59
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2023
59 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37692 readers
300 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Well when a lot of things that were “conspiracy theories” ended up just being things the government refused to tell us during covid, of course the wilder and clearly wrong conspiracies will gain legitimacy.
If the government were honest and open about covid and the lab leak hypothesis and masking from the beginning, no one would lend credence to new outlandish conspiracies.
I’m not 100% sure what you’re referring to when it comes to being honest about masking. If you’re referring to how some governments said “Don’t mask” and then were like “Nvm, y’all should put on masks” then I kinda disagree.
The reason it started off as “Don’t mask” is because we had very little information to go of off. One very real hypothesis was that masking was gonna make things worse, because we weren’t sure if it was airborne or not yet, and that masking might make people touch their faces more often.
Basically, if COVID wasn’t airborne, masking could very well have made things worse, because it wouldn’t protect against anything, it would only make people touch their faces more often. So I 100% understand the decision they made.
Was that actually real? I was under the impression that this was a red herring used to make sure lab and medical professionals got ahold of PPE before the general public could hoard it all.
well I'm sure someone somewhere might have thought that but it was never a credible argument being made by anyone worth listening to.
COVID was obviously an airborne disease immediately. It is a quickly spreading resp disease. which has characteristics of being airborne. the only question was what the role of other mechanisms might have been. which is why we were all washing our hands and wiping down the cereal boxes. But the idea that it was not airborne at all I am sorry to say: totally ludicrous.
Anyway this comment bring to the front of my mind a major moderation problem; I am at a loss as to how to address it.
My understanding was that it was genuinely uncertain early on whether it was being spread in large respiratory droplets, and therefore whether there was a higher chance of spread via surfaces/touch, or if it was being spread via aerosolized droplets. These are two different transmission vectors that would react differently to masking by the general public. On the other hand, my understanding is that some governments were slow to recommend masking even as it became clear that Covid was airborne and that masking would decrease transmission, because of concerns about supply.
I'm a little fuzzy on timelines, though, and I don't have any sources so take this comment with an enormous grain of salt.