It's an opinion piece, written by Bret Stephens, AKA the bed bug dude who, among other things, "considers climate change a '20-year-old mass hysteria phenomenon' and rejects the notion that greenhouse-gas emissions are an environmental threat"
Yes it is. And yes he is. Nonetheless, it doesn't discount the idea. The science says those generic blue disposable masks aren't virus-stopping. For all intents and purposes it was wearing nothing. Why do you think there was a time when Fauci was pushing the idea of wearing two masks?
How could they not have known that prior? The masks are rated for efficacy. The sizes of viruses known. These things have nothing to do with Stephens.
Sidebar: This is the second op-ed piece from a major publication that asks questions of the handling of the pandemic, but from less than ideal authors. Why is that? I feels like a "soft launch" of what will eventually be the left-leaning mainstream media finally admitting they over-sold "the science" that wasn't actually science.
My circles (slatestarcodex etc.) were worrying in January 2020, stockpiling etc. an advocating for masks when the government was still saying they weren't necessary.
I remember the heroic effort in the Czech republic to hand make millions of masks while the US government said one shouldn't bother.
By the summer, data showed they weren't helping. Sweden etc. did fine. But the lines had been drawn. For whatever reason, political identities randomly chose different pandemic policies. In some countries, people of the same overall politics would be for what Americans of the same movement were against.
Back in the US in 2021, wearing a mask was offensive to many. And then not wearing one offended many others. Absolutely crazy. Discussing data etc. meant nothing. It was quasi religious. The chorus in unison: "I believe in science." Any additional inquiry however is heresy. And then you get classified with "the crazies". Horrible!
In Mexico, many religiously wear masks. Not wearing them is "gringo". Also hand sanitizer rules. Again, data etc. is irrelevant.
Really, this is a human issue. The overall structures of belief, our institutions etc. conspire against innovation/progress in all forms. Thus Plank's oft repeated quip: "Science advances one funeral at a time."
Not sure how accurate this is, but I heard the initial "no need for masks" advice was given to the public so masks could be prioritized for hospitals and medical staff. At least in a setting where you're around large quantities of virus containing aerosols, it would be intuitive for a mask to make a difference. Like radiation, the amount of viral material has some correlation to outcomes, I believe.
7 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 24.6 ms ] threadhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bret_Stephens#Controversy
How could they not have known that prior? The masks are rated for efficacy. The sizes of viruses known. These things have nothing to do with Stephens.
Sidebar: This is the second op-ed piece from a major publication that asks questions of the handling of the pandemic, but from less than ideal authors. Why is that? I feels like a "soft launch" of what will eventually be the left-leaning mainstream media finally admitting they over-sold "the science" that wasn't actually science.
https://www.newsweek.com/its-time-scientific-community-admit...
I remember the heroic effort in the Czech republic to hand make millions of masks while the US government said one shouldn't bother.
By the summer, data showed they weren't helping. Sweden etc. did fine. But the lines had been drawn. For whatever reason, political identities randomly chose different pandemic policies. In some countries, people of the same overall politics would be for what Americans of the same movement were against.
Back in the US in 2021, wearing a mask was offensive to many. And then not wearing one offended many others. Absolutely crazy. Discussing data etc. meant nothing. It was quasi religious. The chorus in unison: "I believe in science." Any additional inquiry however is heresy. And then you get classified with "the crazies". Horrible!
In Mexico, many religiously wear masks. Not wearing them is "gringo". Also hand sanitizer rules. Again, data etc. is irrelevant.
Really, this is a human issue. The overall structures of belief, our institutions etc. conspire against innovation/progress in all forms. Thus Plank's oft repeated quip: "Science advances one funeral at a time."