9 ms·

At the other end of it there is a rationale for it. 1. it gives people agency to not freak out because they can be proactive about something. the reason nuclea

At the other end of it there is a rationale for it. 1. it gives people agency to not freak out because they can be proactive about something. the reason nuclear energy is a boogieman is that you can't see it and it can kill you and there's is little you can do as an individual to protect yourself against it. 2. they truly didn't know how the spread of the disease is since it was a novel virus. you do however know that the lipid barrier of it makes it susceptible to soap and 70% isopropyl alcohol. 3. saying "there is no evidence that masks are effective" is true in the scientific sense. they didn't do studies so to talk about the effectiveness would have been backwards (also considering at the time they didn't know if it would actually increase the spread due to touching/collection/whatever) scientific illiteracy is a problem. the words and processes have precise meanings and those ignorant to it will glom onto certain words out of context and use that as evidence for their conspiracy theories. (see isolation of the virus et al)

standardUser 6y ago
1. Do you like to be manipulated? I don't. 2. It was't just a novel virus, it was a novel coronavirus and we know all about how those spread. 3. It's the job of government agencies and officials to use communications skills to avoid these issues. If they talk like pedantic scientists then their messaging will fail, and if they don't know that they are in the wrong job.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  Rhetorial questions being, of course, one of the very oldest manipulation techniques. https://people.uwplatt.edu/~ciesield/platovsoph.htm https://people.uwplatt.edu/~ciesield/platovsoph.htm
- srean 6y ago
  > It was't just a novel virus, it was a novel coronavirus and we know all about how those spread But how could one have been sure that a mutation has not changed certain behaviors in dangerous ways. Given potential adverse impact I have no problems overcompensating in the caution department till more light is shed and at that point one needs to dial down.
  - mikem170 6y ago
    I don't know that anybody can be 100% sure of anything. But all along there have been experts on coronaviruses who have known what to expect from this pandemic [0]. They know that coronaviruses don't mutate into different strains like influenza. They've studied multiple coronaviruses, some far more deadly than this one, and it's never happened before. They expect this one to weaken, if anything. Personally I am very disappointed in the media coverage of the science applicable to this pandemic, specifically how much supposition is interjected by non-experts. For the clicks, I guess. [0] https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/04/two-scenarios-if-new-coronavirus-isnt-contained/ https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/04/two-scenarios-if-new-cor...
prof-dr-ir 6y ago
As for your point 3: the current article, amusingly, has the following sentence: "There’s really no evidence that anyone has ever gotten Covid-19 by touching a contaminated surface." I was not sure what to make of that, precisely for the reason you mention.
- andi999 6y ago
  Here we have still the message: there is no evidence of a transmission in trains. (because they don't note the names of the passengers, I presume)
  - nitrogen 6y ago
    Indeed, "there is no evidence" can just mean "we didn't look very hard." As in, "there is no evidence the attackers accessed PII" (because logging was disabled).
    - anoncake 6y ago
      By now, "we haven't had time to look hard" is no excuse not to provide evidence that disinfecting surfaces works. If there is no evidence for that, it's almost certainly not true.
      - andi999 6y ago
        I looked through a few papers, but I couldn't find more than: experts agree now formites are overrated. While saying that lab experiment shows formites can survive for days on surfaces (and then claiming that this experimemt was conducted with artificial high load).
marcosdumay 6y ago
About #3, there's a problem when the message is worded exactly the same way for "we didn't have time to test masks yet" and "we have evidence that those medicines are harmful, but we won't seek confirmation because we are looking for helpful ones instead". But that is of secondary importance, because early in the pandemics a lot of health organizations made it very clear that not using masks should be the policy. It wasn't a communication problem, they were just lying to people to get to a goal (masks not disappearing from the market, a good goal). That's wrong on many different ways.
- ern 6y ago
  What I found deeply troubling was that many healthcare workers who weren’t in on the “noble lie” jumped on the “masks don’t work” bandwagon. They mocked and belittled mask-wearers on social media. They turned into anti-masking fanatics. It was a frightening display of of zealousness from the semi-informed. They just as quickly became pro-mask and ignored their previous stance.
  - marcosdumay 6y ago
    What was really amusing was that Trump and company were busy preaching the use of masks and how they would save us, while the WHO and a lot of medical bodies were busy trying to misrepresent "we don't know" into "masks don't work" so people wouldn't rush into buying them. Then suddenly we got a few studies settling down that masks worked, and on the 2 or 3 days it took for those studies to be known both camps completely reversed their messages and insisted that they always had that new message and never changed their anything.
eloff 6y ago
About number 3, it was a blatant lie to keep the PPE for medical workers. I understand the rationale there, but I don't think it's worth treating people like children and lying to them - even if it temporarily gives a better result. Because now when they say masks work, plenty of people are understandably skeptical - and that makes them vulnerable to believing less credible sources of information on the topic. I fully believe masks help, despite as you say, there being little specific evidence for Covid19, because we have good reason to think they reduce transmission just based on how masks work, evidence in general to support masks in a medical setting, and the transmission mechanism of the virus. However, I have zero sympathy for the authorities struggling to get people to take them seriously about masks after they started off by lying about it. And after an established history of authorities and politicians lying, it's little wonder conspiracy theories proliferate. You reap what you sow.
- weaksauce 6y ago
  Again that missed the point entirely. It certainly wasn't lying. We know and knew that some masks are effective. n95 masks when worn correctly are definitely safer than not having one full stop. we didn't know then which masks were also going to be effective and didn't know if those masks would be worse than not wearing one at all. there was also the issue of shortages of the effective masks for medical pros that needed them. that informed the speaking at the time and at no point was that a lie. and we do have studies now that masks do decrease the likelihood of transmission so we do know now that those cloth masks are effective. 1. shortage of proper n95 masks(look at toilet paper during the beginning) 2. no evidence of other masks being useful or not harmful at the time so they said socially distance yourself as a primary mode of protection and wash your hands often.
  - orangecat 6y ago
    It certainly wasn't lying. It certainly was: https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/29/health/face-masks-coronavirus-surgeon-general-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/29/health/face-masks-coronavirus.... That's not a statement that mask effectiveness is uncertain, it's an authoritative statement that they don't help.
DanBC 6y ago
> they didn't do studies No, they did do lots of studies for flu, and they really struggle to find a benefit for masking. Importantly, the quality of evidence for masks as source control (infected people wear masks to prevent transmission) was really bad. (People should wear masks)

