4 ms·

There is a big difference between OMS and populist leaders like Maduro/Bolsonaro/Trump. What OMS said about masks and asymptomatic cases were the best we known

by m45t3r 6y ago

There is a big difference between OMS and populist leaders like Maduro/Bolsonaro/Trump. What OMS said about masks and asymptomatic cases were the best we known about the pandemic at the current time (we still didn't have many studies on how the virus propagated). Once it became clear that masks helps and asymptomatic cases are super spreaders, OMS changed the tone quickly. Populist leaders say things about remedies that study after study shown that there is no efficacy and they never change their tone because it would mean they're wrong. Instead, they simple jump for the next "miracle" solution.

m45t3r 6y ago
Also, context matters. OMS avoided recommending masks at the start of the pandemic since no study showed the efficacy of it, and there was no mass production of masks yet. So recommending it for general population would only generate shortage of masks for those who needed (frontline medics and nurses treating the cases). So this is why they're so against it.
- briandear 6y ago
  > and there was no mass production of masks yet But that’s not what they said. Fauci said “healthy people do not need to wear masks.” So he either lied then or is lying now. The reason for the lie is irrelevant. If healthy people should wear masks, the lack of production capability doesn’t change the fact. If masks work and Fauci knew they worked, then his statement that healthy people don’t need masks was scientific fraud. His exact words: “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.” That statement was either patently false, or it was true and his current statements are patently false. Did he lie in order to protect mask supplies? Did some new groundbreaking study come out during the next few months? Of course not. So why would a rational person trust anything coming from Fauci given that we don’t know if it’s the truth, or just some manipulative statement based on whatever the political need happens to be at the time? To be even more cynical, ask oneself why certain older mask-related research papers have been censored? https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/data-do-not-back-cloth-masks-limit-covid-19-experts-say https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/data-do-...
  - bryan0 6y ago
    > That statement was either patently false, or it was true and his current statements are patently false. You’re actually missing the correct option which is that scientific consensus has shifted on this issue. Science is a process for the truth and conclusions can change with more evidence.
    - e2021 6y ago
      People keep saying this, but it doesn't make it true. The consensus of public health officials changed for sure, but I haven't seen any evidence that the science changed at all
      - bryan0 6y ago
        Science has been changing on this as the research becomes more nuanced for the current pandemic For example: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8
  - Xylakant 6y ago
    > So he either lied then or is lying now. There’s also the option that he was wrong and learned/was educated. A lot of scientific progress works like that. “He lied” implies intention.
    - rsj_hn 6y ago
      So how many scientific studies about mask efficacy were completed to change the scientific consensus during those two months when we had a mask shortage and were being told that masks only protect doctors?
    - tomjen3 6y ago
      Sorry, but when you are the chief advisor in a national crisis you don't get to learn on the job.
      - 6y ago
tsimionescu 6y ago
I'm guessing most people here will have no idea what you mean by OMS - the English name is WHO (World Health Organization).
- m45t3r 6y ago
  Yeah, thanks for the correction.

by m45t3r 6y ago

m45t3r 6y ago

Also, context matters. OMS avoided recommending masks at the start of the pandemic since no study showed the efficacy of it, and there was no mass production of masks yet. So recommending it for general population would only generate shortage of masks for those who needed (frontline medics and nurses treating the cases). So this is why they're so against it.

briandear 6y ago
> and there was no mass production of masks yet But that’s not what they said. Fauci said “healthy people do not need to wear masks.” So he either lied then or is lying now. The reason for the lie is irrelevant. If healthy people should wear masks, the lack of production capability doesn’t change the fact. If masks work and Fauci knew they worked, then his statement that healthy people don’t need masks was scientific fraud. His exact words: “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.” That statement was either patently false, or it was true and his current statements are patently false. Did he lie in order to protect mask supplies? Did some new groundbreaking study come out during the next few months? Of course not. So why would a rational person trust anything coming from Fauci given that we don’t know if it’s the truth, or just some manipulative statement based on whatever the political need happens to be at the time? To be even more cynical, ask oneself why certain older mask-related research papers have been censored? https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/data-do-not-back-cloth-masks-limit-covid-19-experts-say https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/data-do-...
- bryan0 6y ago
  > That statement was either patently false, or it was true and his current statements are patently false. You’re actually missing the correct option which is that scientific consensus has shifted on this issue. Science is a process for the truth and conclusions can change with more evidence.
  - e2021 6y ago
    People keep saying this, but it doesn't make it true. The consensus of public health officials changed for sure, but I haven't seen any evidence that the science changed at all
    - bryan0 6y ago
      Science has been changing on this as the research becomes more nuanced for the current pandemic For example: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8
- Xylakant 6y ago
  > So he either lied then or is lying now. There’s also the option that he was wrong and learned/was educated. A lot of scientific progress works like that. “He lied” implies intention.
  - rsj_hn 6y ago
    So how many scientific studies about mask efficacy were completed to change the scientific consensus during those two months when we had a mask shortage and were being told that masks only protect doctors?
  - tomjen3 6y ago
    Sorry, but when you are the chief advisor in a national crisis you don't get to learn on the job.
    - 6y ago

tsimionescu 6y ago

I'm guessing most people here will have no idea what you mean by OMS - the English name is WHO (World Health Organization).

m45t3r 6y ago
Yeah, thanks for the correction.