6 ms·

The experts began by saying "Don't wear masks." The CDC and the Surgeon General told all Americans to stop wearing masks. I was one of the few people who thou

by toomim 3y ago

The experts began by saying "Don't wear masks." The CDC and the Surgeon General told all Americans to stop wearing masks. I was one of the few people who thought for myself, read the studies, saw that all evidence in Korea and China pointed to this being an airborn pathogen, and learned how the electrostatic field in melt-blown fabric attracted covid particulates to it and filtered them from the air. I was one of the few people wearing masks, staying safe, back in February when everyone looked at me crazy for wearing masks, because I was going against what the experts said. I don't see how you can go through that period where the experts are telling you the opposite of the truth, and then continue to believe them.

finite_depth 3y ago
That was, what, like one month at the very start? Masks were a fixture in my household by April or May, as I recall. Again, "beating the experts one time" does not mean that betting against them is a good bet. For every person that fits your description there are a hundred not getting vaccinated because they've "done their research". The literal comment right below mine is some anti-vax nonsense right here on HN, in a community that is overwhelmingly better-educated than the public at large.
- slater 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - toomim 3y ago
    Here's the echo chamber in action! Close your ears to dissent, children. Preserve the echo chamber!
    - slater 3y ago
      It’s not worth listening to “dissent” if it’s coming from the “I do my own research“ crowd. Whom should I believe, folks who’ve gone through rigorous university education and have dedicated their lives to providing scientific progress? Orrrrrrr some dildo who read some clickbait nonsense on HealthTruthFauciSux.net? Choices, choices.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - hotdogscout 3y ago
        Ignoring the appeal to authority, do you do research? I've yet to meet someone that does and doesn't see scientific institutions as flawed and human with results often driven by interpersonal and political pressures. What's your expectation of "rigorous university education"? I attended the best University of South America and I rarely see research be conducted to standards I would call rigorous. [ I personally do think it's extremely important to listen to the "I do my own research" crowd because that's what the scientific process demands. Sadly "science" for the left is like "freedom" for the right, a big fat jingle. ]
        PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        > "I do my own research" This suffers from the same issue as people calling blogs or whatever "journalism" (or worse, "reporting") when its nothing more than reading what other people wrote and commenting on it. Actual reporting involves going into the field, collecting information at the site, from people and devices that are there. And so it is for research, not always, but quite often, and almost always when it really matters. You don't do "research" by reading around, certainly not in biomedical fields. You need a lab, you need samples, you need hypotheses, you need experiments. Yes, yes, I know that sometimes meta-analysis turns up something interesting. It's useful, but it's not the rule, and its not "research".
        hotdogscout 3y ago
        Pointing out flaws and inconsistencies in studies can be done by individuals and are a relevant contribution to the scientific process, for example.
        PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        In a broad sense, I agree. But in the narrow sense, another Medium or Substack on why Missener et al. (invented names) haven't done their homework (let alone tweeting about it) is not a useful part of the scientific process. Science faces a bit of a quandry: on the one hand, it is now more and more difficult to be an actual expert in more than a tiny sub-niche of a knowledge domain; on the other hand, changes in communication and distribution make it possible for many more people to have some awareness of things going on in science, and to point out errors or raise questions, at a level that the research teams cannot sensibly respond to. Nevertheless, I still see a profound distinction between the well funded and semi-organized attempts to discredit research and knowledge that raises problems for the interests of wealth and power, and good faith acknowledgement of the many problems with the social practice of science and the reproduceability crisis.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
