3 ms·

Here's one example leaning more toward the other way (from Canada [edit: from March 2020]): https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/coronavirus-why-masks-d

• Retric 5y ago
  Even that was fairly pro mask: “When are they useful? Studies done during the SARS epidemic of 2003 found that for medical professionals, wearing any type of mask compared with none can reduce chances of getting sick by about 80 per cent. The N95 mask, which gives better facial coverage and guards against smaller droplets, appears to be somewhat more effective than standard surgical masks. But medical professionals follow strict guidelines in taking masks on and off, discard them after each use, and use additional safeguards like eye protection and gowns to shield themselves. They can help to prevent sick individuals from transmitting the virus by blocking droplets.” The real story wasn’t masks it was hand washing. Early on it was assumed surface contact would be a major vector, but that turned out not to be the case. “Don’t think that masks are the miracle solution,” he said. “They are useful for those who are sick to not contaminate others. It’s all about hygiene of the hands.”
• zamadatix 5y ago
  This matches more with what I remember - that the concern was incorrect usage and replacement of masks was going to create a bigger transmission vector than what the masks prevented. I.e. there was never strong doubt the masks could do something about it rather there was doubt the masks could do more good than harm with what was known about the virus at the time. Once the amount of airborne transmission and asymptotic carriers seemed a higher factor in spread than initially expected the consensus on to whether to wear them changed but not the consensus they would help with airborne transition in the first place. So was the initial advice wrong with current understanding? Yes, pretty concretely so at this point, but precisely because it was data driven advice instead of a retrospective or fear based thinking.