Cruisers & Sailing Forums (https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/)
-   COVID-19 | Containment Area (https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f168/)
-   -   How to Judge Pandemic Policies (https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f168/how-to-judge-pandemic-policies-247760.html)

Dockhead 25-03-2021 04:34

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect (Post 3361910)
Well, DH might be mistaken about that as well. But you can judge for yourself.. . .


From your very link:


Fauci first spoke about the wearing of masks amid the COVID-19 pandemic during a March interview with 60 Minutes. "Right now, in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks," Fauci said during the interview. "There's no reason to be walking around with a mask."

That is precisely what I was referring to.

boatman61 25-03-2021 04:37

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Naah.. Just a nasal spray loaded with Rhinovirus..
:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

boatman61 25-03-2021 05:01

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Several AstraZeneca insiders told BBC Medical Editor Fergus Walsh that they would not consider continuing their vaccine at cost model for another pandemic after they saw the profitability from rivals Pfizer and the "rollercoaster" of events from the EU's mistrust of the vaccine. Mr Walsh said it was "beggars belief" that AstraZeneca faced immediate criticism from authorities over its revised coronavirus efficacy rate which increased for over 65s and slightly decreased for everyone else earlier this week. The health editor added that it was unprecedented for such a report to face disapproval and sadly explained future pandemics would unlikely see such at cost models from AstraZeneca.

Speaking to BBC's Today programme, Mr Walsh said: "I can tell you that more than one senior person at AstraZeneca has said to me privately that 'would we do this again?'

"They see Pfizer is going to make billions out of the vaccine, [AstraZeneca's] vaccine which was always intended - with its partnership with Oxford that doesn't need to go to the freezer and has two billion doses worldwide.

"Most of those are, a huge proportion of those, go to the low and middle-income countries and they say they wouldn't do this again if there was another pandemic which comes along.

"There have been missteps it's been an absolute rollercoaster following this vaccine development along the way.

"But if I was AstraZeneca I'd be very cross about [the efficacy queries].

Lake-Effect 25-03-2021 05:29

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dockhead (Post 3372758)
From your very link:

Fauci first spoke about the wearing of masks amid the COVID-19 pandemic during a March interview with 60 Minutes. "Right now, in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks," Fauci said during the interview. "There's no reason to be walking around with a mask."

That is precisely what I was referring to.

...and Dr Fauci goes on to say "but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is."

...which was right then, and still right now; even N95 masks don't provide 100% protection to the wearer against airborne viruses. And given the, um, unique and different styles people have adopted for mask wear, it would have been a collossal waste to have caused shortages and price inflation on N95 masks and other PPE, based on the belief that they would be sufficiently protective to the wearer, and a substitute for social distancing, avoiding public gatherings, and closures.

Most people I know offline seem to have gotten the point that the later (April 2020) guidance for the public use of simple masks was to prevent unknowingly infected people from spreading it, not to protect the wearer. I don't understand why so many people on CF are unable to figure that out.

Was it a confusing set of messages? Sure, to the unsophisticated or biased listener, and I'm sure that in future pandemics they will take more care with that. Lying or deliberate misinformation? No.

Dockhead 25-03-2021 06:51

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect (Post 3372791)
...and Dr Fauci goes on to say "but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is."

...which was right then, and still right now; even N95 masks don't provide 100% protection to the wearer against airborne viruses. And given the, um, unique and different styles people have adopted for mask wear, it would have been a collossal waste to have caused shortages and price inflation on N95 masks and other PPE, based on the belief that they would be sufficiently protective to the wearer, and a substitute for social distancing, avoiding public gatherings, and closures.

Most people I know offline seem to have gotten the point that the later (April 2020) guidance for the public use of simple masks was to prevent unknowingly infected people from spreading it, not to protect the wearer. I don't understand why so many people on CF are unable to figure that out.

Was it a confusing set of messages? Sure, to the unsophisticated or biased listener, and I'm sure that in future pandemics they will take more care with that. Lying or deliberate misinformation? No.

