> Meanwhile, all those deplorable schmucks in the trades, who've been lectured to death about choosing the right respiratory protection for the job, were able to comprehend that big mask hole and tiny virus is a Bad Choice. You want the mask holes to be smaller than the Bad Thing. Therefore, "Masks Don't Work".
It's interesting that you stop here, and not go further to the next level of relevant knowledgeableness, which is that the virologists and materials engineers who work on masks know something the tradespeople don't, which is a) that viruses rarely travel around as single viral particles and b) that this is why we make surgical and N95 masks electrostatically charged. (https://www.wired.com/story/the-physics-of-the-n95-face-mask...)
(For a clear example of why a) matters, try peeing through your pants. The water molecules are, after all, far too small to be blocked!)
> A clear explanation of the different modes of operation, and framing it as a polite thing to do (akin to covering your mouth/nose when you cough or sneeze), probably would have been sufficient.
> which is that the virologists and materials engineers who work on masks know something the tradespeople don't, which is a) that viruses rarely travel around as single viral particles and b) that this is why we make surgical and N95 masks electrostatically charged.
Right. Which is why we saw a great many "virologists" (who are not "maskologists", btw, so I'm not sure where we get this idea that they "work on masks" [1]) blindly assert that it didn't matter what kind of mask you wear, then for a long time defended the silly notion of a 6-foot rule (remember "ballistic droplets"? I do!), then said, "OK, cloth masks probably don't do much, but 'swiss-cheese model!'", and so on and so forth. Literally anything than just be intellectually honest about what the data says.
This entire debate has been insipid, and OP is correct: a great many people who should have known better shifted their brains into neutral and allowed slogans to drive the conversation. The entire point of the linked article is that the CDC has historically used crap studies to make causative arguments that wouldn't work in any other scientific debate.
[1] ...and let's not forget people like Jeremy Howard (philosophy major; Kaggle guy) and Zeynep Tufecki (librarian) somehow get cited as 'mask experts' and publish total gibberish in PNAS and other high-profile journals, despite having zero relevant experience. Expertise is a slippery concept when the speaker makes an argument you like!
Looking at the data on other respiratory illnesses showed that something certainly worked. Really hope we get good at figuring out the relative effectiveness of different measures before the next pandemic.
Yeah, yeah, but N95s didn't come into play until much later.
The earliest piece of advice was "please don't go out and buy all the masks because the hospitals need them (and the common ones won't protect you anyway because the virus is too small - you'll need an N95, which are expensive and also needed in hospitals)"
A little later, the advice was "on second thought, if we all cover our mouths and noses, we'll probably slow the spread by virtue of not coughing and sneezing all over everything. Save the N95s for the doctors, and cover your face with I-dont-care-what".
The opprobrium cited the earlier advice, with a "wait, you said these were useless, now we have to wear them?"
Instead of addressing this most simple point of confusion, it jumped to "MASKS WORK! SHUT UP AND PUT YOUR MASK ON, IDIOT!"
By the time production ramped up and we had N95s to go around, the conversation was already stupid beyond repair.
Again, it was never The Science™, but the piss-poor communication of it - and by people who should have known better.
== Instead of getting everyone on the same page, ==
Your post seems to be continuing this trend. Nobody called anyone “deplorable schmucks” or “puppy kicking grandma killer” but you. Your victimhood really comes out in the language you choose to describe others.
The parent seeks to convey the zeitgeist irrational emotional response of the populace to alternate perspectives during the COVID era and to my mind does so successfully.
As someone who not only mapped the rise of COVID for Wikipedia before it was mainstream media acknowledged in January 2020 - https://github.com/globalcitizen/2019-wuhan-coronavirus-data - but also had the unique fortune of experiencing (catching) COVID in all of China, Australia and the US, while all countries had irrational response I would classify Australian social paranoia as some of the worst. Absolutely, people were being shamed and attacked and removed from society, employment, etc. if they did not have vaccinations or refused to wear masks. While all countries had irrational response, Australia's was certainly "up there". Furthermore, they turned the whole country in to a prison (you needed 'special permission' to leave, even as an Australian citizen), and virtually nobody complained.
