[HN Gopher] Has the era of overzealous cleaning finally come to ...
___________________________________________________________________
Has the era of overzealous cleaning finally come to an end?
Author : prostoalex
Score : 64 points
Date : 2021-04-09 16:21 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| VectorLock wrote:
| Remember when news organization said they weren't going to
| paywall their coronavirus related content? Did that come to an
| end?
| ghaff wrote:
| At non-obsessive levels there are worse things people could have
| done (and did do). But it was mostly harmful to the degree it
| took time and energy away from more effective responses.
|
| (And some people I know were indeed obsessive.)
| kgin wrote:
| Of course nobody wants overzealous cleaning, but the correct
| level of zeal for a novel disease is not possible to pinpoint
| exactly from the outset. It makes sense for people to risk having
| too much zeal than too little until all the information is
| available.
| ghaff wrote:
| And, honestly, the recommendations that various governments
| actually made were things like handwashing, use of hand
| sanitizer, cleaning surfaces that multiple people are touching,
| etc.--none of which seem unreasonable even at this point. The
| "overzealous" cleaning that some people were doing was mostly
| not the response to government guidelines.
| jobu wrote:
| And the CDC changed their recommendations and guidelines as
| knowledge about the virus evolved. Unfortunately too many
| people interpret these changing messages as: "The CDC was wrong
| before so they're probably wrong now, so I'm not going to
| listen to anything they say." So frustrating!
| user_50123890 wrote:
| A 100% effective "behavioural" covid vaccine (which also works
| for ALL other respitory diseases):
|
| Don't be indoors with other people.
| [deleted]
| muricula wrote:
| Buddy, that's not a vaccine.
| libraryatnight wrote:
| Am I the only one here not finding anything nefarious about this?
| Seems like they didn't know, advised caution, and now they know.
| If anyone was hysterical about this, I feel like that has more to
| do with where they got the information.
| nickthemagicman wrote:
| Just makes you wonder what else the government and medical
| establishment were wrong about in justifying massive extreme
| restrictions on the population.
| libraryatnight wrote:
| I feel like you're trying to get at something, out with it if
| you want to have a conversation about it.
| mapme wrote:
| I wouldn't say nefarious but just extremely delayed which leads
| to bad outcomes. This was known for at least the last 6 months
| and it then let places hide behind this as being safe (we
| follow cdc guidelines!). Restaurants saying they clean the
| tables vs. having a hepa air purifier.. buses cleaning seats
| vs. mandating windows be open etc. etc.
| aeternum wrote:
| Yes, people have a limited amount of focus so it's very
| important to focus on the right things.
|
| Unnecessary cleaning guidelines really do cause problems.
| I've seen a huge spike in public-facing device RMAs due to
| cleaning with improper chemicals. General human exposure is
| likely up significantly as well.
|
| We would all be better off if we focused on airflow and
| proper air purification.
| rsynnott wrote:
| They also had good reason to think it _might_ be a vector,
| because it _is_ a vector for some other viruses, notably the
| flu.
| everyone wrote:
| I thought it was going to be about an actual era. Basically the
| modern era, in which our environment may be _too_ clean, and
| potentially do weird things to our immune system, cus its an
| environment radically different from the one our immune system
| was designed to work in.
| elric wrote:
| I was just reading up on "The Hygiene Hypothesis", and it seems
| like there's little evidence to back up the claim that our
| environment is "too clean". If anything, I suspect our
| environment is more likely to be too polluted than to clean.
| Think lead poisoning up until a few decades ago, or BPA and its
| ilk currently.
| patrickk wrote:
| Not to mention VOCs off gassing from all kinds of things we
| commonly have in our homes. I wouldn't be surprised if we
| look back on this era in horror at the chemicals we put in
| furniture etc
| rossdavidh wrote:
| Quite like the effect of microgravity on the skeletal system,
| or the effect of rarely exercising on the muscular system, or
| the effect of rarely elevating your heart rate on the
| cardiovascular system. Periodic small shocks are necessary for
| any biological system to remain in good shape, because those
| small shocks are a form of information about what needs
| reinforcing. Without those small shocks, the system atrophies
| and is unprepared for large shocks. True of the immune system
| as well, I think.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Nassim Taleb wrote a book on this concept called
| "Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder"
| xscott wrote:
| So, is it a 1 in 10,000 chance from touching a contaminated
| surface and then rubbing your eyes (or picking your nose)?
