2 ms·

The problem though was the question, and the mismatch between how the scientific community and the layman communicate When asked do masks stop the spread of co

The problem though was the question, and the mismatch between how the scientific community and the layman communicate When asked do masks stop the spread of covid, the answer is and has always been no. No mask 100% stops the spread. If you share that information with the common person, it quickly becomes a facebook post about how masks are totally useless. No amount of ifs and buts will convince the common man if they don't want to be convinced. I've seen people even on hacker news adamantly treating Fauci's initial prediction that it would be no more dangerous than the flu as gospel, despite a 16 months of more up-to-date information I see that common misunderstanding that Kary Ellis said that PCR tests can't detect viruses, when he actually said PCR tests can't me used to measure viral loads on every single damn post about PCR tests. It's been debunked so much but people do not want to listen

pdonis 5y ago
> When asked do masks stop the spread of covid, the answer is and has always been no. No, the answer is to reject the question, and to redirect it instead to the proper scientific question, which is what fraction of incoming germs a mask will stop. That fraction is practically indistinguishable from 100% for an N95 mask properly sealed, is in the mid to high 90s for medical grade masks or masks of multiple layers of cloth properly sealed, and drops off sharply as the weave of the cloth loosens or the quality of the seal decreases. The problem is that so-called "scientists" refuse to do this. They make authoritative pronouncements instead, which of course are often wrong. Saying "no" to the question "do masks stop the spread of COVID" is just as wrong as saying "yes". But so-called "scientists" are too lazy or too caught up in their own sense of authority to properly reframe the question. So if the public then distrusts them because they make false authoritative pronouncements, they have nobody to blame but themselves. > No amount of ifs and buts will convince the common man if they don't want to be convinced. Most people are not extremists or crackpots. They are quite capable of understanding a response such as I gave above. And they are also quite capable of seeing when a person is not being forthright with them because that person is more concerned with maintaining their position as an authority then with telling the truth and being honest about what we actually do and do not know. So even if some of the things so-called "scientists" say are actually true, the public is right to not believe them, because once someone has shown that they will prevaricate with you, you cannot afford to take anything they say at face value. And that is precisely the position that our current public health authorities, not to mention scientists in many other fields, have gotten themselves into. As I said above, they have nobody to blame but themselves.

pdonis 5y ago

> When asked do masks stop the spread of covid, the answer is and has always been no. No, the answer is to reject the question, and to redirect it instead to the proper scientific question, which is what fraction of incoming germs a mask will stop. That fraction is practically indistinguishable from 100% for an N95 mask properly sealed, is in the mid to high 90s for medical grade masks or masks of multiple layers of cloth properly sealed, and drops off sharply as the weave of the cloth loosens or the quality of the seal decreases. The problem is that so-called "scientists" refuse to do this. They make authoritative pronouncements instead, which of course are often wrong. Saying "no" to the question "do masks stop the spread of COVID" is just as wrong as saying "yes". But so-called "scientists" are too lazy or too caught up in their own sense of authority to properly reframe the question. So if the public then distrusts them because they make false authoritative pronouncements, they have nobody to blame but themselves. > No amount of ifs and buts will convince the common man if they don't want to be convinced. Most people are not extremists or crackpots. They are quite capable of understanding a response such as I gave above. And they are also quite capable of seeing when a person is not being forthright with them because that person is more concerned with maintaining their position as an authority then with telling the truth and being honest about what we actually do and do not know. So even if some of the things so-called "scientists" say are actually true, the public is right to not believe them, because once someone has shown that they will prevaricate with you, you cannot afford to take anything they say at face value. And that is precisely the position that our current public health authorities, not to mention scientists in many other fields, have gotten themselves into. As I said above, they have nobody to blame but themselves.