There are no such people so hopelessly enslaved as those who believe they are free. - Goethe
I personally found the recent withdrawl of some of the vaccines - which people were hounded and shamed in to taking in to their bodies - with proven mortality risk, as something of a vindication. None of my family had any vaccines, not because we are against them per se, but because we didn't encounter a legal requirement to do so as we visited the US right after the requirement for travelers was dropped, and had already developed natural resistance through repeated exposure. If we were dealing with a more vicious pathogen, we would have been first in line.
N95 style and other similar masks don't work by making holes that are smaller than the particles they are meant to filter, they filter smaller particles primarily with electrostatic effects.
I think one needs to have different standards for an academic discussion versus a public health campaign.
For example, taking drinking and driving. If we're talking academically, it's an incredibly nuanced topic, and I'm sure the actual risk depends a ton on the individual, their skills, their reaction times, their built-up alcohol tolerance, and many other factors.
But if we're talking about actual individuals getting hammered and then grabbing the keys, then "Don't Drink And Drive. Ever." is about the right level for the discussion.
And I think part of the reason that it's so important to hammer home messages like that is that the people who want to do the thing that's dangerous for others will seize upon the nuances of the academic discussion, use anything that gives them permission, and absolutely ignore the rest of it. That's true of drunk drivers for sure. It was also true of smokers before they lost that battle. And of course the Andrew Wakefields of the world are great at building a whole grift around that.
But this falls apart immediately, in much the same way as the rest of it.
If someone tells me I'm incapable of driving because I had a glass of wine with dinner, I'm likely to laugh at them and disregard everything they say after that, because I now perceive them as someone who understands neither drinking nor driving.
It doesn't take a PhD to understand that people react differently to alcohol (etc, etc). Most people I know figured that out before they were 18 and had a pretty robust understanding by their early 20's.
The right level of discussion, IMHO, is not paternalistic, absolutist condescension, but one that promotes self-awareness and enables people to appraise individual risk in specific situations. (Be careful: if you assess wrong, you die or go to jail!)
I'd also disagree that the people who excuse their behavior like this are seizing upon nuances of academic discourse, but rather rejecting an insultingly-simplistic slogan held up as some kind of absolute truth.
It reminds me of a line from this thing my dad had framed, to the effect of "Be wary of giving advice: the fool won't heed it and the wise don't need it." Somewhere in the middle are reasonably-intelligent, non-sociopathic adults who need to understand the limits/risks/benefits so they can make informed decisions.
To the original point, I think we'd have seen much better results and much less collateral/residual damage if we were in the habit of "ELI18" and not "ELI5".
ceejayoz|1 year ago
It's interesting that you stop here, and not go further to the next level of relevant knowledgeableness, which is that the virologists and materials engineers who work on masks know something the tradespeople don't, which is a) that viruses rarely travel around as single viral particles and b) that this is why we make surgical and N95 masks electrostatically charged. (https://www.wired.com/story/the-physics-of-the-n95-face-mask...)
(For a clear example of why a) matters, try peeing through your pants. The water molecules are, after all, far too small to be blocked!)
> A clear explanation of the different modes of operation, and framing it as a polite thing to do (akin to covering your mouth/nose when you cough or sneeze), probably would have been sufficient.
This was very widely attempted.
timr|1 year ago
Right. Which is why we saw a great many "virologists" (who are not "maskologists", btw, so I'm not sure where we get this idea that they "work on masks" [1]) blindly assert that it didn't matter what kind of mask you wear, then for a long time defended the silly notion of a 6-foot rule (remember "ballistic droplets"? I do!), then said, "OK, cloth masks probably don't do much, but 'swiss-cheese model!'", and so on and so forth. Literally anything than just be intellectually honest about what the data says.
This entire debate has been insipid, and OP is correct: a great many people who should have known better shifted their brains into neutral and allowed slogans to drive the conversation. The entire point of the linked article is that the CDC has historically used crap studies to make causative arguments that wouldn't work in any other scientific debate.
