Hacker News Reader

Comment by jessaustin | Hacker News Reader

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23hvLiA2akE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2MmX2U2V3c

In March 2020, CDC and WHO messaging was clear that respirator masks should be saved for healthcare professionals. I saw a lot of media and online posts claiming that masks didn't work at all, but I never saw that from public health officials. It's not lying, or walking back to clarify that loose fitting masks worn by the average citizen are not perfect, and should not be a replacement for social distancing.

In February, the Surgeon General said that masks aren't effective at stopping the spread of coronavirus. The WHO said "Not having a mask does not necessarily put you at any increased risk of contracting this disease". The director of the CDC said that you shouldn't wear a mask if you're healthy.

They were all lying to the public about masks to cover for the fact that there weren't enough for healthcare workers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/29/health/coronavirus-n95-fa...

Yea but....he's right? What is the controversy here? There was a huge concern about supply shortages and people hoarding PPE. Masks are the best thing the public can do at this point but they aren't perfect protection and the medical community are the ones with the greatest need for PPE...Not to mention, early on in the pandemic it wasn't clear how much protection masks would really give, and people thinking "oh i just need to wear a mask, then I can just do what I normally do" was something they were trying to fight against.

Advising people to not grab up masks for themselves and deprive others is a good idea, but I think the troublesome part is telling people they shouldn't buy masks because they're useless when they aren't, versus asking them not to buy masks themselves in order to preserve supplies for those who need it. I understand why they chose the former, but the result is eroded trust that health advice being given is in your immediate best interest.

I mean I see the point, I think their comments made a lot more sense in the context of where things were back then, and they didn't consider how they would be viewed after the initial panic phase was over.

> the result is eroded trust that health advice being given is in your immediate best interest.

I would argue that they are making health advice that minimizes the population-wide risk; I don't expect them to tell me the optimal thing for me to do to protect myself if that advice means that the population-wide payoff is worse (i.e. "hey everybody the best thing you can do is to grab an N95 mask" might be optimal for everyone who is able to do that but that is not the optimal thing to do for the population). I kind of understand people's frustration but I just don't personally feel that this was that controversial.

I definitely agree that there's value in having people do things that aren't necessarily in their immediate best interest, but I think the cause of ire is people being deceived in order to do the right thing rather than asked. In an ideal world something along the lines of "masks are effective however due to supply shortages should be reserved for the most vulnerable and healthcare workers" might have been more accurate, but would also have likely led to runs on masks.

The chain of events leading up to what they said makes sense to me, but it puts people in an odd position where we have to trust guidance not because it's accurate but because the organization issuing it thinks saying such will have the best outcome. If for example the PPE situation worsened again and masks became unadvised for similar reasons I think more people would be skeptical as a result.

Consider the surgeon general's (now-deleted) tweet saying “Seriously people — STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if health care providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!” [1]

The discussion here is as follows:

1. The statement that masks are ineffective at stopping coronavirus is not true.

2. Those false statements are partly to blame for America's anti-masker problem (although the lion's share of the blame lies with Trump/GOP policy)

3. One lesson we might take away from this is, when authority figures knowingly make false statements during a crisis, that squanders credibility they may need later on. Perhaps leaders in future crises should think twice before repeating this mistake.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/29/health/coronavirus-n95-fa...

I agree: in retrospect, in todays context, those statements are not good public health policy. And saying "they are not effective in preventing general public from catching coronavirus" may indeed be a false statement, even at the time. But, when masks were in short supply and when it wasn't really known how much protection they provide (so saying "hey masks might help" may give people a false sense of comfort thinking that they're protected and able to live as normal), those comments, while not the most objective, make way more sense.

But I think this "they lied to us, we shouldn't trust them" rhetoric is silly and dangerous. Again, I agree, it's definitely a lesson to learn. Public health professionals are human beings too and I think it's fair to say they are doing their jobs to the best of their ability.

Yeah he is right. I believe social isolation (working from home) is much better option than wearing a mask. If you inspect the drop in the flu sickness rate of covid vs prior there is a difference. Not sure how much it is attributed to social isolation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com