5 ms·

This is an instance of what I described in my above comment. "STOP BUYING MASKS" is not "Masks don't work," especially given the rest of the context of the sta

This is an instance of what I described in my above comment. "STOP BUYING MASKS" is not "Masks don't work," especially given the rest of the context of the statement where he's saying they're important to protect high-exposure roles healthcare providers. Which means he's also saying they work. "They are not effective in preventing the general public" might be reasonably interpreted as "masks don't work", but given that he's clearly saying they work in the same breath, it's a better bet that he means something else.

jdc 6y ago
Your first paragraph is a blatant strawman on the argument presented here in the comments.
nonbirithm 6y ago
The problem is not all people in the public at large will apply that same logic and just take the statement at face value at first glance. Masks don't work. Don't buy masks. When you ask them the question of "what did they initially tell you" later, their response would be "masks don't work." With someone in such an official position, misinformation can do great harm for people that know no better. Anyone who doesn't do their own research might think they're supposed to trust these people when worst comes to worst. And when they find out the advice is contradictory, that trust is lost, and might not be rebuilt for a very long time. It breeds doubt. Personally however, I couldn't for the life of me believe that having no mask is better than having one.
- wwweston 6y ago
  Totally on board with criticism of how effectively (or not) the tweet communicates key ideas. There's some hazards, and we could reasonably expect that people who are appointed to provide clear public leadership would be better at that job. But that reinforces the importance of well-curated communication, which is the context for this discussion, where apparently some are criticizing Amazon for refusing to release communication that is not only not-well expressed, as the tweet arguably is, but is actively disinformative to delusional.
ksdale 6y ago
Even with this very charitable interpretation, he was still completely incorrect about their effectiveness for stopping public spread, was he not?
- DanBC 6y ago
  No. There's no evidence that masks do anything at all to prevent public spread. People point to countries that had successful anti-covid work and use of masks, but they're missing all the other work those countries did around social distancing and track and trace.
  - aspenmayer 6y ago
    Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence.
    - DanBC 6y ago
      But we have evidence about respiratory viruses and masks, and it all says they don't work. We even have the beginnings of evidence coming through for SARS-CoV-2. They got people who have covid to wear a mask and cough on a petri dish. Covid escaped the masks.
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        > But we have evidence about respiratory viruses and masks, and it all says they don't work. What? Medical personnel regularly utilize surgical masks against respiratory viruses spread by droplets successfully. They're less useful against aerosolized stuff like measles, but SARS-CoV-2 is primarily spread via droplet.
dahdum 6y ago
Here's an extended quote of his, found on Snopes fact check. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/surgeon-general-against-masks/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/surgeon-general-against-ma... > One of the things [the general public] shouldn’t be doing is going out and buying masks … It has not been proven to be effective in preventing the spread of coronavirus amongst the general public … Folks who don’t know how to wear them properly tend to touch their faces a lot, and actually can increase the spread of coronavirus. You can increase your risk of getting it by wearing a mask if you are not a healthcare provider.
- grahamburger 6y ago
  I'm pretty sure all of that is still true. In some cases, for some people, wearing a mask can be neutral or even net-negative. Maybe we learned enough to find that for the population at large wearing masks is better than not, but it's still a trade off.
  - ping_pong 6y ago
    It's completely untrue. Multiple studies have come out afterwards saying that masks are very effective at reducing spread. It is an overwhelming net positive to wear masks.
  - jdc 6y ago
    Please elaborate on these cases in which masks have supposedly a net negative effect on the wearer.
    - DanBC 6y ago
      It's in the above tweet. Your mask is by definition contaminated (that's why you wear it, to catch the contamination), and many people fiddle with their masks. They then rub their eyes, or they touch their mouth.
      - jdc 6y ago
        Then let's solve that problem!
ping_pong 6y ago
When one says that "masks are not effective", it's literally the definition of "masks don't work." Please don't try to weasel out of it by trying to argue basic definitions of words. That's like Bill Clinton arguing over the definition of what "is" means to try to save himself. Just admit that you're wrong and move on. It's clear that the message in the early stages of the pandemic was that "all masks didn't work, but you should save it for the health care workers". The absurd contradiction of that statement was what made reasonable people such as myself no longer trust what they said, because it was obvious they were hiding things from us. It's obvious that if you have a respiratory disease, then wearing a mask will be effective. Since then, it has come out that masks are actually extremely effective in preventing spread.
- DanBC 6y ago
  > Since then, it has come out that masks are actually extremely effective in preventing spread. No it hasn't. Show me the research. > "all masks didn't work, but you should save it for the health care workers". The absurd contradiction It's not an absurd contradiction. A member of the public walks around and is only going to meet a few people with covid-19, and hopefully they are pre-symptomatic (because if they have symptoms they need to stay at home) A healthcare professional is stuck in a room with symptomatic people, often in close contact. And they're not wearing a cloth mask or fluid resistant surgical mask, they're wearing a mask that has to be fitted to them. They have training on how to put it on and take it off. They also wear gloves, a gown, and a face shield or eye protection. They have running water and soap, and they have alcohol handgel. For fluid resistant surgical masks they take them off and use a new one for each patient. One patient in one ICU bay will have 30 pairs of gloves used by staff per day.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    > No it hasn't. Show me the research. Here: https://www.livescience.com/face-masks-eye-protection-covid-19-prevention.html https://www.livescience.com/face-masks-eye-protection-covid-... > With face masks, the chance of infection or transmission was 3% with a mask compared with 17% without a mask, a reduction of more than 80%. And for eye protection, the chance of infection or transmission was 6% with protection and 16% without.

