[cyphar]

This was a coordinated (dare I say "propaganda") campaign by US and other government officials in order to try to avoid mask shortages[1]. A noble goal, sure -- but the net result is that people are now misinformed about the efficacy of masks.

The evidence very much shows that wearing masks can reduce community transmission rates of SARS-like viruses -- up to 70% even with just plain surgical masks[2]. And even if you don't buy that, everyone wearing a mask means that asymptomatic carriers (who have no idea they're sick) cannot spread it as effectively.

[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/opinion/coronavirus-face-... [2]: https://medium.com/@adrien.burch/whats-the-evidence-on-face-...

[h91wka]

> This was a coordinated (dare I say "propaganda") campaign by US and other government officials in order to try to avoid mask shortages[1]. A noble goal, sure -- but the net result is that people are now misinformed about the efficacy of masks.

There's nothing noble about it. This is extremely short-sighted. What is easier to solve, shortage of masks, or shortage of ICU beds and medical personnel?

I would imagine that a face mask is a relatively low-tech good that can be mass-produced at scale. You cannot ramp up production of ICU beds and nurses and doctors. If this is true, then the consequences of this "noble" decision will make Chernobyl blush.

[cyphar]

Avoiding mask shortages is a noble goal (note that you're agreeing with me here -- mass-producing masks would also have avoided shortages). Whether or not the method employed was ethical or not is a separate question (and I agree with you that it was not because of how short-sighted it was).

[h91wka]

> note that you're agreeing with me here

I am not. My point is that solving the problem of mask shortage by allowing the infection to spread at full speed is like setting your home on fire to deal with a clogged pipe.

[catalogia]

To say that somebody had a "noble goal" is to state that their intentions were good, not malicious. That is not the same as being correct. You are pointing out that they were shortsighted fools who did more damage than good, which I agree with, but that's not incompatible with having good intentions.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[KarlKemp]

Scott Alexander has a good post on this, and he convinced me of a “good faith” explanation for the recommendations against (or, more accurately, “not in favor of”) face masks: https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/23/face-masks-much-more-t...

[nullc]

His explanation does not explain statements like https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/12337257852839321...

[cyphar]

I hadn't seen that post before, and it does seem quite reasonable -- but I don't think it really vindicates the advice (nee propaganda) from government officials, unless there was no other way to alleviate shortages. The conclusion is effectively "we don't know for sure, but they do appear to help somewhat" -- which means that (all other things being equal) not recommending masks appears to be a net negative.

[throwaway_pdp09]

Finally someone posted something factual. Thanks! Reading now.