[PeterisP]

If we're talking about the media claims that the masks are ineffective, then it's completely orthogonal to the issue of who should be supplied with the masks. If CDC and other well-educated organizations believe they should go to hospitals and other health care providers first, infected people second, vulnerable populations third, and others last, that still does not excuse lying to the public, as that erodes trust in these organizations and ensures that all other information (e.g. regarding quarantines) would be distrusted.

[Barrin92]

> then it's completely orthogonal to the issue of who should be supplied with the masks.

it's really not. The general population has already tuned out when you go into a ten paragraph long debate about the masks.

The question is what 140 character message you give to people that induces the correct behaviour and in this case it's telling people bluntly that those masks don't help so people stop hoarding them. And they honestly don't help because most people don't know how to wear them or how often to change them anyway, so it's basically a meaningless discussion.

[s1artibartfast]

it not really a ten paragraph statement:

Masks work, but healthcare workers need them more.

I think a seperate and perfectly valid question is if public consumption of masks has had any impact on the health supply chain.

My understanding is the two are unrelated. Masks are had to come by because manufacturers are selling their entire capacity to hospital and consumer stores are not being restocked. The state and the fed (in the US) have tens of millions of masks, and are releasing some but not all of them to the hospitals.

Hospitals are not competing for the masks at hardware stores or amazon.

If anything, I wish the media would urge people to wear masks with lower ratings than N95.

Perfect is the enemy of the good. Catching even half particulate when an infected person coughs would be huge.

[shalmanese]

Because then they would have to say the unsaid part which is "Masks work but we failed to adequately prepare so we need to ration them severely."

Every country that's managed to bend the R0 curve has had masks as an integral part of their strategy and that's only been possible because masks were made a deliberate part of their public health strategy for over a decade (mostly due to SARS). It's only one leg of the stool as Japan is finding out as one of the few mask-wearing countries that's not getting it under control but a stool with one leg missing is a pretty useless stool!

Western countries are paying the price for a decade of staring on and going "those kooky Asians with their strange mask wearing practices".

[otterley]

Which historically-trusted media companies are claiming that the masks are "ineffective"? At the end of the day, it's a red herring, but I'm still curious.

[PeterisP]

We can start with US Surgeon General (https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/12337257852839321... - "They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus")

And off the first page of duckduckgo: https://www.businessinsider.com/wuhan-coronavirus-face-masks...

https://time.com/5794729/coronavirus-face-masks/

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/how-to-avoid-coronavirus...

But yes, many media companies are giving an appropriate message of either why there's little reason to wear a mask right now (little chance of random community spread today) or about the allocation of scarce masks to people who need them more.

[s1artibartfast]

prevention /= harm reduction.

condoms aren't 100% effective, but still worth using.