3 ms·
Mandate masks or don't. It's a boolean policy decision. Not making that is doing nothing with respect to that policy. I'm sympathetic to your argument about un
by eloff 6y ago
Mandate masks or don't. It's a boolean policy decision. Not making that is doing nothing with respect to that policy.
I'm sympathetic to your argument about unintended consequences, and you could even turn out to be right. But if I had to bet on which policy decision would be smarter, I'm still going to go for mandatory masks. I think in the end assuming that masks will work on that level is more likely given what we know, than assuming there is an unknown unintended consequence so powerful it negates the usefulness of masks completely.
- xorcist 6y agoUnless this is some word definition game, of course policy decisions aren't binary. You could make masks mandatory for health care workers. You could request people to wear masks but not enforce it. So far, data does not agree with your feeling which decision is smarter. The cities with the harshest mask policies have been the ones with the more secondary outbreaks. One only needs to take a stroll in Paris too see why. Outbreak worsened right after masks were made mandatory, no matter which indicator you look at. However, it is also important to realize that does not mean face masks are inherently bad. We don't know that either. It means other factors are important, and sweeping policy decisions require data. The WHO knows this, hence their recommendations. Public health is hard. So far it has mostly been a case of political posturing, along the classic "we must do something, this is something, therefore we must do it".