2 ms·

It’s not to “prevent a run on masks”, that’s an oversimplification. Not recommending masks was because we KNEW the n95 type masks worked, but there were not nea

by op00to 6y ago

It’s not to “prevent a run on masks”, that’s an oversimplification. Not recommending masks was because we KNEW the n95 type masks worked, but there were not nearly enough of them for health care workers, let alone the rest of us. As science progressed in the topic, we learned that even cloth masks which are easier to produce reduce the amount of virus people spread out into the environment. If people are skeptical or confused, it’s because they refuse to understand the concept that our knowledge about the world changes and evolves over time.

pessimizer 6y ago
> Not recommending masks was because we KNEW the n95 type masks worked, but there were not nearly enough of them for health care workers, let alone the rest of us. So it's not an oversimplification, you just agree with the tactic. It's alright to agree with the tactic without accusing the people who describe what happened accurately of arguing in bad faith.
spaginal 6y ago
People aren't refusing anything. People were being told that masks can be effective to stop spread, government agent says don't wear masks, then later says you must wear masks, then admits they said this to prevent you from getting a mask when they were available to you before the government and private industry squashed access to the supply. That level of deceit is enough to make anyone skeptical of anything else going forward. Then move 6 months into the future after we get more data, we know specifically who the virus harms, how it harms them, we've all interacted with someone who had it and realized it wasn't the end of the world, which adds further to the confusion on the overreaching response. We can also finely target the response now to mitigate spread if needed, yet governments are still using total lock down as the only model, despite having the data to do it better. A further issue, total "cases", which we now know most are mild, are the only metric used by government and media to engineer a propaganda campaign against a population as justification to destroy everyone's livelihoods and freedoms. Being a little salty at this point is justified, we don't lack understanding at this stage.

by op00to 6y ago

pessimizer 6y ago

> Not recommending masks was because we KNEW the n95 type masks worked, but there were not nearly enough of them for health care workers, let alone the rest of us. So it's not an oversimplification, you just agree with the tactic. It's alright to agree with the tactic without accusing the people who describe what happened accurately of arguing in bad faith.

spaginal 6y ago

People aren't refusing anything. People were being told that masks can be effective to stop spread, government agent says don't wear masks, then later says you must wear masks, then admits they said this to prevent you from getting a mask when they were available to you before the government and private industry squashed access to the supply. That level of deceit is enough to make anyone skeptical of anything else going forward. Then move 6 months into the future after we get more data, we know specifically who the virus harms, how it harms them, we've all interacted with someone who had it and realized it wasn't the end of the world, which adds further to the confusion on the overreaching response. We can also finely target the response now to mitigate spread if needed, yet governments are still using total lock down as the only model, despite having the data to do it better. A further issue, total "cases", which we now know most are mild, are the only metric used by government and media to engineer a propaganda campaign against a population as justification to destroy everyone's livelihoods and freedoms. Being a little salty at this point is justified, we don't lack understanding at this stage.