Dr. Fauci on wearing masks. WTF?

[Jebus]

We all know that Dr. Fauci recommended against wearing masks to prevent the spread of Covid up until April 2020.

At the time, this made no sense to me (and it still doesn't).

Recently he has been pushed on this during interviews and he has responded that he changed his face mask recommendation following updated science revelations (as a good scientist should). However, he has not yet revealed what those revelations were.

I still wonder who is responsible for the dumbass recommendation not to wear facemasks in the early days of the pandemic. Viruses (and face masks to protect from them) had been around for centuries, so why now would it suddenly be a bad idea to do so?

Even if subsequent research were to dispute the efficacy of facemask protection, shouldn't one err on the side of caution?

[teo123]

We all know that Dr. Fauci recommended against wearing masks to prevent the spread of Covid up until April 2020.

At the time, this made no sense to me (and it still doesn't).

Recently he has been pushed on this during interviews and he has responded that he changed his face mask recommendation following updated science revelations (as a good scientist should). However, he has not yet revealed what those revelations were.

I still wonder who is responsible for the dumbass recommendation not to wear facemasks in the early days of the pandemic. Viruses (and face masks to protect from them) had been around for centuries, so why now would it suddenly be a bad idea to do so?

Even if subsequent research were to dispute the efficacy of facemask protection, shouldn't one err on the side of caution?

What is the side of the caution? There are ways masks can be counter-productive, such as lulling people into false sense of security and causing people to touch their faces more often. Like Fauci said: "Masks, while they do provide some protection, they do not provide the protection people think they provide. And, considering that when common people wear masks, they tend to touch their faces more often, they may even be counter-productive.".

[thebestofenergy]

What is the side of the caution? There are ways masks can be counter-productive, such as lulling people into false sense of security and causing people to touch their faces more often. Like Fauci said: "Masks, while they do provide some protection, they do not provide the protection people think they provide. And, considering that when common people wear masks, they tend to touch their faces more often, they may even be counter-productive.".

That's some dumb rhetoric and a half.

Would you suggest people do not wear their seatbelts?
There are ways seatbelts can be counter-productive, such as lulling people into false sense of security and causing people to be distracted and look away from the road to adjust their seatbelts. Like someone said: "Seatbelts, while they do provide some protection, they do not provide the protection people think they provide. And, considering that when common people wear seatbelts, they tend to be more at ease by being distracted more often, they may even be counter-productive."
On top of all this, there are some cases where seatbelts choked people.

Point: masks, just like seatbelts, or helmets, or any safe measure for that matter, far outweigh the negatives with the benefits they provide.

The 'lulling people into a false sense of security' would not be there to begin with if they didn't provide an ACTUAL security to begin with.
So, rather than saying that, it would be 'lulling people into a real sense of security' - at which point, it doesn't really work anymore to say it that way.
'Lulling people into a false sense of security' implies that the safety is either not there at all, or grossly exaggerated. There is no reason to believe the majority of the people think they're invincible to COVID with the masks. Nobody actually thinks that, but contrarily there is major skepticism.

It's actually reasonable to believe that without masks people wouldn't have taken the pandemic nearly as seriously, and there they would have been lulled into a false sense of security, ending up with a much bigger amount of cases faster and taking it seriously too late.

And to top it all off, the 'sense of security' is not misplaced, because there is actually security provided.

When you consider that people will have to go out and do stuff, the security of masks + the possibility of overestimating the safety of them is STILL much better than having no mask, because you will eventually and inevitably find yourself in the same situations regardless of whether you're feeling safe or not: in line to buy groceries, at the bank to put money, walking by someone on the sidewalk, etc.
In those and other situations it's better for everybody if you're wearing a mask, so 'lulling people in a false sense of security' is a very weak point to say people might be better off without masks. By all means, it would take a bit of goodness away from wearing masks, but not make it go negative.
And then you have to oppose that with the situations where the security of masks is still paired with adequate caution or with fear.

So you either have:

1. security of masks + behaving as if the masks offer more protection than they do (rare, and people who behave irresponsibly probably do it not because of masks, but because they don't care regardless)

2. security of masks + behaving as if the masks offer the right amount of protection

3. security of masks + behaving as if the masks offer less protection than they do (number 2. and 3. together represent a higher amount of people than 1., because there is no reason to believe the majority of people would grossly overestimate what masks can do, just like there is no reason to believe the majority of the people would grossly underestimate what masks can do, although fear and caution during a pandemic would definitely make people be somewhere between 2. and 3.)

Just taking into consideration situation 1. is dishonest, and it becomes clear that removing the masks and the safety they provide becomes a negative, just leaving more people scared or people that don't care behind, with no protection whatsoever.

[Jebus]

What is the side of the caution? There are ways masks can be counter-productive, such as lulling people into false sense of security and causing people to touch their faces more often. Like Fauci said: "Masks, while they do provide some protection, they do not provide the protection people think they provide. And, considering that when common people wear masks, they tend to touch their faces more often, they may even be counter-productive.".

