Hacker News Reader

Comment by SketchySeaBeast | Hacker News Reader

That doesn't seem right. It takes only one group to twist the narrative into something that it doesn't have to be.

"There's a virus that's killing people, based up on the current evidence we should all wear masks in an effort to stop it." "You're trampling on my freedoms by asking that I wear a mask."

The first is an objective statement of fact, the second is twisting the message - it can easily get politicized without needing two parties to sink to that level. Now the first has to either engage or try to ignore it, but either way it'll continue to be politicized.

View on HN

The first part of the first statement is objective. The second part is an interpretation of evidence - but by whom? I'm old enough to remember when masks were not recommended by most public health experts (that is, I was born before March 2020).

I say this with as much neutrality as I can muster - I don't know who to believe about anything. It seems that everyone has an axe to grind, or their livelihood depends on the truth going in one direction, or they just hate the "other side" so much that they'll say anything. Who can you trust? I don't want to become an expert in multiple disciplines just so I can evaluate the daily news. For me, it's an epistemic crisis, and I don't see the way out.

It's been an issue for a very long time, see "Gell-man Amnesia": https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-ge...

> when masks were not recommended by most public health experts

Maybe they now know better? But let’s approach this as neutral as we can, because health experts haven’t and still don’t agree globally.

But did countries that recommended and used mask early fare better than those who didn’t? It would seem so, as Korea, Vietnam, Japan and others did better than even us in Scandinavia who closed down and got through spring/summer better than most (excluding Sweden who did terrible). Maybe the early mask adopters did other great things, and maybe masks had no impact, but if you’re cautious, it would seem the neutral conclusion based simply on data is that masks are probably a good idea.

Even if it turns out that masks do in fact do nothing, then what’s the damage from having used them? More trash and some money spent on it (if you’re like us and the government uses money to enforce low prices for everyone and free masks for the poor). Isn’t that acceptable?

I personally feel the same way about global warming. Even if it should turn out not to be man made, are we really going to be worse off by having gotten off fossil fuels?

> I'm old enough to remember when masks were not recommended by most public health experts (that is, I was born before March 2020).

There were initial concerns that improper mask use might do more harm than good (via misuse and potential changes to behaviour of wearers). Statistical and observational evidence has not borne this out, so the advice has changed.

By the way, this was just for mask use by laypeople; masks were always recommended for trained medical staff (where there would be less concern about misuse).

> The first is an objective statement of fact,

"We should all wear masks" is not based on facts all all. Science tells us how masks work, and we can interpret those facts and learn when they should be used.

But from there to everyone wearing masks at all occasions is a leap from facts to opinion. Mandatory face masks because the costs are low and the risks are negligible is pure politics. Compare with "it was even warmer during the middle ages therefore global warming is not anthropogenic". It may be based on a fact, but the facts do not support the conclusion.

Bicycle helmets is perhaps the most well known example of this. It is clear how they protect, that they are effective, and when they should be used. That does not mean mandatory helmet laws are a good idea. In fact, the places in the world with the lowest accidents per kilometre are also the ones where helmet usage is lowest! This may be surprising at first.

Face masks may cause people to relax and enter crowded spaces they hadn't otherwise. Touching the mask is a very effective way to get virus material on your fingers. Kids playing with face masks is most certainly not a good idea. And so on. It is not unlikely that there are situations where face masks will worsen the outcome.

Mandatory helmets have been much more studied than mandatory face masks, even if this is likely to change. Until then, any policy made is necessarily politicized, not objective.

I think I could summarize your position on masks as if we don't have sufficient evidence that mandatory mask usage helps, we shouldn't implement the policy because it infringes people's freedoms and there is a small chance it is actually worse.

I apologise if I got it wrong. I think that's a very weak argument though. We have a lot of reasons to think a policy like that would be effective. It's cheap and low risk, so why not implement it?

> It's cheap and low risk, so why not implement it?

I will humbly quote myself:

Should every person over 18 be required to carry a condom in their pocket? The costs are small, the benefits are obvious.

Given the rates of teen pregnancy in the US, worse than all other developed countries - maybe not in the pocket, but giving them out free in schools would probably help.

that reminded of a recent Russian joke - "seeing how people wear masks explains while the condom based protection is so unreliable and fails so much"

Haha, yeah it does! Thanks for sharing.

While the concept of mandatory carry may be politically hard, the question is a very good one.

We know how condoms protect against STDs. Perhaps it should be mandatory for high risk avenues where young adults congregate, such as music festivals and campuses, to sell condoms?

The argument could easily be made that easy access to condoms would increase risky behaviour in young adults, thereby negating the obvious positive effecs. The parable to bicycle helmets and face masks should be clear.

Luckliy, this has been studied! Turns out, sex drive is dominated by other factors than accessibility of contraceptives.

So that's an example where multiple studies were conducted, under varying circumstances and in multiple countries, before anything was made mandatory by law. Sometimes public health policy works. Sometimes it's mostly posturing.

> we shouldn't implement the policy because it infringes people's freedoms

Not remotely similar. Freedom is a political construct. It makes a great purpose for policy, but "because freedom" is a lousy argument.

The fact that face masks work is a good argument to study what effects it has on the general population. It is not a good argument to base policy on, especially not out of context. By the precautionary principle, we should not make things mandatory where the outcome is not known.

There are numerous examples, for example on how to treat premature infants, where good ideas were made policy which actually worsened the outcome. The same low risk argument could have been made, but side effects were in fact unknown and babies died unnecessarily often.

> We have a lot of reasons to think a policy like that would be effective. It's cheap and low risk, so why not implement it?