standardUser 6y ago

1. Do you like to be manipulated? I don't. 2. It was't just a novel virus, it was a novel coronavirus and we know all about how those spread. 3. It's the job of government agencies and officials to use communications skills to avoid these issues. If they talk like pedantic scientists then their messaging will fail, and if they don't know that they are in the wrong job.

dredmorbius 6y ago
Rhetorial questions being, of course, one of the very oldest manipulation techniques. https://people.uwplatt.edu/~ciesield/platovsoph.htm https://people.uwplatt.edu/~ciesield/platovsoph.htm
srean 6y ago
> It was't just a novel virus, it was a novel coronavirus and we know all about how those spread But how could one have been sure that a mutation has not changed certain behaviors in dangerous ways. Given potential adverse impact I have no problems overcompensating in the caution department till more light is shed and at that point one needs to dial down.
- mikem170 6y ago
  I don't know that anybody can be 100% sure of anything. But all along there have been experts on coronaviruses who have known what to expect from this pandemic [0]. They know that coronaviruses don't mutate into different strains like influenza. They've studied multiple coronaviruses, some far more deadly than this one, and it's never happened before. They expect this one to weaken, if anything. Personally I am very disappointed in the media coverage of the science applicable to this pandemic, specifically how much supposition is interjected by non-experts. For the clicks, I guess. [0] https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/04/two-scenarios-if-new-coronavirus-isnt-contained/ https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/04/two-scenarios-if-new-cor...

