8 ms·

> During the early stages of the pandemic, high ranking officials suggested we should not use masks because it was not yet "proven" the virus was transmitted vi

> During the early stages of the pandemic, high ranking officials suggested we should not use masks because it was not yet "proven" the virus was transmitted via aerosols. And this was a catastrophic decision. It was criminal. There was a ton of circumstantial evidence: SARS-CoV-1 was thought to spread via airborne droplets, the high rate of transmission, the types of transmission, medical staff infections, reduced rates of transmissions in countries where mask wearing while sick was common, ... we would have convicted COVID19 on less evidence. But no double blind experiments, so no proof. Go about your day citizens!

Spooky23 5y ago
There was definitely an anti-mask bias in the US at the policy level, because cloth mask use has limited effectiveness and triggers a pretty visceral reaction. A lot of the weird “muh freedom” and antivax nonsense was a pivot from anti-mask. COVID hit at the worst time, our federal government was reeling from the insanity of the last administration, and key early measures weren’t taken. A reaction similar to what happened in China in the NY Metro region and a few other places early on would have blunted this, and protocols had been developed and left on the shelf due to the political implications.
- nradov 5y ago
  Fortunately there was never any possibility of welding NY Metro area residents into their apartment as a reaction to COVID, like what happened in China.
  - TakuYam 5y ago
    Only after CNY, the super-spread event that turned this global. What is especially galling is that for all his hardline rhetoric and complete lack of respect or fear for the rest of the world Xi is terrified of the reprisals at home if he banned CNY travel.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  Are you referring to the insanity of the last New York administration that was responsible for this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_COVID-19_nursing_home_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_COVID-19_nursing_home... and measures including not putting infectious people into nursing homes? If not, what are you referring to and what key early measures do you think should have been taken?
djdjjrjrjr 5y ago
It was criminal for way wait too long. If you look at the study of infectious diseases the aerosol transmission model has been discounted for way too long due to inability to “prove” it. If you can’t design an experiment to prove or disprove an idea that doesn’t make it automatically wrong. For example, the aerosol transmission model for influenza was flatly rejected for a long time, even when key scientists found it plausible and had some experimental evidence which wasn’t air tight. In covid’s case the CDC and other experts were grossly exaggerating their confidence that the aerosol transmission model was wrong. My partner was treating covid and in late 2020 after a lot of evidence indicated it was plausible, she still had infectious disease experts make fun of physicians for asking about aerosol transmission. They were grossly confidently incorrect about a theory that had no evidence on either side but had some plausibility (because similar diseases had aerosol transmission). Again, the way the community acted in an area of unknown where it was impossible to prove or disprove was very unscientific. It was only over a year (with a lot of evidence) that the CDC said “aerosol transmission is maybe sorta kinda possible maybe”. There are multiple ways to validate an idea, and sometimes you can’t design a blind rct. We know parachutes work despite never having proven it in an rct trial.
- rflrob 5y ago
  > We know parachutes work despite never having proven it in an rct trial. In fact, the one study examining parachute use showed no effect! ;-) https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094
  - waterhouse 5y ago
    > Compared with individuals screened but not enrolled, participants included in the study were on aircraft at significantly lower altitude (mean of 0.6 m for participants v mean of 9146 m for non-participants; P<0.001) and lower velocity (mean of 0 km/h v mean of 800 km/h; P<0.001). > ... [T]he trial was only able to enroll participants on small stationary aircraft on the ground, suggesting cautious extrapolation to high altitude jumps. Hah. Ah, yes. Always read carefully!
kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
The real question is why hasn't the CDC ever funded a study on the efficacy of masks?
- chrischattin 5y ago
  There are hundreds of studies. And, it’s pretty conclusive that masks have zero efficacy for stopping viral transmission. But, you’ll get shouted down by the mob for pointing this out. Nobody reads the actual studies.
  - christophilus 5y ago
    N95 masks have crushed it in every study I’ve seen. Is there a study that shows they’re ineffective?
    - Sargos 5y ago
      Conflating N95 respirators with masks indicates you are not arguing in good faith.
      - vkou 5y ago
        And at this point, nearly 2 years into the pandemic, claiming that cloth masks do nothing is not arguing in good faith. A number of studies have been linked in sibling comments, studying the effects of cloth masks. They work to significant reduce exhaled contaminant load. > In one study, during talking, unmasked subjects expelled more than 5,000 contaminants per 5 cubic feet; 7.2% of the contaminants were associated with particles less than 4 μm in diameter (68). Cloth-masked subjects expelled an average of 19 contaminants per 5 cubic feet; 63% were less than 4 μm in diameter. So overall, over 99% of contaminants were filtered. The second study used the same experimental setup, but studied a wider range of mask designs, including a four-ply cotton mask. For each mask design, over 97% contaminant filtration was observed (69). > https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118#abstract-1 https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118#abstract-1 Also, at this point we know that even if you catch COVID-19, the viral load that you catch plays a factor in how seriously ill you get. Masks reduce the viral load that a sick person exposes others to.
hef19898 5y ago
That is by now more than frustrating. Yes, everyone from WHO down to the CDC and there counter-parts in other countries screwed up the mask recommendation. At first, under very difficult circumstances. They corrected that, so, rather quickly. We would all do ourselves a favor and stop bringing this up every single time we talk masks.
- Ensorceled 5y ago
  You should really read the rest of the comments in this thread. People are still asserting masks do "zero" to stop the spread. Dr. Tam, who is responsible for both gross incompetence AND intentionally misleading the public WRT COVID19, mistakes that literally killed people and, is probably still killing people, remains in her position as Chief Public Health Officer of Canada. This is why I can't let it go.
  - FredPret 5y ago
    Firing her during the pandemic would be very unwise politically
- timr 5y ago
  ...and then someone actually did a cluster RCT for masks and Covid, and found that cloth masks don't have any effect, and surgical masks have a truly minor effect on transmission: https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/do-masks-reduce-risk-of-covid19-by https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/do-masks-reduce-risk... We really need to stop repeating the talking point that "everyone screwed up". The original evidence base was that masks don't do much to stop respiratory illness. "The science" changed in the span of a week in early 2020, based on little more than propaganda. No actual science was ever performed, and once we did some, we found out that the early evidence was pretty much correct.
  - skinnymuch 5y ago
    [flagged]
andi999 5y ago
Here probably the hidden motif was that the masks do not go out of stock, so the medical personel has enough.

