9 ms·

Yay, this is great, and should be used for everything! /s If we used this for medical advice in my country, this would make it very funny... at the start of th

Yay, this is great, and should be used for everything! /s If we used this for medical advice in my country, this would make it very funny... at the start of the epidemic, our government "experts" said: - "healthy people don't need masks" ...and youtube would censor all the "fearmongering paranoics" advocating for mask use. Then on some random spring day, our government makes a new rule: - "you need a mask and gloves to enter any closed public space (stores,...)" (yes, literally overnight) And youtube would censor everybody saying that masks don't help healthy people.

hanselot 6y ago
Waiting for the shills to downvote you. This is exactly how every situation will go. Welcome to 1984.
pzmTWLwfwJ 6y ago
Isn't this how science works, you have new information and you use it to make a better decision.
- ajsnigrutin 6y ago
  But do you censor the people saying there is a better decision? And do you then censor the people that advocated for the former "better decision" at the time when it was 'current'.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Shingbogle 6y ago
    But they're not banning random unknown sciences. They're banning conspiracies like tracking chips in vaccines or that the vaccine will kill people. That's not untested science like masks.
- 0xy 6y ago
  Dr Fauci publicly claimed masks were not effective as a means of protecting the supply of masks to healthcare workers, he knew his claims were false at the time he made them. So no, it wasn't "science", it was deliberately misleading public statements.
  - rudedogg 6y ago
    This was so disappointing to watch happen. It was obvious (even at the time) that it was to keep people from hoarding masks so they were available for healthcare workers. Fauci, the Surgeon General, and everyone else should have refused to lie. Now the damage is done, and more people distrust Science.
    - wolco2 6y ago
      It happened in many countries around the world at all levels of government. History has shown that blindly following uber global bodies like the WHO can have a massive negative outcomes even with best intentions.
      - hef19898 6y ago
        The first global body was the League of Nations, if you exclude entities like the British Empire from the perspective of their colonies. When exactly did following the UN or any other body result in desaster?
        wolco2 6y ago
        The topic was masks. So following that advice caused many lives lost. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/04/why-world-health-organization-failed/610063/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/04/why-world... UN specifically Israeli occupation (1948-Now) Kashmir dispute (1948-Now) Cambodia violence (1975-1979) Somali civil war (1991-Now) Rwandan civil war (1994) Srebrenica Massacre (1995) Darfur conflict in Sudan (2003-Now) Iraq invasion (2003-2011) Rohingya Crisis, Myanmar (2017-Now)
- j8hn 6y ago
  You're right. My issue is that why did US health officials say masks were not effective against respiratory infections, when health officials from Asian countries had deemed them effective. Why didn't we have the science? Respiratory infections aren't new. I remember debating people early in the outbreak about the use of masks and they were pointing out that there was little scientific evidence on the use of masks, especially non n-95.
  - nso95 6y ago
    They lied because they didn't want medical professionals to run out of masks
    - daveguy 6y ago
      Source? From what I remember the message very early on wasn't that masks don't work, it was "save the masks for the front line workers"
      - j8hn 6y ago
        Here is a short video from the CDC in March of this year. https://twitter.com/CDCgov/status/1238487810874789889 https://twitter.com/CDCgov/status/1238487810874789889 If you search Google news for "masks" between February and March you can see where the surgeon general and others were saying that masks may increase the likelihood of infection because of touching your face.
        konjin 6y ago
        I'm glad someone spreading lies like that will be ever banned from youtube.
        stkdump 6y ago
        Did you even watch the video? 1. He says there is no need to wear masks in public "at this time". 2. He says there is no evidence that masks protect you against infections (which is of course something that can and did change over time) 3. He mentioned that touching your face can be dangerous, not that wearing masks increases the risk. I don't think anyone disputed this then or now. That is something else than people saying now that there is no evidence that masks help, because now we have evidence.
- wolco2 6y ago
  This is how the politics of science can works. Masks may run out is the fear. Do not be honest and tell everyone they don't work. Masks are restocked, force everyone to wear a mask.
  - tacocataco 6y ago
    What happened to rationing? Are we to "free" to go back to this method of resource distribution?
  - raxxorrax 6y ago
    There is nothing scientific on the politics of science then. With that strategy you will have less and less people listening to you, because a subset will always find out you have lied.
- lki876 6y ago