      No. The dissent has been aired. The points have been discussed. Over and over and over. There's no echo chamber. The problem is that some people don't want to accept the consensus view that emerges from the social practice of science. They want to keep asking the same questions, ignoring rebuttals, demanding answers, assigning blame. You don't have to accept the consensus view. But you do have to accept that the consensus view, and you being ignored by those that do accept it, doesn't happen in 10 minutes. There was no echo chamber, dissent was tackled, and now those particular dissents are handled with disrespect, maybe. That's life, or least that's the social practice of science. And guess what, every once in a while, the minority report is correct!
- tobiasSoftware 3y ago
  The CDC was recommending against KN95 and N95 masks even after Omicron, so it was more like 2 years, not one month. I was also someone who wore proper masks against the advice of experts. I agree that going with the experts is the best course of action for the general public. We need to be able to disagree with experts, but we need to be able to do it in an informed manner, with proper research to back up the ideas. However, most of the general public is unable to do so.
- iraqmtpizza 3y ago
  Beating the experts? They knowingly lied about medical science in a matter of life and death with a straight face to millions of people. And you line up and kiss the ring and say thank you for the nudging, may I have another?
  - dinvlad 3y ago
    Sorry, what did they lie about? Not sure I follow (and don't have access to the article or the archive links, it seems..)
    - iraqmtpizza 3y ago
      "The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material." "And given that that's the case, now when we're talking about vaccinated people being indoors in settings where you don't know what the status is, particularly in an area, as you mentioned correctly, that has a high degree of protection, the recommendation is that you wear a mask even indoors, even if you're vaccinated." The only thing that changed was that people were vaccinated en masse and the virus had become even more transmissible. So that whatever infinitesimal effect the mask had before, against the delta variant it was now beyond useless. I could sit here all day and list more and more deliberate falsehoods, but they're well-documented and no serious person denies that there was extensive lying by experts for political and social purposes under the guise of dispassionately relaying the most credible and up-to-date medical information.
Animats 3y ago
> The experts began by saying "Don't wear masks." The CDC and the Surgeon General told all Americans to stop wearing masks. Yes. Not because masks didn't work, but because they were in short supply and medical and emergency personnel needed them more. And because the level of transmissibility was underestimated at first.[1] March 2020, CDC: “Facemasks may be in short supply and they should be saved for caregivers." April 3, 2020: "After insisting for weeks that healthy people did not need to wear masks in most circumstances, federal health officials change their guidance in response to a growing body of evidence that people who do not appear to be sick are playing an outsize role in the COVID-19 pandemic." US coronavirus hospitalizations are going up again. There's been a low the last three summers, and then it picks up again.[2] Time to stock up on N-95 masks. Don't bother with anything less. [1] https://archive.is/69Pmz#selection-2157.0-2183.1 https://archive.is/69Pmz#selection-2157.0-2183.1 [2] https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#trends_weeklyhospitaladmissions_select_00 https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#trends_weeklyhospi...
- toomim 3y ago
  You're whitewashing when you say "Not because masks didn't work." Here's a direct tweet from the U.S. Surgeon General on Feb 29, 2020 telling people that masks don't work: > Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can't get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk! Here's a quote from him saying masks increase your risk: > You can increase your risk of getting it by wearing a mask if you are not a health care provider. Folks who don’t know how to wear them properly tend to touch their faces a lot and actually can increase the spread of coronavirus. https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/02/health/surgeon-general-coronavirus-masks-risk-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/02/health/surgeon-general-corona...
  - defrost 3y ago
    It seems that yourself and Animats are in essential agreement. As was said above: Not because masks didn't work, but because they were in short supply and medical and emergency personnel needed them more. I'm outside the US - I recall the US Surgeon General making those statements at the time and it seemed very clear that logistics and pragmatics were being discussed rather than the "science of masks". At that time most of the US had no general spread of COVID - the midwest buying up all the masks wasn't doing anything useful other than making those few places that actually needed masks there and then more dangerous. As your quote states: if healthcare providers can't get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!

