4 ms·
Yes, that science. The one that looks at available data and reassesses, rather than taking a potentially incorrect stance and sticking with it for no reason oth
by LadyCailin 5y ago
Yes, that science. The one that looks at available data and reassesses, rather than taking a potentially incorrect stance and sticking with it for no reason other than to save face.
- refurb 5y agoFalse. Science may be consistent, but governments don’t enact science they enact policy that involves trade offs and risk taking. That’s why “you don’t need a mask” was just a lie to conserve masks for healthcare workers. Is that following the science?
- geysersam 5y agoI don't think it was a deliberate lie. Many conventional wisdoms we're overturned during these last couple of years. Saving mask for the health care services might have been a reasonable thing to do 20 years ago. But today with Chinese extreme mass production it is entirely feasible in rich states to equip their populations with sofisticated face masks and test for virus infection with anti-gen tests several times every week. It's a new world.
- yucky 5y ago"The science" never made a reassessment on masks though, we didn't learn anything new about how masks work and how effective cloth vs N95 etc. All of the posturing on masks was political. So "Trust the science" really became "trust our politicians bro".
- brianshaler 5y agoSure, there was and is political posturing with regard to pandemic countermeasures. The reassessments haven't been about learning how masks work but about how a particular virus spreads and the efficacy of various types of masks in various settings between parties of varying contagion levels. The advice also has to be grounded in practicality given current circumstances (supply constraints, rate of asymptomatic spread among vaccinated populations, etc)