5 ms·
Again, this goes back to a tried and true principle, “err on the side of caution.” It’s true that masks don’t look like a solution unless you know that it’s a d
by ironmagma 6y ago
Again, this goes back to a tried and true principle, “err on the side of caution.” It’s true that masks don’t look like a solution unless you know that it’s a disease spread by the air. That is why you in the beginning adopt all manner of protections: handwashing, distancing, cleaning surfaces, wearing masks. None of this has to do with “alternative science,” whatever that refers to.
- mannykannot 6y agoIt remains a fact that everything you have proposed is also based on science, and so stands as an alternative way to "follow the science", not a repudiation of doing so. As such, it makes no refutation of the_dune_13's point.
- ironmagma 6y agoI’m refuting the notion that “follow the science” is sufficient strategy for a pandemic or for anything. It’s in the category “necessary but not sufficient.” We also have to actually understand the science.
- mannykannot 6y agoFair enough, but the authors of this article vent most of their ire on policies of isolation and containment, which are scientifically respectable, demonstrably effective when employed effectively, and in conformance with your principle of caution.
- ironmagma 6y agoIs not the purpose of HN to post links in order to spur conversation? If we only regurgitated what the article said all the time there would be no iteration of ideas.
- mannykannot 6y agoI agree, and, through this discussion, I see that you have a view that is distinct from that of the authors. I also agree that claiming masks were ineffective for the general public was a significant failure of science-based policy (it reminds me of the position that women could not catch HIV, which was ultimately a far more devastating failure of this sort.)