3 ms·

> I remember vividly president Macron (a person that I respected before that) very serious in TV explaining to all the citizens of the republic that we should

by phh 5y ago

> I remember vividly president Macron (a person that I respected before that) very serious in TV explaining to all the citizens of the republic that we should not buy nor wear masks. I don't remember this from Macron, but rather from Véran (Health Minister), but I could be wrong. anyway, at the time this was a more than reasonable request. Because the very first persons we had to protect were health professionals, and we didn't have enough masks for everyone. (We didn't even have enough for health professionals) > If we did that we would be safe, no need of masks. I'll need to check again what he said, because I really don't remember that part, and I remember that the "L’usage du masque en population générale n’est pas utile" made sense to me, precisely because we had to protect health professionals first, which contradicts that part.

hosteur 5y ago
> anyway, at the time this was a more than reasonable request. Because the very first persons we had to protect were health professionals, and we didn't have enough masks for everyone. So that makes it ok for them to lie? I do not agree. And the trust is lost as a result. They should have explained that we should prioritize masks for health care professionals if that was their reasoning.
- phh 5y ago
  I don't see the lie. As I said, I don't remember them ever saying that it was safe without mask. They only said it was not useful. I would actually say that at the time, it was counter-productive for the general public to wear masks, because it prevented protecting health professionals. I agree there is a bit of conundrum that "not useful" is not exactly in between "counter-productive" and "useful", and here you could argue that the "not useful" in Véran's mouth meant "doesn't protect". I definitely wouldn't blame you for that, and yes I'm being very nice to them for my interpretation. The reality is that had they said "yes masks are super important, but it's even more important to give them to health professionals", we'd have seen what we saw with hydroxychloroquine (which is that people who actually needed it couldn't get it), but 10 times worse. Could they have twisted their words 7 times more in their mouth before saying it, so that it's not factually a lie? Yes sure.

by phh 5y ago

hosteur 5y ago

> anyway, at the time this was a more than reasonable request. Because the very first persons we had to protect were health professionals, and we didn't have enough masks for everyone. So that makes it ok for them to lie? I do not agree. And the trust is lost as a result. They should have explained that we should prioritize masks for health care professionals if that was their reasoning.

phh 5y ago
I don't see the lie. As I said, I don't remember them ever saying that it was safe without mask. They only said it was not useful. I would actually say that at the time, it was counter-productive for the general public to wear masks, because it prevented protecting health professionals. I agree there is a bit of conundrum that "not useful" is not exactly in between "counter-productive" and "useful", and here you could argue that the "not useful" in Véran's mouth meant "doesn't protect". I definitely wouldn't blame you for that, and yes I'm being very nice to them for my interpretation. The reality is that had they said "yes masks are super important, but it's even more important to give them to health professionals", we'd have seen what we saw with hydroxychloroquine (which is that people who actually needed it couldn't get it), but 10 times worse. Could they have twisted their words 7 times more in their mouth before saying it, so that it's not factually a lie? Yes sure.