3 ms·

The tragedy is that the pandemic was politicized and wearing or not wearing a mask was considered a political statement. Somewhere between 2010 and 2020 we have

by x86x87 4y ago

The tragedy is that the pandemic was politicized and wearing or not wearing a mask was considered a political statement. Somewhere between 2010 and 2020 we have lost, as a society, the ability to think and reason based on logic and arguments. Most people today actively refuse to think (and hn is a bubble where people are really smart, educated and can actually hold a conversation but it's by no mean something that represents society at large). Anyway... back to politics. I knew that the CDC was full of BS when they came out with their "yeah, you don't need masks. they are only needed at the hospitals. leave the N95s for them". That being said, people refused to think and herd instinct kicked in. Should you wear a mask when you're in open air an there is noone around? Probably not. Should you wear one when in the middle of a crowd and people are literally sneezing left an right? Probably yes. After the initial handling by the CDC it was lie after half-truth after lie. Everyone wanted to make this a big deal (some to point at the bad handling of the leading political party, some to point at how well they were handling it). It's also extremely suspect how everyone switched the beat of the drums from "this is bad people. we are all going to die" to "pandemic over. social distancing over. we need to get back to living". It amazes me how in spite of having a vaccine today, we have a higher case rate today than we had for most of 2020 when we were told we are going to die. It's mindblowing. If this pandemic taught me anything is that I should never judge situations I've not been in before (whenever I watched an apocalypse/zombie/pandemic movie I used to think to myself: naah, people would not be that stupid. c'mon this is not realistic. turns out that we are really like herd animals and we really are that stupid).

epgui 4y ago
> "yeah, you don't need masks. they are only needed at the hospitals. leave the N95s for them" The main message was not that masks were "only needed at the hospitals". You will remember that in the early days, there were serious supply issues with masks, and some hospitals, clinics and other healthcare providers had difficulty securing their own supplies. It was a question of priorities.
- spoonjim 4y ago
  But that's not what they said. They said that the masks wouldn't work for us plebes, that they would only work for trained professionals. Did that preserve some mask supply from ravenous packs of selfish Americans who would have made a run on them if they were said to be needed at hospitals? Yes. But it also meant a major loss of trust on every following thing they said. I was a failed communication strategy for a failed public policy applied to a failed electorate produced by a failed educational system.
  - epgui 4y ago
    That is indeed absolutely what they said, and if that's not what you heard, then you didn't hear everything they said, or you heard it through a not-great source. > They said that the masks wouldn't work for us plebes However, that is a different point altogether, and yes that was also a consideration. You could rephrase it more intelligently, however: there was a very valid concern that masks could be misused by the public, which could both 1) undermine their effectiveness (in which case that's an even better reason to prioritize hospitals and other frontline workers, where we know they will have max impact), and 2) create a false sense of security (on which there is a ton of scholarly literature). > But it also meant a major loss of trust on every following thing they said Sure, but only for people with very poor reading comprehension, or perhaps with language barriers.
    - x86x87 4y ago
      I don't buy it. We are arguing semantics and how people have "poor reading comprehension"? And they "could have phrased it better"? Valid concerned that they would be misused? Wth does that mean? Are we all idiots? Look, They straight up lied and misled people. Say that there is a mask shortage - focus on that, fix that. Don't gaslight people into thinking that masks are useless so that they stop buying them.
- x86x87 4y ago

by x86x87 4y ago

epgui 4y ago

> "yeah, you don't need masks. they are only needed at the hospitals. leave the N95s for them" The main message was not that masks were "only needed at the hospitals". You will remember that in the early days, there were serious supply issues with masks, and some hospitals, clinics and other healthcare providers had difficulty securing their own supplies. It was a question of priorities.

spoonjim 4y ago
But that's not what they said. They said that the masks wouldn't work for us plebes, that they would only work for trained professionals. Did that preserve some mask supply from ravenous packs of selfish Americans who would have made a run on them if they were said to be needed at hospitals? Yes. But it also meant a major loss of trust on every following thing they said. I was a failed communication strategy for a failed public policy applied to a failed electorate produced by a failed educational system.
- epgui 4y ago
  That is indeed absolutely what they said, and if that's not what you heard, then you didn't hear everything they said, or you heard it through a not-great source. > They said that the masks wouldn't work for us plebes However, that is a different point altogether, and yes that was also a consideration. You could rephrase it more intelligently, however: there was a very valid concern that masks could be misused by the public, which could both 1) undermine their effectiveness (in which case that's an even better reason to prioritize hospitals and other frontline workers, where we know they will have max impact), and 2) create a false sense of security (on which there is a ton of scholarly literature). > But it also meant a major loss of trust on every following thing they said Sure, but only for people with very poor reading comprehension, or perhaps with language barriers.
  - x86x87 4y ago
    I don't buy it. We are arguing semantics and how people have "poor reading comprehension"? And they "could have phrased it better"? Valid concerned that they would be misused? Wth does that mean? Are we all idiots? Look, They straight up lied and misled people. Say that there is a mask shortage - focus on that, fix that. Don't gaslight people into thinking that masks are useless so that they stop buying them.
x86x87 4y ago