3 ms·
> The goals have fundamentally drifted on covid. In the beginning it was flatten the curve so that hospitals aren’t overwhelmed. The goal wasn’t to eradicate co
by ardy42 6y ago
> The goals have fundamentally drifted on covid. In the beginning it was flatten the curve so that hospitals aren’t overwhelmed. The goal wasn’t to eradicate covid but to slow the growth to an acceptable level.
It's kinda unreasonable to expect strict adherence to an initial strategy formed in such an uncertain and chaotic period. When more effective containment strategies become known (or discovered to be achievable), they should be pursued.
My recollection was that the "flatten the curve" slogan appeared immediately after it became clear that the hope of stopping covid at the border had failed. The main message of the slogan was to maintain optimism because there was still value in social distancing, etc. even though the initial containment had failed. That was also before masks had been widely recommended. Now it seems like masks plus diligent adherence to some social distancing measures can do better than "flatten the curve," but unfortunately too many people aren't interested in doing either, so we have a bigger mess.
- samatman 6y agoIf CDC and the Surgeon General had wanted universal mask use, the worst possible strategy would be something like: spend two months insisting that, not only do masks not work, but buying them is unpatriotic and selfish, because we need to save them for health care workers, since masks require a hospital boundary to be effective. Just wash your hands a lot! Then pivot, pretend universal masking was always the advice, and act shocked when the resulting cognitive dissonance coalesces into a partisan issue.
- ardy42 6y ago> If CDC and the Surgeon General had wanted universal mask use, the worst possible strategy would be something like: spend two months insisting that, not only do masks not work, but buying them is unpatriotic and selfish, because we need to save them for health care workers, since masks require a hospital boundary to be effective. Just wash your hands a lot! You know things can change, right? It's a fact that during the initial stages there was insufficient supply of masks of all kinds, and the ones most available for purchase were N95s which are still in short supply. Now surgical masks are literally given away for free at the door at Home Depot. In retrospect, they did make mistakes (too much focus on evidence based vs. common-sense recommendations (e.g. use a homemade mask), and much focus simplify the messaging leading to a neglect of education about the subtleties of mask use). > Then pivot, pretend universal masking was always the advice, and act shocked when the resulting cognitive dissonance coalesces into a partisan issue. No one serious pretends that "universal masking was always the advice" (at least in the US). However, it's clear that the advice now. Like I said initially: it's kinda unreasonable to expect this should have all been figured out perfectly during the initial uncertain and chaotic period.
- smnrchrds 6y ago> ...because we need to save them for health care workers, since masks require a hospital boundary to be effective It was way more nuanced than what you are implying. At the time, it was not known that normal masks can have any effect and many pieces of evidence suggested the opposite. It was known that N95 masks were effective, but a) they were, and still are, in short supply and need to be saved for healthcare workers; and b) in a manner of speaking, they stop working beyond the hospital border. Putting an N95 mask on requires training and even many trained healthcare professionals put it on incorrectly and expose themselves to the virus. Things changed when it was shown that normal fabric masks were effective.