5 ms·
What I find particularly funny about the mask conversation is that if you remember way back to March-July 2020, if you tried to buy a box of surgical face masks
by imnotreallynew 5y ago
What I find particularly funny about the mask conversation is that if you remember way back to March-July 2020, if you tried to buy a box of surgical face masks on Amazon, there was a large, bold warning in the top description that said “does not prevent the spread of viruses”.
The reason for this was the FDA, which regulates masks, clearly held the position that face masks were for preventing transmission of large droplets and saliva, NOT aerosols.
Those bold warnings went away when the narrative changed and the FDA issued an EUA that meant sellers no longer needed that disclaimer.
- Someone1234 5y agoSo your point is that a federal agency got more data and updated its guidance inline with that data? That's what they're meant to do...
- fighterpilot 5y agoTheir point is that the official stance can easily be wrong, which calls into question whether it's a good idea to silence people who are questioning it, which is what many were doing on social media in early 2020 when the official stance was that masks don't work.
- Barrin92 5y agodepends entirely on how someone is 'questioning' something. Merely contradicting existing public health guidelines with misinformation or speculation provides no actual meaningful further input. as per the article, youtube's policy is: "and we make exceptions for videos that have additional context such as countervailing views from local health authorities". So presumably if your contradicting opinion is actually substantiated you're not getting the banhammer, which seems fair to me. But letting people rant against public health guidelines which exist to prevent harm (even if to some degree uncertain) without actually justifying their case is irresponsible.