Whatever disagreement you might have about the author of this website, don't give a pass to the people who were at the helm during this pandemic. They failed the public along numerous basic metrics and that doesn't change simply because this author may or may not be an asshole.
But there was. The WHO recommendations, which I assume is what he is referring to, were based initially on data that suggested an non-aerosol transmission and then evidence was produced that lead to the theory of aerosol transmission.
One can certainly criticize the WHO and other health organizations for moving too slowly but the issue I am referring to isn't that.
There is a general tendency on the right to point to changing advice as some sort of proof of a conspiracy or idiocy on the part of the health officials. I see it all the time (as a daily lark I read Gab) and it points to an obvious lack of understanding on the part of a large part of the population (deliberate or not) about how science works on a fairly fundamental level.
If the WHO had said in the early days 'We're 55% certain masks do more harm than good' and then said 'we've looked at more data and are now 60% certain masks do more good than harm', I doubt many of us would be clowning them to the degree we are. It's the fact they spoke as if they had 100% certainty in one direction and then as if they had 100% certainty in the other that gives the impression these people don't know what they're doing.
It was always known, even prior to COVID and by the WHO (who posted as much on their website), that coronaviruses spread via respiratory droplets and that's what most masks are effective at protecting against.
If the virus could persist viably on surfaces, handling a soiled mask properly would be absolutely critical to getting any benefit from it, and handling it improperly would be risky. People wiped down their groceries for the same reason.
With the benefit of real data, we now know that touch is a negligible vector. The novel coronavirus does not persist viably for long on any surface. So masks are an excellent trade off.
That's not a reason to tell people that masks don't work. It's a reason to tell people that masks do work, provided you take precautions A, B, and C. And you should also say why those precautions are necessary--because of the assumed risk of touch transmission--so people can apply common sense, since no amount of advice from a central authority can possibly cover all individual cases.
You should probably look up dang's statements about this sentiment because its pretty funny how frequently this gets dragged out from literally anyone who feels disagreed with and hes got a nice rant about it.
Asshat. I think he has far too much understanding of his basic character flaws and limitations to be an asshole. Its what makes his commentary especially wonderful. He isn't some ignorant asshole who thinks he is smarter than everyone else. He seems to know how smart he is and what his failings are but it doesn't stop him.
His frequent use of 'muh' speaks to a very elitist and classist view of modern society that has to come from, I assume, some sort of rural or less sophisticated upbringing of his.
Unlike hatebags who write for Breitbart or Infowars this guy is a wonderful combination of contradictions, insight and sheer bile.
Its f*$king breathtaking.
We were worried about supply chains, and then we weren't.
In a supply chain constraint, Doctors get masks, because they need them.
Beyond that, the general population for whom masks are marginally useful, can have them.
Because 'masks are a policy' then we have to wear them in certain environments with strict oversight, I think this has led some people to believe that they are some kind if 'important tool' when of course they are not, they're just a small measure, but an important one in the aggregate.
The author is perfectly within his rights to be curmudgeon, but he's not very reasonable in his argumentation, he's more or less venting and name calling, which is unfortunately the reality of most of the anti-vaxx populism: there are very few well orchestrated skeptic arguments.
Because based on that old evidence that seemed so sure at a certain moment in time the lives of hundreds of millions of people were negatively affected (lockdowns, job losses etc), so one could forgive a part of those people for not giving a damn about the evidence subsequently changing and we being closer to the truth, in a scientific way.
Almost no-one cares about science, even the majority of people who materially support science by giving scientists money don't care about science (most of them have ulterior motives, like the ability to militarily be superior relative to their foes based on said science, or the ability to gain even more money compared to what they put in etc), long story short almost nobody really cares about science in the way that (some) scientists do, i.e. getting us closer to the "truth" (whatever that "truth" is).
In that respect, telling those hundreds of millions of people something like "but, you see, we were doing science when we were negatively affecting your lives based on evidence that proved out to be further to the truth compared to the evidence that we have now" means, in the best case scenario, that you're taunting them, in the worst case, that you're taking those millions of people for utter fools that should just sit like ducks in the way of science.
> The same dipshits who now think you should wear a mask while outside by yourself insisted that they were ineffective, because they knew the mask factories had long since been outsourced to China, and they wanted those masks for hospital worker to have while doing tiktoc videos. Now we have to wear them forever, because muh consensus or something.
Wow