3 ms·

> Nor was this lie the impulsive decision of a few rogue experts. My non-native English might betray me, and I didn't follow Fauci's statements from the beginn

by scoutt 6y ago

> Nor was this lie the impulsive decision of a few rogue experts. My non-native English might betray me, and I didn't follow Fauci's statements from the beginning, but based on the quoted article, where is the lie? "they weren’t recommended" doesn't mean that he said masks, made of cloth or otherwise, don't work.

yorwba 6y ago
Sometimes, "not recommended" is used as an euphemism for "bad for you". As in "Alcohol is generally not recommended for people who take certain prescription drugs." It doesn't exactly help that this is common in medical lingo.
- scoutt 6y ago
  "initially not recommended to the general public so that first responders wouldn’t feel the strain of a shortage of PPE." To me, that doesn't sound as "bad for you". Maybe if "not recommended" is taken out of context (and extrapolating that into "not recommended because masks don't work"). It's still not a lie, as far as I can tell.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    What a lot of people would like to have heard in retrospect is something like the following even if a bit sugar-coated: N95 masks are strongly believed to help but do not buy them. Save them for health care workers. We do encourage you to wear bandanas, gaiters/buffs, homemade cloth masks, or other non-medical PPEs. They are of unknown efficacy but they can't hurt. But don't buy N95s. Which a lot of people would have heard as: You really should be wearing N95 masks and others won't do you much if any good but we need to save them for the important people. (At which point, a lot of people would have been F this and tried to buy N95 masks for their own protection.)
pcrh 6y ago
I'm a native English speaker, and I also had a hard time finding the lie. Especially when the context shows that masks were not "not recommended" due to potential lack of efficacy, but due to shortages. Clearly if they were being recommended to front line workers, etc, they are expected to have at least some efficacy. Personally, I think it's a bad example of "experts lieing", even if it is potentially a lie under some very narrow reading.
argonaut 6y ago
Not recommending and actually discouraging people from wearing a mask is the lie. It doesn't matter that the incorrect advice is followed by a couple of correct reasons. The bad advice is the lie itself. If I say "You should smoke cigarettes because it will help you lose weight." That advice is a lie, even though on a technical/literal level cigarettes do help you lose weight.
- scoutt 6y ago
  Sorry, but I don't think a bad advice is necessarily a lie. > "You should smoke cigarettes because it will help you lose weight." Standing to you the above is not a lie and I agree. I think it's a bad advice, but not a lie.
y-c-o-m-b 6y ago
What you're saying is called a semantic dispute. It means you're debating over the literal meaning of a word rather than the actual substance of the argument. If you take "lie" literally, then yes you arrive at your conclusion but then you'd be misleading yourself and ignoring the obvious: saying masks weren't recommended was intentionally deceptive and potentially cost lives. That is the point of the article and the point you should be arguing. It for sure has caused distrust in these organizations; the fact that we're debating this right now is proof.

by scoutt 6y ago

yorwba 6y ago

Sometimes, "not recommended" is used as an euphemism for "bad for you". As in "Alcohol is generally not recommended for people who take certain prescription drugs." It doesn't exactly help that this is common in medical lingo.

scoutt 6y ago
"initially not recommended to the general public so that first responders wouldn’t feel the strain of a shortage of PPE." To me, that doesn't sound as "bad for you". Maybe if "not recommended" is taken out of context (and extrapolating that into "not recommended because masks don't work"). It's still not a lie, as far as I can tell.
- ghaff 6y ago
  What a lot of people would like to have heard in retrospect is something like the following even if a bit sugar-coated: N95 masks are strongly believed to help but do not buy them. Save them for health care workers. We do encourage you to wear bandanas, gaiters/buffs, homemade cloth masks, or other non-medical PPEs. They are of unknown efficacy but they can't hurt. But don't buy N95s. Which a lot of people would have heard as: You really should be wearing N95 masks and others won't do you much if any good but we need to save them for the important people. (At which point, a lot of people would have been F this and tried to buy N95 masks for their own protection.)

pcrh 6y ago

I'm a native English speaker, and I also had a hard time finding the lie. Especially when the context shows that masks were not "not recommended" due to potential lack of efficacy, but due to shortages. Clearly if they were being recommended to front line workers, etc, they are expected to have at least some efficacy. Personally, I think it's a bad example of "experts lieing", even if it is potentially a lie under some very narrow reading.

argonaut 6y ago

Not recommending and actually discouraging people from wearing a mask is the lie. It doesn't matter that the incorrect advice is followed by a couple of correct reasons. The bad advice is the lie itself. If I say "You should smoke cigarettes because it will help you lose weight." That advice is a lie, even though on a technical/literal level cigarettes do help you lose weight.

scoutt 6y ago
Sorry, but I don't think a bad advice is necessarily a lie. > "You should smoke cigarettes because it will help you lose weight." Standing to you the above is not a lie and I agree. I think it's a bad advice, but not a lie.

y-c-o-m-b 6y ago

What you're saying is called a semantic dispute. It means you're debating over the literal meaning of a word rather than the actual substance of the argument. If you take "lie" literally, then yes you arrive at your conclusion but then you'd be misleading yourself and ignoring the obvious: saying masks weren't recommended was intentionally deceptive and potentially cost lives. That is the point of the article and the point you should be arguing. It for sure has caused distrust in these organizations; the fact that we're debating this right now is proof.