3 ms·
>The lockdown happened because we had no masks. Simply had none. Masks have their place, but they aren't "be-all and end-all" of policy. In fact, if all you do
by macspoofing 6y ago
>The lockdown happened because we had no masks. Simply had none.
Masks have their place, but they aren't "be-all and end-all" of policy. In fact, if all you do is mask, they don't work very well. You need to pair them with social distancing and other measures.
At the time we locked-down though, most public health agencies, including WHO, was not recommending masking for the public. We locked down because we didn't know how bad the virus was. Numbers like 3-5% infection mortality rate were being thrown around (which was scary). It wasn't because of lack of PPE.
- pashamur 6y agoNoone was taking the 3-5% mortality rate seriously - if you look at the cruise ship studies (the only truly random / fully tested environments), it was fairly obvious early on that the true CFR rate was closer to 0.5% or even lower, or around 5-10x that of the flu. The lockdown was primarily aimed an not overwhelming the hospital system, primarily based on early reports from Wuhan of overloaded hospitals, and then the videos from Bergamo and early NY data. Masks not working very well - citation needed. I was in Hong Kong since January, where there was early mask wearing (since mid-January); the virus was introduced from China multiple times, but never took hold there. The social distancing there was so-so. The main keys to avoiding mass spread were: straightforward access to testing, isolation (!) of confirmed cases in hospitals / dedicated housing (and not at home unlike western countries), mandatory testing & forced quarantine of all incoming travelers, and mask wearing.