[ShroudedNight]

> At the start of the pandemic, everybody wanted masks.

> The same people then flipped around and attacked you if you didn't wear a mask.

I'm of the opinion that the CDC definitely shot itself in the foot w.r.t. the mask issue initially, but I feel it's important to note that the especially belligerent individualists wanted masks when they thought they would protect themselves, but were completely uninterested in their use when they were determined to primarily be effective as a form of source control to protect others.

[donw]

Both false and irrelevant.

The most violent people I observed were the ones that flipped from "you don't need a mask, and you're too stupid to wear one anyway: they're complex medical equipment that requires training" to "if you don't wear a mask you're literally killing grandma".

It was amazingly counterproductive.

The goal is to get people to mask up. If they believe doing so will protect them, then good. If they believe doing so will protect others, also good. It does not matter which of these they believe.

[ShroudedNight]

What is false and irrelevant?

I'll readily admit that my assertion was based on anecdotal experience, and was probably worded with more objective confidence than warranted, but my experience was that those hostile to the idea that masks were most effective if reserved for front-line medical PPE, were also those hostile to the idea of being obligated to wear a mask for others' sake.

> The goal is to get people to mask up.

Is this a bad thing? Do you believe that there is some ulterior motive in this beyond expected improvements in infection control?