8 ms·

So many "misinformation censorship" proponents seem to have quickly forgotten just how much literally everyone in public health has spread misinformation this p

by toolz 5y ago

So many "misinformation censorship" proponents seem to have quickly forgotten just how much literally everyone in public health has spread misinformation this pandemic. It's unavoidable being wrong and often the cost of making claims without unimpeachable evidence is higher than the cost of being wrong. Name me a public health official who regularly made recommendations this pandemic and I'll show you misinformation. The real issue here, in my opinion, is attributing malice so quickly and with extreme prejudice. Tensions are high and it seems to have become commonplace to assign ill-intent to the other tribe way too easily. In my opinion the answer to all of these problems is compassion and statistical thinking. Most people mean well and often times the only way you can get people to go to extremes is to negatively reinforce them into deeply entrenched tribal thinking. It will always be a safer assumption to assume somebody means well even when they are wrong. Humans did not become the dominant species on this planet without cooperation and pro-social behaviors.

tempnow987 5y ago
The anti mask, anti N95 masks with exhalation valve stuff has been the worst here I think. If you would let folks wear N95 with exhalation valves (highly comfortable) it just makes it easier for folks to protect themselves (and indirectly others). And for those who don't care, let's distinguish slightly between making sure those who want to protect themselves as much as possible can, and the need to force people down a path which for the < 29 year olds really doesn't not have hi mortality rates, and for whom vaccination does not eliminate the disease the way it might something like smallpox etc. My own view is the battle is largely lost already by the health authorities. Locally we have an indoor mask mandate including offices with all staff fully vaxed, and the natural desire to comply with this has gotten lower and lower if you are pretty spread out in large cubicals etc.
- toolz 5y ago
  This is a bit of a tangent, but I don't understand generalized masking. At best they flatten the curve, which I think at this point I believe flattening the curve is dangerous. We have pretty well defined risk demographics and if we could have covid seasons come and go quickly I think it gives the high risk demographics the best chance of applying multi-layered defenses against a shorter season of risk. There is of course the "overcrowded hospital" issue, but I have a hard time coming to terms with that being a real problem - if it were a real problem why has hospital capacity been in decline this entire pandemic? Is it an unsolvable problem or is it just not a real problem outside of fantastically clickable headlines? I lean heavily towards the latter but I could be convinced otherwise.
  - tempnow987 5y ago
    The issue for me is I have elderly parents one of which does have a health condition (serious) that makes some breathing and other issues hard. They wanted to fly out to visit me. The absolute best way to avoid covid for yourself in my view is an N95 masks with a vent, because you can actually wear that thing for hours comfortably. I have friends who treated folks with covid wearing N95's and did not get covid. So I really wish we could let folks make the personal health decisions here a bit more. If you want to wear a bubble helmet with filters in it - go for it. The full respirator (almost always with an exhalation valve)? Go for it. The N95 with an exhalation valve? Go for it. Instead, delta airlines says no full cover, no N95 with exhalation etc. So now you have people who don't want to wear masks forced to wear them, and they are preventing folks who really DO want to be protected (while on a flight) from fully protecting themselves. This is all in the name of "science" which really is not science but "public health" mumbo jumbo. It goes back to this issue of basically not realizing folks have different risk profiles / tolerances. If I'm allowed to wear my N95 with an exhalation valve for 4 hours, I frankly don't care if the guy 2 rows back has his mask off his nose. This mistake is lecturing everyone (often with bad info) and then blocking folks from solving their own problems. remember when the anti-body rapid tests had to have a chip, an iphone app and a medical professional in the mix? And no, I don't believe in those cloth masks, and surgical masks on a plane for 5 hours? Hard to imagine that being highly effective.
    - toolz 5y ago
      Personally I don't think any kind of mask works on people who don't want to wear them. I hypothesize the reason general population shows little or no benefit with masks is because wearing masks effectively is significantly more tedious than just having one on most of the time where people require them. People who don't want masks aren't getting fitted properly for n95's, they aren't shaving, they aren't behaving consciously in the many ways you can behave that render masking ineffective.
      - tempnow987 5y ago
        Agreed. I laugh because folks have masks on their necks, off their noses etc, when eating, when drinking etc. I don't blame them, a lot of masks fog up glasses etc if they actually are restrictive and don't have an exhalation valve. I shave (this comes from scuba diving where shaving provides similar benefits). I have my own reasons not to want to get covid. So I like doing some things that I'm confident reduce my risk meaningfully. But I don't lecture others, I solve my own problem here.
