3 ms·
My thinking has always been that of all the possible interventions to reduce viral spread, something like making people wear masks while grocery shopping has al
by apatters 5y ago
My thinking has always been that of all the possible interventions to reduce viral spread, something like making people wear masks while grocery shopping has almost no negative side effects. Whereas closing the grocery store altogether has major negative side effects, like lost jobs and people not being able to buy groceries.
So I think the evidential bar for requiring masks should be pretty low (unless it is a special case, like making people wear masks when they're exercising likely has larger negative side effects). Who cares if it may not do much? The cost of doing it is so low.
Whereas the evidential bar for policies that do more collateral damage ought to be higher.
- lixtra 5y agoIf masks turn out to be ineffective, the cost of having them recommended is reduced reputation and authority. Would you take security advice from Bruce Schneier after he proposed you to cover your keyboard in snakeoil because it might protect against computer viruses (and if not, there is not much damage)?
- chimprich 5y agoThat's an absurd comparison. Regardless of how well they work in practice, there's a clear theoretical reason why masks could/should work: they catch salivary droplets containing the virus. Covering your keyboard in oil is not even theoretically going to affect your computer's susceptibility to computer viruses.
- lixtra 5y agoThat’s the difference between theory and practice. In practice the snakeoil may prevent you from using your computer more frequently and therefore result in less infections. In practice I observe a lot of people fumbling out unwashed pieces of cloth from their pockets and placing them in their face, hoping it would preserve their respiratory health.