5 ms·

Fauci says wearing masks may eventually become ‘seasonal’

8 points by curmudgeon22 5y ago

mc32 5y ago
He’s claiming that mask wearing might be encouraged to ward off other resp. ailments like the flu. I think he should consult with Japan and Hong Kong. People there wear masks often and yet they also get the flu or grippe...
- bediger4000 5y ago
  Influenza basically disappeared from the US this past flu season. How do you account for that? I mean, CDC reports 2,038 influenza cases 2020-21 season vs 38 MILLION 2019-20 season. That's less than 1% of the usual load. I'll also remind you that "data" is not the plural of "anecdote". In a large enough sample virtually everything comes up true. There's also things that are true in bulk that aren't true in small samples. Oceans have tides. Glasses of water do not.
AbrahamParangi 5y ago
The title seems like it’s intentional clickbait, making it seem like the mask mandates will return seasonally. The actual quote is as follows: “So it is conceivable that as we go on, a year or two or more from now, that during certain seasonal periods when you have respiratory-borne viruses like the flu, people might actually elect to wear masks to diminish the likelihood that you’ll spread these respiratory-borne diseases.”
0xy 5y ago
The man who strongly dissuaded people from wearing masks at the start of the pandemic while calling border closures from China wrong, directly contributing to spread and arguably death. His credibility is about on par with WHO at this point.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- grawprog 5y ago
  >His credibility is about on par with WHO at this point. I'm not sure why he's ever had credibility. He's been criticized for years for what he did during his aids research., especially by the LGBT community back in the 80's. https://www.aier.org/article/fauci-was-duplicitous-on-the-aids-epidemic-too/ https://www.aier.org/article/fauci-was-duplicitous-on-the-ai... He's been criticized over his work during the anthrax attacks. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB113383825463714813 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB113383825463714813 Prior to last year, nobody had anything nice to say about Fauci.
- 100011_100001 5y ago
  Science adopts and self-corrects. Your conservatism does not.
hoppyhoppy2 5y ago
>In April 2021, the Post published a false front page story asserting that copies of a book by vice president Kamala Harris were being distributed to migrant children at an intake facility in Long Beach, California.[124] Fox News then published a story about the matter, followed by numerous Republican politicians and pundits commenting on it, in some cases speculating that taxpayers were funding the supposed book handouts for Harris's personal profit.[124][125] Responding to questions from Fox News correspondent Peter Doocy, White House press secretary Jen Psaki expressed no knowledge of the matter; the Post then published a new story headlined "Psaki has no answers when asked about Harris' book being given to child migrants."[126] Four days after the original publication, the Post replaced the story with a new version clarifying that just one Harris book had been donated by a community member, but maintained it was an "open-arms gesture by the Biden administration," though there was no evidence of the administration's involvement.[126] Laura Italiano, the author of the story, resigned that day, asserting she had been "ordered" to write it.[57][126] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post Hopefully the NY Post's commitment to factual, responsible reporting has improved since April
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  I'm not sure what the point of your comment is. Are you just picking a random anecdotal example to discredit the linked article using whataboutism? And if so do you do this consistently with other sources? For example the New York Times very publicly pushed their 1619 Project, which had numerous factual problems and was written by an incredibly biased author. After it had widely circulated across our entire society, they quietly revised its content without issuing formal corrections with the same visibility their incorrect content was given (https://quillette.com/2020/09/19/down-the-1619-projects-memory-hole/ https://quillette.com/2020/09/19/down-the-1619-projects-memo...). The net impact of that falsehood seems much much larger than the example you've quoted. Should we dismiss the NYT outright? Or can we just agree that all sources provide value through their different perspectives, and we can reason about their content without needing to either attack or blindly accept the source?
throwawaysea 5y ago
Fauci is phrasing this in a soft manner, saying that people might choose to wear masks voluntarily in certain seasons. But after a year of authoritarian mandates and continued erosion of individual liberties, I am definitely wary of where this is going. This type of rhetoric seeks to normalize this notion, and to me it feels like he's testing the waters for possible seasonal mandates, or possible encouragement of private businesses to require masks in certain seasons. I am against both because I simply don't think it's worth it in general, for low probability risks. We have to accept that life comes with risks. Those who are risk averse can stay home or wear PPE everywhere if they choose, but we shouldn't all be forced to deal with the discomfort of wearing masks (impeded breathing), the inconvenience (like fogged glasses), and the impact to social/mental health (not being able to see faces, smiles, and share emotions).

