4 ms·

> 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 sug

> 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
        burnished 5y ago
        Yes! It even has the search link to the other times he has responded to it. Thanks for finding that :)
  - pdonis 5y ago
    > 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. That's not a reason to tell people that masks don't work. It's a reason to tell people that masks do work, provided you take precautions A, B, and C. And you should also say why those precautions are necessary--because of the assumed risk of touch transmission--so people can apply common sense, since no amount of advice from a central authority can possibly cover all individual cases.
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.

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
      - burnished 5y ago
        Yes! It even has the search link to the other times he has responded to it. Thanks for finding that :)
- pdonis 5y ago
  > 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. That's not a reason to tell people that masks don't work. It's a reason to tell people that masks do work, provided you take precautions A, B, and C. And you should also say why those precautions are necessary--because of the assumed risk of touch transmission--so people can apply common sense, since no amount of advice from a central authority can possibly cover all individual cases.

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.