4 ms·

To be clear here, the CDC first issued guidance for the general community to wear masks on 3 April 2020, so about 2 months after the U.S declared a public healt

To be clear here, the CDC first issued guidance for the general community to wear masks on 3 April 2020, so about 2 months after the U.S declared a public health emergency. Even at the time the CDC gave its guidance, the published evidence to support the general public wearing masks was quite weak. Here is an extract from a systematic review of the published research from shortly after the CDC gave its guidance. > There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low‐moderate certainty of the evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of randomised trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub5/full https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD... So the CDC was faced with a situation where there was minimal evidence for the efficacy of the general public wearing masks and a severe shortage of PPE among medical personnel. In that context, they held back recommending that the general public wear masks. It wasn't really till May/June that evidence started mounting in support of the general use of masks amongst the public. So there was no conspiracy, just hard working people trying to do their best in a difficult situation. The world is much more dull than people like to believe.

cassalian 6y ago
I tend to agree that the world generally is more dull than people like to believe. However, I'd say that mostly applies to people trying to make more ordinary events more extraordinary. But in the case of covid, we already have an extraordinary situation. I don't have any evidence that the CDC was deliberately withholding information (not to say it doesn't exist), but I do have evidence that medical leaders have felt it okay to lie to the public with regards to covid. > In the pandemic’s early days, Dr. Fauci tended to cite the same 60 to 70 percent... And last week, in an interview with CNBC News, he said “75, 80, 85 percent” and “75 to 80-plus percent.” > In a telephone interview the next day, Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts. He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks. > “When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,” Dr. Fauci said. “Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covi...
- scoopertrooper 6y ago
  I think this direct quote (from your article) best sums up his position: > “We need to have some humility here,” he added. “We really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent. But, I’m not going to say 90 percent.” He's not lying, like the rest of us, he doesn't know. Especially, with the advent of the new variants. Also, it's odd you're pointing out him giving information during an on-the-record interview as evidence that he's lying.
  - cassalian 6y ago
    This is a lie of omission: > Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts... partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks. From wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie): > Lying by omission, also known as a continuing misrepresentation or quote mining, occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes the failure to correct pre-existing misconceptions. Dr. Fauci believed that the real range was somewhere between 70 to 90 percent as you pointed out; however, he gave lower estimates to the public because he didn't believe the public was "ready to hear what he really thinks". So not only was he failing to correct pre-existing misconceptions, but he was actively spreading misconceptions about how much of the population he believed needed to be vaccinated. As such, he was lying by omission.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - maxerickson 6y ago
      It would be interesting to see how Fauci strategizes about public messaging. Is he heeding advice from other people, going it alone, etc.
    - scoopertrooper 6y ago
      I did a bit of googling and from what I can tell, Dr. Fauci has been has been messaging the higher figures since at least 1 December 2020. So starting from the period just before we've had vaccines approved for emergency use, Dr Fauci has been using the higher figures. When Dr. Fauci was claiming lower figures: no vaccine had completed clinical trials; variants had not yet emerged; and governments were more willing to implement lockdowns, mask orders, and social distancing restrictions. If he's guilty of anything, it is misleading the public into thinking he knows what the number is. Nobody knows what the real number is, there are so many confounding factors that it'll take years of research to come up with a decent estimate as to the real herd immunity level of Covid-19 immunisation. This is a general problem in public scientific messaging. Science deals with uncertainty and nuance, but the fearful public seek certainty and simplicity. People in these positions don't always get the balance right (especially in a crisis), but I wouldn't impune somebody's reputation on that basis.
sampo 6y ago
> the published evidence to support the general public wearing masks was quite weak The physical basis of a face mask is well understood, and engineers have measured filtering efficiencies in labs. What was weak, was randomised controlled trials where you give masks to people and ask them to use them, with a control group to which you don't give masks. This kind of studies also give at best weak evidence that condoms would help preventing sexually transmitted diseases or unwanted pregnancies. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3009845/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3009845/ "Despite the public health importance of increasing condom use there is little reliable evidence on the effectiveness of condom promotion interventions." According to your criteria, we should maybe stop recommending condoms?
- scoopertrooper 6y ago
  To make the condom metaphor relevant to this discussion we'd have to make a few tweaks to the mechanics of condoms and human physiology: * Humans would have to require at least some fluids to pass through during sex to survive, so condoms would have to be porous enough to allow these fluids through while trapping sperm * Condoms capable of this feat would have to be relatively scarce, so the general population would instead use improvised genital coverings * Women would have to be able to become pregnant by merely touching some dried out sperm on a door handle and then rubbing their genitals some time later * Men would have to be of the habit of ejaculating on various public surfaces throughout the day * Women would have to be of the habit of rubbing their genitals throughout the day * A large segment of the population would have to refuse to wear their genital coverings while ejaculating on public surfaces or rubbing their genitals * Even those that complied with state genital covering regulations were prone to adjusting them throughout the day and accidentally rubbing their genitalia. So yes, with those minor tweaks, I'll concede your point.