Spooky23 5y ago

There was definitely an anti-mask bias in the US at the policy level, because cloth mask use has limited effectiveness and triggers a pretty visceral reaction. A lot of the weird “muh freedom” and antivax nonsense was a pivot from anti-mask. COVID hit at the worst time, our federal government was reeling from the insanity of the last administration, and key early measures weren’t taken. A reaction similar to what happened in China in the NY Metro region and a few other places early on would have blunted this, and protocols had been developed and left on the shelf due to the political implications.

nradov 5y ago
Fortunately there was never any possibility of welding NY Metro area residents into their apartment as a reaction to COVID, like what happened in China.
- TakuYam 5y ago
  Only after CNY, the super-spread event that turned this global. What is especially galling is that for all his hardline rhetoric and complete lack of respect or fear for the rest of the world Xi is terrified of the reprisals at home if he banned CNY travel.
throwawaylinux 5y ago
Are you referring to the insanity of the last New York administration that was responsible for this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_COVID-19_nursing_home_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_COVID-19_nursing_home... and measures including not putting infectious people into nursing homes? If not, what are you referring to and what key early measures do you think should have been taken?

djdjjrjrjr 5y ago

It was criminal for way wait too long. If you look at the study of infectious diseases the aerosol transmission model has been discounted for way too long due to inability to “prove” it. If you can’t design an experiment to prove or disprove an idea that doesn’t make it automatically wrong. For example, the aerosol transmission model for influenza was flatly rejected for a long time, even when key scientists found it plausible and had some experimental evidence which wasn’t air tight. In covid’s case the CDC and other experts were grossly exaggerating their confidence that the aerosol transmission model was wrong. My partner was treating covid and in late 2020 after a lot of evidence indicated it was plausible, she still had infectious disease experts make fun of physicians for asking about aerosol transmission. They were grossly confidently incorrect about a theory that had no evidence on either side but had some plausibility (because similar diseases had aerosol transmission). Again, the way the community acted in an area of unknown where it was impossible to prove or disprove was very unscientific. It was only over a year (with a lot of evidence) that the CDC said “aerosol transmission is maybe sorta kinda possible maybe”. There are multiple ways to validate an idea, and sometimes you can’t design a blind rct. We know parachutes work despite never having proven it in an rct trial.