  Indeed. Something thought to be right was actually wrong. Happens all the time. And of course something thought to be wrong was actually right. This is why disallowing "misinformation" is utterly stupid.
  - dtech 6y ago
    This is not an argument to allow any fearmongering and actively spreading a harmful message. You can use this argument to say nothing should ever be forbidden/punished to say ever.
    - lki876 6y ago
      > This is not an argument to allow any fearmongering So let's ban information that claims corona isn't that bad then, because it's DANGEROUS and you should BE SCARED and PEOPLE ARE DYING and if you don't wear the mask YOU COULD KILL PEOPLE.
    - jstanley 6y ago
      > You can use this argument to say nothing should ever be forbidden/punished to say ever. Yes!
      - dtech 6y ago
        Ok, so everyone should be allowed to broadcast, promote and advertise: "all white people are inherently evil and criminal and should all be exterminated, go out and shoot every and kill every white person you see!"?
        jstanley 6y ago
        In my view: yes. You can say whatever you want, and if you say stupid things people will think you are stupid.
        lki876 6y ago
        Then a hundred years after you were burnt at the stake, it turns out you may have had a point.
- roenxi 6y ago
  Banning everyone who disagrees with the current state of the science is also not how science works; and yet YouTube is going to attempt (and fail) to do just that. YouTube is almost certainly going to be banning literal doctors with actual PHDs from expressing scientific opinions which later turn out to be substantiated. The article says this ban includes material that "explicitly disputes health authorities’ guidance on self-isolation or social distancing.". There are some rather eminent doctors who do exactly that. Social distancing policy is a political, not a scientific, question of trade-offs.
  - sampo 6y ago
    > YouTube is almost certainly going to be banning literal doctors with actual PHDs from expressing scientific opinions which later turn out to be substantiated. How are they going to deal with situations where health authorities in different countries have different positions? Like right now, Germany recommends masks and Sweden doesn't. Are they going to censor anti-mask videos in Germany and pro-mask videos in Sweden?
  - gitrog 6y ago
    > YouTube is almost certainly going to be banning literal doctors with actual PHDs from expressing scientific opinions which later turn out to be substantiated. To be fair, Youtube shouldn't be the platform where doctors express their scientific opinion or try to win over support.
    - dna_polymerase 6y ago
      Why not? It pretty accessible and a nicely done video does more for the education of the general public than some pdf on a server behind a Springer paywall.
      - gitrog 6y ago
        I just mean that they should have their work peer reviewed first.
- CryptoPunk 6y ago
  A lot of scientific dialogue now happens through mediums like Youtube. Scientists use it as a research tool, and a way to disseminate information to other scientists. Censoring discourse is extremely dangerous, and its detrimental effect on scientific advancement is just one of the reasons why.
- serial_dev 6y ago
  The issue is not that they got it wrong the first time(or lied on purpose to defend the economy, or to prevent panic and hoarding). The issue is that people were marked as conspiracy theorist nutjobs for holding some views that were the official recommendation a week ago (or became the recommendation a week later). If officials can get it wrong, why would you censor your "drunk uncle" from getting it wrong?
- coldtea 6y ago
  There wasn't any new information, it was just policy decisions hiding the information. 1st stage: "We don't have enough masks to go around, we need them for doctors and such -- ok, let's tell citizens "don't wear masks, as they do no good" 2nd stage: "We have ample of masks now imported. OK, let's tell citizens they have to wear masks".
- csomar 6y ago
  The problem is that govts around the world didn't do this in a scientific fashion. They had mask shortages and wanted to keep the masks for health workers and also not make people worry. Now they have masks and want everyone to wear one. Very hard to have any credibility after a few similar interactions. This is not about speech all over the world (maybe except China), this is about the political elites losing leadership.
  - jmull 6y ago
    ??? If mask availability is limited, doesn't it make sense to use them where they have the most positive impact? Isn't that just good resource management? That seems good for credibility.
    - NeutronStar 6y ago
      It's the lying and saying mask are of no use then doing a 180 and forcing everyone to wear one. Nothing would say shut if they said it was because of the low stock.
    - clinta 6y ago
      Sure it does. But lying about that as the reasons and saying masks don't work is misinformation. And that is what the government health officials said. They intentionally engaged in a misinformation campaign. And now they are considered the authority against which any other opinion will be judged misinformation.
- swiley 6y ago
  Excommunicating people who disagree with you is how the catholic church works not science.
- 0-_-0 6y ago
  You won't get new information if you ban anything that disagrees with the old information
onion2k 6y ago
