3 ms·

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

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.

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.