- Kim_Bruning 5y ago
  I don't get it. Exhalation valves are great if you're using the mask to filter external dust. Here you're trying to filter outgoing and ingoing droplets. Filtering is still going to be most effective at the source, even if you are wearing N.95. Adding a valve is going to reduce the utility of the mask a lot for this application.
  - tempnow987 5y ago
    My personal interest is filtering on ingress. I can feel the pressure when I breathe in, the air is going through the mask for sure. On egress, just a quick look at the valve, it's going to stop the velocity and either block or drop particles - however ineffective that might be on egress there is NO WAY it is worse then what I see others wearing (surgical / thin cloth etc), mask off the nose, mask off while they eat etc. Finally - folks historically have a natural "self interest" motivation. Ie, if you let folks act in a self interested way - personal protection, personal comfort - you are likely going to be better off policy wise.
    - Kim_Bruning 5y ago
      https://www.microcovid.org/ https://www.microcovid.org/ You can do a rough risk computation yourself I guess. Both ingress and egress is worse if you have a valve though. Does seem like egress is still a bit better than what other people do (in this model at least - which could be wrong), but one shouldn't set one's standards by "what other people do".
      - tempnow987 5y ago
        "one shouldn't set one's standards by "what other people do"" In policy matters one can and should. This is the stupidity I think of the scientists here. If others are wearing surgical and little cloth masks, only wearing them a little bit, but then they say I can't wear my valved N95 (which I do very carefully) it's both totally arbitrary and unfair (my exhalations are still equal too or less others). They also miss that the tradeoff might not be between my 5 hours of N95 use in a relative high workrate environment and something perfect, but that I will join with just about everyone else and ignore what they say, or go down to something like a surgical mask for comfort. Or take my mask off more for comfort to "drink" etc. I'm convinced many folks on HN sit behind computers in empty rooms alone and NOT wearing a mask. If you have to wear a mask every day - these issues would matter a lot more.
colechristensen 5y ago
There is a difference between "malice" and "intentional misinformation". Authority figures are not accurately representing risks and rewards of different actions and have deliberately shaped their messaging to achieve outcomes. Direct from the horse's mouth: https://twitter.com/cdcgov/status/1233134710638825473 https://twitter.com/cdcgov/status/1233134710638825473 "CDC does not currently recommend the use of facemasks to help prevent novel #coronavirus. Take everyday preventive actions, like staying home when you are sick and washing hands with soap and water, to help slow the spread of respiratory illness." from 27 Feb 2020. They weren't saying this because they thought face masks were ineffective, they said this because they were worried about supplies for healthcare workers. (obvious by reading subtext) This is a repeated pattern. Making recommendations and sharing "facts" omitting important details in order to push for an unshared outcome. Nobody is properly sharing how risks have changed, nobody is making premeditated decisions about which risks will be associated with which mitigating actions. The goalposts are constantly shifting to match present feelings instead of setting limits based on reason and sticking to them. The censorship problem comes in when publishers are half-way committing to a narrative which changes by the week, failing to shut down people who are just saying things a subset wants to hear in order to get money and actively shutting down others who are actively trying to engage in reasonable debate. The fundamental problem is this: People have different risk tolerance and different priorities when it comes to personal risk, and individual actions affecting the community. These differences in this case are ultimately fairly small but getting blown out of proportion because it's profitable to get people upset. It is all a moot point now and nobody seems to be able to articulate or admit it yet. There is very little community protection left available by vaccinating. Vaccinated people can carry and spread the disease, the new variants are a lot less deadly, and a sizable proportion of the population already has natural immunity from getting the actual virus (~75M confirmed cases in the US for ~330M population, with estimates that there may have been as many as 4x as many cases which went uncounted) It's over, we lost, the outcome we have is what we got and there is very little leverage to change it at this point because the vast majority of what was going to happen has already happened and the prevention tools we have are mostly ineffective at curbing spread.
- christkv 5y ago
  Our whole family had mild delta two months ago, even then we are now finishing quarantine after everyone catching omnicron. Neither vaccines or previous infection seem particularly effective at stopping re infection. The virus seems significantly different to previous iterations meaning it might as well be a different virus altogether. It felt like a medium flu for the adults and just bounced off the kids.

