3 ms·
That quote probably comes with some context. While I'm generally in favor of rigorous testing of all hypotheses, sometimes you have to make decisions before th
by waterhouse 6y ago
That quote probably comes with some context. While I'm generally in favor of rigorous testing of all hypotheses, sometimes you have to make decisions before those tests can be completed. (It is worth running the tests in the meantime, though.)
In that case, if the context is what I think: it is methodological fetishism to assume masks are useless until proven otherwise, because the cost is very little, the potential benefit is rather high, and the probability of benefit seems like "at least 10%". And I think certain health authorities were indeed making that assumption early on (though some have said they were simply lying because they thought that would produce the behavior they wanted).
- jjgreen 6y agoYou point is well-taken, but the assumption that masks are useless or dangerous until proven otherwise is simply the well-established precautionary principle. Why dangerous? I travel on the London underground regularly, masks are mandatory but that is not universally observed; a large number of those with masks are constantly adjusting them, touching their faces, then touching the seats and the hand-rails. Those without generally don't touch their faces. Which behaviour is more harmful? I don't know, and until we get some hard numbers of the actual effects of real people's behaviour (rather than hamster-in-a-box studies), nor does anyone else.