| Freak_NL wrote:
| The image of the spraying of some kind of chemical by people in
| biohazard suits with a tank on their backs has constantly struck
| me as very other-worldly this past year. It was (and is) seen
| often in news footage from many countries though (mostly Asian,
| African, and South American I think), but it was never adopted
| here in the Netherlands. Was this all (intended or accidental)
| theatre or did this actually make sense in some climates? I can
| imagine it looks reassuring.
| jobu wrote:
| It depends on how it's done. A neighbor of mine works for a
| golf course owned by the city and said they started out
| spraying a mix of bleach in water on everything. Unfortunately
| they found out a few months into the pandemic that it's only
| active for something like 12-24 hours after mixing with water,
| and they had been mixing it in big batches to use over the
| course of several days. They switched to hydrogen peroxide
| instead, which isn't as broadly effective against bacteria or
| viruses as bleach, but is effective against coronavirus and has
| an indefinite shelf-life.
| alisonatwork wrote:
| I was in China during the initial outbreak, and those guys in
| biohazard suits were definitely performative in my part of
| town. They walked through the neighborhood with a "reporter" in
| tow, who made sure that every squirt of their magical anti-
| COVID pixie dust could be captured on film for posterity. In
| the China case, I'm not sure if it was to reassure the public
| (who are used to seeing this sort of performative busywork) or
| if it was more a kind of political one-upmanship amongst local
| officials who all wanted to give their superiors the impression
| that they were the hardest-working or most serious cadre in the
| area.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| An intrinsic characteristic of novel threats is that their
| characteristics are not fully known and understood. Understanding
| evolves.
|
| Other factors include various forms of denial and seeking of
| agency, amongst both experts and authorities, and the public.
|
| The fomite hypothesis --- that small viral fragments on surfaces
| might be transmitted to individuals --- was _plausible_ and had
| some initial credibility. It 's been observed elsewhere.
|
| The alternative hypothesis, that the SARS-COV-2 virus was
| predominantly airborne and spread readily ... was _also_
| plausible and had initial credibility, but also meant that the
| potential threat and consequences of the disease were far
| greater, a possibility that numerous entities early in the
| pandemic seemed eager to play down (and many still do). Notably
| the first official responses in China, the previous
| administration 's response in the US, and both official and
| lay/media resposnes elsewhere in the US, Brazil, the
| Phillippines, throughout Europe, and more.
|
| When faced with a novel, difficult-to-perceive threat, one that
| does not _manifest_ clearly, whose behaviour and characteristics
| are unknown, _people 's first response is often to seek the
| comfort of some degree of control or agency_. Cleaning, or
| hygiene theatre, is just that.
|
| Mind: it's all but certainly _not harmful_. It may detract from
| other interventions, though for the most part (and after some
| early bobbles that were a mixture of good intentions, poor
| understanding, and supply shortages), the general public health
| advice was the triad of "wear a mask, wash your hands, stay
| home." All sensible and still highy recommended.
|
| Cleaning is also a _manifest_ and _tangible_ signifier of a
| heightened infection risk environment, and one which might have
| positive carry-overs to other preventive measures and general
| awareness.
|
| (Lacquering your premises frequently with Lysol not so much,
| though again, in a potential benefits vs. potential risks
| calculus, not an entirely bad call.)
|
| So the frequent cleaning recommendation arose from:
|
| - Initial ignorance of transmission mechanisms.
|
| - An unwarranted hope for contract rather than airborne
| transmission.
|
| - A general advisability for the measure regardless.
|
| - A sense of agency in the face of an unknown and invisible
| threat.
|
| You can take those circumstances and responses and see them in
| many other areas. "Hygiene theatre" has obvious connotations with
| anti-terrorism air travel "security theatre", and I suspect that
| various technologists will find that their own development and
| use practices involve various aspects of development theatre,
| risk theatre, management theatre, etc. These are inherent to any
| complex phenomena in which relevant and crucial aspects are not
| overtly evident, and are what give rise to cargo culting and fad-
| driven practices.
| clairity wrote:
| no, the rational mistake you're making is assuming there is a
| safe side to fall on, and moreover defending that position.
| this kind of thinking is endemic to mediopolitical rhetoric,
| and it's almost always incorrect. in real world conditions,
| there are multifactorial risks on all sides, and it's a
| multidimensional optimization problem. there's just no safe
| side. the obessiveness over cleaning and its ill effects just
| being one small element in that multidimensionalism.
