Comment by alex_c | Hacker News Reader

Comment by alex_c | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/when-should-i-wear... (this article is from 1 year ago today).

>It was simply unclear whether cloth masks or the simple medical masks would help significantly if the population would wear them.

That is under-stating what the early messaging was. In Canada, the official messaging was not neutral, it was actively anti-mask early on. It focused entirely on the potential (unproven at the time) dangers of wearing masks and discounted any potential (unproven at the time) benefits.

Given how many Asian countries were heavily using masks early on, given how many health professionals were arguing in favour of masks early on, and given how quickly policy did a 180 to mandatory masks, this messaging could only be one of three things: intentionally misleading to protect supplies of PPE, intentionally malicious (why??), or incompetence in communication strategy verging on criminal negligence.

I welcome any arguments to change my mind. That early messaging should not be underplayed as "it was complicated".

Another Canadian, chiming in with much the same experience.

I had some N95 masks from woodworking at the beginning of the pandemic. I remember the messagging being that the public should not buy N95s, and in fact if they had any, should donate them to hospitals.

I do not recall any messaging sayinig masks (N95 or otherwise) were harmful or there were any associated dangers. But they were pretty clear that you don't need them, and if you have them you should give them over. I 3D printed face shields to donate.

The reality was more nuanced. The messaging was that 1) there is no evidence that masks reduce risk of getting COVID; and 2) many people who wear masks tend to risk-compensate, e.g. standing closer to others in the queue than they would have if they were not wearing a mask. They wear a mask and feel safe, so they do things that put them in danger.

So if benefits may be zero and people are risk-compensating and living a more risky life because of the false sense of security that comes with a mask, people would be worse off if they wear a mask. This was all explained in the early days of the pandemic. It wasn't some hush-hush behind the curtains plot by the ruling class.

I remember reading it somewhere, though I cannot find it now so it may not have been true, that light cigarettes tend to be more harmful than regular ones: people who smoke them tend to inhale them deeper and smoke them more frequently than they would a regular cigarette, which negates the positive effects of using a light and then some. The mask concern was similar.

It was also suggested that masks would make people touch their faces more, back when surface transmission was believed to be more of a risk. Remember the run on surface disinfectants and those ridiculous grocery wiping videos?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com