[renewiltord]

Ultimately, the key learning was the CDC and other federal agencies will propagate misinformation knowingly and intentionally for their perceived public health reasons. I'm no stranger to massive state restrictions of individual rights when fighting infectious diseases. DOTS and friends are an effective means of fighting TB. But intentionally misinforming crosses a line since it makes the organization untrustworthy.

Irrespective of whether masks work or not, the state apparatus chose to go with the message that they don't for the reason that they wanted to preserve supply for healthcare workers.

I had a supply of N95 masks from earlier preparation for forest fires that I gave to healthcare workers here in SF. In future, I shall not donate like this. It is clear that every man is an island and the agencies set up to inform us believe they must control us through deceit instead.

[seanp2k2]

“For the greater good”

For us personally, a quick thought experiment with 4 quadrants:

    - wear a mask vs don’t wear
    - mask helps vs mask doesn’t         help

The balance of inconvenience in the “wear mask, mask doesn’t help” vs possible avoidable death in the “don’t wear, mask helps” made it a very easy decision.

[renewiltord]

I was fortunately already equipped and with reuse (which I, as a superior epidemiologist to many currently so certified, concluded correctly was safe) was able to wear a mask against the advice of the HHS and the NIAID. As someone who already wore masks when ill so as not to infect others, this wasn't too much of a stretch, and it made for an interesting challenge running up Twin Peaks.

However, I have still lost trust in the HHS, who I'd hoped would have been honest about their objectives. A modern shift among institutional scientists has been a substantial loss of truth-speaking. It appears that if they were to consider a random variable x in (0,1) under the conditions:

- that they estimate it to be X

- that they believe the people estimate it to be Y << X

- that they believe the people will estimate it to be Y if they were to reveal that they estimate it to be Z >> X

then they will publicly claim that the variable is valued at Z. That is, despite being tasked with scientific examination, and knowing that they are known to be unreliable they attempt to manipulate the situation so that the public will have the same estimate as they do.

This has the unsurprising effect that their credibility reduces, and therefore the value of Z required rises sufficiently above X that their claims no longer seem reasonable, resulting in a positive feedback loop that results in catastrophically deteriorated credibility.

[strken]

Without the actual numbers this is just a more complicated Pascal's wager. The same argument can justify wearing a helmet because you might be hit in the head by falling meteorites, or wearing a life vest to work in case you slip and fall into a pond.

Not to say wearing a mask is bad! It's just that it needs justification by actual or estimated data, not a fuzzy thought experiment.

[mcny]

It isn't rocket surgery.

If you have a cold, wear a mask. Or at the very least cover your nose and mouth when you sneeze. Do you also need a hundred year weather analysis if someone suggests carrying an umbrella because it is cloudy?

[strken]

That's not a reply to what I wrote. I agree that preventative measures against the spread of disease include wearing a mask in public and that this is a good idea if you've got a cold, but I think that because of an assessment of the risk.

Do you need to wear a mask alone in your own garden? It could still help you avoid a possible death. The only thing that changes between "in public" and "in my garden" is the risk: the consequence is always death. Your four-quadrant thought experiment is meaningless unless you intend to suggest that any risk of death, no matter how minor, justifies an inconvenience that might prevent it.

Frankly, yes, you should look at a daily weather report before carting an umbrella around. If there's a 0.0001% chance of rain then it's okay to risk it.

[christophilus]

You make it sound like masking for a cold is as obvious as knowing it’s going to rain.

When was the first time you wore a mask when you realized you had a cold? (Serious question; not rhetorical.)

I have to say, I don’t know anyone who thought that was an obvious thing to do until 3 years ago. In fact, I know a few people who still wear masks every day, but otherwise, no one I know does it anymore, even if they have a cold.

I don’t think there’s anything obvious about it at all, if obvious means something that everyone can see.

[kanbara]

several countries in asia have done this for decades— it’s basic safety and politeness

[mistermann]

> It isn't rocket surgery.

You are right, it's worse: it's metaphysics.

> If you have a cold, wear a mask.

I have even a better idea: everyone should behave according to my biased, subjective whims.

[giantrobot]

> The same argument can justify wearing a helmet because you might be hit in the head by falling meteorites, or wearing a life vest to work in case you slip and fall into a pond.

This is just ridiculous because you're purposefully ignoring context.

Getting hit in the head by a meteor is an extremely unlikely event. It's also an event, were it to occur, is even less likely the helmet would actually prevent injury. Those odds don't justify the action.

If you spend no time around bodies of water where a life vest would protect against drowning, then there's no need to wear a life vest. However if you do spend a lot of time around such bodies of water wearing that vest makes more sense. There's nowhere meteor helmets make much sense but very clear situations where life vests make sense.

On the spectrum of utility masks are much closer to life vests than meteor helmets. Masks clearly slow transmission of some diseases. Every operating room in the world requires masks for good reason. They're not magic though, they're simply a component of a hygiene regimen.

The odds on a mask preventing transmission of a respiratory disease are easily high enough to suggest wearing one when a respiratory disease is prevalent. A mask in a grocery store makes sense. It makes less sense pumping gas. It makes no sense at home or driving alone in your car.

[codr7]

And multiple studies have shown that even masks worn in the operating are causing more problems than they're solving.

As for Covid, fresh air and sunlight would likely help more.

[aleph_minus_one]

> The balance of inconvenience in the “wear mask, mask doesn’t help” vs possible avoidable death in the “don’t wear, mask helps” made it a very easy decision.

This assumes that the respective person has a risk-averse personality profile. The mere existence of ice climbers and BASE jumpers should provide sufficient evidence that not everybody's life is about avoiding risks.

Secondly, in many countries masks were mandatory, i.e. the government said it is perfectly fine to use violence (police using violence to enforce the penalty fees) for this. Is applying violence to enforce masks justifiable? I rather don't think.

[matthewdgreen]

I think it’s amusing that your biggest gripe about the pandemic is a few weeks in 2020 where the government put out confusing information about masks. Sure it’s a screwup, but compared to the government’s ongoing foibles sourcing and distributing PPE it was a nothingburger. By contrast, the governor of my state had to obtain PPE through his wife’s connections and had to show up with police to keep the Feds from confiscating it.

[renewiltord]

Not "confusing". Intentional misinformation. I am familiar with lack of state capacity. That can be worked with. I am also familiar with state capacity directed towards information manipulation. To me, the latter is higher risk than the former.

[d0mine]

Propaganda is a fact of life. Why would the COVID topic be any different? If state lies about reasons to start a war (life & death literally), it can lie about anything.