rflrob 5y ago
> We know parachutes work despite never having proven it in an rct trial. In fact, the one study examining parachute use showed no effect! ;-) https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094
- waterhouse 5y ago
  > Compared with individuals screened but not enrolled, participants included in the study were on aircraft at significantly lower altitude (mean of 0.6 m for participants v mean of 9146 m for non-participants; P<0.001) and lower velocity (mean of 0 km/h v mean of 800 km/h; P<0.001). > ... [T]he trial was only able to enroll participants on small stationary aircraft on the ground, suggesting cautious extrapolation to high altitude jumps. Hah. Ah, yes. Always read carefully!

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago

The real question is why hasn't the CDC ever funded a study on the efficacy of masks?

chrischattin 5y ago
There are hundreds of studies. And, it’s pretty conclusive that masks have zero efficacy for stopping viral transmission. But, you’ll get shouted down by the mob for pointing this out. Nobody reads the actual studies.
- christophilus 5y ago
  N95 masks have crushed it in every study I’ve seen. Is there a study that shows they’re ineffective?
  - Sargos 5y ago
    Conflating N95 respirators with masks indicates you are not arguing in good faith.
    - vkou 5y ago
      And at this point, nearly 2 years into the pandemic, claiming that cloth masks do nothing is not arguing in good faith. A number of studies have been linked in sibling comments, studying the effects of cloth masks. They work to significant reduce exhaled contaminant load. > In one study, during talking, unmasked subjects expelled more than 5,000 contaminants per 5 cubic feet; 7.2% of the contaminants were associated with particles less than 4 μm in diameter (68). Cloth-masked subjects expelled an average of 19 contaminants per 5 cubic feet; 63% were less than 4 μm in diameter. So overall, over 99% of contaminants were filtered. The second study used the same experimental setup, but studied a wider range of mask designs, including a four-ply cotton mask. For each mask design, over 97% contaminant filtration was observed (69). > https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118#abstract-1 https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118#abstract-1 Also, at this point we know that even if you catch COVID-19, the viral load that you catch plays a factor in how seriously ill you get. Masks reduce the viral load that a sick person exposes others to.

hef19898 5y ago

That is by now more than frustrating. Yes, everyone from WHO down to the CDC and there counter-parts in other countries screwed up the mask recommendation. At first, under very difficult circumstances. They corrected that, so, rather quickly. We would all do ourselves a favor and stop bringing this up every single time we talk masks.

Ensorceled 5y ago
You should really read the rest of the comments in this thread. People are still asserting masks do "zero" to stop the spread. Dr. Tam, who is responsible for both gross incompetence AND intentionally misleading the public WRT COVID19, mistakes that literally killed people and, is probably still killing people, remains in her position as Chief Public Health Officer of Canada. This is why I can't let it go.
- FredPret 5y ago
  Firing her during the pandemic would be very unwise politically
timr 5y ago
...and then someone actually did a cluster RCT for masks and Covid, and found that cloth masks don't have any effect, and surgical masks have a truly minor effect on transmission: https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/do-masks-reduce-risk-of-covid19-by https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/do-masks-reduce-risk... We really need to stop repeating the talking point that "everyone screwed up". The original evidence base was that masks don't do much to stop respiratory illness. "The science" changed in the span of a week in early 2020, based on little more than propaganda. No actual science was ever performed, and once we did some, we found out that the early evidence was pretty much correct.
- skinnymuch 5y ago
  [flagged]

andi999 5y ago

Here probably the hidden motif was that the masks do not go out of stock, so the medical personel has enough.