3 ms·

I think this, again, stems from a general misunderstanding of what science is. Science is a method of drawing conclusions about data. Sometimes, those initial c

I think this, again, stems from a general misunderstanding of what science is. Science is a method of drawing conclusions about data. Sometimes, those initial conclusions can be misguided by incomplete data. The world discovered this virus less than a year ago. It takes some time to determine the different transmission vectors and risk factors associated with each. The CDC did not make a claim based on their "guts". The initial stance on masks was determined for a few reasons: 1) People often don't use masks properly. They often touch their masks and their faces. The initial thinking was that the virus spread largely through touching contaminated surfaces. 2) Mask mandates are difficult (as we are seeing now) and significant portions of the population refusing to use masks undercuts their efficacy. 3) There was a shortage of PPE when the pandemic started. The CDC and NHS didn't want to find themselves in a situation where hospitals had a hard time procuring masks because scared citizens hoarded the supply. The anti-science issue in the US appears to have a few prongs to it. There has been a growing distrust of science for quite some time with the anti-vax and flat earth movements. I'm not sure what caused it, but it sadly appears to be a growing trend. Also, as we are seeing with the Coronavirus response, a lot of people seem to misunderstand that scientific consensus can change as new data is collected.

luckylion 6y ago
1) sounds like an argument looked for after the fact. Masks were recommended initially especially because they stop you from touching your face and would train you not to do so. 2) doesn't make sense to me: because masks aren't perfect and some people refusing to wear masks makes them less efficient they'd advise to not wear masks at all? 3) is a political stance, not a scientific one. Would people have reacted differently to masks if they weren't intentionally mislead on so many levels about Covid-19 in general (the WHO losing a lot of credibility) and the efficacy of masks? When you have people who are skeptical of the government, and the government lies to them and gets caught, won't that make them even more skeptical of whatever the government says next? I don't think there ever was a scientific consensus that masks aren't effective against airborne diseases. There was a political decision, and that can change any time, but it has nothing to do with data collection or the scientific method.
- kickopotomus 6y ago
  1) No, quite the opposite. It was one of the reasons cited by the CDC as to why they originally did not support widespread face mask use. 2) This ties into the fact that PPE supplies were low when the pandemic started. They did not want to declare a mask ordinance while hospitals were still having a difficult time sourcing PPE themselves. The fact that many people would either be unable to purchase masks or be unwilling to participate made it so that they would just be working against themselves at a time when supply management was critical. 3) Is sociology not a science? It is a matter of public policy. Ensuring that healthcare professionals have access to PPE is the prudent course of action when dealing with a pandemic. >> I don't think there ever was a scientific consensus that masks aren't effective against airborne diseases. There was a political decision, and that can change any time, but it has nothing to do with data collection or the scientific method. What are you even talking about? Mask use continues to be studied widely[1] [1]: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-si...

luckylion 6y ago

1) sounds like an argument looked for after the fact. Masks were recommended initially especially because they stop you from touching your face and would train you not to do so. 2) doesn't make sense to me: because masks aren't perfect and some people refusing to wear masks makes them less efficient they'd advise to not wear masks at all? 3) is a political stance, not a scientific one. Would people have reacted differently to masks if they weren't intentionally mislead on so many levels about Covid-19 in general (the WHO losing a lot of credibility) and the efficacy of masks? When you have people who are skeptical of the government, and the government lies to them and gets caught, won't that make them even more skeptical of whatever the government says next? I don't think there ever was a scientific consensus that masks aren't effective against airborne diseases. There was a political decision, and that can change any time, but it has nothing to do with data collection or the scientific method.

kickopotomus 6y ago
1) No, quite the opposite. It was one of the reasons cited by the CDC as to why they originally did not support widespread face mask use. 2) This ties into the fact that PPE supplies were low when the pandemic started. They did not want to declare a mask ordinance while hospitals were still having a difficult time sourcing PPE themselves. The fact that many people would either be unable to purchase masks or be unwilling to participate made it so that they would just be working against themselves at a time when supply management was critical. 3) Is sociology not a science? It is a matter of public policy. Ensuring that healthcare professionals have access to PPE is the prudent course of action when dealing with a pandemic. >> I don't think there ever was a scientific consensus that masks aren't effective against airborne diseases. There was a political decision, and that can change any time, but it has nothing to do with data collection or the scientific method. What are you even talking about? Mask use continues to be studied widely[1] [1]: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-si...