational people who are out to get you.
  - Karrot_Kream 7y ago
    > If the situation had not changed from that point in a way that would indicate masks should be used, why would they reevaluate the whole thing? Changed from what? During previous coronavirus epidemics, the CDC did not recommend wearing masks, and during the earlier stages of the pandemic they did not either. > why would they reevaluate the whole thing? No organization, no matter how capable or expert, has infinite time or resources to reevaluate every past policy every day What... else would they be doing? The CDC's entire mission is to steward American public health. If they can't reevaluate in the face of a new threat, well, what good are they really? > You seem to think they looked at it, found evidence that masks were effective Yes, I do think the CDC is capable of performing a literature survey on masks. There have been several papers on masks, N95 or not, during previous epidemics. You can find several papers related to masks dating from the original SARS epidemic. Some of these papers were funded by the CDC themselves, so it makes absolute sense to look back at one's own publications. > but then decided not to tell anyone due to the shortage. I believe the CDC made a calculated decision based on an American population would hoard resources. In hindsight, some of this is occurring. Despite no actual shortages in production of toilet paper, flour, and yeast, there are shortages in supermarkets throughout the US, and I've heard anecdotes from friends' parents who decided to hoard masks, flour, and yest because they "were worried". > But then, a few months later, while that mask shortage was still in effect they decided to reverse that decision. Which is completely irrational. Guidance changes. Factors that go into updating your risk cost-benefit analysis (better understanding of transmission rates, political pressure, etc.) change over time, and an effective leader does not double down on previous decisions in the face of new information. There's nothing irrational about changing your position.