4 ms·

The "best available public health guidance" failed spectacularly, beginning with "keep going to bars and restaurants and parades" from the NYC health official a

The "best available public health guidance" failed spectacularly, beginning with "keep going to bars and restaurants and parades" from the NYC health official and mayor. Then "masks don't work" from the CDC. Then asking people to make cloth masks that actually don't work. Then advising people to stay indoors where the virus spreads and to stay away from outdoor spaces like beaches where it doesn't spread. Then closing schools and putting masks on toddlers. Almost all of their advice was precisely the opposite of what should have been done. It harmed not only children and small family owned businesses, but also public health as an institution. Ignoring their counsel and doing the opposite was literally the wisest thing to do. The only thing they got somewhat correct was the vaccine and even that they flubbed badly. This does not even begin to address the reality that many public officials disregarded the regulations. They, too, realized it was garbage.

trashtester 4y ago
The reason they did so, was not because masks don't work, but because of the following: 1) Masks only have a limited effect. If the messsage were that masks provided protection (similar to condoms, say), people might feel they didn't have to socially distance while wearing them. Instead of thinking like a mask like a condom, it provides protection (to use a similar metaphor) more akin to pulling out. 2) Early on, there were not enough masks available. It was important at the time to avoid creating a panic buying, as that might prevent those who really needed them from being able to get hold of them.
- gjsman-1000 4y ago
  #2 is an attempted defense of our publicly elected officials lying, supposedly for the greater good. Let’s not start that precedent. As for the masks, they completely ignored other hazards now becoming more well known. The amount of micro-plastics and fibers in the lungs is going to be awful long-term and it gets worse the more we know.
  - trashtester 4y ago
    #2 is an attempted defense of our publicly elected officials lying, supposedly for the greater good. Let’s not start that precedent. I was saying #2 even as it happened, though. To me it was always obvious that masks would provide _some_ protection, just not perfect protection. > As for the masks, they completely ignored other hazards now becoming more well known. The amount of micro-plastics and fibers in the lungs is going to be awful long-term and it gets worse the more we know. As we started to understand the mortality rate from covid, this becomes a good point. During the first couple of months, though, while deaths were still rising exponentially (also corresponding to the time slot where we were told NOT to wear mask), we did not know the real mortality rate. It could have been significantly higher than it turned out to be. Still, during those months, there were not enough of the masks to go around.

trashtester 4y ago

The reason they did so, was not because masks don't work, but because of the following: 1) Masks only have a limited effect. If the messsage were that masks provided protection (similar to condoms, say), people might feel they didn't have to socially distance while wearing them. Instead of thinking like a mask like a condom, it provides protection (to use a similar metaphor) more akin to pulling out. 2) Early on, there were not enough masks available. It was important at the time to avoid creating a panic buying, as that might prevent those who really needed them from being able to get hold of them.

gjsman-1000 4y ago
#2 is an attempted defense of our publicly elected officials lying, supposedly for the greater good. Let’s not start that precedent. As for the masks, they completely ignored other hazards now becoming more well known. The amount of micro-plastics and fibers in the lungs is going to be awful long-term and it gets worse the more we know.
- trashtester 4y ago
  #2 is an attempted defense of our publicly elected officials lying, supposedly for the greater good. Let’s not start that precedent. I was saying #2 even as it happened, though. To me it was always obvious that masks would provide _some_ protection, just not perfect protection. > As for the masks, they completely ignored other hazards now becoming more well known. The amount of micro-plastics and fibers in the lungs is going to be awful long-term and it gets worse the more we know. As we started to understand the mortality rate from covid, this becomes a good point. During the first couple of months, though, while deaths were still rising exponentially (also corresponding to the time slot where we were told NOT to wear mask), we did not know the real mortality rate. It could have been significantly higher than it turned out to be. Still, during those months, there were not enough of the masks to go around.