[altacc]

I can't speak specifically for your wife's hospital, but by the sounds of it this might have been less of a lie than bad information. Apparently during the early phase of the pandemic the knowledge about the usefulness of masks against airborne viruses wasn't accurate. People didn't think it was truly airborne, in which case masks wouldn't be that effective. As it turns out, it's very airborne and masks really do help stop transmission. A lot has been learnt, as well as a lot of mistakes made.

Wired was one of the publications that did an interesting article about this: https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwu...

[samdunham]

Well, the face of the government's response to the pandemic, Fauci, went on 60 minutes and stated flatly that masks didn't work. About a year later he went back on TV and was asked about his earlier comments about masks and he admitted - again, in no uncertain terms - that his previous comments stating that masks didn't work were said specifically to protect mask supplies for health care workers. Seems like he lied to me.

[tootie]

That's a lie. Fauci said there's no reason to wear a mask because there wasn't proof it would help. He never said they definitely wouldn't help.

[DuskStar]

"no reason to do X" means to me that it doesn't work, not "it's unproven that it works" or "there's a 10 percent chance of works".

[tootie]

There's 1000 things you're not doing for your health right now because we don't have reason to believe they'll help. Maybe scientists will prove acupuncture cures cancer fifty years from now but anyone who advised against it right now will not become liars.

[dlp211]

Or, the information that he had at the time was that masks didn't work. And it turned out that that information was wrong and that when information that it was wrong became available, then we changed the guidance.

I mean seriously, this is how science works and how guidance based on science works. We go wit the best answer we have at the time and continue to search for better answers.

[nmz]

can you post the video?

[foxfluff]

> I can't speak specifically for your wife's hospital, but by the sounds of it this might have been less of a lie than bad information.

Well that doesn't help much with the trust issue. What else turns out to be bad information? Sometimes the line between lies and (intentional or not) bullshit is quite fine.

One thing I've observed since the start of the pandemic is that information and recommendations are constantly changing, and there's overreaction as well as underreaction. Also late reaction rather than preparedness. Sometimes excessive preparedness (see also overreaction), sometimes too little.

It don't find it surprising in the slightest that people end up not trusting the chaotic system.

[kergonath]

That’s why there was so much emphasis on sanitising surfaces. Now we have a better understanding of its modes of transmission, and advice has changed over time. Some people just don’t seem to understand that our knowledge evolves, and so do recommendations and best practices.

[heavyset_go]

If I recall correctly, it was thought early on that if the virus was transmissible via the air, that it was truly airborne, and thus masks that can't filter out virus-sized particles would be ineffective.

It turned out that the virus was transmissible via the air, but it was not airborne, it traveled via much larger respiratory droplets. Ordinary surgical masks were effective at stopping the spread of those droplets.