Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this, again, stems from a general misunderstanding of what science is. Science is a method of drawing conclusions about data. Sometimes, those initial conclusions can be misguided by incomplete data. The world discovered this virus less than a year ago. It takes some time to determine the different transmission vectors and risk factors associated with each. The CDC did not make a claim based on their "guts".…
1) sounds like an argument looked for after the fact. Masks were recommended initially especially because they stop you from touching your face and would train you not to do so. 2) doesn't make sense to me: because masks aren't perfect and some people refusing to wear masks makes them less efficient they'd advise to not wear masks at all? 3) is a political stance, not a scientific one. Would people have reacted diffe…
2) This ties into the fact that PPE supplies were low when the pandemic started. They did not want to declare a mask ordinance while hospitals were still having a difficult time sourcing PPE themselves. The fact that many people would either be unable to purchase masks or be unwilling to participate made it so that they would just be working against themselves at a time when supply management was critical.
3) Is sociology not a science? It is a matter of public policy. Ensuring that healthcare professionals have access to PPE is the prudent course of action when dealing with a pandemic.
>> I don't think there ever was a scientific consensus that masks aren't effective against airborne diseases. There was a political decision, and that can change any time, but it has nothing to do with data collection or the scientific method.
What are you even talking about? Mask use continues to be studied widely[1]
[1]: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-si...