What does that change? He still advised AGAINST wearing masks, then flip-flopped a few weeks later. That the protection is not perfect is obvious and trivial and NOT the reason to not wear a mask -- and implying that is a lie. It wasn't a reason then, and it's not a reason now, not to wear a mask.

Was there deliberate misinformation about wearing masks? Yes -- it's been admitted publicly. And I stand by my statement that this was manipulative and disingenuous and undermined trust in the advice from public health authorities.

Fauci himself was perhaps more transparent. At the end of March he said: "“If we do not have the problem of taking away masks from the health care workers who need them, I would lean towards it,” Dr. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told CNN’s Sanjay Gupta. “What harm can it do if you have enough masks?” https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...being-reconsi/

Meaning, the advice against the general public wearing masks was to conserve limited supplies for health care workers, NOT because wearing masks is not perfectly effective. Which is the truth of the matter.

But the CDC and Trump's surgeon general lied about it. Here's a good article laying out the facts: https://reason.com/2020/04/06/the-cd...le-months-ago/

A tweet from the Surgeon General on 28 February:

"Seriously people—STOP BUYING MASKS!" Adams tweeted on February 29. "They are NOT effective in preventing [the] general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can't get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!" Ibid. Which is bizarrely self-contradictory -- if masks are not effective for the general public, why are they effective for health care workers? Weird -- who would anyone believe someone saying such nonsense?

Here's another good story explaining how the CDC official advice changed:

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/41...-masks-prevent

The real underlying problem was lack of preparedness and inability of the supply chain to provide enough PPE for everyone. A really severe problem during the first months of the pandemic in places with really bad outbreaks like Italy and New York was that even health care workers weren't getting PPE.

We have to do better next time. Finland shows the way for this, having prepared actual physical strategic reserves of PPE, such that every drug store in Finland had tables stacked with N95 masks from the beginning of the pandemic.

And in my opinion, it's not just masks in general but actual N95 respirators which need to be plentiful. It is true that ordinary hospital masks are better than nothing, but based on the science we have so far that's about all you can say about them. Properly fitted N95 masks are vastly more effective, and will certainly take a big bite out of future pandemics based on respiratory viruses. I wonder if we had started wearing N95 masks at the very beginning of the pandemic, whether it would have spread at all -- this might have been enough to nip it in the bud, with incalculable benefits to mankind. Well, I guess this will be studied intensively and we'll know and be better prepared next time.

I guess also households will stock up and have their own reserves -- I know I will.


I have been in the U.S. now for a couple of days, in Florida (I got vaccinated yesterday, hurrah!). I was pleased to see that in public places, mask wearing seems close to 100%, and it looks like a good half of all the masks worn are N95 respirators which appear to be worn correctly. I was pleased and surprised -- having heard so many bad things about how people are dealing with the pandemic in the U.S. Getting ready to go to a restaurant with my father with great pleasure.

Lake-Effect 25-03-2021 07:48

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dockhead (Post 3372848)
What does that change? He still advised AGAINST wearing masks, then flip-flopped a few weeks later. That the protection is not perfect is obvious and trivial and NOT the reason to not wear a mask -- and implying that is a lie. It wasn't a reason then, and it's not a reason now, not to wear a mask.

You conveniently fail to differentiate between N95 and other specialized masks, which are the only ones that would offer protection to the wearer, and the simple basic cloth or surgical masks which were recommended in April to stop asymptomatic spread. Deliberately I assume, because you're no dummy, you know the difference.

Quote:

Fauci himself was perhaps more transparent. At the end of March he said: "“If we do not have the problem of taking away masks from the health care workers who need them, I would lean towards it,” Dr. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told CNN’s Sanjay Gupta. “What harm can it do if you have enough masks?” https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...being-reconsi/

Who's flip-flopping now? You accuse Fauci of lying, then you prove that he actually wasn't.

Quote:

But the CDC and Trump's surgeon general lied about it. Here's a good article laying out the facts: https://reason.com/2020/04/06/the-cd...le-months-ago/
In terms of who knew what and when, "available" doesn't mean accepted or widely understood at the time. This is just revisionism based on hindsight.