by toolz 5y ago

tempnow987 5y ago

The anti mask, anti N95 masks with exhalation valve stuff has been the worst here I think. If you would let folks wear N95 with exhalation valves (highly comfortable) it just makes it easier for folks to protect themselves (and indirectly others). And for those who don't care, let's distinguish slightly between making sure those who want to protect themselves as much as possible can, and the need to force people down a path which for the < 29 year olds really doesn't not have hi mortality rates, and for whom vaccination does not eliminate the disease the way it might something like smallpox etc. My own view is the battle is largely lost already by the health authorities. Locally we have an indoor mask mandate including offices with all staff fully vaxed, and the natural desire to comply with this has gotten lower and lower if you are pretty spread out in large cubicals etc.

toolz 5y ago
This is a bit of a tangent, but I don't understand generalized masking. At best they flatten the curve, which I think at this point I believe flattening the curve is dangerous. We have pretty well defined risk demographics and if we could have covid seasons come and go quickly I think it gives the high risk demographics the best chance of applying multi-layered defenses against a shorter season of risk. There is of course the "overcrowded hospital" issue, but I have a hard time coming to terms with that being a real problem - if it were a real problem why has hospital capacity been in decline this entire pandemic? Is it an unsolvable problem or is it just not a real problem outside of fantastically clickable headlines? I lean heavily towards the latter but I could be convinced otherwise.
- tempnow987 5y ago
  The issue for me is I have elderly parents one of which does have a health condition (serious) that makes some breathing and other issues hard. They wanted to fly out to visit me. The absolute best way to avoid covid for yourself in my view is an N95 masks with a vent, because you can actually wear that thing for hours comfortably. I have friends who treated folks with covid wearing N95's and did not get covid. So I really wish we could let folks make the personal health decisions here a bit more. If you want to wear a bubble helmet with filters in it - go for it. The full respirator (almost always with an exhalation valve)? Go for it. The N95 with an exhalation valve? Go for it. Instead, delta airlines says no full cover, no N95 with exhalation etc. So now you have people who don't want to wear masks forced to wear them, and they are preventing folks who really DO want to be protected (while on a flight) from fully protecting themselves. This is all in the name of "science" which really is not science but "public health" mumbo jumbo. It goes back to this issue of basically not realizing folks have different risk profiles / tolerances. If I'm allowed to wear my N95 with an exhalation valve for 4 hours, I frankly don't care if the guy 2 rows back has his mask off his nose. This mistake is lecturing everyone (often with bad info) and then blocking folks from solving their own problems. remember when the anti-body rapid tests had to have a chip, an iphone app and a medical professional in the mix? And no, I don't believe in those cloth masks, and surgical masks on a plane for 5 hours? Hard to imagine that being highly effective.
  - toolz 5y ago
    Personally I don't think any kind of mask works on people who don't want to wear them. I hypothesize the reason general population shows little or no benefit with masks is because wearing masks effectively is significantly more tedious than just having one on most of the time where people require them. People who don't want masks aren't getting fitted properly for n95's, they aren't shaving, they aren't behaving consciously in the many ways you can behave that render masking ineffective.
    - tempnow987 5y ago
      Agreed. I laugh because folks have masks on their necks, off their noses etc, when eating, when drinking etc. I don't blame them, a lot of masks fog up glasses etc if they actually are restrictive and don't have an exhalation valve. I shave (this comes from scuba diving where shaving provides similar benefits). I have my own reasons not to want to get covid. So I like doing some things that I'm confident reduce my risk meaningfully. But I don't lecture others, I solve my own problem here.
Kim_Bruning 5y ago
I don't get it. Exhalation valves are great if you're using the mask to filter external dust. Here you're trying to filter outgoing and ingoing droplets. Filtering is still going to be most effective at the source, even if you are wearing N.95. Adding a valve is going to reduce the utility of the mask a lot for this application.
- tempnow987 5y ago
  My personal interest is filtering on ingress. I can feel the pressure when I breathe in, the air is going through the mask for sure. On egress, just a quick look at the valve, it's going to stop the velocity and either block or drop particles - however ineffective that might be on egress there is NO WAY it is worse then what I see others wearing (surgical / thin cloth etc), mask off the nose, mask off while they eat etc. Finally - folks historically have a natural "self interest" motivation. Ie, if you let folks act in a self interested way - personal protection, personal comfort - you are likely going to be better off policy wise.
  - Kim_Bruning 5y ago
    https://www.microcovid.org/ https://www.microcovid.org/ You can do a rough risk computation yourself I guess. Both ingress and egress is worse if you have a valve though. Does seem like egress is still a bit better than what other people do (in this model at least - which could be wrong), but one shouldn't set one's standards by "what other people do".
    - tempnow987 5y ago
      "one shouldn't set one's standards by "what other people do"" In policy matters one can and should. This is the stupidity I think of the scientists here. If others are wearing surgical and little cloth masks, only wearing them a little bit, but then they say I can't wear my valved N95 (which I do very carefully) it's both totally arbitrary and unfair (my exhalations are still equal too or less others). They also miss that the tradeoff might not be between my 5 hours of N95 use in a relative high workrate environment and something perfect, but that I will join with just about everyone else and ignore what they say, or go down to something like a surgical mask for comfort. Or take my mask off more for comfort to "drink" etc. I'm convinced many folks on HN sit behind computers in empty rooms alone and NOT wearing a mask. If you have to wear a mask every day - these issues would matter a lot more.