Of course there will be some idiots who touch their faces more often and who ignore social distancing because they are wearing a mask. However, an overwhelming majority of people are not that stupid. On average, masks are helpful against the spreading of viruses. Why else have they been used by hospital workers for hundreds of years?

Dr. Fauci also said: “We were not aware that 40 to 45% of people were asymptomatic, nor were we aware that a substantial proportion of people who get infected get infected from people who are without symptoms."

Well, Dr. Fauci, you must have known that both those were possibilities. Again, why wouldn't you err on the side of caution?

[teo123]

Point: masks, just like seatbelts, or helmets, or any safe measure for that matter, far outweigh the negatives with the benefits they provide.

That is an empirical claim which does not seem to be based on a lot of evidence. Masks provide around 20% protection (according to the Danish study, it found masks provide 20% protection, but it had a huge confidence interval including zero), and that protection is easily outweighed by people being lulled into false sense of security or touching their faces more often. Even vaccines, which protect a lot better than masks, appear to have that effect of lulling people into false sense of security (countries with highest vaccination rates often have the highest COVID cases per capita).

Of course there will be some idiots who touch their faces more often and who ignore social distancing because they are wearing a mask. However, an overwhelming majority of people are not that stupid.

That is an empirical claim I fail to see what it is based on. See what I said to @thebestofenergy.

[thebestofenergy]

Point: masks, just like seatbelts, or helmets, or any safe measure for that matter, far outweigh the negatives with the benefits they provide.

That is an empirical claim which does not seem to be based on a lot of evidence.

A claim about the state of the world does not have to show empirical data, and can simply be based on scientific consensus and logic (like in this case) - and scientific consensus is based itself on the best empirical data (unlike your cherry-picked one).
You're trying to shift the burden of proof on me, when in reality it's on you. You made the claim against scientific consensus that masks may be worse to wear than not, while I have the same stance as the scientific consensus one.
You're making the same mistake as with your other lunatic conspiracy theories. You assume others have to provide evidence to dismantle your theories, when your theories are batshit insane and based on yellow journalism, and go against everything that's logical and evident (let alone the fact that the opposite to your theories is supported by scientific consensus).

I have explained the logic above. Did you read my post?
Unless you prove otherwise, there's no reason to believe people behave like crazy monkeys when wearing a mask, so much so that it would negate all the benefits provided by the masks.

You have the burden of proof to show that masks are very much less protective than what people think on average AND that people while wearing masks behave in a way that increases risk they put themselves and others in MORE than the masks decrease the risk for themselves and others - or your entire claim that masks are counterproductive makes no sense.

Masks provide around 20% protection (according to the Danish study, it found masks provide 20% protection, but it had a huge confidence interval including zero), and that protection is easily outweighed by people being lulled into false sense of security or touching their faces more often.

So you're just going to ignore everything I said.
Literally.

Teo, have an honest argument or don't ping me anymore.
I already explained why looking at only scenario 1. is dishonest. And you're willfully ignoring the fact that without people wearing masks, people would take the pandemic less seriously - wearing masks is a strong social signal that carefulness needs to be payed, and the situation is dangerous.

Even vaccines, which protect a lot better than masks, appear to have that effect of lulling people into false sense of security

Yeah, just like seatbelts and helmets.
Do you know that cyclists go faster when they wear helmets, because they feel safer? Do you think that they would be better off without them?

Do you ignore what people say every time they defeat your arguments?
Your logic applies to every safety measure ever. So either admit safety measures are bad in general, or support (WITH NUMBERS) why in this case specifically the safety measure is bad like I explained in the bold sentence, or be an inconsistent hypocrite.

[Jebus]

Masks provide around 20% protection (according to the Danish study, it found masks provide 20% protection, but it had a huge confidence interval including zero),

This whole study was conducted by clowns. It reminded me of those flawed studies we had to critique in Research Design 101 back in university. However, even if they had designed the study correctly it would only be valid as far as how effective masks are in protecting the person wearing them. The main purpose of wearing masks is to protect OTHER people.

Next time you mention a study, provide some citation so we don't have to go looking for it. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

[teo123]

And you're willfully ignoring the fact that without people wearing masks, people would take the pandemic less seriously - wearing masks is a strong social signal that carefulness needs to be payed, and the situation is dangerous.

Wait, are you literally saying masks are good because they supposedly incite fear in people? That destroying peoples' immune systems with fear in the middle of a pandemic is somehow a good thing? I think that is one of the most stupid things I have heard in my life.

[Jebus]

And you're willfully ignoring the fact that without people wearing masks, people would take the pandemic less seriously - wearing masks is a strong social signal that carefulness needs to be payed, and the situation is dangerous.

Wait, are you literally saying masks are good because they supposedly incite fear in people? That destroying peoples' immune systems with fear in the middle of a pandemic is somehow a good thing? I think that is one of the most stupid things I have heard in my life.

He didn't mention fear. That was your invention. @teo123 you are absolutely hopeless. You might be the world's worst debater.

[DrDavid]

If I remember correctly, the initial data indicated mostly contact spread. Perhaps that had something to do with Fauci's mask recommendations?