5 ms·

When you are an institution like the CDC you need to be trusted to be effective. So, yes, the most expedient solution to the mask problem is to lie, but it's n

When you are an institution like the CDC you need to be trusted to be effective. So, yes, the most expedient solution to the mask problem is to lie, but it's not worth the long term damage to credibility when they are inevitably caught in that lie.

outime 6y ago
It’s a pick your poison situation. Reputation may have been damaged (who knows really, masses seem to forget rather quickly nowadays) but the alternative might just have caused a lot more trouble.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  No, when you're the CDC, you disseminate the facts as they are known at the time. You don't lie to supposedly keep masks from being hoarded. Considering that's exactly what happened, I fail to see how it could have turned out much worse. Just take a look at Fauci as an individual. He's never said masks don't work. He did say "there's no reason to be walking around with a mask," back in March, but, back in March, that was likely true. And, it's not like he hasn't reversed himself when new data comes in. That's precisely why he still has credibility: because what he says is always in line with the best available data.
  - outime 6y ago
    I can’t talk specifics about CDC as I’m european but this way of acting was present in most of the countries around the world and I think it’s somewhat safe to think that it decreased masks demand to a certain point (1%? 20%? 30%?). Even in solid democracies with high trust like Finland they lied so that people wouldn’t hoard that much. Also I IMHO doubt that Fauci didn’t know about mask effectiveness - sure, maybe he didn’t know the very specifics but it was kind of obvious back then it wasn’t going to harm and one could infer that it’d probably help somewhat (nowadays it’s clear). IMHO all authorities just agreed to transmit a similar message around the world so they could in the meantime arrange more mask orders and sort out the distribution as production speeded up while avoiding massive riots and/or poor masks made at home that could’ve been worse than nothing.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      He didn't say they weren't effective. He said it wasn't worthwhile to be walking around wearing one at that time. The virus wasn't anywhere near as prevalent then as it is now, and, people had no real sense of how quickly this thing could spread.
      - likelytrue 6y ago
        > He didn't say they weren't effective. What he actually said: > They are NOT effective Please stop lying.
  - likelytrue 6y ago
    > but, back in March, that was likely true. So today these same people say that the vaccines are safe for anyone and everyone to take (including people not at risk from the virus, people who have already been infected, people with autoimmune issues, pregnant people, breastfeeding people, etc. etc.); but how long will it take before we look back and say "oh well that was likely true then but now we know better, teehee!"?

outime 6y ago

It’s a pick your poison situation. Reputation may have been damaged (who knows really, masses seem to forget rather quickly nowadays) but the alternative might just have caused a lot more trouble.

pmiller2 6y ago
No, when you're the CDC, you disseminate the facts as they are known at the time. You don't lie to supposedly keep masks from being hoarded. Considering that's exactly what happened, I fail to see how it could have turned out much worse. Just take a look at Fauci as an individual. He's never said masks don't work. He did say "there's no reason to be walking around with a mask," back in March, but, back in March, that was likely true. And, it's not like he hasn't reversed himself when new data comes in. That's precisely why he still has credibility: because what he says is always in line with the best available data.
- outime 6y ago
  I can’t talk specifics about CDC as I’m european but this way of acting was present in most of the countries around the world and I think it’s somewhat safe to think that it decreased masks demand to a certain point (1%? 20%? 30%?). Even in solid democracies with high trust like Finland they lied so that people wouldn’t hoard that much. Also I IMHO doubt that Fauci didn’t know about mask effectiveness - sure, maybe he didn’t know the very specifics but it was kind of obvious back then it wasn’t going to harm and one could infer that it’d probably help somewhat (nowadays it’s clear). IMHO all authorities just agreed to transmit a similar message around the world so they could in the meantime arrange more mask orders and sort out the distribution as production speeded up while avoiding massive riots and/or poor masks made at home that could’ve been worse than nothing.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    He didn't say they weren't effective. He said it wasn't worthwhile to be walking around wearing one at that time. The virus wasn't anywhere near as prevalent then as it is now, and, people had no real sense of how quickly this thing could spread.
    - likelytrue 6y ago
      > He didn't say they weren't effective. What he actually said: > They are NOT effective Please stop lying.
- likelytrue 6y ago
  > but, back in March, that was likely true. So today these same people say that the vaccines are safe for anyone and everyone to take (including people not at risk from the virus, people who have already been infected, people with autoimmune issues, pregnant people, breastfeeding people, etc. etc.); but how long will it take before we look back and say "oh well that was likely true then but now we know better, teehee!"?