|
| we need to strive to make the optimal tradeoff, not the
| mediopolitically mediated safe choice, which we see backfire
| again and again in practice via unintended consequences,
| particularly by eroding trust in each other and our
| institutions, but in many other dimensions as well.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Unsupported presumptions of others' beliefs are exceeding
| fraught ground.
|
| That may be a logic you encounter in others. It is not mine.
|
| Hygiene practices haven't been _harmful_ , hence, they're a
| safe choice. They weren't especially _useful_. As far as
| misallocated resources, the general disinformation and
| misinforation campaigns and amplification in various quarters
| has been vastly more significant.
| Animats wrote:
| The controversy around how AIDS was transmitted lasted years.
| There are still arguments around that.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Or even whether it exists at all.[1] From Nobel-laureate
| scientists.[2]
|
| ________________________________
|
| Notes:
|
| 1. It does.
|
| 2. Not, as it turns out, in medicine. Expertise has domain-
| specificity. Intelligence may not be general, at least in some
| cases.
| [deleted]
| lower wrote:
| > She added, "There's really no evidence that anyone has ever
| gotten Covid-19 by touching a contaminated surface."
|
| This reminds me of "Rubbish bin the likely source of Covid
| infection": https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/427446/rubbish-
| bin-the-l...
| standardUser wrote:
| "The admission is long overdue, scientists say."
|
| This has been a theme of the pandemic and I hope we have all
| learned the lesson well. Government agencies and officials will
| usually be the _last_ ones to update their messaging. Maybe it 's
| an attempt at self-preservation by being overly-cautious, or
| maybe it's done to compel compliance and basically keep people
| scared. But the message is clear: the government is _not_ the
| place to get the most accurate and up-to-date facts in the middle
| of a crisis.
|
| Unfortunately, the media hasn't done a great job either, which
| really leaves us with a problem.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| 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.
| orangecat wrote:
| _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.
| llampx wrote:
| 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.
| elric wrote:
| 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.
| clairity wrote:
| > "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.
| peytn wrote:
| > 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.
| michael1999 wrote:
| 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.
| starkd wrote:
| 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.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| 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."
| leetcrew wrote:
| "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.
| DanBC wrote:
| > 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.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| > 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/
| DanBC wrote:
| 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.
| ghaff wrote:
| In the case of cleaning specifically though, I'd probably argue
| that, for a long time, the expert opinion was probably
| something along the lines of "Although there is some
| theoretical evidence that the virus can spread by contact, we
| don't believe it's much of a factor in practice." And, given
| that, I can see leaving a lot of cleaning practices in place
| even if they're not believed to help _much_.
|
| The reality I observe is that people have loosened up a lot
| about obsessively sanitizing and avoiding touching things as
| much as possible.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| This time last year I was washing every item that came from
| the grocery store, and putting my mail in the oven at 170F
| for about 10 minutes. Stopped doing all that back in about
| June 2020.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Institutions and insititutional practices are powerful and
| essential to functioning in a modern and complex society.
|
| Even marginal or ineffective practices, and quite probably
| overtly harmful ones, can have some value and significance.
|
| That said, yes, a key weakness of insitutionalised practices is
| that they often far outlive their actual usefulness, and are
| difficult to change. In part because of reasons discussed
| elsewhere in this thread (see my earlier longer comment), but
| also out of sheer inertia and the difficulty in coming to a
| collective agreement on a _new_ standard course of action.
|
| Additive rather than subtractive problem solving bias being a
| recently discussed case in point as well:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26727878
| neonate wrote:
| https://archive.is/UDpG8
| lukifer wrote:
| Learning about Terror Management Theory [0] has definitely been
| an eye-opener. Anecdotally, it seems to me that most people cope
| with fears of mortal threats either with self-delusion and
| denial; or, with extreme over-correction and self-soothing "rain
| dances" that may or may not have any correlation with increased
| survival odds.
|
| With COVID, we've seen the former play out with anti-maskers and
| conspiracy denialists, and the latter with over-cleaning and
| somewhat arbitrary/inconsistent safety precautions, often with
| little empirical basis. From WW2 isolationism, to McCarthyism, to
| the Terrorism Panic of the Bush era, I dare say we've seen
| patterns of simultaneous under- and over-reaction play out
| repeatedly in history.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| For a pandemic it's probably reasonable to err on the side of
| caution with the over-cleaning and arbitrary/inconsistent
| safety precautions, but I do wish we could have found a
| slightly less restrictive approach than we did.