[1] ...and let's not forget people like Jeremy Howard (philosophy major; Kaggle guy) and Zeynep Tufecki (librarian) somehow get cited as 'mask experts' and publish total gibberish in PNAS and other high-profile journals, despite having zero relevant experience. Expertise is a slippery concept when the speaker makes an argument you like!
russdill|1 year ago
u32480932048|1 year ago
The earliest piece of advice was "please don't go out and buy all the masks because the hospitals need them (and the common ones won't protect you anyway because the virus is too small - you'll need an N95, which are expensive and also needed in hospitals)"
A little later, the advice was "on second thought, if we all cover our mouths and noses, we'll probably slow the spread by virtue of not coughing and sneezing all over everything. Save the N95s for the doctors, and cover your face with I-dont-care-what".
The opprobrium cited the earlier advice, with a "wait, you said these were useless, now we have to wear them?"
Instead of addressing this most simple point of confusion, it jumped to "MASKS WORK! SHUT UP AND PUT YOUR MASK ON, IDIOT!"
By the time production ramped up and we had N95s to go around, the conversation was already stupid beyond repair.
Again, it was never The Science™, but the piss-poor communication of it - and by people who should have known better.
supplied_demand|1 year ago
Your post seems to be continuing this trend. Nobody called anyone “deplorable schmucks” or “puppy kicking grandma killer” but you. Your victimhood really comes out in the language you choose to describe others.
contingencies|1 year ago
As someone who not only mapped the rise of COVID for Wikipedia before it was mainstream media acknowledged in January 2020 - https://github.com/globalcitizen/2019-wuhan-coronavirus-data - but also had the unique fortune of experiencing (catching) COVID in all of China, Australia and the US, while all countries had irrational response I would classify Australian social paranoia as some of the worst. Absolutely, people were being shamed and attacked and removed from society, employment, etc. if they did not have vaccinations or refused to wear masks. While all countries had irrational response, Australia's was certainly "up there". Furthermore, they turned the whole country in to a prison (you needed 'special permission' to leave, even as an Australian citizen), and virtually nobody complained.
There are no such people so hopelessly enslaved as those who believe they are free. - Goethe
I personally found the recent withdrawl of some of the vaccines - which people were hounded and shamed in to taking in to their bodies - with proven mortality risk, as something of a vindication. None of my family had any vaccines, not because we are against them per se, but because we didn't encounter a legal requirement to do so as we visited the US right after the requirement for travelers was dropped, and had already developed natural resistance through repeated exposure. If we were dealing with a more vicious pathogen, we would have been first in line.
throw-the-towel|1 year ago
russdill|1 year ago
wpietri|1 year ago
For example, taking drinking and driving. If we're talking academically, it's an incredibly nuanced topic, and I'm sure the actual risk depends a ton on the individual, their skills, their reaction times, their built-up alcohol tolerance, and many other factors.
But if we're talking about actual individuals getting hammered and then grabbing the keys, then "Don't Drink And Drive. Ever." is about the right level for the discussion.
And I think part of the reason that it's so important to hammer home messages like that is that the people who want to do the thing that's dangerous for others will seize upon the nuances of the academic discussion, use anything that gives them permission, and absolutely ignore the rest of it. That's true of drunk drivers for sure. It was also true of smokers before they lost that battle. And of course the Andrew Wakefields of the world are great at building a whole grift around that.
u32480932048|1 year ago
If someone tells me I'm incapable of driving because I had a glass of wine with dinner, I'm likely to laugh at them and disregard everything they say after that, because I now perceive them as someone who understands neither drinking nor driving.
It doesn't take a PhD to understand that people react differently to alcohol (etc, etc). Most people I know figured that out before they were 18 and had a pretty robust understanding by their early 20's.
The right level of discussion, IMHO, is not paternalistic, absolutist condescension, but one that promotes self-awareness and enables people to appraise individual risk in specific situations. (Be careful: if you assess wrong, you die or go to jail!)
I'd also disagree that the people who excuse their behavior like this are seizing upon nuances of academic discourse, but rather rejecting an insultingly-simplistic slogan held up as some kind of absolute truth.
It reminds me of a line from this thing my dad had framed, to the effect of "Be wary of giving advice: the fool won't heed it and the wise don't need it." Somewhere in the middle are reasonably-intelligent, non-sociopathic adults who need to understand the limits/risks/benefits so they can make informed decisions.
To the original point, I think we'd have seen much better results and much less collateral/residual damage if we were in the habit of "ELI18" and not "ELI5".
dullcrisp|1 year ago