> Remember what the official word was for all too long: masks don't work, but save them for health workers.
Who said masks don't work? What I recall people saying is:
* most masks provide marginal protection to the wearer
* the masks that provide effective protection should be saved for those in situations where they need them (and can be knowledgeably used)
* most people probably don't need those masks
There's a worthwhile criticism in noting some seem to have taken longer to get on board with the idea that marginally effective masks (a) reduce spread and (b) are a low-cost intervention, but people who are going to make that criticism probably should doing it from a standpoint where they're asking themselves why they flattened the above multi-point conception into "masks don't work."
And if this is all about using the initial misunderstanding as a jumping off point to the difficulty of getting non-trivial information out to the public, that actually underscores the importance of curation.
> Does no one read history or think about second order effects?
Are you suggesting that this is the milestone of history where someone decided not to publish or distribute material because they thought it was irresponsible?
Because I'd bet that's happened before, even inside societies that cultivate robust discourse. Maybe even a lot.
Who is thinking about the second order effects of a no-responsibility no-curation approach?
Who said masks don't work? What I recall people saying is:
* most masks provide marginal protection to the wearer
* the masks that provide effective protection should be saved for those in situations where they need them (and can be knowledgeably used)
* most people probably don't need those masks
There's a worthwhile criticism in noting some seem to have taken longer to get on board with the idea that marginally effective masks (a) reduce spread and (b) are a low-cost intervention, but people who are going to make that criticism probably should doing it from a standpoint where they're asking themselves why they flattened the above multi-point conception into "masks don't work."
And if this is all about using the initial misunderstanding as a jumping off point to the difficulty of getting non-trivial information out to the public, that actually underscores the importance of curation.
> Does no one read history or think about second order effects?
Are you suggesting that this is the milestone of history where someone decided not to publish or distribute material because they thought it was irresponsible?
Because I'd bet that's happened before, even inside societies that cultivate robust discourse. Maybe even a lot.
Who is thinking about the second order effects of a no-responsibility no-curation approach?