|
| I have a lot of friends very angry at the anti-maskers for
| their behavior, showing up in stores unmasked and such. And
| that's reasonable to be mad I suppose.
|
| But I also know the anti-mask people are just as mad at the
| rest of us, and from their perspective they are just as
| justified in it.
|
| Wonder if knowing more about Terror Management Theory could
| help us navigate this friction better, and find some common
| ground. Or if we need different approaches altogether
| lukifer wrote:
| Yes, context matters, and sometimes even irrational instincts
| can end up being correct, especially under uncertainty, which
| was definitely true of the first few months of COVID. I'm
| less concerned about purely useless interventions, than
| counter-productive ones (or: a useless intervention A, which
| creates a psychological security blanket that subsumes
| motivation for high-yield intervention B).
|
| Even stranger, I've also seen individuals under-react and
| over-react at the same time! ("Sure, I attended
| $LARGE_PUBLIC_EVENT, but we all wore masks, except while
| eating, and I've been taking lots of Vitamin D.")
|
| For the over-reactors, I think aligning social norms with the
| best-science-for-now is achievable with simple rules and
| consistent messaging (that cohort _wants_ to keep busy with
| rituals and precautions and social enforcement). For better
| or worse, our culture got a few simple memes to stick: wears
| masks in public, six-feet social distancing, outdoors is
| safer than indoors, limit socializing to "pods".
|
| For those in denial, that's a thornier problem, and I frankly
| don't have any ideas. Whatever the context, challenging
| someone in denial tends to result in them doubling-down on
| it. Sometimes social pressure or law enforcement can cajole
| someone into adopting a rule they don't like; but it can just
| as easily backfire into tribal counter-signaling, or
| individual "bravery signaling" (itself a sort of psychic ward
| against fear). And in fairness: it's not hard to imagine
| counter-factuals where the official recommendations really
| are useless or worse ("duck and cover").
| nickthemagicman wrote:
| The evidence that masks work at a community level (outside of
| medical institutions) is very questionable as well so that
| could fall into the 'rain dance' category.
| https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/
| https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| This kind of reminds me of an infographic at my doctors
| office about birth control. It shows stats on how many
| unwanted pregnancies happen when using each form of birth
| control. It's split into two-columns: How many pregnancies
| when it is used perfectly, vs how many pregnancies when it
| used typically.
|
| One could look at it and conclude that most birth control
| isn't very effective at a community level, which is more like
| the "typical use" column.
|
| The stat that's missing is the rate of pregnancies caused by
| not using any birth control at all. I imagine that compared
| to that stat, even the worst of the typical use stats look
| pretty good. Then you would conclude that you should probably
| wear a condom.
|
| Same goes for a mask, in my opinion.
| nickthemagicman wrote:
| A condom is the perfect example.
|
| A condom is typically used once and has pores small enough
| to block designated particles.
|
| This is how medical masks in a medical establishment is
| used.
|
| Cloth masks at a community level are basically wearing the
| same condom everyday and the condom is full of holes.
|
| Its a 'rain dance', and just makes people feel better,
| which does have it's benefits, like religion or
| nationalism.
|
| That's why Fauci is saying to double or triple up on cloth
| masks, because cloth masks reused daily are minimally
| effective, which is what the vast majority of the
| population does.
|
| Here's a real actual scientific article about it.
|
| https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577
| quicklime wrote:
| Wearing a cloth mask in a community setting is like
| leaving your pants on while dry humping someone. It will
| reduce the chance of pregnancy :)
| aqme28 wrote:
| That article doesn't support any kind of conclusion that
| masks are ineffective. It ranks the effectiveness of
| masks, but has no "maskless" group to compare against.
| nickthemagicman wrote:
| "Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97%
| and medical masks 44%."
|
| How do you test particle penetration in a 'maskless'
| group?
|
| Isn't it implied that the 'maskless' group would have
| 100% particle penetration?
| mapme wrote:
| Isn't that direct evidence that medical masks _work_?
| Which doesn't support your assertion that groups all
| masks together. Thus, your argument appears against cloth
| masks, not medical grade (surgical, n95).
|
| https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/5/4/e006577/F2.la
| rge...
