“Follow the Science” Is a Cop-Out • Hacker News Board

Re: “Follow the Science” Is a Cop-Out

#41

Post by masonic » Sun, Mar 21, 2021, 5:51 AM UTC

akhilcacharya wrote: post #6

reese_john wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What would author suggest in March last year? What would be a better option? The technocratic apparatus might have been deployed toward a strategy of creative mitigation — say, mass manufacturing of N95 masks, test kits mailed to every American, testing at a large-enough scale to isolate only the actually infected instead of everyone. Instead, our leaders decided to indefinitely maintain crippling restrictions on i…

The post office wanted to send everyone masks, but this was nixed by the admin. https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/read-the-scrapped-usp...

The USPS had the transportation infrastructure to do this... but it had no PPE inventory to distribute.

The previous administration had done nothing to maintain or replace the ample PPE inventory that the preceding administration had left it (in thoughtful response to SARS and H5N1).

Re: “Follow the Science” Is a Cop-Out

#42

Post by ironmagma » Sun, Mar 21, 2021, 5:59 AM UTC

masonic wrote: post #40

ironmagma wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have plenty of science, hundreds if not thousands of years’ of scientific evidence, that solid objects stop particles. A mask in front of the face when there is an unknown disease is simply common sense, basic physics to be more precise. To say that you need hindsight to make this judgment is ludicrous. The only (legitimate) reason you would not want to encourage mask wearing is if there was some way the mask coul…

basic physics to be more precise Look at the actual physics of the size of the virus particle (even with the lipid envelope) vs the width of the weave in conventional masks. It's like stopping BBs with a volleyball net. The myth of mask = protection completely ignores that the eyes are a bigger attack surface than the nostrils or closed mouth. Eye coverage is at least as important as masks, yet it was always ignored…

> It's like stopping BBs with a volleyball net.

Yes, but given the choice of there being a volleyball net between you and a BB gun shooter and there just being air, which do you choose?

That would have been a good reason to suggest wearing masks and also goggles. Personally I was wearing goggles in the beginning for that reason and still make sure to wear glasses since there is some evidence that they can help too. One wrong is still better than two wrongs.

Re: “Follow the Science” Is a Cop-Out

#43

Post by ironmagma » Sun, Mar 21, 2021, 9:05 AM UTC

mannykannot wrote: post #38

ironmagma wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m refuting the notion that “follow the science” is sufficient strategy for a pandemic or for anything. It’s in the category “necessary but not sufficient.” We also have to actually understand the science.

Fair enough, but the authors of this article vent most of their ire on policies of isolation and containment, which are scientifically respectable, demonstrably effective when employed effectively, and in conformance with your principle of caution.

Is not the purpose of HN to post links in order to spur conversation? If we only regurgitated what the article said all the time there would be no iteration of ideas.

Re: “Follow the Science” Is a Cop-Out

#44

Post by mannykannot » Sun, Mar 21, 2021, 12:22 PM UTC

ironmagma wrote: post #43

mannykannot wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough, but the authors of this article vent most of their ire on policies of isolation and containment, which are scientifically respectable, demonstrably effective when employed effectively, and in conformance with your principle of caution.

Is not the purpose of HN to post links in order to spur conversation? If we only regurgitated what the article said all the time there would be no iteration of ideas.

I agree, and, through this discussion, I see that you have a view that is distinct from that of the authors. I also agree that claiming masks were ineffective for the general public was a significant failure of science-based policy (it reminds me of the position that women could not catch HIV, which was ultimately a far more devastating failure of this sort.)

Re: “Follow the Science” Is a Cop-Out

#45

Post by jfengel » Mon, Mar 22, 2021, 4:44 PM UTC

masonic wrote: post #40

ironmagma wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have plenty of science, hundreds if not thousands of years’ of scientific evidence, that solid objects stop particles. A mask in front of the face when there is an unknown disease is simply common sense, basic physics to be more precise. To say that you need hindsight to make this judgment is ludicrous. The only (legitimate) reason you would not want to encourage mask wearing is if there was some way the mask coul…

basic physics to be more precise Look at the actual physics of the size of the virus particle (even with the lipid envelope) vs the width of the weave in conventional masks. It's like stopping BBs with a volleyball net. The myth of mask = protection completely ignores that the eyes are a bigger attack surface than the nostrils or closed mouth. Eye coverage is at least as important as masks, yet it was always ignored…

It's not about either the particle or the lipid envelope. It's about the water particles containing the viruses. They get emitted when you breathe, and they are several orders of magnitude larger. The virus doesn't float around on its own.

The eyes are less of a problem because you don't breathe through your eyes. Only a limited amount of air contacts them, and no air is emitted from them.

Masks are at least as important for protecting others as for protecting yourself. They filter large volumes of air. Eye protection is useful if you're faced with people breathing directly in your face all day, but they're less important for people who can socially distance.