And youtube would censor everybody saying that masks don't help healthy people. There's a mile-wide chasm between posting an opinion that differs from the official government line and posting something that's deliberate misinformation designed to harm people. YouTube are only removing the latter. The article actually quotes a YouTube spokesman saying as much "A YouTube spokesman told Reuters that general discussions in videos about “broad concerns” over the vaccine would remain on the platform."
- Mirioron 6y ago
  >There's a mile-wide chasm between posting an opinion that differs from the official government line and posting something that's deliberate misinformation designed to harm people. This is true, but almost no content would fall under your definition of "deliberate misinformation designed to harm people". That phrasing might be said to be the standard, but it wouldn't be applied that way. Also, the quote from the YouTube spokesperson pretty explicitly says that if something is wrong with the vaccine YouTube will not allow you to say that. That would be something specific, rather than broad. I doubt that they would actually silence someone that points a specific flaw in the vaccine, but that's what their spokesperson said (read: their words are unreliable).
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  Now I have concerns about the vaccine... This is how it works with modern information spread. Of course you can have concerns and you should be able to state them openly. Any doctor that wouldn't have concerns without a long term clinical study does lie.
- ibejoeb 6y ago
  This is what makes the mask situation so illustrative. You have the same guy who is deemed the ultimate authority saying two opposing things, so one of them must have been deliberate misinformation to harm people under these rules. You can't get on TV and say "masks are useless" and the next minute, in the face of no new data, get on TV and say "masks are the law" and somehow walk away with intention preserved and reputation intact. None of this finicky language is ever going to amount to anything, frankly. The powers that be ultimately control what is broadcast to the masses, even if those powers change their minds.
fsh 6y ago
Scott Alexander wrote a very insightful article about the mask issue: https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/23/face-masks-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/23/face-masks-much-more-t...
a1369209993 6y ago
> Then on some random spring day, our government makes a new rule It's not a new rule; Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
paul_f 6y ago
What we need is a Ministry of Truth to decide what is real and what is misinformation.
- moralestapia 6y ago
  You are missing an /s, right? ... r-right? :S
  - SamuelAdams 6y ago
    The fact that you have to ask speaks volumes about the current state of affairs.
- umvi 6y ago
  No, that would infringe the 1st Amendment. What we really need is a conglomerate of mega-corporations to fill that role and decide what is real and what is misinformation, that way we achieve the same result without the letter of the law being infringed. /s
jmull 6y ago
Don't you think it makes sense that as we learned about how the virus spreads, and as the number of people infected exploded, that the mask recommendation might change? I think you're trying to mock scientific experts, but what kind of expert would NOT be willing to change their recommendation based on new, strong, contrary information? Of course experts would prefer not to make a recommendation until all the facts are known, to avoid being wrong. But that simply was not (still and is not) possible with the pandemic. We have to decide how to react with the information we have and it's just rational to be willing to change our decision based on strong new information.
- clinta 6y ago
  This is not what happened, not in the US anyway. Fauci, after the recommendations changed, admitted that masks were discouraged to prioritize them for first responders[1]. So we have government health experts publicly saying they engaged in misinformation. But they are the experts against which every other opinion is to be judged as misinformation. 1: https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/502890-fauci-why-the-public-wasnt-told-to-wear-masks https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-c...
  - scoutt 6y ago
    I am not in favor or against Fauci or his comments (I am not even american), and I am not a linguist either so perhaps you can help me: Is "not recommended" == "discouraged"? "He also acknowledged that masks were initially not recommended to the general public so that first responders wouldn’t feel the strain of a shortage of PPE." As far as I understand, 'discouraging' is to saying publicly "Do not buy masks" and 'not recommending' might be just that, as in, not saying "Go and buy a masks or you'll spread the disease".
    - clinta 6y ago
      He actively discouraged mask use. Fauci and the Surgeon General said wearing a mask was more likely to get you sick because you would touch your face more. "You can increase your risk of getting it by wearing a mask if you are not a health care provider," Adams said. "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," he added. https://www.businessinsider.com/americans-dont-need-masks-pence-says-as-demand-increases-2020-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/americans-dont-need-masks-pe...

