Re:Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after anti-...
by ethanbond on Friday December 16, 2022 @07:49AM
(#34013977)
The initial advice on masks was that we don’t know that they help. This is a truthful and different claim than the claim that we do know they don’t help.
The only record you’ll find of a public health official saying we DO know they DON’T help is USSG Jerome Adams.
It’s weird that you’re writing this implying that we now know masks don’t work. That’s not true. We DO know that SOME masks work, others work hardly at all or none at all.
Re:Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after anti-...
by mixmastamyk on Monday December 19, 2022 @04:31PM
(#34058028)
Yes, the binary thinking unfortunately continues. Masks were/are/will never be 0% or 100% effective. Reducing the number of viruses transmitted at once could mean the difference between life and death for covid.
Closing the beach however, was 100% BS.
Likewise, the initial (honest) advice not to bother with masks for covid was based on the fact that covid, like other coronaviruses and influenza, is aerosol-borne and aerosol particles pass through surgical mask material easily (so wearing a 2nd tight-fitting mask over a surgical mask to get a better fit doesn't matter).
The u-turn on masks for covid wasn't based on science. The justification later given was that the earlier, correct advice not to bother with masks was a noble lie to conserve supplies of masks for healthcare workers. At the time, the reversal was publicly predicated on hand-wavey (and false) claims that covid might be droplet-spread (droplets are larger than aerosol particles and droplet emissions could conceivably be greatly reduced by well-fitted surgical masks with no gaps).