3 ms·

> Then as time passed and we learned more Yeah, lots of time has passed since people started to use masks to prevent a spread of infection. Like, 100 years?

JKCalhoun 6y ago
I think OP meant the general public's familiarity with using masks day to day. I think Japan has had the jump on the US for some time in that regard.
NikolaNovak 6y ago
That's sarcasm but let me try to address the notion behind it, to best of my limited personal understanding; "prevent spread" has multiple factors to it. My impression, in my locality, is that at beginning of pandemic people focused on notion of using masks to protect themselves (and many though not all governments indicated that's not efficient/recommended). Then "as time passed and we learned more" focus moved to using masks to protect others (though many individuals, in my circle, still aren't clear on that). My impression is that we have evolving, and still not necessarily 100% certain evidence/understanding, on how it spreads and what are the most effective measures. It's made more complex because a) there's no silver bullet; most measures increase your chances to some percentage. This makes discussion between experts and public more difficult as public tends to think in binary terms. b) While yes there are many public health measures we've known for 100 years (wash hands, have clean water, cook/boil/heat things to sterilize them, sneeze in elbow/Kleenex, wear mask, remove waste, etc etc), not all are equally effective against all vectors. What seems "Common sense" / "Logical" to a layperson like myself, may be more nuanced to an expert with experience. I mean, for what it's worth, I'm 100% certain my dad, a year in, is still worse off for using a mask because of how he uses it. Many and especially older people around me reuse their masks for days and weeks , touch them constantly, put them under their nose for prolonged periods, don't squeeze/tighten them sufficiently, etc. Even if all that touching doesn't hurt, their belief that they're protected coupled with incorrect usage coupled with likely increase in risky behaviour is a net negative. People can scream liberty and freedoms and personal responsibility, but I feel public health officials have to look at cold hard facts, of both disease but also people's actual behaviour (as opposed to some ideal non-existent form) and how it actually affects spread rather than how it logically intuitively should.
- LudwigNagasena 5y ago
  My impression is that importance of mask is well-studied and masks are regarded as one of the most important hygienic achievements right behind washing hands. These are cold hard facts. Everything else is political wiggle-waggling. You may argue whether it is okay for a technocratic establishment to lie to people and manipulate them; but to pretend that they didn’t feed the public with half-truths is just ridiculous.
  - NikolaNovak 5y ago
    I think we have wildly different understanding; and mine is very much evolving - as I feel is everybody else's. Masks right behind washing hands - honestly, until Covid, I clearly lived in ignorance and had NO idea that a) Surgical masks are tested and designed to protect others against exhale and b) N95 masks are tested and designed to protect occupant via inhale. Just that basic, yet absolutely crucial concept was unknown to me. I had very limited exposure to them across two continents and half a dozen countries, and it certainly wasn't part of my own education about most important hygienic achievement or practice across four different educational / political / health systems. That doesn't necessarily mean masks aren't crucial, but it perhaps doesn't make it obviously so either in context of daily public health. And then we have the mucky complex detail of aerosol vs droplet vs surface, sizing and staying power, etc. You are presenting / clearly strongly believe that (all?) masks are a binary, always-good, always-clearly-protective thing. My understanding/interpretation is that it's more complex than that; I am OK with scientists, when faced with a net new illness, inherently evolving the opinion and recommendations. I guess this is where you see a "technocractic establishment lying and manipulating". I look at wildly different countries with wildly different values, framework, goals, assumptions, methods, and yes "political wiggle-waggling", and most of those culturally politically different scientists following broadly similar path of learning and understanding. It is likely our frameworks and life paradigms are too different to come to an agreement - at some point we all, you and I included, fit inbound facts and perceptions into our root approach and beliefs.

JKCalhoun 6y ago

I think OP meant the general public's familiarity with using masks day to day. I think Japan has had the jump on the US for some time in that regard.

NikolaNovak 6y ago

That's sarcasm but let me try to address the notion behind it, to best of my limited personal understanding; "prevent spread" has multiple factors to it. My impression, in my locality, is that at beginning of pandemic people focused on notion of using masks to protect themselves (and many though not all governments indicated that's not efficient/recommended). Then "as time passed and we learned more" focus moved to using masks to protect others (though many individuals, in my circle, still aren't clear on that). My impression is that we have evolving, and still not necessarily 100% certain evidence/understanding, on how it spreads and what are the most effective measures. It's made more complex because a) there's no silver bullet; most measures increase your chances to some percentage. This makes discussion between experts and public more difficult as public tends to think in binary terms. b) While yes there are many public health measures we've known for 100 years (wash hands, have clean water, cook/boil/heat things to sterilize them, sneeze in elbow/Kleenex, wear mask, remove waste, etc etc), not all are equally effective against all vectors. What seems "Common sense" / "Logical" to a layperson like myself, may be more nuanced to an expert with experience. I mean, for what it's worth, I'm 100% certain my dad, a year in, is still worse off for using a mask because of how he uses it. Many and especially older people around me reuse their masks for days and weeks , touch them constantly, put them under their nose for prolonged periods, don't squeeze/tighten them sufficiently, etc. Even if all that touching doesn't hurt, their belief that they're protected coupled with incorrect usage coupled with likely increase in risky behaviour is a net negative. People can scream liberty and freedoms and personal responsibility, but I feel public health officials have to look at cold hard facts, of both disease but also people's actual behaviour (as opposed to some ideal non-existent form) and how it actually affects spread rather than how it logically intuitively should.

LudwigNagasena 5y ago
My impression is that importance of mask is well-studied and masks are regarded as one of the most important hygienic achievements right behind washing hands. These are cold hard facts. Everything else is political wiggle-waggling. You may argue whether it is okay for a technocratic establishment to lie to people and manipulate them; but to pretend that they didn’t feed the public with half-truths is just ridiculous.
- NikolaNovak 5y ago
  I think we have wildly different understanding; and mine is very much evolving - as I feel is everybody else's. Masks right behind washing hands - honestly, until Covid, I clearly lived in ignorance and had NO idea that a) Surgical masks are tested and designed to protect others against exhale and b) N95 masks are tested and designed to protect occupant via inhale. Just that basic, yet absolutely crucial concept was unknown to me. I had very limited exposure to them across two continents and half a dozen countries, and it certainly wasn't part of my own education about most important hygienic achievement or practice across four different educational / political / health systems. That doesn't necessarily mean masks aren't crucial, but it perhaps doesn't make it obviously so either in context of daily public health. And then we have the mucky complex detail of aerosol vs droplet vs surface, sizing and staying power, etc. You are presenting / clearly strongly believe that (all?) masks are a binary, always-good, always-clearly-protective thing. My understanding/interpretation is that it's more complex than that; I am OK with scientists, when faced with a net new illness, inherently evolving the opinion and recommendations. I guess this is where you see a "technocractic establishment lying and manipulating". I look at wildly different countries with wildly different values, framework, goals, assumptions, methods, and yes "political wiggle-waggling", and most of those culturally politically different scientists following broadly similar path of learning and understanding. It is likely our frameworks and life paradigms are too different to come to an agreement - at some point we all, you and I included, fit inbound facts and perceptions into our root approach and beliefs.