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| > Cloth masks at a community level are basically wearing
| the same condom everyday and the condom is full of holes.
|
| That's not an accurate comparison at all, and I think you
| have completely missed the point.
|
| Using a condom perfectly results in the fewest
| pregnancies. Using it typically (ie, once in a while you
| have one break or slip off) results in more pregnancies
| than perfect use, but still many less than unprotected
| sex.
|
| The same logic should hold for masks. Using them
| perfectly (ie single use, medical grade quality) results
| in the fewest infections. Using them typically (ie, non-
| medical grade cloth mask, wearing the same one more than
| once) results in more than the perfect use but still less
| than being unmasked. It is not a "rain dance"
|
| If you are trying to make an argument that wearing a mask
| makes you equally as likely to get infected as being
| unmasked, I don't know what to tell you. You're just
| straight up wrong.
|
| Edit - because you added your article link after I was
| already replying: you cannot generalize the usefulness of
| masks on healthcare workers who are typically very close
| to patients and breathing the same air as them, touching
| the same surfaces as them for extended periods of time to
| the usefulness to a community of people who are supposed
| to be sticking 6 feet apart.
|
| Yeah if you are standing a foot from a sick person
| wearing a mask and they cough in your eye, and you get
| sick, it's gonna seem like the mask did nothing.
| nickthemagicman wrote:
| Using a condom that leaks repeatedly results in MORE
| pregnancies.
|
| Because the biological agent is never disposed of.
|
| And it keeps being applied over and over day after day.
|
| It's why you wouldn't want your surgeon to walk in to
| your operation with the mask he just used from the
| previous operation.
|
| It's also basic medical hygiene theory. The same reason
| that washing hands is effective because germs are
| transmissable via numerous vectors.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| You're doing some serious mental gymnastics here.
|
| Yes, using things that are broken means they don't
| perform their intended function very effectively.
|
| That doesn't imply that using non-broken versions of
| those things is less effective somehow. That's not how
| the transitive property works.
|
| Edit - again because you're super edit happy.
|
| > It's why you wouldn't want your surgeon to walk in to
| your operation with the mask he just used from the
| previous operation
|
| No, ideally of course not. But given the choice between
| "surgeon wearing the old mask" and "surgeon wearing no
| mask at all" I think I prefer the old mask. Would you
| seriously just prefer the surgeon to breathe directly
| into whatever open cavity you have during the surgery?
| astrange wrote:
| > It's why you wouldn't want your surgeon to walk in to
| your operation with the mask he just used from the
| previous operation.
|
| There is actually no evidence that surgical masks are
| protective during surgery. Mainly because nobody wants to
| do the experiment, but still.
| bbarnett wrote:
| Your cloth mask doesn't protect you from others. It
| protects others from you.
| astrange wrote:
| It does also protect you from others. The "it protects
| others from you" was propaganda to get around public
| health officials lying that masks didn't protect you
| unless you were a doctor in which case it worked for some
| reason.
|
| It doesn't perfectly protect you, but anything helps. A
| KN95/N95 is more effective and covering the eyes is
| better yet.
| sharken wrote:
| Not sure why you have been down voted, the only recent large-
| scale study of face masks worn by regular people, did not
| reach any consensus.
|
| Common sense would say that wearing something covering your
| nose and mouth is better than nothing at all, but this fails
| to take into account how the masks are treated by regular
| people.
|
| I firmly believe that masks do not change anything
| significantly, at least until a study can prove the opposite.
|
| What matters now is getting back to the pre-corona situation
| without restrictions.
|
| Those who wants to be vaccinated on a yearly basis should
| absolutely do so, but those who choose not to should
| absolutely be free to enjoy all aspects of life without
| restrictions.
| Tarsul wrote:
| well, rain-dancing works against covid. What I mean is that
| being cautious works, just thinking about masks (which means
| most probably that you're taking also other measures like
| keeping a good distance to people) helps.
| astrange wrote:
| Keeping a specific distance to people doesn't really matter
| though. That rule just satisfies a demand for a rule that
| can be easily implemented at scale, like moving school
| desks so they're farther apart.
|
| An actual better rule is "don't be inside with other people
| without masks".
| sixothree wrote:
| I'm not sure that's the correct interpretation from the link
| you provided.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| So much of our early thinking and statements about COVID were
| wrong. And it was pushed by hysterical media and governments as
| _the_ truth and you better not think anything else. This is what
| leads to skepticism and resentment by the public.
| jayd16 wrote:
| It was never hard to understand what was known to work, what
| was unknown but likely to work, what was unknown but possibly
| beneficial.
|
| Enforcing policy that may be beneficial or neutral in the face
| of unknowns is perfectly valid. If you felt you were lied to
| you really just weren't paying attention.
| jmull wrote:
| I don't think this narrative is true.