Quote:

Here's another good story explaining how the CDC official advice changed:

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/41...-masks-prevent
Yes - a much more factual (less opinionated) account, actually.
The original CDC guidance partly was based on what was thought to be low disease prevalence earlier in the pandemic, said [infectious disease specialist Dr Peter] Chin-Hong.

“So, of course, you’re preaching that the juice isn’t really worth the squeeze to have the whole population wear masks in the beginning – but that was really a reflection of not having enough testing, anyway,” he said. “We were getting a false sense of security.”

Rutherford was more blunt. The legitimate concern that the limited supply of surgical masks and N95 respirators should be saved for health care workers should not have prevented more nuanced messaging about the benefits of masking. “We should have told people to wear cloth masks right off the bat,” he said.

Another factor “is that culturally, the U.S. wasn’t really prepared to wear masks,” unlike some countries in Asia where the practice is more common, said Chin-Hong. Even now, some Americans are choosing to ignore CDC guidance and local mandates on masks, a hesitation that Chin-Hong says is “foolhardy.”

Be honest - it's March, the pandemic crisis is unfolding rapidly, and you're faced with the following:
  • you know conventional masks won't significantly protect users
  • you know that a public run on N95 masks would be a serious threat to the PPE supply to professionals
  • there was still some doubt about asymptomatic spread
  • you didn't yet know the extent of aerosol (not droplet) spread
... what public advice would you give? And if there's later reasons to change your advice, are you now just a liar, or acting responsibly?

It was fog-of-war stuff, basically, which you do understand:
Quote:


The real underlying problem was lack of preparedness and inability of the supply chain to provide enough PPE for everyone. A really severe problem during the first months of the pandemic in places with really bad outbreaks like Italy and New York was that even health care workers weren't getting PPE.

We have to do better next time. Finland shows the way for this, having prepared actual physical strategic reserves of PPE, such that every drug store in Finland had tables stacked with N95 masks from the beginning of the pandemic.

Indeed, but simply calling authorities "liars" when the truth is far more complicated won't get us there.

Quote:

I wonder if we had started wearing N95 masks at the very beginning of the pandemic, whether it would have spread at all -- this might have been enough to nip it in the bud, with incalculable benefits to mankind.
That's a lovely bouquet of IFs. IF there were enough N95 masks...IF Americans would all have worn them... IF people also continued to social-distance and follow other restrictions...

Dockhead 25-03-2021 08:06

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect (Post 3372882)
You conveniently fail to differentiate between N95 and other specialized masks, which are the only ones that would offer protection to the wearer, and the simple basic cloth or surgical masks which were recommended in April to stop asymptomatic spread. Deliberately I assume, because you're no dummy, you know the difference.

No I don't fail to differentiate. N95 highly effective; ordinary hospital masks questionably effective, but still worth wearing. It was true then, and true now -- nothing has changed except that in the early days we wanted to conserve masks for health care professionals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect (Post 3372882)
Who's flip-flopping now? You accuse Fauci of lying, then you prove that he actually wasn't.

No, I'm not flip-flopping. Fauci did deceive -- he talked about the relative effectiveness of hospital masks as a reason not to wear them, when what he really had in mind was that we need to conserve them for health care professionals -- that he was relatively more transparent LATER is good, but doesn't cancel the earlier deception.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect (Post 3372882)
. . . Yes - a much more factual (less opinionated) account, actually.
The original CDC guidance partly was based on what was thought to be low disease prevalence earlier in the pandemic, said [infectious disease specialist Dr Peter] Chin-Hong.

“So, of course, you’re preaching that the juice isn’t really worth the squeeze to have the whole population wear masks in the beginning – but that was really a reflection of not having enough testing, anyway,” he said. “We were getting a false sense of security.”

Rutherford was more blunt. The legitimate concern that the limited supply of surgical masks and N95 respirators should be saved for health care workers should not have prevented more nuanced messaging about the benefits of masking. “We should have told people to wear cloth masks right off the bat,” he said.

