5 ms·

Because there was no new evidence, the only thing that changed were the incentives. The evidence was always there and most of the rest of the world that didn't

by Kranar 5y ago

Because there was no new evidence, the only thing that changed were the incentives. The evidence was always there and most of the rest of the world that didn't suffer from mask shortages recommended wearing masks and made them readily available for their residents. The countries that were not prepared for this decided it was best to lie and spread misinformation that masks don't work, or people are too stupid to put a mask on properly, or that there's nothing to be concerned about in the hopes that COVID would not be a long term global lockdown type of pandemic. Whatever disagreement you might have about the author of this website, don't give a pass to the people who were at the helm during this pandemic. They failed the public along numerous basic metrics and that doesn't change simply because this author may or may not be an asshole.

pixelgeek 5y ago
> Because there was no new evidence... But there was. The WHO recommendations, which I assume is what he is referring to, were based initially on data that suggested an non-aerosol transmission and then evidence was produced that lead to the theory of aerosol transmission. One can certainly criticize the WHO and other health organizations for moving too slowly but the issue I am referring to isn't that. There is a general tendency on the right to point to changing advice as some sort of proof of a conspiracy or idiocy on the part of the health officials. I see it all the time (as a daily lark I read Gab) and it points to an obvious lack of understanding on the part of a large part of the population (deliberate or not) about how science works on a fairly fundamental level.
- Kranar 5y ago
  Aerosol transmission is not the only reason to wear a mask and in fact most masks that people wear including surgical masks do not provide great protection against aerosol transmission, you need an N95 mask for that. It was always known, even prior to COVID and by the WHO (who posted as much on their website), that coronaviruses spread via respiratory droplets and that's what most masks are effective at protecting against.
  - snowwrestler 5y ago
    Because coronaviruses spread through droplets, there was concern that touch would be a significant vector of transmission. Droplets will land somewhere; then what? If the virus could persist viably on surfaces, handling a soiled mask properly would be absolutely critical to getting any benefit from it, and handling it improperly would be risky. People wiped down their groceries for the same reason. With the benefit of real data, we now know that touch is a negligible vector. The novel coronavirus does not persist viably for long on any surface. So masks are an excellent trade off.
    - finite_jest 5y ago
      This is obviously off-topic, and has nothing to do with the submitted article's content. [1] But the ship of keeping this on-topic has already sailed, so I might as well add my two cents: Fauci himself said the reason they discouraged people from wearing masks was that "it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply". [2] There is a utilitarian argument for white lies, but public health officials did lie categorically. [1]: I have flagged the woke-scolding comment which started the digression; likely to no avail as it matches the biases of the egregore. [2]: Fauci's interview with The Street: https://archive.ph/T4uZI#selection-809.0-813.507 https://archive.ph/T4uZI#selection-809.0-813.507
      - burnished 5y ago
        >> [1]: I have flagged the woke-scolding comment which started the digression; likely to no avail as it matches the biases of the egregore. You should probably look up dang's statements about this sentiment because its pretty funny how frequently this gets dragged out from literally anyone who feels disagreed with and hes got a nice rant about it.
        finite_jest 5y ago
        :-) Is it this one? -> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26148870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26148870
- SuoDuanDao 5y ago
  It's not just changing advice. It's refusal to acknowledge the false certainty with which the original advice was given, and that undermines any reason to trust the certainty with which current advice is being given. If the WHO had said in the early days 'We're 55% certain masks do more harm than good' and then said 'we've looked at more data and are now 60% certain masks do more good than harm', I doubt many of us would be clowning them to the degree we are. It's the fact they spoke as if they had 100% certainty in one direction and then as if they had 100% certainty in the other that gives the impression these people don't know what they're doing.
pixelgeek 5y ago
> They failed the public along numerous basic metrics and that doesn't change simply because this author may or may not be an asshole. Asshat. I think he has far too much understanding of his basic character flaws and limitations to be an asshole. Its what makes his commentary especially wonderful. He isn't some ignorant asshole who thinks he is smarter than everyone else. He seems to know how smart he is and what his failings are but it doesn't stop him. His frequent use of 'muh' speaks to a very elitist and classist view of modern society that has to come from, I assume, some sort of rural or less sophisticated upbringing of his. Unlike hatebags who write for Breitbart or Infowars this guy is a wonderful combination of contradictions, insight and sheer bile. Its f*$king breathtaking.
- mcguire 5y ago
  Calling people names as a form of argumentation is very rarely wonderful.
jollybean 5y ago
You don't need new evidence to come to a new understanding of policy measures. We were worried about supply chains, and then we weren't. In a supply chain constraint, Doctors get masks, because they need them. Beyond that, the general population for whom masks are marginally useful, can have them. Because 'masks are a policy' then we have to wear them in certain environments with strict oversight, I think this has led some people to believe that they are some kind if 'important tool' when of course they are not, they're just a small measure, but an important one in the aggregate. The author is perfectly within his rights to be curmudgeon, but he's not very reasonable in his argumentation, he's more or less venting and name calling, which is unfortunately the reality of most of the anti-vaxx populism: there are very few well orchestrated skeptic arguments.

