I have absolutely no problem with being considered 'disrespectful' of anyone who told Americans not to wear masks during a respiratory pandemic. (Go ahead downvoters, do your thing.)
One cannot claim that both A) masks are "not effective at stopping COVID" and B) "people in hospitals needed them more than the average citizen". It's a laughably obvious contradiction.
This is a lie (sorry, yeah, it is) pushed by people who wanted to bully individuals out of their own PPE in a misguided attempt to make up for the failure to plan by the larger organizations (government, healthcare orgs) that were responsible for doing so.
The reality is that masks are effective in stopping the transmission of coronaviruses and every country in Asia knew this from experience with SARS-1.
> One cannot claim that both A) masks are "not effective at stopping COVID" and B) "people in hospitals needed them more than the average citizen". It's a laughably obvious contradiction.
It's not a complete contradiction. Masks are required by hospitals for many reasons other than Covid. The initial logic was if everyone bought out masks there may not be a supply for even these other cases.
Though, I agree this was needed because of their failure to plan. If there was better planning the mask supply would be a lot better. I personally believe they held off on recommending the general public to wear masks because they knew they didn't have supply for medical staff.
Also, come on, don't taunt people to downvote you. That's really not productive. It's also against the HN guidelines.
> One cannot claim that both A) masks are "not effective at stopping COVID" and B) "people in hospitals needed them more than the average citizen". It's a laughably obvious contradiction.
One can claim that N95 masks are effective at reducing infection rate of hospital staff when properly fitted, changed regularly and worn by people who are trained not to move them around, touch their faces etc etc.
One can also claim that masks which are not well fitted, worn by untrained individuals, who may wear them wrong and who may touch their faces more as a result of wearing them, could cause more harm than good.
> One cannot claim that both A) masks are "not effective at stopping COVID" and B) "people in hospitals needed them more than the average citizen". It's a laughably obvious contradiction.
Of course you can, and it's not a contradiction. It's true for surgical masks, whose purpose is to prevent the wearer from spreading the infection around; you can apply social distancing in lieu of these masks, which is not possible for medical staff. It's also true for respirators, which require specialized training to be worn correctly, which is something the medical staff has, and regular citizens don't. And again, most people can use social distancing as a substitute.
The problem with masks was always that there just wasn't, and isn't, enough of them available to equip everyone. So governments had to prioritize, and healthcare workers need PPE more than most people not in healthcare. That doesn't justify downplaying the actual effectiveness; if it were up to me, I'd just say that yes, they're effective if properly used, and refocus the propaganda efforts on guilt-tripping society into donating all the hoarded PPEs to hospitals and clinics.
> It's true for surgical masks, whose purpose is to prevent the wearer from spreading the infection around; you can apply social distancing in lieu of these masks, which is not possible for medical staff.
This isn't an argument that they're ineffective for stopping transmission. It's an argument that there are alternatives. And many people aren't/weren't able to fully social distance either, which is why masks were (and are) still useful. Recommending against N95 use while encouraging the use of cloth barriers was an easy, obvious step to take that our structurally incompetent public health agencies failed to do (among many, many other failings).
> It's also true for respirators, which require specialized training to be worn correctly, which is something the medical staff has, and regular citizens don't.
A California study showed that 65%[0] of healthcare workers apply respirators incorrectly; the population baseline is 72%. Your argument proves too much, unless you think that respirators are useless for doctors and all the complaints about PPE shortages were pointless whining.
The point here is that the evidence we had in February and early March was more than enough to make a sane decision on masks, reducing spread and individual risk while not exacerbating hospital shortages (in and of itself a symptom of institutional incompetence). It's beyond me why people are bending over backwards to avoid admitting the institutional stupidity the early days of the pandemic were wracked with.
> Your argument proves too much, unless you think that respirators are useless for doctors and all the complaints about PPE shortages were pointless whining.
I don't think it does. Even the stats you quoted show that respirators will be more effective, on average, for doctors, than they will be for general population. At the same time, protecting a medical worker will give you "more bang for your buck" than protecting a random citizen. You should also count in the probability of actual exposure to the virus, which for general population is low, and for the hospitals (both the workers and the hospitalized) is absurdly high. All of this points towards strongly prioritizing PPE supply for medical facilities.
> The point here is that the evidence we had in February and early March was more than enough to make a sane decision on masks, reducing spread and individual risk while not exacerbating hospital shortages
The evidence I saw directly late February/early March was that hospitals around the world were complaining that they have days' worth of PPE supplies and started to cancel elective procedures to conserve them, while the PPE market pretty much entirely dried up (beyond the price gougers offering their hoards on-line). Why hospitals didn't have stockpiles is another matter (and IMO has a lot to do with optimizing costs, and - in countries with public healthcare - cries for leaner governments, cutting out fat, making things more market-driven). But my point is, there was never enough PPE on the market for everyone; there was barely enough for medical workers and industrial use, both of which had predictable demand around which the whole supply chain stabilized. So some kind of action that prevents general population from buying up all PPE on the market was warranted - though I don't like the one taken, which was lying to people about the effectiveness.
If you protect general population then you reduce also exposure of the doctors.
Preventing general population buying up all PPE does not necessary require lying about its effectiveness.
This lie has second level effects because now many people think that wearing mask is not effective and it is difficult to implement mask wearing practice.
I know that it has been impossible at least in one country to get people to wear masks because of this.
One cannot claim that both A) masks are "not effective at stopping COVID" and B) "people in hospitals needed them more than the average citizen". It's a laughably obvious contradiction.
This is a lie (sorry, yeah, it is) pushed by people who wanted to bully individuals out of their own PPE in a misguided attempt to make up for the failure to plan by the larger organizations (government, healthcare orgs) that were responsible for doing so.
The reality is that masks are effective in stopping the transmission of coronaviruses and every country in Asia knew this from experience with SARS-1.
EDIT: If this isn't urging a boycott, what is? https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/12337257852839321...