cassalian 6y ago

I tend to agree that the world generally is more dull than people like to believe. However, I'd say that mostly applies to people trying to make more ordinary events more extraordinary. But in the case of covid, we already have an extraordinary situation. I don't have any evidence that the CDC was deliberately withholding information (not to say it doesn't exist), but I do have evidence that medical leaders have felt it okay to lie to the public with regards to covid. > In the pandemic’s early days, Dr. Fauci tended to cite the same 60 to 70 percent... And last week, in an interview with CNBC News, he said “75, 80, 85 percent” and “75 to 80-plus percent.” > In a telephone interview the next day, Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts. He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks. > “When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,” Dr. Fauci said. “Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covi...

scoopertrooper 6y ago
I think this direct quote (from your article) best sums up his position: > “We need to have some humility here,” he added. “We really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent. But, I’m not going to say 90 percent.” He's not lying, like the rest of us, he doesn't know. Especially, with the advent of the new variants. Also, it's odd you're pointing out him giving information during an on-the-record interview as evidence that he's lying.
- cassalian 6y ago
  This is a lie of omission: > Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts... partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks. From wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie): > Lying by omission, also known as a continuing misrepresentation or quote mining, occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes the failure to correct pre-existing misconceptions. Dr. Fauci believed that the real range was somewhere between 70 to 90 percent as you pointed out; however, he gave lower estimates to the public because he didn't believe the public was "ready to hear what he really thinks". So not only was he failing to correct pre-existing misconceptions, but he was actively spreading misconceptions about how much of the population he believed needed to be vaccinated. As such, he was lying by omission.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    It would be interesting to see how Fauci strategizes about public messaging. Is he heeding advice from other people, going it alone, etc.
  - scoopertrooper 6y ago
    I did a bit of googling and from what I can tell, Dr. Fauci has been has been messaging the higher figures since at least 1 December 2020. So starting from the period just before we've had vaccines approved for emergency use, Dr Fauci has been using the higher figures. When Dr. Fauci was claiming lower figures: no vaccine had completed clinical trials; variants had not yet emerged; and governments were more willing to implement lockdowns, mask orders, and social distancing restrictions. If he's guilty of anything, it is misleading the public into thinking he knows what the number is. Nobody knows what the real number is, there are so many confounding factors that it'll take years of research to come up with a decent estimate as to the real herd immunity level of Covid-19 immunisation. This is a general problem in public scientific messaging. Science deals with uncertainty and nuance, but the fearful public seek certainty and simplicity. People in these positions don't always get the balance right (especially in a crisis), but I wouldn't impune somebody's reputation on that basis.

sampo 6y ago

> the published evidence to support the general public wearing masks was quite weak The physical basis of a face mask is well understood, and engineers have measured filtering efficiencies in labs. What was weak, was randomised controlled trials where you give masks to people and ask them to use them, with a control group to which you don't give masks. This kind of studies also give at best weak evidence that condoms would help preventing sexually transmitted diseases or unwanted pregnancies. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3009845/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3009845/ "Despite the public health importance of increasing condom use there is little reliable evidence on the effectiveness of condom promotion interventions." According to your criteria, we should maybe stop recommending condoms?

scoopertrooper 6y ago
To make the condom metaphor relevant to this discussion we'd have to make a few tweaks to the mechanics of condoms and human physiology: * Humans would have to require at least some fluids to pass through during sex to survive, so condoms would have to be porous enough to allow these fluids through while trapping sperm * Condoms capable of this feat would have to be relatively scarce, so the general population would instead use improvised genital coverings * Women would have to be able to become pregnant by merely touching some dried out sperm on a door handle and then rubbing their genitals some time later * Men would have to be of the habit of ejaculating on various public surfaces throughout the day * Women would have to be of the habit of rubbing their genitals throughout the day * A large segment of the population would have to refuse to wear their genital coverings while ejaculating on public surfaces or rubbing their genitals * Even those that complied with state genital covering regulations were prone to adjusting them throughout the day and accidentally rubbing their genitalia. So yes, with those minor tweaks, I'll concede your point.