Another factor “is that culturally, the U.S. wasn’t really prepared to wear masks,” unlike some countries in Asia where the practice is more common, said Chin-Hong. Even now, some Americans are choosing to ignore CDC guidance and local mandates on masks, a hesitation that Chin-Hong says is “foolhardy.”

Yes, and one of the articles I linked to proved that CDC knew months before their guidance against wearing masks, that there was a lot of asymptomatic infection. They lied. It's a black and white fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect (Post 3372882)
Be honest - it's March, the pandemic crisis is unfolding rapidly, and you're faced with the following:

* you know conventional masks won't significantly protect users

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect (Post 3372882)
  • you know that a public run on N95 masks would be a serious threat to the PPE supply to professionals
  • there was still some doubt about asymptomatic spread
  • you didn't yet know the extent of aerosol (not droplet) spread
... what advice would you give? And if there's later reasons to change your advice, are you now just a liar, or acting responsibly?

I would scrupulously tell the truth. This is crucially important for the maintenance of public trust in health authorities. I would never do what the CDC did. I would say exactly what they knew at the time:

1. There are asymptomatic infections, THEREFORE it is useful to wear masks even if you don't have symptoms, and even if ordinary hospital masks are marginally effective.

2. However, we are having shortages now, so please guys hold off a little so we can prioritize health care workers. In a few weeks when we get the supply chains in order we'll start asking you to wear masks. Meanwhile, please maintain as much social distance as you can and avoid crowds.

THAT would have been the honest and correct way to approach the question, but that's not what they did. It's worth being clear about this so that we avoid future mistakes like this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect (Post 3372882)
It was fog-of-war stuff, basically, which you do understand:
Indeed, but simply calling authorities "liars" when the truth is far more complicated won't get us there.

Well, but it is accurate to call them liars. And they should be called out on it. Public trust is CRUCIALLY important. We have far too little of it now -- and I know having spent the pandemic until a couple days ago in a part of the world which has an entirely different level of it, and have seen with my own eyes how extremely beneficial it is in a crisis. It has to start with the authorities.


You should have seen the furor in Denmark when it was revealed that the politicians closed schools against the advice of the health authorties, and did not reveal that advice. In healthy societies there is a high expectation of honesty -- it is the very foundation of public trust.

Lake-Effect 25-03-2021 08:31

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dockhead (Post 3372898)
No, I'm not flip-flopping. Fauci did deceive -- he talked about the relative effectiveness of hospital masks as a reason not to wear them, when what he really had in mind was that we need to conserve them for health care professionals -- that he was relatively more transparent LATER is good, but doesn't cancel the earlier deception.[INDENT]Yes, and one of the articles I linked to proved that CDC knew months before their guidance against wearing masks, that there was a lot of asymptomatic infection. They lied. It's a black and white fact.

Even Reason :rolleyes: has flip-flopped, then. From an earlier article, same author:
What's Up With All the Contradictory Advice About COVID-19 and Face Masks?

The combination of limited evidence and conflicting priorities has resulted in whipsawing messages from experts.

Quote:


I would scrupulously tell the truth. This is crucially important for the maintenance of public trust in health authorities. I would never do what the CDC did.

Here is what the CDC did:
"If you are sick," the CDC says, "you should wear a facemask when you are around other people (e.g., sharing a room or vehicle) and before you enter a healthcare provider's office." But "if you are NOT sick," it adds, "you do not need to wear a facemask unless you are caring for someone who is sick (and they are not able to wear a facemask). Facemasks may be in short supply and they should be saved for caregivers."
... was that not the truth, as understood at the time?
Quote:

...it is accurate to call them liars. And they should be called out on it. Public trust is CRUCIALLY important. We have far too little of it now.

-- and I know having spent the pandemic until a couple days ago in a part of the world which has an entirely different level of it, and have seen with my own eyes how extremely beneficial it is in a crisis. It has to start with the authorities.

