He did! He said they were just cosmetic, feel-good etc.
-
-
Also, so many public health experts at the time were arguing, incorrectly, that there was a risk of false sense of security (no evidence to think that, and evidence not to think that) and that incorrect wearing would increase risk of infection (how? no evidence for that either).
2 replies 1 retweet 13 likes -
Many were doctors who couldn't grasp the difference between PPE at a hospital setting where incorrect wearing *compared to correct wearing* was indeed worse for self-protection and community-mask wearing for source protection compared to *no masks*. I caught so much grief!
2 replies 1 retweet 12 likes -
There was a viral Forbes article titled something like "masks increase risk"--still being shared by mask-deniers (though they finally changed headline). Almost every outlet ran these stories that made no sense, but they ran them. Many viral threads by experts in the field...
1 reply 1 retweet 11 likes -
It took a month to get CDC to move, three months to get WHO to move. And there was no widespread, strong and open push-back to either the CDC or the WHO by the actual experts in the field. If there was, we would never have to be so out there on this topic.
1 reply 3 retweets 10 likes -
On the one hand, armchair expertise is of course not a good thing. On the other hand, expertise has to step up to earn that trust, not declare it their right just because. I don't think the field and its experts has grappled with how much trust they lost because of those months.
2 replies 5 retweets 13 likes -
There was also all the "hand washing is enough to keep you safe" stuff
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @jeremyphoward @zeynep and
After CNN warned that China says coronavirus can spread before symptoms show. Osterholm dismissed it. “I seriously doubt that the Chinese public officials have any data supporting this statement"
4 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
to be fair, I don't think he was the only one who thought that. The asymptomatic transmission came as a surprise to everyone.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
zeynep tufekci Retweeted zeynep tufekci
No, not by March. There was a paper on January 29th in the NEJM that basically told us not to rely on symptoms. That's when I became convinced we were going to have a pandemic.https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1222662053329924098 …
zeynep tufekci added,
zeynep tufekciVerified account @zeynepSo far,#nCoV2019 has some features more favorable than SARS (no super-spreaders identified yet etc.) BUT@NEJM paper says some have atypical presentation: gastro symptoms or mild clinical presentation. (SARS came with high fever). Translation: we need maybe millions of tests.
Show this thread2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes
A lot of us stuck out our necks exactly because there was a lot of evidence/expertise that wasn't being taken into account. In my case, I paid close attention to Hong Kong and Taiwan's amazing infectious disease experts who were dismissed by Western establishment.
-
-
Vincent Rajkumar Retweeted Vincent Rajkumar
Even Dr. Fauci was wobbling. And CDC acted late.
https://twitter.com/VincentRK/status/1245544658706538497 …Vincent Rajkumar added,
Vincent RajkumarVerified account @VincentRKReplying to @jimsciutto @vsawkarThe wobbling around masks is really not good. Many of us doctors feel it is needed now. We have been calling for it for a few days now. I don’t know what’s stopping them from recommending. It is the most low risk high reward intervention I can think of.@DrSidMukherjee@Rfonsi11 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Ah now that's the other thing - a lot of "science" was actually policy. E.g. Fauci now admits that the early mask guidance was based on supply shortages, not efficacy https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/502890-fauci-why-the-public-wasnt-told-to-wear-masks …
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.