zlacker

[parent] [thread] 3 comments
1. timr+(OP)[view] [source] 2022-01-29 23:15:02
> For example, the "We don't recommend the general public wear masks at this time" was consistently misinterpreted to mean "Masks don't work", which is not what was said at all.

Anthony Fauci literally said that "there's no reason for the general public to be walking around with a mask". On television. I'll link to this version, since hilariously, facebook has "fact checked" it:

https://www.facebook.com/DeannaForCongress/videos/3682499312...

(note that I have no idea who "Deanna for Congress" is. This is the first version of the video I could find -- linked from a reuters article also claiming to "fact check" it [1] -- because google has gone out of its way to bury the video.)

It's pretty darned ironic that this is your preferred example of people "not understanding" messaging. If you search for this, you will find hundreds of other articles "fact-checking" this, even though he said it, it's not debatable, and the various walk-backs and fact-checks and whatnot simply make the issue look ridiculously farcical.

Just to underscore the point here, the Reuters "fact check" admits he said it (since, to be fair, he said it), and the only "fact checking" involved is that the official government position has changed. It wasn't taken out of context. It wasn't a misquote. It wasn't "misinterpreted". He said masks don't work other than blocking "the occasional droplet", and that there's no reason for the public to wear them. This was March 2020.

While it's true (and obvious to anyone) that the government position has changed, it doesn't change the "fact" of what was said in the past. And yet, people persist in trying to do this absurd stuff.

Let's be honest with ourselves: if this leads to doubt amongst the public, is this the fault of a dense public not understanding sophisticated, super-nuanced messaging, or simply that the messaging was muddled and has wavered over time, and that some parties are engaged in blatant attempts to re-write the factual record?

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-fauci-outdated-...

replies(1): >>jjeaff+vJ
2. jjeaff+vJ[view] [source] 2022-01-30 05:42:01
>>timr+(OP)
Am I missing something?

"there's no reason for the general public to be walking around with a mask".

Nothing in that statement says that masks don't work. It also doesn't say there will never be a reason for the general public to walk around wearing masks. It is in the present tense and a single sentence.

In a shortage, you want the masks focused where the infections are coming in, the hospitals. The virus was not widespread at that point, so you are wasting resources by spreading your mask supply so thin.

His statement seems like an acceptable balance of simplicity and the truth. I also remember him couching it with "at this time" though I don't know if that was a common thing he said.

replies(1): >>MaxBar+vk2
◧◩
3. MaxBar+vk2[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-01-30 20:02:38
>>jjeaff+vJ
> Nothing in that statement says that masks don't work.

The implication seems pretty clear. We don't live in a world where statements only mean their narrowest and most literal reading.

pseudalopex linked to Fauci's tweet plainly stating that masks are ineffective for the general public.

replies(1): >>MaxBar+8aG
◧◩◪
4. MaxBar+8aG[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-02-10 22:32:57
>>MaxBar+vk2
To set the record straight: I was mistaken, that tweet was from Jerome Adams, not Fauci.

* https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/29/health/coronavirus-n95-fa...

* https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/29/health/face-masks-coronav...

[go to top]