3 ms·

… what? Science changes course as more data comes in. At first there wasn’t evidence that masks worked, once that had been accrued science was pro-mask. The

by olliej 5y ago

… what? Science changes course as more data comes in. At first there wasn’t evidence that masks worked, once that had been accrued science was pro-mask. The reason people questioning the effectiveness of masks is called a science denier is because there have been innumerable studies on the effectiveness of masks, and every one that has stood up to scrutiny has come out in favor of masks. Calling scientific consensus that is backed but huge amounts of direct evidence “dogma” is nonsense. Dogma is an absolute opinion on something in the absence of (or indeed denied by) evidence.

ummonk 5y ago
> Science changes course as more data comes in. And that's reason to express epistemic uncertainty when basing one's conclusions off limited data. > At first there wasn’t evidence that masks worked, once that had been accrued science was pro-mask. First of all, there was already evidence that masks worked. Second, officials did not tell people that we lacked evidence that masks work - they told people that masks don't work period. > The reason people questioning the effectiveness of masks is called a science denier is because there have been innumerable studies on the effectiveness of masks, and every one that has stood up to scrutiny has come out in favor of masks. Calling scientific consensus that is backed but huge amounts of direct evidence “dogma” is nonsense. The studies show limited effectiveness of masks, particularly with newer variants that have higher exhaled viral loads. People who argue that the benefits of masking are outweighed by the costs are labeled science deniers. This is despite there being some evidence of negative impacts from masking (e.g. on childhood development).
- simonh 5y ago
  > Second, officials did not tell people that we lacked evidence that masks work - they told people that masks don't work period. Some said we lacked evidence, others said they didn’t work. There was no single voice on this.
barry-cotter 5y ago
> At first there wasn’t evidence that masks worked, once that had been accrued science was pro-mask. This is not how that worked. The evidence in terms of tests and trials is inconclusive, either for or against masks, in terms of experimental evidence of effectiveness. Nevertheless East Asia was all fro masks from the beginning and the WHO, CDC, FDA, Surgeon General were against, very vehemently. The western establishment changed their minds based not on experimental evidence but on people going "Are you morons? You're saying masks are literally useless? Not of limited use, actually worthless? Do you understand how airflow and droplets work at all?"

by olliej 5y ago

ummonk 5y ago

> Science changes course as more data comes in. And that's reason to express epistemic uncertainty when basing one's conclusions off limited data. > At first there wasn’t evidence that masks worked, once that had been accrued science was pro-mask. First of all, there was already evidence that masks worked. Second, officials did not tell people that we lacked evidence that masks work - they told people that masks don't work period. > The reason people questioning the effectiveness of masks is called a science denier is because there have been innumerable studies on the effectiveness of masks, and every one that has stood up to scrutiny has come out in favor of masks. Calling scientific consensus that is backed but huge amounts of direct evidence “dogma” is nonsense. The studies show limited effectiveness of masks, particularly with newer variants that have higher exhaled viral loads. People who argue that the benefits of masking are outweighed by the costs are labeled science deniers. This is despite there being some evidence of negative impacts from masking (e.g. on childhood development).

simonh 5y ago
> Second, officials did not tell people that we lacked evidence that masks work - they told people that masks don't work period. Some said we lacked evidence, others said they didn’t work. There was no single voice on this.

barry-cotter 5y ago

> At first there wasn’t evidence that masks worked, once that had been accrued science was pro-mask. This is not how that worked. The evidence in terms of tests and trials is inconclusive, either for or against masks, in terms of experimental evidence of effectiveness. Nevertheless East Asia was all fro masks from the beginning and the WHO, CDC, FDA, Surgeon General were against, very vehemently. The western establishment changed their minds based not on experimental evidence but on people going "Are you morons? You're saying masks are literally useless? Not of limited use, actually worthless? Do you understand how airflow and droplets work at all?"