by toomim 3y ago

finite_depth 3y ago

That was, what, like one month at the very start? Masks were a fixture in my household by April or May, as I recall. Again, "beating the experts one time" does not mean that betting against them is a good bet. For every person that fits your description there are a hundred not getting vaccinated because they've "done their research". The literal comment right below mine is some anti-vax nonsense right here on HN, in a community that is overwhelmingly better-educated than the public at large.

slater 3y ago
[flagged]
- toomim 3y ago
  Here's the echo chamber in action! Close your ears to dissent, children. Preserve the echo chamber!
  - slater 3y ago
    It’s not worth listening to “dissent” if it’s coming from the “I do my own research“ crowd. Whom should I believe, folks who’ve gone through rigorous university education and have dedicated their lives to providing scientific progress? Orrrrrrr some dildo who read some clickbait nonsense on HealthTruthFauciSux.net? Choices, choices.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - hotdogscout 3y ago
      Ignoring the appeal to authority, do you do research? I've yet to meet someone that does and doesn't see scientific institutions as flawed and human with results often driven by interpersonal and political pressures. What's your expectation of "rigorous university education"? I attended the best University of South America and I rarely see research be conducted to standards I would call rigorous. [ I personally do think it's extremely important to listen to the "I do my own research" crowd because that's what the scientific process demands. Sadly "science" for the left is like "freedom" for the right, a big fat jingle. ]
      - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        > "I do my own research" This suffers from the same issue as people calling blogs or whatever "journalism" (or worse, "reporting") when its nothing more than reading what other people wrote and commenting on it. Actual reporting involves going into the field, collecting information at the site, from people and devices that are there. And so it is for research, not always, but quite often, and almost always when it really matters. You don't do "research" by reading around, certainly not in biomedical fields. You need a lab, you need samples, you need hypotheses, you need experiments. Yes, yes, I know that sometimes meta-analysis turns up something interesting. It's useful, but it's not the rule, and its not "research".
        hotdogscout 3y ago
        Pointing out flaws and inconsistencies in studies can be done by individuals and are a relevant contribution to the scientific process, for example.
        PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        In a broad sense, I agree. But in the narrow sense, another Medium or Substack on why Missener et al. (invented names) haven't done their homework (let alone tweeting about it) is not a useful part of the scientific process. Science faces a bit of a quandry: on the one hand, it is now more and more difficult to be an actual expert in more than a tiny sub-niche of a knowledge domain; on the other hand, changes in communication and distribution make it possible for many more people to have some awareness of things going on in science, and to point out errors or raise questions, at a level that the research teams cannot sensibly respond to. Nevertheless, I still see a profound distinction between the well funded and semi-organized attempts to discredit research and knowledge that raises problems for the interests of wealth and power, and good faith acknowledgement of the many problems with the social practice of science and the reproduceability crisis.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    No. The dissent has been aired. The points have been discussed. Over and over and over. There's no echo chamber. The problem is that some people don't want to accept the consensus view that emerges from the social practice of science. They want to keep asking the same questions, ignoring rebuttals, demanding answers, assigning blame. You don't have to accept the consensus view. But you do have to accept that the consensus view, and you being ignored by those that do accept it, doesn't happen in 10 minutes. There was no echo chamber, dissent was tackled, and now those particular dissents are handled with disrespect, maybe. That's life, or least that's the social practice of science. And guess what, every once in a while, the minority report is correct!
tobiasSoftware 3y ago
The CDC was recommending against KN95 and N95 masks even after Omicron, so it was more like 2 years, not one month. I was also someone who wore proper masks against the advice of experts. I agree that going with the experts is the best course of action for the general public. We need to be able to disagree with experts, but we need to be able to do it in an informed manner, with proper research to back up the ideas. However, most of the general public is unable to do so.
iraqmtpizza 3y ago
Beating the experts? They knowingly lied about medical science in a matter of life and death with a straight face to millions of people. And you line up and kiss the ring and say thank you for the nudging, may I have another?
- dinvlad 3y ago
  Sorry, what did they lie about? Not sure I follow (and don't have access to the article or the archive links, it seems..)
  - iraqmtpizza 3y ago
    "The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material." "And given that that's the case, now when we're talking about vaccinated people being indoors in settings where you don't know what the status is, particularly in an area, as you mentioned correctly, that has a high degree of protection, the recommendation is that you wear a mask even indoors, even if you're vaccinated." The only thing that changed was that people were vaccinated en masse and the virus had become even more transmissible. So that whatever infinitesimal effect the mask had before, against the delta variant it was now beyond useless. I could sit here all day and list more and more deliberate falsehoods, but they're well-documented and no serious person denies that there was extensive lying by experts for political and social purposes under the guise of dispassionately relaying the most credible and up-to-date medical information.

Animats 3y ago

> The experts began by saying "Don't wear masks." The CDC and the Surgeon General told all Americans to stop wearing masks. Yes. Not because masks didn't work, but because they were in short supply and medical and emergency personnel needed them more. And because the level of transmissibility was underestimated at first.[1] March 2020, CDC: “Facemasks may be in short supply and they should be saved for caregivers." April 3, 2020: "After insisting for weeks that healthy people did not need to wear masks in most circumstances, federal health officials change their guidance in response to a growing body of evidence that people who do not appear to be sick are playing an outsize role in the COVID-19 pandemic." US coronavirus hospitalizations are going up again. There's been a low the last three summers, and then it picks up again.[2] Time to stock up on N-95 masks. Don't bother with anything less. [1] https://archive.is/69Pmz#selection-2157.0-2183.1 https://archive.is/69Pmz#selection-2157.0-2183.1 [2] https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#trends_weeklyhospitaladmissions_select_00 https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#trends_weeklyhospi...

toomim 3y ago
You're whitewashing when you say "Not because masks didn't work." Here's a direct tweet from the U.S. Surgeon General on Feb 29, 2020 telling people that masks don't work: > Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can't get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk! Here's a quote from him saying masks increase your risk: > You can increase your risk of getting it by wearing a mask if you are not a health care provider. Folks who don’t know how to wear them properly tend to touch their faces a lot and actually can increase the spread of coronavirus. https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/02/health/surgeon-general-coronavirus-masks-risk-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/02/health/surgeon-general-corona...
- defrost 3y ago
  It seems that yourself and Animats are in essential agreement. As was said above: Not because masks didn't work, but because they were in short supply and medical and emergency personnel needed them more. I'm outside the US - I recall the US Surgeon General making those statements at the time and it seemed very clear that logistics and pragmatics were being discussed rather than the "science of masks". At that time most of the US had no general spread of COVID - the midwest buying up all the masks wasn't doing anything useful other than making those few places that actually needed masks there and then more dangerous. As your quote states: if healthcare providers can't get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!