Two questions: did the Canadian government actively recommend against mask wearing? Do you live in Canada?

Note the difference between "we can't condone masks because there is limited evidence that they are helpful" and "we recommend against masks because they are harmful" and "the lockdown is a government consipracy to subjugate us".

I live in Canada and they actively recommended against cloth mask wearing for the general public on the grounds that it leads to a "false sense of security" and "increases touching of one's face" and that asymptomatic persons do not spread COVID-19. "Putting a mask on an asymptomatic person is not beneficial".

You can listen to Theresa Tam's (Canada's version of Dr. Fauci) exact words here: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/video/watch/tam-on-why-canadians-d...

I think any reasonable person who defers to authority would have listened to this and come to the conclusion that there is no reason to wear a mask if they're asymptomatic and had no connection to a sick individual. They could even reasonably conclude that it would be dangerous as they would be touching their face and virus particles would accumulate on the outside of the mask.

And they would have been wrong.

So here's what she said:

- Prioritizing supply to healthcare workers is of the utmost priority

- Current evidence supports wearing a mask if you're sick to prevent spreading droplets, also wearing a mask if you're in close contact with a symptomatic person

- Masks can provide a false sense of security.

Her final statement is "if people try to use these measures, they have to be really, really careful and wash their hands, absolutely. That's the key. So we're also worried about the potential negative impacts."

All of that is sound advice, and it is dangerous to think that a mask will protect you without any other precautions. But it isn't a statement that one should not wear a mask, fullstop. It's a statement that one should still follow other cautions. IOW, a mask isn't a magical solution.

"Putting a mask on an asymptomatic person is not beneficial", followed by a list of dangers posed by masks.

It was a statement that masks are a placebo for the general public and actually require one to take extra precautions so that they don't make things worse.

It couldn't have been more discouraging towards people on the fence about wearing a mask in late March.

> Putting a mask on an asymptomatic person is not beneficial

Since then, the understanding about asymptomatic carriers has changed. And in response, the government updated it's suggestion.

Good for them (not sarcastically). My point is that if the experts were wrong then, it’s certainly possible that some of what they are saying now is wrong too, and it should be acceptable to criticize them on YouTube and explore different possibilities and models.

There exist (clearly functional) processes to improve the scientific consensus. The government changed its recommendation. Do you think they were convinced by a YouTube videos or perhaps did some other process cause then to amend their recommendations?

If so, why not steer people toward that process, especially when the harm of wearing a mask is low, while the harm oh reopening the economy due to a lack of understanding the covid dangers is much greater?

Those Canadian experts haven't been telling you not to wear a mask, have they? I can't find evidence of that - I just find them saying they don't have scientific evidence (yet) that wearing masks prophetically is necessary. Which is a very different thing.

Have you seen different statements?

Hmmm, prophetically should have been prophylactically - hope that was obvious.

The National Post are not experts, and they aren't reporting what experts say accurately. And while there's a video in there where an actual expert speaks, you're not reporting what that expert said accurately.

Public health officials, while they usually are experts, have other concerns beyond simply saying the truth. The US and Canadian recommendations against medical masks for the general public were part of a strategy based on reserving medical masks. So yes, you should have followed the recommendations of health officials and not worn a medical mask, because healthcare workers needed them.

As far as I know, neither the US nor Canada has ever taken a stance against non-medical masks. They haven't taken a stance for medical masks either, but this was likely due to concerns that people would be confused about medical versus non-medical masks. Your own post is an example of this being a very legitimate concern: you have completely failed to differentiate between medical and non-medical masks.

If you look at what experts have been saying who aren't part of governments, the messaging has been fairly consistent: masks prevent illness at varying rates, and we need to prioritize healthcare workers when allocating the most effective masks.

So when you say, "Should I have deferred to expert opinions and waited until yesterday(!?) to start wearing a mask?" I have to say, no, it would have been impossible to do that, because deferring to expert opinions and waiting until yesterday to start wearing a mask are mutually exclusive actions.

> Public health officials, while they usually are experts, have other concerns beyond simply saying the truth.

So there's a narrative that may or may not have my best interest at heart but demands my compliance for some nebulous greater good?

No.

If sacrifice is required on the part of collective, you honour them by allowing them to engage with informed consent. If you don't, you have no credibility the next time some ambiguity arises where collective sacrifice is needed to avoid a tragedy of the commons.