jdc 6y ago

Your first paragraph is a blatant strawman on the argument presented here in the comments.

nonbirithm 6y ago

The problem is not all people in the public at large will apply that same logic and just take the statement at face value at first glance. Masks don't work. Don't buy masks. When you ask them the question of "what did they initially tell you" later, their response would be "masks don't work." With someone in such an official position, misinformation can do great harm for people that know no better. Anyone who doesn't do their own research might think they're supposed to trust these people when worst comes to worst. And when they find out the advice is contradictory, that trust is lost, and might not be rebuilt for a very long time. It breeds doubt. Personally however, I couldn't for the life of me believe that having no mask is better than having one.

wwweston 6y ago
Totally on board with criticism of how effectively (or not) the tweet communicates key ideas. There's some hazards, and we could reasonably expect that people who are appointed to provide clear public leadership would be better at that job. But that reinforces the importance of well-curated communication, which is the context for this discussion, where apparently some are criticizing Amazon for refusing to release communication that is not only not-well expressed, as the tweet arguably is, but is actively disinformative to delusional.

ksdale 6y ago

Even with this very charitable interpretation, he was still completely incorrect about their effectiveness for stopping public spread, was he not?

DanBC 6y ago
No. There's no evidence that masks do anything at all to prevent public spread. People point to countries that had successful anti-covid work and use of masks, but they're missing all the other work those countries did around social distancing and track and trace.
- aspenmayer 6y ago
  Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence.
  - DanBC 6y ago
    But we have evidence about respiratory viruses and masks, and it all says they don't work. We even have the beginnings of evidence coming through for SARS-CoV-2. They got people who have covid to wear a mask and cough on a petri dish. Covid escaped the masks.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      > But we have evidence about respiratory viruses and masks, and it all says they don't work. What? Medical personnel regularly utilize surgical masks against respiratory viruses spread by droplets successfully. They're less useful against aerosolized stuff like measles, but SARS-CoV-2 is primarily spread via droplet.

dahdum 6y ago

Here's an extended quote of his, found on Snopes fact check. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/surgeon-general-against-masks/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/surgeon-general-against-ma... > One of the things [the general public] shouldn’t be doing is going out and buying masks … It has not been proven to be effective in preventing the spread of coronavirus amongst the general public … Folks who don’t know how to wear them properly tend to touch their faces a lot, and actually can increase the spread of coronavirus. You can increase your risk of getting it by wearing a mask if you are not a healthcare provider.

grahamburger 6y ago
I'm pretty sure all of that is still true. In some cases, for some people, wearing a mask can be neutral or even net-negative. Maybe we learned enough to find that for the population at large wearing masks is better than not, but it's still a trade off.
- ping_pong 6y ago
  It's completely untrue. Multiple studies have come out afterwards saying that masks are very effective at reducing spread. It is an overwhelming net positive to wear masks.
- jdc 6y ago
  Please elaborate on these cases in which masks have supposedly a net negative effect on the wearer.
  - DanBC 6y ago
    It's in the above tweet. Your mask is by definition contaminated (that's why you wear it, to catch the contamination), and many people fiddle with their masks. They then rub their eyes, or they touch their mouth.
    - jdc 6y ago
      Then let's solve that problem!

ping_pong 6y ago

When one says that "masks are not effective", it's literally the definition of "masks don't work." Please don't try to weasel out of it by trying to argue basic definitions of words. That's like Bill Clinton arguing over the definition of what "is" means to try to save himself. Just admit that you're wrong and move on. It's clear that the message in the early stages of the pandemic was that "all masks didn't work, but you should save it for the health care workers". The absurd contradiction of that statement was what made reasonable people such as myself no longer trust what they said, because it was obvious they were hiding things from us. It's obvious that if you have a respiratory disease, then wearing a mask will be effective. Since then, it has come out that masks are actually extremely effective in preventing spread.

DanBC 6y ago
> Since then, it has come out that masks are actually extremely effective in preventing spread. No it hasn't. Show me the research. > "all masks didn't work, but you should save it for the health care workers". The absurd contradiction It's not an absurd contradiction. A member of the public walks around and is only going to meet a few people with covid-19, and hopefully they are pre-symptomatic (because if they have symptoms they need to stay at home) A healthcare professional is stuck in a room with symptomatic people, often in close contact. And they're not wearing a cloth mask or fluid resistant surgical mask, they're wearing a mask that has to be fitted to them. They have training on how to put it on and take it off. They also wear gloves, a gown, and a face shield or eye protection. They have running water and soap, and they have alcohol handgel. For fluid resistant surgical masks they take them off and use a new one for each patient. One patient in one ICU bay will have 30 pairs of gloves used by staff per day.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  > No it hasn't. Show me the research. Here: https://www.livescience.com/face-masks-eye-protection-covid-19-prevention.html https://www.livescience.com/face-masks-eye-protection-covid-... > With face masks, the chance of infection or transmission was 3% with a mask compared with 17% without a mask, a reduction of more than 80%. And for eye protection, the chance of infection or transmission was 6% with protection and 16% without.