5 ms·

I'm pretty happy with how it was handled in Germany. Masks clearly aren't marketed as a perfect solution, but as a key element in a mix of other measures that a

I'm pretty happy with how it was handled in Germany. Masks clearly aren't marketed as a perfect solution, but as a key element in a mix of other measures that are social distancing, work from home, leave home for necessities, keep your distance during visits to the supermarket, etc. I'm really surprised that masks turned out to be such a cause for drama. At the worst they caused discomfort, especially for people with big beards/prescription glasses, but if it turns out wearing masks helped just by a margin, isn't that already worth it, in the grand scheme of things? Isn't 1 live saved out of a 1000 already with the negatives? It just baffles me.

timr 6y ago
Yes, I agree about the German approach. Japan (which I follow closely) is similar -- the issue of masks is drama-free, and much more pragmatic than in the US. But when I say "pragmatic", I mean it on both sides: you also don't see the insanity of people scolding other people over something with uncertain marginal effect. That's the part I can't stand here in the US. I do think that of all of the things we have done in this pandemic, the act of forcing someone to wear something -- and on the face, no less -- is fairly obviously a politically fraught act. I'm not terribly surprised that the symbolism of the act became the story.
- sep_field 6y ago
  it's like a condom for your face. What's not to love? I plan to keep wearing it even after this is all over. In smarter countries, people wear masks whenever they are sick as a thoughtful courtesy to protect those around them. I'd like to see that attitude worldwide.
  - timr 6y ago
    > it's like a condom for your face. What's not to love? I know you're being cheeky here, but just to be serious for a moment: there's a HUGE literature on the subject of condom use and public-health messaging from the 80s and the HIV crisis. Condoms are...not exactly popular, of course (the TL;DR is that shaming doesn't work very well. Honesty and education >> scolding and shaming when it comes to behavioral change that is intimate and unpleasant). It's continually astounding to me how many lessons from that pandemic seem to have been forgotten.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  There is no "uncertain marginal effect." The science is in, and it's clear. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 As for "politically fraught" - people are forced to wear things called clothes literally every day. Some are forced to wear business suits and other eccentric, uncomfortable, and context-specific attire. People are also forced to wear seatbelts and act in other ways which show responsibility for public health - for example by not smoking in public areas. The political point here is that masks - which have now been proven to be helpful - are only considered a 'politically fraught act' by people who want to politicise the Covid response. For people who are rational about this, there is no issue. For people who are hostile to public rationality, there is.
  - timr 6y ago
    > There is no "uncertain marginal effect." The science is in, and it's clear. Statements like this help no one. "The science" is not a noun. It is not "in". There is a great deal of uncertainty in what we actually know about masks. The article you're claiming is definitive proof admits as much: "being more definitive about how well they work or when to use them gets complicated. There are many types of mask, worn in a variety of environments. There are questions about people’s willingness to wear them, or wear them properly. Even the question of what kinds of study would provide definitive proof that they work is hard to answer." Again, please read the Lancet, CEBM and DANMASK links I linked above. You will see that there is a great deal of uncertainty.
ChrisRR 6y ago
That was the issue initially where scientific messaging clashed with public messaging. People said "Will masks protect us?" and scientifically, the answer is no. No mask will 100% protect you Unfortunately people take that and run with it to mean masks are useless and do nothing at all. If this has taught us anything, is that you can't give the layperson scientific information because they don't really understand the impact. If the message from the start had always been "No it won't completely protect you, but wearing any kind of mask will drastically slow the spread" then maybe people would've been more receptive (And maybe the US wouldn't have politicised mask wearing)

timr 6y ago

Yes, I agree about the German approach. Japan (which I follow closely) is similar -- the issue of masks is drama-free, and much more pragmatic than in the US. But when I say "pragmatic", I mean it on both sides: you also don't see the insanity of people scolding other people over something with uncertain marginal effect. That's the part I can't stand here in the US. I do think that of all of the things we have done in this pandemic, the act of forcing someone to wear something -- and on the face, no less -- is fairly obviously a politically fraught act. I'm not terribly surprised that the symbolism of the act became the story.

sep_field 6y ago
it's like a condom for your face. What's not to love? I plan to keep wearing it even after this is all over. In smarter countries, people wear masks whenever they are sick as a thoughtful courtesy to protect those around them. I'd like to see that attitude worldwide.
- timr 6y ago
  > it's like a condom for your face. What's not to love? I know you're being cheeky here, but just to be serious for a moment: there's a HUGE literature on the subject of condom use and public-health messaging from the 80s and the HIV crisis. Condoms are...not exactly popular, of course (the TL;DR is that shaming doesn't work very well. Honesty and education >> scolding and shaming when it comes to behavioral change that is intimate and unpleasant). It's continually astounding to me how many lessons from that pandemic seem to have been forgotten.
TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
There is no "uncertain marginal effect." The science is in, and it's clear. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 As for "politically fraught" - people are forced to wear things called clothes literally every day. Some are forced to wear business suits and other eccentric, uncomfortable, and context-specific attire. People are also forced to wear seatbelts and act in other ways which show responsibility for public health - for example by not smoking in public areas. The political point here is that masks - which have now been proven to be helpful - are only considered a 'politically fraught act' by people who want to politicise the Covid response. For people who are rational about this, there is no issue. For people who are hostile to public rationality, there is.
- timr 6y ago
  > There is no "uncertain marginal effect." The science is in, and it's clear. Statements like this help no one. "The science" is not a noun. It is not "in". There is a great deal of uncertainty in what we actually know about masks. The article you're claiming is definitive proof admits as much: "being more definitive about how well they work or when to use them gets complicated. There are many types of mask, worn in a variety of environments. There are questions about people’s willingness to wear them, or wear them properly. Even the question of what kinds of study would provide definitive proof that they work is hard to answer." Again, please read the Lancet, CEBM and DANMASK links I linked above. You will see that there is a great deal of uncertainty.

ChrisRR 6y ago

That was the issue initially where scientific messaging clashed with public messaging. People said "Will masks protect us?" and scientifically, the answer is no. No mask will 100% protect you Unfortunately people take that and run with it to mean masks are useless and do nothing at all. If this has taught us anything, is that you can't give the layperson scientific information because they don't really understand the impact. If the message from the start had always been "No it won't completely protect you, but wearing any kind of mask will drastically slow the spread" then maybe people would've been more receptive (And maybe the US wouldn't have politicised mask wearing)