6 ms·

> The biggest problem are the outright lies (e.g. about masks not helping). The issue of masks is/was more complicated than just an intentional lie. Medicine

> The biggest problem are the outright lies (e.g. about masks not helping). The issue of masks is/was more complicated than just an intentional lie. Medicine has a rather well-known history of really bad ideas that, at their time, were perfectly reasonable ideas within the knowledge and commonly accepted paradigms of their time. Bloodletting, arsenic, later high-dose Vitamin C (and after that, D), Resveratrol etc. It took until the middle of the 20th century for randomised trials to become the gold standard of medicine. And even today, "evidence-based medicine" is still distinct enough from just "medicine" to require that term. If you're not in medicine/biology you probably consider some logically sound idea based on your understanding of a system a useful tool (i. e. "people are interested in dogs, so I'll start a podcast on dogs and people will listen"). In medicine, this is crazy-talk! Unless you have meaningful statistical data, you do nothing except try to somehow get data! This instinct can, very rarely, go overboard. And that's possibly part of the answer here: there really wasn't any meaningful data on mask use for this sort of purpose. Therefore, the standard instinct kicked in, just as it would have for suggestions to eat lots of Garlic. Or, you know, Hydroxychloroquine. The second issue is that for N95 masks, it is actually true that laypeople are extremely unlikely to get them to fit correctly to be useful. In a healthcare setting, this involves a mandatory training/fitting that includes a special chamber with high concentrations of some odourant or fog to find leaks. Then, I'm not 100% sure if this idea of a lie intended to preserve masks for healthcare workers originated with the medical establishment, with politics, the media, or the public. But I'm almost certain that this narrative ("they are saying masks don't work to protect supplies...") was "out there" at the time. Even if somebody was trying to manipulate the public in such a way, somebody else along the route seems to have exposed this strategy at the same time. I wouldn't even be surprised if it turns out the same person/group was the source of both, basically telling us "masks don't work very well, one might even say not at all (wink wink), please let them go to those that can make the best use of them".

babesh 6y ago
Nothing changed in the science between when they were saying that masks were not useful and when they said it was mandatory.
- mbreese 6y ago
  The thing that changed was the realization that there were significant numbers of asymptomatic carriers. This was not something that was fully appreciated at the initial stages of the pandemic response (in the US at least). Masks really don't help protect you as an individual. There isn't a lot of data available, but it has been studied (Ars has a good overview here [0]). The main take home message from most of the studies was that infection rates were largely unchanged or worse when people wore masks -- one theory being that there was a false sense of security. Contaminated air will simply get past any non-medical grade N95 mask (and N95 masks that aren't properly fit won't protect from viruses). So telling people that masks didn't help was completely accurate. But, when you have asymptomatic carriers, the masks help protect other people from you. They do this by limiting the distance contaminated air travels from your mouth/nose. So, masks are only effective when they are used by everyone -- and in the context of asymptomatic carriers. Also when people are able to be distant from each other, masks really don't help much more. It's when people can't be distant that they help -- but again, they aren't meant to protect the wearer. The health authorities (and the media) in my Midwestern city have been very clear about the motivations for masks. Unfortunately, communicating this reasoning has not been as effective. People tend to be more concerned about protecting themselves than the others. (Which is understandable) [0] https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/04/should-you-wear-a-face-mask-heres-all-the-data-we-have/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/04/should-you-wear-a-fa...
  - babesh 6y ago
    There was an immediate and massive run on n95 masks. Those do protect you much better. I think it was mostly to protect the supply for medical providers. Also my understanding is that even cloth masks somewhat protect against droplets.
    - mbreese 6y ago
      I'm sorry, but your understanding in this regard is mistaken. Non-N95 masks are simply not designed for this purpose. They will always let in outside (contaminated) air. From the Ars Technica article above (which I believe is citing this paper: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/5/4/e006577.full.pdf https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/5/4/e006577.full.pdf) > Wearing cloth masks resulted in significantly higher rates of infection, the authors found. They also noted that in their test, the cloth masks were only 3 percent effective at blocking particles. Ask yourself this question -- why do surgeons wear masks when operating on patients? It isn't to protect themselves from the patient... it's to protect that patient from the surgeon. If the patient is infectious, then a surgeon wears a completely different set of protective gear to protect themselves. And N95 masks only work when properly fit. I haven't been fit for an N95 mask, so I don't know what size would be right for me. If you don't have the right size/type of mask, it can be more dangerous for you than if you didn't have a mask. Why? Because when you have a mask, people can feel completely protected and stop taking other precautions. If you are keeping isolated from others, there is no need for a mask.

babesh 6y ago

Nothing changed in the science between when they were saying that masks were not useful and when they said it was mandatory.

mbreese 6y ago
The thing that changed was the realization that there were significant numbers of asymptomatic carriers. This was not something that was fully appreciated at the initial stages of the pandemic response (in the US at least). Masks really don't help protect you as an individual. There isn't a lot of data available, but it has been studied (Ars has a good overview here [0]). The main take home message from most of the studies was that infection rates were largely unchanged or worse when people wore masks -- one theory being that there was a false sense of security. Contaminated air will simply get past any non-medical grade N95 mask (and N95 masks that aren't properly fit won't protect from viruses). So telling people that masks didn't help was completely accurate. But, when you have asymptomatic carriers, the masks help protect other people from you. They do this by limiting the distance contaminated air travels from your mouth/nose. So, masks are only effective when they are used by everyone -- and in the context of asymptomatic carriers. Also when people are able to be distant from each other, masks really don't help much more. It's when people can't be distant that they help -- but again, they aren't meant to protect the wearer. The health authorities (and the media) in my Midwestern city have been very clear about the motivations for masks. Unfortunately, communicating this reasoning has not been as effective. People tend to be more concerned about protecting themselves than the others. (Which is understandable) [0] https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/04/should-you-wear-a-face-mask-heres-all-the-data-we-have/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/04/should-you-wear-a-fa...
- babesh 6y ago
  There was an immediate and massive run on n95 masks. Those do protect you much better. I think it was mostly to protect the supply for medical providers. Also my understanding is that even cloth masks somewhat protect against droplets.
  - mbreese 6y ago
    I'm sorry, but your understanding in this regard is mistaken. Non-N95 masks are simply not designed for this purpose. They will always let in outside (contaminated) air. From the Ars Technica article above (which I believe is citing this paper: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/5/4/e006577.full.pdf https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/5/4/e006577.full.pdf) > Wearing cloth masks resulted in significantly higher rates of infection, the authors found. They also noted that in their test, the cloth masks were only 3 percent effective at blocking particles. Ask yourself this question -- why do surgeons wear masks when operating on patients? It isn't to protect themselves from the patient... it's to protect that patient from the surgeon. If the patient is infectious, then a surgeon wears a completely different set of protective gear to protect themselves. And N95 masks only work when properly fit. I haven't been fit for an N95 mask, so I don't know what size would be right for me. If you don't have the right size/type of mask, it can be more dangerous for you than if you didn't have a mask. Why? Because when you have a mask, people can feel completely protected and stop taking other precautions. If you are keeping isolated from others, there is no need for a mask.