ggait wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 10:19 pm
WG -- I find that explanation entirely unconvincing. Because there's zero data presented on the comparative risk profile of wearing/not wearing a mask. Wait....WHAT! This is what I have been saying for months. There is zero proof that wearing a mask.....
WG -- come on. Stop pee-ing on my leg and tell me it is raining.
There is TONS of evidence over the past 100 years that mask wearing stops the spread of disease. Notice all those pictures from 1918? Notice how well all today's mask wearing countries are doing?
What bugs me about your take is that YOU offer ZERO quantitative or comparative DATA about what the countervailing risks might be. OK a mask MIGHT cause me to act out all Covid crazy. But has anyone actually studied that? Or are you just going with your hunch/gut?
Despite the caveated CYA double speak coming from WHO, it seems like their behavior is pretty clear:
https://edition.cnn.com/world/live-news ... 04d5827389
just seeing this as i didn't get a quote notification and have been off for a minute.
firstly, the above is not my reply. all good.
secondly, what both you and the poster reference in the way of lack of scientific evidence definitively, or proof if you want to call it that... may in fact be right. the facts are that numerous healthcare bodies and peeps have gone back and forth on this, and/or packaged a mixed or botched message and protocol, in 2020. even after 100 years of evidence. which btw, i'm open to. went thru a number of studies maybe a month ago.
anyway, here's the WHO's updated guidance from early june, broken down in bulletpoints:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/ ... -know-now/
for more information, inclusive of some of the "cya" points not word for word is the doc the released in the 1st week of june:
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item ... )-outbreak
they have been, i think, making small changes as they go along, and then when they feel they've seen enough to change guidance, a news release, a new full doc. instructive is that prior to the first week of june, even with 100 years of evidence, they weren't prepared to say the cya stuff didn't outweigh the benefit for the covid 19 virus. that may very well be bc not all viruses, circumstances, airborne and other transmission are the same. along with a number of other factors.
they no doubt have a ton more data they're working with that isn't disclosed above and are boiling it down. some of what i got from the guidance:
- they LOVE medical masks. work like a charm in almost all circumstances. even vs n95 masks. concern there for supplies.
- forgetting the "cya" nature of potential risks to cloth/non-medical masks, even though they lean there now for the public at large, they are not sold on the benefits. certainly not as to prevention for the wearer.
- they have a recommendation for non-medical masks to be preventative... 3 layer, filter included.
- for other cloth masks, they note which ones may help the most, Q ratings, etc.
i'd recommend people look at the doc to see what you think you should be wearing. if medical masks are ppe in robust supply now, go for that maybe. or order masks that give you the next best thing. or use the best of the q rating cloths avail to you.
i've tried to make my own sensible decisions for myself and those around me, have a number of stakeholders, as we all do.
i never advocated for one side or the other. you said there was zero downside, which was why i commented. peeps that are more scientific than me and you are factoring in downside risks and benefits and putting rec's out there, including dynamically very recently.
it's a new virus and change can be expected, and all viruses aren't the same. it may be counterintuitive to you and me to think anything other than mask has to help automatically, but evidently that's not how it works.
politics should not be playing a role, but unfortunately it does like about everything else. the best analogy i've seen is a fan's with red lights with regard to that.