colechristensen 5y ago

There is a difference between "malice" and "intentional misinformation". Authority figures are not accurately representing risks and rewards of different actions and have deliberately shaped their messaging to achieve outcomes. Direct from the horse's mouth: https://twitter.com/cdcgov/status/1233134710638825473 https://twitter.com/cdcgov/status/1233134710638825473 "CDC does not currently recommend the use of facemasks to help prevent novel #coronavirus. Take everyday preventive actions, like staying home when you are sick and washing hands with soap and water, to help slow the spread of respiratory illness." from 27 Feb 2020. They weren't saying this because they thought face masks were ineffective, they said this because they were worried about supplies for healthcare workers. (obvious by reading subtext) This is a repeated pattern. Making recommendations and sharing "facts" omitting important details in order to push for an unshared outcome. Nobody is properly sharing how risks have changed, nobody is making premeditated decisions about which risks will be associated with which mitigating actions. The goalposts are constantly shifting to match present feelings instead of setting limits based on reason and sticking to them. The censorship problem comes in when publishers are half-way committing to a narrative which changes by the week, failing to shut down people who are just saying things a subset wants to hear in order to get money and actively shutting down others who are actively trying to engage in reasonable debate. The fundamental problem is this: People have different risk tolerance and different priorities when it comes to personal risk, and individual actions affecting the community. These differences in this case are ultimately fairly small but getting blown out of proportion because it's profitable to get people upset. It is all a moot point now and nobody seems to be able to articulate or admit it yet. There is very little community protection left available by vaccinating. Vaccinated people can carry and spread the disease, the new variants are a lot less deadly, and a sizable proportion of the population already has natural immunity from getting the actual virus (~75M confirmed cases in the US for ~330M population, with estimates that there may have been as many as 4x as many cases which went uncounted) It's over, we lost, the outcome we have is what we got and there is very little leverage to change it at this point because the vast majority of what was going to happen has already happened and the prevention tools we have are mostly ineffective at curbing spread.

christkv 5y ago
Our whole family had mild delta two months ago, even then we are now finishing quarantine after everyone catching omnicron. Neither vaccines or previous infection seem particularly effective at stopping re infection. The virus seems significantly different to previous iterations meaning it might as well be a different virus altogether. It felt like a medium flu for the adults and just bounced off the kids.