3 ms·

> Your entire analysis is a guesstimate based on sociology/behavioural economics/anthropology/ and not medicine. The analysis that simple cloth masks "work" is

> Your entire analysis is a guesstimate based on sociology/behavioural economics/anthropology/ and not medicine. The analysis that simple cloth masks "work" is a guesstimate based on physics and not medicine - or at least it was at the time. Absent scientific data, the best we can do is to use reason to effectively make a guess. > WHO has no competence whatsoever to judge on that basis, and as far as I know they haven't consulted with anyone who does. That sounds questionable, epidemiology certainly does have human behavior as a component of study. > If they had bothered to consult with actual experts, they'd tell them that humans can be communicated with if one picks the right words. I find the "appeal to anonymous experts" argument unconvincing. What kind of experts are we talking about? Communications experts? PR people? Isn't it their job to make you believe that communication is possible? To sell you a workshop on how to talk to people? Speaking from personal experience with at-risk individuals, it took a lot of effort to presumably convince people that simple cloth masks do not protect them. People are desperate to hear that a low-effort intervention will save them from peril. It's a strong confirmation bias effect. > Even now, in no place with a mask mandate has there been an increase in human contact. How would you be able to tell? What's your baseline? Even in areas without a mandate, people are free to wear masks or hold the belief that "my mask protects me".

yyyk 6y ago
>The analysis that simple cloth masks "work" is a guesstimate based on physics and not medicine - or at least it was at the time. Actually, there were medical studies on this issue predating the pandemic showing a small benefit for respiratory diseases. Yes, a guesstimate (nobody could have tested for effect on Coronavirus in advance), but at least it's a guesstimate based on some things WHO, Fauci, etc. had knowledge of. Fauci says he was aware of this but worried about a run on mask supplies. My point was that assessing social behaviour was far beyond the remit of the typical WHO member or apparently even epidemiologists. They should have 'followed the science' themselves and talked to people who actually have some expertise and experience in that, rather than make policy on a whim. >That sounds questionable, epidemiology certainly does have human behavior as a component of study. Fauci worried that if there was a mask mandate early on, would people have made a run on masks, leaving nothing to doctors. What's the epidemiological answer? What's the epidemiological model for even getting an answer? There isn't any, because their toolbox for humans is much more limited than their toolbox for viruses. One really needs to ask other professions - you know, sociologists, economists, etc. for that one. There were alternatives even if the answer was 'yes'. One could have mobilized production via DPA, or banned the sale of N95 masks. Instead, Fauci made a personal call based on no data. >> Even now, in no place with a mask mandate has there been an increase in human contact. >How would you be able to tell? What's your baseline? Google (and I believe Apple too) release aggregate positional tracking data on activities. Most of the world shows decreases, including places with a mask mandate. I haven't seen any reporting of an increase tied to mandates in places that have them.

yyyk 6y ago

>The analysis that simple cloth masks "work" is a guesstimate based on physics and not medicine - or at least it was at the time. Actually, there were medical studies on this issue predating the pandemic showing a small benefit for respiratory diseases. Yes, a guesstimate (nobody could have tested for effect on Coronavirus in advance), but at least it's a guesstimate based on some things WHO, Fauci, etc. had knowledge of. Fauci says he was aware of this but worried about a run on mask supplies. My point was that assessing social behaviour was far beyond the remit of the typical WHO member or apparently even epidemiologists. They should have 'followed the science' themselves and talked to people who actually have some expertise and experience in that, rather than make policy on a whim. >That sounds questionable, epidemiology certainly does have human behavior as a component of study. Fauci worried that if there was a mask mandate early on, would people have made a run on masks, leaving nothing to doctors. What's the epidemiological answer? What's the epidemiological model for even getting an answer? There isn't any, because their toolbox for humans is much more limited than their toolbox for viruses. One really needs to ask other professions - you know, sociologists, economists, etc. for that one. There were alternatives even if the answer was 'yes'. One could have mobilized production via DPA, or banned the sale of N95 masks. Instead, Fauci made a personal call based on no data. >> Even now, in no place with a mask mandate has there been an increase in human contact. >How would you be able to tell? What's your baseline? Google (and I believe Apple too) release aggregate positional tracking data on activities. Most of the world shows decreases, including places with a mask mandate. I haven't seen any reporting of an increase tied to mandates in places that have them.