|
| So much of the early discussion around covid was about how
| little we knew. I think we were generally adequately informed
| about the likelihood that our early understanding would change.
|
| Now, of course, there was hysteria and people making overly
| strong claims. But that's nothing new or specific to our covid
| response.
|
| Some people might have problems with the strong recommendations
| from authorities/experts, given the lack of information. But
| keep in mind that not recommending action was also a very
| strong and risky stance, given what we knew. So there was no
| choice. Guesses had to be made, one way or the other, and of
| course some of them would turn out to be wrong.
| nitwit005 wrote:
| > And it was pushed by hysterical media and governments as the
| truth and you better not think anything else.
|
| This seems more than a little exaggerated. Even in the early
| stuff I saw about cleaning surfaces expressed uncertainty about
| it.
|
| Any time a new disease appears, most of the advice you're going
| to get will be stuff they thought up in advance. Washing your
| hands and cleaning more aren't normally going to hurt anything,
| so you'll probably see that every time some new disease pops
| up.
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| Besides cleaning, another example is strict enforcement of
| outdoor mask laws. In Poland, the health minister has been
| criticized by scientists (often the same ones concerned about
| COVID) for requiring masks to be worn outdoors even in remote
| places where there are no other people around. Ultimately he
| admitted that, indeed, there was little scientific basis for
| the policy like had been claimed previously. He just thought it
| was more likely that people would have a mask on when entering
| shops, if they simply had to wear one at all times anyway, but
| the public was never told that.
|
| It turns out that if you give a public official purview over
| something and don't make him or her very answerable to other
| officials, that public official will get comfortable being
| heavy-handed and failing to adequately explain things to the
| citizenry.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| I'll wear a mask outside if I'm in a crowded situation like
| the farmer's market I go to weekly (masks are required there
| anyway). But if I'm just out walking around where I'm easily
| 20 feet from the nearest person I don't bother. Although now
| that it's allergy season I'm finding maskwearing to be
| beneficial so now I wear it most of the time outside - to
| avoid pollen.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Nuance in mass communications, especially in high-consequence
| circumstances, is itself a major risk factor.
|
| Drawing a very bright, very wide, strongly-enforced safety
| line well away from any potential hazard has value.
|
| Public health in pandemics is all about _consistently_
| breaking transmission chains. And even countries with initial
| or eventual success can remain at risk of resumed high
| infection rates, as is evident currently in India (doubling
| daily infections over a week:
| https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/india/),
| Turkey, Brazil, Poland, Germany, and in parts of the US
| (notably Michigan, at this writing).
| ghaff wrote:
| Of course, it doesn't mean people will follow rules they
| don't feel make sense. Where I live in Massachusetts masks
| are required in all public spaces whether distanced or not.
| But my anecdotal observation in the state forests, etc.
| around where I live is that most people don't when they're
| well-distanced from everyone. And they _may_ pull up a neck
| gaiter for a few seconds if they 're passing someone on a
| trail (especially if that other person is wearing a mask).
| dredmorbius wrote:
| If I were managing public health in a region ... I'd
| _probably_ be reasonably comfortable with that behaviour.
|
| But in a world in which modest and reasonable requests to
| wear masks result in angry outbursts to murderous rage
| ... I could also be convinced to draw a firmer line.
|
| Again: the matter is nuanced.
| bitcurious wrote:
| > But in a world in which modest and reasonable requests
| to wear masks result in angry outbursts to murderous rage
| ...
|
| On the other hand, that rage (but not murderous) is
| justified if the request isn't based in any reasonable
| understanding of disease spread and is just an expression
| of power over that individual. Such as outside in the
| woods.
| ghaff wrote:
| There's no real enforcement anyway though. We're talking
| about large outside recreational areas in exurban/rural
| areas. And even passing on trails, people are almost
| always at least 6 feet away. Also, as I say, people are
| mostly good about pulling something up if approaching a
| masked group, even if it's mostly theater.
|
| My understanding is that closer to the city, more people
| are wearing masks outdoors but the walking paths are more
| crowded as well.
| orangecat wrote:
| _Drawing a very bright, very wide, strongly-enforced safety
| line well away from any potential hazard has value._
|
| It also has harms: it decreases respect for rules that
| actually do make sense, and it can encourage people to
| substitute more dangerous activities. If Alice values
| taking a walk outside without a mask at 50, walking with a
| mask at 30, and going to a shopping mall (with a mask) at
| 40, strictly enforcing outdoor mask mandates is going to
| make her both less happy and more at risk.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| During a worldwide rapidly-evolving public health
| emergency of (one desperately hopes) limited duration,
| that arguments loses sufficient legs to be rendered a
| snake in the grass.
