Hacker News Reader

Comment by oh_sigh | Hacker News Reader

I feel so stuck because of this. My government previously said anyone outside has to wear a mask. Even if you're standing in a middle of a field, by yourself, with no one within a mile of you - you need to wear a mask.

This is clearly theater, but society is so polarized that if I don't see value in this kind of theater, then I must be some insane anti-masker who thinks COVID is a government hoax.

So there I go, wearing my mask out, hating every minute of it, but hating even more what people might think if I don't. The government has clearly intentionally lied about things (e.g. government telling us early on that masks don't work, maybe to prevent masks from getting sold out for first responders), but I'm not sure what anyone can do about this situation.

View on HN

They may have deliberately chosen a simple, easily understood, and easily enforced rule. Simplicity is a virtue in public communication. Creating a norm of masks-in-public does the job.

Otherwise, you have the cranks out there litigating endless edge cases and before you know it, the anti-maskers are in the elevator, sneezing on you.

Their intent may have been simplification but they have certainly crossed into the territory of being incorrect.

Nor can one use a slippery slope argument.. while arguing against a slippery slope. It is possible to have clear distinctions: "Are you outside and generally six feet away? Great, you can take your mask off."

The six feet rule is unfortunately exactly the type of rule which results in pushing the envelope. People will stand 5ft away and tell you to measure it. In contrast, masks off at all is easy to enforce.

Then make it seven feet or whatever number works so people pushing the envelope are still doing what you want.

Authority: "To be maskless, you must be more than 100ft from anyone from a different bubble."

Mr Common Sense: "That's a ridiculous rule, just say wear a mask outside."

Mr Epi: "That's excessive, aerosol is only going to travel a few meters."

Mr Defiant: "I didn't see him. How can I see everywhere. I was putting my mask on."

Mr Whatabout: "But I can take my mask off in a barber shop, therefore I should need to take other precautions."

Anyone who has dealt with a 7 year old will know how pointless this argument is.

If police are using this to harass people that is a problem. But the problem is with the police, they can fit you up already with almost no difficulty. You're really complaining that they're doing it to white people now.

I have no idea what your country's racism problem has to do with this. Nor why it's populated by 7 year old strawchildren.

I can see that you don't want to wear a mask outside. Also, that you may be a 7 year old.

If you're far enough away that someone can't see if you have a mask or not, you're fine to remove it...

"masks within n feet of others" is also simple, easily understood, and easily enforced (if any of the enforcers actually care to). it has the added benefit of respecting people's intelligence. requiring people to wear masks while alone in the middle of a park does not increase the average level of trust placed in official guidance.

Is it though? During the early stages of the pandemic I noticed that many people seem to have a pretty poor idea of what a six foot distance looks like.

There's a reason why free societies are reluctant to put arbitrary orders in place. In society that values freedom, it simply feels too much like an authoritarian move. It rankles the populace. Such measures have always been about public education and not enforcement. Probably much greater compliance without the debate. There was no need for this to be politicized.

Meanwhile our government in Germany first told us that masks are useless (paraphrased), then later reversed their stance, and now require FFP2 masks to enter any shop, bus, train and so on. Meanwhile multiple government officials and ministers have been linked to Mask-scandals so they are likely profiting from each FFP2 mask that is sold.

The Belgian government said the same, but I think the message isn't quite as black & white, and should be seen through two pairs of eyes:

1. There's the individual, in which case wearing a mask is not super useful. Wearing a mask isn't very effective at preventing the wearer from getting sick, especially if the wearer is a typical human being who is constantly picking at their face and generally doesn't wear the mask properly. This was oft repeated near the start of the pandemic, mostly by doctors and virologists who deal with infection on the individual level.

2. There's the collective, where reducing the spread even a little bit, can have a definite impact on many people in the long run. Masks mandates are definitely useful there, at least in crowded places. Even if they're not being worn properly by a large fraction of the population, spread will still slow. This may not be useful for any given individual, but it can help "flatten the curve" of hospitalizations, which is sort of what the management of the pandemic is all about. This wasn't really elaborated on in the media, but it's the message that biostatisticians and epidemiologists have been bringing all along.

I think there's been some serious communication issues throughout this whole pandemic. Not just in our respective countries, but pretty much globally. Covering your nose and mouth is super low effort and super low risk for almost everyone. And while staying at home and away from people is even more effective, going about your business with a mask is much easier for many people. I don't know why more effort hasn't gone into trying to convince people of that. Instead we're chasing pipe dreams of cheap respirators and tracking apps. Techno-fetishism at its worst.

> "And while staying at home and away from people is even more effective, going about your business with a mask is much easier for many people."

it's even easier to just distance appropriately in indoor spaces (most are already low density enough to not worry about). if you want to then stuggle up on or sit down and chat with someone, then slap on the mask. much easier than what you're proposing.

This is clearly theater

Worse, it's probably actively harmful. If people are going to get hassled for not wearing a mask outside, then they're more likely to substitute indoor activities which are much more dangerous whether masked or not.

My town "requires" masks at all times outdoors, but I haven't seen any enforcement. (While I have seen police officers talking to each other without masks). An increasing number of people will take them off when not around anyone, and half-heartedly reapply them when passing within 10 feet of others.

> I'm not sure what anyone can do about this situation

You can become a dissident. That’s how things change. But as you’ve identified, bravery in this case won’t be rewarded, unlike what happens in movies.

> The government has clearly intentionally lied about things (e.g. government telling us early on that masks don't work,

Lots of people say this, but it's easy to see that it wasn't a lie.

Please try to find the good quality studies that you think the government should have been using to tell the public that wearing masks works.

Before covid we had lots of studies around mask wearing, mostly in healthcare professionals in medical settings. They really struggle to show a benefit.

Mask wearing (especially if you can't maintain distance, can't meet outside, can't ventilate properly) is important but even now the quality of evidence isn't great.

It definitely wasn't a lie. We know distancing and lockdowns work, and there were some people who were only pushing mask wearing in order to prevent lockdowns. The risk was that people would continue to meet and mix while sort of wearing a mask, and not doing it properly. That would have driven infection up.

> Please try to find the good quality studies that you think the government should have been using to tell the public that wearing masks works.

"Factors influencing the wearing of facemasks to prevent the severe acute respiratory syndrome among adult Chinese in Hong Kong"

Catherine So-kum Tang et al. Prev Med. 2004 Dec.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15539054/

See, that's not a study that shows whether masks work or not. It's a study showing how you persuade people to wear a mask.

You admit yourself this was manipulation.

"The risk was that people would continue to meet and mix while sort of wearing a mask..."

Their job isn't to play 3-dimensional chess with human behavior. It's to communicate public health messages in a way that is both effective and accurate. I agree that the science was (and is) not very clear regarding mask usage. But if the messaging from the beginning had been "everyone wear a cloth mask inside, it might help" we maybe could have skipped this entire insane anti-mask movement.

I'm not sure it's manipulation, rather than large numbers of people who have differing interpretations of the data.

> But if the messaging from the beginning had been "everyone wear a cloth mask inside, it might help" we maybe could have skipped this entire insane anti-mask movement.

Yes, I agree very much with this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com