4 ms·

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

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 6y 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.
- breischl 6y ago
  You've managed to argue with the individual phrases while missing the actual point. Tell you what, let's assume that you're right. The CDC is continuously reevaluating mask usage by the general public, but recommended against it due to fears of a shortage and/or hoarding. That being the case, please help me understand the following: 1) Why did the CDC change guidance on mask usage despite the shortage and risks of hoarding being, if anything, worse than before? If it was the controlling factor before, why is it not a concern anymore? 2) If they are continuously reevaluating policies, and believed masks should be used, why was the guidance not changed at any point in the last 10 years when there was no shortage or any particular reason to worry about hoarding? 3) Why is this a more parsimonious or plausible explanation than the one advanced in TFA, which is that they had a very high standard of evidence which they have relaxed somewhat in the face of a pandemic?

Karrot_Kream 6y 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.

breischl 6y ago
You've managed to argue with the individual phrases while missing the actual point. Tell you what, let's assume that you're right. The CDC is continuously reevaluating mask usage by the general public, but recommended against it due to fears of a shortage and/or hoarding. That being the case, please help me understand the following: 1) Why did the CDC change guidance on mask usage despite the shortage and risks of hoarding being, if anything, worse than before? If it was the controlling factor before, why is it not a concern anymore? 2) If they are continuously reevaluating policies, and believed masks should be used, why was the guidance not changed at any point in the last 10 years when there was no shortage or any particular reason to worry about hoarding? 3) Why is this a more parsimonious or plausible explanation than the one advanced in TFA, which is that they had a very high standard of evidence which they have relaxed somewhat in the face of a pandemic?