| elif wrote:
| When my mayor decided to say that masking outdoors was not
| necessary if you kept distance, literally that weekend I,
| immune-compromised, became literally stranded in a public
| park because a woman decided to have a yoga session at the
| top of a staircase that happened to be a choke point in
| pedestrian traffic.
|
| People are quick to make decisions that they consider self-
| protective, rather than decisions that are protective of the
| most vulnerable. The goal of public health should be to
| affect global health good with edge cases considered,
| understanding the narcissistic way their messaging will be
| received.
| weaksauce wrote:
| At the other end of it there is a rationale for it.
|
| 1. it gives people agency to not freak out because they can be
| proactive about something. the reason nuclear energy is a
| boogieman is that you can't see it and it can kill you and
| there's is little you can do as an individual to protect
| yourself against it.
|
| 2. they truly didn't know how the spread of the disease is
| since it was a novel virus. you do however know that the lipid
| barrier of it makes it susceptible to soap and 70% isopropyl
| alcohol.
|
| 3. saying "there is no evidence that masks are effective" is
| true in the scientific sense. they didn't do studies so to talk
| about the effectiveness would have been backwards (also
| considering at the time they didn't know if it would actually
| increase the spread due to touching/collection/whatever)
| scientific illiteracy is a problem. the words and processes
| have precise meanings and those ignorant to it will glom onto
| certain words out of context and use that as evidence for their
| conspiracy theories. (see isolation of the virus et al)
| marcosdumay wrote:
| About #3, there's a problem when the message is worded
| exactly the same way for "we didn't have time to test masks
| yet" and "we have evidence that those medicines are harmful,
| but we won't seek confirmation because we are looking for
| helpful ones instead".
|
| But that is of secondary importance, because early in the
| pandemics a lot of health organizations made it very clear
| that not using masks should be the policy. It wasn't a
| communication problem, they were just lying to people to get
| to a goal (masks not disappearing from the market, a good
| goal). That's wrong on many different ways.
| ern wrote:
| What I found deeply troubling was that many healthcare
| workers who weren't in on the "noble lie" jumped on the
| "masks don't work" bandwagon. They mocked and belittled
| mask-wearers on social media. They turned into anti-masking
| fanatics. It was a frightening display of of zealousness
| from the semi-informed. They just as quickly became pro-
| mask and ignored their previous stance.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| What was really amusing was that Trump and company were
| busy preaching the use of masks and how they would save
| us, while the WHO and a lot of medical bodies were busy
| trying to misrepresent "we don't know" into "masks don't
| work" so people wouldn't rush into buying them.
|
| Then suddenly we got a few studies settling down that
| masks worked, and on the 2 or 3 days it took for those
| studies to be known both camps completely reversed their
| messages and insisted that they always had that new
| message and never changed their anything.
| standardUser wrote:
| 1. Do you like to be manipulated? I don't.
|
| 2. It was't just a novel virus, it was a novel _coronavirus_
| and we know all about how those spread.
|
| 3. It's the job of government agencies and officials to use
| communications skills to avoid these issues. If they talk
| like pedantic scientists then their messaging will fail, and
| if they don't know that they are in the wrong job.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Rhetorial questions being, of course, one of the very
| oldest manipulation techniques.
|
| https://people.uwplatt.edu/~ciesield/platovsoph.htm
| srean wrote:
| > It was't just a novel virus, it was a novel coronavirus
| and we know all about how those spread
|
| But how could one have been sure that a mutation has not
| changed certain behaviors in dangerous ways. Given
| potential adverse impact I have no problems
| overcompensating in the caution department till more light
| is shed and at that point one needs to dial down.
| DanBC wrote:
| > they didn't do studies
|
| No, they did do lots of studies for flu, and they really
| struggle to find a benefit for masking. Importantly, the
| quality of evidence for masks as source control (infected
| people wear masks to prevent transmission) was really bad.
|
| (People should wear masks)
| prof-dr-ir wrote:
| As for your point 3: the current article, amusingly, has the
| following sentence: "There's really no evidence that anyone
| has ever gotten Covid-19 by touching a contaminated surface."
|
| I was not sure what to make of that, precisely for the reason
| you mention.
