4 ms·

This underscores something that is going on with the COVID-19 pandemic. There are a lot of complaints about face-mask ordinances that claim there is no "hard sc

This underscores something that is going on with the COVID-19 pandemic. There are a lot of complaints about face-mask ordinances that claim there is no "hard science" to show that masks are effective, followed by some sort of statement that public policy should be "based on hard science". For a lot of reasons, hard science isn't all it's cracked up to be, certainly not by the lay public, who seem to treat it as a "final, definitive word" on subjects. First of all, it gives a lot more credit to science than even scientists give. But most importantly, you don't need to know the mechanism of a problem if you have statistical evidence that your actions are having an impact. You might not even know it's the direct result of the actual action you're taking, it might be a knock-on effect from some other action people are taking in response to the mandated action. But that doesn't matter. What matters is that lives are saved. You can figure out the mechanism later. In the meantime, do the superstitious sky-god dance. Especially when it's really not that big of an imposition. We know for a fact that most places that have strict mask ordinances are seeing large reductions in infection rate. Some aren't, but that's actually not an argument for not wearing masks. Indeed, it's the exact opposite. While the "hard science" is supposedly unclear, you absolutely should still wear the mask, so that the confounding variables are easier to discover.

klenwell 6y ago
My favorite example of this is Pasteur's revolutionary work in immunology itself: A careful reading of Pasteur’s presentations to the Academy of Sciences reveals that Pasteur was entirely mistaken as to how immunity occurs, in that he reasoned, as a good microbiologist would, that appropriately attenuated microbes would deplete the host of vital trace nutrients absolutely required for their viability and growth, and not an active response on the part of the host. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3342039/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3342039/
matz1 6y ago
>Especially when it's really not that big of an imposition This is my biggest issue, dismissing it as something trivial. Everybody is different, for some people it can be huge inconvenience.
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  And exceptions for those few people are good. But that’s not a good reason for the vast majority.
  - matz1 6y ago
    Good enough reason is subjective, if someone says they don't like mask because its uncomfortable, its obviously significant enough reason for them.
- moron4hire 6y ago
  If a specific person's respiratory system is really so bad that a mask would have a significant, deleterious effect, then a mask ordinance is of no consequence because that person really should not even be going out in public at all during the pandemic.
  - matz1 6y ago
    Then Its for them to decide that. They may very well knew and accept the what you called "deleterious" effect.
    - corty 6y ago
      It is not just for them to decide that. They are in a risk group and therefore get infected more easily and spread the infection more easily. It is in their and all our best interest for them to stay home.
      - matz1 6y ago
        >It is not just for them to decide that So you get to decide it for them ? >It is in their This is the issue, you assume its their interest.
        moron4hire 6y ago
mnd999 6y ago
I read a piece on the chemistry of how soap acts on Covid-19 early on and I’ve been washing my hands ever since. Google returns several now. Previously I was guilty of dismissing it also. “Hand washing? Really? Is that all we’ve got?”. Hard science worked for me.
- astrange 6y ago
  There isn't any empirical evidence that hand washing, "deep cleaning protocols", or surface transmission matters for covid though. Countries which only did masks do just fine; it seems like people are getting infected by airborne transmission. If anything, the trend is you should do the opposite of whatever WHO recommends.

klenwell 6y ago

My favorite example of this is Pasteur's revolutionary work in immunology itself: A careful reading of Pasteur’s presentations to the Academy of Sciences reveals that Pasteur was entirely mistaken as to how immunity occurs, in that he reasoned, as a good microbiologist would, that appropriately attenuated microbes would deplete the host of vital trace nutrients absolutely required for their viability and growth, and not an active response on the part of the host. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3342039/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3342039/

matz1 6y ago

>Especially when it's really not that big of an imposition This is my biggest issue, dismissing it as something trivial. Everybody is different, for some people it can be huge inconvenience.

amanaplanacanal 6y ago
And exceptions for those few people are good. But that’s not a good reason for the vast majority.
- matz1 6y ago
  Good enough reason is subjective, if someone says they don't like mask because its uncomfortable, its obviously significant enough reason for them.
moron4hire 6y ago
If a specific person's respiratory system is really so bad that a mask would have a significant, deleterious effect, then a mask ordinance is of no consequence because that person really should not even be going out in public at all during the pandemic.
- matz1 6y ago
  Then Its for them to decide that. They may very well knew and accept the what you called "deleterious" effect.
  - corty 6y ago
    It is not just for them to decide that. They are in a risk group and therefore get infected more easily and spread the infection more easily. It is in their and all our best interest for them to stay home.
    - matz1 6y ago
      >It is not just for them to decide that So you get to decide it for them ? >It is in their This is the issue, you assume its their interest.
      - moron4hire 6y ago

mnd999 6y ago

I read a piece on the chemistry of how soap acts on Covid-19 early on and I’ve been washing my hands ever since. Google returns several now. Previously I was guilty of dismissing it also. “Hand washing? Really? Is that all we’ve got?”. Hard science worked for me.

astrange 6y ago
There isn't any empirical evidence that hand washing, "deep cleaning protocols", or surface transmission matters for covid though. Countries which only did masks do just fine; it seems like people are getting infected by airborne transmission. If anything, the trend is you should do the opposite of whatever WHO recommends.