hanselot 6y ago

Waiting for the shills to downvote you. This is exactly how every situation will go. Welcome to 1984.

pzmTWLwfwJ 6y ago

Isn't this how science works, you have new information and you use it to make a better decision.

ajsnigrutin 6y ago
But do you censor the people saying there is a better decision? And do you then censor the people that advocated for the former "better decision" at the time when it was 'current'.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Shingbogle 6y ago
  But they're not banning random unknown sciences. They're banning conspiracies like tracking chips in vaccines or that the vaccine will kill people. That's not untested science like masks.
0xy 6y ago
Dr Fauci publicly claimed masks were not effective as a means of protecting the supply of masks to healthcare workers, he knew his claims were false at the time he made them. So no, it wasn't "science", it was deliberately misleading public statements.
- rudedogg 6y ago
  This was so disappointing to watch happen. It was obvious (even at the time) that it was to keep people from hoarding masks so they were available for healthcare workers. Fauci, the Surgeon General, and everyone else should have refused to lie. Now the damage is done, and more people distrust Science.
  - wolco2 6y ago
    It happened in many countries around the world at all levels of government. History has shown that blindly following uber global bodies like the WHO can have a massive negative outcomes even with best intentions.
    - hef19898 6y ago
      The first global body was the League of Nations, if you exclude entities like the British Empire from the perspective of their colonies. When exactly did following the UN or any other body result in desaster?
      - wolco2 6y ago
        The topic was masks. So following that advice caused many lives lost. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/04/why-world-health-organization-failed/610063/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/04/why-world... UN specifically Israeli occupation (1948-Now) Kashmir dispute (1948-Now) Cambodia violence (1975-1979) Somali civil war (1991-Now) Rwandan civil war (1994) Srebrenica Massacre (1995) Darfur conflict in Sudan (2003-Now) Iraq invasion (2003-2011) Rohingya Crisis, Myanmar (2017-Now)
j8hn 6y ago
You're right. My issue is that why did US health officials say masks were not effective against respiratory infections, when health officials from Asian countries had deemed them effective. Why didn't we have the science? Respiratory infections aren't new. I remember debating people early in the outbreak about the use of masks and they were pointing out that there was little scientific evidence on the use of masks, especially non n-95.
- nso95 6y ago
  They lied because they didn't want medical professionals to run out of masks
  - daveguy 6y ago
    Source? From what I remember the message very early on wasn't that masks don't work, it was "save the masks for the front line workers"
    - j8hn 6y ago
      Here is a short video from the CDC in March of this year. https://twitter.com/CDCgov/status/1238487810874789889 https://twitter.com/CDCgov/status/1238487810874789889 If you search Google news for "masks" between February and March you can see where the surgeon general and others were saying that masks may increase the likelihood of infection because of touching your face.
      - konjin 6y ago
        I'm glad someone spreading lies like that will be ever banned from youtube.
        stkdump 6y ago
        Did you even watch the video? 1. He says there is no need to wear masks in public "at this time". 2. He says there is no evidence that masks protect you against infections (which is of course something that can and did change over time) 3. He mentioned that touching your face can be dangerous, not that wearing masks increases the risk. I don't think anyone disputed this then or now. That is something else than people saying now that there is no evidence that masks help, because now we have evidence.
wolco2 6y ago
This is how the politics of science can works. Masks may run out is the fear. Do not be honest and tell everyone they don't work. Masks are restocked, force everyone to wear a mask.
- tacocataco 6y ago
  What happened to rationing? Are we to "free" to go back to this method of resource distribution?
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  There is nothing scientific on the politics of science then. With that strategy you will have less and less people listening to you, because a subset will always find out you have lied.
lki876 6y ago
Indeed. Something thought to be right was actually wrong. Happens all the time. And of course something thought to be wrong was actually right. This is why disallowing "misinformation" is utterly stupid.
- dtech 6y ago
  This is not an argument to allow any fearmongering and actively spreading a harmful message. You can use this argument to say nothing should ever be forbidden/punished to say ever.
  - lki876 6y ago
    > This is not an argument to allow any fearmongering So let's ban information that claims corona isn't that bad then, because it's DANGEROUS and you should BE SCARED and PEOPLE ARE DYING and if you don't wear the mask YOU COULD KILL PEOPLE.