by Kranar 5y ago

pixelgeek 5y ago

> Because there was no new evidence... But there was. The WHO recommendations, which I assume is what he is referring to, were based initially on data that suggested an non-aerosol transmission and then evidence was produced that lead to the theory of aerosol transmission. One can certainly criticize the WHO and other health organizations for moving too slowly but the issue I am referring to isn't that. There is a general tendency on the right to point to changing advice as some sort of proof of a conspiracy or idiocy on the part of the health officials. I see it all the time (as a daily lark I read Gab) and it points to an obvious lack of understanding on the part of a large part of the population (deliberate or not) about how science works on a fairly fundamental level.

Kranar 5y ago
Aerosol transmission is not the only reason to wear a mask and in fact most masks that people wear including surgical masks do not provide great protection against aerosol transmission, you need an N95 mask for that. It was always known, even prior to COVID and by the WHO (who posted as much on their website), that coronaviruses spread via respiratory droplets and that's what most masks are effective at protecting against.
- snowwrestler 5y ago
  Because coronaviruses spread through droplets, there was concern that touch would be a significant vector of transmission. Droplets will land somewhere; then what? If the virus could persist viably on surfaces, handling a soiled mask properly would be absolutely critical to getting any benefit from it, and handling it improperly would be risky. People wiped down their groceries for the same reason. With the benefit of real data, we now know that touch is a negligible vector. The novel coronavirus does not persist viably for long on any surface. So masks are an excellent trade off.
  - finite_jest 5y ago
    This is obviously off-topic, and has nothing to do with the submitted article's content. [1] But the ship of keeping this on-topic has already sailed, so I might as well add my two cents: Fauci himself said the reason they discouraged people from wearing masks was that "it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply". [2] There is a utilitarian argument for white lies, but public health officials did lie categorically. [1]: I have flagged the woke-scolding comment which started the digression; likely to no avail as it matches the biases of the egregore. [2]: Fauci's interview with The Street: https://archive.ph/T4uZI#selection-809.0-813.507 https://archive.ph/T4uZI#selection-809.0-813.507
    - burnished 5y ago
      >> [1]: I have flagged the woke-scolding comment which started the digression; likely to no avail as it matches the biases of the egregore. You should probably look up dang's statements about this sentiment because its pretty funny how frequently this gets dragged out from literally anyone who feels disagreed with and hes got a nice rant about it.
      - finite_jest 5y ago
        :-) Is it this one? -> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26148870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26148870
SuoDuanDao 5y ago
It's not just changing advice. It's refusal to acknowledge the false certainty with which the original advice was given, and that undermines any reason to trust the certainty with which current advice is being given. If the WHO had said in the early days 'We're 55% certain masks do more harm than good' and then said 'we've looked at more data and are now 60% certain masks do more good than harm', I doubt many of us would be clowning them to the degree we are. It's the fact they spoke as if they had 100% certainty in one direction and then as if they had 100% certainty in the other that gives the impression these people don't know what they're doing.

pixelgeek 5y ago

> They failed the public along numerous basic metrics and that doesn't change simply because this author may or may not be an asshole. Asshat. I think he has far too much understanding of his basic character flaws and limitations to be an asshole. Its what makes his commentary especially wonderful. He isn't some ignorant asshole who thinks he is smarter than everyone else. He seems to know how smart he is and what his failings are but it doesn't stop him. His frequent use of 'muh' speaks to a very elitist and classist view of modern society that has to come from, I assume, some sort of rural or less sophisticated upbringing of his. Unlike hatebags who write for Breitbart or Infowars this guy is a wonderful combination of contradictions, insight and sheer bile. Its f*$king breathtaking.

mcguire 5y ago
Calling people names as a form of argumentation is very rarely wonderful.

jollybean 5y ago

You don't need new evidence to come to a new understanding of policy measures. We were worried about supply chains, and then we weren't. In a supply chain constraint, Doctors get masks, because they need them. Beyond that, the general population for whom masks are marginally useful, can have them. Because 'masks are a policy' then we have to wear them in certain environments with strict oversight, I think this has led some people to believe that they are some kind if 'important tool' when of course they are not, they're just a small measure, but an important one in the aggregate. The author is perfectly within his rights to be curmudgeon, but he's not very reasonable in his argumentation, he's more or less venting and name calling, which is unfortunately the reality of most of the anti-vaxx populism: there are very few well orchestrated skeptic arguments.