3 ms·
Yeah, there's science and then there's science. I'm sure they're correct about aerosol protection, but if this virus is mostly spread via respiratory droplets (
by jccooper 6y ago
Yeah, there's science and then there's science. I'm sure they're correct about aerosol protection, but if this virus is mostly spread via respiratory droplets (as seems likely) that's an entirely different question and answer. In such a case even poor masks will be useful against exposure via casual contact. So long as you're not wearing them on your chin, as I see so often.
- Johnjonjoan 6y agoIt's such a blatant doublethink right? I feel like the masks don't work rhetoric is political maneuvering born from the fact that governments had little to no reserves of them and that health professionals desperately need them. Whilst I'm sure some seasoned bureaucrats or advisors think the (subjectively) white lie is the right thing to do; because health professionals need them more. The fact is if we all supported EVERYONE wearing masks, large scale domestic production would have to begin in every country and health care professionals would be swimming in masks. Not to mention it could play a part in reducing transmission. Masks for everyone is a win win.
- dehrmann 6y ago> ...the masks don't work rhetoric is political maneuvering born from the fact that governments had little to no reserves of them and that health professionals desperately need them. Lying to people erodes trust. When leaders then order subsequent weeks-months of lockdown, people don't trust them, ignore their orders, and protest. It's not just the masks, though. Leaders failed to lay out plans and exit criteria fast enough, weren't fast enough to address arbitrariness in their orders, and have downplayed knock-on effects.