  - jstanley 6y ago
    > You can use this argument to say nothing should ever be forbidden/punished to say ever. Yes!
    - dtech 6y ago
      Ok, so everyone should be allowed to broadcast, promote and advertise: "all white people are inherently evil and criminal and should all be exterminated, go out and shoot every and kill every white person you see!"?
      - jstanley 6y ago
        In my view: yes. You can say whatever you want, and if you say stupid things people will think you are stupid.
        lki876 6y ago
        Then a hundred years after you were burnt at the stake, it turns out you may have had a point.
roenxi 6y ago
Banning everyone who disagrees with the current state of the science is also not how science works; and yet YouTube is going to attempt (and fail) to do just that. YouTube is almost certainly going to be banning literal doctors with actual PHDs from expressing scientific opinions which later turn out to be substantiated. The article says this ban includes material that "explicitly disputes health authorities’ guidance on self-isolation or social distancing.". There are some rather eminent doctors who do exactly that. Social distancing policy is a political, not a scientific, question of trade-offs.
- sampo 6y ago
  > YouTube is almost certainly going to be banning literal doctors with actual PHDs from expressing scientific opinions which later turn out to be substantiated. How are they going to deal with situations where health authorities in different countries have different positions? Like right now, Germany recommends masks and Sweden doesn't. Are they going to censor anti-mask videos in Germany and pro-mask videos in Sweden?
- gitrog 6y ago
  > YouTube is almost certainly going to be banning literal doctors with actual PHDs from expressing scientific opinions which later turn out to be substantiated. To be fair, Youtube shouldn't be the platform where doctors express their scientific opinion or try to win over support.
  - dna_polymerase 6y ago
    Why not? It pretty accessible and a nicely done video does more for the education of the general public than some pdf on a server behind a Springer paywall.
    - gitrog 6y ago
      I just mean that they should have their work peer reviewed first.
CryptoPunk 6y ago
A lot of scientific dialogue now happens through mediums like Youtube. Scientists use it as a research tool, and a way to disseminate information to other scientists. Censoring discourse is extremely dangerous, and its detrimental effect on scientific advancement is just one of the reasons why.
serial_dev 6y ago
The issue is not that they got it wrong the first time(or lied on purpose to defend the economy, or to prevent panic and hoarding). The issue is that people were marked as conspiracy theorist nutjobs for holding some views that were the official recommendation a week ago (or became the recommendation a week later). If officials can get it wrong, why would you censor your "drunk uncle" from getting it wrong?
coldtea 6y ago
There wasn't any new information, it was just policy decisions hiding the information. 1st stage: "We don't have enough masks to go around, we need them for doctors and such -- ok, let's tell citizens "don't wear masks, as they do no good" 2nd stage: "We have ample of masks now imported. OK, let's tell citizens they have to wear masks".
csomar 6y ago
The problem is that govts around the world didn't do this in a scientific fashion. They had mask shortages and wanted to keep the masks for health workers and also not make people worry. Now they have masks and want everyone to wear one. Very hard to have any credibility after a few similar interactions. This is not about speech all over the world (maybe except China), this is about the political elites losing leadership.
- jmull 6y ago
  ??? If mask availability is limited, doesn't it make sense to use them where they have the most positive impact? Isn't that just good resource management? That seems good for credibility.
  - NeutronStar 6y ago
    It's the lying and saying mask are of no use then doing a 180 and forcing everyone to wear one. Nothing would say shut if they said it was because of the low stock.
  - clinta 6y ago
    Sure it does. But lying about that as the reasons and saying masks don't work is misinformation. And that is what the government health officials said. They intentionally engaged in a misinformation campaign. And now they are considered the authority against which any other opinion will be judged misinformation.
swiley 6y ago
Excommunicating people who disagree with you is how the catholic church works not science.
0-_-0 6y ago
You won't get new information if you ban anything that disagrees with the old information

onion2k 6y ago

And youtube would censor everybody saying that masks don't help healthy people. There's a mile-wide chasm between posting an opinion that differs from the official government line and posting something that's deliberate misinformation designed to harm people. YouTube are only removing the latter. The article actually quotes a YouTube spokesman saying as much "A YouTube spokesman told Reuters that general discussions in videos about “broad concerns” over the vaccine would remain on the platform."