The same is true for mandatory bike helmets. They're cheap and low risk. Turns out that doesn't make for good policy. The similarities are more than superficial.

Let me phrase that differently: The argument is bad because the risk is not low, it is unstudied. There are several easily identifiable side effects that might well increase the spread of the virus.

Freedom is a policy. The actual argument sounds like "I don't want to".

Why don't you become a vegan? Why don't you exercise every morning? Why don't you have children? Why don't you say a prayer before dinner? Why don't you wear a helmet when riding a bike? Why don't you rescue a cat from the shelter? All these things are good for you and carry little risk.

The only correct answer to these is "because I don't want to". And your ability to say this is called freedom.

This is a poor argument. Doing nothing just because we're uncertain of the outcome is only a good strategy when the action is risky. This is not the case with masks.

We know how masks work, they protect other people very well. The problem is it doesn't help the wearer as much, so people don't want to use them and everyone suffers as a result. So make it mandatory. While perhaps there aren't the kind of large scale studies you want to see, yet, at least we have very good reason to think it will work and almost no risk. That's a logically sound policy.

Again, the argument is not to do nothing. The argument is use masks where they help, not enforce usage where they don't, and further study the in betweens.

The point of my comment wasn't to argue for policy however. It was to point out the inaccuracy of the statement that "we know masks work, therefore making masks mandatory is objectively good (for public health)". There are several examples where this reasoning have turned out to be not only empirically false, but actively detrimental. Bike helmets and infant mortality come to mind.

The comparison with bike helmets is apt. They are great, it is easy to understand why they work, but still enforced usage damages public health. One theory is that lesser people bike, and those that do take more risks. The facts are that areas with the least cycling risks have the least helmet usage.

Enforced masks everywhere all the time has the obvious risks of more people going outside even with slight symptoms, and taking more risks by not avoided crowded places.

These arguments are not mine, look at the meta studies WHO made. I simply parrot what little articles I can find, and compare with other similar public policy, including bike helmets.

The relevant question to ask before making masks mandatory by law is not whether they help reduce virus spread some of the time, or even most of the time, but rather if there instances where the enforcement actually increase spread. Judging from published literature, that is far from unlikely.

Mandate masks or don't. It's a boolean policy decision. Not making that is doing nothing with respect to that policy.

I'm sympathetic to your argument about unintended consequences, and you could even turn out to be right. But if I had to bet on which policy decision would be smarter, I'm still going to go for mandatory masks. I think in the end assuming that masks will work on that level is more likely given what we know, than assuming there is an unknown unintended consequence so powerful it negates the usefulness of masks completely.

Unless this is some word definition game, of course policy decisions aren't binary. You could make masks mandatory for health care workers. You could request people to wear masks but not enforce it.

So far, data does not agree with your feeling which decision is smarter. The cities with the harshest mask policies have been the ones with the more secondary outbreaks.

One only needs to take a stroll in Paris too see why. Outbreak worsened right after masks were made mandatory, no matter which indicator you look at.

However, it is also important to realize that does not mean face masks are inherently bad. We don't know that either. It means other factors are important, and sweeping policy decisions require data.

The WHO knows this, hence their recommendations. Public health is hard. So far it has mostly been a case of political posturing, along the classic "we must do something, this is something, therefore we must do it".

> We know how masks work, they protect other people very well

You said this with certainty. What's your best quality link to support this claim?

SketchySeaBeast may not have chosen the best metaphor, but I think their point stands: in political discourse in the United States it frequently happens that people sow disinformation, and good-faith attempts to correct the record by subject-matter experts are dismissed as partisan politics because everyone knows "it takes two to tango".

I completely agree with this point so long as it isn't couched with the usual implication that "disinformation" comes solely from one party or the other.

Propaganda is very real and is utilized by all sides.

I really don't understand--or I think I should say, I really don't have the energy to evaluate all the excess/lack of misinformation/information--the extent of how much our knickers are getting into a wad over this wearing masks issue.

I for one, am willing to suffer the discomfort of this minor piece of clothing for the sake of my neighbor. Will it benefit me? Not entirely sure. But the appreciation I get from my lesser-informed neighbor is good enough. It may be a placebo, sure. The subsequent peace between him and me is what makes all the difference in trying to keep a positive attitude in this most negative climate.

And besides, it really doesn't take me much effort to keep clean the plethora of masks I've accumulated. Use plastic baggies to store when mask is not use. Keep a second one handy when in doubt that the one in use has been compromised. Etc. Not that expensive, really.

Well, I just thought I'd contribute my hopeful 2¢. Stay safe, y'all!

The second statement is also a fact: wearing a mask violates people's freedom.

Balancing safety and freedom is an ages old question.

No one complains when a store posts the sign "no shoes no shirt no service"

No one complains when a school has a dress code and someone is sent home for wearing "inappropriate attire"

But there are an awful lot of complaints and concerns and discussions about freedom from people when asked to wear a mask, at least indoors.

The problem is pretty simple - the oft used phrase "it should't be a partisan or political issue" is irrelevant because when one side the argument bases their beliefs strictly on the fact that they don't like the other side and will oppose everything not based on the merits of arguments and information but rather that they hate the other side, then EVERYTHING becomes partisan.

> No one complains when a school has a dress code and someone is sent home for wearing "inappropriate attire"

This statement is factually wrong. Both students and parents do complain about it. A lot.

But getting back to masks question: should two consenting adults who are on the private property be allowed to take their masks off? What if one of them happens to be a business owner and the other one is a customer?

Should every person over 18 be required to carry a condom in their pocket? The costs are small, the benefits are obvious. The science and the facts both support this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com