8 ms·

The CDC and WHO both at various times recommended against the general public wearing masks. https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/4/13/21214114/media-coronavirus-pan

• ianai 6y ago
  The best I heard it explained as was a dilemma. Do you tell people that only n95 masks or better work to protect the wearer? If you do then, because enough stockpile of n95 masks wasn’t maintained for this pandemic, critical medical practitioners like ER staff, nurses, doctors, surgeons wouldn’t be able to wear PPE. Or Do you lie and tell people n95 masks don’t work in the hopes essential medical personnel are then able to find masks? I think they went with the later. I think this was discussed by Michael O. during his appearance on JRE.
  • msandford 6y ago
    Dilemma or not lying erodes trust. Was it worth it? Probably not is what a lot of people are saying.
    • HideousKojima 6y ago
      It also ignores a third option (and one that was actually used anyways), blocking all shipments of n95 masks to retail outlets to send to hospitals instead
      • ianai 6y ago
        That’s not an option. Apparently hospitals get their stock from essentially the same places as the rest of us. Like not the target down the road but the warehouse target gets its stock of ppe.
        • HideousKojima 6y ago
          Yes, and those warehouses halted shipments of PPE to retailers like Target at the start of the pandemic
          • ianai 6y ago
            And it still wasn’t going to be enough.
            • HideousKojima 6y ago
              It's not like they pulled existing stock in consumer retail outlets off the shelf, so I don't see how lying to the public about mask efficacy had any significant effect on the supply for healthcare workers
              • ianai 6y ago
                Wouldn’t have been enough.
• dougmany 6y ago
  At least two of those links had nuanced reasons that matched the parent's remarks. One even literately had a three point explanation: * There is no scientific evidence they are effective in reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission * Their use may result in those wearing the masks to relax other distancing efforts because they have a sense of protection * We need to preserve the supply of surgical masks for at-risk healthcare workers.
  • dionidium 6y ago
    Yes, those are indeed the reasons they lied about mask-wearing. Their reasons for lying are not in dispute. You may even agree that those are good reasons to lie. But what's also not in dispute is that they did lie. (Perhaps the most charitable thing you could say about your list is that they leaned heavily on the first point in public to justify conserving masks in light of what they believed about the latter two points in private.) Some of you seem to think lying isn’t lying if your heart is pure, but it’s an ordinary word with an uncomplicated meaning.
  • darawk 6y ago
    Point one is equivalent to saying "masks don't work" when communicated in that way to the general public.
    • dionidium 6y ago
      It's also a remarkably vacuous thing to say. Of course there's not always scientific evidence for how to respond to new threats in real time. It's perfectly reasonable to make the best decisions you can with the information available. To say what they said is to try to weaponize the totally sensible dictum to "listen to the science" in a context in which they damn well knew that it made no sense (and without any indication that they thought through how their actions might potentially erode public trust in that injunction).
      • DanBC 6y ago
        We have a lot of information about a variety of respiratory viruses and masks, and almost all of it says that masks don't do much. We're getting more information about specifically covid-19, and again that says that masks don't do much.
• Alex3917 6y ago
  > Masks don't work was repeated many, many times by these organizations. Repeated many times while they were stockpiling them for themselves to resell at 10x the cost to hospitals.
• tsbinz 6y ago
  I'm not sure about "severe consequences". If you compare Switzerland (where, although the government now recommends masks in public transport at least but almost nobody does wear a mask) and Austria (where wearing masks while shopping/in public transport etc was made mandatory when the restrictions were eased), you don't see much of a difference in the amount of new cases. I do believe masks work and I do wear one when I'm going near other people (not when I go for a run) but seeing how few people wear masks here and it seemingly not making a difference does make me wonder how essential they are, and it makes me doubt people blaming the severity of the outbreak in the US on the confused mask messaging.
  • vinay427 6y ago
    Quite frankly, I'm surprised there hasn't been an uptick in cases here in Switzerland. At least in the city where I live, few people wear masks on public transit or in grocery stores and virtually no one seems to do so in restaurants or cafes. Social distancing also doesn't seem to be diligently observed by many/most people. It's quite possible that there are so few infected people that it will be enough to contain the spread, especially with fewer people commuting in general, but I'm not exactly confident in the safety of this strategy.
  • SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
    You'd see though a dramatic difference in death rate between Austria and Switzerland. It appears, that the virus is deadlier when you get more of it the moment you infected; countries with the strictest mask regimes, voluntary or mandatory (Taiwan, Korea etc) have the lowest death rate, but not necessarily infection rate.