Mirioron 6y ago
>There's a mile-wide chasm between posting an opinion that differs from the official government line and posting something that's deliberate misinformation designed to harm people. This is true, but almost no content would fall under your definition of "deliberate misinformation designed to harm people". That phrasing might be said to be the standard, but it wouldn't be applied that way. Also, the quote from the YouTube spokesperson pretty explicitly says that if something is wrong with the vaccine YouTube will not allow you to say that. That would be something specific, rather than broad. I doubt that they would actually silence someone that points a specific flaw in the vaccine, but that's what their spokesperson said (read: their words are unreliable).
raxxorrax 6y ago
Now I have concerns about the vaccine... This is how it works with modern information spread. Of course you can have concerns and you should be able to state them openly. Any doctor that wouldn't have concerns without a long term clinical study does lie.
ibejoeb 6y ago
This is what makes the mask situation so illustrative. You have the same guy who is deemed the ultimate authority saying two opposing things, so one of them must have been deliberate misinformation to harm people under these rules. You can't get on TV and say "masks are useless" and the next minute, in the face of no new data, get on TV and say "masks are the law" and somehow walk away with intention preserved and reputation intact. None of this finicky language is ever going to amount to anything, frankly. The powers that be ultimately control what is broadcast to the masses, even if those powers change their minds.

fsh 6y ago

Scott Alexander wrote a very insightful article about the mask issue: https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/23/face-masks-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/23/face-masks-much-more-t...

a1369209993 6y ago

> Then on some random spring day, our government makes a new rule It's not a new rule; Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

paul_f 6y ago

What we need is a Ministry of Truth to decide what is real and what is misinformation.

moralestapia 6y ago
You are missing an /s, right? ... r-right? :S
- SamuelAdams 6y ago
  The fact that you have to ask speaks volumes about the current state of affairs.
umvi 6y ago
No, that would infringe the 1st Amendment. What we really need is a conglomerate of mega-corporations to fill that role and decide what is real and what is misinformation, that way we achieve the same result without the letter of the law being infringed. /s

jmull 6y ago

Don't you think it makes sense that as we learned about how the virus spreads, and as the number of people infected exploded, that the mask recommendation might change? I think you're trying to mock scientific experts, but what kind of expert would NOT be willing to change their recommendation based on new, strong, contrary information? Of course experts would prefer not to make a recommendation until all the facts are known, to avoid being wrong. But that simply was not (still and is not) possible with the pandemic. We have to decide how to react with the information we have and it's just rational to be willing to change our decision based on strong new information.

clinta 6y ago
This is not what happened, not in the US anyway. Fauci, after the recommendations changed, admitted that masks were discouraged to prioritize them for first responders[1]. So we have government health experts publicly saying they engaged in misinformation. But they are the experts against which every other opinion is to be judged as misinformation. 1: https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/502890-fauci-why-the-public-wasnt-told-to-wear-masks https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-c...
- scoutt 6y ago
  I am not in favor or against Fauci or his comments (I am not even american), and I am not a linguist either so perhaps you can help me: Is "not recommended" == "discouraged"? "He also acknowledged that masks were initially not recommended to the general public so that first responders wouldn’t feel the strain of a shortage of PPE." As far as I understand, 'discouraging' is to saying publicly "Do not buy masks" and 'not recommending' might be just that, as in, not saying "Go and buy a masks or you'll spread the disease".
  - clinta 6y ago
    He actively discouraged mask use. Fauci and the Surgeon General said wearing a mask was more likely to get you sick because you would touch your face more. "You can increase your risk of getting it by wearing a mask if you are not a health care provider," Adams said. "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," he added. https://www.businessinsider.com/americans-dont-need-masks-pence-says-as-demand-increases-2020-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/americans-dont-need-masks-pe...