| andi999 wrote:
| Here we have still the message: there is no evidence of a
| transmission in trains. (because they don't note the names
| of the passengers, I presume)
| nitrogen wrote:
| Indeed, "there is no evidence" can just mean "we didn't
| look very hard." As in, "there is no evidence the
| attackers accessed PII" (because logging was disabled).
| eloff wrote:
| About number 3, it was a blatant lie to keep the PPE for
| medical workers. I understand the rationale there, but I
| don't think it's worth treating people like children and
| lying to them - even if it temporarily gives a better result.
| Because now when they say masks work, plenty of people are
| understandably skeptical - and that makes them vulnerable to
| believing less credible sources of information on the topic.
|
| I fully believe masks help, despite as you say, there being
| little specific evidence for Covid19, because we have good
| reason to think they reduce transmission just based on how
| masks work, evidence in general to support masks in a medical
| setting, and the transmission mechanism of the virus.
|
| However, I have zero sympathy for the authorities struggling
| to get people to take them seriously about masks after they
| started off by lying about it.
|
| And after an established history of authorities and
| politicians lying, it's little wonder conspiracy theories
| proliferate. You reap what you sow.
| seoaeu wrote:
| > However, I have zero sympathy for the authorities
| struggling to get people to take them seriously about masks
| after they started off by lying about it.
|
| This is a common argument, but it is honestly kind of
| ridiculous. Like how can you claim with a straight face
| both:
|
| a) Authorities lied about masks not working, and
|
| b) Since authorities are known liars (see a), their current
| claims that masks do work must be untrue.
|
| Do these people really not know there is now broad
| consensus in what people knowledgeable on the topic believe
| works, or are they just making bad faith arguments because
| they don't want to follow it.
| eloff wrote:
| Keep in mind I'm not claiming B. I'm saying that the
| authorities lying gives people a reason to be skeptical
| about future claims.
|
| The dangers of crying wolf.
| weaksauce wrote:
| Again that missed the point entirely. It certainly wasn't
| lying. We know and knew that some masks are effective. n95
| masks when worn correctly are definitely safer than not
| having one full stop.
|
| we didn't know _then_ which masks were also going to be
| effective and didn 't know if those masks would be worse
| than not wearing one at all. there was also the issue of
| shortages of the effective masks for medical pros that
| needed them. that informed the speaking at the time and at
| no point was that a lie. and we do have studies now that
| masks do decrease the likelihood of transmission so we do
| know now that those cloth masks are effective.
|
| 1. shortage of proper n95 masks(look at toilet paper during
| the beginning)
|
| 2. no evidence of other masks being useful or not harmful
| at the time so they said socially distance yourself as a
| primary mode of protection and wash your hands often.
| orangecat wrote:
| _It certainly wasn 't lying._
|
| It certainly was:
| https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/29/health/face-masks-
| coronavirus.... That's not a statement that mask
| effectiveness is uncertain, it's an authoritative
| statement that they don't help.
| weaksauce wrote:
| one political appointee from an administration that
| handled it about the worst as it could saying that(which
| also doesn't say what you think it says) doesn't change
| the facts of it... the overwhelming messaging at the time
| was how i noted it and wasn't a lie.
| eloff wrote:
| The fact that they ask on one hand not to buy PPE because
| there is a shortage for medical workers while on the
| other hand saying they're actually counter productive
| against covid19 is at least circumstantial evidence for
| the claim.
|
| It would be difficult to prove they definitely lied
| without an admission of guilt or leaked internal
| communications.
| leetcrew wrote:
| it's not a conspiracy theory. fauci admitted as much in
| this interview: https://www.thestreet.com/video/dr-fauci-
| masks-changing-dire...
| DanBC wrote:
| > it was a blatant lie to keep the PPE for medical workers.
|
| Can you post a link to the published studies that you think
| CDC / WHO should have been using to inform their decisions
| around masks?
|
| > evidence in general to support masks in a medical setting
|
| We really do have lots of testing for masks in medical
| settings, and most of them struggle to show benefit.
| ghaff wrote:
| Cleaning became big in the US at least before much of anything
| was being pushed by media/government. I was at an event just as
| things were about to shut down and it was lots of handwashing,
| no handshakes, and I think some effort to better clean
| surfaces. But no distancing and people weren't even talking
| about masks at that point.
|
| Somewhere in there, there was also at least one published study
| that suggested the virus could at least theoretically stay on
| even surfaces like cardboard for an extended period. Which is
| how people got to leaving their Amazon boxes for three days and
| spending two hours to deep clean all their groceries.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-09 23:01 UTC)