prof-dr-ir 6y ago

As for your point 3: the current article, amusingly, has the following sentence: "There’s really no evidence that anyone has ever gotten Covid-19 by touching a contaminated surface." I was not sure what to make of that, precisely for the reason you mention.

andi999 6y ago
Here we have still the message: there is no evidence of a transmission in trains. (because they don't note the names of the passengers, I presume)
- nitrogen 6y ago
  Indeed, "there is no evidence" can just mean "we didn't look very hard." As in, "there is no evidence the attackers accessed PII" (because logging was disabled).
  - anoncake 6y ago
    By now, "we haven't had time to look hard" is no excuse not to provide evidence that disinfecting surfaces works. If there is no evidence for that, it's almost certainly not true.
    - andi999 6y ago
      I looked through a few papers, but I couldn't find more than: experts agree now formites are overrated. While saying that lab experiment shows formites can survive for days on surfaces (and then claiming that this experimemt was conducted with artificial high load).

marcosdumay 6y ago

About #3, there's a problem when the message is worded exactly the same way for "we didn't have time to test masks yet" and "we have evidence that those medicines are harmful, but we won't seek confirmation because we are looking for helpful ones instead". But that is of secondary importance, because early in the pandemics a lot of health organizations made it very clear that not using masks should be the policy. It wasn't a communication problem, they were just lying to people to get to a goal (masks not disappearing from the market, a good goal). That's wrong on many different ways.

ern 6y ago
What I found deeply troubling was that many healthcare workers who weren’t in on the “noble lie” jumped on the “masks don’t work” bandwagon. They mocked and belittled mask-wearers on social media. They turned into anti-masking fanatics. It was a frightening display of of zealousness from the semi-informed. They just as quickly became pro-mask and ignored their previous stance.
- marcosdumay 6y ago
  What was really amusing was that Trump and company were busy preaching the use of masks and how they would save us, while the WHO and a lot of medical bodies were busy trying to misrepresent "we don't know" into "masks don't work" so people wouldn't rush into buying them. Then suddenly we got a few studies settling down that masks worked, and on the 2 or 3 days it took for those studies to be known both camps completely reversed their messages and insisted that they always had that new message and never changed their anything.

eloff 6y ago

About number 3, it was a blatant lie to keep the PPE for medical workers. I understand the rationale there, but I don't think it's worth treating people like children and lying to them - even if it temporarily gives a better result. Because now when they say masks work, plenty of people are understandably skeptical - and that makes them vulnerable to believing less credible sources of information on the topic. I fully believe masks help, despite as you say, there being little specific evidence for Covid19, because we have good reason to think they reduce transmission just based on how masks work, evidence in general to support masks in a medical setting, and the transmission mechanism of the virus. However, I have zero sympathy for the authorities struggling to get people to take them seriously about masks after they started off by lying about it. And after an established history of authorities and politicians lying, it's little wonder conspiracy theories proliferate. You reap what you sow.

weaksauce 6y ago
Again that missed the point entirely. It certainly wasn't lying. We know and knew that some masks are effective. n95 masks when worn correctly are definitely safer than not having one full stop. we didn't know then which masks were also going to be effective and didn't know if those masks would be worse than not wearing one at all. there was also the issue of shortages of the effective masks for medical pros that needed them. that informed the speaking at the time and at no point was that a lie. and we do have studies now that masks do decrease the likelihood of transmission so we do know now that those cloth masks are effective. 1. shortage of proper n95 masks(look at toilet paper during the beginning) 2. no evidence of other masks being useful or not harmful at the time so they said socially distance yourself as a primary mode of protection and wash your hands often.
- orangecat 6y ago
  It certainly wasn't lying. It certainly was: https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/29/health/face-masks-coronavirus-surgeon-general-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/29/health/face-masks-coronavirus.... That's not a statement that mask effectiveness is uncertain, it's an authoritative statement that they don't help.

DanBC 6y ago

> they didn't do studies No, they did do lots of studies for flu, and they really struggle to find a benefit for masking. Importantly, the quality of evidence for masks as source control (infected people wear masks to prevent transmission) was really bad. (People should wear masks)