2 ms·

> about how masks on laymen have no effect because we can't wear them right/will touch our face too much to adjust them. Whether they believed that at the time

> about how masks on laymen have no effect because we can't wear them right/will touch our face too much to adjust them. Whether they believed that at the time is unclear to me, but that was the theory being pushed by a bunch of experts to explain the CDC guidance. This is even more hilariously stupid than it sounds, as the same studies showed that only 10% higher a proportion of medical personnel than the general public can properly fit their masks. And yet it would be insane to claim that it's useless for medical personnel to wear PPE.

mcguire 6y ago
It's a pity they didn't ask our advice; we could have told them exactly what to do to minimize damage.
- wutbrodo 6y ago
  Given the impression I've gotten from your habit of replying with midwit snark to my comments, I don't suggest that you try doing so. But yes, there are plenty of fields full of intelligent, quantitative people that are better at basic scientific literacy and modeling uncertainty than our public health infrastructure has shown themselves to be. This isn't just theoretical; every single "heterodox" conclusion I was exposed to that was based on the science instead of whatever the fuck goes on at the CDC/FDA ended up becoming CDC/FDA policy, several months later. Medical culture's innumeracy[1], religious adherence to omission bias, and refusal to model reality outside of the exact parameters of an RCT is potentially adaptive for the normal clinical context. But it's an extremely poor fit for a pandemic, and has cost thousand and thousands of lives over the course of this one. It's a travesty that the CDC, FDA and WHO couldn't collectively manage to provide information a fraction as useful as accurate as (eg) Alex Tabarrok's freaking Twitter account. For someone of your, uh, limitations, it's probably better to slavishly follow public health advice, in the absence of the ability to do any critical thinking. For anyone with a median IQ, understanding when political/bureaucratic/cultural failures are cause for skepticism of public health conclusions is a must. [1] Famously, studies show 80% of doctors unable to do the most basic of statistics relevant to their job, like being able to interpret the chances of breast cancer given a positive mammogram. Over half of the doctors surveyed were off by a factor of NINE in their estimate (90% vs 10%). This isn't a random medical-themed math game with no clinical relevance; one's risk of breast cancer is influenced by multiple factors and false positives mean invasive procedures like biopsies that themselves are not riskless.
- caddemon 6y ago
  That's literally exactly the problem when experts mislead the public. Particularly if it was intentional to save mask supplies or prevent other stupid behavior, that completely erodes trust and it becomes a game of "what is the expert actually trying to say" when future statements are made. If it was a mistake due to incomplete information, then it happens, but discussion about what went wrong should be encouraged and there should be transparency (perhaps at a later date) about what could be done differently in the future. Experts are going to be right more often than laypeople, but they are still sometimes wrong, and if that can't be acknowledged it's a systemic problem. Ironically, blasting the US for pausing the J&J vaccine was highly upvoted on HN, even though that was also expert decision making, and it was actually in the midst of the issue without the benefit of hindsight. I wonder why the topic of early pandemic mask messaging seems to attract downvotes on HN.
  - wutbrodo 6y ago
    > Ironically, blasting the US for pausing the J&J vaccine was highly upvoted on HN, even though that was also expert decision making, and it was actually in the midst of the issue without the benefit of hindsight. I wonder why the topic of early pandemic mask messaging seems to attract downvotes on HN. I suppose for the same reason that so many consider mask requirements an unacceptable intrusion on their most sacred freedoms: it's become heavily politicized, most people only "care" about issues to the extent that they're able to signal tribal membership, and moral indignation isnt any less addictive when it's detached from reality.
    - caddemon 6y ago
      I mean that's definitely true, but I'm not even sure what political camp should be angered by this particular discussion. It's decidedly pro-mask, although I guess if warped it could be read as excusing anti-masker behavior. The only other thing I can think of is people that were toeing the party line back then getting upset by being (sort of) called out. I don't think anti-mask is a popular sentiment on HN, so I doubt that is driving the vote. But this isn't the first time I've seen downvotes on this topic. And it's not like HN loves authority or the biomedical research establishment in general.

mcguire 6y ago

It's a pity they didn't ask our advice; we could have told them exactly what to do to minimize damage.

wutbrodo 6y ago
Given the impression I've gotten from your habit of replying with midwit snark to my comments, I don't suggest that you try doing so. But yes, there are plenty of fields full of intelligent, quantitative people that are better at basic scientific literacy and modeling uncertainty than our public health infrastructure has shown themselves to be. This isn't just theoretical; every single "heterodox" conclusion I was exposed to that was based on the science instead of whatever the fuck goes on at the CDC/FDA ended up becoming CDC/FDA policy, several months later. Medical culture's innumeracy[1], religious adherence to omission bias, and refusal to model reality outside of the exact parameters of an RCT is potentially adaptive for the normal clinical context. But it's an extremely poor fit for a pandemic, and has cost thousand and thousands of lives over the course of this one. It's a travesty that the CDC, FDA and WHO couldn't collectively manage to provide information a fraction as useful as accurate as (eg) Alex Tabarrok's freaking Twitter account. For someone of your, uh, limitations, it's probably better to slavishly follow public health advice, in the absence of the ability to do any critical thinking. For anyone with a median IQ, understanding when political/bureaucratic/cultural failures are cause for skepticism of public health conclusions is a must. [1] Famously, studies show 80% of doctors unable to do the most basic of statistics relevant to their job, like being able to interpret the chances of breast cancer given a positive mammogram. Over half of the doctors surveyed were off by a factor of NINE in their estimate (90% vs 10%). This isn't a random medical-themed math game with no clinical relevance; one's risk of breast cancer is influenced by multiple factors and false positives mean invasive procedures like biopsies that themselves are not riskless.
caddemon 6y ago
That's literally exactly the problem when experts mislead the public. Particularly if it was intentional to save mask supplies or prevent other stupid behavior, that completely erodes trust and it becomes a game of "what is the expert actually trying to say" when future statements are made. If it was a mistake due to incomplete information, then it happens, but discussion about what went wrong should be encouraged and there should be transparency (perhaps at a later date) about what could be done differently in the future. Experts are going to be right more often than laypeople, but they are still sometimes wrong, and if that can't be acknowledged it's a systemic problem. Ironically, blasting the US for pausing the J&J vaccine was highly upvoted on HN, even though that was also expert decision making, and it was actually in the midst of the issue without the benefit of hindsight. I wonder why the topic of early pandemic mask messaging seems to attract downvotes on HN.
- wutbrodo 6y ago
  > Ironically, blasting the US for pausing the J&J vaccine was highly upvoted on HN, even though that was also expert decision making, and it was actually in the midst of the issue without the benefit of hindsight. I wonder why the topic of early pandemic mask messaging seems to attract downvotes on HN. I suppose for the same reason that so many consider mask requirements an unacceptable intrusion on their most sacred freedoms: it's become heavily politicized, most people only "care" about issues to the extent that they're able to signal tribal membership, and moral indignation isnt any less addictive when it's detached from reality.
  - caddemon 6y ago
    I mean that's definitely true, but I'm not even sure what political camp should be angered by this particular discussion. It's decidedly pro-mask, although I guess if warped it could be read as excusing anti-masker behavior. The only other thing I can think of is people that were toeing the party line back then getting upset by being (sort of) called out. I don't think anti-mask is a popular sentiment on HN, so I doubt that is driving the vote. But this isn't the first time I've seen downvotes on this topic. And it's not like HN loves authority or the biomedical research establishment in general.