...In healthy societies there is a high expectation of honesty -- it is the very foundation of public trust.
Well, let's do honesty. There's a good case out there that the Surgeon General may have "lied" in a tweet, but Fauci? The CDC?

Also, it's not like lying is is a serious impediment to garnering public trust, governing, or electability these days. A handful of doctors revising their advice in the face of new findings seems like small potatoes...

GordMay 25-03-2021 09:14

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dockhead (Post 3372898)
... I would scrupulously tell the truth. This is crucially important for the maintenance of public trust in health authorities. I would never do what the CDC did. I would say exactly what they knew at the time ...

Indeed.
By analogy: As Richard Nixon found out, the hard way, that the cover-up is worse than the crime.

Dockhead 25-03-2021 10:24

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect (Post 3372914)
Even Reason :rolleyes: has flip-flopped, then. From an earlier article, same author:
What's Up With All the Contradictory Advice About COVID-19 and Face Masks?

The combination of limited evidence and conflicting priorities has resulted in whipsawing messages from experts.

Here is what the CDC did:
"If you are sick," the CDC says, "you should wear a facemask when you are around other people (e.g., sharing a room or vehicle) and before you enter a healthcare provider's office." But "if you are NOT sick," it adds, "you do not need to wear a facemask unless you are caring for someone who is sick (and they are not able to wear a facemask). Facemasks may be in short supply and they should be saved for caregivers."
... was that not the truth, as understood at the time?
Well, let's do honesty. There's a good case out there that the Surgeon General may have "lied" in a tweet, but Fauci? The CDC?

That particular statement is good, yes. But many of the other statements -- some of which I cited -- were much less honest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect (Post 3372914)
Also, it's not like lying is is a serious impediment to garnering public trust, governing, or electability these days. A handful of doctors revising their advice in the face of new findings seems like small potatoes...

That's like saying Trump isn't so bad -- just look at Hitler.

Lying IS a serious impediment to public trust. All the lying has DESTROYED public trust. If public health authorities don't aim a lot higher than our pathetic politicians, we are lost.

Lake-Effect 25-03-2021 10:54

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dockhead (Post 3372976)
Lying IS a serious impediment to public trust. All the lying has DESTROYED public trust. If public health authorities don't aim a lot higher than our pathetic politicians, we are lost.

For a guy who seems to understand realpolitik, you're kind of absolutist in the standards you're applying to the CDC, Fauci, Adams. Even if one concedes that the authorities were lying with their initial messaging around masks (... and I don't; at worst, they simply didn't put enough emphasis for your liking on their fears around shortages of PPE, a fear that was hardly unfounded)... it's hardly the first or most serious error in the US pandemic response. They changed tack about masks almost a year ago, and have been consistent about it since then. But this negates all of their other work, for the pandemic and other health crises?

Perfect is the enemy of good, etc.

And the reason I cited uno who is because of his inconsistency, unreliability and frequent public undermining of COVID officials like Dr Fauci, which makes this alleged flipflop on masks seem insignificant, when it comes to establishing and maintaining trust.

Dockhead 25-03-2021 11:07

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect (Post 3372999)
For a guy who seems to understand realpolitik, you're kind of absolutist in the standards you're applying to the CDC, Fauci, Adams. Even if one concedes that the authorities were lying with their initial messaging around masks (... and I don't; at worst, they simply didn't put enough emphasis for your liking on their fears around shortages of PPE, a fear that was hardly unfounded)... it's hardly the first or most serious error in the US pandemic response. They changed tack about masks almost a year ago, and have been consistent about it since then. But this negates all of their other work, for the pandemic and other health crises?

Perfect is the enemy of good, etc.

I generally agree; I didn't say it was the worst thing we did.

But honesty is crucial, and there really can't be any compromises with it. It's the slipperiest of slippery slopes.

When I was a young lawyer working for a great law firm which was still great (they are mere shadows of their former selves, now), we used to have to fill out self-evaluation forms. My mentor was giving me a bit of coaching on how to answer the questions, and when we got to the question of ethics and honesty, he said -- here, there is only one acceptable answer, and it's top marks. And if you can't give yourself top marks, you should just resign. If you see yourself that you have some weakness here or there in some other areas, it's very good to describe it here, we can work with that and help you work it out, but there's no room for weakness in this one area.