8 points by curmudgeon22 5y ago

mc32 5y ago

He’s claiming that mask wearing might be encouraged to ward off other resp. ailments like the flu. I think he should consult with Japan and Hong Kong. People there wear masks often and yet they also get the flu or grippe...

bediger4000 5y ago
Influenza basically disappeared from the US this past flu season. How do you account for that? I mean, CDC reports 2,038 influenza cases 2020-21 season vs 38 MILLION 2019-20 season. That's less than 1% of the usual load. I'll also remind you that "data" is not the plural of "anecdote". In a large enough sample virtually everything comes up true. There's also things that are true in bulk that aren't true in small samples. Oceans have tides. Glasses of water do not.

AbrahamParangi 5y ago

The title seems like it’s intentional clickbait, making it seem like the mask mandates will return seasonally. The actual quote is as follows: “So it is conceivable that as we go on, a year or two or more from now, that during certain seasonal periods when you have respiratory-borne viruses like the flu, people might actually elect to wear masks to diminish the likelihood that you’ll spread these respiratory-borne diseases.”

0xy 5y ago

The man who strongly dissuaded people from wearing masks at the start of the pandemic while calling border closures from China wrong, directly contributing to spread and arguably death. His credibility is about on par with WHO at this point.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
grawprog 5y ago
>His credibility is about on par with WHO at this point. I'm not sure why he's ever had credibility. He's been criticized for years for what he did during his aids research., especially by the LGBT community back in the 80's. https://www.aier.org/article/fauci-was-duplicitous-on-the-aids-epidemic-too/ https://www.aier.org/article/fauci-was-duplicitous-on-the-ai... He's been criticized over his work during the anthrax attacks. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB113383825463714813 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB113383825463714813 Prior to last year, nobody had anything nice to say about Fauci.
100011_100001 5y ago
Science adopts and self-corrects. Your conservatism does not.

hoppyhoppy2 5y ago

>In April 2021, the Post published a false front page story asserting that copies of a book by vice president Kamala Harris were being distributed to migrant children at an intake facility in Long Beach, California.[124] Fox News then published a story about the matter, followed by numerous Republican politicians and pundits commenting on it, in some cases speculating that taxpayers were funding the supposed book handouts for Harris's personal profit.[124][125] Responding to questions from Fox News correspondent Peter Doocy, White House press secretary Jen Psaki expressed no knowledge of the matter; the Post then published a new story headlined "Psaki has no answers when asked about Harris' book being given to child migrants."[126] Four days after the original publication, the Post replaced the story with a new version clarifying that just one Harris book had been donated by a community member, but maintained it was an "open-arms gesture by the Biden administration," though there was no evidence of the administration's involvement.[126] Laura Italiano, the author of the story, resigned that day, asserting she had been "ordered" to write it.[57][126] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post Hopefully the NY Post's commitment to factual, responsible reporting has improved since April

throwawaysea 5y ago
I'm not sure what the point of your comment is. Are you just picking a random anecdotal example to discredit the linked article using whataboutism? And if so do you do this consistently with other sources? For example the New York Times very publicly pushed their 1619 Project, which had numerous factual problems and was written by an incredibly biased author. After it had widely circulated across our entire society, they quietly revised its content without issuing formal corrections with the same visibility their incorrect content was given (https://quillette.com/2020/09/19/down-the-1619-projects-memory-hole/ https://quillette.com/2020/09/19/down-the-1619-projects-memo...). The net impact of that falsehood seems much much larger than the example you've quoted. Should we dismiss the NYT outright? Or can we just agree that all sources provide value through their different perspectives, and we can reason about their content without needing to either attack or blindly accept the source?

throwawaysea 5y ago

Fauci is phrasing this in a soft manner, saying that people might choose to wear masks voluntarily in certain seasons. But after a year of authoritarian mandates and continued erosion of individual liberties, I am definitely wary of where this is going. This type of rhetoric seeks to normalize this notion, and to me it feels like he's testing the waters for possible seasonal mandates, or possible encouragement of private businesses to require masks in certain seasons. I am against both because I simply don't think it's worth it in general, for low probability risks. We have to accept that life comes with risks. Those who are risk averse can stay home or wear PPE everywhere if they choose, but we shouldn't all be forced to deal with the discomfort of wearing masks (impeded breathing), the inconvenience (like fogged glasses), and the impact to social/mental health (not being able to see faces, smiles, and share emotions).