3 ms·

Oh how quickly we forget. https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-07-27/timeline-cdc-mask-guidance-during-covid-19-pandemic https://www.latimes.com/science/

Oh how quickly we forget. https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-07-27/timeline-cdc-mask-guidance-during-covid-19-pandemic https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-07-27/timeline-cd... March 24, 2020 Even as the coronavirus spreads across the United States — shutting down businesses, sporting events and schools — the CDC’s advice around masking remains unequivocal: Healthy people who do not work in the healthcare sector and are not taking care of an infected person at home do not need to wear masks.

shadowgovt 4y ago
Ah, now that I know what you mean: Yes, the CDC said masks don't prevent the spread of the virus. They also said it mitigates the spread of the virus, which are both true statements when the number of people wearing masks grows to "most of the country." Medicine is a statistical science, which a lot of people have a hard time wrapping their heads around the nuances of.
- revelio 4y ago
  I'm not renewiltord, who actually talked about public health officials not the CDC, unless he edited that part of his post. Hardly makes a difference though. CDC advice in March 2020 was that the vast majority don't need to wear one. Then suddenly everyone had to wear one, on pain of fines. Nothing about masks or the virus or "the science" changed. The reliability problem remains.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    > Nothing about masks or the virus or "the science" changed. Are you sure? Because I'm pretty sure they refined the transmission model after understanding the virus better, looked at the cost / benefit ratios on mitigation options, and concluded that masks were better than nothing given that quarantining everyone wasn't an option. In that sense, "the science changed" in that we understood the situation better. There is also, of course, the gap between policy and science; the science can say X is true, whether we do Y in response to X being true is a cost / benefit calculus, and that calculus was changing continuously as policymakers updated economic impact estimates and saw how people responded to different approaches.
    - revelio 4y ago
      Please show us the relevant paper and then show the link between that paper and changes in policy, because I've never heard of such a paper and nor has anyone else who investigated where this sudden change in mask policy came from. Reality is, respiratory viruses and masks have been around a long time. There was very little that was novel about SARS-CoV-2 despite attempts to claim otherwise, and prior understanding was correct: masks did nothing and that's clearly visible in the data. They were forced on everyone for political and ideological reasons, not scientific ones. >> given that quarantining everyone wasn't an option. It wasn't!? Because lockdowns sure seemed like quarantining everyone to the rest of us!
      - shadowgovt 4y ago
        No, it wasn't an option. Somebody still delivered food, somebody still picked up the trash. We never instituted a full national quarantine because it would have been impossible; we don't actually have the infrastructure to support everybody staying in their homes for 5 days let alone 2 weeks.

shadowgovt 4y ago

Ah, now that I know what you mean: Yes, the CDC said masks don't prevent the spread of the virus. They also said it mitigates the spread of the virus, which are both true statements when the number of people wearing masks grows to "most of the country." Medicine is a statistical science, which a lot of people have a hard time wrapping their heads around the nuances of.

revelio 4y ago
I'm not renewiltord, who actually talked about public health officials not the CDC, unless he edited that part of his post. Hardly makes a difference though. CDC advice in March 2020 was that the vast majority don't need to wear one. Then suddenly everyone had to wear one, on pain of fines. Nothing about masks or the virus or "the science" changed. The reliability problem remains.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  > Nothing about masks or the virus or "the science" changed. Are you sure? Because I'm pretty sure they refined the transmission model after understanding the virus better, looked at the cost / benefit ratios on mitigation options, and concluded that masks were better than nothing given that quarantining everyone wasn't an option. In that sense, "the science changed" in that we understood the situation better. There is also, of course, the gap between policy and science; the science can say X is true, whether we do Y in response to X being true is a cost / benefit calculus, and that calculus was changing continuously as policymakers updated economic impact estimates and saw how people responded to different approaches.
  - revelio 4y ago
    Please show us the relevant paper and then show the link between that paper and changes in policy, because I've never heard of such a paper and nor has anyone else who investigated where this sudden change in mask policy came from. Reality is, respiratory viruses and masks have been around a long time. There was very little that was novel about SARS-CoV-2 despite attempts to claim otherwise, and prior understanding was correct: masks did nothing and that's clearly visible in the data. They were forced on everyone for political and ideological reasons, not scientific ones. >> given that quarantining everyone wasn't an option. It wasn't!? Because lockdowns sure seemed like quarantining everyone to the rest of us!
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      No, it wasn't an option. Somebody still delivered food, somebody still picked up the trash. We never instituted a full national quarantine because it would have been impossible; we don't actually have the infrastructure to support everybody staying in their homes for 5 days let alone 2 weeks.