• wwweston 6y ago
  > recommended against the general public wearing masks. which masks? for what reasons? > It is not true that people are flattening that into "masks don't work"...Here's an example: This is an example... of how the advice got flattened. Quoting from that first link: "Surgical masks likely have some utility as source control (meaning the wearer limits virus dispersal to another person)" "Respirators, though, are the only option that can ensure protection for frontline workers dealing with COVID-19 cases, once all of the strategies for optimizing respirator supply have been implemented." See anything familiar from my earlier comment in there? Surgical masks are not personally protective, but they reduce transmission. Respirators are protective, but should not be general public resort. The second article? It's talking about a global shortage, so it's clear which kind of masks they're recommending people not wear. Same with the last article... which also has a later section talking about how masks slow transmission and can be effective. So... yeah. People were absolutely flattening the advice. And apparently some still are. If you want, you can transform that into a communications argument, but like I said above, that reinforces the position that curation is an important part of the process.
  • darawk 6y ago
    Their fundamental message was that masks do not work. They hedged in their language, but their recommendations were predicated on the idea that they are ineffective at slowing transmission. This is and was disastrously false. Saying that "there's no evidence that masks work" is tantamount to saying they don't work. There is also no formal evidence that standing next to an infected person is a risk. I'm not aware of any studies that have officially proven that yet. But we still know that it is, and saying "there's no evidence that exposure to an infected person puts you at risk of infection" would be a ridiculously inaccurate thing to say.
• mcguire 6y ago
  The article from U. of Minnesota: "We do not recommend requiring the general public who do not have symptoms of COVID-19-like illness to routinely wear cloth or surgical masks because: "There is no scientific evidence they are effective in reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission "Their use may result in those wearing the masks to relax other distancing efforts because they have a sense of protection "We need to preserve the supply of surgical masks for at-risk healthcare workers. "Sweeping mask recommendations—as many have proposed—will not reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission, as evidenced by the widespread practice of wearing such masks in Hubei province, China, before and during its mass COVID-19 transmission experience earlier this year. Our review of relevant studies indicates that cloth masks will be ineffective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, whether worn as source control or as PPE. "Surgical masks likely have some utility as source control (meaning the wearer limits virus dispersal to another person) from a symptomatic patient in a healthcare setting to stop the spread of large cough particles and limit the lateral dispersion of cough particles. They may also have very limited utility as source control or PPE in households." Note the word in the first sentence: "requiring". The article then goes on to describe filter fit and efficiency. "These studies demonstrate that cloth or homemade masks will have very low filter efficiency (2% to 38%). Medical masks are made from a wide range of materials, and studies have found a wide range of filter efficiency (2% to 98%), with most exhibiting 30% to 50% efficiency.6-12" "In sum, given the paucity of information about their performance as source control in real-world settings, along with the extremely low efficiency of cloth masks as filters and their poor fit, there is no evidence to support their use by the public or healthcare workers to control the emission of particles from the wearer." As well as surgical masks... "There is no evidence that surgical masks worn by healthcare workers are effective at limiting the emission of small particles or in preventing contamination of wounds during surgery. "There is moderate evidence that surgical masks worn by patients in healthcare settings can lower the emission of large particles generated during coughing and limited evidence that small particle emission may also be reduced." And N95 respirators... "In summary, N95 FFRs on patients will not be effective and may not be appropriate, particularly if they have respiratory illness or other underlying health conditions. Given the current extreme shortages of respirators needed in healthcare, we do not recommend the use of N95 FFRs in public or household settings." And in conclusion: "While this is not an exhaustive review of masks and respirators as source control and PPE, we made our best effort to locate and review the most relevant studies of laboratory and real-world performance to inform our recommendations. Results from laboratory studies of filter and fit performance inform and support the findings in real-world settings. "Cloth masks are ineffective as source control and PPE, surgical masks have some role to play in preventing emissions from infected patients, and respirators are the best choice for protecting healthcare and other frontline workers, but not recommended for source control. These recommendations apply to pandemic and non-pandemic situations. "Leaving aside the fact that they are ineffective, telling the public to wear cloth or surgical masks could be interpreted by some to mean that people are safe to stop isolating at home. It's too late now for anything but stopping as much person-to-person interaction as possible. "Masks may confuse that message and give people a false sense of security. If masks had been the solution in Asia, shouldn't they have stopped the pandemic before it spread elsewhere?" All of this is backed up with a goodly stack of references. Which part do you consider dead wrong, and based on what?
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• ska 6y ago
  These organizations were dead wrong, and it had severe consequences for the spread of infection. There really does not seem to be good evidence for this statement, and I've looked although not exhaustively. Got any good primary sources? Lot's of things are tried with a novel virus, and only some of them work. The only things so far that seem to be clearly working are distancing regulations and effective contract trace, the latter being very difficult to implement.