Because the slightest question about ethics or honesty of anyone in the firm (the Firm, we referred to it, in correspondence) would bring the whole edifice of reputation and trust crashing down. The same is true with public health, maybe even more so.

Lake-Effect 25-03-2021 11:33

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dockhead (Post 3373005)
... and when we got to the question of ethics and honesty, [my mentor] said -- here, there is only one acceptable answer, and it's top marks. And if you can't give yourself top marks, you should just resign. If you see yourself that you have some weakness here or there in some other areas, it's very good to describe it here, we can work with that and help you work it out, but there's no room for weakness in this one area.

Because the slightest question about ethics or honesty of anyone in the firm (the Firm, we referred to it, in correspondence) would bring the whole edifice of reputation and trust crashing down. The same is true with public health, maybe even more so.

Seriously - if you know that you're in danger of an immediate shortage of PPE, AND asymptomatic transmission is not yet understood to have as big a role as we now recognize (and still denied by some...), is that the time you'd stand up and proclaim that N95 masks MIGHT protect the wearer (if you wear'em right and don't touch your face, etc etc). What exactly is the ethical course here, if there's an imminent risk of a public stampede on N95 masks and hoarding? Do you not attempt to compare the harm of running out of PPE in overloaded hospitals with the harm of not immediately promoting masks on everyone?

And not pushing masks as soon or as hard as you or I might wish isn't "lying". Selective truth-telling is part of ethical legal practice, is it not?

Dockhead 25-03-2021 12:23

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect (Post 3373027)
Do you not attempt to compare the harm of running out of PPE in overloaded hospitals with the harm of not immediately promoting masks on everyone?

And not pushing masks as soon or as hard as you or I might wish isn't "lying". Selective truth-telling is part of ethical legal practice, is it not?

"Not pushing masks" is not what was done. What was done was to specifically advise people not to use them "because they are not effective", which is manipulatively untrue -- manifestly NOT the reason why the recommendation was being made. If you don't know the difference, then I really don't know how to discuss this.

"Selective truth-telling" is NOT part of ethical legal practice :banghead: Embarred lawyers are "officers of the court," and the purpose of the court is to ascertain truth. According to some there is a limited and narrow exception for criminal defense lawyers (United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967)), who are not allowed to lie but who might be expected to prioritize their clients' interests above the search for truth, but in general "the truth" means "the whole truth", as those sworn in at court promise to tell.

Not that this obligation is fully honored by all lawyers, unfortunately (just like the Hippocratic Oath is not fully honored by all doctors). But among the best lawyers, it is, and you cannot call yourself one of these best if you make any compromises here.

Lake-Effect 25-03-2021 16:20

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dockhead (Post 3373053)
"Not pushing masks" is not what was done. What was done was to specifically advise people not to use them "because they are not effective", which is manipulatively untrue -- manifestly NOT the reason why the recommendation was being made. If you don't know the difference, then I really don't know how to discuss this.

"Effective" is relative.

Here's an article detailing how poorly most wearers of N95 masks are actually being protected. Sorry - most health professional wearers, I should say. It's kind of fussy to use them correctly.

So, make your best guess about how the average (non-medical-worker) person would fare with their N95 mask, and NOW answer the question of whether stating that they don't guarantee "effective" protection is manipulatively untrue.

If you're still on the fence, consider how many healthcare workers have gotten COVID. And they're the pros at mask-wearing.

I believe it was a much more gray-area thing at the time, they made a call in March about to say re mask wearing, and to me the only errors were not reflecting more about asymptomatic transmission and recommending basic masks, AS WELL AS making a more honest plea to not buy up all the N95 masks.

Branding them liars for this one call... and mischaracterizing it as simply a flipflop on "masks"... seems petty. But I do understand how hard it is for a libertarian to say anything nice about government bureaucracy :wink:


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:09.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.